What are the common eschatological views around the world?

[jds22]

I heard somebody recently say that pre-trib/dispy is mostly an American view. I have no idea if that's true or not. I was just wondering if there was some way of determining popular views worldwide.

WooHoo, I'm up to 4 posts.

[RBerman]

It's true that dispensationalism is an American oddity, mostly owing to the popularity of the Scofield reference Bible through most of the 20th century. It took adherents of the other views much too long to publish their own competing study Bibles, and by then the damage was done.

[Kristian Joense]

I can in fact confirm that my country ( of 48000 people) has been "infected" by that view. On account of the Plymouth Brethren. They are the largest denomination after the state sponsored Lutheran church.

[TyRockwell]

I heard somebody recently say that pre-trib/dispy is mostly an American view. I have no idea if that's true or not. I was just wondering if there was some way of determining popular views worldwide.

WooHoo, I'm up to 4 posts.

The most common view has been Historic Premillenialism. Jesus will return when the church has completed its role and has become the mature bride of Christ. There will be a bodily resurrection at his coming of the righteous dead, with the departed believers returning with him from heaven. Then Jesus will rule the earth from Jerusalem for 1000 years. At the end of which satan will be loosed for a season and will recruit a rebellion against Jesus' reign, but it will be quickly squashed. Then the judgment and eternal rewards.

[Silver Hand]

The most common view has been Historic Premillenialism.

Before I answer the OP directly:

Jerry, I need to say that I disagree very strongly with Ty's statement here. While premillennialism (historic as opposed to dripsensationalism) has been a valid position taken, and is considered orthodox, the vast majority of the church has always interpreted the "Millennium" symbolically. Thus, they have most commonly been either Amillennial or Postmillennial.

As to the interpretation of Revelation and Daniel, ect., there has been more variety. Futurism has been widespread, but it's definitely not the Futurism espoused by the modern breed of premillennialism. Preterism has been widely held to, as well.

Now to answer the OP:

I think in America obviously, we have become largely Dispensational. But Europe is more Amill-Postmill. Assume it's the same with the Commonwealth countries.

Asia (and particularly China) might be more Historic Premill. They experience incredible persecution over there, and are more likely to accept the idea of a "Great Tribulation" because of it.

One thing's for sure: "Left Behind" theology doesn't fly in persecuted countries.

[TyRockwell]

Silver Hand,

I wonder how you intend to prove the statement: "the vast majority of the church has always interpreted the "Millennium" symbolically". The term used is 1000 years. "Millenium" has been used symbolically, but not 1000 years.

I don't believe it. The first rule of Bible belief is to interpret literally, if at all possible.

I have yet to get an example from anyone to this question: Where in the Bible was a given number of years ever been used as symbolism for a different length of time? (not counting "with God,1000 years is like a day, or as a watch in the night.")

[John Reece]

The term used is 1000 years. "Millenium" has been used symbolically, but not 1000 years.

Ty, what do you think millennium means?

[Silver Hand]

Disclaimer: I am posting this in response to Ty, not because I feel a need to defend a particular eschatological position, but rather because the challenges he tries to raise are so typical. Please know that while I disagree with Premillennialists, I respect them. What I do not respect about Ty's breed of Premill is that he has developed his own eschatological system around it. Therefore, I know that whatever I say will fall on deaf ears where Ty is concerned. Nevertheless...

1.

The term used is 1000 years. "Millenium" has been used symbolically, but not 1000 years.

Ty, I am well aware that the term used is 1,000 years. That's why I put "Millennium" in the quotations. And yes, said years have indeed been used symbolically.

2.

The first rule of Bible belief is to interpret literally, if at all possible.

I am so sick of this argument. Actually Ty, I thought it was called "The Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation." But no matter, it's not a valid rule. It was a rule adopted by wooden literalists (ie. Dripsensationalists) to serve their scripture-twisting agenda. Should we interpret Scripture literally? Yes! Now, what does that mean?

Wouldn't you say we should interpret the Bible according to what it plainly tells us from within it's literary context? There is historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, parable, ect.

Then again, you apparently can't follow your own (bad) advice. You read the "Information Super Highway" into your interpretation of Daniel 12!!! By the way, calling the internet the "Information Super Highway" in 2009 is like calling your car a "horseless carriage" or your toilet a "water closet." Just sayin'...

3.

Where in the Bible was a given number of years ever been used as symbolism for a different length of time? (not counting "with God,1000 years is like a day, or as a watch in the night.")

Question, Ty. Who owns the cattle on hill number 1,001? Will God cease blessing His people in the 1,001st generation?

[TyRockwell]

Ty, what do you think millennium means?

It means 1000 years, 1000 annums. I know that. I'm saying that "millennium" is often used as symbolic or metaphor, but not as likely is 1000 years used that way, and certainly not in Revelation 20.

