Thinking about Millennial views

turmeric · #1 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 02:29 AM

I know, it's a dangerous thing to do.

I started thinking that one difference between Postmils and Amils is where the millennium is taking place, for the Posties it's here on earth as the Gospel spreads and kingdoms capitulate to Christ, for Amils it's in heaven where the dead in Christ are ruling with Him (and we do too in some sense). So that would actually make both these groups technically post-millennial since they both assert that the parousia and final judgment take place after this present time-period, which both call the millennium.

What started this was; I was trying to come up with a better name than Amillennial, because Rev.20 mentions a millennium and the word Amillennial sounds like they're saying "You know that millennium thing in Scripture? Well, we don't believe it..."which isn't really what they're saying. So if we say the millennium is actually taking place now and then the judgment will come, we're really a variety of Post-millenialists, aren't we?

I almost put this in the wading pool. Maybe it belongs in the recycling!

DMcFadden · #2 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 02:44 AM

Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism where he makes that point.

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

InevitablyReformed · #3 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism where he makes that point.

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

Sir,

Could you list two or three particular thoughts that have caused you change your mind? I would be interested as to what passages/concepts specifically affected you as you read those books.

shackleton · #4 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

McFadden,
Once you have become thoroughly Amil and no longer hold to any tenets of Premil you need to read Ken Gentry's books on Postmil. It will blow your mind. Even if you don't go all the way to Postmil the arguments he makes are excellent especially when taking Josephus and other early Roman Historians into account. Once reading Gentry, (Before Jerusalem Fell, The Number of the Beast, and The Great Tribulation), the Spiritualist nature of Riddlebarger becomes very clear. Almost though persuadest me to be a Postmil.

Good stuff by Riddlbarger that goes along with his book, http://www.monergism.com/directory/l...ennialism-101/, http://www.monergism.com/directory/l...he-Antichrist/, if your interested.

DMcFadden · #5 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 10:19 AM

Daniel,

I was raised premil. My college prof (Bob Gundry) wrote the defense of the post-trib pre-mil view from a quasi dispensational perspective. In seminary, George Ladd was my prof. He is known for his vigorous defense of the historic pre-mil view from a more mainstream perspective. With two strong proponents (and no one bothering to argue an alternative view), I sort of "fell into" historic pre-mil without carefully considering the alternative views. And, with most of my parishioners and colleagues in ministry being pre-mil, there was little motivation to re-examine old presuppositions.

For the historic pre-mil, Rev 20 is the clincher. I wanted to interpret it in a normal grammatical-historical manner. Riddlebarger showed an alternative picture of Rev. 20 more consistent with my overall hermeneutic. Frankly, unless you separate Israel and the Church in your hermeneutic, there is really little reason for the millennium anyway. Riddlebarger's exposition of a comprehensive approach to eschatology from a Reformed perspective is quite convincing. He dispenses with the dispensational argument for seeing prophecy in terms of ethnic Israel by demonstrating how the NT reinterprets OT prophecy in terms of the Christ event.

Daniel, it has more to do with approach than anything else. As an ex-pre-mil himself, Riddlebarger writes for the sake of those raised as dispensationalists as well as historic pre-mils. His exposition of Daniel 9, the Olivet Discourse, Romans 11, and Rev. 20 all show the superiority of the amil system as well as identifying problems with full and partial preterism as well as various versions of postmillennialism. For those of us with pre-mil approaches, he seems to have an intuitive grasp for what persuaded us initially, what kept us in the pre-mil camp, and how the Bible could be explained in an alternative manner that was more consistent, fuller, and ultimately "biblical."

In the case of Waldron, his argument is with the dispensational version of pre-mil as exprressed by John MacArthur. Again, by demonstrating what is wrong with the dispensational hermeneutic (in such a gracious and respectful manner), Waldron would be an ideal book for a dispensational pre-mil although in dealing with MacArthur's errors, he also makes the case for an amil view against all versions of premillennialism, including my historic premillennialism.

mshingler · #6 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Daniel,

I was raised premil. My college prof (Bob Gundry) wrote the defense of the post-trib pre-mil view from a quasi dispensational perspective. In seminary, George Ladd was my prof. He is known for his vigorous defense of the historic pre-mil view from a more mainstream perspective. With two strong proponents (and no one bothering to argue an alternative view), I sort of "fell into" historic pre-mil without carefully considering the alternative views. And, with most of my parishioners and colleagues in ministry being pre-mil, there was little motivation to re-examine old presuppositions.

