Some Questions Concerning Eschatology viewpoints?

[Dachaser]

Staring new thread per suggestion from AMR elsewhere:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-systematic-theology-book.92201/#post-1127506

Thanks for your response, and my question on historical premil was based upon that still not sure if Reformed theology allows for that view, as some I have read see it as being biblical, others deny it due to not being allowed by the Confessions. Did not even think about Jesus being at same time on earth and in heaven still, as thought that He is still localized in His glorified Body? Thought that even A mil would teach that the world will be getting worse until Jesus returns ? Do you see support for the Church taking over culture and society and transforming it then?And those theologians that you mentioned , would you consider them as being any good?
And how much of the Post Mil viewpoint is also tied into Theonomy and Reconstructionism, or are they separate from this discussion?

This was posted on another forum, would there be any here to discuss these issues here now? thanks!

 

[RamistThomist]

Thanks for your response, and my question on historical premil was based upon that still not sure if Reformed theology allows for that view, as some I have read see it as being biblical, others deny it due to not being allowed by the Confessions.

William Twisse was premil, as was JM Boice.

Did not even think about Jesus being at same time on earth and in heaven still, as thought that He is still localized in His glorified Body?

What is the question?

Thought that even A mil would teach that the world will be getting worse until Jesus returns ?

Amil used to be heavy on the doom and gloom, but now most say they are "optimistic amil."

Do you see support for the Church taking over culture and society and transforming it then?

Taking over has negative connotations. But I am not a very optimistic person, though I am pleased to see that many of Antichrist Soros's plans have been foiled.

And how much of the Post Mil viewpoint is also tied into Theonomy and Reconstructionism, or are they separate from this discussion?

Separate

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thanks for your response, and my question on historical premil was based upon that still not sure if Reformed theology allows for that view, as some I have read see it as being biblical, others deny it due to not being allowed by the Confessions.

David,
Just because someone in the past held this or that view, is not prima facie proof that such a view is allowable.

Again, my response from the other thread in question:

...I will just restate my opinion in view of what I think Scripture is teaching me: any view, including, dispensational, and even historic premillennial (so-called non-dispensational Premillennialism), that encompasses earthly millennial reigning appears to dishonorably imply Our Lord has abdicated from what Scripture perspicuously describes as His sitting at the right hand of God (e.g., Eph. 1:20-23; Col. 3:1-4; Rom. 8:34).

Can you interact with my response above, given that I am of the opinion that the passages cited indicate that an earthly millennial reign, having our Lord physically present, has no warrant? If you think a view that has our Lord physically present and reigning on earth during the millennium is "allowable", then what exactly do you think these passages are teaching?

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

This was posted on another forum, would there be any here to discuss these issues here now?

By another forum do you mean someplace other than PB? Or do you mean another thread in a PB forum? If the former, we generally do not approve of board wars, as it were, where things are being said elsewhere (outside of PB) and the interlocutors are not present at this site to defend their positions.

 

[MW]

William Twisse was premil

Twisse is often connected with millenarian thought because of his positive reception of Mede's scheme for interpreting Revelation. Mede maintained that Christ will continue to reign in heaven. He did not teach the premillennial distinctive of a physical and personal presence of Christ on earth during the millennium. Therefore neither Mede nor Twisse should be identified as premillennial. At most they should be called millenarian or chiliast.

 

[MW]

To substantiate the previous statement I quote from Joseph Mede, Works (1672), p. 603: "The Presence of Christ in this Kingdom shall no doubt be glorious and evident: yet I dare not so much as imagine (which some Ancients seem to have thought) that it should be a Visible Converse upon earth. For the Kingdom of Christ ever hath been and shall be Regnum Coelorum, A Kingdom whose Throne and Kingly Residence is in Heaven. There he was installed when he sate down on the right hand of the Majesty on high, Heb. 1. and there, as in his proper Temple, is continually to appear in the presence of his Father, to make intercession for us, Rom. 8.34. with Heb. 9.24."

 

[Dachaser]

By another forum do you mean someplace other than PB? Or do you mean another thread in a PB forum? If the former, we generally do not approve of board wars, as it were, where things are being said elsewhere (outside of PB) and the interlocutors are not present at this site to defend their positions.

Sorry about that confusion, was meaning that this was posted on the Puritan Board, and that you had asked me to start a fresh thread on this in the eschatology forum...

 

[Dachaser]

David,
Just because someone in the past held this or that view, is not prima facie proof that such a view is allowable.

Again, my response from the other thread in question:



Can you interact with my response above, given that I am of the opinion that the passages cited indicate that an earthly millennial reign, having our Lord physically present, has no warrant? If you think a view that has our Lord physically present and reigning on earth during the millennium is "allowable", then what exactly do you think these passages are teaching?

Glad to interact with you on this area, as my question was two fold , as to would historical premil allowed by Confessions, allowed by Reformed theology or not?
Now as to the various Biblcal passages listed!
Ephesians 1:20-23 Would be showing to us that Jesus is right now seated at right hand of the Father, position of authority, and is now exalted as Lord over all, but that by itself would not say that he could not move from there, as he would still be the Lord regardless!
Col 3:1-4 Still has Jesus right now seated in glory

I do not deny that Jesus has been exalted to right hand of God at His ascension, and that he is the Lord and now our High priest, but Him coming to earth does not negate any of that!

Please remember that i am still a "work in progress", in this issue, as no longer hold to the Rapture being apart from the Second Coming, but do still see the first resurrection as being when we are glorified at Second Coming, and the second one for the lost at end of the Millennium.

