Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Iconoclast, Jun 10, 2011.
Here is a new article on end times;
The first and only teaching I ever head about eschatology was from a dispensational viewpoint, until around 1978. In the mid-to-late 1960s into the 1970s, the events in Israel and the Middle East had stirred an interest in the end times. It seems as if there were Prophecy Conferences on every corner.
Since that was the only view I had ever heard, it was a shock to me one Sunday when my pastor preached a sermon from a post-tribulational (Historic Pre-Mil) viewpoint. Right after the benediction, several of us headed to where he was to challenge him.
He held up his hands and said, "Guys, we're not going to debate this today. Before we talk about it, I have an assignment for you. Find me a clear, unmistakable, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation scripture passage which clearly teaches a pre-trib rapture. Find two if you can. Bring 'em with you next week and we'll talk."
Shoot, this was going to be easy, I thought.
Couldn't find any.
That day, I abandoned the dispy view.
HEY. . . What is the reformed view on end times?
Enjoyed the article
Hope our futurists friends will invest a little quality time in reading the article and ponder it just a bit.
Most of the men are amillenial, although most of the puritans seem to have been post-millenial. They agree on about 80% of the teaching, so originally i thought I was reading some amillenial ideas....later found out that the writer was post-millenial.
They differ on the condition of the world before the Lord's return.
Post mills see the gospel being victorious in converting most persons in the world. like this;
The amillenial see the gospel going worldwide and being victorious but only in that it accomplishes God's design in harvesting the elect out of the nations.
They do not look for a majority of converted people.
People resist these teachings or verses ,because of the false ideas put out in our lifetime that we are the last generation,hanging on by a thread ,waiting for the rapture to rescue us,from the anti-christ....
Gary Demar with american vision,and Ken Gentry...are putting out material and teaching that historically was held by the reformers and puritans . many people do not like it because it forces them to re-think some ideas they were taught,and as usual...most who object cannot explain the positions accurately....much less disagree solidly.
The following week, you were challanged thus: "Find me a scripture passage which teaches Jehovah God cut a covenant of works, and or a covenant of redemption and or a covenant of grace with sinful man. Find two if you can. Bring 'em with you next week and we'll talk."
Of course we don't talk about such things do we?
It's late at night, I'm tired and not thinking too well. What doctrine are you talking about that I won't find scripture for?
Is it like the challenge to find the words Trinity or rapture in the Bible?
Thank for such a thoughtful answer to my question. You always present level-headed responses when someone asks you a direct question.
You abandoned it that day before or after the "challenge" and before you discussed it further with him? You allowed an argument from silence to sway you?
I did discuss it with the pastor. At length.
He knocked down all of my proof texts by two methods. One, by re-asking the question: "where does this passage say the rapture is pre-trib?"
Two, by providing an alternate interpretation.
Just curious what made the alternate view the correct one in your estimation? Did you consider your view may be the correct one...and he "shot down" each of your passages using his presuppositions?
Dinosaurs are not directly mentioned in the Bible, but I think it's safe to say their existence to be true
I enjoy your posts as you take the word of God as it is.The word of God.
We are all learning and are meant to edify each other. I am still learning and as i get older and learn more...it is easier to see how much I did not know before,lol......
It is sort of like....new super improved tide.....how bad was the first tide, if it had to be improved, then super improved!
What I enjoy with the postmill writers is they are concerned about how we live now,as well as then. Some of the others views teach the world is going to hell in a handbasket,so why polish brass on a sinking ship.
The puritans saw the great commission as to what we are supposed to be about in all spheres of life.
The alternate view he presented was Historical Pre-Milleniumism--Post-Trib Second Coming. He pointed out some passages that were clearly and unmistakably post-trib--and noted that most so-called pre-trib passages could also be interpreted as post-trib.
I have to say that the best I can say is that Historic Pre-Mil is where I am today, but I can't guarantee I'll be there tomorrow.
Where is that passage,Proverbs maybe, that says that some of us will adopt the position of the last person to talk with us.
One recent conversation was with an A-Mil. I'm getting this strange feeling......
You Post-Mils, stay away.
:laugh: I feel your pain, the more I study the more questions that pop up.I have finally come to the conclusion I'm never going to have it all figured out because there are problems with every view. After 10 years of on and off study, I have narrowed my position to somewhere on the preterist side.
