# Summary of eschatological positions



## Poimen

I was hoping to get some feedback on this summary of eschatological positions. The purpose is not to teach one against the other but simply to fairly represent the opposing views. It is intended for laymen so it is intentionally simple. 

FYI, I am an amillenialist so it may be that my bias shines through. If so please let me know. 

VIEWS ON ESCHATOLOGY

I. Amillenialism

Amillenialism has a long history in the church going back to Augustine who propagated the view that the millennium is a period of time that encompasses the whole of history after the ascension of Christ. Thus Amillenialism literally means “no millennium.” (i.e. not a literal thousand years but an era) In my opinion amillenialism is the view held by the majority of Reformers but some might disagree with me. 

Amillenialism agrees with pre-millenialism that we should not expect a Golden Age or time of a ‘world’ conversion before the time of Christ but rather increasing persecution and unbelief. Christ reigns over all but He calls believers to suffer now and await glory in heaven. Amillenialism agrees with post-millenianism that Christ returns after the millennium. 

A typical criticism of amillenialism is that it is allegorical i.e. not literal. It interprets the structure of eschatology in Scripture as symbolic rather than historical. Postmillenialists usually criticize it as being too pessimistic since it ignores the scriptures declaration of Christ’s victory over all things. 

Some prominent amillenialists: Herman Bavinck, Louis Berkhof, William Hendriksen, Herman Ridderbos, Geerhardus Vos. Most (Dutch) Reformed Christians are amillenialists. 

II. Post-millenialism

Post-millenialism believes that Christ will return after the millennium. Usually if not always a postmillennialist will assert along with the amillenialist that the thousand years is not a literal thousand years but an era. The difference is that they insert a so-called “Golden Age” into the end of the millennium. This Golden Age asserts that Christ has won a full victory over sin and death and so we can expect to see the (full?) result of His reigning over His enemies in this life. Thus much of the world will be converted; there will be a time of great peace and the establishment of God’s law as a standard for all nations. 

Modern day post-millennialists tend to see other views as highly pessimistic and disavowing of the victorious life that Christ has called us Christians to live. Amillenialists and pre-millenialists usually characterize this view as disregarding the Lord’s (and the apostles) warnings about the difficulties of the last days. 

Many of the Puritans were post-millennialists. Today it is advocated by men such Joey Pipa, R.C. Sproul, Steve Wilkins and Douglas Wilson. It tends to be popular in Presbyterian circles, particularly by those who embrace theonomy. 

III. Pre-millenialism

Pre-millenialists all agree, contrary to amillenialism and post-millenialism, that Christ will return before the millennium. With this view Christ will come and establish a “Golden Age” after He returns and He will reign on earth with those saints who have died for a thousand years. Then will come the resurrection, judgment and eternal life. 

However pre-millenialism is divided into two basic camps. The first are classic pre-millenialists whose tradition goes back to the early church fathers (who are called “Chiliasts” ). They assert the above but they believe that God has one people or one covenant in the new covenant that includes Jews and Gentiles. This latter truth, of course, is not revolutionary for you or I because it is the accepted teaching of the Christian Church for thousands of years. The late Dr. James Boice, minister of the Tenth Presbyterian Church, is a good example of this type of pre-millenialist. 

The second camp of pre-millenialists, usually called dispensationalists, assert however that Christians at the time of the “Rapture” (usually taught as occurring before the Great Tribulation) will be taken up into heaven after which the Jews, God’s chosen people, will reinstitute the sacrifices and spread the gospel throughout the world. This, in effect, will commence the millennial reign of Christ in Jerusalem along with the raptured saints. This thinking has been popularized in the “Left Behind” series and is propagated by J.N. Darby, John MacArthur, Louis Sperry Chafer, and Jack Van Impe. It is the most prevalent type of eschatology within evangelicalism though most of its adherents live within North America. This latter type of pre-millenialism is usually criticized for its wild speculations concerning the return of Christ and the invention of the rapture to support its theology. 

