# Schreiner Now Premill



## CharlieJ (Jul 7, 2009)

Thomas Schreiner (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) explains why he now prefers the premillennial system after having taught amillennialism.


View Audio :: Clifton Baptist Church

(Click on the message "The Millennium," and you can skip the first 5 minutes.)


----------



## Sven (Jul 7, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Thomas Schreiner (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) explains why he now prefers the premillennial system after having taught amillennialism.
> 
> 
> View Audio :: Clifton Baptist Church
> ...



How sad.


----------



## PresbyDane (Jul 7, 2009)




----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 7, 2009)

I consider myself amill, but I was impressed by his alleged inconsistencies between the devil being cast into the abyss and the amillennial system. 

McFadden, I hope you read this. I'd love to hear your thoughts.


BTW if a mod reads this, can it be put in the Eschatology forum? I forgot we had one.


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 7, 2009)

Sven said:


> How sad.



 Someone's eschatology is right. I guess we'll eventually find out the truth.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 7, 2009)

Historic premill or dispensational? Hopefully not the latter.


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 7, 2009)

That was weird. I was listening to the sermon and for some reason my iTunes switched to a song in my secular playlist, "Eyes On Me" by Celine Dion. It was a somewhat strange transition. Just sayin'.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 7, 2009)

Grillsy said:


> Historic premill or dispensational? Hopefully not the latter.



Good question. I'd be shocked if it Dispensational.


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 7, 2009)

Does historic premill also teach a rapture? It sounds like Schreiner holds to a rapture of some sort.


----------



## Ivan (Jul 7, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> Does historic premill also teach a rapture? It sounds like Schreiner holds to a rapture of some sort.



Generally, no, historic premil does not teach a rapture.


----------



## christiana (Jul 7, 2009)

What on earth is 'sad' about being premil! Millions of solid believers have been premil for many years and love the Lord just as much as the amils and postmils do! I'm not a theologian but it looks like to me it just makes more sense according to scripture.

Besides Tom Schreiner is so credible that I do trust his judgment and exegesis!


----------



## charliejunfan (Jul 7, 2009)

Sorry...Amil is just a cooler word


----------



## ClayPot (Jul 7, 2009)

Does he say what prompted the switch?


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 7, 2009)

jpfrench81 said:


> Does he say what prompted the switch?



He said that there are strong cases made by many solid theologians that are all across the spectrum of eschatological understandings; thus, he settled with what he thinks is the most natural understanding of the text (Revelation 20:1-15). He was sure to emphasize that this is a secondary (perhaps even tertiary) issue within Christendom, so being totally rigid with this particular text will more than likely be divisive rather than edifying.


----------



## Southern Twang (Jul 7, 2009)

christiana said:


> What on earth is 'sad' about being premil! Millions of solid believers have been premil for many years and love the Lord just as much as the amils and postmils do! I'm not a theologian but it looks like to me it just makes more sense according to scripture.
> 
> Besides Tom Schreiner is so credible that I do trust his judgment and exegesis!



What's sad is that premils believe in Satan's kingdoms victory in histroy. Basically God has surrendered this world to Satan and ultimately can't do anything unless Jesus is here present. It is a defeatist eschatology and is not Biblical. No doubt many Godly people hold to this eschatology, but they are in error.

That being said, North quoted Rushdoony in his "Millennialism and Social Theory" as saying that amillennialism is premillennialism without hope. So his switch could be considered hope filled, though it is the wrong hope to cling to.


----------



## Grillsy (Jul 7, 2009)

Southern Twang said:


> christiana said:
> 
> 
> > What on earth is 'sad' about being premil! Millions of solid believers have been premil for many years and love the Lord just as much as the amils and postmils do! I'm not a theologian but it looks like to me it just makes more sense according to scripture.
> ...


----------



## christiana (Jul 7, 2009)

> What's sad is that premils believe in Satan's kingdoms victory in histroy. Basically God has surrendered this world to Satan and ultimately can't do anything unless Jesus is here present. It is a defeatist eschatology and is not Biblical. No doubt many Godly people hold to this eschatology, but they are in error.
> 
> That being said, North quoted Rushdoony in his "Millennialism and Social Theory" as saying that amillennialism is premillennialism without hope. So his switch could be considered hope filled, though it is the wrong hope to cling to



In that case I guess you'll really be surprised when I leave with the rapture!