Everything in Revelation 20, 21, and 22 seems to be literal. Try reading it that way. It works. I think the first 3 chapters of Revelation are literal, too. The vision of Jesus that John saw in Rev. 1 is literally a vision, but Jesus appears in symbolic form.

[gharfish]

Before I answer the OP directly:

Jerry, I need to say that I disagree very strongly with Ty's statement here. While premillennialism (historic as opposed to dripsensationalism) has been a valid position taken, and is considered orthodox, the vast majority of the church has always interpreted the "Millennium" symbolically. Thus, they have most commonly been either Amillennial or Postmillennial.

Also "the vast majority of the church has always" not even been Protestant for some fifteen hundered years; right ?

[TyRockwell]

Disclaimer: I am posting this in response to Ty, not because I feel a need to defend a particular eschatological position, but rather because the challenges he tries to raise are so typical. Please know that while I disagree with Premillennialists, I respect them. What I do not respect about Ty's breed of Premill is that he has developed his own eschatological system around it. Therefore, I know that whatever I say will fall on deaf ears where Ty is concerned. Nevertheless...

1.

Ty, I am well aware that the term used is 1,000 years. That's why I put "Millennium" in the quotations. And yes, said years have indeed been used symbolically.

Not in the Bible. You have not pointed out a single instance in the Bible where a given number of years actually means a different amount of time in reference to men in time. It is strengthened with the statement that Satan is bound "until the thousand years were ended."
Then, "They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years." That gives you three close uses of the literal number. A symbolic time would not be given a literal number three times in 5 verses, five times in 7 verses when you include verses 6 and 7. Symbolism isn't done like that!

2.

I am so sick of this argument. Actually Ty, I thought it was called "The Golden Rule of Bible Interpretation." But no matter, it's not a valid rule. It was a rule adopted by wooden literalists (ie. Dripsensationalists) to serve their scripture-twisting agenda. Should we interpret Scripture literally? Yes! Now, what does that mean?

Even Jesus said, "Why are my words not clear to you?"
There is nothing 'dispensational' about this. And "agenda"? That's out of place. The so-called 'wooden literalists' have read into scripture plenty of imaginary ideas. Now you are doing the same, after over 1980 years since Jesus' ascension.

When there is a plain literal meaning, it means it. If it was couched in terms that are imagery, or visionary, it would be different. But Rev. 20 is about Jesus literally, bodily ruling with his throne on earth. That will happen! Do you mean to say that Jesus will not return bodily? Are you putting a 'rapture' to heaven where it is his return from heaven? Do you not know that God and heaven will descend literally to the earth and live here with men? These are not fuzzy pictures within picturesque visions.

Satan will literally be bound until he is loosed. That is clear. Satan is NOT bound right now, or you wouldn't need to resist him, to make him flee. If he was bound, he wouldn't be there in the first place to flee.

Wouldn't you say we should interpret the Bible according to what it plainly tells us from within it's literary context? There is historical narrative, poetry, prophecy, parable, ect.

The narrative changes in Revelation 20 to literal. Instead of coming "with the clouds," riding a horse with a sword coming from his mouth, Jesus is introducing events that have not been told or foreshadowed in other parts of the Bible.

Then again, you apparently can't follow your own (bad) advice. You read the "Information Super Highway" into your interpretation of Daniel 12!!! By the way, calling the internet the "Information Super Highway" in 2009 is like calling your car a "horseless carriage" or your toilet a "water closet." Just sayin'...

It was a widely used term at the time, and it does still portray "going to T-web" or "visiting a website." It still is a picture of high-speed travel and learning, even if you remain in place at your computer.
You seem to have a mental block, because you keep mis-stateing what I said about Dan. 12:4 and the TIME, it refers to, which is an "UNTIL," a specific time.
4. "But you, Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book until the time of the end; many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall increase.''

3.
Question, Ty. Who owns the cattle on hill number 1,001? Will God cease blessing His people in the 1,001st generation?

You are confused. Those passages are not about a specific time. The subject is not poetry, but a specified time, AFTER Jesus returns!

[Silver Hand]

Also "the vast majority of the church has always" not even been Protestant for some fifteen hundered years; right ?

Ok, Ghar. I'll bite.

Yes. "the vast majority of the church has always" (and that includes Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants) held to either Amill or Postmill. Almost 2,000 years of widespread agreement on an interpretation lends considerable weight.

On the other hand, Premillennialism has a long history as the eschatological construct of choice for little groups like the JW's, Mormons, and just about every cult born out of a warped view of Old Testament prophecy.

[Silver Hand]

Ty,

regarding the "Millennium," and my position that the 1,000 years is symbolic, you state:

Symbolism isn't done like that!

Pray tell, O Great Expositor: How is symbolism to be done, then?

Even Jesus said, "Why are my words not clear to you?"

Ty, yes, the Bible was written to be understood. It can be, if time is taken to examine it properly.

And Jesus often spoke enigmatically (on purpose). Go read about why Jesus spoke in parables.

There is nothing 'dispensational' about this.