VIEWS ON PROPHECY

Related to the study of eschatology are also the different views on prophecy (mostly related to how one interprets the OT prophets and Revelation). I will briefly list them here:

I. Futurism

This view believes that most of the prophecies have yet to be fulfilled. This view is largely, if not exclusively, popular within pre-millenial camps. 

II. Iterism

Iterists assert that most prophecies are repeated in every generation. It is, however, generally considered that there will be an increase in the intensity of such fulfillments until the time of Christ’s return. For example, every age will experience persecution but it will grow in severity as time goes on. Many amillenialists are iterists. 

III. Preterists

Preterists believe that most prophecies have been fulfilled. They focus on AD 70 wherein the temple was destroyed as fulfillment of what Christ speaks of in Matthew 24 and what John focuses on in Revelation. Many post-millennialists are preterists, especially in it’s most popular forms of exposition. 

-Rev. Kok


----------



## MrMerlin777

Just two questions and not meant to be in anyway contentious, but....

What about Idealism?

What about Historicism?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

I think you did a good job there brother. I would consider myself partial preterist and amill.


----------



## MrMerlin777

I consider myself a partial preterist amillenialist as well.


----------



## Poimen

MrMerlin777 said:


> Just two questions and not meant to be in anyway contentious, but....
> 
> What about Idealism?
> 
> What about Historicism?



Idealism, as I understand it, is another name for 'iterism.' But you are correct about historicism. I will have to update the paper to include it.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Blueridge reformer said:


> I think you did a good job there brother. I would consider myself partial preterist and amill.





MrMerlin777 said:


> I consider myself a partial preterist amillenialist as well.


----------



## MrMerlin777

Poimen said:


> Idealism, as I understand it, is another name for 'iterism.' But you are correct about historicism. I will have to update the paper to include it.



Had never heard the term iterism before but now that I reread your original post it does sound alot like Idealism. I sit in the Idealist (iterist?) camp a bit myself. I think most realized/gospel millenialists (another, I think better, name for amillenialist) are.


----------



## Ezekiel3626

MrMerlin777 said:


> I consider myself a partial preterist amillenialist as well.



I would also fall into this group.


----------



## justingrid

That's a pretty good summary there Poimen. 

Personally, I hold to the preterist, theonomic and postmillenial position.


----------



## MW

I don't believe iterism is a good substitute for idealism, for idealists do not see prophecy being fulfilled repeatedly. Even idealism doesn't seem to me to be a suitable word, but certainly iterism brings the view back to an event-based scheme which is inconsistent with the idealist perspective.


----------



## MrMerlin777

armourbearer said:


> I don't believe iterism is a good substitute for idealism, for idealists do not see prophecy being fulfilled repeatedly. Even idealism doesn't seem to me to be a suitable word, but certainly iterism brings the view back to an event-based scheme which is inconsistent with the idealist perspective.



I can see your point about the event based scheme. 

Idealism does however see certain principles in prophecy that can be and often are repeated throughout history(like saints being martyred etc).


----------



## elnwood

James M. Boice is not the best example of the historic premillennial position. His only major work on eschatology is distinctively dispensational premillennial. It has been said on this board that he became an historic premillennialist later in his ministry, but he has no published work (to my knowledge) regarding this.

Try George Eldon Ladd, Wayne Grudem, and I believe D. A. Carson, as better and more representative contemporary examples, as well as the Bible Presbyterian Church.

Your summary is good for its length. Unfortunately, eschatology is more complicated than that. For example, the theonomic postmillennialism that we see today is a different beast than the postmillennialism that was predominant in the 19th century. There are other types of amillennialists and premillennialists as well.

Oh, and millennium has two 'n's.


----------



## MW

MrMerlin777 said:


> I can see your point about the event based scheme.
> 
> Idealism does however see certain principles in prophecy that can be and often are repeated throughout history(like saints being martyred etc).



