# Eschatology - What are the Options?



## A2JC4life (Jul 19, 2006)

Premillennialism (I think) is the only view which I've ever been exposed to any real *teaching* on. (Would pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib all fall under this same head, or are they different?)

I've *heard of* amillennialism, etc., but don't have a clue why someone would believe any of them in particular. Can someone summarize for me the other options? Preferably with some basic Scripture references so I know where you get them from, but I don't want a whole in-depth teaching on them all at once; just an overview! And what is preterist?

Honestly, I really don't understand the end times passages, because so many of them seem to be symbolic, and I don't do well with symbolism. (I'm a black-and-white gal.) So I don't really have any hard-and-fast beliefs on the subject.

And while I'm asking all the eschatological questions, can someone also explain to me why being premil would be incompatible with the LBC? (I'm not arguing here; I'm just confused.)


----------



## beej6 (Jul 19, 2006)

Wow, Rachel, lotsa questions there! Here's some quick answers to your questions:

I presume you're speaking of dispensational premillennialism, the apparently most popular flavor of this (cf. 'historical premillennialism'). I believe pre-trib, mid-trib, post-trib are all variations of it. (And there may be many varieties of each of these millennial views.)

Amillennialists, in contrast, do not believe in either a golden age in world history prior to Christ's return (=postmillennialism), nor in such a period of unparalleled prosperity and blessedness after His return but before His judgment (=premillennialism). Both good and evil forces will mature (Mt. 13:24-30, 37-43, 47-50); there may be a period of apostasy/tribulation (2 Thess. 2) just before His return, or such tribulation may continue throughout this era. 

Any legitimate millennial view must provide for the visible bodiy return of Jesus, the general resurrection of men, and the general judgment of all men (which all of these views do, though as my former pastor once said of his view, "It (postmillenialism) does the least damage to the Word of God.") It is no easy task!

[Credit to GI Willliamson (and apologies if I've misstated it) from whom I borrow much of the language above. I just find that his summary of the millennial views is concise.]

Preterism is not a millennial view, but a hermeneutic or way of interpreting Revelation and other apocalyptic texts. Briefly, it holds that, for example, many (but not all) of the events of Revelation have already been fulfilled in the destruction of the Jewish temple in AD 70. It assumes an early date of writing of Revelation, as per Rev 1.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 19, 2006)

I am anti-eschatological - I think Christ discouraged it and only spoke to it it after being pestered.

It has too many "itching ears" opportunities.

Live as if today were the end.

-JD


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> Premillennialism (I think) is the only view which I've ever been exposed to any real *teaching* on. (Would pre-trib, mid-trib, and post-trib all fall under this same head, or are they different?)
> 
> I've *heard of* amillennialism, etc., but don't have a clue why someone would believe any of them in particular. Can someone summarize for me the other options? Preferably with some basic Scripture references so I know where you get them from, but I don't want a whole in-depth teaching on them all at once; just an overview! And what is preterist?
> ...



Here's the basic sequence of events for the views:

Historic Premil (not Dispensational):
First Advent, Church age, Second Advent, 1000 year reign, Final judgment, New heavens and earth.

Older Postmil:
1st Advent, Church triumphs of all enemies as the gospel spreads, Golden age (millennium) of a Christianized world, 2nd Advent, Final judgment, New Heavens and Earth

Newer Postmil:
1st Advent, millennium (where the world is gradually Christianized as the gospel spreads), 2nd Advent, Final judgment, New heavens and Earth

Amil:
1st advent, millennium (where both evil and good both ripen for harvest, Christ through the church continues his mission to save the elect in spite of increasing opposition), 2nd advent, final judgment, New heavens and new earth. 

As you can see, the last two are very similar and probably represent where most Reformed folks are today. The debate between these two usually revolves around the nature of the kingdom and the state of world and church when Christ returns.

[Edited on 7-19-2006 by Puritan Sailor]


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 19, 2006)

Thanks.  That clarifies things quite a bit for me. I have a couple other questions. What is the difference between historic premil and dispensational premil? 'Cause what you describe as historic premil is what sounds familiar to me.

Am I observing correctly that none of these views except premil allow for a rapture separate from the second coming of Christ? (Again, I'm not arguing, just gathering information.  )

How do post-mil and/or amil account for the binding of Satan during the millennial reign? Amillennialists, I assume, consider the millennium figurative? Do they consider the reign itself figurative, or just the number?


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 19, 2006)

I almost forgot that I wanted to comment on this:



> _Originally posted by jdlongmire_
> I am anti-eschatological - I think Christ discouraged it and only spoke to it it after being pestered.
> 
> It has too many "itching ears" opportunities.
> ...



I believe that if it is in the Scripture, it is profitable for us to seek to understand it. God has instructed me to, "be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." There is no exception here ("rightly dividing the word of truth - except for that eschatological part") To my mind, that means that if I am not in a position to be able to rightly divide it, I need to study it until I am. That doesn't mean I have my whole life wrapped up in it, but it *is* important for me to know what I believe and why I believe it.


----------



## panta dokimazete (Jul 19, 2006)

Understood and agreed - just think the whole eschatological debate is distracting...

Hebrews 6
1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, *the resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment.*

-JD


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 19, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> Thanks.  That clarifies things quite a bit for me. I have a couple other questions. What is the difference between historic premil and dispensational premil? 'Cause what you describe as historic premil is what sounds familiar to me.
> 
> Am I observing correctly that none of these views except premil allow for a rapture separate from the second coming of Christ? (Again, I'm not arguing, just gathering information.  )



The whole rapture idea is distintively dispensational premil. Historic Premils actually have much more in common theologically with Amils and Postmil, than with Dispensational Premil.

What sets Dispensationalism apart:
-Their dividing the people of God into two peoples (Jews and the Church) with two seperate purposes. 
- The 7 year tribulation idea
- Different Judgments (one before the millennium, then the great white throne)
- Two seperate comings of Christ (Rapture and then the real 2nd coming)
- Usually this accompanies dispensational soteriology which has the Jews earning salvation by works and the church by grace. 

Now this is classic dispensationalism. Progessive dispensationalists are a whole new animal and have swung much more back in the direction of the more historic eschatological and theological views like Historic Premil, Post, and Amil. But it is new and will probably take some time to filter down to the masses. 



> How do post-mil and/or amil account for the binding of Satan during the millennial reign? Amillennialists, I assume, consider the millennium figurative? Do they consider the reign itself figurative, or just the number?



Most post mils and all amils I know of consider the 1000 years to be symbolic just like almost everything else in the book of Revelation. For Amils (and the newer postmils) it symbolizes the period of time between the first and second coming of Christ. The binding of Satan refers to a severe limitation of his power. He can no longer deceive the nations. Where as before the first advent, the nations remained in darkness, now the gospel goes forth and rescues lost sinners from every tribe and tongue and Satan can't stop King Jesus from gathering all his own.

[Edited on 7-19-2006 by Puritan Sailor]


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 19, 2006)

Thank you. I guess I must have been taught dispensational premillennialism, although I haven't ever believed in such a division between the Jews and Christians. 

Now I know where to start my research, though.  Without having really gotten into studying the subject, I'm leaning toward amil. I'm still not really sure what to make of a lack of a rapture, though. The description of Jesus coming in the clouds seems pretty distinctly to NOT culminate in Jesus being HERE. On the other hand, the disciples were told that He would come just as they'd seen Him go. Much to think about and study.


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 19, 2006)

Rachel,

Regarding the rapture, all eschatological views have a "rapture". In the Post and Amil view the "rapture" is the resurrection of the dead (all the dead) and those living at the time of Christ's return in judgment.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> Thank you. I guess I must have been taught dispensational premillennialism, although I haven't ever believed in such a division between the Jews and Christians.
> 
> Now I know where to start my research, though.  Without having really gotten into studying the subject, I'm leaning toward amil. I'm still not really sure what to make of a lack of a rapture, though. The description of Jesus coming in the clouds seems pretty distinctly to NOT culminate in Jesus being HERE. On the other hand, the disciples were told that He would come just as they'd seen Him go. Much to think about and study.



