Has anybody noticed the claim that Donald Trump praying at the Wailing Wall in Israel fulfils a 3000 year old prophecy? It is starting to go viral on Face Book.
I found out that to say anything against it being a fulfilment of prophecy, sure gets one a lot of criticism.
Any thoughts on the issue?

Tom

Absolute foolishness. My eschatology does not come from newspapers.

Next, they will claim that he is the anitchrist, as he is brokering peace between Arabs and Jews, and trying to unite world religions!

Greetings everyone,

I am new here and was scrolling through and reading old threads when I came across this one from back in 2017 (I hope it is acceptable to revive old discussions). I am not familiar with the account of Donald Trump's visit to the Wailing Wall, but I do happen to think that he is mentioned in Scripture:

"And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king
of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be
stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he
shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.
Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy
him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain...

And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at
him..." Dn. 11:25-26 & 40a

The "king of the south." It seems as concerning the latter-day fulfilment of many prophecies, the "south" or the place which is otherwise known as "Egypt" is actually in the west:

"They shall walk after the LORD: he shall roar like a lion: when
he shall roar, then the children shall tremble from the west.
They shall tremble as a bird out of Egypt, and as a dove out of the
land of Assyria: and I will place them in their houses, saith the
LORD." Hos. 11:10-11 (compare this verse to Rev. 10:3)

(Hopefully if there is a way to make bold and italics work within this format, I will soon get it figured out. I use them a lot for clarity!)

Just curious if you embrace Dispensationalism or at least Premillennialism? Your views expressed above would tend to lead one to conclude my question...

Hello pilgrim, I like your name, and such should be the confession of every Christian! To answer your question, -my own thoughts are that Dispensationalism is heretical (I am very much opposed to it). By that I do not mean it is damnable heresy, unless one would insist, for example, that salvation is possible apart from Christ (such as the salvation of Jewish people, or salvation during Old Testament times &c.). I am very much against the antinomianism and various other errors that go along with Dispensational teachings. Also, I think that the Millennium is already past (I don't equate the Millenium as being entirely synonymous with Christ's Kingship as Mediator, or with the first resurrection), so I suppose that entirely disqualifies me from the premillennialist camp. Most of my life I have considered myself an Amillennialist of sorts, but I confess the term is inadequate to describe my own views sufficiently. Perhaps my Historicism (which includes a partly yet-future aspect) made you suppose I might be a Premillennialist. I think historic Premil's are usually Historicists as well, but I disagree with much of their conclusions about the fulfilment of prophecy. I also think Postmil Historicist's conclusions are often either off, or else involve too much preteristic thinking. An example of this might be concerning Daniel 11, which I had quoted from above (previously). I agree with Postmillennialists that these things did have a fulfilment around 171-168 BC, but I believe that there is a latter-day fulfilment as well. In other words, I believe there to be multiple fulfilments of many Scripture prophecies.

Okay... thanks.

No problem, Pilgrim. I am glad to explain and to clarify my meaning whenever I am able. I told you that for many years I have considered my position more or less to be a sort of Amillennialism, but I probably should clarify that assertion by saying that, while I do generally agree with many in the Amil camp regarding a non-literal "thousand years" being taught in Revelation 20, and while I agree also concerning its nature &c.; yet I see this as a description which pertains only to the more spiritual aspect of what I think should actually be understood as a twofold picture.

In other words, I do suppose there is a spiritual sense in which Satan (was bound from deceiving the Gentiles (as he previously had), so that Christ might call his elect out from every nation (no longer as primarily being from among the Jews). But I do think that there was also a literal thousand-year period (which I suppose to have been from 1001 - 2001) that has more reference to a restriction upon openly pagan principles governing general society (in the west) as these might be enforced by the authority of the magistrates themselves. You still did have paganism in disguise governing many things, however, especially prior to the Reformation. This evidenced itself (to those who were discerning) in the great persecutions of the godly, among other things.

I think the height of the earthly (or more literalistic) Millennial blessings (being a by-product or outworking of the effects of the gospel) was between (about) 1637 and the 1830's. However, I question whether the personal experiences of grace along with its effects were not often greater in the earlier days (such as from Wickliffe until around Calvin's time), when the earthly situation was generally much worse for the saints. I think one of the benefits which goes along with noting a literal thousand years (as well as a more metaphorical Millennium) is having the additional tool by which to mark the passage of the times and seasons as we longingly look for Christ's appearing.

