# What is Your Stance on the Millenia?



## Backwoods Presbyterian (May 23, 2010)

Been a couple of years since we had one of these threads.

We also have seen a turn over a bit on the board since then...


----------



## Dearly Bought (May 23, 2010)

A-millennial. We are presently in the period described as the "thousand years" in Revelation 20. In terms of the post-millennial/a-millennial debate, I do not expect to see all the nations of the world turn to Christ prior to His Second Advent, although I do expect to see the Gospel brought to every tribe and tongue. I do see the great apostasy as a future reality.


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (May 23, 2010)

Historic Premillenialist


----------



## Berean (May 23, 2010)

About 13 months. http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/whats-your-eschatological-position-47273/


----------



## Andres (May 23, 2010)

Difference between post and a - postmillenialism has Christ returning to a saved world, amillenialism has Christ returning _to _save the world. Amillenialism it is.


----------



## Blue Tick (May 23, 2010)

Post-millennialism hither...


----------



## MW (May 23, 2010)

"What is Your Stance on the Millenia?"

That there is but one only.


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 24, 2010)

Andres said:


> Difference between post and a - postmillenialism has Christ returning to a saved world, amillenialism has Christ returning _to _save the world. Amillenialism it is.


 
I don't know any postmils that would say Christ returns to a "saved world". That's a pretty full statement.


----------



## jambo (May 24, 2010)

Post. And if it isn't, I will be looking for a refund on some of my books.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 24, 2010)

Dearly Bought said:


> A-millennial. We are presently in the period described as the "thousand years" in Revelation 20. In terms of the post-millennial/a-millennial debate, I do not expect to see all the nations of the world turn to Christ prior to His Second Advent, although I do expect to see the Gospel brought to every tribe and tongue. I do see the great apostasy as a future reality.


 
 Only thing I would add is a partial preterist stance.


----------



## nicnap (May 24, 2010)

Post.


----------



## Skyler (May 24, 2010)

nicnap: You made that post just so you could say "Post" without getting in trouble for post padding, didn't you? 

Tentatively amil myself, as I've never taken the time to study it out for myself.


----------



## nicnap (May 24, 2010)

Absolutely...no, I just realized the poll wasn't public, so I thought people would want to know who voted how.


----------



## MLCOPE2 (May 24, 2010)

nicnap said:


> Absolutely...no, I just realized the poll wasn't public, so I thought people would want to know who voted how.


 
I thought the poll _was_ public.


----------



## jwright82 (May 24, 2010)

Postmill/Amill cross. The heavanly reality is ours and it has all been acomplished, Amill, but the visible physical Kingdom of God will overtake the physical kingdoms of this world through the spread of the Gospel, Postmill. In the end God's will will be acomplished and He will be glorified.


----------



## reformedminister (May 24, 2010)

Amill.


----------



## Peairtach (May 24, 2010)

> Difference between post and a - postmillenialism has Christ returning to a saved world, amillenialism has Christ returning to save the world. Amillenialism it is.



Postmils believe there will be an apostasy before the end, as it says in Revelation 20. Also in Ezekiel 37 which is a kind of commentary on and expansion of, Revelation 20.

(a) Both have a resurrection of God's people (Israel a.k.a. the Israel of God, Jews and Gentiles who believe in "David" a.k.a. the Christ).

(b) Then there is a period of peace and security for God's people in the place God has for them. (The Land a.k.a. the Whole Earth.)

(c) Then there is a rebellion and apostasy under the names of Gog and Magog (a.k.a. a widespread final apostasy)

Christ can't return to save any soul, because the moment He returns either in death or at the End, their destiny is sealed: Heaven or Hell. Christ returns at the Eschaton to _judge the world_ and to save His people _from their enemies_, not save their souls. Even Christ can't save souls by His Second Advent.

True salvation can only be _in history _by the Gospel; when Jesus returns it is too late for salvation.

Christ triumphs in history before the End of the World by making a display throughout history of the defeat of His enemies. He will defeat all His and our enemies, Secular Humanism, Islam, Atheism/Agnosticism, and all false religions and beliefs, through His Word, Spirit, Providence and Church and the Whole Earth will enjoy a long period of Christianisation.

But it won't be a perfect world. It will be a Siver rather than a Golden Age. There will still be sin, illness and death. But it will be a more prolonged and deep and genuine period of Christianisation and world peace and prosperity than has been experienced.

YouTube - The Isley Brothers - Harvest For The World

The Church will have moved from her childhood under the provisional elements of the Mosaic Law, through adolescence to maturity.

Christ is greater than Moses or Joshua or David or Solomon. Is He not going to thoroughly defeat His enemies which occupy His Promised Land - this Earth? Of course He is.

