Eschatology: Survey says . . . !!!

[Jac3510]

Just to take a brief survey. For the past couple of years, whenever someone comes along and makes mention of anything regarding the end times, PL immediately pulls out the old stock preterist arguments. I've not seen many people dispute them. To the contrary, I've seen more support than anything else.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of dispensational premill's are sadly undereducated, but isn't that the case with Christians in general? So I'm just curious as to who falls into what camps. That is all.

[Canuckster1127]

I'm a futurist. Premill, Post-trib.

[Jac3510]

I'm sort of surprised at the results so far - no registered preterists?

For the confused vote, a preterist is a person who believes that all the prophecies relating to the last days (i.e., those in Revelation, Matthew's Olivet Discourse, Daniel, etc.) were fulfilled no later than AD 70 when the Jewish Temple was destroyed by the Romans. That means the Antichrist (or the "beast" as they call him) has already come and gone, there is no rapture, yada, yada, yada. Most believe that the only thing left to happen is the Second Coming of Christ.

Futurists believe that those events are yet future. We are still waiting on them. Most believe in a rapture, although there is a deep divide over whether the rapture happens before or after the seven year tribulation.

Votes are changable, btw.

I'm a dispensational premill (pre-trib), so I voted futurist.

[zoegirl]

But as with most surveys, you need to be cautious with the results. Why do they believe? Is this just what they have been taught? Or read with the LaHaye books? Honestly, I think that view is the most well-known simply because of those books.

Isn't there another option? post-mil? or is that simply preterist?

[Jac3510]

By and large, most post-mills are preterist. Technically, there are two other positions a person can take: idealism and historicism. But if someone here actually holds those (I doubt it), then they should be familiar enough with the terminology to explain their view.

Now, obviously, theology isn't decided by the popular vote (thank God). I don't consider it good or bad to see futurists, right now, so far ahead. It tells me that most are either uneducated on the details of the position and so can't debate it or they simply don't care enough to. One thing is for sure. I think preterists, by and large, understand their own position far better than do most futurists. The latter is easier to popularize and is rooted in a plain, straightforward reading of Scripture. You have to really study and buy into a long series of exegeses to become a preterist. I suppose some may consider that a strength . . .

[ttoews]

Amillenialist here.

The sad truth is that the vast majority of dispensational premill's are sadly undereducated, but isn't that the case with Christians in general?

Undereducated to explain their eschatology? Most certainly....to love their neighbour? Not at all....just undersanctified.

That means the Antichrist (or the "beast" as they call him) has already come and gone, there is no rapture, yada, yada, yada. Most believe that the only thing left to happen is the Second Coming of Christ.

Jac, I believe this might be a bit misleading....the rapture passages in Paul's epistles can be understood to be associated with the Second Coming....so from my view there still is a rapture (as described by Paul) that occurs at the 2nd Coming. Oddly, I hear this from pre-mill, post-tribs quite often.

The latter is easier to popularize and is rooted in a plain, straightforward reading of Scripture.

I don't think it "straightforward". Splitting Christ's Second Coming into a Second Coming, take one, and a Second Coming, take two, isn't straightfoward. For dispensationalists of a certain type, treating the Church as a plan "B" parenthesis isn't straightforward. For many millennialists, trying to maintain a "literal" interpretation isn't straightforward.

You have to really study and buy into a long series of exegeses to become a preterist. I suppose some may consider that a strength . . .

For the curious, Zondervan has a Counterpoints series that has three titles:
Three vIews on the Millennium and beyond
Four Views on the Book of Revelation
Three views on the Rapture.

Got 'em, read 'em, found 'em mighty useful.

[Kurieuo]

That means the Antichrist (or the "beast" as they call him) has already come and gone, there is no rapture, yada, yada, yada. Most believe that the only thing left to happen is the Second Coming of Christ.

Jac, I believe this might be a bit misleading....the rapture passages in Paul's epistles can be understood to be associated with the Second Coming....so from my view there still is a rapture (as described by Paul) that occurs at the 2nd Coming. Oddly, I hear this from pre-mill, post-tribs quite often.

I appreciate Jac's explanation (it was me who was undecided). However, now I understand the terms (does it show I have not really involved myself with eschatological discussions much? ), I am actually A-mill and so Preterist.

I too still see the rapture as associated with Jesus' second coming, so would not say Preterists dismiss the rapture. End times is not something I am particularly fussed over though, although if a pre-tribulation LeHaye-like eschatology is presented with non-Christians in the midst, I do often find myself feeling embarrassed.