I am looking forward to seeing how my fellow Christians view this topic, as Eschatology always been a favorite of mine.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...Please remember that i am still a "work in progress", in this issue, as no longer hold to the Rapture being apart from the Second Coming, but do still see the first resurrection as being when we are glorified at Second Coming, and the second one for the lost at end of the Millennium...I am looking forward to seeing how my fellow Christians view this topic, as Eschatology always been a favorite of mine.

David,

Please refresh yourself on what has transpired previously starting with this post and moving forward in the thread:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-3#post-1123025

In particular, a direct response was given to the above:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-3#post-1123158

What then followed is a series of more responses, rejoinders and surrejoinders:

Spoiler

Dachaser:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-3#post-1123293
Answered:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123430
Dachaser Rejoins:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123550
MW responds:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123602
Dachaser answers:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123610
MW answers:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123615
Dachaser rejoins:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123711
MW responds:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123750
Dachaser again:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123824
MW answers:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/survey-on-your-eschatology.91531/page-4#post-1123890

From that extensive back and forth, what exactly have you concluded? I ask because this new thread seems to be starting anew as if nothing has preceded. It would really help if you could provide some summaries, from what you have learned from responses by others, especially myself and Rev. Winzer (as above), that you believe justifies your current position, which I take to be as follows:

"On eschatology, I (Dachaser), hold to historic premillennialism, a view that I assume includes the real, physical presence and reigning of Jesus Christ at the beginning of the Millennium."

If I have accurately captured your position above, and correct me if I am wrong, I have to question whether you actually understand what historic premillennialism actually means.

A primary distinction between the chiliasm (millenarianism) of the early church and premillennialism as we know it lies in the claim that Our Lord is personally present at the beginning of the millennium. Premillennialism assumes a personal presence of Our Lord on earth before the final judgment, a view I find not in accordance with the Westminster Standards. In fact, I think you will be hard pressed to support your claim that this form of premillennialism was actually held by the early church. Asserting it without offering a modicum of actual proof does not make your case.

...but that by itself would not say that he could not move from there, as he would still be the Lord regardless!

That Christ can move while also sitting at the right hand of God, per your claim, is not the issue per se. Further, if you are going to actually use that argument, then ontologically speaking, if, as you assert, Our Lord is physically present in His glorified body on earth, how exactly is that same glorified body also present at the right hand of God? With such an infelicitous statement, you are moving in the direction of Lutheran-like views of the glorified body of Our Lord being simultaneously everywhere present everywhere the Supper is celebrated. Do you understand the implications of such a view, per the Chalcedonian Definition, that implies the ubiquity of His body? If you do understand these issues, then your position would have to be that during Our Lord's physical reign on earth during the Millennium, He was not physically present in His glorified body at the right-hand of God. Given this, where in Scripture do you find our Lord leaving His exalted state to carry out this earthly reigning?

Leaving that aside, and returning to my point, what is the issue before us is Scripture's teachings of Christ's exaltation and that His enemies are His footstool: the spiritual presence of Our Lord, not His physical presence, and that Our Lord's next coming appearance, following His resurrection from the tomb, will be in His glorified body at the resurrection of the dead for the final judgment.

 

[Dachaser]

So Jesus would not have to be physical present here upon the earth in the historical premil viewpoint? I had thought that the big difference between that view and the Dispensation viewpoint was that the rapture was the Second Coming? Just what would that view point be then, is it Jesus would be still in heaven, and there would be the the 1000 year reign here on earth, with Jesus at God right stand still? Is that why the Historical premil view was not prominent among the reformed, due to the physical nature of the Millennium upon the earth then?

 

[MW]

So Jesus would not have to be physical present here upon the earth in the historical premil viewpoint?

The "pre-millennial" view requires a physical return and personal presence on earth. The "millennial" or "chiliast" position may or may not require our Lord's physical and personal return.

Reformed theologians insist on the importance of maintaining the analogy of faith and interpreting more obscure passages of Scripture in the light of those which speak plainly. They would not consider it a legitimate task of exegesis to take one idea from a single passage of Scripture, insist on a woodenly literal reading of it, and proceed to reinterpret plain passages of Scripture in the light of it.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

how much of the Post Mil viewpoint is also tied into Theonomy and Reconstructionism

Being Postmil does not necessitate nor imply Theonomy. Theonomy, however, typically necessitates Postmil.

"Postmillenialism" is a historic (and I'd argue THE) confessional position. More particularly, many reformed men were historicists (Durham, Goodwin, Brakel, etc). Theonomy is new, and has no connection to the historic position.

 

[Dachaser]

The "pre-millennial" view requires a physical return and personal presence on earth. The "millennial" or "chiliast" position may or may not require our Lord's physical and personal return.

Reformed theologians insist on the importance of maintaining the analogy of faith and interpreting more obscure passages of Scripture in the light of those which speak plainly. They would not consider it a legitimate task of exegesis to take one idea from a single passage of Scripture, insist on a woodenly literal reading of it, and proceed to reinterpret plain passages of Scripture in the light of it.

So the Millennial view that would be that there would be a literal millennium here upon the earth would not require the physical presence of Lord Jesus here on earth for that to be happening?

 

[MW]

So the Millennial view that would be that there would be a literal millennium here upon the earth would not require the physical presence of Lord Jesus here on earth for that to be happening?

That is correct.