For the historic pre-mil, Rev 20 is the clincher. I wanted to interpret it in a normal grammatical-historical manner. Riddlebarger showed an alternative picture of Rev. 20 more consistent with my overall hermeneutic. Frankly, unless you separate Israel and the Church in your hermeneutic, there is really little reason for the millennium anyway. Riddlebarger's exposition of a comprehensive approach to eschatology from a Reformed perspective is quite convincing. He dispenses with the dispensational argument for seeing prophecy in terms of ethnic Israel by demonstrating how the NT reinterprets OT prophecy in terms of the Christ event.

Daniel, it has more to do with approach than anything else. As an ex-pre-mil himself, Riddlebarger writes for the sake of those raised as dispensationalists as well as historic pre-mils. His exposition of Daniel 9, the Olivet Discourse, Romans 11, and Rev. 20 all show the superiority of the amil system as well as identifying problems with full and partial preterism as well as various versions of postmillennialism. For those of us with pre-mil approaches, he seems to have an intuitive grasp for what persuaded us initially, what kept us in the pre-mil camp, and how the Bible could be explained in an alternative manner that was more consistent, fuller, and ultimately "biblical."

In the case of Waldron, his argument is with the dispensational version of pre-mil as exprressed by John MacArthur. Again, by demonstrating what is wrong with the dispensational hermeneutic (in such a gracious and respectful manner), Waldron would be an ideal book for a dispensational pre-mil although in dealing with MacArthur's errors, he also makes the case for an amil view against all versions of premillennialism, including my historic premillennialism.

Dennis, I'm about where you are (80% convinced of amil.), though I haven't yet read Waldron's book. I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium. About a year ago, I listened to Doug Moo defending Historic Premil., and I commented to a friend that, if I actually embraced the hermeneutic he was using, I'd probably be amil. He rested the millennium pretty much on Rev. 20 alone. That seems fairly weak to me, considering that so many godly and learned men have interpreted Rev. 20 in a different way.

North Jersey Baptist · #7 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism where he makes that point.

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!

North Jersey Baptist · #8 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 07:49 PM

You know, next week I finish the first phase of my sermon series in Daniel. I end with chapter six. In November/December I'm on the pulpit again and I have to deal with the chapters 7-12. Actually I don't have to deal with these chapters. I could move on to something easier but that would be intellectually dishonest. The problem is that my millennial view is like soggy mashed potatoes right now. Having left dispensationalism just a few years back I have absolutely no idea what I believe regarding eschatology other than Christ is coming again to judge the quick and the dead. I've kept to a default historic pre-mil position but now I question that. It'll be interesting what my studies over the next few months will reveal.

DMcFadden · #9 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!

"Stay on target. Stay on target."

“Help me Obi-Bill Kenobi. You’re my only hope.”

"Trust the force . . . "

"I copy Gold Leader"

North Jersey Baptist · #10 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!

"Stay on target. Stay on target."

“Help me Obi-Bill Kenobi. You’re my only hope.”

"Trust the force . . . "

"I copy Gold Leader"

Christusregnat · #11 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:21 PM

Meg,

Generally, I've found that postmils will make a stronger link between this world and the next than amils do. In other words, amils are the champions of the "not yet" theology, while postmils champion the "already" in the "already not yet" paradigm.

Stated a different way, amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.

The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).

I would also venture to say that postmil thinking is generally related to some form of theonomic ethics, since postmils tend to give more weight than other schools to OT prophecies of the Messiah's kingdom. For example, you will find that the Puritans that landed in America wanted to create a "Holy Commonwealth" in order to usher in the millenium. Also, many of the songs you sing at Christmas time are postmil in content (Isaac Watts himself being postmil).

Cheers,

Adam

Quote:

Originally Posted by turmeric

I know, it's a dangerous thing to do.

I started thinking that one difference between Postmils and Amils is where the millennium is taking place, for the Posties it's here on earth as the Gospel spreads and kingdoms capitulate to Christ, for Amils it's in heaven where the dead in Christ are ruling with Him (and we do too in some sense). So that would actually make both these groups technically post-millennial since they both assert that the parousia and final judgment take place after this present time-period, which both call the millennium.