[Jac3510]

Undereducated to explain their eschatology? Most certainly....to love their neighbour? Not at all....just undersanctified.

But as mentioned before, the undersantification is a Christian issue. I hardly think its centered on one camp.

Jac, I believe this might be a bit misleading....the rapture passages in Paul's epistles can be understood to be associated with the Second Coming....so from my view there still is a rapture (as described by Paul) that occurs at the 2nd Coming. Oddly, I hear this from pre-mill, post-tribs quite often.

It's not misleading. If you want to be TECHNICAL, then everyone believes in a "rapture." It's just that everyone outside the pre-Mill camp believes it happens at the Second Coming - Christians go right up to come right back down with Christ. But to quote PL, "That isn't much of a rapture." It's actually "misleading" to say that preterists believe in a "rapture," because--in our culture--the word "rapture" carries very specific images with it, which are firmly tied to the pre-trib position. So, I'd say that preterists do not believe in a "rapture." They believe in a "translation," which is the same thing--from the same word--but it is not misleading, because it avoids importing a false image in someone's mind who doesn't understand the nuances of these discussions.

I don't think it "straightforward". Splitting Christ's Second Coming into a Second Coming, take one, and a Second Coming, take two, isn't straightfoward. For dispensationalists of a certain type, treating the Church as a plan "B" parenthesis isn't straightforward. For many millennialists, trying to maintain a "literal" interpretation isn't straightforward.

You can argue, if you want, that a correct understanding of Scripture rejects the premil/dispensational view of things. But when men like Allis and Hamilton--who are both strongly anti-dispensational--say that dispensationalsim (and by extension, pre-tribulationism) rests on a "plain" or "literal" view of Scripture, then you've got some heavy weights against you. Now, those men view such a plain reading as naive. But to say that the popular view isn't based on the simplest understanding of the text is just silly. That would be like saying YEC is not based on a "plain" reading of the text. Everyone agrees that YEC has that in its corner--the apparent "obviousness" (at least in English) of the teaching.

I'm not using this as an argument in favor of futurism. I'm simply saying that your basic assertion is just . . . well . . . incorrect (and I have the primary defenders of your position in my corner on this--HEY LOOK AN APPEAL TO AUTHORITY FALLACY!!!)

[Jac3510]

I too still see the rapture as associated with Jesus' second coming, so would not say Preterists dismiss the rapture. End times is not something I am particularly fussed over though, although if a pre-tribulation LeHaye-like eschatology is presented with non-Christians in the midst, I do often find myself feeling embarrassed.

I've had my share of embarrassing moments listening to people try to defend dispensationalism. It is very easy to distinguish particular elements within the system, but when people start trying to put them together in a managable whole, you get garbage like Left Behind. Most people, I have found, are sensationalists in their understanding of the system, and worse yet, they want to go to the Revelation to create their theology of "the end times."

It is rather like salvation, I think. It is very, very simple on the surface, but once you start getting into the nitty gritty, you find yourself dealing with issues so deep and complicated that it is hard not to get lost in it all.

[B. W.]

I say — Futurist.

There is too much not yet fulfilled and way too little we do understand
-
-
-

[ttoews]

But as mentioned before, the undersantification is a Christian issue. I hardly think its centered on one camp.

agreed....I wasn't pointing fingers at any camp...and from my perspective it seems the the problem of undersanctification dwarfs the problem of undereducation

...in our culture--the word "rapture" carries very specific images with it, which are firmly tied to the pre-trib position.

yes, that is a problem that needs to be fixed....and IMHO a good way to start is by pointing out that pre-millers don't have the exclusive trade mark on the term "rapture"....after all the dispensationalists who have created this culture are a relatively recent arrival to the Christian scene

You can argue, if you want, that a correct understanding of Scripture rejects the premil/dispensational view of things.

thanks for your permisssion

But when men like Allis and Hamilton--who are both strongly anti-dispensational--say that dispensationalsim (and by extension, pre-tribulationism) rests on a "plain" or "literal" view of Scripture, then you've got some heavy weights against you.

are you or they equating "plain" or "literal" with straightforward? Please, not another look at definitions.
The Roman Catholic view of the Lord's Supper could be said to be the "plain" or "literal" view of Scripture, and it has led to the doctrine of transsubstantiation which I wouldn't call straightforward at all....and for similar reasons, I wouldn't call dispensationalism straightforward with its "well here Jesus is actually talking to the future Jews and not to the Church" style of interpretation. As one delves into dispensationalism its claimed straightforwardness takes quite a beating.

