NEW LEAVEN

I agree TC – I too side with Ladd et al on the historic premil view of things. even though I suppose its not even really about all that.

TC, you are going to get a nod on my blog. Welcome to the Historic Pre-Mill camp. Obviously you have been mulling these things over for some time. Did you get the new title “A Case for Historic Premillennialism” yet? It’s a pretty good read.

Have fun and stay busy – Luke 19:13

-The Orange Mailman

I have been wandering outside the various millenial camps of late and have been trying to figure out which one fits the mold of Scripture. I, like you, find hist. premill. the most appealing to my understanding of eschatology.

Me, too. I haven’t fully given over to the HP position, but I find it (thus far in my study) to be the most appealing. I flirted with amill for a time, but finally moved on. What works (besides the Bible) have you read and found to be helpful? I have my eye on A Case for Historic Premillennialism by Blomberg and Chung.

Thanks—I’ll probably need some grace, too!
Have you read Ladd’s The Blessed Hope or his Presence of the Future? Just curious because I will likely add them to my wish list.

Hey TC

thanks for this post… I’m currently @ Talbot in Southern California and they are pretty firm on the dispensational reading as well… though I still remain unconvinced…

Congrats, TC – it’s a very good first step!

You ever read what Corrie ten Boom said about pre-trib and mid-trib? more specifically the ‘Rapture’ Quite interesting.
I read the Bible and the pre-tribs and mid-trib teachings just didn’t make sense. Firstly, they seemed to use the same verses to qualify opposing views.
Secondly, Jesus didn’t seem to know anything about a ’secret’ rapture. The bible only talked about two comings, the first as Servant and the second as triumphant King. So, I figured either Jesus didn’t know what he was talking about, or these teachings was plainly wrong. Well, that was the road I travelled to become an HP.

Jason, there may be some hope, I hear many at DTS are like you (not so fond of the dispy postion) and that only a few anymore really push it, I think they are loosening up.

I presently loosely hold to the standard A/G position on most of this, however, I too have come to believe the Kingdom position (church as people of God – no separate plan for Israel) you hold, so I think some changes may be in the wind. Thanks for sharing. I will find Ladd’s book (I think I have it somewhere) and read. I think I will enjoy it.

I try to stay out of most of these discussions, and when I teach Revelation in our Institute, it is taught without any time-line. It is a wonderful, encouraging book when approached that way. My emphasis for my students is to know what the Bible says — not necessarily to change or confirm my student’s (or my) position in these matters.

Thanks for these thoughts to consider. I will take them to the Lord.

I’ve downloaded a sample of Blessed Hope to my Kindle and will be sure to check it out!

The rapture shouldn’t be viewed as an escape route no matter when it happens. I’ll have to agree with my pastor on this one, to paraphrase: whether it’s pre-trib, mid-trib, or post-trib makes little difference, we are charged with spreading the gospel, and the longer we are around the more souls we can win…

Hi TC,

Please note that this is a genuine request for information.

Can you tell me your understanding of what the millennium is for? In others words, what happens, advances, or is going on during it that then comes to some conclusion or goal that leads to its end? What is it supposed to accomplish?

Now I can see what was going on in pre-Christian times (things that prepared for Christ’s coming), and what is going on in the present age (and what its goal is), but I entirely fail to see what a subsequent millennium is supposed to achieve. Or if nothing is supposed to be accomplished, then why doesn’t it just go on forever?

To put it bluntly: what earthly use is it?

Thanks in advance, John

tc, I guess I don’t see the distinction. That is what I mean by winning souls-”making disciples” would have probably been more appropriate.

Thanks, TC, but that’s precisely my problem: a 1000-year earthly reign seems pointless. What does it achieve? How and when can it reach a climax if nothing is happening that can reach a conclusion? So we are forced to take the 1000 years literally (unlike probably every other number in Revelation) simply because otherwise the millennium has no obvious end-point.

On the other hand, as far as I’m aware nothing that God does is ever pointless. He is always working towards some definable goal. As I see it, the only time things won’t be moving to a goal will be in eternity.

Anyway, thanks for the response.

John:
I’m not very well read at all when it comes to this issue, but your question is also the main one that seemed to stare me in the face when I (loosely) held to premillennial view (I grew up in an A/G church, so it was assumed). It was one of the things that led me to hold (loosely again) to amillenialism.

