Eschatology...

[thomas15]

Thanks! My main source will be scripture of course, ....

Of course! Who would think anything different?

 

[RLBosley]

Thomas15 thinking to himself....I wonder if I'm the only person here who see the OP asking an innocent babe in-the-woods question looking for advice on reading material then suddenly realizing that the OPer has already basically made up his/her mind and is really looking to promote his/her personal agenda?

Naw, it can't be that! Not here on the Baptist Board!

If you'll remember what I said in the first post:

I am fairly confident that I'm abandoning the dispensational system (though I was never a classic or hyper-dispy). After looking at scripture objectively, without Tim Lahaye ringing in my ears when I read Dan 9, 1 Thess 4 etc... I am pretty sure I'm bailing on the pre-trib rapture and the literal 7 year Great trib.

So I have basically made up my mind in a sense (that I'm ditching dispensationalism). But at the same time I do want to hear others opinions and the support for their views, including dispensationalism. Obviously my eschatological views are not fixed... that's why I'm asking for reading sources.

Of course! Who would think anything different?

I don't know if you're trying to be sarcastic or condescending or what, but if you'll see the context in which I said that I was responding to someones comment that I shouldn't seek to be indoctrinated by the views of other men.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have said this many times but I seem to never get tired of repeating it. The real debate, the issue at the core is not pre-trib vs. post trib or pre-mil vs. a-mil, rather the issue is covenant vs. dispensational theology.

Figure out if you take the Bible 1. seriously or 2. very seriously. Then figure out if covenant theology fits your view of the Bible.

You hit the nail on the head with your hammer!

hav eto see if a literal view or a spirualized one best fits the prophetic word!

 

[Yeshua1]

Two good books from opposing sides to dispensationalism:

"A Case for Amillennialism" by Kim Riddelbargers

"Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope" by Keith Mathison

I made the move from dispensationalism to covenant theology about ten years ago. It was a long, arduous journey for me. I currently hold to the amillennial view, but I do so with a very weak grip.

You might want to look at Historical pre Mil view, as that keeps the lord returning to set up Kingdom on earth in its fullnes, and reigning, but does not have the Dispy aspects to it!

I can see one not seeing a Rapture, but NOT seeing the pre Mil rule of christ on earth!

 

[OldRegular]

You might want to look at Historical pre Mil view, as that keeps the lord returning to set up Kingdom on earth in its fullnes, and reigning, but does not have the Dispy aspects to it!

I can see one not seeing a Rapture, but NOT seeing the pre Mil rule of christ on earth!

The best thing about those who believe the historic premillennial doctrine is: They have a Biblical doctrine of the Church rather than the dispensational doctrine that the Church is an afterthought, a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God's program for Israel.

 

[Tom Butler]

I have to take issue with the idea that we should rely on the Bible instead of men for our opinions. I don't think it has to be either/or.

Every preacher I know has a library filled with books. If all we need is the Bible, why do we need books? And, if all we need is the Bible, why do we need pastors and teachers who have been given the gifts to follow their callings? Why should I sit under preaching by my pastor, if all I need is the Bible? Why should I pay any attention to my Sunday School teacher?

Frankly, I have been greatly influenced by others in their writing and preaching.

For instance, I read George Eldon Ladd's The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) when it first came out. It resonated with what I was taught by my pastor.

It was my pastor who first exposed me to historic pre-mil. Up to that point, all I had ever heard was pre-trib, I had read all the Hal Lindsey books, and took it for granted that it was the only view worth having.

One Sunday, my pastor preached from a post-trib view. Afterward, a bunch of us headed toward him to protest. We'd never heard this stuff before.

He held up his hand and said, "okay guys, we're not going to debate this tonight. Your assignment is to go to your Bibles. Find for me a clear, unequivocal scripture verse or passage which teaches a pre-trib rapture. The verse or passage must not be subject to any other interpretation. It must leave no doubt as to what it means."

So we did. We couldn't find one. I Thessalonians 4 was my go-to passage, but it only said what, not when. Ladd's book moved me closer to historic pre-mil and farther away from dispy pre-mil.

That said, I have lately been taking a closer look at A-mil. I'm not there yet, so I'm still at historic pre-mil. But I emphasize that that's where I am today. I'm keeping an open mind.

