Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Revelation & Eschatology' started by C. Matthew McMahon, Dec 8, 2016.
I voted. Postmil.
I can't, in good conscience, vote Potmil/ Preterist. I'm a postmil/Historicist. I align with the Divines over and against men like Gentry.
I'm not very preterist, but I think Revelation was probably written in the 60s AD and partly speaks to events in the first century, but some of Revelation 6-19 is still to be fulfilled in history. Christ opens and unveils the book of redemptive history which starts in the first century but doesn't end until the end of history. I suppose I'm historico-idealist eclectic (?)
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Sent from my InFocus M260 using Tapatalk
What is the "deciding factor" that you believe, in your position (whatever position you have), that causes you to hold to your position. (i.e. why I am a Postmillennialist in two sentences, etc.)
I hold to an historical premil position regarding the Second Coming due to seeing prophecy being fulfilled in a more literal than symbolic sense in the scriptures as regarding Second Coming, as do not see this age as the Millinium promosed by God!
Why would theJewish people follow a Muslim leader though, and since the False prophetwill be religious side, why not him as strictly political ruler instead?
I am amillennial in the sense of holding to a realised millennium in Christ, in accord with inaugurated eschatology and the two-age now/not-yet outlook of the New Testament. How else can all believers be called saints, citizens of the kingdom of heaven, and have the immediate expectation of glory after this life? I am postmillennial in holding to the biblical expectation of all nations coming to worship God and the kingdoms of the world becoming the kingdom of Christ. The prophetic outlook is tremendously optimistic, and there is no indication in the New Testament that this should be confined to a small remnant. God knows those who are His, but the church labours and prays according to the revealed will of God; eschatology should therefore take in more than an elect-reprobate paradigm, and should have a shaping influence on missions and world history.
I would more or less agree with you.
Because Daniel's stone/mountain, the Parable of the Leaven, etc, must be talking about an ongoing process > and there is no indication of any radical alteration in that process or that it can be launched into eternity. It is a gradual process in history commenced in the first century. Thus I am a post millennialist, although I believe that what Revelation 20 is speaking of, was commenced in the first century. So in one sense I'm a realised millennialist but I don't believe realised millennialism is static. The Church under Christ is making gradual but real progress against her enemies (e.g. I Corinthians 15:25) to make a display of all the manifestations of unbelief.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
I am amillennial because, much like Rev. Winzer's reasons, we are in the Kingdom now and I see the 1000 years denoting that, not necessarily a golden age just the symbolic reign of Christ since His first coming. Riddlebarger helped me with that as I came out of dispensationalism 6 or so years ago.
I am a Preterist because I see all those (not second coming obviously) as being fulfilled in the 1st Century and that was is typically referred to as his second coming is from the book of Daniel where Christ ascends and not descends (at the time) to take His throne.
I'm probably not as preterist as you, being only "mildly so" but is this relationship, if we can call it that, between the events of the first century and the events at the end of history not there because there is a close relationship between Christ's Ascension and Second Coming (e.g. Acts 1:10-11)? In His Ascension He ascends in the clouds to His Father to receive and govern His kingdom. In His Second Advent He manifests and vindicates and consummates that kingdom rule before all of humanity.
It is probably unwise for preterists to confuse the Ascension or the manifestations of Christ's rule in the first century e.g. Pentecostal, the end of the OT administration, etc, etc, with His Second Advent.
I don't think the events of the First Century typify His Second Advent, but along with many other blessings and other judgements of the last 2,000 years they are adumbrations of final judgment on the wicked and blessing on the just because Christ is ruling and building His kingdom in history and that is constantly in various ways anticipating the Eschaton.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Not firmly settled in any eschatological camp. Once was staunchly anil, but lean more towards Chiliasm now. And post-trib, too.
I've recently come to the amillennial position, since it appears to be most consistent with words of Christ in Luke 17:20-21 and other scriptures elsewhere.
In regards to the other prophecies in Revelation, I haven't taken the time to study in-depth, but I am open to the position that many of the prophecies up to Revelation 20 may have already been fulfilled.
Many of the early Church fathers held to a form of Chiliasm, but they hd no idea on any rapture, as that was not until 1830! I was once holding to premil/pre trib, now firmly historical premil!
The Full Pretierist view has been seen as being heresy by the orthodox, as it denies Jesus' physical resurrection and ours, yet to come in a future Second Coming!
Yes. You cannot be Reformed or evangelical and hold that utterly unbiblical lie and perverse interpretation of Scripture.
Better be a Dispensationalist with all their error than a heretical Hyper-preterist.
Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk
Or even Nicene, Roman catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Assyrian Orthodox, or even Nestorian and hold that view.
Exactly. Though many don't admit/realize it, the above don't belong in the same class as hyper-preterists.
Amillennial. Progressive Parallelism view for Revelation.
Just curious as to what they view means?
From what theological traditions did it arise out from, as had neverhear of it in Charasmatic/Dispensational days, much less now as a Baptist...
If I recall correctly, one of the splinter Church of Christ groups, but it never gained denominational status. A scholar named Russell wrote a book on it, but it was never all that popular as a book. The people who are attracted to it are burned-out former Dispensationalists. It's basically a cult. The legendary Paul Manata brilliantly exposed it.