Still, such martyrdom would be regarded as a complex event, not something happening over and again. An example would be the exile and restoration in the OT. There were many events of this nature, but the prophetic Word always addresses them as a single, complex unit. That is because "idealism" (for want of a better word) is concerned with the moral nature of the action, not the action in relation to the time-space continuum, as in event-driven interpretation. Blessings!


----------



## S. Spence

Just an observation but have you ever noticed that some post-mill folks are essentially just optimistic amillenialist. 
On the other hand, I suppose virtually every eschatological position has its variations.


----------



## Poimen

Paul manata said:


> I'd rather see some better names under the postmill camp.
> 
> 
> 
> John Frame, Keith Mathison, Joey Pipa, R.C. Sproul,



 Paul, you make me smile!

I hope you don't think I was trying to poison the well. There is a story behind this paper (which was written several months ago) and is the reason I used those names. But I appreciate the point you are trying to make and I will update the paper accordingly.


----------



## Poimen

elnwood said:


> James M. Boice is not the best example of the historic premillennial position. His only major work on eschatology is distinctively dispensational premillennial. It has been said on this board that he became an historic premillennialist later in his ministry, but he has no published work (to my knowledge) regarding this.
> 
> Try George Eldon Ladd, Wayne Grudem, and I believe D. A. Carson, as better and more representative contemporary examples, as well as the Bible Presbyterian Church.
> 
> Your summary is good for its length. Unfortunately, eschatology is more complicated than that. For example, the theonomic postmillennialism that we see today is a different beast than the postmillennialism that was predominant in the 19th century. There are other types of amillennialists and premillennialists as well.
> 
> Oh, and millennium has two 'n's.



I wasn't aware of that portion of Boice's history. I might update the names but the point of the paper is to be a simple overview and, unfortunately, the names you cite here would probably be mostly unknown within my church circles. 

I agree, eschatology is more complicated but, as you note, it is a summary. If a congregant wanted to dig a little deeper I have the resources in my library to assist them.

Thank you sir!


----------



## Poimen

armourbearer said:


> Still, such martyrdom would be regarded as a complex event, not something happening over and again. An example would be the exile and restoration in the OT. There were many events of this nature, but the prophetic Word always addresses them as a single, complex unit. That is because "idealism" (for want of a better word) is concerned with the moral nature of the action, not the action in relation to the time-space continuum, as in event-driven interpretation. Blessings!



Do you have any resources you could recommend that would distinguish between idealism and iterism? Again, I assumed they were the same thing.


----------



## MrMerlin777

armourbearer said:


> Still, such martyrdom would be regarded as a complex event, not something happening over and again. An example would be the exile and restoration in the OT. There were many events of this nature, but the prophetic Word always addresses them as a single, complex unit. That is because "idealism" (for want of a better word) is concerned with the moral nature of the action, not the action in relation to the time-space continuum, as in event-driven interpretation. Blessings!




I agree, as I said Idealism sees certain *principles* being repeated (martyrdom, exile, restoration etc). Not singular events in time space history. I agree this would depart from the definition of iterism as written above. Thanks for your clarification.


----------



## MrMerlin777

S. Spence said:


> Just an observation but have you ever noticed that some post-mill folks are essentially just optimistic amillenialist.
> On the other hand, I suppose virtually every eschatological position has its variations.



All have their variations. I usually fit in quite well with many post-mils, and I refer to myself eschatologically as an optimistic, partial-preterist, amillennial, idealist.


----------



## AV1611

MrMerlin777 said:


> I refer to myself eschatologically as an optimistic, partial-preterist, amillennial, idealist.



And then I presume you run away whilst their head explodes trying to work out what precisiely you have said to them


----------



## MrMerlin777

AV1611 said:


> And then I presume you run away whilst their head explodes trying to work out what precisiely you have said to them


 

Exactly, it makes an excellent grenade.


----------



## ajrock2000

I hold to an amill position after much studying as of late. I have read and studied all positions for a while now, and amill is definitely the most supported in scripture, and by adhering that the "interpretations belong to God." (Gen 40:8) , and not what man thinks certain verses may mean.