Even Solomon had a short period of peace and prosperity, when he ruled the whole Land from the River (Euphrates) to the River (Wadi) of Egypt, and from the East Bank of the Jordan to the Great Sea (Mediterranean), until he threw it away by his apostasy.

Christ isn't going to throw it away, apart from a short period at the end when the Devil will be released to demonstrate the incorrigibility of the Devil and his angelic minions and the incorrigibility of fallen Mankind without the Saving Grace of God.

The Gospel (Word) and Spirit, and the Church and God's Providence, _cannot_ triumph if they do not triumph _before_ the Eschaton (Christ's Second Advent on the Last Day).

The slow process of the Christianisation of the world against Christ's enemies takes too long for His people to believe that it is going to happen thoroughly.

It took over 400 years for the Israelites to take possession of little Canaan by the sword of iron, rather than the Sword of the Spirit.


----------



## Bern (May 24, 2010)

Amil. Was historic pre- mil for a long time though.


----------



## sastark (May 24, 2010)

Postmil, a la Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans.


----------



## Michael Doyle (May 24, 2010)

A-mil


----------



## AThornquist (May 24, 2010)

I don't know.


----------



## Mephibosheth (May 24, 2010)

I'm a Postmillennialist. I'm also a partial preterist, so there isn't a "Tribulation" to complicate my optimistic eschatology. Also, I agree with the late Greg Bahnsen when he said that Postmill seems to be the _only_ position that can adequately explain _why_ the final apostasy in Revelation 20 is such a big deal. In Premill, it's just _yet another_ literal battle fought between a new class of people (children of the Jews who enter the Millennium in mortal bodies). And in Amill, isn't it just more of the same, in that the world just gets worse and worse until Gog and Magog ends it all?


----------



## Peairtach (May 24, 2010)

> so there isn't a "Tribulation" to complicate my optimistic eschatology



I'm a postmil too who believes that the "Tribulation" talked about by our Lord was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. and the killing of about 1.1 million Jews, and the dispersal of many Jews around the world.

But wouldn't you agree that many Christians around the world are suffering a degree of tribulation in the form of state and/or ecclesiastical persecution, and that such persecution could yet be experienced in a greater degree by Christians in North America and Europe and other free democracies before there are better days?

Let us postmil Calvinists in the free democracies not think that there is no possibility of any tribulation at all for us or our children by the church or state, before the Earth is Christianised, which blessedness may be centuries from now.

Secular humanism has the seeds of its own destruction in it, but who knows how nasty things will get before true Christianity is on the ascendent again.


----------



## DMcFadden (May 25, 2010)

Historic Premil for 35 yrs . . . Amil after reading Riddlebarger.


----------



## caoclan (May 25, 2010)

Amil, myself. Currently reading Riddlebarger. Great book! (A Case for Amillennialism).


----------



## larryjf (May 26, 2010)

Ken Gentry was a big influence on me becoming a postmiller.


----------



## lollardy (May 26, 2010)

This realized amillennialist sees the premil expectation of a thousand-year Golden Age attached to the end of history as the offscouring of the ethnic-Israel-has-yet-to-be-fulfilled syndrome, while the postmil hope tends to be a triumphalist fantasy that foresees the kingdoms of this world submitting to a gradual christianization. Scripture, however, emphasizes the absolute finality of Christ’s saving work on Calvary and the climactic finality of His return to earth. Having fulfilled all the promises of God to Israel (Acts 13:32,33,38,39), the ascended Lord Jesus is now seated triumphantly at the right hand of God in Heaven (Hebrews 1:1-3) and He will return (literally/historically/personally) to punish a world in terminal disobedience. 

2 Thess.1:	
7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord 
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not 
God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from 
the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

This revelatory day of utter destruction and total renewal is described by both Paul and Peter in parallel passages that deny any opening for either a restored-Israel premil, or a quasi-utopian postmil, interval. 

1 Thess. 5:
2 For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh 
as a thief in the night.
3 For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction 
cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they 
shall not escape.
4 But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should 
overtake you as a thief. 

2 Peter 3:
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the 
which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the 
elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works 
that are therein shall be burned up.
11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner 
of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,
12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, 
wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the 
elements shall melt with fervent heat?
13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new 
heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.


----------



## AThornquist (May 26, 2010)

To those who are pre-mil: are there any books you would suggest to understand this position better?


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 26, 2010)

Can one be confessional and pre-mil? 

I think that both the 3FU, the Westminster Standards (and their deviants: Savoy, London Baptist, etc) have room for a- and post-; but I don't see room for being confessional and pre-. 

Any thoughts or ideas on that? 

