• Options
• Login
• Register
• Switch to desktop style

Is the Post Mil position correct?

• Index

  • The Fighting Fundamental Forums
  • General Category
  • The Fighting Forum
  • Is the Post Mil position correct?
• Is the Post Mil position correct?

• Is the Post Mil position correct?

  Mojo Rison > 05-07-2016, 09:26 PM

  I know many are pre-mil dispensational. I came up that way. Pre trib, dispensationalists tend to be doom and gloom and pessimistic about the future. The Post Mil theonomists tend to veiw Scripture as the victory over the world as things get better in the world. It is definitely a world of difference. 
  The last few months I have been studying the two other sides of eschatology, a-mil and post mil positions. And to say I have had my eyes opened in a sense that I never imagined when it comes to end times.
  Here is an article that will sure to give you a different veiw that we tend to hear on most premil dispy forums:http://gptsnews.gpts.edu/2015/09/is-world-getting-better.html?m=1
  
  What thinketh ye?

• RE: Is the Post Mil position correct?

  The Rogue Tomato > 05-07-2016, 11:17 PM

  I believe the Bible teaches pre-wrath (which means the millennium is in the future).

• RE: Is the Post Mil position correct?

  Mojo Rison > 05-08-2016, 02:29 PM

  I used to think that. But my study recently into eschatology i have come to learn that what Jesus was talking about late in Matthew 23 and chapter 24 is talking about the upcoming destruction of Jerusalem. If you read Josephus' book Wars, it describes what actually happened during the Roman-Jewish wars. Both Kenneth Gentry and Sam Storms books cover what Josephus wrote in describing the atrocities that the Romans inflicted upon the Jews. Much of what Josephus wrote actually fulfilled what Jesus predicted in the Mt Olivet Discourse in Matthew 23-24.
   I also believe What is written in Revelation, through symbolism, actually is describing what happened to Jerusalem during the destruction during AD 70. with the exception of course of the Second Advent of Christ's final return to Earth and final Resurrection.

• RE: Is the Post Mil position correct?

  The Rogue Tomato > 05-08-2016, 06:17 PM

  (05-08-2016, 02:29 PM)Mojo Rison Wrote:  I also believe What is written in Revelation, through symbolism, actually is describing what happened to Jerusalem during the destruction during AD 70. with the exception of course of the Second Advent of Christ's final return to Earth and final Resurrection.

  
  Except Revelation is mostly (if not all) prophecy, and it was written AFTER 70 AD.  (There's some dispute about the letters to the churches, whether that's prophecy or not.)  It makes no sense that John would be given a message of what was going to happen in the future after it already happened.
  
  It's very tempting to match Matthew 24 to the events surrounding 70 AD.  But here's what makes me think it's either a dual prophecy (applies to two events, one past, one future), or that it applies only to the future:
  
  15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.
  
  Okay, he's clearly talking about the great tribulation here, and although it start specifically with Israel, the implication of "no flesh" means nobody in the whole world, not just the Jews.  So this might be referring to two events in one stroke.  Or one event that escalates to the world.
  
  29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
  
  Key words here are Immediately after [the great tribulation].  If Matthew 24 was talking (only) about the events surrounding 70 AD, then v.29-31 would have happened immediately afterward.  And they didn't.
  
  On the other hand, if "holy place" means the holy of holies in the temple, and then that creates a problem for modern fulfillment, since there is no temple and no daily sacrifice to stop (unless it's symbolic). 
  
  I lean toward dual fulfillment.  A great tribulation happened in 70 AD.  And in the future THE great tribulation will happen.  But that's just my guess at reconciling the passages.   I could be wrong on both accounts. 
  
  It could simply be that Matthew (or a copyist or editor) condensed what Jesus said into a single summary, and if we were there to hear the original, we might have more information.  It's the "Immediately after" upon which my conclusion hinges.  If that's really word-for-word what Jesus said, then there's still a future great tribulation which will be cut short, immediately after which Jesus returns in glory.

• RE: Is the Post Mil position correct?

  Lloyd_London > 05-09-2016, 05:45 AM

  As Mike Warnke said in one of his comedy routines many, many years ago, "I'm a pan-tribulationist. It's all gonna pan out how God wants it to." LOL
  
  On a more serious note, I used to consider myself a pre-trib kind of guy. Nowadays though, I'm not so sure of that position. Need to do more study on it, I guess.
  
  L.L.

• RE: Is the Post Mil position correct?

  Mojo Rison > 05-10-2016, 10:23 PM

  (05-08-2016, 06:17 PM)The Rogue Tomato Wrote:

  (05-08-2016, 02:29 PM)Mojo Rison Wrote:  I also believe What is written in Revelation, through symbolism, actually is describing what happened to Jerusalem during the destruction during AD 70. with the exception of course of the Second Advent of Christ's final return to Earth and final Resurrection.

  
  Except Revelation is mostly (if not all) prophecy, and it was written AFTER 70 AD.  (There's some dispute about the letters to the churches, whether that's prophecy or not.)  It makes no sense that John would be given a message of what was going to happen in the future after it already happened.
  
  It's very tempting to match Matthew 24 to the events surrounding 70 AD.  But here's what makes me think it's either a dual prophecy (applies to two events, one past, one future), or that it applies only to the future:
  
  15 “Therefore when you see the ‘abomination of desolation,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), 16 “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 17 Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. 18 And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. 19 But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! 20 And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. 21 For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened.
  
  Okay, he's clearly talking about the great tribulation here, and although it start specifically with Israel, the implication of "no flesh" means nobody in the whole world, not just the Jews.  So this might be referring to two events in one stroke.  Or one event that escalates to the world.
  
  29 “Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. 30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. 31 And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.
  
  Key words here are Immediately after [the great tribulation].  If Matthew 24 was talking (only) about the events surrounding 70 AD, then v.29-31 would have happened immediately afterward.  And they didn't.
  
  On the other hand, if "holy place" means the holy of holies in the temple, and then that creates a problem for modern fulfillment, since there is no temple and no daily sacrifice to stop (unless it's symbolic). 
  
  I lean toward dual fulfillment.  A great tribulation happened in 70 AD.  And in the future THE great tribulation will happen.  But that's just my guess at reconciling the passages.   I could be wrong on both accounts. 
  
  It could simply be that Matthew (or a copyist or editor) condensed what Jesus said into a single summary, and if we were there to hear the original, we might have more information.  It's the "Immediately after" upon which my conclusion hinges.  If that's really word-for-word what Jesus said, then there's still a future great tribulation which will be cut short, immediately after which Jesus returns in glory.

  I would like to answer this later from and maybe start another thread concerning why I believe a pre-70Ad authorship for the book of Revelation.
• Next Oldest Next Newest