----------



## AThornquist (Jul 7, 2009)

Southern Twang said:


> It is a defeatist eschatology and is not Biblical. No doubt many Godly people hold to this eschatology, but they are in error.




I'm glad that at least you have a sure understanding of the text. To think that scholars and godly saints have wrestled over this for millennia when we just needed you to show us the truth.


----------



## Southern Twang (Jul 7, 2009)

Andrew,

Sorry if I was being over assertive. I respect the intelligence and hard work of true believers who do their due diligence. No disrespect intended for my premil and amil brethern.

-----Added 7/7/2009 at 04:10:38 EST-----



christiana said:


> > What's sad is that premils believe in Satan's kingdoms victory in histroy. Basically God has surrendered this world to Satan and ultimately can't do anything unless Jesus is here present. It is a defeatist eschatology and is not Biblical. No doubt many Godly people hold to this eschatology, but they are in error.
> >
> > That being said, North quoted Rushdoony in his "Millennialism and Social Theory" as saying that amillennialism is premillennialism without hope. So his switch could be considered hope filled, though it is the wrong hope to cling to
> 
> ...




Say hi to Tim LaHaye when you see him in the air!


----------



## mshingler (Jul 7, 2009)

I've been going to Clifton for about 6 months now. I was surprised when I heard Dr. Schreiner's message on Rev. 20. I just finished a NT course with him in the Spring and he defended the amil. view in that class. 
I'm 99.9 % sure that his view is historic premil. and not dispensational at all. 
I respect him for having the humility to stand before his congregation and basically say, "Hey, I've continued to study this passage of scripture and I think I was wrong before." At the same time, I was kind of disappointed that he would make this change based, as he said, solely on what seemed to be the most natural understanding of this one passage. I became convinced of the amil. position about a year ago. One thing that moved me in that direction was to look carefully, over a long period of time, at the clearer and more direct NT passages relating to the second coming and eschatology, and then to allow those passages to shed light on Rev. 20.


----------



## steven-nemes (Jul 7, 2009)

I wonder how he'd answer the "problem of evil" objection that I've posted about before, one that I've read in Riddlebarger's book.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 7, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> I wonder how he'd answer the "problem of evil" objection that I've posted about before, one that I've read in Riddlebarger's book.



What is the problem of evil objection?


----------



## steven-nemes (Jul 7, 2009)

it is:



> Jesus says at the end of the age, the angels will come and separate the good from the bad, the moral from the evil, and the good will be taken away as the bad will be thrown into the place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 13). Jesus also says that on the last day, there will be a resurrection of the dead (John 6:44). This seems to be also when Jesus himself comes back (1 Thessalonians 4:16).
> 
> If this is prior to the millennium (as described in Revelation 20), then who takes part in that great rebellion? Surely it is not those good seeds: those have been sanctified by Christ and will not rebel against him (In John 6:37 Jesus says, "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out." Now if we take the good seed to be those who came to Christ, it cannot be that it is some of them who take part in the rebellion, because that would involve them being destroyed and damned); there are no evil persons left, because they've all been thrown out.
> 
> It seems if you think the coming is prior to the millennium, you've got a problem that is hard to solve. I think saying Christ's coming is after the millennium makes more sense.


----------



## CNJ (Jul 7, 2009)

When I read George Ladd, I could be *premil* also. But officially I haven't decided. I go between *amil* and *post*. So does Mathison who describes himself as amil/post in last week's interview. Covenant Radio interviewed Dr. Keith Mathison on his book, From Age to Age: The Unfolding of Biblical Eschatology on Covenant Radio which I got on my iPod and listened to yesterday while sewing. Mathison does not come at eschatology from any one millennial view, but from what the entire Bible says. Eschatology is bigger than those views, he says. Why it's bigger than Revelation, Matthew and Daniel! It is God's purposes for all of history--hence stages unfolding. Don't have time to read it now, but will order it. It is a thick volume I hear.


----------



## Rich Koster (Jul 7, 2009)

I'm an Acts 1:11' er. We have plenty of other good stuff to get into a donnybrook over 'til that day.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 7, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> it is:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Are you supposing that those believers alive at the time of the Second Advent are immediately glorified? I'm inclined to agree, but all Pre-Mills would disagree. They would say that the saved who are alive at the time of the 2nd coming remain as normal mortal humans, giving birth to mortal humans. The rebellion then consists of those who are born during the Millennium (after the sheep and the goats) but who do not come to Christ.