My comment was clear enough but I will repeat it; "Find me a scripture passage which teaches Jehovah God cut a covenant of works, and or a covenant of redemption and or a covenant of grace with sinful man."
I asked for the teaching, the doctrine, not the words such as in the doctrine of the trinity. Did you know Tom that the word Covnent is in the Bible? So, it should be easy enough for a savy student of the word such as yourself, one who is so sure that the Bible doesn't support a pre-mil theology to demonstrate where the Bible teaches the above mentioned covenants.
I see some merit in all the views: Futurist, Historical, Amil, Preterist.
'Partial Preterist Amil' best describes me now.
I'm unable to read the NT without automatically applying the 'Preterist Modifier' to the interpretation though.
Actually, I do think the Bible does support a pre-mil theology. I'm currently pre-mil, post-trib.
With regard to the covenants, I confess only a cursory knowledge. It will help if you will outline your position on each of the ones you mentioned to I'll know where you're going with this. I'm teachable.
If this is the case, you may consider clearing all of the clutter out of your mind and start a study of the differences between (Reformed) Covenant and Dispensational theology. This is where the real debate is, not pre, post, A or whatever mil you are. It all comes down to what rules do you hold to while interpreting the Bible. Are you consistant, do you take the words of the Bible literally or do you assign meaning to the words that are not in accordence with normal useage?
You will notice a certain sameness with the arguements between the Covenant crowd, who may be preterist, A-Mill or Post-Mill and dispensationalists. I do not think it possible to be pre-mil, post trib and not be included in the covenant camp.
The ironic thing about covenant thinkers is that they really don't believe the actual covenants are to be taken literally or that those promises belong to another, not those who the covenants were made with. Dispensationalist on the other hand take those covenants seriously. In a strange way, dispensationalist are more deserving of the title covenant theologians on account that dispensationalists base their theology on actual Biblical covenants while the covenant theologians talk about non-existant covenants: works, grace, redemption.
Thanks for the explanation. I had noticed in reading years ago the connection between dispensationalism and the covenants. I read J. Dwight Pentecost's book Things to Come, which fleshed out that view pretty thoroughly.
I didn't plug in the covenant stuff to arrive at my Historical Pre-Mil position. So you're suggesting that if I'm Reformed (as in Calvinist), my view is inconsistent? In other words, if I believe A, I have to believe B?
I can see the argument. And I do know a couple of DoGs who are A-Mil and they're pretty smart. I have read a lot about A-Mil, I'm just not there yet.
The way I view it, Calvinism describes sinful man's condition before a Holy God (TULIP). Covenant (reformed) theology or dispensationalism are methods (or tools) for interpreting the Bible. It is therefore possible to be dispensational and a Calvinist or Arminian, same would apply to Covenantial thinking. However it is not possible to be dispensational and not pre-mil, nor is it possible to be A-mill or Post-Mill without being Covenantial. A major deciding factor being is the Church today in an exclusive covenant relationship with Jehovah and has the Church either replaced Israel as a Covenant people or has Jehovah terminated his covenants with the Jews.
Covenant theology teaches 3 covenants throughout the human experience, the covenant of works, redemption and grace. My question to you is where does the Bible teach any of the three covenants. Jehovah is certainly capable of making a covenant, if you study the covenant God make with Abraham you will see the pattern, two parties with terms and conditions. A search of the Covenant of Grace in the Bible is a frustrating experience. True, we are saved by God's grace but where is there a covenant of grace?
The New Covenant Jesus spoke about is defined in Jer ch 31. Study that passage of scripture and try to make the church as we know it fit the description. If you say the church meets the Jer 31 description then you can call yourself a covenant theologian. If you find that what Jer 31 describes is not realized in the church then you may consider that the enactment of that covenant is future, which means that the Kingdom of Christ is future.
There are smart Roman Catholics, does their smartness make them correct? There are smart reformed and dispensational thinkers, someone has to be wrong, agree? How then do you determine who is right? Do you read a passage of scripture and accept what your favorite scholar thinks or what the reformers of the 16th century believed or do you allow the plain meaning of the words of the Scriptures with the Holy Spirit direct your faith? That is the question my friend.