I know that you yourself are not dispensational, praise God! I was making the point that they are notoriously anal about insisting on a wooden literalism. Anyone who dares deviate from said hermeneutic is automatically branded a "liberal," or a lukewarm or dead Christian, if not considered a nonbeliever altogether.

Basically, this type of "literalism" leads to increasingly bizarre end time scenarios and Christians who make the rest of us look like lunatics.

And "agenda"? That's out of place.

Is it? The dispensationalists certainly have an agenda. And it's not out of place. You have an agenda, too, Ty! You want to be sensational and to sell your book.

The so-called 'wooden literalists' have read into scripture plenty of imaginary ideas.

I'd say "the Information Super Highway" being a fulfillment of a specific prophecy is pretty imaginative, as well as imaginary.

Now you are doing the same, after over 1980 years since Jesus' ascension.

Well, that's the pot calling the kettle....that's the pot talking. As I've stated before, the vast majority of the Church (throughout its history) has interpreted the 1,000 years in Rev. 20 as a symbolic representation of a literal truth. Christ will reign for a long, long time, come back, and restore all things.

When there is a plain literal meaning, it means it.

Yay, we agree! Amen! Then again, Revelation is the most symbolic book in the Bible, and it's often difficult to decipher a "plain literal meaning" without a close examination of apocalyptic literature.

If it was couched in terms that are imagery, or visionary, it would be different.

Amen and Amen! See my above point.

But Rev. 20 is about Jesus literally, bodily ruling with his throne on earth. That will happen!

Really? I see thrones (plural) with the saints reigning with Christ. As a Postmill, I believe Jesus took His throne at His ascension (see Daniel 7) and will reign with and through His Church.

I also don't see a literal 1,000 year gap between the Return of Christ and Eternity:

"Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death. For God has put all things in subjection under his feet." (1 Corinthians 15:24-27, ESV)

that passage corresponds to Psalm 110:1, also the most quoted Old Testament passage in the Bible:

"The LORD says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, until I make your enemies your footstool.'"

Do you mean to say that Jesus will not return bodily?

Of course Jesus will return bodily! I'm no heretic, Ty

Are you putting a 'rapture' to heaven where it is his return from heaven?

Um...no....the "rapture" is pretty much a dispy inovation.

Look at 1 Thessalonians 4: 16-17 again.

We don't fly off to Heaven at the Second Coming, Ty. We are caught up in order to greet the Lord as He descends.

Do you not know that God and heaven will descend literally to the earth and live here with men?

Yes. I look forward to it, don't you?

These are not fuzzy pictures within picturesque visions.

Agreed! Seen within proper context, it's all rather clear.

Satan will literally be bound until he is loosed. That is clear.

No, that is dumb. Are you suggesting Satan will assume the literal form of a dragon(?!) who needs to be subdued will a literal chain? I wonder what sort of metallic compound is needed secure a giant demonic red lizard?

Satan is NOT bound right now, or you wouldn't need to resist him, to make him flee.

How then did Christ plunder His house (see Matthew 12:29)? If he's not been restrained, we're in real trouble...

If he was bound, he wouldn't be there in the first place to flee.

He's on a short leash, but certainly not immobilized. In fact, I'd say his limitations have just made him angrier and meaner...

[Adrift]

Ok, Ghar. I'll bite.

Yes. "the vast majority of the church has always" (and that includes Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestants) held to either Amill or Postmill. Almost 2,000 years of widespread agreement on an interpretation lends considerable weight.

On the other hand, Premillennialism has a long history as the eschatological construct of choice for little groups like the JW's, Mormons, and just about every cult born out of a warped view of Old Testament prophecy.

I don't want to pick a debate with you. To be honest, I don't know enough about the subject to do so even if I wanted to, but I'm currently reading in the book "Revelation: Four Views" that Premillennialism, (chiliasm) was what many of the early church fathers advocated (at least from what we know of them) till the 4th century. This book cites Victorinus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius as all prominent premillennialists. Apparently the pendulum didn't swing to other views in church history in a major way till Augustine, and then stayed that way for well over a thousand years (but not quite 2,000).

Now just because some of the early Church fathers were premillennialists isn't to say that this point of view is the correct one. I just wanted to point it out that it wasn't quite completely foreign to the church till very recent times... Anyhow, I have much more to read up on the subject.

[Silver Hand]

Hey Adrift

...I'm currently reading in the book "Revelation: Four Views" that Premillennialism, (chiliasm) was what many of the early church fathers advocated (at least from what we know of them) till the 4th century. This book cites Victorinus, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Lactantius as all prominent premillennialists.

I'm assuming it's the big book edited by Steve Gregg? Got that one on my shelf. 'Tis a good one!

Anyhow, I have much more to read up on the subject.

Hey, as long as you don't waste your cash on Ty's book Seriously though, I might suggest The Early Church and the End of the World by Gary DeMar and Francis X. Gumerlock.