 

[Iconoclast]

Well isn't that interesting! I agree that there seems to be some type of literal kingdom on earth. There is a lot of OT prophecy devoted to talking about the LORD reigning in Jerusalem in the future. But I don't know how it all fits together. I just ordered George Ladd's Theology of the New Testament, so I'll hopefully get a better idea of what the historic Pre-mill view is.

RLB

Look at each of those passages and read it as if Jesus is reigning from the heavenly Jerusalem.....and Zion

22 For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

23 But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh; but he of the freewoman was by promise.

24 Which things are an allegory: for these are the two covenants; the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is Agar.

25 For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all.

27 For it is written, Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for the desolate hath many more children than she which hath an husband.

28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.

29 But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.

30 Nevertheless what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son: for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,

23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,

24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

25 See that ye refuse not him that speaketh. For if they escaped not who refused him that spake on earth, much more shall not we escape, if we turn away from him that speaketh from heaven:

 

[Yeshua1]

I have to take issue with the idea that we should rely on the Bible instead of men for our opinions. I don't think it has to be either/or.

Every preacher I know has a library filled with books. If all we need is the Bible, why do we need books? And, if all we need is the Bible, why do we need pastors and teachers who have been given the gifts to follow their callings? Why should I sit under preaching by my pastor, if all I need is the Bible? Why should I pay any attention to my Sunday School teacher?

Frankly, I have been greatly influenced by others in their writing and preaching.

For instance, I read George Eldon Ladd's The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) when it first came out. It resonated with what I was taught by my pastor.

It was my pastor who first exposed me to historic pre-mil. Up to that point, all I had ever heard was pre-trib, I had read all the Hal Lindsey books, and took it for granted that it was the only view worth having.

One Sunday, my pastor preached from a post-trib view. Afterward, a bunch of us headed toward him to protest. We'd never heard this stuff before.

He held up his hand and said, "okay guys, we're not going to debate this tonight. Your assignment is to go to your Bibles. Find for me a clear, unequivocal scripture verse or passage which teaches a pre-trib rapture. The verse or passage must not be subject to any other interpretation. It must leave no doubt as to what it means."

So we did. We couldn't find one. I Thessalonians 4 was my go-to passage, but it only said what, not when. Ladd's book moved me closer to historic pre-mil and farther away from dispy pre-mil.

That said, I have lately been taking a closer look at A-mil. I'm not there yet, so I'm still at historic pre-mil. But I emphasize that that's where I am today. I'm keeping an open mind.

I still hold to a pre trib pre mil view but lately seeing that Mid trib makes sense also from the scriptures...

Historical pre mil seems to be the way progressive Dispy seems to be heading towards...

Still cannot see the millinium as being all spiritually Jesus reigning from heaven since asencion!

 

[Greektim]

I still hold to a pre trib pre mil view but lately seeing that Mid trib makes sense also from the scriptures...

Historical pre mil seems to be the way progressive Dispy seems to be heading towards...

Still cannot see the millinium as being all spiritually Jesus reigning from heaven since asencion!

Why not... its the most fun!

 

[Yeshua1]

Why not... its the most fun!

maybe, but to me not the most scriptural!

 

[Tom Butler]

I still hold to a pre trib pre mil view but lately seeing that Mid trib makes sense also from the scriptures...

Historical pre mil seems to be the way progressive Dispy seems to be heading towards...

Still cannot see the millinium as being all spiritually Jesus reigning from heaven since asencion!

I have a church friend who holds to mid-Trib, but won't fall out with anybody over it. She's the only one I know who holds to it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I have a church friend who holds to mid-Trib, but won't fall out with anybody over it. She's the only one I know who holds to it.

My take on that is that IF we see the 2 witnesses in Revelation as standing/representing the Church on earth, once raptured up to heaven, satan falls to earth, and the beast/antichrist THAN has power to do his thing, as the Church would have been restraining him, as per paul!

 

[OldRegular]

One Sunday, my pastor preached from a post-trib view. Afterward, a bunch of us headed toward him to protest. We'd never heard this stuff before.

He held up his hand and said, "okay guys, we're not going to debate this tonight. Your assignment is to go to your Bibles. Find for me a clear, unequivocal scripture verse or passage which teaches a pre-trib rapture. The verse or passage must not be subject to any other interpretation. It must leave no doubt as to what it means."

This is the problem with the pre-trib eschatology. There is not one passage of Scripture that teaches such. I have routinely presented a very clear passage from the Gospel of John that teaches a "general resurrection" of all the dead: John 5:28, 29.

