The Seven Year Peace Treaty in Israel Has Been Signed.......... |

http://beforeitsnews.com/news/34247/The_Seven_Year_Peace_Treaty_in_Israel_Has_Been_Signed.html ^ | April 18th, 2010

[editor-surveyor]

“What events in AD 70 happened to fulfill this?”

.
None!

Preterists like to insert allegory into a sentence that they insist had to also be literal.

There is no allegory in scripture that is not announced to be allegory in advance.
.

[dartuser]

circular reasoning ?

Let event "A" = 'all these things' ...

If event "A" did not happen in 70 AD (by demonstration) ... and event "A" has not happened as of 20 April 2010 (also by demonstration) ... and event "A" MUST happen eventually (since its predictive prophecy) ... then event "A" must be future ... aka. via Spock "Logical conclusion ... arrived at logically."

Its nothing like circular reasoning ... it's progressive logic ... deductive reasoning.

[xjcsa]

If event "A" did not happen in 70 AD (by demonstration) ...

That's where the circularity comes in. The argument assumes the conclusion. The conclusion: the events didn't happen in 70 AD. The premise: the events didn't happen in 70 AD. The very definition of circular reasoning.

How would the argument be made legitimate? By demonstrating that the events didn't occur in 70 AD. Asserting, however, is not the same as demonstrating.

[Star Traveler]

You were asking ...

Would it fit with a post-tribulational model?

Well, I'm not sure what the "it" -- is ... :-) ... but will continue anyway...

First, in regards to the Tribulation itself, and especially since this particular article treats the 490 years allocated to Israel with 7 years still remaining, in approximately the same way as some other prophecy teacher -- one can say that the Rapture can be discussed (somewhat...) in a bit of separation (of "thought") from the issue of the 7-year Tribulation (although many things do overlap, though).

So, for the Rapture (in a discussion), you may have those who keep to the same eschatological interpretation and still may vary on the Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib and Pre-Wrath versions of the Rapture.

BUT, you find that those who are saying that there is a "Post-Tribulation Rapture" -- really don't come into an "authentic Rapture discussion" -- because the "Rapture" is totally separated (in a discussion on it) with the ones discussing Pre-, Mid- and Pre-Wrath versions -- from those who are "off to themselves" and discuss the Post-Trib Rapture.

That's why only those who are Pre-Tribulational, Mid-Tribulation and Pre-Wrath -- can discuss the Rapture in the "Rapture Caucus" -- as they are the only ones considered to be "legitimately" (if you will) discussing the "Rapture"...

Post-Tribulationists are simply discussing the "one event" of the Lord coming back to the earth -- which is a different matter than those who discuss the Rapture as a completely separate event than that.

That's where it pays to know what one is talking about in the eschatological systems that people can have and where one doesn't fit into the other.

AND..., if anyone is trying to "make a smorgasbord meal" of eschatology -- all they get is a bunch of "trash thinking" that others can tear them apart, in regards to this "mish-mash" of thinking (the "pick and choose" eschatology that makes absolutely no sense at all and is not "cohesive" in the least).

It would be good for people to be aware of where "they themselves" are "coming from" -- if they don't already know that for themselves... :-)

---

End Time Viewpoints

Why are there so many? How do they differ? Does it matter?

by Dr. David R. Reagan

I almost gave up studying Bible prophecy the very first week I started. I was turned off by the vocabulary. I kept running across terms like premillennial, amillennial, and postmillennial. It sounded to me like much of prophecy was written in tongues!

Thankfully, the Holy Spirit encouraged me to stick with the task, and before long I began to realize that the terms really were not all that difficult to understand.

Basically, there are four major end time viewpoints. Or, to put it another way, there are four different interpretations about what the Bible says concerning end time events.

Historic Premillennialism
The oldest viewpoint is called historic premillennialism. It is termed "historic" for two reasons: to differentiate it from modern premillennialism and to indicate that it was the historic position of the early Church.

It is called "premillennial" because it envisions a return of Jesus to earth before (pre) the beginning of the Millennium. The word, millennium, is a combination of two Latin words mille annum which simply means one thousand years.

