The Battle Of Armageddon

Is Armageddon a literal battle fought in the Middle East with nuclear weapons and who-knows-what other kinds of horrible futuristic WMDs?

Most interpretations of Revelation today are either from the Futurist (it's mostly about the future, the end times) or the Preterist (it's mostly about the past, the Roman Empire) approach. Not only are they unsupported by Scripture, both approaches were invented by Roman Catholic writers in the 16th century to to counter the Reformers' unanimous verdict that Scripture identifies the Antichrist as the Papacy (if Revelation is all about the end times, Antichrist can't be the Papacy; if it is all about the Roman Empire, ditto).

This series takes neither approach -- it takes the historic approach to Revelation that the Reformers took, that the Protestant church has always taken until recent years: That the book of Revelation is a panorama of world history from the first century through our own times to the last day.

It is an understanding of Revelation that is rarely preached today, yet it is the approach that the Reformers and the Protestant church has, until recent times, maintained.