As Wayne noted, the historic version of the "rapture" is the Resurrection. And that is what 1 Thess. 4 is talking about. In context it makes complete sense that he is speaking of the resurrection. He's trying to comfort Christians mourning for those who have died. See also 1 Cor. 15 for more of Paul's teaching on the resurrection.


----------



## JM (Jul 21, 2006)

*What about PreWrath?*

The study of eschatology has always been a weak spot of mine, I assumed the pretrib position of my peers until I studied it, and discarded it along with much of dispensationalism. I find both post and premil views have passages that seem to contradict their stated position, and amil doesn´t hold much appeal after a short study of a few books on the topic. As I continue to study I find the prewrath view seems to deal with many of the problem passages for pre and postmil views with a consistent hermeneutic approach. It combines the two views of pre and postmil. We are here for the persecution from antichrist but removed before God´s wrath. Reading Matt. 24 and Rev. 6 is helpful. 

Here´s a few links:
http://prewrathrapture.com/
http://www.revelationcommentary.org/
http://www.solagroup.org/index.html
http://www.solagroup.org/articles/endtimes/et_0019.html

It´s interesting to note many of the prewrathers are 5 point Calvinists, holding to many Reformed views of the faith, and one of the guys on CalvinistGadfly is a prewrather. 

 Books:

The Sign by Robert VanKampen

The Rapture Question Answered, Plain and Simple also by VanKampen

Before God's Wrath by H. L. Nigro

The Pre-Wrath Rapture of the Church by Marv Rosenthal

The Feasts of the Lord also by Rosenthal


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Hard Knox_
> The study of eschatology has always been a weak spot of mine, I assumed the pretrib position of my peers until I studied it, and discarded it along with much of dispensationalism. I find both post and premil views have passages that seem to contradict their stated position, and amil doesn´t hold much appeal after a short study of a few books on the topic. As I continue to study I find the prewrath view seems to deal with many of the problem passages for pre and postmil views with a consistent hermeneutic approach. It combines the two views of pre and postmil. We are here for the persecution from antichrist but removed before God´s wrath. Reading Matt. 24 and Rev. 6 is helpful.
> 
> Here´s a few links:
> ...



This is just Mid-Trib Dispensationalism.



 Moderator note: Hard Knox, please comply with the Signature Requirements. Click on the link in my signature for further info. 

[Edited on 7-21-2006 by Puritan Sailor]


----------



## taylonr (Jul 21, 2006)

Don't forget "Pan-ism" that is, those who hold "It will all pan out in the end"


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 21, 2006)

> _Originally posted by taylonr_
> Don't forget "Pan-ism" that is, those who hold "It will all pan out in the end"



I definitely hold to this one. 

After a bit more research (but still having not dug full-force into all of the relevant Scriptures), I am pretty much open to amil or post-trib premil, unless I come across a passage that RADICALLY changes things for me. I've been looking at some systematic theology books, etc. to get a clearer picture of what each view is, and looking up the passages that are said to be either problematic for a given view or the main support for a given view. These are the only ones left that don't, in my opinion, have major problems. (Despite having been taught pre-trib my whole life, it has NEVER made sense to me. There are too many unanswerable questions, or at least questions that require some real finagling to answer, like, who are the "elect" in Matt. 24 if the elect have all been raptured out?)

You guys really helped give me a starting point, because my understanding of eschatology and the positions "out there" was SO vague I didn't even know where to BEGIN. Now I can start digging into the Scriptures and not have to attempt to measure each verse against seven or so different perspectives, which could get quite tedious!


----------



## JM (Jul 21, 2006)

> This is just Mid-Trib Dispensationalism.



Not really, it's closer to post trib then mid trib and it's nothing like dispensationalism.



> Moderator note: Hard Knox, please comply with the Signature Requirements. Click on the link in my signature for further info.
> 
> [Edited on 7-21-2006 by Puritan Sailor]



As for the sig, it's there...I don't know what the problem is???


