Why Did You Become A Premillennialist?

TCGreek · Oct 9, 2007

1. Did anyone come to BB as either Amil or Postmil and after several interactions became a Premil? If you were then converted to Premil, WHAT did it for you?

2. Or you were a Premil and became an Amil or Postmil, WHAT did it for you? (I sense that this question is a silly one). :laugh:

Alex Quackenbush · Oct 9, 2007

It's obvious...so I wouldn't miss the Rapture. :laugh:

saturneptune · Oct 9, 2007

Alex Quackenbush said:

It's obvious...so I wouldn't miss the Rapture. :laugh:
Click to expand...

That is pre trib, not premil.

Alex Quackenbush · Oct 9, 2007

saturneptune said:

That is pre trib, not premil.
Click to expand...

Right...my response was über serious too. Sheesh. Take a pill already before someone suspects you of being a Calvinist!:laugh:

TCGreek · Oct 9, 2007

Alex Quackenbush said:

Right...my response was über serious too. Sheesh. Take a pill already before someone suspects you of being a Calvinist!:laugh:
Click to expand...

I love it! :laugh:

saturneptune · Oct 9, 2007

Quackenbush, did you say Quackenbush? Sounds like the President in an AFLAC commerical.

Alex Quackenbush · Oct 9, 2007

saturneptune said:

Quackenbush, did you say Quackenbush? Sounds like the President in an AFLAC commerical.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, when left empty handed resort to the ol' insult. :laugh: :laugh: Tsk tsk you succumb so quickly.

saturneptune · Oct 9, 2007

Alex Quackenbush said:

Ah yes, when left empty handed resort to the ol' insult. :laugh: :laugh: Tsk tsk you succumb so quickly.
Click to expand...

I guess you realize you were picked for that name before the foundation of the earth.

PASTOR MHG · Oct 10, 2007

Neither of the questions in the OP apply to me, however, to answer the question in the title... "why did you become a premill?"

Because I read the scripture and believed what it said, as it said it! Call me crazy!:laugh:

Max

Aaron · Oct 10, 2007

I don't think you'll find many who were changed because of their interactions on the BB, but I'll tell you why I believed Premillennialism and then changed to Amillennialism.

I was RLDS in my early years. Baptized at the age of 10 and was taught the RLDS form of premillennialism.

Shortly thereafter, for reasons that were not explained to me, my parents quit the RLDS church and began bringing us to the local Baptist church. I was too unversed in the Scriptures to know the difference between the RLDS and Baptist Churches. Anyway, the successive pastors there all preached Premillennialism and that's what I believed.

Though we attended the Baptist Church, I had Charismatic friends and was drawn to their form of worship. So though I attended on Sunday mornings with my parents, Wednesdays and Sunday nights belonged to the Charismatics, who also believe and preach Premillennialism. (Both my parents grew up as Pentecostals, then converted to RLDS, then left the RLDS for the Baptist church, and now they're both back at the Pentecostal church they attended as children.)

In my college years, God gave me a spiritual hunger and I spent most of my time studying the Bible. It was in the university library where I studied the history of Mormonism, the Book of Mormon, and compared and contrasted their teachings with the teaching of the Scriptures.

It was in the systematic, study of the Scriptures that I finally cast off the trappings of Mormonism, Charismania, and Baptist-Pentecostalism. I found the claims of Premillennialism unsupported and actually contradicted by the Gospels and the Epistles. So I cast off Premillennialism.

Seeing this as a kind of epiphany, I confessed my faith in the Christ of the Protestant Bible and was baptized in a Baptist church in 1985.

I didn't become Amillennial immediately. I didn't really know how to approach Revelation. After studying the four main views, I found Amillennialism to best explain Revelation, and settled with it.

Of course, one can't study the Scriptures without seeing the doctrine of Election. It was then that I understood just how sufficient Christ's grace was for me, and I was completely free. I other words, I became a Calvinist.

webdog · Oct 10, 2007

It was in the systematic, study of the Scriptures that I finally cast off the trappings of Mormonism, Charismania, and Baptist-Pentecostalism. I found the claims of Premillennialism unsupported and actually contradicted by the Gospels and the Epistles. So I cast off Premillennialism.
Click to expand...

