Well, it's quite plain that there are many people on this forum who disagree with each other. There are a certain few topics that have lately commanded a lot of attention and causing a good deal of disagreement - Free Grace v Lordship, Non-violence v Just War, Evangelist6589's debt v common sense (I'm sorry brother, I couldn't help myself :smilewinkgrin
, and everyone's favorite... Calvinism v Arminianism.
So I thought that we could have a diversion and discuss something that we all pretty much agree on.... the end of the world.
oh, wait....
:tongue3:
My eschatology has made some drastic changes over the last 2 years, along with most of the rest of my theology. Short story long, I was a dispensationalist through and through. Raised in from birth, taught it without fail in every church I was a member of until about 2 years ago. I was such a thorough going dispy that I read the Left Behind series... THREE TIMES! I was that guy! Until 2 years ago, I didn't even know Covenant Theology was a thing. It was pre-trib or liberal as far as I was concerned.
Well, I started doing research on a separate subject, which led me to find that there was a legitimate alternative to Dispensationalism, I thought it was wrong (still do in some ways) but that opened up a whole new world. I started really looking into end times views and quickly discovered the 3 main alternatives to pre-trib dispensationalism. I'm sure most, if not all, know them but I will enumerate them just in case:
Historic Premillennialism - By dispy brothers, I know it pains you to acknowledge this, but Historic premill is called such because it really is the historic premill view. Dispensationalism is not. Just deal with it.
Amillennialism - The abode of Calvinist's and demons, which were basically the same thing in the opinion of some of my past churches...
Postmillennialism - I can't really think of anything funny to say so here's a picture of a turtle trying to eat a strawberry:
Anyway, I eventually rejected Dispensationalism entirely, and came to adopt historic premill, largely due to the influence of George Ladd's writings though I have a few of my own thoughts that seperate me from him and other Historic pre-mill folks.
Lately I have had some more changes in my eschatology which I thought I'd share for your consideration and debate. Primarily I've become more hopeful. By that I mean I have begun to really think the church will succeed in discipling the nations in some way. 3 of the 4 views typically have the church age ending in failure (Most wouldn't put it in those words, but that's the impression). I don't think that is really the case though. No, I am not a postmill now. I still tentatively hold to historic premill, but I am increasingly rejecting the pessimism that seems to go along with the typical premill schemes.
Dispensationalism is hopelessly pessimistic. I know that they will never admit it but just look at what it teaches: The church fails to complete the great commission to the point where Jesus needs to come and rescue us before 7 years of hell on earth. During those 7 years, the Jews largely convert and start preaching the gospel and then they ultimately fail too and are sandwiched into Jerusalem under siege by the Antichrist when Jesus must step in and rescue them, but not before upwards of 75% are killed! In other words the church is an utter failure in every meaningful way.
Historic Premill is better but not much: The church fails to disciple the nations, the church goes through the great tribulation, a lot of us die, and in the end Jesus comes back to establish his kingdom. Both versions of premill also have a rebellion at the end of Christ's reign. Again, failure.
Amill is really all over the place from what I've seen, but traditionally it has been similar to Historic Premill, minus the 1,000 year reign at the end. Meaning the church still fails.
Postmill is also all over the place too. Theonomy bothers me. The idea that the church should enforce the Mosaic Law on the nations? Just, no. The idea though that the church gradually spreads and encompasses the earth and thus actually succeeds in it's mission is very appealing.
So I've been reading and reasoning and I have come to see that yes the church will succeed. Not to the level that postmillennialism affirms I don't think. But yes we really will succeed. Let me share a couple passages that I think really point to real victory for the church:
Jesus says that he will build his church and it will not be defeated.
Obviously we are all familiar with the great commission. However I have noticed that most of the time it is quoted starting with "Go" in verse 19. But that ignores the whole grounding for our going and making disciples - the authority of Jesus. Jesus Christ has been given all authority in the universe, what ever authority there is, he ultimately has it; it is on that basis that we go into the world and make disciples. Jesus also says he is with us in this mission, all the way to the very end. If the sovereign God of the universe who has all authority in heaven and earth has given us a mission, and has promised to be with us until the very end, does it not follow that he will empower us to actually accomplish it? That we really will succeed in discipling the nations?
Similar thoughts as above. Christ has been given authority "far above all rule... not only in this age but also in the one to come." If that is so, and we are his body. How can we fail?
Most likely the rulers and authorities here are spiritual "authorities" that were in rebellion against God. They have already been defeated in the death of Christ. He has triumphed over them completely, shouldn't we then, as his people empowered by his spirit, also triumph?
That is just a couple of passages, but I'll stop with those for now.
This has been on my mind some the last few months. I haven't sat down to really examine every angle or to systematize my thoughts. I'm sure someone will see something I missed, or overlooked, some flaw somewhere. But I am really looking at the NT in a new light, I really think we will succeed in making disciples of the nations.
Sorry this is so long, much longer than originally intended. Please share your thoughts.