I just figured I should point this out, -so that I don't in any way mislead you or anyone else regarding my position.

And who else would hold to your particular views of eschatology?... just curious. I would appreciate knowing particular names of individuals, church(es) and/or denominations, if there are any. Thanks

I am sorry. To answer your question exactly, would involve too arduous a task at present, and I suppose it best under the present circumstances not to be much distracted from the words of Scripture itself. While I do as much as I reasonably can, I generally am not at great leisure to divert my attention to focus on a survey of the numerous writings which men have produced, as I find there are so many views and opinions that have been espoused over the years (and the best of these were written before Satan was loosed, so that there are many eschatological things which those generally more godly past generations could have no way of understanding very clearly).

Of course, anyone is welcome to challenge whatever view of Scripture I might express here from the Scriptures, and I have no problem if they themselves wish to borrow their arguments from other men (as I might sometimes do as well), so long as Scripture itself will be the basis of all. I find that there is a continual need to challenge and to correct myself from Scripture.

But in an attempt to provide at least something of an answer to your question; for now I will simply say that I think the reality to be that the greater part of Christian denominations have refrained from adopting an official eschatological position beyond what is foundational and is confessed by all Christians (i.e., that Christ is coming again to judge the world (or all men that ever lived); that there will be a resurrection of those self-same bodies in which men have lived and acted; that there are two places appointed for the bodies and souls of men, -a place either of eternal rewards of grace, or of everlasting punishments for sin (i.e., heaven and hell)…&c. -In these sorts of things all true Christians will agree). Whether or not one thinks it proper that most churches have not been more specific about Eschatology (and I myself could wish this were not the case), beyond the reason of mere sinful indifference, there does seem to be some valid reason for this as well, which I hope to touch upon a little later on.

But, while Christians and churches generally have allowed a rather generous degree of leeway regarding eschatological positions (so long as these are found within the bounds of orthodoxy), I would point out that in various of the less essential particulars (those areas of difference which are generally considered “negotiable,” such as the differences between post-mil, historic pre-mil, and a-mil viewpoints), I actually can say that I agree with all of these distinct camps of Christians, which is more than I could say if I were to fit more neatly into the Amillennial camp. Even so, my own views will not be winning any popularity contests, nor are they such as are likely to serve well for my personal self-advancement or ability to buy and sell in the world, or even in churches for that matter.

Listing the names of all of those with which I can agree in certain less-essential particulars would be an impossible task, since, as I said, I can agree in some particulars of these lesser things with all eschatological camps of Christians, where most people (whoever fit neatly into one of the distinct camps) cannot say so much. I will attempt to give you an example of what I mean by this:

As one who agrees with Amillennialism that the kingdom of Christ not only spans the whole gospel age, but is an everlasting kingdom, and as to its essence or nature, it is spiritual, being very much distinct from the kingdoms and nations of this world, as well, that the world would grow generally worse and apostasy increase toward the end (though not necessarily apparently so, nor necessarily in every time period), that throughout all of this time the saints must experience much tribulation;

…yet still further (as distinguishable from Amillennialism) I also can agree with classic Premillennialism in the supposition that there is a certain literal thousand years intended in Rev. 20 (although not a “1000 year kingdom” or “1000 year reign of Christ,” nor did this entail Christ’s being physically present on earth); that the Parousia (although not entailing a “rapture” (which comes later), but rather, Christ’s coming like a thief, at the end of which He (or at least his “sign”) will be seen in the heavens as he ascends again to the Father) and also the destruction of Babylon, both precede (are not the same event as) Christ’s return to judge the world finally, that there is a distinguishable tribulation period -“Jacob’s trouble” (i.e., the saints trouble) during the first part of that also distinguished latter-day “hour of trial which would come upon the whole world,” -out of the midst of which the saints will be removed (being gathered into one place -the regions of literal Jerusalem) and so “delivered” just before the destruction of Babylon…

And furthermore, as one who agrees with Amillennialism that nations as such, and civil government, are not in the Church (nor shall these ever be brought in), that Christian history, or our pilgrimage on earth would largely (or overall) be characterized by a cross which must be endured before the reception of a crown (i.e., the saints throughout most of history would not have the upper hand in worldly things);

…yet still further (as distinguishable from Amillennialism) I also can agree with Postmillennialism in the supposition that Christ will come again to judge the world finally only after the “kingdom and dominion under the whole heaven has been given to the saints” (although this actually is the “latter rain,” not the (already past) Millennium, and it will continue for about one hundred years until the general resurrection and final judgement. Also, it will occur only after a “full end” has been made of the nations -or of that present order of the kingdoms of this world and of men, so that the last nation standing in time will be the new Jerusalem, which, by means of the gospel will then be made to fill the earth).