A diagram of this viewpoint is presented below. It divides the future of the world into four periods: 1) the current Church Age; 2) a seven year period called the Tribulation; 3) a reign of Christ on earth lasting one thousand years (the Millennium); and 4) the Eternal State when the redeemed will dwell forever with God on a new earth.

This view is based on a literal interpretation of what the Bible says will happen in the end times. One of its distinctive features is that it places the Rapture of the Church at the end of the Tribulation.

According to this view, the Church will remain on earth during the Tribulation. At the end of that period, Jesus will appear in the heavens and the Church will be caught up to meet Him in the sky. The saints will be instantly glorified, and then they will immediately return to the earth to reign with Jesus for a thousand years.

The Church Fathers
This is the only view of end time events that existed during the first 300 years of the Church. With one exception, all the Church Fathers who expressed themselves on the topic of prophecy were premillennial until A.D. 400. Justin Martyr, who was born in A.D. 100, went so far in his writings on the subject as to suggest that anyone with a different viewpoint was heretical.

Those today who disagree with this view respond to the near unanimity of the early Church Fathers by saying they were simply wrong in their interpretation of the prophetic Scriptures.

It certainly should be noted that these early church leaders were not prophetic scholars. They wrote very little on prophecy, and what they wrote was sketchy. Their main concern was not prophecy, but the deity of Jesus, the oneness of God, the practical problems of church organization, and survival amidst persecution.

Yet their concept of end time events should not be dismissed out of hand as crude and primitive, for anyone who has studied the prophetic Scriptures will have to admit that the Church Fathers' viewpoint presents a plain sense summary of the Bible's teachings about the end times.

The one exception to the consensus opinion among the early Church Fathers was Origen (185-254 A.D.). Origen's approach to all of Scripture was to spiritualize it. He therefore denied the literal meaning of prophecy. He looked upon its language as highly symbolic and expressive of deep spiritual truths rather than of future historical events.

Although Origen could not accept the premillennial viewpoint, he did not develop an alternative. That task fell to the Church Father named St. Augustine (358-434 A.D.) who ultimately had the greatest impact on the development of church doctrine. He conceived an alternative viewpoint at the end of the fourth century.

Amillennialism
The concept formulated by Augustine is illustrated below. It is called amillennialism. This strange name derives from the fact that in the Greek language a word is negated by putting the letter "a" in front of it. Thus, amillennial literally means "no thousand years."

The term is misleading, however, because most amillennialists do believe in a millennium, but not a literal, earthly one. They argue that the Millennium is the current spiritual reign of Christ over the Church and that it will continue until He returns for His saints. They thus interpret the thousand years as a symbolic period of time.

One appealing aspect of the amillennial view is its simplicity. The Church Age comes to a screaming halt as a result of the Rapture of the Church. There is no Tribulation, no literal earthly Millennium, and no eternity on a new earth. Augustine spiritualized everything, arguing that the kingdom is the Church, the Millennium is the current Church Age, and the new earth is symbolic language for Heaven.

Augustine's view of end time events was adopted by the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. and has remained Catholic dogma to this day. It is also the current majority viewpoint among mainline Protestant denominations. In other words, the amillennial viewpoint is the one that is held today by the vast majority of all those who profess to be Christians.

Postmillennialism
The third view of end time events, called post-millennialism, did not develop until the mid-seventeenth century, long after the Reformation. The Reformation had little impact on prophetic views because the Reformation leaders had their attention riveted on the questions of Biblical authority and justification by faith.

The postmillennial view was a product of the rationalistic revolution in thinking. It was developed in the mid-1600's by a Unitarian minister named Daniel Whitby. It was immediately dubbed "postmillennialism" because it envisioned a return of Jesus after (post) a literal thousand year reign of the Church over all the earth. This view is illustrated below.

Postmillennialism spread quickly within the Protestant world, probably for two reasons. First, it gave Protestants an opportunity to differ from the Catholic position. More importantly, it was a theological expression of the prevailing rationalistic philosophy of the age, a philosophy that boldly proclaimed the ability of mankind to build the kingdom of heaven on earth.

