Eschatological View

[D.A.S.]

I didn't see this post already which surprised me a little. It was inevitable so here it is.

 

[D.A.S.]

Adherents:

Historicist
------------
Martin Luther
John Calvin
William Tyndale
John Wycliffe
Philip Melanchthon
John Wesley
Charles Wesley
Charles Spurgeon
Matthew Henry
John Owen
George Whitfield
Jonathan Edwards
Isaac Newton
John Knox
John Foxe
Albert Barnes
John Huss
Roger Williams (First Baptist In America)
Ana-Baptists
Waldenses (Oldest Church Denomination)
London Baptist Confession
Westminster Confession
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Charles Hodge
David Steele
Edwards Bishop Elliott

Futurist
----------
John MacArthur
Billy Graham
George Muller
D.L. Moody
Hal Lindsey
Adrian Rogers
David Jeremiah
Francisco Ribera (First Futurist)
John Nelson Darby
Tim LaHaye
Charles Stanley
Lewis Sperry Chafer
Chuck Swindoll

Preterist
-----------
R.C. Sproul
J. Barton Payne
Luis de Alcazar (First Preterist)

 

[D.A.S.]

Feel free to add names to the above. I didn't do Millennial adherents since it's such a pain to go over and Post-Millennialists are always ascribing there position to Amillennial Church Fathers and I didn't want to get into that whole thing.

I also didn't add the Apostolic Fathers to the list. It's clear what position they held to but that's also an empty road to go down since everyone tries to ascribe there position to the Apostolic Fathers and it really gets you nowhere.

I honestly didn't try to make the list favor one view over another, I even added names that shouldn't be together. There's no way we should name LaHaye and Lindsey in the same breath as Wesley and Luther but I had to add someone to all the views. This was basically done of the top of my head so it's just the ones I already know.

 

[webdog]

You can add "webdog" to futurist

 

[Tom Bryant]

I'd be under futurist, but I would likely name it Biblicist (just kidding) :tonofbricks:

 

[Allan]

Feel free to add names to the above. I didn't do Millennial adherents since it's such a pain to go over and Post-Millennialists are always ascribing there position to Amillennial Church Fathers and I didn't want to get into that whole thing.

I also didn't add the Apostolic Fathers to the list. It's clear what position they held to but that's also an empty road to go down since everyone tries to ascribe there position to the Apostolic Fathers and it really gets you nowhere.

I honestly didn't try to make the list favor one view over another, I even added names that shouldn't be together. There's no way we should name LaHaye and Lindsey in the same breath as Wesley and Luther but I had to add someone to all the views. This was basically done of the top of my head so it's just the ones I already know.

You need to define your terms. Historic can be applied to more than one view. Pre-mill is one view in which it can be ascribed and some in your list were not pre-mill.
If you are refering to the Amill postision then that title is misleading since I'm not so sure it is ever used as such.

Another quick note:
Not everyone can claim their position comes from the early church fathers. The Amil view (not the post view side) can not ascribe such since we know that till about 350'ish BC it was the Churches Orthodox teaching of a literal earthly 1000 years reign, a literal antichrist, a distinction between the Church and Israel, 2 literal resurrections, and I think one or two other points. At that time there was only 2 or 3 of the early church fathers works that we know began to disagree and was not till Augustine at 450'ish BC, that the view was changed by the Catholic Church vai it's new governmental power, to a different doctrinal stance on the whole. This is not something that many Amils can or will agree with. So I am merely clarifying that not all groups can claim their position comes from the early Church fathers, which the exception of what I just stated.

 

[Allan]

I'd be under futurist, but I would likely name it Biblicist (just kidding) :tonofbricks:

I agree, I'm with you guys :wavey:

 

[D.A.S.]

You need to define your terms. Historic can be applied to more than one view. Pre-mill is one view in which it can be ascribed and some in your list were not pre-mill.
If you are refering to the Amill postision then that title is misleading since I'm not so sure it is ever used as such.