Well, here's your problem. You don't study Scripture through a systematic theological view.

Aaron · Oct 10, 2007

You think I have a family member who hasn't attempted to educate me about the error of my ways? But I can't wait to hear your lesson. Please, do elaborate O enlightened one.

webdog · Oct 10, 2007

Aaron said:

You think I have a family member who hasn't attempted to educate me about the error of my ways? But I can't wait to hear your lesson. Please, do elaborate O enlightened one.
Click to expand...

With sarcasm like that, I'm sure you really have an open heart to the truth
I won't be wasting my time. Just continue to depend on interpreting Scripture through your systematic theology.

Aaron · Oct 10, 2007

Do you even know what systematic theology is?

Allan · Oct 12, 2007

oops - double post

Allan · Oct 12, 2007

This is from John MacArthur's commentary from Rev 20, regarding Premill and contrasting it with both Postmill and Amill:

16—The Coming Earthly Kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ (20:1–10)

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold of the dragon, the serpent of old, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years; and he threw him into the abyss, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he would not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were completed; after these things he must be released for a short time

Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (20:1–10).

Imagine a world dominated by righteousness and goodness, a world where there is no injustice, where no court ever renders an unjust verdict, and where everyone is treated fairly. Imagine a world where what is true, right, and noble marks every aspect of life, including interpersonal relations, commerce, education, and government. Imagine a world where there is complete, total, enforced, and permanent peace, where joy abounds and good health prevails, so much so that people live for hundreds of years. Imagine a world where the curse is removed, where the environment is restored to the pristine purity of the Garden of Eden, where peace reigns even in the animal kingdom, so that “the wolf will dwell with the lamb, and the leopard will lie down with the young goat, and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little boy will lead them” (Isa. 11:6). Imagine a world ruled by a perfect, glorious Ruler, who instantly and firmly deals with sin.

Humanly speaking, that description may seem far-fetched, a utopian fantasy that could never be reality. Yet it accurately describes conditions during the future earthly kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The restored and radically reconstructed earth of the millennial kingdom will constitute paradise regained. The thousand-year reign of the Savior over the earth is the divinely planned and promised culmination of all of redemptive history and the realization of the hope of all the saints of all the ages.

The millennial kingdom is called by many names in Scripture. In Matthew 19:28 Jesus calls it “the regeneration.” Acts 3:19 describes the kingdom as “times of refreshing,” while verse 21 of that chapter calls it “the period of restoration of all things.” The apostle Paul refers to it in Ephesians 1:10 as “an administration suitable to the fullness of the times.”

The Bible’s teaching on the kingdom is not confined to the New Testament. The kingdom is an important theme throughout Scripture; it is the goal toward which all of redemptive history progresses. In the words of John Bright, “The Bible is one book. Had we to give that book a title, we might with justice call it ‘The Book of the Coming Kingdom of God’” (The Kingdom of God [Nashville: Abingdon, 1953], 197; italics in original). Among the many Old Testament passages that speak of the earthly kingdom are Deuteronomy 30:1–5; 2 Samuel 7:12–16; Psalm 2:6–12; Isaiah 2:2–4; 11:1–10; 12:1–6; 24:23; 32:15–20; 35:1–2; 60:10–18; 65:20–22; Jeremiah 3:14–18; 23:5–6; 30:3; 31:35–40; 33:14–18; Ezekiel 34:23–24; 36:16–38; 37:15–28; Daniel 2:44–45; Hosea 3:4–5; Joel 3:18–21; Amos 9:11–15; Micah 4:1–8; Zephaniah 3:14–20; and Zechariah 14:9–11.