The postmillennial view holds that the Church Age will gradually evolve into a "golden age" when the Church will rule over all the world. This will be accomplished through the Christianization of the nations.

To its credit, it can be said that this viewpoint served as a mighty stimulus to missionary efforts during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Missionaries were seized with the vision of speeding up the return of the Lord by preaching the gospel to all the world.

A Sudden Death
By 1900 nearly all segments of Protestant Christianity had adopted the postmillennial viewpoint. But the view was to be quickly dropped.

Postmillennialism died almost overnight with the outbreak of the First World War. The reason, of course, is that this great war undermined one of the fundamental assumptions of the postmillennial viewpoint the assumption of the inevitability of progress. This had always been a fatal flaw in the postmillennial concept, due mainly to its birth in rationalistic humanism. Its visions of the perfectibility of man and the redemption of society were destroyed by the atrocities of the war.

Another fatal flaw of the postmillennial viewpoint was its lack of a consistent Biblical base. To expound the view, it was necessary to literalize some prophecies (those concerning the Millennium) while at the same time spiritualizing other prophecies (the personal presence of the Lord during the Millennium). Also, it was necessary to ignore or explain away the many prophecies in the Bible that clearly state that society is going to get worse rather than better as the time approaches for the Lord's return (Matthew 24:4-24 and 2 Timothy 3:1-5).

The sudden death of postmillennialism left a prophetic vacuum among Protestant groups. Since the postmillennial view was based to a large extent upon a spiritualizing approach to Scripture, most Protestant groups returned to the spiritualized amillennial viewpoint they had abandoned in the 1700's.

However, a new choice of prophetic viewpoint presented itself on the American scene about this same time, and some of the more fundamentalist Protestant groups opted for it. This view was technically called "dispensational premillennialism" because it originated with a group who had been nicknamed "Dispensationalists." I call it the modern premillennial viewpoint.

Modern Premillennialism
The modern premillennial viewpoint crystallized in the early 1800's among a group in England known as the Plymouth Brethren. The view is illustrated below.

As can be readily seen, this viewpoint revives the historic premillennial view except for its concept of the Rapture of the Church. The Plymouth Brethren envisioned two future comings of Jesus, one for His Church and one with His Church. Their concept of the Rapture has since come to be known as the "pre-Tribulation Rapture."

This viewpoint has been attacked as being "too new to be true." But its advocates are quick to point out that the Bible teaches the principle of "progressive illumination" regarding prophecy (Daniel 12:4 and Jeremiah 30:24). What they mean by this is that the Bible itself indicates that end time prophecy will be better understood as the time nears for its fulfillment.

Comparisons
Looking back over these four views of the end times, we can see some significant differences. But let's not overlook the similarities.

1. All agree that Jesus is coming back for His saints.

2. All agree that the redeemed will spend eternity in the presence of God.

These two points of agreement are far more important than the many points of disagreement.

Still, the areas of disagreement are significant. Two of the views (the amillennial and postmillennial) deny that Jesus will ever manifest His glory before the nations in a world wide reign of peace, justice and righteousness. The postmillennial view also denies the soon coming of the Lord, for according to this view, the Lord cannot return until His Church has ruled over the world for a thousand years.

The key to the differences is the approach to Scripture. If you tend to spiritualize Scripture, you will end up with an amillennial or postmillennial viewpoint. If you tend to accept Scripture for its plain sense meaning, you will have a premillennial viewpoint.

A Plea
I urge you to accept the plain sense meaning of Scripture. Don't play games with God's Word by spiritualizing it. When you do so, you can make it mean whatever you want it to mean, but in the process you will lose the true meaning that God intended.

Remember, the First Coming prophecies meant what they said. That should be our guide for interpreting the prophecies of the Second Coming.

---

This is concerning just the "Millennium" and then you're dealing with the Rapture, and that varies as to how it's considered, according to the "Millennial Viewpoint" that one takes.