Another quick note:
Not everyone can claim their position comes from the early church fathers. The Amil view (not the post view side) can not ascribe such since we know that till about 350'ish BC it was the Churches Orthodox teaching of a literal earthly 1000 years reign, a literal antichrist, a distinction between the Church and Israel, 2 literal resurrections, and I think one or two other points. At that time there was only 2 or 3 of the early church fathers works that we know began to disagree and was not till Augustine at 450'ish BC, that the view was changed by the Catholic Church vai it's new governmental power, to a different doctrinal stance on the whole. This is not something that many Amils can or will agree with. So I am merely clarifying that not all groups can claim their position comes from the early Church fathers, which the exception of what I just stated.

I never called anyone premill on any list. Historicist is the official name of the view held throughout Church history as the majority (and for a long time only) view. Amillennialism was taught right from the beginning. We know this because Justin Martyr said so and he was born in 100 A.D.

I tried not to get into this but you couldn't keep the conversation into what I tried for it to be so fine. Amillenialism was around long before Augustine (read Matryr). It was never a test of orthodoxy to believe in th premil view. In fact almost every single premillenialist has been unorthodox in his millenial views because they find some way to put heresy in it. Zionism is a new theology. I've never found it in classic works so they did all teach that the Church and Israel were the same. Everyone from every view believes in a literal antichrist. You didn't say anything even close to being accurate. I've seen this before. You sound like the typical indoctrinated dispensationalist who hasn't actually studied for himself but is just repeat the propaganda.

 

[webdog]

So I take it DAS is amill :laugh:

Dude, why are you so angry and defensive? Allan is one of the most grace filled posters here...and he is spot on as far as accuracy goes. With your attitude, you won't last long here.

 

[Pastor Larry]

Typically, "historicist" defines a view of the book of Revelation (as does futurist). I don't think it is usually used with respect to eschatological positions in general.

And Justin Martyr claimed that right minded Christians believed in a thousand year future in Jerusalem after the resurrection of the dead. He said, "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand yearshttp://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftn1 in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." (http://www.baptistboard.com/#_ftnref2Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol.I : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. The apostolic fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus. (239).)

 

[Allan]

I never called anyone premill on any list. Historicist is the official name of the view held throughout Church history as the majority (and for a long time only) view. Amillennialism was taught right from the beginning. We know this because Justin Martyr said so and he was born in 100 A.D.

First you might need to climb down from your horse. I asked for clarification and then I also gave known and verifiable church History regarding certain things. I wasn't trying to upset you.
So I would humbly suggest you read some books on Church History.
I posted this in another thread and is appropriet here I guess. This is a list of people who were known to speak of holding (through writings of another refering to their view specifically) of a pre-mil view:

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 1st Century:
1. Andrew
2. Peter
3. Philip
4. Thomas
5. James
6. John
7. Matthew
8. Aristio
9. John the Presbyter

Peters states regarding the above: "These all lived between A.D. 1-100; John, it is supposed -- so Mosheim, etc. -- died about A.D. 100. (All these are cited by Papias, who, according to Irenaeus, was one of John's hearers, and intimate with Polycarp. John is also expressly mentioned by Justin. Now this reference to the apostles agrees with the facts that we have proven: (a) that the disciples of Jesus did hold the Jewish views of the Messianic reign in the first part of this century, and (b) that, instead of discarding them, they linked them with the Sec. Advent)."

10. Clement of Rome A.D. 40-100
11. Barnabas A.D 40-100
12 Hermas A.D 40-150
13 Ignatius A.D. 50-115
14 Polycarp A.D. 70-167
15. Papias A.D. 80-163


None can be cited in this century to be against The Premillennial view.

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 2nd Century:
1. Pothinus A.D. 87-177
2. Justin Martyr A.D. 100-168
3. Melito A.D. 100-170
4. Hegisippus A.D. 130-190
5. Tatian A.D. 130-190
6. Irenaeus A.D. 140-202
7. The Churches of Vienne and Lyons - a letter A.D. 177
8. Tertulian A.D. 150-220
9. Hippolytus A.D. 160-240
10 Apollinaris A.D. 150-200


None can be cited in this century to be against Premillennialism. The common belief of the Church was Chiliastic (Premillennial).