God’s kingdom may be broadly defined as the sphere in which He reigns. In its universal, eternal sense, God’s kingdom encompasses everything that exists, because God is the sovereign ruler over all of His creation. David declared that truth in Psalm 103:19: “The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over all.” Historically, God has mediated His rule on earth through His people, first through Adam and Eve, then Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Joshua, the judges of Israel (including Samuel), and the kings of Israel and Judah. In the present era, God mediates His rule politically through human governments (Rom. 13:1–7) and spiritually through the church (Acts 20:25; Rom. 14:17; Col. 1:13). In the millennial kingdom, the political and religious elements of God’s temporal, earthly rule will be reunited in the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Taking the text of Revelation 20 (and the numerous other biblical passages that speak of the earthly kingdom) at face value leads to a premillennial view of eschatology. That is, Christ will return, and then establish a literal kingdom on earth, which will last for a thousand years. There are two other major views of the Millennium in addition to premillennialism: postmillennialism and amillennialism.

Postmillennialism is in some ways the opposite of premillennialism. Premillennialism teaches that Christ will return before the Millennium; postmillennialism teaches that He will return at the end of the Millennium. Premillennialism teaches that the period immediately before Christ’s return will be the worst in human history; postmillennialism teaches that before His return will come the best period in history, so that Christ will return at the end of a long golden age of peace and harmony. (Most postmillennialists deny that the Millennium will last for one thousand actual years; they arbitrarily view that number as symbolic of a long period of time.) “The millennium to which the postmillennialist looks forward is thus a golden age of prosperity during this present dispensation, that is, during the Church Age” (Loraine Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views Robert G. Clouse, ed. [Downers Grove, Ill: InterVarsity, 1977], 117). That golden age, according to postmillennialism, will result from the spread of the gospel throughout the world and the conversion of a majority of the human race to Christianity. Thus “Christ will return to a truly Christianized world” (Boettner, “Postmillennialism,” 118). The millennial kingdom, according to postmillennialists, will be established by the church, not by the personal intervention of Jesus Christ. Nor will Christ reign personally on earth during the Millennium, but rather through His church.

In keeping with the generally optimistic views of those eras, postmillennialism flourished in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The impact of the Enlightenment, the Industrial Revolution, the rapid pace of scientific discovery, and Darwin’s theory of evolution convinced many that society was progressing inevitably toward a utopia. That optimistic view was in harmony with postmillennialism, which also teaches that the world is going to get better and better (though by different means). But the numbing horror of the First World War, the moral decadence of the Roaring Twenties, the hard times of the Great Depression, the madness of the Nazi’s slaughter of the Jews, and the worldwide catastrophe of the Second World War brought an end to the naive optimism that had prevailed before World War I. Postmillennialism accordingly also declined in popularity. In recent years, however, there has been a resurgence of postmillennialism in such movements as Liberation Theology, Kingdom Theology, and Theonomy.
Click to expand...

The rest in to follow.

Allan · Oct 12, 2007

Here is the rest of it.

The name “amillennialism” is somewhat misleading, since it implies that amillennialists do not believe in a millennium. While it is true that they reject the concept of an earthly millennium, and especially one that is actually a Millennium (one thousand years in duration), amillennialists do believe in a kingdom. They believe the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah’s kingdom are being fulfilled now, either by the saints reigning with Christ in heaven, or (spiritually, not literally) by the church on earth. (Amillennialists would also apply some of those Old Testament prophecies to the eternal state.) Far from disbelieving in the Millennium, amillennialists believe we are in it now: “As far as the thousand years of Revelation 20 are concerned, we are in the millennium now” (Anthony A. Hoekema, “Amillennialism,” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Clouse, 181).

