END OF WORLD question.

I believe Hank H. would be an A-Mill, though I do not believe he refers to himself as such.

 

Pretrib pre-mill outline of time forward:

0. church age continues <-- you are here
1. rapture/resurrection
2. Tribulation time
3. Second Advent of Jesus event
4. literal MK=millinnial kingdom
5. new heaven & new earth

The age (aeon) ends when #1 happens.
The world (cosmos) ends when #5 happens
over 1007 years later.

 

Amillennial

1. Those who hold this view claim that there will not be a 1000 year reign of Christ from an earthly throne; rather they hold that the deceased Saints are now reigning with Christ in heaven. Some amillennialists believe that this reign refers to the reign of the Church on earth.

2.Near the end of this reign there will be a brief period of increased tribulation on earth [Satans little season] during which time the Christians [the true believers] are present.

3.This tribulation period will be ended by the return of Christ accompanied by the souls of the deceased saints.

4. At this time the dead in Christ will be resurrected [rise first], the living believer will be glorified and both groups will meet Christ in the air and accompany him to the earth.

5. There will then be a resurrection of those without Christ, the lost, followed by the Great White Throne Judgment.

6. After the Great White Throne Judgment Satan [whose power has been limited by the death and resurrection of Christ] and his followers will be cast into the lake of fire and the New Heavens and New Earth will be created. Come amillennialists believe that the term New simply refers to the return of the heavens [not the abode of God] and earth to their original state.

 

I do not agree with Hannigraph. His teaching is obivously partial preterism.

I believe Matt. 24:15-21 of 'great tribulaiton' is yet to come is future event.

By the way, let you know, many amills are partial preterists. BUT, all of amills strong believe Christ's coming in physical and literal is a future event at the end of the age, NOT at 70 A.D.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Lessee now;
Tribulation did NOT occur in 70 ad.
It WILL occur in the not so distant future.
It MIGHT be somewhat longer than 7 years.
It will be world-wide, INCLUDING the good ol' USA.
Anti-christ is yet to appear on the world stage.
Rapture is for faithful saints only.
Second coming will establish a literal, physical, visible earthly Kingdom AT Jerusalem.
The Kingdom will last a literal 1000 years.
Satan will have NO power to influence ANYONE during the 1000 years.
Satan will be allowed a "season" to deceive inhabitants of the Kingdom.
The "Great War" happens at the end of the Millenial Kingdom.
Satan is tossed into the Lake of Fire.
Everything is burned up!
The New Heaven and New Earth are created.
We are FOREVER free of sin!!!!!!!!

ALL PRAISE AND HONOR AND GLORY TO GOD OUR SAVIOUR!

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Good exposition of your position, Brohter AV1611Jim. But you missed one part asked for:

Beliefs name What do you call
your belief. (no silly, RALPH isn't a
good answer )

 

This is type of partial rapturism doctrine.

I disagree with partial rapturism doctrine.

Bible teaches us, rapture shall be invloved ALLLLLLLLLLL people of 6.5 billion world population. God shall send his angels to gathering both unjust and just of the world, but spearated both at the harvest at the end of the world according Matt. 13:39-42; & Matt. 25:31-33.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

No.

 

Why are you reading "fiction books" to determine your beliefs?

 

I like the view that: The millenium is "symbolic" and extends from the Cross to the Last Day.

 

2Pe 1:20 (KJV1611):
Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the Scripture is of any priuate Interpretation:

 

To say generation(genea) means race is a weak argument in my view. If Jesus wished to indicate race, He would have used the word (gennema)which he had just previously used in Matt 23. I ask the question, "had Jesus wished to indicate the events were to happen in the lifetime of those present, which greek word for "generation" would He have used"?

When I was a pre-mill dispy I would have said the same thing. However once I came to the point that I saw the Olivet Discourse speaking of the events of AD70, it became difficult for me not to accept the full-preterist view.

Luke 21: 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

What are those "all things written"? Are they same as Daniel 12:

Dan 12: 6And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonder 7And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Daniel 12 speaks of resurrection and judgement. If Luke 21 and Dan 12 speak of the same things, and Luke 21 speaks of the events of AD70 then it seems the full-preterist position is the only consistent view among the preterist views.