Pre-Mill Advocates of the 3rd Century:
1. Cyprian A.D. 200-258
2. Commodian A.D. 200-270
3. Nepos A.D. 230-280
4. Coracion A.D. 230-280
5. Victorinus A.D. 240-303
6. Methodius A.D. 250-311
7. Lactantius A.D. 240-330


There were only four in this century that opposed the Premillennial view:
1. Caius (or Gaius), wrote about A.D. 210
2, Clemens Alexandrinus, died A.D. 202, great influence on Origin
3. Origin A.D. 185-254
4. Dionysius A.D. 190-265

I tried not to get into this but you couldn't keep the conversation into what I tried for it to be so fine.

I didn't know what you were looking for so I asked you to define your terms.

Amillenialism was around long before Augustine (read Matryr).

There is a subgroup of the Amils known as Post-mills, who unlike the Amil (that believe Christ's kingdom is a spiritual and that there will not be a literal 1000 year reign) believe in a literal thousand year reign and that is pretty close to the end of the distinction.

However, I would suggust you actaully read Justin Martyr because he specifically held to a pre-mil view and stated that it was the orthodox view of the church during his time as seen here:

Justin Martyr (c. 100–165):
"But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare."

You can not find any reputable Church History book that places Justin Martyr in the Amil group. He was absolutely and decidedly Pre-mil. This early Church view is known specifically as CHILIASM (or Historic Premillennialsim).

It was never a test of orthodoxy to believe in th premil view.

"I" never said it was. I said Justin Martyr specifically states that this view is the orthodox view of the Church. IOW- It was the common teaching of the Church.

I've never found it in classic works

You can't miss it. Church historians haven't.

so they did all teach that the Church and Israel were the same.

Both no and yes.
No the Church is was not replacing Israel nor was it a contination of Israel.
Their view was we are spiritually like Israel (thus spiritual Israel) in that we partake in some of the promises of God and all that are specific to the Church. They believe that God would again bring literal Israel back to Jerusalem and that Christ would reign for a literal 1000 years. I can show this via known CHurch historians regarding certain views they had. It was a post I did previously as well.

Everyone from every view believes in a literal antichrist.

No, they don't.

You sound like the typical indoctrinated dispensationalist who hasn't actually studied for himself but is just repeat the propaganda.

Smiles.. you can try me :thumbs:


BTW - Welcome to the board.
PS. I wasn't meaning to upset you. I was asking and trying to clarify something.

 

[Allan]

Here are some Church Historians who are and are on record as stating the Pre-mil view was not only apart of the early church but also the dominant view of it.
Some are even Amil, Post-mil believers who are even against the Premil view
Enjoy.

THE RECOGNITION BY WORTHY HISTORIANS OF THE PLACE CHILIASM (PREMILLENNIALISM) HELD IN THE EARLY CHURCH
The following list with their declarations is taken from the pamphlet, The History of the Doctrine of Our Lord's Return, by Dr. I.M. Haldeman: Eusebius, the early historian of the Church, admits that most of the ecclesiastics of his day were millenarians. That is -- they believed in the coming of Christ before the millennium.

Gieseler, "Church History," Vol. I, p. 166, says
"Millenarianism became the general belief of the time and met with almost no other opposition than that given by the Gnostics."

Dr. Horatius Bonar says, in his "Prophetic Landmarks,"
"Millenarianism prevailed universally during the first three centuries. This is now an assured historical fact and presupposes that chiliasm was an article of the apostolic creed."

Muncher says, p. 415, History of Christian Doctrine, Vol. 11:
"How widely the doctrine of millenarianism prevailed in the first three centuries appears from this, that it was universally received by almost all teachers."

W. Chillingworth says:
"Whatsoever doctrine is believed or taught by the most eminent fathers of any age of the church, and by none of their contemporaries opposed or condemned, that is to be esteemed the Catholic doctrine of the church of those times. But the doctrine of the millenarians was believed, and taught by the most eminent fathers of the age next after the apostles, and by none of that age opposed or condemned, therefore it was the Catholic or universal doctrine of those times."

Stackhouse, in his "Complete Body of Divinity," says:
"The doctrine was once the opinion of all orthodox Christians."

Bishop Thomas Newton says:
"The doctrine was generally believed in the three first and purest ages."

Bishop Russell, Discourse on the Millennium, says:
"On down to the fourth century the belief was universal and undisputed."