There is absolutely no exegetical reason or source for this conclusion and no warrant for abandoning the historical, grammatical hermeneutic when interpreting prophecy. Such is purely an arbitrary act on the part of the interpreter, based on his presuppositions. Furthermore, there is no reason to deny a literal one thousand years as the duration of the kingdom of Christ on earth. Robert L. Thomas writes:

If the writer wanted a very large symbolic number, why did he not use 144,000 (7:1ff.; 14:1ff., 200,000,000 (9:16), “ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands” (5:11), or an incalculably large number (7:9)? The fact is that no number in Revelation is verifiably a symbolic number. On the other hand, nonsymbolic usage of numbers is the rule. It requires multiplication of a literal 12,000 by a literal twelve to come up with 144,000 in 7:4–8. The churches, seals, trumpets, and bowls are all literally seven in number. The three unclean spirits of 16:13 are actually three in number. The three angels connected with the three last woes (8:13) add up to a total of three. The seven last plagues amount to exactly seven. The equivalency of 1,260 days and three and a half years necessitate a nonsymbolic understanding of both numbers. The twelve apostles and the twelve tribes of Israel are literally twelve (21:12–14). The seven churches are in seven literal cities. Yet confirmation of a single number in Revelation as symbolic is impossible. (Revelation 8–22: An Exegetical Commentary [Chicago: Moody, 1995], 408–9)

It is highly doubtful that any symbolic number would be repeated six times in a text, as one thousand is here.

For the first century and a half after the close of the New Testament era, the church was largely premillennial. Among the church fathers of that period who believed in a literal thousand-year earthly Millennium were Papias (a disciple of the apostle John), Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. That premillennial consensus was challenged by the members of the Alexandrian school (most notably Origen), who advocated an allegorical approach to interpreting Scripture. The famous church historian Eusebius also rejected a literal, earthly Millennium, as did the noted Bible scholar Jerome. But it was the influence of Augustine, the greatest theologian of the early church, that ensured that amillennialism would dominate the church for centuries. Amillennialism was the view of the Reformers, and today most scholars in the Reformed tradition are amillennialists.

At the heart of the debate over millennial views is the issue of hermeneutics. All sides in the debate agree that interpreting Old Testament prophecy literally leads naturally to premillennialism. Amillennialist Floyd E. Hamilton candidly acknowledges that truth: “Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of an earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures” (The Basis of Millennial Faith [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1942], 38). Postmillennialist Loraine Boettner agrees with Hamilton’s assessment: “It is generally agreed that if the prophecies are taken literally, they do foretell a restoration of the nation of Israel in the land of Palestine with the Jews having a prominent place in that kingdom and ruling over the other nations” (“A Postmillennial Response [to Dispensational Premillennialism],” in The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views, ed. Clouse, 95).

In light of the above admissions, the question that naturally arises is “Why not take the Old Testament prophecies of the Millennium literally?” Those who reject a literal interpretation argue that the New Testament appears to interpret some Old Testament prophecies nonliterally. But in most cases, the New Testament is not interpreting those prophecies, but merely applying principles found in them. In fact, scores of Old Testament prophecies relating to Christ’s first coming were literally fulfilled.

There are several compelling reasons for interpreting Old Testament prophecies literally.

First, if the literal sense of a passage is rejected, who is to determine what the nonliteral or spiritual sense is, since the normal rules of interpretation do not apply? Walter C. Kaiser, Jr., poses the dilemma:

Who or what will arbitrate among the various [nonliteral] meanings suggested and decide which are to be accepted as authoritative and which are spurious? Short of saying that every person’s fancy is his or her own rule, there does not appear to be any final court of appeal…. There simply are no justifiable criteria for setting boundaries once the interpreter departs from the normal usage of language. (Back Toward the Future [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1989], 129–30)

Second, adopting a nonliteral view of the Old Testament kingdom prophecies raises some disturbing questions: What did those prophecies mean to those to whom they were addressed? If prophecies seemingly addressed to Israel really apply to the church (which did not exist at that time), did God give revelation that failed to reveal? And if those prophecies were meant to apply symbolically to the church, why were they addressed to Israel? What meaning could such prophecies have in their historical settings? Ironically, many who spiritualize Old Testament prophecies reject the futurist interpretation of Revelation because it allegedly robs the book of its meaning for those to whom it was written. Yet they do the very same thing with the Old Testament kingdom prophecies.

Third, spiritualizing those prophecies leads to some glaring inconsistencies. It is inconsistent to argue that the cursings they pronounce apply literally to Israel, while the blessings they promise apply symbolically and spiritually to the church. An example of inconsistency in the spiritualizing method of interpreting prophecy comes from the angel Gabriel’s words to Mary in Luke 1:31–33:

“And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; and He will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and His kingdom will have no end.”

