# I concede, Tolkien was an Amillennialist



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2005)

I used to stringently hold that Tolkien was postmillennial because of the earthly victory of the good guys in LOTR--and I still see that earthly victory there. But I confess that his characters and mentality was more amillennial than anything else.

I got this from Doug Wilson



> Nobility and the North:
> 
> In his great essay "œBeowulf: The Monsters and the Critics," Tolkien said this. "œThe high tone, the sense of dignity, alone is evidence in Beowulf of the presence of a mind lofty and thoughtful" (p. 13).
> 
> ...



To my amillennial friends on PB:
I am sorry for the grief I have given if I have been too tenacious for postmillennialism.
I still hold to post-mil, but I appreciate more and more the work that amillers do as well. 

Cheers to all!


----------



## turmeric (Apr 30, 2005)

Maybe he was a historicist as well - notice how Sauron keeps re-surfacing?


----------



## cornelius vantil (Apr 30, 2005)

jacob i agree while i am commited postmill. myself i have greatly learned from my amill. brethren even at times when the disloge gets fustrating, in the end we all confessing the historic reformed faith


----------



## Poimen (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> To my amillennial friends on PB:
> I am sorry for the grief I have given if I have been too tenacious for postmillennialism. I still hold to post-mil, but I appreciate more and more the work that amillers do as well.
> ...



Thanks brother. I personally appreciate your comments here.

[Edited on 4-30-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Robin (Apr 30, 2005)

Hey Jacob....it takes a man, stepping into a larger world than himself, to talk like that! Bravo!

Now, if we could perhaps persuade you to consider Paul is Amil?

Seriously (but I am being serious) though....Tolkien's letters reveal some remarkable awarenesses he had! (I may have already mentioned this quite awhile back?) His letters to his sons during the war - explaining his reasons for writing LOTR and how they were dealing with the Blitz, etc., impart that the Professor had a sound understanding of Redemptive history - the suffering would only ultimately be intervened by the "Return of the King." (The non-allegorical use of typology is used throughout his writings.)

You'll be way ahead of Mr. Wilson if you read it for yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618056998/qid



R.

[Edited on 4-30-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 30, 2005)

If Tolkien were writing to picture Christian faith then I would agree with you Jacob. But he wasn't advancing any Christian typology. He was writing to create a mythology for the English language. We dealt extensively with this in another thread a while back. Notice 2 of my posts quoting Tolkien's own explaination of his story. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=3234#pid37417


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Apr 30, 2005)

Don't worry, Jacob, Roman Catholics are not known for espousing postmillennialism anyway. Just enjoy the LOTR story regardless. Tolkien's account of creation in _The Silmarillion_ has much more problematic theological issues, In my humble opinion. But I love reading that too. Tolkien was a storyteller of the highest order, but for theology, I prefer Bunyan.


----------



## Robin (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> If Tolkien were writing to picture Christian faith then I would agree with you Jacob. But he wasn't advancing any Christian typology. He was writing to create a mythology for the English language.



Absolutely, Patrick....Tolkien was simply writing and things came out that way (his Biblical scholarship peeking through.) He had a host of themes to pick from: the tree of the King; white rider; Garden of Eden motifs; angelic life; the King sojourning in guise of a pilgrim; healer; warrior...on and on...

It's just great fun to notice the references. Of course they are not coherently (allegorical) pointing to Scripture.

It is far better to search for Paul's eschatology (rather than DeMar's; Gentry's; Wilson's; Tolkien's; Bahnsen's; Riddlebarger's, et al.)



r.


----------

