Social Network Links
Powered by Squarespace
Search the Riddleblog
"Amillennialism 101" -- Audio and On-Line Resources

Ask A Question About Eschatology

If you would like to ask a question about Reformed amillennialism, ask it here.

If the question is relevant to readers of the Riddleblog, or has not already been answered, I'll get to it when I can.  I try to answer one of these a week, so, obviously, I cannot get to all of them.

Please be sure to read through previously answered questions first.  I may have already tackled it!

Questions and answers are archived in the "Answers to Questions About Eschatology" section.

My question concerns your assessment of the pre-wrath rapture position.

I've read and appreciated a handful of "post-trib" works (particularly those by Ladd, Gundry and Moo), which reveal not only the strengths of the post-trib view but also the weaknesses of the pre-trib view. I've also come across a few critiques of the so-called "pre-wrath" view, but such critiques generally come from the pre-trib rather than the post-trib perspective. (In fact, I know of no solid post-trib responses to pre-wrath theory.)

It seems to me that any validity of the "pre-wrath" arguments stem from concerns common to the post-trib and pre-wrath views: namely, the indefensibility of the pre-trib view. In other words, I believe that the pre-wrath view has rightly shot down any arguments in favor of the pre-trib view. HOWEVER, I see no basis for the pre-wrath view itself! It seems to me that all the pre-wrath pleading about the details of Revelation's seal/trumpet/bowl judgments, in an attempt to place the rapture sometime between the midpoint and the end of Daniel's 70th week (i.e., sometime around the sixth seal), not only follows the dispensational interpretive errors re: the 70th week, but also ends up being an incredibly strained system when it comes to attempting to pinpoint a rapture within the judgments of that week.

Moreover, it seems to me that the pre-wrath view is based on the same false assumption as the pre-trib view: namely, the assumption that "exemption from God's wrath necessitates prior evacuation from God's world." Pre-wrathers don't seem to realize that in the days immediately prior to the second advent, God: (1) can and does shield believers from divine wrath; and (2) can and does target unbelievers with divine wrath. Neither pre-tribbers nor pre-wrathers can come to grips with the fact that there will be bona fide believers on the earth prior to Christ's return, and that such believers will not be subject to God's wrath! It seems to me that this observation cuts the legs out of both the pre-trib and the pre-wrath positions. God's safekeeping can take forms other than removal (cf. Jn. 17:15).

In addition to all this, pre-wrath adherents, though rightly seeing the inception of the new heavens and earth at the second advent, nevertheless are premillennial ... and end up placing the millennium during the first 1000 years of the new heavens and earth ... thus mixing the sin and judgment of the millennium with the perfections of eternity future! (In other words, they place the millennium at the beginning of the age to come, rather than between this age and the age to come as per most premillennialists!)

I commend the pre-wrath view for seeing many of the errors of dispensationalism, and thus for moving away from the pre-trib view, and also for moving away from the view that there's a gap of 1000 years between this age and the age to come. However, I think that the pre-wrath view still holds on to an undue amount of dispensational baggage (specifically, the Israel/church distinction), and thus that it ends up recommending a pretty eccentric view of end time events! Oh, the beautiful simplicity that comes from the straightforward reading of the NT: the post-trib, amill view!

So ... do you have any reactions to the pre-wrath view of Rosenthal, VanKampen, Nigro, et al? What do you see as the key flaws in the pre-wrath system?
September 11, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterWayne Rohde
Hi Kim, Got a question for you. If the first century Christians understood the O.T. and some of the N.T. then why in the book of Revelation do they name the tribes by name and not just say, the elect, or the church, or Abrahams children?? Why do they name specific tribes?? Back then they didn't know the 'terms' we use now a days such as post, pre, a, and etc. So if they read the Bible, like the end of Isaiah, why would the Lord waist his time on things He knew wasn't going to happen on all those pages?? Thanks and looking forward to your response.
September 3, 2006 | Unregistered Commenterplw
Dr. Riddlebarger,

I was wondering what your opinion was on Revelation 1:1-19 "The Two Witnesses." Are they literal or symbolic? If they are literal who are they? Is this a past or future event?
August 23, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterRuss
I was wondering if I could get your opinion on the Knox Seminary "Revelation Project", particularly its positing that the divisions in Revelation have consecutive and chiastic correspondence with divisions in the gospel of John.