----------



## JM (Jul 21, 2006)

> Moderator note: Hard Knox, please comply with the Signature Requirements. Click on the link in my signature for further info.
> 
> [Edited on 7-21-2006 by Puritan Sailor]



Ahhhh, I think I know what happened to my sig. I didn't log in, just hit quote and then made the post.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 21, 2006)

It has been my understanding that there are four different views that are acceptable in most Reformed churches. 

In no particular order:
1. A-millennialism
2. Pre-millennialism
3. Post-millennialism, and
4. no particular view on the millennium, if any at all.

These are all perfectly acceptable views, equal in standing and admissiblility. 

Some churches prefer one over against the other, but generally do not make a big deal of it. This does not mean that they have taken the last view. Its just that its not required to have a view on it. 

We visited a church in a strange city lately, (because we were attending a wedding, and needed a place to worship the next day), and on the back of the order of worship, under the heading "We Believe:", listed way down near the bottom, was, "in the (prefix left out)-millennial and imminent coming of our Lord Jesus Christ...." But we were not going to walk out just because of that. If they had become aggressive about it we would have. But it never came up during the worship hour, thankfully. 

By the way, it was "Premillennial"; but my point is that any view could do that, and that would rule out the "non-essential" "matter of personal conscience" status of that or any particular millennial view. And that would be wrong, because that would exceed Biblical and Biblically-based ecclesiastical authority. 

As I understand it, the reason why the Dispensational millennial view is ruled out as acceptable is because there are inherent and implicit denials of Scripture's dignity, it rule for life and doctrine, and makes it subject to human speculation. So it is also possible that the other views which are acceptable could also slip into that, simply by imposing any one of them as doctrine, or upon doctrine, the way Dispensationalists do. 

I think it was Calvin who suggested that a millennial conclusion comes after theology, and not before it. That's the rule I live by, anyways.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 21, 2006)

Oh, I certainly agree that one's millennial position should not be a matter over which to disfellowship! My husband is a pastor, though, so it's a pretty good idea for us to know what we believe, even in this non-essential area.


----------



## beej6 (Jul 21, 2006)

Hear, hear, John, though if a church leads with its disp. premil. theology, they will eventually get into trouble one way or another.

Rachel, for a readable and thorough book on amillennialism, pick up Cornelis Venema's _The Promise of the Future._ It's a seminary text but is very readable by a layman.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 22, 2006)

George Eldon Ladd's book _The Blessed Hope_ is the single, greatest exegetical rebuttal of pretribulational dispensationalism.

They totally misinterpet the verses dealing with "wrath."


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> Oh, I certainly agree that one's millennial position should not be a matter over which to disfellowship! My husband is a pastor, though, so it's a pretty good idea for us to know what we believe, even in this non-essential area.


Eschatology is essential to sound theology. It begs implications of our Kingdom view, which is profoundly important to Biblical teaching.

I share the frustrations of those who have been confused and jumped from one camp to another. But I had to learn somehow. But eschatology is an important study. I think we need to balance out our priorities. Granted, the idea of starting a quote-unquote _Bible Prophecy Ministry_ seems to be a bit absurd.

Now, I see historic premillennialism and amillennialism as they only two viable views within an historical framework -- neither preterist nor futurist.


----------



## MW (Jul 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> Now, I see historic premillennialism and amillennialism as they only two viable views within an historical framework -- neither preterist nor futurist.



I don't see premillennialism as viable in any of its forms. Christ's exaltation and the believer's salvation are described in the NT in terms of Christ "sitting at the right hand of God." Any scheme which sees Christ abdicating that throne dishonours the Son and unsettles believers.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 22, 2006)

I think the important thing is to know the difference between those things which God enjoins upon us through His Word and Spirit, and those things which are the result of our own understandings. When the latter becomes normative for the former, then it really doesn't matter which view one holds to, whether or not it is Dispensational Pre-millennialism. This holds true for many other things that are tied to the various studies of theology as well: sound Biblical theology must come first as bearing upon us that which God commands us or informs us of. And knowing the difference between that and those things of which we become convinced from our own understandings is important to keep distinct and separate. 