Warmly, Nate


----------



## Covenant Joel (May 26, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Can one be confessional and pre-mil?
> 
> I think that both the 3FU, the Westminster Standards (and their deviants: Savoy, London Baptist, etc) have room for a- and post-; but I don't see room for being confessional and pre-.
> 
> ...


 
What aspect of the WCF would you see as incompatible with (historic) premil? I'm not premil myself, but I've known PCA pastors who were covenant premil, and it wasn't considered a problem. It seems to me that the WCF at least leaves it open.


----------



## N. Eshelman (May 26, 2010)

Covenant Joel said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Can one be confessional and pre-mil?
> ...


 
Notice the progression of this QA from the Larger Catechism. I cannot see historic or dispensational premil being consistent with this order: 

Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.? 
Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

And in the Confession "On the Last judgment" the Confession shows that Christ's return will result in the final judgment on *that day*:

33.III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have *that day* unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.


----------



## Christusregnat (May 27, 2010)

My stance is that about six millenia have passed since the creation of the world.

My stance on the millennium is post-stance.

Cheers,


----------



## Covenant Joel (May 27, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Notice the progression of this QA from the Larger Catechism. I cannot see historic or dispensational premil being consistent with this order:
> 
> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.



I hadn't thought about this Catechism question. And I can see your point. However, it seems that one could construe this in line with covenant premil teaching, as it doesn't explicitly say that all of those things must take place prior to the return of Christ. But, granted, a- and post- seem to fit much better.



> And in the Confession "On the Last judgment" the Confession shows that Christ's return will result in the final judgment on *that day*:
> 
> 33.III. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity: so will he have *that day* unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come, Lord Jesus, come quickly. Amen.


 
While I am not premil, it doesn't seem to me that this section alone rules it out, as it doesn't say that the day of judgment will necessarily be on the same day as the day of his coming, merely that men ought to watchful because they don't know when the day of judgment will come. Again, seems to me to fit with a- and post- better, but I would imagine that some would make a case that it doesn't explicitly rule it out either.

I'd be interested to know from those in office in Reformed denominations whether or not premil is allowed. I've known of an example or two myself, but I'm not sure how it's really viewed from the perspective of the denominations.


----------



## BenjaminBurton (May 27, 2010)

Amill, recovering Pre-mill. Gotta love Riddlebarger's book!


----------



## Peairtach (May 27, 2010)

I don't think it is easy to be a postmil, with the world the way it is. Especially with the wet blanket of secular humanism stifling Christian faith everywhere.

But remember when people thought that Communism would never collapse. Secular humanism contains the seeds of its own destruction, which are already apparent, and one day its walls will come tumbling down and biblical Christianity will surge ahead.

It'll make the Reformation look like a vicar's tea party.


----------



## JDKetterman (May 28, 2010)

nleshelman said:


> Can one be confessional and pre-mil?
> 
> I think that both the 3FU, the Westminster Standards (and their deviants: Savoy, London Baptist, etc) have room for a- and post-; but I don't see room for being confessional and pre-.
> 
> ...



Jeff Jue from WTS actually wrote on the eschatology of the Westminster Divines. He was on Christ the Center awhile ago, and spoke about the topic. If I remember him correctly, some of the Westminster divines were historic premillenialist. Here is him on Christ the center: http://reformedforum.org/category/guests/jeff-jue/


----------



## Matthew V (May 30, 2010)

I'm pan-millenial. I think everything's going to "pan out" in the end! 
Seriously though, I am amillennial.


----------



## Parker234 (Jun 23, 2010)

amillennial Preterist; but don't corner me or debate me. I'll shrink away like a salted slug.


----------



## goodnews (Jun 23, 2010)

I'm in the A-Mil camp, but I find myself wanting to be in the Post-Mil camp.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Jun 23, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> I don't think it is easy to be a postmil, with the world the way it is. Especially with the wet blanket of secular humanism stifling Christian faith everywhere.
> 
> But remember when people thought that Communism would never collapse. Secular humanism contains the seeds of its own destruction, which are already apparent, and one day its walls will come tumbling down and biblical Christianity will surge ahead.
> 
> It'll make the Reformation look like a vicar's tea party.


 
 

I am of the opinion secular-humanism will literally bread itself out of existence.


----------



## Bookmeister (Jun 23, 2010)

I am in the Amil. camp, but if the camp is on fire I am willing to relocate!


----------



## torstar (Jun 24, 2010)

jambo said:


> Post. And if it isn't, I will be looking for a refund on some of my books.


 

Amill, with some part of me whim-wishing that post happens.