So, if one doesn't really know "where they [themselves] are coming from" and they attempt to do a "smorgasbord" of choosing some "particulars" regarding (1) the Millennial viewpoint, and then (2) the Rapture, and then in regards to (3) Israel and the church (as to how the one relates to the other) and then (4) the nature of the "Kingdom", and (5) elements of Covenant theology and/or Dispensationalism -- and puts that "smorgasbord" all together into some "presentation" of what they think of the "eschatology of the Bible" -- they will really have a mess on their hands that makes absolutely no sense at all, in regards to what the Bible says and falls competely and totally apart when others start "picking it apart" with various Scriptures.

And then others who are sitting around just "looking at this discussion" get more and more confused (because of some of the "confused smorgasbord eschatalogy" being presented and discussed and argued about) that they just throw up their hands and walk away from it all ... :-)

One reason why I'm always presenting the Dispensational viewpoint is because it's organized, it's "tight" and it fits, across the board, with the Bible from Genesis to Revelation and it is a "cohesive whole" and works perfectly with the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy, which I also maintain, too...

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

And on January 2, 2014, when none of those things have happened, will you consider the possibility that your eschatology contains major errors?

Well, that particular "presentation" above has some pretty big problems, and I don't know what kind of "eschatology" it is -- really... because it certainly does not fit the eschatology of Dispensationalism, with the Pre-Millennial and Pre-Tribulational understanding.

Perhaps someone could give me what this particular one (described above) is called -- other than someone's "smorgasbord ideas" that they happened to "slap together" with no systematic thought whatsoever...

It's certainly not the systematic thought which is related to Pre-Millennialism, Pre-Tribulationalism and Dispensationalism.

Do y'all have any idea what it is? (and no, that's not an idle question, I'm really wondering...)

[xjcsa]

Preterists like to insert allegory into a sentence that they insist had to also be literal.

It's not allegory; allegory has a specific meaning. It is, however apocalyptic language - a form of literature that had certain defining characteristics, among which was the use of vivid "cosmic" imagery to be fulfilled in much more earthly forms.

[Genoa]

Is there really a Rapture Caucus? Didn’t know that.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

So many holes in this hermeneutic, one knows not where to begin.

I agree that with that -- in that this particular author has a lot of holes, in his thinking so that one doesn't really know where to begin -- but -- lest someone esle get the wrong idea and think I'm thinking of this guy as in the Dispensational, Pre-Millennial and Pre-Tribulational camp -- no, he isn't.

If he was in that camp, he wouldn't be explaining things this way and it would be an eschatology that is "tight and complete"... (and without holes).

[xjcsa]

Well, that particular "presentation" above has some pretty big problems, and I don't know what kind of "eschatology" it is -- really... because it certainly does not fit the eschatology of Dispensationalism, with the Pre-Millennial and Pre-Tribulational understanding.

Perhaps someone could give me what this particular one (described above) is called -- other than someone's "smorgasbord ideas" that they happened to "slap together" with no systematic thought whatsoever...

You made this point much better than I did. Though I don't share your views, I can easily respect a systematic eschatology that differs from mine - after all, it's possible that I'm wrong. But this sort of slapdash headline-based "eschatology" gets nothing but ridicule from me - mostly because it's hilarious, but also because it's capable of causing real harm.

It's certainly not the systematic thought which is related to Pre-Millennialism, Pre-Tribulationalism and Dispensationalism.

It's also not the systematic thought related to any of the other views.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Is there really a Rapture Caucus? Didn’t know that.

Yes indeed ... :-) It's not a high volume thread and it just "keeps on ticking"... doncha know... and keeps on discussing the Rapture until it happens...

The Rapture [RAPTURE CAUCUS]

And for that thread (i.e., the Rapture Caucus thread, not "this thread" ...) the following applies ...

---

To make sure that any new poster is "up-to-speed" on the rules for the Rapture Caucus, I post that here again.

In short they say, "post here in this thread if you support the Pre-trib, Mid-trib and/or Pre-wrath Rapture [not Post-trib]. Otherwise, if you don't -- don't post here.

---

The Religion Moderator's home page ...