One could as easily be dogmatic over Reformed theology for the wrong reasons as one would be about another theology for those same reasons. I don't see that it makes much difference if one is Dispensational Pre-millennial or is dogmatic about historic Pre-millennial, Post-millennial, or A-millennial; it comes out to the same thing, even though they are different. If the certainty of the doctrines of sound theology rests upon the uncertain conclusions of man, then those doctrines cannot be very sound. Not even if they happen to coincide with what the established church teaches.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 22, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> I don't see premillennialism as viable in any of its forms. Christ's exaltation and the believer's salvation are described in the NT in terms of Christ "sitting at the right hand of God." Any scheme which sees Christ abdicating that throne dishonours the Son and unsettles believers.



Can you clarify this further? 



The following is the list of "problems" I found with pretrib premil as I was comparing the various views. I was not LOOKING for problems (as in, seeking to make as long a list as possible); these are just the questions that made themselves obvious (some of these apply to premil in general, but most are pretrib specific):

-There are no clear clear passages - not a single one - to support the rapture (as separate from the Second Coming).
-There are many references to the tribulation, which either apply specifically to the saints, or are at least given to the saints.
-The basis for 7 years of tribulation is extremely shaky.
-Israel must be viewed as separate from the Church, but the Bible says we are "grafted in," so we are biblically all one "entity."
-The millennial reign does not make sense by this view. What's the point? Who's left to reign over? Why bind Satan?
-When/why/how would Jesus separate the sheep from the goats?
-This view requires a third resurrection. How can we justify a third resurrection, when the Bible is silent?
-The Bible says that the SAINTS are "given into his hands" in several references to the anti-Christ.

That's a LOT of unanswerable questions! Meanwhile, I'm left with exactly ONE question each for amillennialism and post-millennialism. (In case anyone is curious: The idea of Satan's being bound in the pit right now doesn't quite "fit" for me, and post-millennialism sounds way too much like methodism - our good works can somehow usher in a golden age.)

One point in favor of amil, post-mil, and (to a smaller degree) post-trib pre-mil is the Jewish festival calendar. Jesus' first coming fulfilled the Spring feasts - in order, with the appropriate symbols. I fully believe that His second coming will fulfill the fall feasts - in order, with the appropriate symbols. That would be the Festival of Trumpets (second coming), the Day of Atonement (judgment), and Festival of Tabernacles (dwelling together with God, also the late "harvest").


----------



## ReformedWretch (Jul 22, 2006)

> post-millennialism sounds way too much like methodism - our good works can somehow usher in a golden age.



Psalm 110

1The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand,
until I make your enemies your footstool."

Is the passage we postmill believers see telling us exactly when Christ will return. It is also heavily quoted in the new testement.


----------



## bigheavyq (Jul 22, 2006)

Newer postmil would be my choice. I also hold to partial preterism. Puritanhead, Older postmil holds to a historical framework (edwards, hodge, warfield). 
One view not mentioned here is transmillenial full or radical preterism. This view is totally heretical and goes against every church creed. Of course, I think that dispensationalism is heretical and has done far more damage to the church.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 22, 2006)

I could be amillennial in affirmation by the end of the year. Who knows? 


Though, I won't lose my appreciation for George E. Ladd's Kingdom views, as he has taught me a lot. People don't do justice to eschatology by ignoring the _here, not here yet_ tension to Christ's kingdom as it stands, hence the misguided extremes of both preterism and futurism.

My change will simply be moving _historic premillennialism_ to the backburner as a possibility remaining on my eschatological oven range while moving _amillennialism_ to the front. 

I am still inquiring and studying.

I hold to a preterist understanding of the 70 Weeks now, but consider the specific brand of partial-preterism espoused by Gentry and Sproul untenable and prolematic. Though, Sproul raised some interesting questions, and taught me to think


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 22, 2006)

So in a preterist view of the 70 weeks, what was the 70th week?