, and everyone's favorite... Calvinism v Arminianism. So I thought that we could have a diversion and discuss something that we all pretty much agree on.... the end of the world.
oh, wait....
:tongue3:
My eschatology has made some drastic changes over the last 2 years, along with most of the rest of my theology. Short story long, I was a dispensationalist through and through. Raised in from birth, taught it without fail in every church I was a member of until about 2 years ago. I was such a thorough going dispy that I read the Left Behind series... THREE TIMES! I was that guy! Until 2 years ago, I didn't even know Covenant Theology was a thing. It was pre-trib or liberal as far as I was concerned.
Well, I started doing research on a separate subject, which led me to find that there was a legitimate alternative to Dispensationalism, I thought it was wrong (still do in some ways) but that opened up a whole new world. I started really looking into end times views and quickly discovered the 3 main alternatives to pre-trib dispensationalism. I'm sure most, if not all, know them but I will enumerate them just in case:
Historic Premillennialism - By dispy brothers, I know it pains you to acknowledge this, but Historic premill is called such because it really is the historic premill view. Dispensationalism is not. Just deal with it.
Amillennialism - The abode of Calvinist's and demons, which were basically the same thing in the opinion of some of my past churches...
Postmillennialism - I can't really think of anything funny to say so here's a picture of a turtle trying to eat a strawberry:
Anyway, I eventually rejected Dispensationalism entirely, and came to adopt historic premill, largely due to the influence of George Ladd's writings though I have a few of my own thoughts that seperate me from him and other Historic pre-mill folks.
Lately I have had some more changes in my eschatology which I thought I'd share for your consideration and debate. Primarily I've become more hopeful. By that I mean I have begun to really think the church will succeed in discipling the nations in some way. 3 of the 4 views typically have the church age ending in failure (Most wouldn't put it in those words, but that's the impression). I don't think that is really the case though. No, I am not a postmill now. I still tentatively hold to historic premill, but I am increasingly rejecting the pessimism that seems to go along with the typical premill schemes.
Dispensationalism is hopelessly pessimistic. I know that they will never admit it but just look at what it teaches: The church fails to complete the great commission to the point where Jesus needs to come and rescue us before 7 years of hell on earth. During those 7 years, the Jews largely convert and start preaching the gospel and then they ultimately fail too and are sandwiched into Jerusalem under siege by the Antichrist when Jesus must step in and rescue them, but not before upwards of 75% are killed! In other words the church is an utter failure in every meaningful way.
Historic Premill is better but not much: The church fails to disciple the nations, the church goes through the great tribulation, a lot of us die, and in the end Jesus comes back to establish his kingdom. Both versions of premill also have a rebellion at the end of Christ's reign. Again, failure.
Amill is really all over the place from what I've seen, but traditionally it has been similar to Historic Premill, minus the 1,000 year reign at the end. Meaning the church still fails.
Postmill is also all over the place too. Theonomy bothers me. The idea that the church should enforce the Mosaic Law on the nations? Just, no. The idea though that the church gradually spreads and encompasses the earth and thus actually succeeds in it's mission is very appealing.
So I've been reading and reasoning and I have come to see that yes the church will succeed. Not to the level that postmillennialism affirms I don't think. But yes we really will succeed. Let me share a couple passages that I think really point to real victory for the church:
Mat 16:18 NASB - "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.
Jesus says that he will build his church and it will not be defeated.
Mat 28:18-20 NASB - And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."
Obviously we are all familiar with the great commission. However I have noticed that most of the time it is quoted starting with "Go" in verse 19. But that ignores the whole grounding for our going and making disciples - the authority of Jesus. Jesus Christ has been given all authority in the universe, what ever authority there is, he ultimately has it; it is on that basis that we go into the world and make disciples. Jesus also says he is with us in this mission, all the way to the very end. If the sovereign God of the universe who has all authority in heaven and earth has given us a mission, and has promised to be with us until the very end, does it not follow that he will empower us to actually accomplish it? That we really will succeed in discipling the nations?
Eph 1:20-23 NASB - which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
Similar thoughts as above. Christ has been given authority "far above all rule... not only in this age but also in the one to come." If that is so, and we are his body. How can we fail?
Col 2:15 NASB - When He had disarmed the rulers and authorities, He made a public display of them, having triumphed over them through Him.
Most likely the rulers and authorities here are spiritual "authorities" that were in rebellion against God. They have already been defeated in the death of Christ. He has triumphed over them completely, shouldn't we then, as his people empowered by his spirit, also triumph?
That is just a couple of passages, but I'll stop with those for now.
This has been on my mind some the last few months. I haven't sat down to really examine every angle or to systematize my thoughts. I'm sure someone will see something I missed, or overlooked, some flaw somewhere. But I am really looking at the NT in a new light, I really think we will succeed in making disciples of the nations.
Sorry this is so long, much longer than originally intended. Please share your thoughts.
Last edited by a moderator:
