Which way has your view changed?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

This poll is for all Christians who take part in TWeb and who fall within orthodox boundaries.

I'm curious about how, if at all, your view on eschatology has changed. I'll try to include enough options to give a good overall picture, and I'd like as many people as possible to answer.

More than one option might apply to you. That's because I try to give as many opotions as I can, some of which may overlap. That's OK, just pick any one that applies.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

This poll is for all Christians who take part in TWeb and who fall within orthodox boundaries.

I'm curious about how, if at all, your view on eschatology has changed. I'll try to include enough options to give a good overall picture, and I'd like as many people as possible to answer.

More than one option might apply to you. That's because I try to give as many opotions as I can, some of which may overlap. That's OK, just pick any one that applies.



My view had largely been post-trib amillenial. After reading "Last Days Madness", switching to Preterism was natural. In essence, I find I believed something like this for quite some time. I'd just never seen it spelled out.

[dizzle]

I was already a preterist when starting here, but at the last forum, I changed definitively from DF to preterist.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

How can a person be post trib amil? I thought all tribulational theories placed the trib immediately prior to the millennium.

[A Cup of No]

DF to Pret, though I'm reconsidering my preterist stance on Revelation. I have no doubt on the synoptics, though. Also tentatively postmill. It's easy to get Postmill from things like 1 Cor 15, but it's a bit more difficult in revelation and all that.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Speaking for myself, I was already rushing headlong into preterism when I arrived here (and had been for a couple of years I think), and when I got here I was merely in the process of letting that filter through more consistently, as I came to see how more and more parts of Scripture pointed that way.

I had already been defending neo-postmil/neo-amil view of eschatology since about 1999-2000.

[National Intelligence Director Phoenix]

How can a person be post trib amil? I thought all tribulational theories placed the trib immediately prior to the millennium.

I didn't see the tribulation as a literal 7-year period. In fact, I see it and still do as just generally referring to the suffering of Christians by evil forces. I saw the millenium as the time when Jesus Christ is king over the Earth. Last I checked, he was still on the throne, though I do believe there is a final fulfillment of that coming.

Essentially preterism. I'd just never heard the view explained before.

[Geek Eclectic]

All I was familiar with before coming here was DF, and I didn't have any reason to doubt it. But then I learned about Preterism, and the more I learned the more plausible it sounded. I also checked into the different flavors and came up amillenial. I'd like to be postmillenial, but I feel like the world's going down the crapper. Pretty much the opposite of postmillenialism.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

OK, that's a slightly different way to define post trib, and it doesn't mean what the phrase "post trib" means in the mouth of a futurist. But hey, now we know Nick a little better.

And to all the rest of you out there, come on, take part. I don't want this to be one sided, I want good TWeb demographics here!

[A Cup of No]

All I was familiar with before coming here was DF, and I didn't have any reason to doubt it. But then I learned about Preterism, and the more I learned the more plausible it sounded. I also checked into the different flavors and came up amillenial. I'd like to be postmillenial, but I feel like the world's going down the crapper. Pretty much the opposite of postmillenialism.

ROFL

Excellent phrasing, just hilarious.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:bump:

[Spinyn00bman]

In your poll you forgot to mention "I don't really care because it doesn't really matter one way or the other."

That would be me.

[Armor of God]

Dan Trotter helped me see the light.

Dee Dee made it shine brighter.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

In your poll you forgot to mention "I don't really care because it doesn't really matter one way or the other."

That would be me.That is compatible with any of the options that I included. Either your view has changed or it has not. Whether you care about such a change or lack thereof is another matter.

[Spinyn00bman]

That is compatible with any of the options that I included. Either your view has changed or it has not. Whether you care about such a change or lack thereof is another matter.

Tis true.

[studyhound]

Ok I am a dork I voted for I changed to a Pret. but I was already one when I got here. Never vote and take a phone call at the same time, you might end up with a hanging chad......:doh:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:bump:

Data collection shouldn't take this long, people. I want instant results!

[Solly]

I did become a preterist wile at The Other Location, thanks to DD, but I reverted to Vossian Amiller, and remain there, even though I'm more a Barthian now.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I am (I think) in the process of shedding the D out of my DF, although it is still clinging to me like the Bible Wheel to TWeb... unwanted, but ever present. Like the BW, just when you think it is gone, it pops up again and causes mayhem.

