Amil historicists?

[RamistThomist]

I am becoming more and more convinced of historicism as an eschatology, yet there is a lot of stuff I like in the Vosian camp (though they never held the market on amillennialism, since Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and Gary North quoted heavily from Vos). I could swing postmil if I had to, and I notice that most historicists are postmillennialists, yet I wonder if there are any amil historicists.

 

[Dearly Bought]

Paging Sean McDonald. Please report to the Revelation & Eschatology forum.

 

[arapahoepark]

Francis Nigel Lee is historicist. I don't know if amil...

 

[RamistThomist]

Francis Nigel Lee is historicist. I don't know if amil...

He is hyper-postmil, and I say that as someone who loves Dr Lee.

 

[arapahoepark]

Francis Nigel Lee is historicist. I don't know if amil...

He is hyper-postmil, and I say that as someone who loves Dr Lee.

Hyper....?

 

[RamistThomist]

Francis Nigel Lee is historicist. I don't know if amil...

He is hyper-postmil, and I say that as someone who loves Dr Lee.

Hyper....?

That was a joke. He is very postmil is what I intended to say.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I would say it would be inconsistent to be a pure historicist and be amil. The reason is that if you interpret the book of Revelation in a linear way it would be hard to deal with Revelation ch 20. To understand that the binding of Satan in Ch 20 started at Christ's first coming (which is the basis for the amil understanding) you need a somewhat idealist approach. This is why most historicist I have seen are either premil or postmil. I'm not saying that amils cannot have some interpretation in common with historicists but to be consistent I believe it would be impossible to be a "pure" historicist when approaching the book of Revelation and be amil.

 

[nwink]

I am becoming more and more convinced of historicism as an eschatology

Jacob, if you're on Facebook, you might be interested in the discussion group "Historicism (Reformed)."

 

[RamistThomist]

I am. Thanks

 

[RamistThomist]

I would say it would be inconsistent to be a pure historicist and be amil. The reason is that if you interpret the book of Revelation in a linear way it would be hard to deal with Revelation ch 20. To understand that the binding of Satan in Ch 20 started at Christ's first coming (which is the basis for the amil understanding) you need a somewhat idealist approach. This is why most historicist I have seen are either premil or postmil. I'm not saying that amils cannot have some interpretation in common with historicists but to be consistent I believe it would be impossible to be a "pure" historicist when approaching the book of Revelation and be amil.

Not necessarily. Amillennialism's structure is inherently postmil, given that Jesus returns after the millennium (now). It is impossible to be a common-grace random ethic amil and a historicist, certainly.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I would say it would be inconsistent to be a pure historicist and be amil. The reason is that if you interpret the book of Revelation in a linear way it would be hard to deal with Revelation ch 20. To understand that the binding of Satan in Ch 20 started at Christ's first coming (which is the basis for the amil understanding) you need a somewhat idealist approach. This is why most historicist I have seen are either premil or postmil. I'm not saying that amils cannot have some interpretation in common with historicists but to be consistent I believe it would be impossible to be a "pure" historicist when approaching the book of Revelation and be amil.

Not necessarily. Amillennialism's structure is inherently postmil, given that Jesus returns after the millennium (now). It is impossible to be a common-grace random ethic amil and a historicist, certainly.

I guess it depends on what is your definition of postmil. If it simply the fact that Christ will return at the end of the thousand year depicted in Revelation ch 20 then yes your statement could be correct, but as I said if you use a "pure" historicist approach you would have to acknowledge that the event depicted in the first 19 chapter of Revelation precede the events depicted in chapter 20, which mean you cannot hold to the position that the 1000 year of Revelation is symbolic of the entire period between Christ's first and second coming. To hold to that position you need to acknowledge that the vision of Revelation 20 is parallel to the other vision depicted in the previous chapters. This method of interpretation is idealist and not historicist.

 

[irresistible_grace]

Paging Sean McDonald. Please report to the Revelation & Eschatology forum.

He is the first guy that came to my mind too!

 

[RamistThomist]

I would say it would be inconsistent to be a pure historicist and be amil. The reason is that if you interpret the book of Revelation in a linear way it would be hard to deal with Revelation ch 20. To understand that the binding of Satan in Ch 20 started at Christ's first coming (which is the basis for the amil understanding) you need a somewhat idealist approach. This is why most historicist I have seen are either premil or postmil. I'm not saying that amils cannot have some interpretation in common with historicists but to be consistent I believe it would be impossible to be a "pure" historicist when approaching the book of Revelation and be amil.

Not necessarily. Amillennialism's structure is inherently postmil, given that Jesus returns after the millennium (now). It is impossible to be a common-grace random ethic amil and a historicist, certainly.

I guess it depends on what is your definition of postmil. If it simply the fact that Christ will return at the end of the thousand year depicted in Revelation ch 20 then yes your statement could be correct, but as I said if you use a "pure" historicist approach you would have to acknowledge that the event depicted in the first 19 chapter of Revelation precede the events depicted in chapter 20, which mean you cannot hold to the position that the 1000 year of Revelation is symbolic of the entire period between Christ's first and second coming. To hold to that position you need to acknowledge that the vision of Revelation 20 is parallel to the other vision depicted in the previous chapters. This method of interpretation is idealist and not historicist.

I see what you are saying. Yes, I am using the terms in a slightly different sense. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Kaalvenist]

Not sure how much help I would be anymore... I'm pretty sure I've gone back to postmillennialism.

It's something I'd like to study out more, but really haven't found the time. I just found inherent discrepancies between amilllennialism and historicism (or at least how I was holding to amillennialism). My good friend Rob Wieland probably still holds to both amillennialism and historicism; but I would probably recommend contacting some good postmil historicists, like the "Adams K" (Adam King and Adam Kuehner).

 

[Peairtach]

There are two types of postmillennialism.

(a) That which sees the millennium starting at some point in the future when there will be a long "golden age" of gospel prosperity.

(b) That which sees the millennium starting in the first century and leading by degrees to a long golden age of gospel prosperity.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2