----------



## billy.leonhart (Jun 24, 2010)

Formerly Amill / Partial Preterist. However, the more I listen to Riddlebarger's lectures, the more I'm convinced that Partial Preterism is quite unnecessary for holding to one's Amillennialism. Postmillennialists need Partial Preterism more than we do. I say let them have it.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 24, 2010)

I don't really inderstand amil's position that there is a permanent stand-off between between Christ and the Devil, with neither getting the upperhand until Christ physically returns.

(a) Surely amils acknowledge that Christ by His Spirit _could_ convert the vast majority of people at the same time if He wants to.

(b) Christ's return will be no triumph for the Gospel, in the sense that no-one can get saved once Christ returns, but it will seal the condition of all alive then. It will be a visible vindication of the truth, however.

(c) Christ will not have triumphed over evil in history in the amil scheme by His Word (Gospel), Spirit, Providence and through His Church, because in the Cosmic Wrestling Match under amillennialism, there is a permanent stand off until the fight is called off by the referee, just as evil gets even slightly stronger. Is that _fair_?

The Word, Spirit, Providence and Church of Christ won't have demonstrated what they can do, because the fight will have been ended after a long stand off and just as the Devil looked like he was getting the upperhand.

After a long stand off in which the Gospel never triumphs in taking possession of the Earth, the Devil seems to gain strength, but the match is called off just as it looks as if he might win. 

The Bible does seem to teach a realised or inaugurated Millennium/Kingdom of God, but not a static Millennium/Kingdom in which there is a stalemate that must be broken by Christ's final, visible and physical Advent. The "stalemate" will be broken by Christ coming by His Spirit.

In the parable of the leaven you have a realised or inaugurated kingdom/Millennialism - everything necessary is there, the dough and the leaven - but that doesn't mean that you don't have growth. Do amils not believe that the Church has grown and spread since the realised/inaugurated Millennial Kingdom of the First Century?

Many postmils are now amils because they have been dismayed at the successful spread of godless Enlightenment thinking throughout the West and the World in the past 300 years. This will not last forever, although it sometimes seems like it.

Amils are just postmils that have lost their nerve.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 24, 2010)

First time I've actually identified myself as a-mil. Feels really strange to have changed from post ....


----------



## travstar (Jun 24, 2010)

Just like Shaq, I'm planted firmly in the post.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 24, 2010)

*Quote from Benjamin*


> I am of the opinion secular-humanism will literally bread itself out of existence.



Or even breed itself out of existence.

But as Randy would say, "It's of a strange bread or possibly not bread at all. It's the bread of the pit."

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:45 PM ----------




jwithnell said:


> First time I've actually identified myself as a-mil. Feels really strange to have changed from post ....



I hope you change back to post after reading my post on the Cosmic Wrestling Match.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jun 24, 2010)

pre-mil


----------



## buggy (Jun 24, 2010)

My "end-times" beliefs for now:
While I believe the times immediately preceding Christ's 2nd Coming will be marked by increasing apostasy, 
I do not exclude the possibility of a "Golden Age" of Christianity in the future. The times now with all the unscriptural ecumenism, uneasy peace, and so on may mark the 2nd coming's closeness, but it may also mark the times before another biblical Reformation.
Where would that put me in?


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 24, 2010)

JDKetterman said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Can one be confessional and pre-mil?
> ...


 
I know that James Montgomery Boice was a historic pre-mill.


----------



## teddyrux (Jun 24, 2010)

Too many Christians are more concerned with when Christ is going to return than they are about following the Great Commission.


----------



## Andres (Jun 24, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Too many Christians are more concerned with when Christ is going to return than they are about following the Great Commission.


----------



## JennyG (Jun 24, 2010)

I don't understand this well enough to have a stance.
I have a book called The Momentous Event which is in my queue of books to read - can anyone tell me if it's a good one??

---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------

...there seems such a diversity of views that I'm tempted to think it can't matter too much which!


----------



## teddyrux (Jun 24, 2010)

Andres said:


>


 
It may be too early for me to be on my soap box.  The Pre-, Post-, A- Mil debate is pointless if people aren't following our Lord's commands. That's not to say that anyone on here fits that category, which is why I said it may be too early for to post like I did.

I'm post-mil BTW and I don't think that I follow the Great Commission properly (that's a different topic).


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 24, 2010)

teddyrux said:


> Too many Christians are more concerned with when Christ is going to return than they are about following the Great Commission.



You can be interested in such things while also following the Great Commission.

_Now there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name was Simeon, and this man was righteous and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was upon him. (Luke 2:25, ESV)
_

_And there was a prophetess, Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher. She was advanced in years, having lived with her husband seven years from when she was a virgin, and then as a widow until she was eighty-four. She did not depart from the temple, worshipping with fasting and prayer night and day. And coming up at that very hour she began to give thanks to God and to speak of him to all who were waiting for the redemption of Jerusalem. (Luke 2:36-38, ESV) _

_Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, 
inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (I Peter 1:10-11, ESV)_

I agree it can get over the top, but there is nothing wrong with studying the Scriptures and having an opinion on it, without dividing churches or brother from brother over it.

