The Millennium ...

[amishrockstar]

I bought Ken Gentry's 5-disc CD series "Major Bible Prophecies" and on the first disc he talks about the Millennium ....
after listening to his exposition of Rev. 20, I thought about how it sounded a lot like the way that an Amil would interpret the text; since Post and Amil's do have quite a bit in common (most agree that the millennium is now, etc.) can someone please point out what the SHARP distinction between the Postmil and the Amil views are in Rev. 20 ???
How can I tell the difference (in black and white) when someone has an Amil or a Postmil view of Rev. 20?

THANKS!

 

[RamistThomist]

I bought Ken Gentry's 5-disc CD series "Major Bible Prophecies" and on the first disc he talks about the Millennium ....
after listening to his exposition of Rev. 20, I thought about how it sounded a lot like the way that an Amil would interpret the text; since Post and Amil's do have quite a bit in common (most agree that the millennium is now, etc.) can someone please point out what the SHARP distinction between the Postmil and the Amil views are in Rev. 20 ???
How can I tell the difference (in black and white) when someone has an Amil or a Postmil view of Rev. 20?

THANKS!

P and A- agree as to the *timing* (e.g., church age, whatever) of the millennium. They disagree as to the *nature.*

The postmillennialist sees the gospel inevitably progressing with definitive evidence in history, clearly affecting social structures.

The amillennialist allows for the possibility of it, but usually doubts it. He points to the "negative" passages, apostasy passages, etc. The amillennialists' best argument is that in the Olivet Discourse and in Revelation, there is no mention of triumph. The amillennialists (and depending on the postmillennialist as well) weakest point, In my humble opinion and which I will not debate now, is the exegesis of 20:4-6, and the nature of "reigning" in the Book of Revelation.

 

[amishrockstar]

Spear Dane...

So A- and P- wouldn't necessarily disagree on how to interpret Rev. 20? I'm asking because I remember reading an Amil a loooong time ago that sounded just like Gentry (it might have been Hoekema)...
Since you said that they would disagree on the "nature" of the millennium (which I understand from what I've studied so far) would you say that they would find the "nature" of the millennium from texts other than Rev. 20?
THANKS for your answer

 

[amishrockstar]

What I'm really trying to get at is, can I really know a person's millennial 'orientation' simply by the way that they understand Rev. 20 (I mean A- or Postmil) or do we need to see how a person views other passages of scripture to determine if they are Amil or Postmil?

 

[RamistThomist]

What I'm really trying to get at is, can I really know a persons millennial 'orientation' simply by the way that they understand Rev. 20 (I mean A- or Postmil)

Yes and no. If they are strictly exegetical on Revelation 20, then they will seek only to answer the timing of the millennium (and to your question, No, you shouldn't be able to tell). However, few stop at that point. Most go on to tell you what they think about the three millennial views. So yes, most commentators will mention the *nature* of the millennium and tell you what you need to know.

Hoekema, while I disagree on some, is correct to stress, alnog with Gentry at his better moments, the "New creation" model of eschatology as opposed to the "spiritual vision" model (think augustine).

 

[amishrockstar]

Thanks...
That helps

 

[MW]

If Rev. 20 is being viewed as a period yet future in the church's history, it is classical postmil. If it is viewed according to the progressive recapitulation scheme, it is distinctively amil, or realised millennialism. However, you might find postmil's like Warfield, who hold to recapitulation in the Apocalypse, but also maintain the "visible victory" of the gospel and the "more saved than lost" theory. OTOH, you will also find amils like Geerhardus Vos talking about the Christianisation of the world. They tend to be called optimistic amils these days.

 

[RamistThomist]

If Rev. 20 is being viewed as a period yet future in the church's history, it is classical postmil. If it is viewed according to the progressive recapitulation scheme, it is distinctively amil, or realised millennialism. However, you might find postmil's like Warfield, who hold to recapitulation in the Apocalypse, but also maintain the "visible victory" of the gospel and the "more saved than lost" theory. OTOH, you will also find amils like Geerhardus Vos talking about the Christianisation of the world. They tend to be called optimistic amils these days.

As usual, he explained it really well. Rev. Winzer, I am edified by your understanding of theology even where I disagree with you. Thank you,

 

[RamistThomist]

I really recommend the book, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond.