If, as all conservative scholars agree, Jesus was literally conceived in Mary’s womb, literally named “Jesus,” literally became great, was literally “the Son of the Most High,” will He not also literally reign on David’s throne over Israel? Can the same passage be interpreted both literally and nonliterally? Further, both amillennialists and postmillennialists interpret some prophetic events literally, such as Christ’s second coming, the Great White Throne judgment, and the new heavens and the new earth. Why not interpret the millennial kingdom literally? Finally, amillennialists and postmillennialists interpret the nonprophetic portions of Scripture according to the literal, historical, grammatical, and contextual method of hermeneutics; why adopt a different method for interpreting prophecy? Such an adoption is utterly arbitrary.

Though not an exhaustive description of the earthly kingdom, this text caps off all the biblical revelation about the Millennium by revealing four essential truths about it: the removal of Satan, the reign of the saints, the return of Satan, and the revolt of society
Click to expand...

I figured since this thread was about Premill, I would give J. MacArthur's thoughts.

thomas15 · Oct 12, 2007

Aaron said:

Do you even know what systematic theology is?
Click to expand...

Aaron, It is very obvious that you have studied theology and I give you a lot of credit for that. Of course, pre/post and so fourth are not show stoppers as there have been men used of God throughout history on both sides of the coin.

I don't know you Aaron. I guess though what comes to mind reading your posts is the thought that you wander around from theology to theology. Not to argue that a person should stick to one theology to avoid change or to be stubborn. But there is a certain defensive quality in the tone of your words.

This leads me to believe that (right or wrong) you may change your position again if you find it convenient, which is of course is your right to do. This is just my observation, please don't be offended.

Tom

Allan · Oct 12, 2007

thomas15 said:

Aaron, It is very obvious that you have studied theology and I give you a lot of credit for that. Of course, pre/post and so fourth are not show stoppers as there have been men used of God throughout history on both sides of the coin.

I don't know you Aaron. I guess though what comes to mind reading your posts is the thought that you wander around from theology to theology. Not to argue that a person should stick to one theology to avoid change or to be stubborn. But there is a certain defensive quality in the tone of your words.

This leads me to believe that (right or wrong) you may change your position again if you find it convenient, which is of course is your right to do. This is just my observation, please don't be offended.

Tom
Click to expand...

I'm not Aaron but if I may:
I would not say he would change when he finds it convient but biblcally necessary. You may know all there is to know about scripture and therefore have never needed to change a thing in your understanding. But the rest of us have and will do so as we continue to grow in Christ and yes, modify or even change our views as God reveals faults there in.

webdog · Oct 12, 2007

Aaron said:

Do you even know what systematic theology is?
Click to expand...

In case you don't...
"Systematic theology is the attempt to formulate a coherent philosophy which is applicable to the component parts of a given faith's system of belief. Inherent to a system of theological thought is that a method is developed, one which can be applied both broadly and particularly"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic theology

Why Did You Become A Premillennialist?

TCGreek New Member

Alex Quackenbush New Member

saturneptune New Member

Alex Quackenbush New Member

TCGreek New Member

saturneptune New Member

Alex Quackenbush New Member

saturneptune New Member

PASTOR MHG New Member

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

thomas15 Well-Known Member

Allan Active Member

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Useful Searches

Why Did You Become A Premillennialist?

TCGreek New Member

Alex Quackenbush New Member

saturneptune New Member

Alex Quackenbush New Member

TCGreek New Member

saturneptune New Member

Alex Quackenbush New Member

saturneptune New Member

PASTOR MHG New Member

Aaron Member Site Supporter

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

Aaron Member Site Supporter

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

Aaron Member Site Supporter

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

Allan Active Member

thomas15 Well-Known Member

Allan Active Member

webdog Active Member Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter

Aaron Member
Site Supporter

webdog Active Member
Site Supporter