Mosheim, Vol. I., p. 185, or his "Ecclesiastical History" says:
"That the Saviour is to reign a thousand years among men before the end of the world, had been believed by many in the preceding century (that is, the second), without offense to any."

Neander, the eminent church historian, says in his Church History, page 650, Vol. I.:
"Many Christians seized hold of an image which had passed over to them from the Jews, and which seemed to adapt itself to their own present situation. The idea of a millennial reign which the Messiah was to set up on the earth at the end of the whole earthly course of his age -- when all the righteous of all times should live together in Holy Communion..."

Gibbon, the author of that immense work, "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," cannot be accused of sympathy with Christianity.... In the first volume of his work, p.532, he writes:
"it was universally believed that the end of the world was at hand. The near approach of this wonderful event had been predicted by the apostles. The tradition of it was preserved by their earliest disciples, and those who understood in their literal sense the discourses of Christ Himself were obliged to expect the Second and glorious Coming of the Son of Man before that generation was totally extinguished."
And now, mark you what he says:
"As long as for wise purposes this error was permitted to exist in the church, it was productive of the most salutary effects on the faith and practice of Christians who lived in the awful expectation of that moment."
... "The ancient and popular," --note, I pray you, the ancient and popular--
"The ancient and popular doctrine of the millennium was intimately connected with the Second Coming of Christ: As the works of creation had been finished in six days their duration in their present state, according to tradition, was fixed to six thousand years. By the same analogy it was inferred that this long period of labor and contention, which was now almost elapsed, would be succeeded by a joyful Sabbath of a thousand years, and that Christ with His triumphant band of the saints and the elect who had escaped death, or who had been miraculously revived, would reign upon the earth till the time appointed for the last and general resurrection."
"The assurance of such a millennium ... was carefully inculcated by a succession of fathers from Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who conversed with the immediate disciples of the apostles, down to Lactantius, who was preceptor to the son of Constantine. It appears to have been the reigning sentiment of the orthodox believers, and ... it seems so well adapted to the desires and apprehensions of mankind that it must have contributed in a very considerable degree to the progress of the Christian faith."
... "But when the edifice of the church as almost completed the temporary support was laid aside. The doctrine of Christ's reign upon earth was at first heralded as a profound allegory, was considered by degrees as a doubtful and useless opinion, and was at length rejected as the absurd invention of heresy and fanaticism."

Kitto, in his encyclopedia of "Biblical Literature, " under the head of article "Millennium,
" states that the millenarian doctrine was generally prevalent in the second century, and that it received its first staggering blow from Origen, followed by Augustine, Jerome, and others in the fourth century.

In the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," under article "millennium," the writer, a no less distinguished scholar than Adolf Harnack, D.D., Professor of Christian History in the University of Giessen, Germany, says:
"This doctrine of Christ's second advent, and the kingdom, appears so early that it might be questioned whether it ought not be regarded as an essential part of the Christian religion."

Sheldon, "Church History," Vol. I., p. 145, ch. 6, testifies that
"premillenarianism was the doctrine of the Christians in the first and second century. The fathers expected anti-Christ to arise and reign, and meet his overthrow at the personal coming of the Lord. After which the Kingdom of Christ for a thousand years, would be established on the earth."

Crippen, History of Doctrine," P. 231, sec. 12, says that
"the early Fathers live in expectation of our Lord's speedy return";
on p. 232 he remarks:
"They distinguish between a first resurrection of the saints and a second or general resurrection. These they supposed would be separated by a period of a thousand years, during which Christ should reign over the saints in Jerusalem."
... "While the church was alternately persecuted and contemptuously tolerated by the Roman Empire, the belief in Christ's speedy return and his millennial reign was widely entertained."
... "When the Church was recognized and patronized by the state, the new order of things seemed so desirable that the close of the dispensation ceased to be expected or desired."

Smith, "New Testament History," p. 273, says:
"Immediately after the triumph of Constantine, Christianity having become dominant and prosperous, Christians began to lose their vivid expectation of our Lord's speedy advent, and to look upon the temporal supremacy of Christianity as a fulfillment of the promised reign of Christ on earth." --Pp. 14-20,24

Common themes of the Premil view are as follows:
1. The anti-christ (a person) would both arise and reign
2. Christ's return physically to earth and the overthrow of the anti-christ.
3. Christ establishing His physical Kingdom on the earth.
4. He would reign from Jerusalem both over and with His saints of all ages.
5. His reign would last a literal 1000 years.
6. There were 2 distinct resurrections. That of the saints before the 1000 year reign and the general - those who would be raised up for Judgment.
7. Pre-mils did distinquish between Israel and Church.

