Understanding Reformed Historicism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sam Jer

Puritan Board Freshman
I have a few questions for those who are historicists in their'e eschatology over here.
1. How, more or less, does the historicist framework fit different events into revelation? Is there one framework, or several opinions? Is revelation seen as one long timeline, or is their'e one timeline for the seals and trumpets and another for the beast and vials, possibly a few more for the whore, the millennium ext?
2. What are you're main reasons to be historicists? Where would you go to prove you're viewpoint?
3. Where are we now?
 
Last edited:
(admins, if this is inappropriate bumping, feel free to delete this messege and paste the link into OP. I couldn't figure out how to edit my )

I found many threads like this one exist, most of which have very little information or are filled with dead links, or at best links to hard to navigate websites. I did find one useful thread, and am linking it for future reference:
 
I have a few questions for those who are historicists in their'e eschatology over here.
Understanding Reformed Historicism

Hi Samuel,

Surprise, surprise! I guess you found out this subject was not a big hit. You're about 650 years too late. :)

I have no settled view of the particulars of the future, except I'm pretty sure the Amills of the negative sort are very wrong about where we are and where we are headed.
As I often say, unlike the American model of the product never being as good as the advertisement, we can be sure of one thing. God's products will far exceed even His most glorious published commercials. I.e., His prophesies.
 
Hi Samuel,

Surprise, surprise! I guess you found out this subject was not a big hit. You're about 650 years too late. :)

I have no settled view of the particulars of the future, except I'm pretty sure the Amills of the negative sort are very wrong about where we are and where we are headed.
As I often say, unlike the American model of the product never being as good as the advertisement, we can be sure of one thing. God's products will far exceed even His most glorious published commercials. I.e., His prophesies.
I am pretty much in that same position. My problem is that John's apocalypse must mean something, and all the views I (think I) understand are rather unsatisfactory. I am also in a very dispensationalist environment, so not having a view is not exactly ideal
 
My problem is that John's apocalypse must mean something, and all the views I (think I) understand are rather unsatisfactory
One mistake I think people make, contrary to the teaching of the Westminster Confession on the interpretation of Scripture, is that we use Revelation too often as a key to unlocking older prophecies such as Daniel and Ezekiel. It seems to me that it should always be the other way around.

I consider John's Revelation somewhat of a continuance of the prophecy of Daniel. But, like I said, I'm not really sure about how it all fits together. I'm waiting for the Church.

I have argued elsewhere that the Book of Revelation is still to some degree a closed book. Not completely closed, but the fact that the Church has not confessed the one true interpretation of the Revelation as they have done for other books like Romans chapter 1-8, and the doctrine of the Trinity.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top