Still a straight shooting pre-trib futurist.

[The Curtmudgeon]

Well, despite the best attempts by some extremely good arguers here, I've remained Pre-Mill Pre-Trib. I do sometimes suspect that I'm in an increasingly shrinking minority of TheoWebbers, but that's okay with me. I hate crowds.

The (there's enough voices inside my head, I don't need all these distractions from outside) Curtmudgeon

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Speaking for myself, I was already rushing headlong into preterism when I arrived here (and had been for a couple of years I think), and when I got here I was merely in the process of letting that filter through more consistently, as I came to see how more and more parts of Scripture pointed that way.

I had already been defending neo-postmil/neo-amil view of eschatology since about 1999-2000.
:hehe: I was the exact opposite. Having been firmly preterist (but not for as long a period) when I got here and rushing headlong into post-mil.

[Jezz]

This poll is for all Christians who take part in TWeb and who fall within orthodox boundaries.

I'm curious about how, if at all, your view on eschatology has changed. I'll try to include enough options to give a good overall picture, and I'd like as many people as possible to answer.

More than one option might apply to you. That's because I try to give as many opotions as I can, some of which may overlap. That's OK, just pick any one that applies.
I didn't have a view on eschatology before I came here. I didn't even know what it was. Since coming here and reading NT Wright's books, I kinda went "Gee, isn't preterism blindingly obvious?" and since then I have been preterist. But even now, my "care factor" is pretty low when it comes to eschatology. I'm more than content to simply say "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Beyond that, I don't see it as extremely important. An obsession with eschatology seems to be a unique characteristic of American fundamentalists (and heretical groups in general).

If only American fundamentalists spent as much time studying ecclesiology as they did eschatology...

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

If only American fundamentalists spent as much time studying ecclesiology as they did eschatology...


Then John Hagee's church would be empty. :hehe:

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

:bump:

MORE!

MORE!

[TuckEverlasting]

I didn't have a view on eschatology before I came here. I didn't even know what it was. Since coming here and reading NT Wright's books, I kinda went "Gee, isn't preterism blindingly obvious?" and since then I have been preterist. But even now, my "care factor" is pretty low when it comes to eschatology. I'm more than content to simply say "I look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Beyond that, I don't see it as extremely important. An obsession with eschatology seems to be a unique characteristic of American fundamentalists (and heretical groups in general).

If only American fundamentalists spent as much time studying ecclesiology as they did eschatology...
:yeahthat: mostly... but I would also say that I found TWeb not long after becoming a Christian, and I think if I had never come across preterism, it would have taken me way, way longer to ever trust the accuracy of the bible.

[Ryokan]

I don't think I am a preterist for the simple reason I don't buy the early revelation date. So that would leave revelation describing already occurred and occuring events. Which is fine, but not preterism, I guess. Honestly, I don't worry about it to much.

[dizzle]

I don't think I am a preterist for the simple reason I don't buy the early revelation date. So that would leave revelation describing already occurred and occuring events. Which is fine, but not preterism, I guess. Honestly, I don't worry about it to much.


Actually if I understood you correctly it might be a form. You just hold it to be contemporary and ex eventu, not necessarily prophetic in the most part. Unless you mean "occuring" as in most of it occuring now

However, remember Revelation is not all there is to preterism. The thread starter is not a preterist when it comes to Revelation, but more I think what is it at issue is Matthew 24.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Actually if I understood you correctly it might be a form. You just hold it to be contemporary and ex eventu, not necessarily prophetic in the most part. Unless you mean "occuring" as in most of it occuring now

However, remember Revelation is not all there is to preterism. The thread starter is not a preterist when it comes to Revelation, but more I think what is it at issue is Matthew 24.Yeah, I was gonna say that.

I think the evidence for an early dating of Revelation is very good, and the arguments against are surprisingly weak. However, preterism is the view that a prophecy is in the past, in the first century. Even if you think John wrote after the fact, you could still be a preterist. The problem for that would arrive hermenutically, however, when the author says that Jesus told him the events were about to occur. But this isn't a debate thread.