Here is what Norman Geisler said about Hank H book "The Last Disciple":

F. LD affirms that "John was told not to seal up the prophecy because its fulfillment was [in the] fore future," not in the "far future" as Daniel was told his was (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) (LD, 395).

Comments: Here again, this agrees with the partial preterist view that John is speaking about the first century, whatever applications it may have to later generations. But if Revelation 6-18 refers to the first century, then why not the whole book since John was told, according to LD, that all of Revelation was to be unveiled for the near future? And if this refers to the first century, then one is driven to full preterism which both sides admit is a heresy since it says the resurrection is past (2 Tim. 2:18). There is no consistent hermeneutical way to separate Rev. 19-22 from 6-18 on preterist grounds. Indeed, the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15) which is during the Tribulation announces the coming of Christ . And the verses speaking of a "soon" coming, as LD interprets them, refer to the whole book of Revelation from beginning to end (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10).

http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/lastdisciple.htm

I agree with Geisler on his point that if one holds to the partial-pret view, then logically it must lead one to the full-preterist view if one is consistent. Though I find A-Mill and Post-Mill closer to the truth than Pre-Mills they are less consistent.

It seems to me that to be consistent one must hold either a "full-futurist" view or a "full-preterist" view.

 

To say generation(genea) means race is a weak argument in my view. If Jesus wished to indicate race, He would have used the word (gennema)which he had just previously used in Matt 23. I ask the question, "had Jesus wished to indicate the events were to happen in the lifetime of those present, which greek word for "generation" would He have used"?

When I was a pre-mill dispy I would have said the same thing. However once I came to the point that I saw the Olivet Discourse speaking of the events of AD70, it became difficult for me not to accept the full-preterist view.

Luke 21: 21Then let them which are in Judaea flee to the mountains; and let them which are in the midst of it depart out; and let not them that are in the countries enter thereinto. 22For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled.

What are those "all things written"? Are they same as Daniel 12:

Dan 12: 6And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonder 7And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished.

Daniel 12 speaks of resurrection and judgement. If Luke 21 and Dan 12 speak of the same things, and Luke 21 speaks of the events of AD70 then it seems the full-preterist position is the only consistent view among the preterist views.

Here is what Norman Geisler said about Hank H book "The Last Disciple":

F. LD affirms that "John was told not to seal up the prophecy because its fulfillment was [in the] fore future," not in the "far future" as Daniel was told his was (Dan. 8:26; 12:4) (LD, 395).

Comments: Here again, this agrees with the partial preterist view that John is speaking about the first century, whatever applications it may have to later generations. But if Revelation 6-18 refers to the first century, then why not the whole book since John was told, according to LD, that all of Revelation was to be unveiled for the near future? And if this refers to the first century, then one is driven to full preterism which both sides admit is a heresy since it says the resurrection is past (2 Tim. 2:18). There is no consistent hermeneutical way to separate Rev. 19-22 from 6-18 on preterist grounds. Indeed, the seventh trumpet (Rev. 11:15) which is during the Tribulation announces the coming of Christ . And the verses speaking of a "soon" coming, as LD interprets them, refer to the whole book of Revelation from beginning to end (Rev. 1:1, 3; 22:10).

http://www.ses.edu/NormGeisler/lastdisciple.htm

I agree with Geisler on his point that if one holds to the partial-pret view, then logically it must lead one to the full-preterist view if one is consistent. Though I find A-Mill and Post-Mill closer to the truth than Pre-Mills they are less consistent.

It seems to me that to be consistent one must hold either a "full-futurist" view or a "full-preterist" view.

 

Please explain what you mean by full futurist so I can respond to your assertion.

 

My definiton of full-futurism would be the Pre-Mill Dispy view. They hold that the Olivet Discourse is all future as well as the vision of John in Revelation.

Post-Mill/A-Mill will generally see some of Matt 24/OD and most but not all of Revelation as fulfilled.

Full-preterist see it as all fulfilled.

Those would be my general definitions.

 

I agree with Bro. Ed on all points.