---------- Post added at 11:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:09 PM ----------




JennyG said:


> I don't understand this well enough to have a stance.
> I have a book called The Momentous Event which is in my queue of books to read - can anyone tell me if it's a good one??
> 
> ---------- Post added at 10:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:29 PM ----------
> ...



That is a good book to read on the subject. Also Lorraine Boettner's "The Millennium" is a good introduction.

This topic doesn't directly impinge on your salvation of soul, but premillennial dispensationalism is a major embarrassment, at best, to the evangelical church.

There are only four basic views:

(a) Postmillenialism

(b) Amillennialism

Both (a) and (b) teach that Christ comes after the Millennium, but amil teaches no expectation of world conquest by the Gospel.

(c) Historic or Covenantal Premillennialism

(d) Dispensational Premillennialism (post 1830)

Both of these - (c) and (d) - teach that Christ will return before the Millennium and live in Jerusalem in a less than perfect world. This contradicts basic Christology.

You can learn which stance is most likely to be nearest to the truth by a process of elimination, since they can't all be true.

The last two can be eliminated fairly quickly by studying what the Bible teaches about Jesus' exaltation e.g. in particular what He Himself says about the importance of His going to the Father in the Gospel of John.

That leaves the real debate between amil and postmil.


----------



## teddyrux (Jun 24, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> I agree it can get over the top, but there is nothing wrong with studying the Scriptures and having an opinion on it, without dividing churches or brother from brother over it.



Thank you. That is exactly how I needed to word my first post.


----------



## DeborahtheJudge (Jun 24, 2010)

Richard, you are on a roll!


----------



## JennyG (Jun 25, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> JennyG said:
> 
> 
> > I don't understand this well enough to have a stance.
> ...


Thank you - that's beautifully clear, - I shall give it thought (and read the book).
I always had this filed under "for future study". One reason for confusion is that the terms post-, pre-, etc don't carry their meanings on their faces. But hopefully next time the topic comes up I may have an informed opinion!


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 25, 2010)

Dr Grier who wrote your book was amil, and there is a lot of good stuff in there I would agree with.

It's a very sound and sane treatment of the subject unlike that of the dispensational premillennialists which is usually sensationalist "newspaper exegesis" and should largely be avoided.

---------- Post added at 01:26 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 PM ----------




DeborahtheJudge said:


> Richard, you are on a roll!



Well the main thing is that Christ has been hyper-exalted after His state of humiliation (Philipians 2:9). Is He going to be brought back down to a less than exalted Earth to live in a fancy temple for 1,000 years, and during that time not be able to save one soul or extend His Kingdom by His Word, Spirit, Church and Providence?

God's temple already opened for business in Heaven, in the First Century, when the earthly temple closed for business. See e.g. Revelation 11:19, and God's Ark of the Covenant i.e. Christ was seen there.

Take that last wee bit with a pinch of salt, as Revelation is a difficult book.

Read about Christ's states of humiliation and exaltation in the standard Systematic Theologies and read what the Bible says on it, and see if Christ's state of exaltation can be reconciled with what premils say about the Millennium.


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 25, 2010)

> Amils are just postmils that have lost their nerve.


  

Or, a postmil who got around to reading the New Testament or Riddlebarger. 

Structurally, amil is a subset of postmil, differentiated historically in fairly recent times. That is why claims that this or that person was either postmil or amil are difficult to prove.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jun 25, 2010)

amillennial.


----------



## JM (Jun 25, 2010)

Premil and yes, I have read Riddlebarger.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 25, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> > Amils are just postmils that have lost their nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Or amils are postmils who have blinked

Or amils are postmils that were trying to hold their breath until the national conversion of the Jews and decided to give up.

I believe that Christ has been and will demonstrate His triumph on the postmil scheme, by triumphing in history by His Word, Spirit, Providence and Church all from His place in Heaven at God's right hand.

What place does the final apostasy have in the postmil scheme?

(a) It demonstrates the total incorrigibility of the Devil and his angels, that as soon as they are released they mount a rebellion against God.

(b) It demonstrates the total incorrigibility of Man that after a long Silver Age of Christian blessing, without God's grace he is the same old Man.

Christ's Second Advent does not teach the Dawkins's of this world something they do not know, but is another tangible vindication of the Gospel which they already knew from the Bible and the Creation (see Romans 1 and 2 and Van Til). It will just confirm to them and to those withoput the Scriptures, the truth that they have been suppressing all along.