Types of threads and guidelines pertaining to the Religion Forum:
[Threads listed are "Prayer", "Devotional", "Caucus" and "Ecumenical"; included here is the "Caucus" definition.]

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus.

For instance, if it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus invites you, I will not boot you from the thread.

The “caucus” article and posts must not compare beliefs or speak in behalf of a belief outside the caucus.

---

Caucus threads.

Who can post? Members of the caucus and those specifically invited

What can be posted? Anything but the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus

What will be pulled? Reply posts mentioning the beliefs of those who are not members of the caucus. If the article is inappropriate for a caucus, the tag will be changed to open.

Who will be booted? Repeat offenders.

---

Now, back to my own comments...

Some FReepers may have gotten jumped on (in other threads) for posting their belief in the Rapture, from what the Bible says. But -- here -- we're in support of the Rapture.

You are a member of this RAPTURE CAUCUS if you are in support of the Biblical Doctrine of the Rapture, as a separate event from the Second Coming of Jesus Christ (which is to establish the Kingdom on earth). This is defined per Post #78 (the Religion Moderator) and Post #79 (my affirmation of the same), which says we are talking about a Pre-Trib, Mid-Trib and Pre-Wrath Rapture, and not a Post-Trib Rapture (which happens at the same time as the return of Jesus Christ to the earth, i.e., His Second Coming).

Those who await the Rapture, are looking for that "Blessed Hope", Jesus Christ coming in the clouds, for His Bride, the Church.

So, feel free to join in the discussion -- in support of the Rapture -- as we talk about what information you have from the Bible, seminaries, church, pastors, books, friends and so on.

We can discuss the pertinent Bible verses, who are the pastors and/or churches who support it, what books are good to read, what is the purpose of the Rapture, the reason you find some compelling, or whatever else may be enlightening and helpful to the rest of us, in regards to edifying, exhorting and comforting one another, in support of the Biblical Doctrine of the Rapture.

Also, another "given" here is the Inspiration of Scripture from God, an inerrant and infallible Word from Him. Please refer to the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy" for a fuller explation of it. Although we can discuss what other pastors, preachers, teachers, churches, people, etc. explanations are, it all does come back to the final authority of the Word of God and not writers, pastors, theologians, churches or any other temporal entity (although we do use those for some help and understanding, just not the final authority on the matter). Remember, all these others are also appealing to the Word of God, in their explanations and understandings.

Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago1.html

Chicago Statement on Biblical Hermeneutics
http://www.bible-researcher.com/chicago2.html
[this part gives guidelines for interpretating the Word of God]

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

It's also not the systematic thought related to any of the other views.

Yes, I absolutely agree there, too ... :-)

[dartuser]

The demonstration part is fairly trivial ...

No historian records the events of "A" ... period.

If you assume (and you ARE assuming it) that the events in Matt 24 are past events, then Daniel and Revelation, the minor prophets, Psalms ... just about every prophecy has been fulfilled.

Can you point me to a historian who records when Jesus Christ came in the clouds of heaven? Don't see any mention of stars falling from the sky, or the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven in Josephus. Don't recall Josephus reminding us that after the coming in the clouds Jesus received the earthly kingdom, and all nations then started serving Him. Seems like to this day you wont find anyone in Saudi Arabia serving him ... wouldnt you see that as a clear violation of "all nations" ...

Since all the tribes will have morned when they saw him in 70 AD, its probably a double good idea to have a couple of historians in different parts of the world ... since this is a global event for everyone to see.

Good luck with that ...

[Genoa]

Nuts, the Rapture Caucus isn't open to me.

I am classic premillennial, and I am uncommitted about the timing of the Rapture and the nature of the tribulation. This means I won't rule out post-tribulationism (such as the views held by Ladd, Gundry, Payne, Ryle, Guinness, Gordon, Tregelles, etc.) as a possibility just as worthy of a hearing as pre-trib, mid-trib, or pre-wrath.

However, I would like a caucus that is inclusive of all kinds of premillennialism, so as to fend of the feisty postmillennialists and preterists who like to descend on these discussions. Oh, well.

[Genoa]

Sorry; "fend of" should read "fend off".