And the reasons that the Tribulation didn't take place in 70AD should be obvious to anyone. Read Mt. 24:21 for one:

"For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be."

How could anyone in their right mind argue that what happen in Jerusalem in 70AD was worse than either WWI or WWII?

And why is their no record in history about this grand event that we all somehow missed:

"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Mt. 24:29-30

 

My definiton of full-futurism would be the Pre-Mill Dispy view. They hold that the Olivet Discourse is all future as well as the vision of John in Revelation.

Post-Mill/A-Mill will generally see some of Matt 24/OD and most but not all of Revelation as fulfilled.

Full-preterist see it as all fulfilled.

Those would be my general definitions. </font>[/QUOTE]Then I would have to disagree with your assertion "that to be consistent one must hold either a "full-futurist" view or a "full-preterist" view."

First I will present a brief exegesis of Matthew 24 that I presented on another thread in response to a question.

“Examine first Matthew 24:1-3:

1 And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2 And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Notice that in verse 2 Jesus Christ states: See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

Now notice the response of the disciples in verse 3: And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying,

[1.] Tell us, when shall these things be? and

[2.] what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Please notice that the disciples asked a two part question. It is my opinion that Jesus Christ answers both these questions in Chapter 24. Part of Chapter 24 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD and part refers to the return of Jesus Christ at the end of the age or on the Last Day, whichever you prefer.

I will not attempt an exegesis of the entire chapter since people have written books to do so. However, I believe that there is one passage in particular that refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, that is verses 15-22. My rationale for this opinion is that it would be foolish to give people the advice given in those verses if the events described in 2 Peter 3:1-13, which describes the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, are taking place.

Incidentally it is a historical fact that those Christians in Jerusalem were warned to flee Jerusalem [verse 16] before Rome destroyed the city."

Now I do not believe that my understanding of Matthew 24 makes me even a 1% preterist since the destruction of Jerusalem was in no way associated with some sort of return of Jesus Christ.

As for my understanding of Revelation it is as follows:

1. The Book of Revelation is written for the Church throughout all time but it was written specifically to the Church of the 1st century and any interpretation of the book must take that fact into consideration.

2. Revelation was written for the comfort of the 1st century Church undergoing severe persecution, even to death and, furthermore, is not only a book of comfort for the 1st century Christian, it is a book of comfort for true believers of all time.

3. William Hendriksen is correct in his commentary, More Than Conquerors, when he wrote “The Apocalypse is meant to show us that things are not what they seem.”

4. Revelation teaches eternal, theological principles and portrays on a cosmic scale the struggle between good and evil, between the Triune God and Satan, from the incarnation of God the Son until His return in power and glory when The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever. [Revelation 11:15]. Furthermore, I believe that there have been events in history that give evidence to that struggle.

5. Most importantly Revelation shows the inevitable triumph of the Triune God and His Church when the tabernacle of God [is] with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, [and be] their God. And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away. [Revelation 21:3,4].

In summary my beliefs on the Second-Coming of the Lord Jesus Christ are:

1. The Church, as witness to the salvation of God, will remain on earth until the return of Jesus Christ and will endure whatever tribulation God allows. That tribulation may increase in intensity as the end approaches.

2. At a time known only to the Triune God, Jesus Christ will return in all the power and glory of the Godhead, bringing with Him the souls of the dead in Christ.

3. There will be a general resurrection of both the just and the unjust, consistent with Biblical teachings that the dead in Christ shall rise first.

4. The risen dead in Christ and the transformed believers will join the Lord Jesus Christ in the air where the union of the souls of the dead in Christ and their resurrected bodies will occur. The glory Church, the Church triumphant, the Bride of Christ, the New Jerusalem, will then accompany the Lord Jesus Christ to the earth [Revelation 21:2].

5. At this time the Great White Throne judgment [Matthew 25:31-46; Revelation 20:11-15] will occur.

6. As the consequence of the judgment the true believers, the elect of God, will enjoy eternity in the new heavens and the new earth in the presence of the Triune God.

7. As the further consequence of the judgment Satan and his followers will be cast into the lake of fire, forever separated from the glory of God.


So you see that I am amillennial and am certainly not a full preterist or full futurist.