Christ wouldn't triumph by cutting the Cosmic War short, just as it looked as if the Devil was gaining the upper hand after a long stand off, as per amillennialism. 

The triumph is demonstrated in the progress of history and at its end. Christ will make a display of His enemies in the progress of history. God's work in history (providence) will be to His praise.

I'll maybe get round to reading Riddlebarger sometime DV.


----------



## billy.leonhart (Jun 27, 2010)

From what Amillennial publications do you derive this language of a "permanent stand-off between Christ and the Devil?" Please recognize that Amillennials do not adhere to the exact same paradigm across the board. However, I know of no Amillennialist that would ever make the claim that they believe in such heretical dualism. Christ and His church have already achieved victory in the cross and the resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of that victory will come on the last day, but it is manifest everytime a person is saved. Satan is already bound in that he cannot hinder this process: the process in which all of God's elect are currently being saved out of the world. There is no further victory that needs to be won. The work of Christ in His incarnation was ultimate. Through His resurrection, we have assurance that our resurrection will take place in which death (our final foe) will cease (1Cor. 15).


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 27, 2010)

> From what Amillennial publications do you derive this language of a "permanent stand-off between Christ and the Devil?" Please recognize that Amillennials do not adhere to the exact same paradigm across the board. However, I know of no Amillennialist that would ever make the claim that they believe in such heretical dualism. Christ and His church have already achieved victory in the cross and the resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of that victory will come on the last day, but it is manifest everytime a person is saved. Satan is already bound in that he cannot hinder this process: the process in which all of God's elect are currently being saved out of the world. There is no further victory that needs to be won. The work of Christ in His incarnation was ultimate. Through His resurrection, we have assurance that our resurrection will take place in which death (our final foe) will cease (1Cor. 15).



There is progress yet to be made though, in the spread and effects of the Gospel, otherwise the realised Millennial Kingdom wouldn't have spread beyond Jerusalem in the past 2,000 years and would not have had the beneficial effects it has had on Man's thinking and culture, because it was completely realised in the complex of eschatalogical events in the first century.

Was the Kingdom/Millennium realised in the First Century? In a sense "Yes" and in a sense "No". It partakes of the "already....not yet" of biblical eschatology.

Was your salvation achieved at the moment you first believed? In a sense "Yes" and in a sense "No".


----------



## alhembd (Jun 28, 2010)

Covenant Joel said:


> nleshelman said:
> 
> 
> > Can one be confessional and pre-mil?
> ...


 
I myself originally thought that premillennialism would have been totally incompatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, then, I read the third volume of Thomas Goodwin's Works, and his commentary on Revelation. From comments Goodwin later makes in _Christ our Mediator_, I think Goodwin later became postmil, but, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, of which he was a member, Goodwin was decidedly premillennial. So was Twisse. Twisse, until his death, was the Chair of the Assembly.

So, the Westminster Divines tolerated premillennialism amongst its own members. Accordingly, I don't we can say that the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't allow for certain premillennial views (though certainly not for dispensational premillennialism).


----------



## DMcFadden (Jun 28, 2010)

I think it would be fair to say that the_ direction _of covenant theology naturally tends towards an amil/postmil scheme from the stanpoint of "consistency."

However, there are readers of Revelation who cannot get beyond Rev. 20 despite the arguments to the contrary by amil/postmil writers. So, you will always have some covenant thinkers who are historic premil (including many of the big name Presbyterian preachers of the 20th century). The same tendency is present among some amil interpreters of Romans 9-11. Even though they hold to a covenant hermeneutic, they see a future for ethnic Israel based on the exegetical data.

Interestingly, it will be fun to see how the progressive dispensationalists handle eschatology. Classic and modified dispensationalism were pretty tightly linked to a premil/pretrib scheme. But, since the progressive dispensational camp strikes me as being more covenant than dispensational in their hermeneutics, we may see some odd combinations in the years to come if that movement has any legs.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 28, 2010)

Which millenia are you talking about? As far as I know we have already completed six millenia 

---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------




alhembd said:


> Covenant Joel said:
> 
> 
> > nleshelman said:
> ...


 
Just because certain prominent Assembly members were pre-millenial, it doesn't follow that the WCF allows for pre-millenialism. 

WCF 8:4 He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father,(10) making intercession;(11) and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.(12) 

WLC 1:56 WLC 56 How is Christ to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world? A. Christ is to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world, in that he, who was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked men,(1) shall come again at the last day in great power,(2) and in the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father's, with all his holy angels,(3) with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God,(4) to judge the world in righteousness.(5) 

WLC 1:191 WLC 191 What do we pray for in the second petition? A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,(1)) ... we pray, ... that Christ would ...hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever12) and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.(13) 


These excerts from the WStnds bring up 2 points which contradict premillenialism. 1. Christ returns at the last day to judge the living and the dead, not prior to a 1000 year reign to reign on the earth and then judge the living and the dead after the 1000 years. 2. His kingdom is now, not future.


