How many here hold to either post/historical pre mil views?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Yeshua1, Nov 16, 2015.

  1. Yeshua1

    Yeshua1
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    16,990
    Likes Received:
    46
    As historical pre mil viewpoints seem to be what many ECF held with, as well as some prominent reformed since reformation time, especially among reformed baptists?
     
  2. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    I hold to a historical premillennialist, covenantal approach to eschatology.
     
  3. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    I hold to historical pre-mil
     
  4. robustheologian

    robustheologian
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2015
    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    119
    I also hold to what the Church fathers held to...covenant premillennialism (historic premillennialism).
     
  5. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    33
    Lot of Scripture support the classic Pre-mill view. I haven't discounted the A-mill view, but the case for historic Pre-mill is strong.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. tyndale1946

    tyndale1946
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2001
    Messages:
    6,179
    Likes Received:
    226
    A-mill with a 1st Century strong historic base... To me you cannot discount history... Brother Glen
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Both the historic or covenant premillennial view and the amillennial view of eschatology are acceptable doctrinely since both have a correct view of the Church For which Jesus Christ died. This dispensational view is that held by Yeshua1 and a majority of the BB people' according to some of the moderators. I personally believe the amillennial view is preferable!

    The dispenmsational theology, based on the experience of John Nelson Darby following a riding accident, is a false doctrine since it negates the work of Jesus Christ in HIS founding of the Church!
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    The earliest accounts show this is actually the teaching of the Apostles. They expected the Lord's return and establishment of an earthly rule wiping out all enemies of the Way. A few notables were: Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Iraneous.

    A notable person who turned away from the pre-mil thinking was Augustine sometime around 400. Because (imo) of his teaching the "church" throughout the middle ages up to this day, teach some form or another of the A-mil view. Btw, Augustine was also dispensational in that He held to two dispensations. :)

    Augustine (imo) did not like that those who clung to a Pre-mil view were more often jovial in their outlook, feasts, and eschatology. He also did not desire that much of the prophetic be taken as literal, but as allegorical, (imo) so that the sting and rebuke would not rest upon him and the church. Because of the desire to stamp out any view inconsistent with his own, Augustine's view became accepted, and the dominant view and teaching not only through the middle ages, but up to about the mid 1800's.

    This is just one of the reasons that I rejected that view, and sought what was the most closely aligned and took the Scriptures as purely as possible which is the classic and historic Pre-mil. The view that was original to the teaching of the Apostles and the earliest accounts of the formation of the redeemed.
     
  9. OldRegular

    OldRegular
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    53
    Polycarp, Justin Martyr, Iraneous were Apostles????????????


    Now I know why you use the moniker "agedman"! Debating Augustine must have sharpened your wits.
     
  10. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    Well, that was poor sentence structure. :)

    The point being that not only the Apostle teaching, but the earliest ones of those esteemed held to that teaching.

    Oh well.



    No matter what I said, he just kept bringing up someone in the future named Darby! :)

    That reminds me (a bit off topic) but I actually began to investigate Darby, and to my surprise, he was not only Baptist but one of the founders of "Brethren." Typical of the lawyer training, he was looked to as a leader in a system that rejects leaders. :)

    Got a lot more to read, but I can say, he was a theologian, and though I disagree on some points of his eschatological thinking, is (imo) worth understanding when it comes to worship. But again, never having read anything of substance about or from that man, I have much much more to investigate.
     
  11. TCassidy

    TCassidy
    Expand Collapse
    Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2005
    Messages:
    12,121
    Likes Received:
    1,297
    I am a Chilliast (historic Pre-mil).
     