Regarding #7:
The fact that the Jews (Israel) are brought back to Jerusalem for and during the reign of Christ and His saints is indictive of this.

 

[Allan]

To be honest I didn't pay much attention to the poll. But I notice now that you have historic premill up there as well.

You said:

Historicist is the official name of the view held throughout Church history as the majority (and for a long time only) view.

I agree with then but you immediately state following:

Amillennialism was taught right from the beginning.

Giving one the impression that Historic means Amil. This was my misunderstanding and why I was wanting clarification prior to and also afterwards.
However please note that there are no writtings (from the beginning) which speak of or gives credence to the Amil position prior to the 3rd century. This doesn't say that there wasn't now, don't get me wrong on this. We just have no verifiable data (writting) which speak to it.

 

[Brandon C. Jones]

Hi DAS,

Welcome to the board. I concur with Allan that you should spend some time to get to know the board and its posters a little before presuming to know people's backgrounds and beliefs (as Webdog already mentioned regarding Allan). To be sure, we like debate here, but hasty generalizations and overstatements will win you little support.

BJ

 

[Beth]

I'm pre-wrath

I couldn't find my category, pre-wrath, unless it was under pre-trib?

Not sure what historicist means? Would that mean the book of Revelation describes events past in history?

Beth

 

[John Toppass]

I never called anyone premill on any list. Historicist is the official name of the view held throughout Church history as the majority (and for a long time only) view. Amillennialism was taught right from the beginning. We know this because Justin Martyr said so and he was born in 100 A.D.

I tried not to get into this but you couldn't keep the conversation into what I tried for it to be so fine. Amillenialism was around long before Augustine (read Matryr). It was never a test of orthodoxy to believe in th premil view. In fact almost every single premillenialist has been unorthodox in his millenial views because they find some way to put heresy in it. Zionism is a new theology. I've never found it in classic works so they did all teach that the Church and Israel were the same. Everyone from every view believes in a literal antichrist. You didn't say anything even close to being accurate. I've seen this before. You sound like the typical indoctrinated dispensationalist who hasn't actually studied for himself but is just repeat the propaganda.

You sound a bit flustered there youngster. Take a chill pill find a good Bible based church, breath deep, and listen. You would be amazed what it does for your blood pressure and your learning skills. Hopefully you can find a Baptist church to join, then you can legally post in the baptist only section of this board. Welcome and smile, your face needs the rest.:thumbs:

 

[Palatka51]

Mid-trib is a misnomer. I prefer pre-wrath. Tribulation is not wrath nor is the great tribulation.

 

[Marcia]

I couldn't find my category, pre-wrath, unless it was under pre-trib?

Not sure what historicist means? Would that mean the book of Revelation describes events past in history?

Beth

What is the pre-wrath view?

 

[Allan]

What is the pre-wrath view?

It is the same as the mid-trib view just by a different name.

This view holds that during the first 3 1/2 half years of the Tribulation the Church will still be here since it is considered 'a time of peace'. During the last 3 1/2 years this view holds that it is at 'this' point God pours out His wrath and thus the Church will be raptured just prior to it.

Most in this area hold that those who are not raptured are lost and that none will be saved. There is a smaller group of this view which believes will still be saved.

Other than these there really isn't much difference from the Pre-Trib view. (of course with the differences of opinion as what constitutes the Tribulation and the "Great Tribulation" and the timing of it)

 

[Beth]

Prior to God's wrath

What is the pre-wrath view?

This view is that believers are raptured prior to God's outpouring of wrath.

The only way we differ from pre-trib, really, is in the definition of God's wrath....pre-trib generally holds to the wrath being all of the seventieth week, we see the wrath commencing at the opening of the seventh seal. This view is not necessarily that different from pre-trib.....timing is a bit different.

I'm still not sure what historicist means?