[Ryokan]

Actually if I understood you correctly it might be a form. You just hold it to be contemporary and ex eventu, not necessarily prophetic in the most part. Unless you mean "occuring" as in most of it occuring now

However, remember Revelation is not all there is to preterism. The thread starter is not a preterist when it comes to Revelation, but more I think what is it at issue is Matthew 24.
I suppose that's true. At this point, I have no hard and fast opinions on it. I am not a futurist. That's all I know.

[tizzidale]

I'm in the Jezz camp. I'm simply trying to trust in Him, for He will appear suddenly.

[tizzidale]

Oh, and you forgot to put "I've changed my mind so often on the subject, I've decided to give up hope of figuring it out."

[themuzicman]

I'm still pantheistic when it comes to eschatology (It'll all pan out in the end).

I think I understand futurism and preterism fairly well. I've read a few things about historicism and just scratch my head.

I would have to say that I lean more towards preterism than futurism at this point, but I wouldn't call it a settled view, either.

Michael

[Sheepdog]

i resisted, but was eventually converted to Deedeeism.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Is there ANYONE who, after being exposed to more arguments out there, has become sympathetic to futurism or premillennialism? Anyone at all?

[Berean Todd]

Well, I was originally basically a pre-mill dispensationalist by default. About 2 years ago I began a series of seriously questioning that, and searched out amillenialism and Covenant theology.

Gradually over time though as I have continued to read and study and pray, I have come closer and closer back to the pre-mill dispensational position, and I feel fairly comfortable with my theology there.

It's been an interesting ride, but essentially I wound up back where I began, but with a better and deeper understanding of both my own position, and that of other 'flavors' of Christianity.

[Hitch]

My biggest change revolves around why this forum was founded.Confirmed by experiences on other forums and the most recent futurists ramblings here.

It has gotten easier and easier to see cultish leanings in doctrine and practices when sneeking a look into the DF camp.

Take care

Hitch

[eschaton]

Is there ANYONE who, after being exposed to more arguments out there, has become sympathetic to futurism or premillennialism? Anyone at all?

I haven't gotten any closer to the premill from which I came, but I've gained more respect for historicism, because I actually believe it is logical. That's more than I can say for preterism.

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

Why the insults?

[David_A_Reed]

My view has been essentially premillennial historicist for a long time, but TW has helped me get a better understanding of the various "isms" and the dividing lines that separate them.

David

[eschaton]

Why the insults?

I'm just stating my honest opinion, but maybe it's just me. It irks me to see preterists diss df and other futurists when I think their eschatology is every bit as absurd and totally groundless. Sorry.

[Sheepdog]

I'm just stating my honest opinion, but maybe it's just me. It irks me to see preterists diss df and other futurists when I think their eschatology is every bit as absurd and totally groundless. Sorry.

FWIW, i'd have filed that under honest opinion, not insult.


but totally groundless? what makes you say preterism is absurd and totally groundless? if you wanted to say that in a lot of cases preterists are force fitting passages into a preterist grid, like futurists frequently do, i'd concede. i see it from time to time, myself. but i fail to see what would warrent the "totally groundless" comment. at least the presentations of preterism i've seen (some here, but mostly in other works), they make an effort to ground "end times" prophecy in allusions to OT prophecy, which IMO makes preterism the best case Scripturally. even if you disagree, "totally groundless" is simply a false description. (you'll note i don't concern myself with the "absurd" descripter, but usually that term is used in a rather subjective and useless manner. many people would say that Revelation is absurd. some would call idealism absurd.)

[dizzle]

that statement above is why eschaton is another poster I don't bother with

[Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat]

I'm just stating my honest opinion, but maybe it's just me. It irks me to see preterists diss df and other futurists when I think their eschatology is every bit as absurd and totally groundless. Sorry.

That wasn't just for you...

[dizzle]

Oh and contra-eschaton, I don't think futurist eschatology is totally groundless. Unlike eschaton I don't think that people who disagree with me (not even hyperpreterists) are so stupid that they walk into walls face first. Most people do tend to have at least some reason why they believe what they do, and to suggest there is no reason is to insult their intelligence in the highest possible way, which is why I don't interact with eschaton. It is just idiocy to claim that there isn't a shred of proof for such a position. And if someone is going to be idiotic in something so obvious what about things that might not be so obvious?