----------



## MW (Jul 23, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Some examples:

Eph. 1:20-23, the Lord's exaltation to the right hand of God, "far above" all principality and power, enables His being made Head over all things to the Church.

Rom. 8:34, None to condemn, is tied to Chirist being at the right hand of God, interceding.

Col. 3:1-4, believers are to seek those things above, where Christ sits on the right hand of God. There their life is hid with Christ in God. But when Christ does appear, then they shall appear with Him in glory.

An earthly reign for any period of time undermines these essential truths. Hence premillennialism is not a viable option.


----------



## Peter (Jul 23, 2006)

More destructive to Premillennialism in my opinion is that they inject a 1000 yrs between Christ's return and his judgment. 

2Th 1:7-10 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.


----------



## JM (Jul 24, 2006)

I wonder if the early church Fathers would agree...


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 24, 2006)

So, Rev. Winzer, are you saying that the premil view breaks down because it would have Christ coming out of heaven for 1,000 years? Would it not also then be destructive to sound theology to have him come out of heaven for 2 seconds at His second coming? What about the new heavens and the new earth? Or am I misunderstanding your assertion?

The one strong point I see in favor of premillennialism is that it seems to have been the predominant view among the early Church fathers.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> So, Rev. Winzer, are you saying that the premil view breaks down because it would have Christ coming out of heaven for 1,000 years? Would it not also then be destructive to sound theology to have him come out of heaven for 2 seconds at His second coming? What about the new heavens and the new earth? Or am I misunderstanding your assertion?
> 
> The one strong point I see in favor of premillennialism is that it seems to have been the predominant view among the early Church fathers.



I think his point was that for Christ to return to earth and rule over a sinful world would be a step down from his present glory. Especially since His return is suppose to usher in the new heavens and the new earth. 

As I remember, though some church fathers held to chiliasm, the church as a whole rejected it. I don't remember which council it was though....


----------



## JohnV (Jul 24, 2006)

Such an exception to Pre-millennialism is itself frought with denials of Christ's sovereignty, if not deity. If He is God, then His going one place does not entail His leaving another. In fact, we who are A-millennial believe that He now reigns upon the earth, even though He is seated at the Father's right hand. He intercedes for us presently, even though He proclaimed, "It is finished!" long ago. 

As an A-millennialist, the best that I can say is that I don't understand why Pre- or Post-millennialists believe what they do. I know some of these people personally, and find that they mostly don't know what they are talking about, but that doesn't mean that *all* Pre- and Post-millennialists don't know what they are talking about. It doesn't even mean that what the best of them says about their respective view is the final word on their view; or that it has any authority added to it by virtue of their reputation. 

We just don't know enough about the millennium to be dogmatic about it, and we ought all to admit that about our own views before we sit in judgment of others' views. Judging a particular person's understanding by what he says is justified, but that has no particular bearing upon the general view itself. These are the types of things that I would warn about in reading up on the views.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 24, 2006)

> As I remember, though some church fathers held to chiliasm, the church as a whole rejected it. I don't remember which council it was though....



Really? I would be interested in knowing more about this. My husband's systematic theology text concluded that the majority of the early church fathers believed in premil, and offered numerous quotes. It is, of course, written by a man who will have his own biases , but he did _not_ conclude that premil is most biblical. (He arrived at a postmil conclusion, but I don't necessarily agree with all of his reasoning.)


----------



## Peter (Jul 24, 2006)

I know Polycarp is a noteable ECF who believed in Premill but I can't think of any other.


----------



## Puritanhead (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> ...post-millennialism sounds way too much like methodism - our good works can somehow usher in a golden age.)


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 24, 2006)

Well, I was somewhat misremembering my source. The systematic theology text I was thinking of does draw that conclusion, but the quotes came from hubby's seminary professor's notes and he IS a pre-trib premillennialist. According to both texts, premil dominated in the early church, with the dominant view only changing with Augustine. 