----------



## Grimmson (Jun 28, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> alhembd said:
> 
> 
> > From comments Goodwin later makes in _Christ our Mediator_, I think Goodwin later became postmil, but, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, of which he was a member, Goodwin was decidedly premillennial. So was Twisse. Twisse, until his death, was the Chair of the Assembly.
> ...


 
When interpreting the WCF, it should be considered to be an appropriate interpretive technique to view the confession and it’s spectrum’s of meaning in the same fashion as the framers of the confession at the assembly and those that signed on to it at the assembly. One’s application should be placed into question if it is not in line with the majority view at the assembly and those prominent members that held to a position different then your own that was present there. They would have better ground for the application and interpretation of the confession being there then someone who was removed from the assembly for about 350 years. There have been many Presbyterians that have held to a pre-mill view and have been reformed, such as James Montgomery Boice, who I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread. Therefore I think the claim can be made that the WCF does allow for the pre-mill position because those who were there in the assembly knew what they were doing and was not placed under church discipline for turning against the confession. We should always try to apply an historical reading, considering the official positions of those present; particularly the orthodox prominent members that was presiding over the assembly and those who wrote the confession. To not try to consider their historical position and not allow for their position to be read into the confession, like they did, would be to hijack their established tradition and the spectrum of flexibility with this particular position.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Jun 28, 2010)

Grimmson said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > alhembd said:
> ...



I disagree. Just because a minority position was present, that does not mean that the original framers felt that the minority view was in line with the final document. There were some views held by divines and expressed by various delegates at the Assembly which did not make it into the final document, and cannot be made to fit its system of doctrine. The test is not just whether a view was held by someone at the assembly, but whether that view was in some way allowed and accomodated in the final wording of the standards.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 28, 2010)

billy.leonhart said:


> From what Amillennial publications do you derive this language of a "permanent stand-off between Christ and the Devil?" Please recognize that Amillennials do not adhere to the exact same paradigm across the board. However, I know of no Amillennialist that would ever make the claim that they believe in such heretical dualism. Christ and His church have already achieved victory in the cross and the resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of that victory will come on the last day, but it is manifest everytime a person is saved. Satan is already bound in that he cannot hinder this process: the process in which all of God's elect are currently being saved out of the world. There is no further victory that needs to be won. The work of Christ in His incarnation was ultimate. Through His resurrection, we have assurance that our resurrection will take place in which death (our final foe) will cease (1Cor. 15).



Well the amillennialist seems to believe in a "stand off" in history, not in the sense that all the elect will be saved, which both amils and postmils agree on, but in the sense that the First Beast (civil and/or pagan persecution of Christians) will be ended in history, in the sense that the Second Beast (Antichrist and antichrists) will not be ended in history, in the sense that Babylon (Apostate Christianity, or the World System, as some amils would posit) will not be ended in history, that the nations will be converted as nations, and that there will be world peace and beneficial cultural influence through the Gospel. 

Amils say these things are impossible in this world, and yet there have been times and places where such things have already been brought about by the spread of the Gospel over the last 2,000 years. So the idea that Christians can't enjoy such things in this world is nonsense. 

All postmils are saying that there will be a massive broadening and deepening of such things as have already occurred in the Millennial period over the last 2,000 years, long before the return of our Lord.


*Quote from Dennis*


> I think it would be fair to say that the direction of covenant theology naturally tends towards an amil/postmil scheme from the stanpoint of "consistency."



Christology as much as anything else points to amil/postmil.


----------



## Dennis1963 (Jun 28, 2010)

A-millennial.


----------



## JM (Jun 28, 2010)

It seems Amil is the default position of most Reformed folks.


----------



## Wannabee (Jun 28, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Interestingly, it will be fun to see how the progressive dispensationalists handle eschatology. Classic and modified dispensationalism were pretty tightly linked to a premil/pretrib scheme. But, since the progressive dispensational camp strikes me as being more covenant than dispensational in their hermeneutics, we may see some odd combinations in the years to come if that movement has any legs.


 
I hope it's fun. 

This has been a nagging issue with me for a long time. Being decidedly premil, I have often struggled with how to understand what I perceive as greater apostasy and persecution in the last days of the church and the idea of a tribulation period. I see why some claim it (and it's not dependent upon Daniel). But I just can't seem to rest there. I find too many inconsistencies to be comfortable with what is proposed in order to arrive at their conclusions.