If you (or anyone else reading this) find yourself still wondering as concerning a more specific answer to your question after November of 2023 (or even better yet, after June of 2026), then please feel free to ask me again (assuming this venue will still exist). Perhaps I will have a better or more suitable answer for you then. I am sorry as I realize this does not entirely answer your question, but I think this is the best answer I can give you for now.

But I would close with an encouragement (for whoever reads this) to some Scripture meditations. First, I think it would be good to meditate on whether or not Christ’s first coming was exactly or even very much at all according to the common and longstanding Messianic expectations of the Jewish Church. I think the fulfilment of prophecy is rarely (if ever) what people generally have expected it to be, and yet, who can deny the truth and accuracy of God’s Word in hindsight, once the fulfilment is accomplished? Prophecies concerning Christ’s first coming seem much more obvious to us who (all of our days) have had the advantage of looking back upon their actual fulfilment. I hope whoever reads these words will take some time to consider this, along with its implications concerning even the gospel Church and Eschatology.

Secondly, I suppose, when it comes to Eschatology, most of us probably have at least at some point, been guilty of not giving sufficient weight to what the following Scripture passages expressly teach concerning what the Church (and Christians) would be able to know throughout most of history (and this is where I am forced to acknowledge a certain degree of validity -whether I like it or not- in many churches never having adopted a more narrow official eschatological position):

“Then I Daniel looked, and, behold, there stood other two, the one on this side of the bank of the river, and the other on that side of the bank of the river. And one said to the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, How long shall it be to the end of these wonders? And I heard the man clothed in linen, which was upon the waters of the river, when he held up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and sware by him that liveth for ever that it shall be for a time, times, and an half; and when he shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished. And I heard, but I understood not: then said I, O my Lord, what shall be the end of these things? And he said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end.” Dn. 12:5-9 (My view is that the “time of the end” has reference to a final seven-years “time,” into the first part of which these “wonders” would extend, -which means this mystery would be opened up within about three and one-half years’ time at most (and probably especially within one years’ time). See surrounding verses for various other important details.)

“AND I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire [I take this to be a description of Christ in the Parousia]: And he had in his hand a little book open [signifying an initial or beginning of the unsealing of Scripture mysteries during the time of the Parousia]: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. And the angel which I saw stand upon the sea and upon the earth lifted up his hand to heaven, And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer [i.e., time of delay, as concerning the judgement of Babylon (see the Greek)]: But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets. [or, when the seventh angel is about to sound (i.e., -the 7th trumpet, which, I would note in passing, is not said to be the “last trump”) the secret of God will be finished -or, made openly manifest (see the Greek)].” Rev. 10:1-7

I realize this is sort of a long answer for such a short question, but I hope it will prove helpful!

Hmmm, all that and I didn't notice an answer to my question?

I would say that some of my trusted individuals re: eschatology are William Hendriksen, Cornelis P. Venema, Herman Hoeksema, David Engelsma, et al. Of course, there are myriad others who hold to the same eschatological views or very similar views of those men. The Protestant Reformed Church denomination has to this point been solid in maintaining their theology, albeit not all are acceptable to me personally.

Okay, there's an example of the type of answer I was hoping to receive from you.

Thanks for sharing concerning your position. It is comfortable to belong within a present-day group having its champions, so to speak. And probably the men you mention are being more faithful to at least certain of Scripture truths than many are these days, although I have not read their books for myself in order to personally assess this. It is usual with men to feel a greater sense of validity in the enjoyment of their associations, but (as you know) such things in themselves do not validate anything in God’s eyes.

Time would fail me to speak of all of the examples from Scripture in which God’s people (and often those being most faithful to God’s truth) have found themselves largely (if not entirely) destitute of such comforts. But (for the comfort of those who find themselves in such a condition) being destitute of a crowd and of men’s approval does not discredit anyone in God’s eyes, especially the more faithfully they speak according to His Word; and the Word of God (as its testimony applies to present circumstances) is where I would like to try to keep my focus. If I am wrong in my conclusions, perhaps others can show me this from Scripture (even if they wish to borrow their arguments from other men, whomever they have had leisure to read).