[Jac3510]

I would most definitely agree that the entire system of dispensationalism is complicated. When I say it is straightforward, I am referring to the individual parts. For example, Ezekiel talks about a third Jewish Temple. All the OT prophets talk about a literal, earthly kingdom of God reigned over from a literal Jerusalem over a literal Jewish people. Paul says that we will be raptured. And so it goes.

Of course, once you start trying to put things together, things get far more difficult. They get complicated. Nothing in a super computer is complicated if you break it down far enough. Wires are wires. Screws are screws. But when you combine those elements in certain fashions, the simple suddenly becomes very complex. That's they it is with everything in reality. Nothing is truly simple once it is combined with other truth.

So I go back to my original claim. The pre-trib rapture is the "plain" reading of the text. Could it be wrong? Of course, because upon examination, we may find that we have combined several apparently simple truths and come up with an incorrect sum. But far more important than the timing of the rapture, I argue that premill is by FAR more simply rooted in a strightforward understanding of Scripture. We take Old Testament prophecy literally. We don't spiritualize it or allegorize it. It means what it says. Therefore, we interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, not vice-versa.

Ultimately, then, it is a matter of hermeneutics. From what basis do we choose to read Scripture, especially the NT? I choose to read it in light of the OT promises. I do NOT read the OT promises in light of NT promises. And that is why me, Walvoord, Hamilton, Allis, and everyone from every side of the theological spectrum agrees that premill. is the logical and necessary outcome of a plain, literal, straightforward reading of Scripture--especially with relation to OT prophecy.

Could we be wrong? Of course. But that is a challenge to our hermeneutic of taking the OT literally. If we are right, it is a challenge to your hermeneutic of taking the OT allegorically in light of your understanding of the NT.

Thoughts?

[ttoews]

We take Old Testament prophecy literally. We don't spiritualize it or allegorize it. It means what it says.

look at what Peter does with Joel in Acts 2:14-21. It reads:
Then Peter stood up with the Eleven, raised his voice and addressed the crowd: "Fellow Jews and all of you who live in Jerusalem, let me explain this to you; listen carefully to what I say.
These men are not drunk, as you suppose. It's only nine in the morning!
No, this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel:
"'In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.
Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.
I will show wonders in the heaven above and signs on the earth below, blood and fire and billows of smoke.
The sun will be turned to darkness and the moon to blood before the coming of the great and glorious day of the Lord.
And everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.'

I would not say that Peter simply took Old Testament prophecy literally....it would seem that certain aspects are taken literally and certain aspects are not taken literally.

Therefore, we interpret the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, not vice-versa.

I would suggest that this is not the approach of Christ, the apostles or the ECFs. With the events disclosed in the NT, Christ demonstrated how the Jewish understanding of the OTs description of the coming of the Messiah was lacking. Christ asked "How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him 'Lord'? For he says, "'The Lord said to my Lord: "Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.'" Again and again the words of the NT bring a proper understanding to the words found in the OT. We find evidence of this in the gospels and the epistles.

[Jac3510]

Yes, you and Ladd, Allis, Hamilton, Augustine, Calvin, Luther, Dabney host of other theologians from the Church history believe the Jesus and the apostles spiritualized the OT and that it must be reinterpreted. Replacement theology has been the view held by the Church since the fourth century. But you know what? Sacramental grace, baptismal regeneration, infant baptism, papal authority, and other such wrong doctrines have been held just as long or longer but many great theologians just the same.

I would obviously argue that Jesus and the aposltes DID take the OT literally, even the Joel passage you quoted. But I wouldn't be saying anything that Walvoord, Chafer, Pentecost, Ryrie, Radmacher, MacArthur, Ironside, Scofield, Dabney, or a host of other dispensationalists haven't been saying for over a hundred years.

So, we can't base this discussion on historical precedence. We can't appeal to greater theologians. We can't even agree on a common hermeneutic. But before we go and abandon this whole discussion as futile, let me just ask you a few questions, starting with just one:

Since you believe the OT passages are not to be taken literally, and since it took Jesus and the apostles to come along hundreds of years later to give their proper meaning, then how were the Jews to whom they were written supposed to know what God actually had in mind?

[puritan lad]

I've not seen many people dispute them. To the contrary, I've seen more support than anything else.

Is that a bad thing???

I'm always open for discussion on this, as long as it can be fruitful. I hold that it is very difficult for a Dispensationalist to be consistent in his hermeutic. FYI: They cry heresy at the preterist "allegorizing" the "coming in the clouds" in Matthew 24, but are reduced to doing the same thing themselves in Matthew 16:27-28, where the time frame reference can't be explained away so easily.