(and when it comes to the Olivet, I actually think futurism has way more grounds than historicism in many respects)

[One Bad Pig]

I left the pre-trib view on my own about six years ago, when I read a book defending it. I left the dispy view on my own after coming to Tweb, when I read a book defending it.
DDW's commentary on Matt. 24 (as well as other things she's said, and JPH's articles) have pretty much convinced me that preterism is scripturally sound; applying Occam's Razor, preterism seems to win out over futurism at this point.

[dizzle]

Thanks Piggo I appreciate that.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I haven't gotten any closer to the premill from which I came, but I've gained more respect for historicism, because I actually believe it is logical. That's more than I can say for preterism.That was uncalled for. The tone of this thread, up until your post, was respectful, with a couple of borderline exceptions. I've made no secret elsewhere of the kind of mind that I associate with certain varieties of eschatology, but do you see me venting them in my thread here? Such is locker room fodder.

For the others too - please. Comparisons to cults and additional comments about people's bad ecclesiology and so forth - even if they're correct, I do not want people of differing views to read this thread and conclude that it's here to belittle anyone. It's not.

[eschaton]

That was uncalled for. The tone of this thread, up until your post, was respectful, with a couple of borderline exceptions. I've made no secret elsewhere of the kind of mind that I associate with certain varieties of eschatology, but do you see me venting them in my thread here? Such is locker room fodder.

For the others too - please. Comparisons to cults and additional comments about people's bad ecclesiology and so forth - even if they're correct, I do not want people of differing views to read this thread and conclude that it's here to belittle anyone. It's not.


Sometimes the pot calls the kettle black. Having said that I will try to hide my true feelings about preterism so as not to be inflammatory.

What is preterism? Its my understanding that the term first came about in regards to the interpretation of the book of Revelation. This idea was formed by Jesuits about the 17th century in response to the Reformation.

Over a period of time the church fathers adopted several earlier Jewish beliefs about the interpretation of Bible prophecy. This interpretation saw Daniel's fourth kingdom (chs 2,7) as the Roman empire. The antichrist, who the church universally accepted as a future opponent, was to come out of this fourth kingdom. The Roman empire ended, but the doctrine didn't change. In the Reformation, Martin Luther identified the Pope with the person of the Antichrist, and the Roman Catholic church with the Antichrist's kingdom. The logic is easy to follow if you go back and look at the writings of the church fathers. The Roman Empire had collapsed but the empire of the RCC still remained, and the Pope was its leader. This fits well with how the early church universally understood the "man of sin" of Second Thessalonians. He was to be a deceiver and a traitor to the church. In order to dissuade guilt from the RCC, and in response to the Reformation the Jesuits came up with different interpretations of the book of Revelation. One placed its events entirely in the future, and another saw its events as fulfilled in the first century.

Since then the idea of preterism has grown to include the Olivet Discourse and the rest of NT prophecy. It sees the tribulation and the antichrist as first century items totally in contradiction to the opinion of the early church. Even the historian Eusebius din't try to claim that the entire Olivet discourse was fulfilled in the first century, and he was probably the most preteristic of church fathers. Some of preterism, the heretical type, even claim the resurrection and last judgment occured in 70AD. This sounds absurd to some, but their hermeneutic is probably the more consistent of the two types of preterism.

Preterists today makes claims that the original preterists didn't make, and that the church fathers never gave any credibility to, such as the idea that "this generation" means the Olivet discourse is limited to the first century. I believe all the major arguments favoring preterism have been discussed here and I don't see any value in any of them. I don't care to re-examine them all now.

It is my opinion that if preterism had any truth in it, I would find it in the writings of the early church. The early church accepted the idea of a future tribulation and antichrist, and I believe that reflects the teaching of Christ and the apostles.

If we think the writings of the ECF were wrong, we need to understand where and why they were. If there is something that was missed in the translation of doctrines from the the apostles to the first century church, we need to look for evidence both in the writings of the earliest church fathers and in the NT itself. Certainly there were errors, and error compounds error so that the end error is much bigger than the original. If preterism is a valid doctrine why isn't there evidence that the antichrist was a first century person? I know of the idea in the writings of church fathers, but they assigned it to the heretics.

...For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the apostles, and remaining in the Churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical tradition.
Origen de Principiis, Preface, 2.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Eschaton, what on earth is that doing in this thread????

[dizzle]

Oh heck you made me look behind the ignore tag. What in the word was THAT?