Here: http://tinyurl.com/kjkxo
and here: http://tinyurl.com/hrexp
August 22, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJim Kathan
What was the problem with Hymenaeus and Philetus. Why did the apostle Paul, “…deliver them up to Satan?”

2 tim 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. 17 And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; 18 Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

1 tim. 1:20 Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

It's my understanding they taught the resurrection was spiritual, that's why it was possible for the resurrection to already have happened but isn't this a belief held by Amil folks, that the first resurrection is spiritual?

Peace brother and thank you for your work it's been helpful in reforming my views.
August 5, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJason
Dr.Riddlebarger, how essential do you think it is for a believer to have a millennial view and if one holds to a certain one how crucial a part should this impact ones life.
I know this question may be complex to answer but I'd appreciate any pointers in the right way of thinking. Thanks.
Soli Deo gloria.
July 19, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterNick W.
Dr. Riddlebarger,

What you say is the main erroneous premise of the Hyper-Preterist paradigm?
June 28, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterRichard Roldan
Pastor Kim,

What is the difference between Classic Dispensationalism and Progressive Dispensationalism? Are there any good responses or critiques of Progressive Disp.? Thanks.

Chris
June 15, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterChris Coleman
How do you explain the references of 42 months in Revelation and Daniel in relation to the Tribulation ?

June 13, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterZechariah
They came to [spirtual] life and reigned ... the rest of the dead did not come to [physical] life until after 1000 yrs.

doesn't the wor life have to be of the same character here.? i'm not denying a spiritual and physical resurection just and exegetical question
June 10, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAdam

What do you believe is the greatest benefit the Church can receive from the study of eschatology?
May 19, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterChris
Can one be both a preterist exegetically and an amillennialist theologically? Or do preterism and postmillennialism go together indisolubly? Reason I ask is that I'm studying at Whitefield Theological Seminary and have finished a course by Dr. Ken Gentry. He has not swayed me to the postmillennial camp (because of his deductive methodology) but he has convinced me that several passages of Scripture should be interpreted preteristically. So I'm wondering if you can have a consistent belief system as a preterist amillennialist, because so far that's what I think I am. Thank you!
April 30, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJohn M. Linebarger
The Bible teaches that the present "age" is characterized by evil (Gal. 1:4). This seems to strongly suggest that this will always be the case. A person who holds to the Postmill view told me that this only means that the world would always be viewed in terms of the fall and will always contain imperfection and hence has no bearing on the Postmill view of the world becoming "outwardly" better as a whole.

Have you heard this before? I am not buying this. What do you think of this view of this passage?
April 27, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterBobby Crenshaw
My question concerns the preterist claim that Matthew 24:29-31 is using "prophetic language" to describe the second coming. They refer to scriptures such as Isaiah 19:1 where Isaiah speaks of the Lord "...riding on a swift cloud and comes to Egypt." They point out that this was fulfilled by King Nebadchanezzer, yet the Lord didnt literally "come on a cloud". While I believe the New Testament is clear on the nature of the second coming(Acts 1:11), therefore it couldnt have been a "spiritual" coming in 70AD, how then do we, as amillinial's, respond to the appearance of the "prophetic" language in the old testament, and how it is similar to Jesus account of His "coming on clouds"?
April 18, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJason Young
In Revelation 3:5 Jesus says that "He who overcomes will, like them, be dressed in white. I will never blot out his name from the book of life but will acknowledge his name before my Father and his angels." This seems to imply that some will have their names blotted from the book of life. This seems to then imply that there is something these people can do to keep their names from being blotted out.
March 7, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterAndrew Alvarez

PostCreate a New Post

Enter your information below to create a new post.
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.