(I respect the postmils and preterists, but they can be disruptive.)

[xjcsa]

The demonstration part is fairly trivial ...

No historian records the events of "A" ... period.

Josephus records the events extensively.

If you assume (and you ARE assuming it) that the events in Matt 24 are past events, then Daniel and Revelation, the minor prophets, Psalms ... just about every prophecy has been fulfilled.

I would argue that I am "assuming" very little - just because my deductive reasoning leads in a different direction than yours doesn't mean I have none. But yes, given that the events of Matthew 24 are past events, the same is true of the other prophecies.

Can you point me to a historian who records when Jesus Christ came in the clouds of heaven? Don't see any mention of stars falling from the sky, or the Son of Man coming in the clouds of heaven in Josephus. Don't recall Josephus reminding us that after the coming in the clouds Jesus received the earthly kingdom, and all nations then started serving Him. Seems like to this day you wont find anyone in Saudi Arabia serving him ... wouldnt you see that as a clear violation of "all nations" ...

Josephus records it in some detail. Our difference stems from different ways of understanding the text.

Since all the tribes will have morned when they saw him in 70 AD, its probably a double good idea to have a couple of historians in different parts of the world ... since this is a global event for everyone to see.

I would argue that this is a case of expecting the Bible to be speaking in our terms and following our way of thinking. We are not the primary audience of most of the Bible.

[editor-surveyor]

Comic Book Theology!
.

[dartuser]

We are not the primary audience of most of the Bible.

Which is precisely why a valid hermeneutic must focus on authorial intent, not what it means to a reader ... in any century.

Can you honestly say that the apostles, after seeing the transfiguration, the resurrection, the ascension ... and the angel saying he would return in the same way ... in plain view ... that the second coming was in 70 AD?

Josephus records the events extensively

Since "A" includes all the events ... and you claim Josephus records them extensively ... please reference just the one. Please reference the passage where Josephus documents the "coming in the clouds of the Son of Man" ... "with great power and glory" ...

[xjcsa]

Since "A" includes all the events ... and you claim Josephus records them extensively ... please reference just the one. Please reference the passage where Josephus documents the "coming in the clouds of the Son of Man" ... "with great power and glory" ...

Much of the book "The Jewish War" is about exactly that - but not in the sense you think. There was not a giant Jesus standing on clouds - but there was a marauding army, which was the form taken by His coming. Again, this is not unique in Jewish prophecy; the Babylonian captivity was prophesied using similar language, and was also fulfilled by an enemy army.

[Campion]

Constantine's pagan mother wasn't even a glimer in his gradmother mother's eye in 200 CE.

Constantine's mom was a Christian, St. Helena. (Much more Christian than Constantine himself!)

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I am classic premillennial, and I am uncommitted about the timing of the Rapture and the nature of the tribulation.

Would you be referring to that one that is called "Historic Premillennianism" in Post #184?

And also, what kind of "Millennium" would you be referring to? Would that be one in which Jesus, as Messiah of Israel sets up the Kingdom on this earth (like the one the disciples were wondering when it would come about), ruling and reigning over the nations of the world from Israel, seated on the Throne of David, an earthly Kingdom, and ruling over mortal subjects who are still living on this earth (along with the resurrected and immortal ones ruling with Jesus here)?

Or does the nature of the Millennium vary with these different viewpoints?

---

However, I would like a caucus that is inclusive of all kinds of premillennialism, so as to fend of the feisty postmillennialists and preterists who like to descend on these discussions. Oh, well.

That might be worth considering, if I can figure out what the makeup and configuration of such a caucus might be, in order to have good discussions on the matter.

I might not mind doing such a thing, but only after considering it carefully and considering what the makeup of the various groups might be and what would be the boundaries of such a group (for a caucus).

I don't think that kind of group would be a high volume group either. It seems that these open threads get to be "high volume posting" at times when there is a lot of heated discussion from "widely divergent views" instead of some orderly discussion within some tighter boundaries.

At any rate, I wouldn't be considering doing any such thing any time real soon and would give more consideration to it.