  12. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    33
    I have no issue with the Historic Pre-mill view obviously. I do however believe that it is a mistake to offer those names as proof that the Apostle taught Pre-mill. If we use Martyr and Irenaeus as proof that the Apostles taught the Pre-mill view, then one would have to accept that the Apostles taught baptismal regeneration. That is view of baptism that Irenaeus and Martyr had. Baptists disagree with Martyr and Irenaeus on this doctrine......they clearly lost their way on this. If they failed here, they could have easily failed with their view of the Millennium. I think it best for Historic Pre-Mill to stand on Scripture and not the names of Martyr and Irenaeus.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
    #12 McCree79, Nov 21, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2015
    • Like Like x 2
  13. preachinjesus

    preachinjesus
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member
    Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    7,406
    Likes Received:
    99
    Writing as a historical pre-mill proponent, one might well point out that Papias, who appears to a student of the Apostle John, was an early pre-mill advocate that had some concept of a pre-tribulation rapture. The data is too limited to make a significant conclusion.

    BTW, a futurist reading of Revelation was foreign to the earliest churches through the patristic period. Most of them took an idealist or historicist view.
     
  14. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    Attempting to say that because a person is wrong in one area then they are wrong in all areas doesn't work. Baptismal regeneration is a totally separate issue then what was taught concerning the eschatology.

    There are some theological groups that do hold to baptismal regeneration, and just because the "Baptists" consider the thinking misguided doesn't discredit everything taught. Baptismal regeneration is like many other topics in what I call the shadows. But this is not the thread to discuss that issue.

    The point - earliest accounts of the teaching of those directly taught by the Apostles was that of the pre-mil view and it isn't a mistake to point to the history as proof of that foundation.
     
  15. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    33
    Then we would say the earliest accounts of baptism taught by the Apostles must be baptismal regeneration. You can't have it both ways. If Martyr and Irenaeus are proof that the Apostles taught Pre-mill, then the same argument holds true for baptism.

    Fact is, we don't know what the Apostles taught. We only have Scripture and we interpret.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    Actually we do as reflected in the teaching of there students.

    The students of the apostles were taught the priority of baptism as an ordinance. That the matter was corrupted is no different then the other doctrines the enemy desired to pervert.

    I have read what writings I can find
    and some of the accounts of there disciples and to date I haven't found that they actually taught baptismal regeneration. However, I do see that teaching as part of the earliest folks that would eventually be associated with papists.

    The problem I have faced time and again is the modification by the papists to form the early followers and students of the Apostles views to their own, usually to hold some power over the ignorant. This happens the closer one gets to the accounts and teaching by folks of the 400's and later.
     
  17. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    33
    From Baker's "Christian History" textbook, p.38; " according to Justin Martyr *(1st confession ch 61 &66) baptism completes salvation. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 1.21 & 3.17) bodly asserted that baptism is the new birth and brings regeneration.

    Irenaeus stated...."And when we come to refute them [i.e. those heretics], we shall show in its fitting-place, that this class of men have been instigated by Satan to a denial of that baptism which is regeneration to God, and thus to a renunciation of the whole [Christian] faith." (A.H., I.21)

    Martyr stated; "been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined." (Chapter 66)

    If Martyr and Irenaeus had already lost their way on baptism here, makes me extremely hesitant to say they were Pre-mill, because the Apostles taught Pre-mill. Obviously they did not reflect all apostolic teachings. I would not offer their names in support of doctrine. Scripture is strong enough without them. Using Martyr and Irenaeus as sources of proof of apostolic teachings, will naturally support baptismal regeneration. We can't cherry pick their beliefs and say, "this is proof of apostolic teachings", but ignore the rests of those doctrines that we disagree with.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
    #17 McCree79, Nov 25, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015
  18. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    Perhaps then one should revisit the actual purpose of Baptism and how the earliest holders did view it. Perhaps there is wrong teaching today on the subject and not wrong teaching then.
     
  19. McCree79

    McCree79
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    1,126
    Likes Received:
    33
    So you hold to baptismal regeneration? If so you argument is consistent.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  20. agedman

    agedman
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    4,248
    Likes Received:
    184
    At no time have I held such.

    What I am suggesting is that perhaps baptismal regeneration needs to be revisited if in deed the early disciples who were taught directly by the Apostles did in fact teach and practice that view. Perhaps this modern age has in fact been in error and inconsistent with that earliest teaching.

    But that isn't for this thread.

    I just started another thread, and if you want to persue this topic, it would be appropriate to start one, too. :)
     

Share This Page

Loading...