"The first three centuries of the church were probably dominated by what we would today call premillennialism, but in the fourth century an African Donatist named Tyconius propounded a competitive view. Although Augustine was an archopponent of the Donatists, he adopted Tyconius's view of the millennium." (from Christian Theology by Millard J. Erickson - a.k.a. "The Big Green Monster" )

Dr. Akin quotes Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Barnabus, Papius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, and Tertullian in favor of premillennialism, and demonstrates a shift toward amillennialism with Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine.


----------



## MW (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> So, Rev. Winzer, are you saying that the premil view breaks down because it would have Christ coming out of heaven for 1,000 years? Would it not also then be destructive to sound theology to have him come out of heaven for 2 seconds at His second coming? What about the new heavens and the new earth? Or am I misunderstanding your assertion?
> 
> The one strong point I see in favor of premillennialism is that it seems to have been the predominant view among the early Church fathers.



Christ will come again "in His glory" to judge the world in righteousness. He will not be abdicating His throne but asserting it. On the other hand, to descend to this earth to "reign" for a thousand years is to abdicate His heavenly throne for an earthly one. A carnal dream which rises no higher than Jewish expectations!


----------



## MW (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> Such an exception to Pre-millennialism is itself frought with denials of Christ's sovereignty, if not deity. If He is God, then His going one place does not entail His leaving another. In fact, we who are A-millennial believe that He now reigns upon the earth, even though He is seated at the Father's right hand. He intercedes for us presently, even though He proclaimed, "It is finished!" long ago.



As reformed theology does not believe our Lord's human nature is ubiquitous, it is sound to speak of Christ leaving one place and going to another. Acts 1:11, "this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come in like manner as ye have seen him go into heaven."


----------



## MW (Jul 24, 2006)

> _Originally posted by A2JC4life_
> Dr. Akin quotes Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Barnabus, Papius, Justin Martyr, Ireneaus, and Tertullian in favor of premillennialism, and demonstrates a shift toward amillennialism with Origen, Eusebius, and Augustine.



Yes, the premil historiography likes to represent amillennialism as emerging with the rise of allegorical interpretation. The problem is, it is uncertain to what degree the other fathers are themselves speaking figuratively and simply adopting the imagery of Scrpture.

It doesn't matter how early the view is if it is erroneous. I think you can trace premillennialism back to the apostolic age, particularly in the early ignorance of the disciples concerning the "restoration of Israel," wherein they shared the same carnal expectations as their fellow Jews.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 24, 2006)

> It doesn't matter how early the view is if it is erroneous.



I agree! I just don't like to be *too* quick to throw out something that was understood a certain way from the beginning, in favor of something "newer." I'm not convinced that amillennialism was not around at all during that time, but I do want to be careful not to consider myself wiser than those who knew Jesus (incarnate), and those who knew those who knew Him.


----------



## turmeric (Jul 24, 2006)

Ahhh-milenialism


----------



## JohnV (Jul 25, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



I was merely addessing, in defence of my Pre-millennial brothers, that this does not at all address what they actually believe concerning Christ's reign. It does not reflect what I believe as an A-millennialist either.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Jul 25, 2006)

Read C. E. Hill, Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Future Hope in Early Christian Eschatology 2nd edn. 

This is the definitive work on patristic eschatology and it's done by a great scholar and an old friend who teaches at RTS/O.

rsc


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 26, 2006)

Dr. Clark,
Link doesn't work...


----------



## MW (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> ...



Be that as it may, your objection starts from a faulty premise. Hence your assertion that my exception is "frought with denials of Christ's sovereignty, if not deity" is unacceptable by reformed standards. That makes your belief as an amillennialist, with its acceptance of their belief of premillennialism, untenable according to my traditional belief of realised millennialism.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Dr. Clark,
> Link doesn't work...



Try this link or this.


----------



## JohnV (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



These "reformed standards" are what I am appealing to. Though I may agree with you that some Pre-millennialists go too far, just as some Post-millennialists go too far, yet I am sensitive to the fact that lately some A-millennialists have gone too far in response to allegations made against the A-millennial point of view. 