What started this was; I was trying to come up with a better name than Amillennial, because Rev.20 mentions a millennium and the word Amillennial sounds like they're saying "You know that millennium thing in Scripture? Well, we don't believe it..."which isn't really what they're saying. So if we say the millennium is actually taking place now and then the judgment will come, we're really a variety of Post-millenialists, aren't we?

I almost put this in the wading pool. Maybe it belongs in the recycling!

danmpem · #12 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshingler

I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium.

Could you elaborate a little more on that please?

DMcFadden · #13 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 10:44 PM

Dan,

Premillennialism comes in two flavors: historic and dispensational. The first takes the traditional view of the Church that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hope and the Gentiles are grafted into the tree as the spiritual seed of Abraham. Not all Israel is Israel and all that. Dispensational hermeneutics depend upon two key presuppositions, the first of which is that Israel = ethnic Israel, NEVER the Church and the Church NEVER equals Israel (even metaphorically).

If you are an historic premillennarian, you have already accepted the standard hermeneutic seeing the Church as the extension (not replacement) of Israel. With such a position, there is really little logic for a millennium. And, it creates several problems. You have resurrected saints mingling with natural-bodied tribulation saints who are marrying, giving in marriage, and procreating.

For dispensationalism, you have a reinstitution of the OT sacrifices in the new Temple while Jesus rules on the throne in Jerusalem in addition to a number of other oddities and anomalies.

So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.

danmpem · #14 (**permalink**) 07-06-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.

That's where I'm at right now. I am not sold on dispensational premil, I am very much more historic premil, because of the relationship between the church and Israel. I guess I liked it, because it let me have my cake and eat it too (church/Israel + 1,000 year millennium).

Thanks for having so much patience with me.

mshingler · #15 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by danmpem

Quote:

Originally Posted by mshingler

I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium.

Could you elaborate a little more on that please?

Ditto what Dennis said above.
Since I no longer see all the prophetic O.T. passages as something that must be fulfilled in a reconstituted, ethnic Israel, apart from the church, it seems there is little place for an earthly millennium following Christ's return. Actually some historic premils. readily admit that this is a weakness in their position (Millard Erickson for example).
If you say to a dispensationalist that Rev. 20 is the only mention of the "1,000 years" in Scripture, they will likely respond that there are lots of O.T. prophecies that clearly refer to this same period - prophecies that have yet to find a literal fulfillment in national Israel, as their hermeneutic/presuppositions require. The historic premil., however, follows basically the same hermeneutic as the amil. and is left with the fact that, indeed, Rev. 20 is the only mention of the "1,000 years."

Scott1 · #16 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Christusregnat
Puritanboard Freshman

Stated a different way, amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.

The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).

What then of this distinction I hear between "optimistic" and "pessimistic" amillenialism?

I have heard that Mr Calvin was amillenialist, though he did not emphasize eschatology- is this correct?

Scott1 · #17 (**permalink**) 07-07-2008, 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Dan,

Premillennialism comes in two flavors: historic and dispensational. The first takes the traditional view of the Church that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hope and the Gentiles are grafted into the tree as the spiritual seed of Abraham. Not all Israel is Israel and all that. Dispensational hermeneutics depend upon two key presuppositions, the first of which is that Israel = ethnic Israel, NEVER the Church and the Church NEVER equals Israel (even metaphorically).

If you are an historic premillennarian, you have already accepted the standard hermeneutic seeing the Church as the extension (not replacement) of Israel. With such a position, there is really little logic for a millennium. And, it creates several problems. You have resurrected saints mingling with natural-bodied tribulation saints who are marrying, giving in marriage, and procreating.

For dispensationalism, you have a reinstitution of the OT sacrifices in the new Temple while Jesus rules on the throne in Jerusalem in addition to a number of other oddities and anomalies.

So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.

Very helpful, thank you.

In the modern dispensational premillenial position, I hear Israel defined as (always) "sons and daughters of Jacob."

How much ethnicity is this taken to mean?

For example, we know a married couple, one Jewish, one Gentile- are their children "Israel" in the dispensational hermeneutic?

In the case of the modern day Syrians- there is some Jewish blood from the time the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian empire, producing the Samaritans and now, through the centuries, a small amount of Jewish blood remains in some there.

So, were the Samaritans "sons and daughters of Jacob"?

Are the modern day Syrians who might have, say 1/32 Jewish ancestors "sons and daughters of Jacob" in this hermeneutic?

PS I feel like I have moved to a new level having used the word "hermeneutic"!