----------



## mshingler (Jul 7, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> steven-nemes said:
> 
> 
> > it is:
> ...



Actually, I believe this would be the view of dispensational premil. but not historic premil. The historic premillenialist would see all believers resurrected and/or glorified at Christ's return. He would argue that, although Christ decisively defeats His enemies at His coming, He does not destroy all unbelievers. Hence, it is unbelievers who are left alive to enter the millennium in mortal bodies (cf. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology).


----------



## JM (Jul 7, 2009)

Could he be...dare I say...Premil Historicisit?


----------



## steven-nemes (Jul 7, 2009)

Well then if the historic premill view is right, there are 2 resurrections of the dead, while all talk of any resurrection in the New Testament books looks forward to and only speaks of 1. Not only that, Jesus says at the resurrection there is not marrying and giving in marriage, but they are as angels, so they won't be having kids. Not only that, the final judgment at the end of the age seems to be namely that: the final judgment. Those evil persons are gone, those good persons are taken. The premillennialists would have us believe there are two judgments, I suppose, but that is not what Jesus teaches, nor what Paul teaches.


----------



## bookslover (Jul 8, 2009)

Sven said:


> CharlieJ said:
> 
> 
> > Thomas Schreiner (Southern Baptist Theological Seminary) explains why he now prefers the premillennial system after having taught amillennialism.
> ...



How glad. Nice to know he's seen the light.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jul 8, 2009)

mshingler said:


> Actually, I believe this would be the view of dispensational premil. but not historic premil. The historic premillenialist would see all believers resurrected and/or glorified at Christ's return. He would argue that, although Christ decisively defeats His enemies at His coming, He does not destroy all unbelievers. Hence, it is unbelievers who are left alive to enter the millennium in mortal bodies (cf. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology).



Ah, yes. I do recall reading that in Grudem. I'm not sure how representative he is in that assertion.



Grudem said:


> It is no argument for the pretribulation view to say that there must be some people in nonglorified bodies who will enter the millennium, because (on a posttribulational view) when Christ comes at the end of the tribulation he will _defeat_ all the forces arrayed against him, but that does not mean he will kill or annihilate all of them. Many will simply surrender without trusting Christ, and will thus enter the millennium as unbelievers.



Interestingly, he footnotes no Scripture references for this assertion, which is _prima facie_ absurd, since it requires that the only people who "enter the kingdom" (as people) are *un*believers, something entirely contradictory to all of Scripture.

For example: Revelation 22:12-15 12 "Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay everyone for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end." 14 Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 

Matthew 5:20 20 For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 

John 3:5 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. 

Isaiah 66:15-24 15 "For behold, the LORD will come in fire, and his chariots like the whirlwind, to render his anger in fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire. 16 For by fire will the LORD enter into judgment, and by his sword, with all flesh; and those slain by the LORD shall be many. 17 "Those who sanctify and purify themselves to go into the gardens, following one in the midst, eating pig's flesh and the abomination and mice, shall come to an end together, declares the LORD. 18 "For I know their works and their thoughts, and the time is coming to gather all nations and tongues. And they shall come and shall see my glory, 19 and I will set a sign among them. And from them I will send survivors to the nations, to Tarshish, Pul, and Lud, who draw the bow, to Tubal and Javan, to the coastlands afar off, that have not heard my fame or seen my glory. And they shall declare my glory among the nations. 20 And they shall bring all your brothers from all the nations as an offering to the LORD, on horses and in chariots and in litters and on mules and on dromedaries, to my holy mountain Jerusalem, says the LORD, just as the Israelites bring their grain offering in a clean vessel to the house of the LORD. 21 And some of them also I will take for priests and for Levites, says the LORD. 22 "For as the new heavens and the new earth that I make shall remain before me, says the LORD, so shall your offspring and your name remain. 23 From new moon to new moon, and from Sabbath to Sabbath, all flesh shall come to worship before me, declares the LORD. 24 "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."


----------



## smhbbag (Jul 8, 2009)

Panmillenialism, anyone?