With regard to the answer that I provided to your question in my last post, I will attempt to clarify it a little here (perhaps I was not as clear as I could have been):


My previous general answer (but slightly embellished for greater clarity):

“I am sorry. To answer your question exactly, would involve too arduous a task [for me] at present, and I suppose it best under the present circumstances not to be much distracted from the words of Scripture itself. While I do as much as I reasonably can, I generally am not at great leisure to divert my attention to focus on a survey of the numerous writings which men have produced, as I find there are so many views and opinions that have been espoused over the years…”

[bold type in quote added by Nahum]

My previous more specific answer (but slightly embellished for greater clarity):

“Listing the names of all of those with which I can agree in certain [of the] less-essential particulars [i.e., an agreement with my own “particular views of Eschatology” in the area of “non-essentials”] would be an impossible task, since, as I said, I can agree in some particulars of these lesser things with all eschatological camps of Christians, where most people (whoever fit neatly into one of the distinct camps) cannot say so much.”

Explanation.

John Wickliffe (and the Lollards &c.) held to “my particular view” that the Millennium entailed a literal 1000 years, after which Christ would return (except he thought the Millennium was over in his lifetime…). Eusebius (and countless others) agreed with “my particular view” that all of history would be 7000 years (except he thought… … agh. -I guess if your allowed to not entirely agree with the views of the Protestant Reformed Church, I should be allowed my exceptions as well). There are many with whom I agree. Put various tenants of the faith of so many saints of all times together, and being combined, I find it is “my particular views.”

Make a list (if you can) of every last orthodox Christian proponent of the a-mil, post-mil and historic pre-mil positions, and there you will have your list of those who hold to my “particular views of Eschatology” -since I hold with all of them in some point(s), even where these as distinct camps usually are found to strongly disagree with each other.

I don’t approach the Scriptures as one attempting to create a hybridized consensus between popular theological views, but I simply find that Christians (by creating extremes) have so often fought over things that actually are not entirely mutually exclusive whenever understood correctly. For example:

“Are you a Puritan or a Pietist, or, Are you an Old Light, or a New Light sort of Presbyterian?” The best short answer I can give to such questions is BOTH AND NEITHER, --and now I can expect everyone’s displeasure, but if I am being faithful to God’s Word, at least I will have His approval in this matter (which should be what matters most to me). But to put this problem in a more positive light, I actually think it demonstrates that the Good Shepherd did not leave everyone else entirely in the dark in order that he might exclusively tend to my own favored brand of the old “Associate Presbyterians” (even though these might often have tended toward straying, even as the others). It seems Christ has distributed glimpses and perspectives of truth according to His sovereign pleasure, even though I do acknowledge that truth is systematic, and some branches of Christ’s kingdom have had much more of the truth graciously bestowed upon them than others.

[bold type in quote added by Nahum]

My previous more specific answer continued:

“…I think the reality to be that the greater part of Christian denominations have refrained from adopting an official eschatological position beyond what is foundational and is confessed by all Christians…

…Christians and churches generally have allowed a rather generous degree of leeway regarding eschatological positions (so long as these are found within the bounds of orthodoxy)…”

Explanation.

Most denominations have not adopted an official eschatological position (yes, I do agree with you, there is the Protestant Reformed Church with their a-mil position, and then there is the American Presbyterian Church with their historic pre-mil position & others…), and so to the best of my knowledge, no denomination officially “holds to my particular views of Eschatology” entirely (and apparently we can both say this, even though it is more true with regard to me than you).

All of that, and perhaps still it is not the answer you had hoped for, but at present I think it is the best I can do (and I think I actually provided much more than what you asked for, which hopefully (between both posts) will somehow prove helpful to someone). Ask me again sometime after November of 2023 (or better yet, after June of 2026) if you still are wondering concerning a more specific answer. Hopefully I will be able to help you better then (assuming this venue will still exist).

In the meantime, I do hope to be able to have discussion with brethren about rightly understanding the difficult circumstances of the present time in light of Scripture. Thank you

Okay... got it. NO ONE holds to your particular eclectic view. Nor is there any local church that holds to your view. Nor is there any denomination which ascribes to your view. Now, that isn't so hard to spell out, is it?