I realize that Revelation 20:5 speaks of a "first resurrection" which implies a second. Furthermore Revelation 20 speaks of a 1000 year reign. Consider that the First Resurrection, that of Jesus Christ, has already occurred. That cannot be denied. The second resurrection is that of John 5:28, 29. When does the 1000 year reign begin. Understanding that the Book of Revelation is a book of symbols the 1000 need not be understood literally and may well indicate the time lapse between the two comings of Jesus Christ with the departed Saints reigning with Jesus Christ.

 

[RLBosley]

RLB

Look at each of those passages and read it as if Jesus is reigning from the heavenly Jerusalem.....and Zion

You mean now or in the future after His return?

 

[RLBosley]

The best thing about those who believe the historic premillennial doctrine is: They have a Biblical doctrine of the Church rather than the dispensational doctrine that the Church is an afterthought, a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God's program for Israel.

Yeah, that doctrine is probably the biggest thing that has pushed me away from dispensationalism.
That, and I'm pretty sure Daniel's 70 weeks is already fulfilled, so no future 7 year trib. But I'm not 100% on that yet.

 

[RLBosley]

This is the problem with the pre-trib eschatology. There is not one passage of Scripture that teaches such. I have routinely presented a very clear passage from the Gospel of John that teaches a "general resurrection" of all the dead: John 5:28, 29.

I realize that Revelation 20:5 speaks of a "first resurrection" which implies a second. Furthermore Revelation 20 speaks of a 1000 year reign. Consider that the First Resurrection, that of Jesus Christ, has already occurred. That cannot be denied. The second resurrection is that of John 5:28, 29. When does the 1000 year reign begin. Understanding that the Book of Revelation is a book of symbols the 1000 need not be understood literally and may well indicate the time lapse between the two comings of Jesus Christ with the departed Saints reigning with Jesus Christ.

See that's what I don't get. How could Jesus' resurrection be the one in view in Revelation 20? It specifically says "...and they lived and reigned with Christ..." and "... but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him ..." The scripture repeated says they. How can that be just Christ?

 

[OldRegular]

See that's what I don't get. How could Jesus' resurrection be the one in view in Revelation 20? It specifically says "...and they lived and reigned with Christ..." and "... but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him ..." The scripture repeated says they. How can that be just Christ?

Revelation 20:4-6
4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Notice in Verse 4 that John sees souls, not resurrected bodies.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the "first bodily resurrection". There can be no argument about that! Who are those who have part in the first resurrection? They are the Saints, the "true believers". Those Saints who are deceased are now reigning with Jesus Christ in Heaven!

Then there is the spiritual resurrection which occurs when the Saints are "regenerated" or saved [John 5:25]. There are many who believe this is the resurrection called the "first resurrection" in the above Scripture.

 

[Yeshua1]

Yeah, that doctrine is probably the biggest thing that has pushed me away from dispensationalism.
That, and I'm pretty sure Daniel's 70 weeks is already fulfilled, so no future 7 year trib. But I'm not 100% on that yet.

Classic dispy views the Church as brought in as you say 'after thought", but many progressive ones like myself see the Church as already in Will of God, based upon isreal rejecting yeshua as their messiah!

 

[RLBosley]

Revelation 20:4-6
4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Notice in Verse 4 that John sees souls, not resurrected bodies.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the "first bodily resurrection". There can be no argument about that! Who are those who have part in the first resurrection? They are the Saints, the "true believers". Those Saints who are deceased are now reigning with Jesus Christ in Heaven!

Then there is the spiritual resurrection which occurs when the Saints are "regenerated" or saved [John 5:25]. There are many who believe this is the resurrection called the "first resurrection" in the above Scripture.

I see your point, but I still don't think that really explains the passage then. If they 'live' and reign with Christ by being regenerated, then why does verse 5 say that the rest of the dead will 'live' after the thousand years? That iterpretation seems like it would result in a form of universalism.

Or am i misunderstanding your point?

 

[RLBosley]

Classic dispy views the Church as brought in as you say 'after thought", but many progressive ones like myself see the Church as already in Will of God, based upon isreal rejecting yeshua as their messiah!

I'm not even sure on that explaination. It seems to me that the church itself was the primary will of God, in order to redeem mankind. The church wasn't established in the will of God because Israel rejected their King. God used their rejection, that He already knew would happen, and used that to fulfill his ultimate goal - the cross and through that, the redemption of man.