----------



## Ivan (Jul 8, 2009)

smhbbag said:


> Panmillenialism, anyone?


----------



## tcalbrecht (Jul 8, 2009)

The idea of resurrected saints and pre-resurrection individuals (some of whom will prove to be unregenerate) occuying the same physical millennial kingdom is troubling.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jul 8, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> I consider myself amill, but I was impressed by his alleged inconsistencies between the devil being cast into the abyss and the amillennial system.
> 
> *McFadden, I hope you read this. I'd love to hear your thoughts.*
> 
> BTW if a mod reads this, can it be put in the Eschatology forum? I forgot we had one.



I learned a long time ago that where you STAND has a lot to do with where you SIT.

If you put on your dispensational lenses when reading the Bible, it holds together rather nicely. Daniel becomes the hermeneutical Rosetta Stone for understanding Revelation (hence Walvoord's title for his Daniel commentary ("The Key to Prophetic Revelation"). When taken in this vein, Matthew falls into place, the Thessalonian correspondence "teaches" a secret rapture, and Revelation 20 makes the most sense of predicting a literal millennium following the second coming.

If you put on your covenant Calvinist lenses, you find that an amillennial (or postmillennial) view makes the most sense. Revelation gets taken in a way that suggests that it is not referencing a literal futurist event unfolded chronologically in the chapters.

People like Schreiner (evidently), Doug Moo, and my old prof George Ladd have a miserable situation to contend with in being historic premill. Having neither a consistent covenant nor dispensational hermeneutic, they are left with the naked facticity of Rev. 20 standing out there by its lonesome. Because they are not dispensational, they cannot show how the premill position gibes with the rest of the Bible, particularly the OT prophets. Not being fully covenantal, they cannot simply interpret the book of Revelation in an apocalyptic vein as the fulfillment of the drift of God's revelation from Genesis to Revelation. 

Hence, you get these awkward admissions that "I would be amil if it weren't for Rev. 20." When I took NT Theology from Ladd, he could not give us a compelling reason for the millennium except that a grammatical historical hermeneutic leaves you with no option but to affirm it. Also Erickson, Grudem, Piper, et. al.

Bottom line: there will always be loose ends that trouble our handling of Scripture, regardless of which view we adopt. When I re-examined the consistent Reformed view, my problems with Rev. 20 seemed to become less important than a consistent reading of the whole of Biblical revelation.


----------



## mshingler (Jul 8, 2009)

CharlieJ said:


> Ah, yes. I do recall reading that in Grudem. I'm not sure how representative he is in that assertion.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Also, according to Matt. 25, when Christ comes and sits on His throne, He will judge the nations, and all the unbelievers (goats) will be cast into the Lake of Fire. Of course, Grudem places this at the end of the millennium, but I really find that a stretch in light of the fact that Jesus states it will happen when He comes, not 1,000 years later.


----------



## christianhope (Jul 8, 2009)

SermonAudio.com - Postmillenialism and Revelation 20

I found Rev David Silversides sermon on historic postmillenialism to be very encouraging and enlightening. He does a really good job at explaining the weaknesses of premillenialism, amillenialism and Rush D's postmil, he then goes on to describe the puritan view of postmillenialism. I had to listen to this sermon twice looking up the scriptures, backing up the sermon etc to understand what he was saying. 

Being Premil previously, and then Amil, I found historic postmil to be so refreshing. I realize eschatology is such a difficult subject, however, I believe the puritans, John Owen, Calvin, and our historic confessions had it right. The sermon references these points so I'd refer anyone interested to listening to it. 

Hope this wasn't off topic, I'm just overjoyed with recently discovering historic postmillenialism!


----------



## KMK (Aug 3, 2009)

I just finished listening to the whole series. He does a great job at pulling out the practical side of Rev and he makes a good case for Pre Mil.


----------



## Jesus is my friend (Aug 3, 2009)

christiana said:


> What on earth is 'sad' about being premil! Millions of solid believers have been premil for many years and love the Lord just as much as the amils and postmils do! I'm not a theologian but it looks like to me it just makes more sense according to scripture.
> 
> Besides Tom Schreiner is so credible that I do trust his judgment and exegesis!


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Aug 3, 2009)

charliejunfan said:


> Sorry...Amil is just a cooler word



I agree. By contrast, 'premil' is almost... _gay_.


----------