What I will agree with is that longevity of a view, nor the number of individuals (well-known or otherwise), etc. necessarily is worthy on one's 'imprimatur'. However, God has raised up true men of God who have been gifted in the Scriptures, of which none was nor ever will be infallible in their understanding of the Scriptures, who are worthy of note. And the fact that you cannot name even one is rather sad. The "Reformed Faith" is illustrative in that when one compares near all of the "Confessions", "Articles of Faith", "Catechisms", "Canons", et al which flowed out of the Protestant Reformation, what one can incontrovertibly conclude is that despite their unique differences which are biblically/theologically minor, they all embrace the same "Doctrines of Grace". Would you not agree/admit that such a phenomena is more than more than worthy of one's serious attention?

And with that, I leave you to your eschatological musings and the wrestling with Scripture to find what you desire to know.

Quite possibly, as you now say “my particular eclectic view” (I think the same would almost certainly be true concerning you as well, speaking very strictly -but I do acknowledge, even more true of me). Every organized construct (including any of the major positions) could be said to have its roots in so many ideas which might be traced to numerous sources, but this does not invalidate a thing, even if it is a thing not being popularly recognized. And I got that you had probably already gotten whatever you were going to get when you first posed your question to me, so I very deliberately answered you according to your foozle. Intentionally I answered you by taking the very wooden sense of your words (“who else would hold to your particular views of eschatology?”) in order to seize the opportunity to demonstrate various points which undermine what I supposed to be lying at the very bottom of your question, but still I have attempted in my answers to be gentle as a dove (I think sheep beating, or smiting “fellow servants” is a great danger of our day -Mt. 24:49).

I am sorry if you missed my point about what Scripture expressly says concerning so many things being “sealed up” until the time of the end. Naturally we should expect if things are to become apparent at such a time as there is only a tiny remnant, that very few will understand Dn. 12:8-10; 11:33 (even though people from all different orthodox camps already -for many years- had glimpses of various of these truths).


I take it you are speaking of contemporary men, and (insofar as there is some truth in what you say) I agree it is very sad, but I mean this differently than you intended it. There are so many gifted men these days in Protestantism who have every bit as much education as the Jesuits (who are such as, when proving serviceable, can preach Christ every bit as good as those mentioned in Mark 3:11), and so, naturally these men are well-equipped and capable of being masters in their craft.

I hope that you will have the extremely difficult blessing of waking up in “church” some day to almost everyone gazing at you in a very bad way with an unseen “mystery” eye in their forehead or hand (their force is not right (Jer. 23)) and all of them very subtly persecuting and hounding you (hopefully no snares will be involved, although, we are told concerning this day (one way or other) that "as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth" Lk. 21:35). This would ween you very quickly off of your trust in so many “true men of God” (God knows whoever really are his, -would that people knew and understood what time it is). And I hope if this happens, that you will be able to weep inconsolably like Rachel weeping when she finds that her children “are not” (Mt. 2:18), and to eat your meat just as Daniel did whenever he fasted and mourned for three full weeks (Dn. 10:1-3), and to feel the same as David and the people of God when their city (Ziklag) was burned with fire (and they “wept, until they had no more power to weep” -1 Sam. 30:3-4). And it is not actually because I wish trouble upon you, that I say these things. But obviously I am beside myself, because little horns with eyes (Dn. 7:20-21) and watching leopards (Hos. 13:7) are things of fairy tales, or at most, are elaborate descriptions of various things of history which have nothing to do with our present day, when things generally have been so peaceful around the camp of the saints that, if anything, it might be in danger of being destroyed by peace and prosperity. (Ez. 38:7-16, Rev. 20:7-9, Dn. 8:25)

When the sanctuary is so desolated, God is able to raise up poor despised and pathetic people (out of places like carpenter shops and sheep pastures) who will speak the truth which dumb dogs won’t tell (whoever such might be). And so, perhaps we should all remember that some have been said to have entertained angels unawares. There are some also, who readily will build monuments and “garnish the tombs” of past men of God, but who will persecute (in one manner or other, even as supposing they do God service) those who actually dare to say what most needs to be said in their own day. Mt. 23:29-39.