[eschaton]

That was my explanation why I criticized preterism in the way I did, and why I haven't changed to it, and why I don't think anybody should.

[eschaton]

BTW, thanks for asking.

[John Reece]

In terms of the pole in the OP, I checked the last option: ‘My views have not changed in any significant way’.

My view regarding eschatology was formed years before Dee Dee found my web site and invited me to come to TWeb.

I was a non-dispensational futurist who became intrigued by the writings of Gary North, R. J. Rushdoony, et. al. in the 1980s.

Premillennialism was so firmly rooted in my psyche that I could not grasp the preterist perspective until I put my presuppositions ‘on the altar’ (so to speak) and sought God for insight while repeatedly marinating my mind in the relevant Hebrew and Greek texts.

[dizzle]

And I am so glad I wrote you!

[John Reece]

And I am so glad I wrote you!

And I so am so glad you did! — glad and grateful.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

And I so am so glad you did! — glad and grateful.

Me too.

[eschaton]

It's a love fest!

[ForHimAlone]

Loved reading the posts in this thread. Good poll question.

I was OP b4 I got to Tweb. Loved reading DeMar's "madness" - really intellectual food - but was OP b4 getting his book in my brain. What got me re-thinking eschatology was Gerstner's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth." I also had a great time reading Hoekema's "Bible and the Future" and Venema's "Promise of the Future." Adam Clarke helped me plenty as well. I would be amiss if I failed to mention the influence of O.T. Allis' "Prophecy and the Church" on my thinking too.



I used to be, at the beginning of my Christian walk, a Dispy - when I drank the milk of Impe, Lindsay, Hagee, Lalonde, "Chuckie" Missler, Walvoord, Pentecost, Chafer, LaHaye, et al (here I swam in the eschatological primordial ooze); then I enlarged my world by becoming a little more mature as a Historicist (I grew fins and scales); then I became an advocate of Double Fulfillment (basically a schizophrenic monkey who swang from trees and ate bananas); and finally I evolved into a fully erect, Orthodox Preterist (homo sapiens sapiens without a tail and excessive fur)

My antiquarian section holds almost 70 works of various lengths

Who said Christians can't evolve?

I remain,
ForHimAlone

[Kenny]

Last week, after doing some heavy lurking in the eschatology forum here, I finally settled on a millennial position – postmil/optimistic amil.

edited to add. Thank you to all my brothers and sisters here who, without even knowing it, have been of great assistance in helping me to develop my eschatological views. This area has always been a cloudy one for me, and for the first time I feel like I'm starting to see things clearly. A special thanks to Dee Dee and to Theonomy and GhostWalaiOtoko.

[Assistant Junior Deputy Janitor Analogman]

I used to be, at the beginning of my Christian walk, a Dispy - when I drank the milk of Impe, Lindsay, Hagee, Lalonde, "Chuckie" Missler, Walvoord, Pentecost, Chafer, LaHaye, et al (here I swam in the eschatological primordial ooze); then I enlarged my world by becoming a little more mature as a Historicist (I grew fins and scales); then I became an advocate of Double Fulfillment (basically a schizophrenic monkey who swang from trees and ate bananas); and finally I evolved into a fully erect, Orthodox Preterist (homo sapiens sapiens without a tail and excessive fur)

:lmbo:

Excellent!!

I'm still trying to evolve into a human. I did however skip by double fulfillment. R.T France has been of great help to me as well as Dr. Reece and the not quite yet doctor, "Dr." Warren.

[dizzle]

Last week, after doing some heavy lurking in the eschatology forum here, I finally settled on a millennial position – postmil/optimistic amil.

edited to add. Thank you to all my brothers and sisters here who, without even knowing it, have been of great assistance in helping me to develop my eschatological views. This area has always been a cloudy one for me, and for the first time I feel like I'm starting to see things clearly. A special thanks to Dee Dee and to Theonomy and GhostWalaiOtoko.

Thanks Kenny I had not seen this before!

[Zguy28]

My views have not changed significantly. I am a Futurist, but historic pre-mill, Not dispy.
Literal 1000 year reign in the future.

If there is a rapture, its at the Last Trumpet. Whether that's at the same time as the Second Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ or before at the 7th trumpet, I don't know.

I am open to discussing different views of all stripes intelligibly.