Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by D.A.S., Feb 6, 2009.
I didn't see this post already which surprised me a little. It was inevitable so here it is.
Roger Williams (First Baptist In America)
Waldenses (Oldest Church Denomination)
London Baptist Confession
D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Edwards Bishop Elliott
Francisco Ribera (First Futurist)
John Nelson Darby
Lewis Sperry Chafer
J. Barton Payne
Luis de Alcazar (First Preterist)
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 can add "webdog" to futurist
I'd be under futurist, but I would likely name it Biblicist (just kidding) :tonofbricks:
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 agree, I'm with you guys :wavey:
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.
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.
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 years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." (Roberts, 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).)
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:
I didn't know what you were looking for so I asked you to define your terms.
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:
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).
"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.
You can't miss it. Church historians haven't.
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.
No, they don't.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
I agree with then but you immediately state following:
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.
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.
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?
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:
Mid-trib is a misnomer. I prefer pre-wrath. Tribulation is not wrath nor is the great tribulation.
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)
Prior to God's wrath
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?