Yes, certainly. I suppose this is because they were afforded a greater measure of the Spirit, and so there was a greater degree of the unity of the Spirit among them. Today, the fact that “Christianity” is so splintered (just like Israel in days of the original "Antiochus Epiphanes," and as also was the case in the days of Christ’s first coming) testifies very loudly to a withdrawal of the Spirit (much of the “unity” that does exist is sham unity which comes with indifference, produces worldly "peace," and often is not according to the truth), yet, who will acknowledge this?

“shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?” Lk. 18:7

I do appreciate the content of your point here, though, as I agree with what you said, and am very much in favor of confessional Christianity and the faithful formulation of systematic doctrine. However, when we are speaking concerning those "negotiable" outworkings of Eschatology, it is an entirely different story than that which concerns such primary things as the Doctrines of Grace (or something like the doctrine of the Trinity, which things concern the essentials of the gospel and salvation), so I think your example is inadequate with reference to our topic.

I had tried to point out previously that the express testimony of Scripture is that much concerning Eschatology has been “sealed up until the time of the end.” And I think we should not expect to find in books (especially those which actually sell) much of what is now becoming apparent about the last days, especially when the remnant has become so small it is like two very unpopular witnesses which must be silenced or disenfranchised however possible, including by means of demonic natured attacks from the "beast" (Dn. 8:12,24-25; 11:38-39; Rev. 11:7). The "two witness's" own city is taken by the gentiles (or practical pagans professing to be Christians), and they cannot buy or sell in the ordinary comforts of broader society as well, so what would we expect under such circumstances, -a major, unified understanding of, assertion, and assent to the truth during the time of an overwhelming flood of apostasy?

Allow me to clarify in closing that none of this is being said in a way intended as a personal attack on you Pilgrim, even though I might seem to be “locking horns” with you a little on a few things. I do very much appreciate your defense of essential gospel truth as it is being assailed in another post entitled “The Three Covenants,” so I do thank you for that (although I realize you don’t need my thanks or acknowledgement, but I still think it is good to encourage others in what is right, even as I also am encouraged simply to see the gospel being defended).

Nathan
As Spock from Startrek often said: “fascinating”.
From reading through the dialogue between you and Pilgrim; although I found
in some respects it stretched the grey matter between my ears and therefore what I am about to say
may be because I have missed something in the discussion.

Pilgrim said several times something to the effect of: who has believed what you said in the Church? (or something to that effect).

This is a very salient point in a discussion like this. Yet, I don’t think you adequately answered it.

I might butcher this old statement; but I will try to quote it anyway.

“If we find ourselves with a novel understanding of a Scripture passage or doctrine that the Church never had before. We should suspect we have a wrong understanding of the issue; not them.”

Tom

Hello tom, based on your comment, I think perhaps you basically missed my whole point(s). At least that is how it appears from my perspective, but perhaps you will have opportunity to re-read and to consider the discussion afresh, if you so desire. I already spoke concerning my agreement in some things, with all of the eschatological camps among the orthodox, so you are welcome to make up a list of such names if you have the leisure and the interest. Then you could even provide quotes from any of those in your list who have written books, and you are welcome to ask me which parts I agree or disagree with if you like (I will try to answer if I am able).

If Pilgrim is allowed to differ with some of those being found even within a narrower Amillennial camp (which I have no problem with, perhaps he has well thought out reasons for his positions which he could convince me of), I think I also should be allowed some room for reason and for conscience amongst my even broader scope of agreement within the pale of eschatological orthodoxy. If I need to obtain a permit for this sort of thing, perhaps you could point me in the right direction so I can consult with those who issue such permits. But (speaking with all seriousness again) if I say anything which is clearly contrary to Scripture, you (or Pilgrim, or others) are welcome to help me see where I’ve gone wrong in any of the particulars. And in that regard, I would like to speak concerning something which you said:


I think this statement has just enough truth in it to make it sometimes rather dangerous (or at least potentially so). A whole multitude might unite to crucify Christ, or to excommunicate and anathematize Martin Luther (and the whole of the Reformation) upon this sort of supposition. And to this very day, the multitude of Judaism still yet claims that the teachings of Christ were “novel,” and that of Rome still yet claims the same concerning the teachings of the Reformation. But things being truly Scriptural are never actually novel -in one sense, although, in another sense they may be “new” (I will try to explain what I mean by this later).