Good Info: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/

Great Defense of A-mill View: http://www.mountainretreatorg.net/eschatology/amillennial.shtml


----------



## Theoretical

MrMerlin777 said:


> All have their variations. I usually fit in quite well with many post-mils, and I refer to myself eschatologically as an optimistic, partial-preterist, amillennial, idealist.


I can live with that description for my own views. Not a bad summation.


----------



## JM

Premil.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

JM said:


> Premil.




 

As my father jokes: "Well, you can stay here then while we go see the Lord."

(A joke from a Pre-mill to the others.)


----------



## RamistThomist

Partial Preterist, Framean postmill.

At present I am trying to decipher what English ethicist, Oliver O'Donovan's position is. It is very intriguing. In a book of essays devoted to interacting and critiquing his thought, he was accused of both 1) dispensational view of history and 2) overly realized eschatology. 

Sorry for the rabbit trail.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Optimistic Amil, but sensative to post mil concerns.


----------



## Davidius

What is the difference between an optismistic Amillenialist and a Postmillenialist?


----------



## RamistThomist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What is the difference between an optismistic Amillenialist and a Postmillenialist?



Job security.

Ok, seriously. Emphasis mainly. It is a nice way of saying, "I disagree with you but we believe the same things."


----------



## Davidius

Draught Horse said:


> Job security.
> 
> Ok, seriously. Emphasis mainly. It is a nice way of saying, "I disagree with you but we believe the same things."


----------



## RamistThomist

CarolinaCalvinist said:


>



I wasn't helpful. I was trying to be funny. 

The postmillennialist position necessarily sees a long future where the gospel progressively impacts the world (Is. 9, 11, most of 40-66).

The optimistic amill sees the gospel impacting the world but holds out that Christ *might* come at any moment.


----------



## Davidius

Draught Horse said:


> I wasn't helpful. I was trying to be funny.
> 
> The postmillennialist position necessarily sees a long future where the gospel progressively impacts the world (Is. 9, 11, most of 40-66).
> 
> The optimistic amill sees the gospel impacting the world but holds out that Christ *might* come at any moment.



Haha sorry I didn't mean to totally not acknowledge the purpose of your comment. It _was_ funny!


----------



## JM

Andrew P.C. said:


> As my father jokes: "Well, you can stay here then while we go see the Lord."
> 
> (A joke from a Pre-mill to the others.)



 I'm not pretrib.


----------



## Magma2

MrMerlin777 said:


> I consider myself a partial preterist amillenialist as well.




Wouldn't that just be an amillenialist since they view (and I think correctly) the divisions in Revelation in a parallel progressive interpretative scheme? For what it's worth I think amillenialists, at least the ones I've read (Hokema, Engelsma primarily), have the stronger argument since this scheme better accounts for the various NT/OT prophesies concerning the end times. Other schemes aren't nearly as harmonious and those who know me know I like harmony.  

Just to add to the list, as I understand it, Gordon Clark was also a historic premillenialist.


----------



## Romans922

I'm optimistic Amil.

But I was wondering if we could all agree of the following:



> *First*, Scripture warns us that 'no man knows the times or the seasons' (Acts 1:7; Mt. 24:36ff; 1 Thess. 5:1). No man knows, or can know, the chronology of the future (This is the meaning of the Greek word _chronos_) nor the precise events (or timing of events) which will mark the unfolding of God's plan. Therefore, and scheme (such as that of the dispensationalists) which claims such knowledge cannot be accepted by those who believe and know the truth. *
> 
> Second*, Scripture clearly teaches that Christ's Kingdom is (a) already existent (Mt. 4:17; 5:3; 16:19; Mark 9:1); (b) spiritual and invisible, not worldly and material (Luke 17:20; Jn. 3:3ff; 18:36; 1 Thess. 2:12; Col 1:13); (c) everlasting, not millennial only (Dan. 2:44; 2 Pt. 1:11); (d) not the possession of Israel, from which it was taken and given to the nations (Lk. 12:32; Rev. 11:15); (e) to end, as to the present mediatorial administration, when 'he shall have delivered up the kingdom of God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and authority and power. For the must reign, _till_ he hath put all things under his feet...and when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him..." (1 Cor. 15:24-28). Then will the Kingdom appear in its final form (2 Tim. 4:1; Mt. 26:29) but it will be a continuance of the same Kingdom that now is. *
> 
> Third*, the Bible states that Christ's return will be (a) without warning (that is, without signs) (Mt. 24:36-39, 42-44). It is compared with the days of Noah when life went on 'as usual' until, without warning signs, the flood suddenly came. Noah's preaching was the only warning, but this was not different from the preaching of today which is the only warning of Christ's coming. Christ also used as an illustration of this truth the thief that comes without warning signs, and the lightning that shines without warning from east to west. (b) He will call all men from their graves when he comes (Jn. 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). (c) In that day the heavens and the earth as we now know them will 'pass away' because 'the elements shall melt with fervent heat' (2 Pt. 3:10ff). *
> 
> Fourth*, the Bible says that _these_ are the last days (Heb. 1:2; Jn 6:39; 11:24; 12:48; Acts 2:17; 2 Ti. 3:1; 2 Pt. 3:3; 1 Jn. 2:18). As John said, 'It is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists: whereby we know that it is the last time.' Since one apostle asys that we live in the final days, and another says that at the end of these last days the earth as we know it will pass away, we cannot hold to another period of history in the world after these days and Christ's return. *
> 
> Fifth*, the great apostasy cannot be wholly future since Paul said that 'the mystery of iniquity' which causes this apostasy was already at work in his day (2 Th. 2:7ff; 1 Jn. 2:18, 22; 4:3). *
> 
> Sixth*, no view can be correct which envisions a period of 'good-without-evil' or the separation fo the righteous from the wicked prior to the end of this age, because Jesus said, '_In the end_ of this age, the Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity (Mt. 13:40-41; cf. Mt. 13:49). *
> 
> Finally*, no view can be correct which envisions Christ's present reign as terminating before 'he hath put all enemies under his feet.' 'For he must reign till he hath put all enemies under his feet' (1 Cor. 15:24) and 'the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death' (v. 26). It follows that entire victory must coincide with the defeat of death by the general resurrection. There can be no complete triumph of the kingdom of Christ until world history comes to an end.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> What is the difference between an optismistic Amillenialist and a Postmillenialist?



The basic difference historically is over the nature of the kingdom and what constistutes "victory." Postmils tend to favor a physical or "Christianized" world before the return of Christ. Amils define victory as the unhindered complete harvesting of the elect. Optimistic amils simply argue there will be a lot of elect  They don't believe the world will be Christianized or "gradually get better" but that strife and conflict characterize this present age until Christ returns. Both good and evil ripen together, so there is significant cultural impact by the church in this age, yet also significant opposition even until the day of Christ's return. An inadequate summary, but good enough for a message board


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Romans922 said:


> I'm optimistic Amil.
> 
> But I was wondering if we could all agree of the following:



Brother,

Everyother point disobeys the first one. By saying that the dispensational view is incorrect makes the others right(see point 2-final). Therefore we can't all agree on these points.


----------



## JM

George Eldon Ladd:
What is the Kingdom of God?
The Mystery of the Kingdom
What About Israel?

John Piper:
How is the Kingdom Present?
Is the Kingdom Present or Future?
Until It Is Fulfilled in the Kingdom of God


John MacArthur:
Entering the Kingdom
The Kingdom and the World

Peace,

j


----------



## Davidius

Andrew P.C. said:


> Brother,
> 
> Everyother point disobeys the first one. By saying that the dispensational view is incorrect makes the others right(see point 2-final). Therefore we can't all agree on these points.



Dispensationalists have been known to predict exact dates and times when the "rapture" is going to take place. The points which follow #1 don't contradict it because they are the things that Jesus himself said about His return, which are not specific times, only general descriptions and indications.


----------