I’m not so sure about things being quite so “static” in eternity though. The end of Revelation seems as much like a new beginning as an ending.

> According to the primary text on the matter, it is simply described as a reign with Christ.

TC – simple question: do we, as Christians, reign with Christ today?

TC – the question I keep coming back to in interpreting Revelation is whether we read the visions of 19:11 and after as a linear sequence of events or as overlapping events. I tend to think that we are living out the visions of 19:11-20:6 as simultaneous events – Christ conquering and reigning with the saints through the Word, the Spirit and the Church. When the time for this earth is complete, the dragon will be thrown in the pit, there is judgment and the New Creation is ushered in.

I’ve also had the thought that 19:11-20:15 reads like an insertion between the proclamation of the wedding banquet in 19:5-9 and the entrance of the bride in chapter 21.

Yes, I think Justin’s quite right in saying, “I’m not so sure about things being quite so ’static’ in eternity though. The end of Revelation seems as much like a new beginning as an ending.”

I’m sure things won’t be static: I’m not convinced, for example, by those who tell us that “time will be no more”. If I get to ask the apostle Paul what exactly he meant when he wrote this or that, then there will be “a time” before I asked him, and “a time” afterwards (when I know something I didn’t before).

I’m also sure that God will have much for us to do, and goals for us to achieve.

But what I meant was that they won’t divide up human history in the way that Christ’s 1st or 2nd comings do. They won’t be ends that the entire preceding period was directing human history towards. They won’t be cataclysmic.

John:
I think we agree with each other. It goes back to your question of the millennium (within premillennialism) seeming somewhat pointless. What an amillennial view does is place us in the millennium (at least in some sense) right now. In that framework, the purpose of the millennium is Christ establishing his reign on earth as it is in heaven, at least partially through His Church. At the end of that period (however long), comes the return, the judgment, and the consummation. Unlike premillenialism, this sort of framework makes perfect sense to me. As TC said, however, that logic does not trump Scripture. I think the amillennial framework does the most justice to the Scriptures, that I can see.

I say all of that with the caveat that I am certainly no expert on this. I tend to take a view similar to the Eastern Orthodox, or even Anglican church, that it might be better to be reverentially agnostic on some of these things.

TC:
It’s definitely on my list too. $60 is a little steep though.

Justin & TC

When it comes to millennial theories I’ve long had a preference for the “a-” flavour, but I now find it hard to get worked up over such questions, as I might have done years ago.

It’s not that I’m against theological discussions: it’s just that, as I get older (and perhaps wiser), I seem to find more I’m willing to be agnostic about, yet value even more those things I do consider fundamental. So I’ve no desire to be remembered for my millennial stance or opinion on predestination; but I do hope a few will remember me as someone who not only confessed, “Jesus is Lord”, but also let that truth control how he lived.

John:
I can certainly give an amen to everything you’ve said.

That is irony! Here’s some more–I will be starting PhD work at Dallas Seminary in the spring! Wonder if I’ll find much millennial company! I was reading through Grudem just this afternoon, along with Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond in the Zondervan Point-Counterpoint series.

Which work by Ladd did you read? I have his NT theology, but I don’t remember a concerted treatment of millennial issues in there.

I was interested in this one too – but it’s been getting terrible reviews so far so I am not sure yet. Check the reviews on Amazon, they are quite mixed.

The Blessed Hope is a good rebuttal of the pre-trib argument. Unfortunately Ladd articulates a pre-millennial position. I would point you in the direction of Mathison’s From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology.

I had heard that the dispy grip was not so tight as it was, but I guess I’ll find out!

Without getting into the whole theological thing, I think we are responsible for trying to accomplish God’s will on earth right now. I think the gospel is not only the gospel of salvation but the gospel of the kingdom. I think it’s now (as much as we are able to accomplish this), and to be more fully realized in the future.

I went on a little rant about this a while back:

http://beautyofthebible.com/?s=your+kingdom+come+your+will+be+done

All of these questions are answered in Mathison’s Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope. Also check out John Jefferson Davis’ The Victory of Christ’s Kingdom: An Introduction to Postmillenialism.

I know you do TC, I know you do.

I would second the recommendation for the Mathison book – it’s been a while since I read it, but he writes well.