In the eyes of Rome, it seemed very obviously a demonstration of the height of pride in Martin Luther, for him to “stand alone” (merely upon the testimony of Scripture) in his faithful testimony for Christ, and against the pope and his multitude. In God’s eyes however, this “little horn with eyes” is actually himself the height of all human pride (it being the pope together with his spiritual generation -regardless of their church affiliation- like spiritual head and body; for in this way Antichrist counterfeits Christ and his mystical body). Such is the generation which sits in God’s temple making himself to be God, exalting himself even to heaven by means of this mystery tower of Babel, while he feasts himself upon the wrong tree and thus finds his eyes “opened” to become like God in a “knowledge” of good and evil. This is that generation that would keep the saints under such a condition (whether of sleepiness, “morbid introspection,” or some other state of oblivion as concerning their situational surroundings) as would seem to serve best that they might not be apprehended and have their own evils testified against. But in getting back to my point about the testimony of Scripture as it relates to that of the Church, perhaps the following sentiments will prove helpful:

“The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined; and in whose sentence we are to rest; can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” WCF 1:10

I am afraid perhaps there is much evidence in our day that the wounded head of the papacy has more than been healed, especially when the first resort even among Protestants would seem to have become a sense of security in the opinions of men, rather than God speaking in Scripture itself. I say this, not as one who is attempting to overthrow any of the foundational doctrines of Christianity (as so many are these days), nor as one attempting to nullify anything pertaining to Christian orthodoxy. And I think this was evident from my previous posts where I declared my own agreement with so many more among the orthodox than those being found merely within one eschatological camp.

And therefore, I do in fact receive the witness of very many faithful men, but yet I would do so only in a way which is in full accord with this greater witness:

“If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater…” 1 Jn. 5:9

Is my position really “novel” then? …Insofar as it can actually be found in its various parts among the opinions and positions of the saints throughout history, it is certainly not new. But as I already intimated in my earlier posts, Scripture actually requires a seemingly “new” understanding which comes along with the unfolding and accomplishment of Scripture prophecy. And there is nothing new about this! What should we expect then, when we are explicitly told in Scripture that many things have been “sealed up” until the time of the end? A failure to recognize this characteristic of prophecy and it’s unfolding, was a major ingredient that led to the multitude’s rejection of, and their stumbling over Christ at his first coming, and it would appear that the professing “church” today is right back at square one in this regard, -ready to be taken in that “snare” which we are warned the dark day of the Lord would come as. So, in a conservative or properly limited and qualified sense, I have no problem acknowledging that there is very likely, in part, something seemingly new in my own eschatological position, as there should be whenever appropriate:

“So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord. Then said he unto them, Therefore every scribe which is instructed unto the kingdom of heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which bringeth forth out of his treasure things new and old.” Mt. 13:49-52

Looking for an adequate description of the loosing of Satan as coming from those who lived before the event is sort of like looking to those who have spent the entirety of their days within the state of Arkansas to find the best description of Japan. Looking to those living under the loosing of Satan (especially those within the “Church”) for its description, is a bit like looking to the romish priests and nuns to find out how the corpses of all of those babies ended up under their church floor. But the saints themselves can look to God and to his Word in the midst of such perils, and can rightly expect him to teach them what they should know when no others can or will explain it.

“And he causeth all [not all absolutely, but nevertheless, the vast majority of men], both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Rev. 13:16-17

We should remember that there are only two witnesses (a very small remnant) left in the entirety of the “great city” once it has become fully ripe for destruction:

“And their dead bodies [speaking of the two witnesses] shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.” Rev. 11:8

Don’t expect a major widespread testimony to the truth, therefore, under such circumstances (especially when so many of the true saints are sound asleep). And where is this “city where our Lord was crucified” in these last days, if not simply a reference to the visible Church apostatized, and as it has been given to the Gentiles that they might tread it underfoot! -Rev. 11:2

When I acknowledge whatever is “seemingly new” about my position, I mean this according to what Isaiah tells us regarding such days as when Babylon would be ripe for destruction, and when the believing remnant is required to make their exodus. There is nothing “new” here in terms of Inspiration and Special Revelation, but rather a new understanding of various Scripture things which formerly had not been anticipated or well understood by the saints:

“I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not [i.e., a way being new to them]; I will lead them in paths that they have not known: I will make darkness light before them, and crooked things straight. These things will I do unto them, and not forsake them… Who is blind, but my servant? or deaf, as my messenger that I sent? who is blind as he that is perfect, and blind as the LORD’s servant? Seeing many things, but thou observest not [i.e., as seeing without visual perception]… But this is a people robbed and spoiled; they are all of them snared in holes, and they are hid in prison houses: they are for a prey, and none delivereth; for a spoil, and none saith, Restore. Who among you will give ear to this? who will hearken and hear for the time to come?” [i.e., for these last days] Is. 42:16, 18-20, 22-23

“Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth [see Mt. 24:31]; Even every one that is called by my name: for I have created him for my glory, I have formed him; yea, I have made him. Bring forth the blind people that have eyes [concerning these “blind having (non-seeing) eyes,” see Zech. 3 (esp. vs. 9) with Rev. 1:12-14 and 5:6], and the deaf that have ears. Let all the nations be gathered together, and let the people be assembled [these gathered ones I take to be a reference to the spiritual armies of Gog and Magog coming against the saints]: who among them can declare this, and shew us former things? let them bring forth their witnesses, that they may be justified: or let them hear, and say, It is truth. Ye are my witnesses [perhaps even a reference to the “two witnesses”], saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me… Remember ye not the former things, neither consider the things of old. Behold, I will do a new thing; now it shall spring forth; shall ye not know it? I will even make a way in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert.” Is. 43:5-10, 18-19

“HEAR ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come forth out of the waters of Judah [a believing remnant coming out from that last remnant of the visible church, being now apostatized -even as the house of Judah was last in Israel’s apostasy. “Waters” would seem to have reference to the peoples (as in Rev. 17:1 & 15), so that it would appear that a solitary remnant is said here to come out from among the assemblies of the people…], which swear by the name of the LORD, and make mention of the God of Israel, but not in truth, nor in righteousness. For they call themselves of the holy city, and stay themselves upon the God of Israel; The LORD of hosts is his name. I have declared the former things from the beginning; and they went forth out of my mouth, and I shewed them; I did them suddenly, and they came to pass. Because I knew that thou art obstinate, and thy neck is an iron sinew, and thy brow brass; I have even from the beginning declared it to thee; before it came to pass I shewed it thee: lest thou shouldest say, Mine idol hath done them, and my graven image, and my molten image, hath commanded them. Thou hast heard, see all this; and will not ye declare it? I have shewed thee new things from this time, even hidden things, and thou didst not know them. They are created now, and not from the beginning; even before the day when thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say, Behold, I knew them. Yea, thou heardest not; yea, thou knewest not; yea, from that time that thine ear was not opened: for I knew that thou wouldest deal very treacherously, and wast called a transgressor from the womb. For my name’s sake will I defer mine anger, and for my praise will I refrain for thee, that I cut thee not off. Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction [so, to me, all of these things are painful matters much more than they are fascinating musings]. For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another…

All ye, assemble yourselves, and hear; which among them hath declared these things? The LORD hath loved him: he will do his pleasure on Babylon, and his arm shall be on the Chaldeans. I, even I, have spoken; yea, I have called him: I have brought him, and he shall make his way prosperous…

Go ye forth of Babylon, flee ye from the Chaldeans, with a voice of singing declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the earth; say ye, The LORD hath redeemed his servant Jacob. And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out. There is no peace, saith the LORD, unto the wicked.” Is. 48:1-11, 14-15, 20-22 (see the rest of the broader context, which was not included here for brevity.)

Prophecies such as these, concerning the time of Babylon’s destruction, are applicable to inform concerning the end of latter-day “Babylon,” which was spoken of by John as well, in Revelation. According to the prophet Daniel (even though literal Babylon was to be destroyed long ago), this pagan and Antichristian system is all essentially one and the same great city stretching from his own day until the time of its destruction in the end of these latter days. (See Dn. 2:31-45 as compared with Dn. 7, esp. vss. 9-14 and 19-27.)

My own opinion is that the question which I was asked (however salient a point might have been involved, or however good a question it might be whenever asked as with reference to many other things) is altogether inadequate and is not properly answerable to the reality of all of these truths which we have just now considered. However, this is not the same thing as to conclude that it was asked with a bad motive (which really is not mine to judge), even if it was perhaps not so much a question as it was intended to make a point.

I hope this further clarifies where I am coming from. Thank you for reading.