When you hurt your back playing golf and your buddies look at you and say, "you got a bum glorified body, didn't you?," you might be a hyper-preterist.
2. If after lusting after a Playboy Playmate you go and teach that we were definitively sanctified in 70 AD, you might be a hyper-preterist.
3. If you say you take the time texts seriously but you don't hold that 1 John was written at 11:00 p.m. on 69 AD since it says, "we know it is the last hour" (1 John 2:18), you might be a hyper-preterist.
4. If you say that people weren't regenerate until 70 AD but it was already not yet, and then you read passages which speak of the saints loving God and his law (which the unregenerate cannot do), you might be a hyper-preterist.
5. If you think 70 AD was the most important event in history, rather than the cross, you might be a hyper-preterist.
6. If you have Gnostic tendencies, you might be a hyper-preterist.
7. If you've never read Calvin, Hodge, Warfield, Edwards, Turretin, Witsius, Owen, Murray, Van Til, Vos, et al, you might be a hyper-preterist.
8. If you've read them, and the every other Christian position on the resurrection and the second advent, and you say they're all wrong and you're all correct, you might be a hyper-preterist.
9. If you think you're reformed and hold that God has elected a certain number of people to everlasting life, but yet you think the earth will last forever with people entering into the city, for eternity, you might be a hyper-preterist.
10. If you have a blank look on your face, with glassy eyes, you might be a hyper-preterist.
11. If your family members need to hire people to "get you out," you might be a hyper-preterist.
12. If your position leads to the position that Jesus needed regeneration since he was resurrected, you might be a hyper-preterist.
13. If you get kicked out of every church you go to, you might be a hyper-preterist.
14. If your creed is that you have no creed, you might be a hyper-preterist.
15. If you say that "the end of ALL things is at hand" (1 Peter 4:7) means ALL things, but the fulfillment of EVERY vision without delay (Ez. 12:21-28) does not mean EVERY vision, you might be a hyper-preterist.
16. If your teaching is gangrenous, you might be a hyper-preterist.
17. If you still take the lord's supper even though one reason it was to be taken was in order to "proclaim His death until He comes," you might be a hyper-preterist.
18. If you constantly bombard people with e-mails, you might be a hyper-preterist.
19. If your previous theological bents have been other heretical positions (i.e., the Church of Christ's), you might be a hyper-preterist.
20. If you make yourself feel better by saying, at one time people thought the reformers were heretics, you might be a hyper-preterist.
21. If your two favorite sayings are: (1)Reformed and always reforming and (2) sola scriptura, even though you misrepresent what those mean, you might be a hyper-preterist.
22. If you live in Florida, you might be a hyper-preterist.
23. If you're a fan of "New Covenant Theology," you might be a hyper-preterist.
24. If you think Jesus will kick it with Enoch and Elijah for eternity while the rest of us will float around as disembodied spirits after we phsyically die, you might be a hyper-preterist.
25. If you think that we'll still sin after we die since definitive sanctification has already occurred, you might be a hyper-preterist.
26. If you think that God will live in eternity with active sinners, forever, you might be a hyper-preterist.
27. If you have no education, you might be a hyper-preterist.
28. If you only focus on eschatology, you might be a hyper-preterist.
29. If you can't get off the milk and chew some meat, you might be a hyper-preterist.
30. If you deny Christ's full work of redemption (e.g., the phsyical He made good also needs redemption), you might be a hyper-preterist.
31. If you think that Don Preston "is the man" because he rambles off basic two-premiss syllogisms, you might be a hyper-preterist.
32. If this is the new heavens and earth and you have your glorified body, and upon realizing this if you're not depressed and feeling cheated, you might be a hyper-preterist.
33. If you've had to define what a Christian is and this definition lets just about any wacko into the camp, you might be a hyper-preterist.
Never looked into it too deeply so I am not sure what category I would fall. I heard sermons from RC Sproul on the topic but I am not 100% convinced of his view. What category would RC Sproul be in?
I hold to an idealist reading of Revelation because it harmonizes well with the rest of New Testament doctrine, and because a historical-realist interpretation like that of historicists, preterists, and futurists necessitates a great deal of speculation.
I hold to an optimistic view of the progress of the church because of the OT prophets' teaching about the progressive nature of the Kingdom of God, and especially because of the prophecy of the establishment of the Christian religion (in the technical sense) in the various kingdoms of the earth.
My friend from up north once told me a story that once during a cyclone, his wife and himself ran to the neighbours house (after their house was destroyed) and then had to escape with their neighbours to another house (after that one blew down) and then all three families were forced to leave that house as well as it started to collapse.
I am currently residing in the optimistic Amill house and I'm hoping it will weather the storm.
Believe that he is now a partial pretierist!
A Mill always and this will make a lot of people very upset but with what we have there is really only one understanding of the Bible others come from trying to make things fit in such a way because someone told them that. I think Reformed A Mill is the correct understanding of the Bible it's the easiest way to understand the Bible there are no hoops to jump through. I was brought up in a Pre Mill church and I used to laugh when we went through Revelation or Daniel because it really doesn't work but it's a great story to bring in new believers.