So, I may have some sort of odd combination brewing in my own noggin, with influences from both the leaky Dispensational and historic premil positions rattling around.


----------



## billy.leonhart (Jul 5, 2010)

Amillennialists tend to be more idealist in our approach to Revelation. We don't seek to answer the same questions that the Postmillennialists seek to answer, and we don't look at history as a dualistic battle between the Church and Satan. When Postmillennialists attempt to force the Amillennialist perspective into such a paradigm Amillennialists have no context in which to formulate an answer. Such language simply is not in Scripture. The "already / not yet" paradigm is affirmed by Amillennialists. Christ has already secured victory over sin and death (1Cor. 15), and He will return to bring it into its final culmination on the last day. This will be the marriage feast of the Lamb. Our job, as the Church, is not to bring about the wedding, but to be ready for it when it comes. This includes evangelism and personal / corporate purity. Victory over Satan is not achieved by the Church, nor is the subjection of nations. That is the work of Christ, and Amillennialists see no biblical warrant in assigning that work to the "already" portion of the "already / not yet" paradigm.

Billy
SBC
Texas


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 6, 2010)

billy.leonhart said:


> Amillennialists tend to be more idealist in our approach to Revelation. We don't seek to answer the same questions that the Postmillennialists seek to answer, and we don't look at history as a dualistic battle between the Church and Satan. When Postmillennialists attempt to force the Amillennialist perspective into such a paradigm Amillennialists have no context in which to formulate an answer. Such language simply is not in Scripture. The "already / not yet" paradigm is affirmed by Amillennialists. Christ has already secured victory over sin and death (1Cor. 15), and He will return to bring it into its final culmination on the last day. This will be the marriage feast of the Lamb. Our job, as the Church, is not to bring about the wedding, but to be ready for it when it comes. This includes evangelism and personal / corporate purity. Victory over Satan is not achieved by the Church, nor is the subjection of nations. That is the work of Christ, and Amillennialists see no biblical warrant in assigning that work to the "already" portion of the "already / not yet" paradigm.
> 
> Billy
> SBC
> Texas



What about the period of history between the "already" and the "not yet"? Is there to be no progress in there?

As an amillennialist I'm sure that you believe that the Millennium was realised at Pentecost or A.D. 70 or some other point in the First Century. Yet although that is the case, there has been great progress in Christ's kingdom since then. Will there not be greater progress between now and the Eschaton in our realised/inaugurated Millennium/Kingdom?

The progress is not just in Heaven, where the number of the saints never decreases but gets larger day by day. The progress is also on the Earth.

The Millennium/Kingdom was realised when the woman put a little yeast in three measures of meal, but that does not mean that the yeast did not make progress through the meal.

There is a correspondence between the Kingdom and individual eschatology. When we are born again our salvation is realised. But does that mean that the Christian is to make no progress towards spiritual maturity between his conversion and his death - when Christ will come for him in providence?

Is, e.g., the work of Christ's Spirit in illuminating the Scriptures over the past 2,000 years not to eventually lead to a more mature, strong, large and healthy Church?


----------



## billy.leonhart (Jul 28, 2010)

I believe in progress. Sure. However, I don't believe that the progress we are talking about will result in a full submission of the nations to the rule of a golden era church. I think that is firmly extra-biblical. Do you think that progress in our sanctification means that we will be glorified before Christ comes back as well? Of course not (1Cor. 15:50-58). Christ will come back to complete the work. Furthermore, it is for the very reason that Satan is currently bound that we are able, as a church, to make the progress that you are talking about.

Billy
SBC
Texas

p.s. The "millennium" began when Christ died on the cross. That was when He bound the strong man and purchased our redemption. At His resurrection, He ensured our resurrection (1Cor. 15).


----------



## coramdeo (Jul 29, 2010)

Other.......I'm with Pink. Too many brilliant godly men have differing views, haven't put my self solidly in any camp yet.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2010)

Other: feet at shoulder width, knees slightly bent.


----------



## EverReforming (Aug 2, 2010)

In the past, I've considered myself Historic Pre-Millenial. I never really knew much about A-Millenial until recently and its something I'm just starting to sort through and try to figure out. I'm not sure where where I'll land on the scale in the end, but until then I'll keep the Hist. Pre-Mill label I've generally associated with.


----------



## JM (Aug 11, 2010)

About a week ago I was discussing this topic with a Dispensationalist and found myself troubled by the end of the night. As I lay in bed I went over and over everything we talked about, when I got up in the morning I realized I was Amil. 

I have to change my vote. This wasn't easy.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 12, 2010)

I'm thinking one does not have to have a remnant viewpoint to be a-mil.


----------