Through my experiences of late, I have noticed an eight-fold demarcation of the eschatological views. There are the four already mentioned, but each of these may be divided into two distinct categories: those that place too much on them, and those that recognize the limitations. 

So the Dispensational view is eliminated by virtue of the fact that doctrine is built upon their particular view, and thereby subjects Scripture to man's reasoning. Both Dispensational views are eliminated, therefore, since both share this characteristic. That leaves six: Pre-mil, Post-mil, A-mil, essential Pre-mil, essential Post-mil, and essential A-mil. 

Of these we may eliminate the last three. Though these three do not necessarily build doctrine upon their eschatological view, yet they deem their view as essential doctrine instead of _adiaphora_. The millennial views are not essential, and each may hold his view if it does not interfere with sound doctrine. 

This is what I am concerned about. I have been subjected to the "essential Post-mil" view. But it was actually worse than that, because for this person his millennial view was not only essential, it was definitive for understanding all doctrine. In other words, though the Post-milllennial view itself is acceptable by Reformed standards, this man who wielded ecclesiastical authority held to a Post-millennial view which was more akin to the Dispensaitional methodolgy of eschatology, namely that of making it necessary and prior to doctrine and interpretation itself. This is not even Reformed, much less acceptable to Reformed theology.

I was referred to a work by a famous apologist on the matter. If his defense of Post-millennialism was the standard, then Post-millennialism was to be utterly rejected. But, fortunately, I also had access to a more sound defense of Post-millennialism, which did not arrogate too much to the view. So here were two very distinct approaches to Post-millennialism. It was this work that alerted me to these distinctions. 

We need to be careful of what we say about these matters when we sit in judgment of others' views. Equivocating on the terms is not a solution to the problem. Certainly, understanding is called for here, especially an understanding of the limitations of the parts of eschatology which are not essential to the faith in comparison to those which may not be denied. When we cross that line, we usually cross more lines than just that one line. There is inherent denial of Christ Himself wrought in the judging of others who bear the marks of the covenant and of faith. 

In summary, I think it is important to present day studies on eschatology to mark the difference not merely between the four major views, but also the difference within each view as to its readiness to be submissive to objective Scripture. And I believe that some Pre-millennialists are of this latter sort, and cannot be lumped in with those few who assert too much to the view. The ones you were referring to were the essential Pre-mil, which does not include by necessity all Pre-millennialists. I would make the same distinction for each of the millennial views, including A-millennialism. I am fully within Reformed standards by accepting as serious the belief of a brother in the Pre-millennial view. What I cannot accept is even an A-millennial view which arrogates too much to itself. 

I believe this to be in accord with the Reformed standards. This is the stance taken by the Reformed churches. Three views are acceptable to the Reformed faith, as not violating those doctrines which are defined within the confessions of submission to Scripture in the church. They are held in their proper place, though we may disagree with each other, by the grace of God, for our mutual edification.




Thank you for fixing the link, Andrew.


----------



## A2JC4life (Jul 26, 2006)

Well said, John. I have appreciated all of your posts regarding balance and humility in this area.


----------



## MW (Jul 26, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> These "reformed standards" are what I am appealing to. Though I may agree with you that some Pre-millennialists go too far, just as some Post-millennialists go too far, yet I am sensitive to the fact that lately some A-millennialists have gone too far in response to allegations made against the A-millennial point of view.



The reformed standards teach that Christ's "exaltation" consists in sitting at the right hand of God, and that He will come again to execute judgment (Westminster Larger Catechism, answers 55, 56). That rules out a millennial reign on earth as understood by premillennialists of whatever view, for they all posit a personal and visible coming of Christ to this earth. Any form of amillennialism which accommodates this erroneous view must share its inability to see the significance of Christ's exaltation to the right hand of God, and is thus unworthy of the name amillennialism or "realised millennialism."


----------



## JohnV (Jul 26, 2006)

I'll leave off the discussion with that, Matthew. I've already exceeded my own limit. 

Thank you, Rachel. I hope its been helpful to your study.


----------



## MW (Jul 26, 2006)

We'll leave it there then, John. Lord bless!


----------