Gentry takes the postmil.
Robert Strimple takes the amil.
Craig Blaising takes the premil.

They all do a decent job. Blaising's essay is good in that he describes the shifts in eschatology in church history.

 

[Iconoclast]

Matt,

In the amill scheme, the gospel is preached worldwide and in that sense it is victorious in the reign of Christ being proclaimed worldwide . God saves all his elect this way,however they are looking exclusively for the return of Christ and the eternal state to come.The age ends in apostasy,with only a faithful remnant remaining. They see the 1000yrs lasting up till the last day,then the judgment.
Postmill see the gospel being victorious from sea to sea. A vast majority are saved through the preaching of the gospel. All nations come to see the truth as it is in Christ, and enact laws to reflect the laws found in the word of God.[ the extent of this theocratic thinking is the subject of much debate]. Postmills are divided with some seeing the 1000yr period as symbolic for the whole age as the Amill do. Some see it as a literal period on the earth leading to the return of Christ.
They do not believe the return of Christ is immanent. This could take thousands of years.
Amill believe the post-mill is a false hope and dangerous. Postmill believe Amill is a defeated view of the gospel,and that Amill are guilty of world flight.

 

[RamistThomist]

Matt,
Postmill believe Amill is a defeated view of the gospel,and that Amill are guilty of world flight.

In other words, "Group hug, everybody!

Sorry, after doing so many in-house debates on eschatology, and even changing my position to a view I had long since abandoned, I have to laugh at a few things.

Seriously, that was a good explanation.

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

"world flight"?

 

[Iconoclast]

world flight

The way I have seen the term "world flight used" is that idea of the believers withdrawing so much from the world, and world system, that they lose the ability to become relatable to the unsaved. ie, just short of being amish,failing to "go" into all the world with the gospel.
This idea of world flight,over against a normal christian life of godliness would probably be a good thread in and of itself,[probably has been in here, I have not searched the archives well enough to know.
But the idea is if you believe we are in the great apostasy,and it will only get worse,why get involved in politics or community activity. Just leave it to the unsaved to handle and focus only on things spiritual. In either case we need to examine ourselves if we are being faithful in our sphere of service to what revealed truth we have been given

 

[Southern Presbyterian]

The way I have seen the term "world flight used" is that idea of the believers withdrawing so much from the world, and world system, that they lose the ability to become relatable to the unsaved. ie, just short of being amish,failing to "go" into all the world with the gospel.
This idea of world flight,over against a normal christian life of godliness would probably be a good thread in and of itself,[probably has been in here, I have not searched the archives well enough to know.
But the idea is if you believe we are in the great apostasy,and it will only get worse,why get involved in politics or community activity. Just leave it to the unsaved to handle and focus only on things spiritual. In either case we need to examine ourselves if we are being faithful in our sphere of service to what revealed truth we have been given

OIC

So in that case they would be like the premills? or not? And by that definition, only postmills are consistent with their escagology when they get politically envolved. Yes?

[Sorry if this is opening a , but these thoughts just occured to me.]

 

[Iconoclast]

SP, yes they would be like premill in the sense of seeing the apostasy verses as mainly future, premill looking for the rapture,tribulation,millennium. Amill, worldwide proclamation of the gospel,apostasy,judgment day.
Post mill see the apostasy verses as mostly refering to Jerusalem and the early church before ad 70 judgment. Hebrews and Revelation [6-19] describing the same time period.
Each view thinks they are consistent in their behaviour and teaching, as long as they get to define the reasons for their behaviour

 

[AV1611]

You may wish to read the following article:

Princeton and the Millennium: A Study of American Postmillennialism

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Scroll down and listen to Arturo Azurdia III's four messages on Revelation 20. He comes from an idealistic amill view. Excellent teaching and well worth your time in my opinion.

Spirit Empowered Preaching

 

[RamistThomist]

I know a lot of amillennials who, too, are world-flightish (but to be fair, many aren't).

 

[JohnV]

From what I know about the millennium differences, the idea of "world flight" is not directly related to the Amillennial world view as if it is part of it. It has more to do with a lack of knowledge, or a lack of the confidence that comes from a better knowledge, of the end times. None of the views themselves in their full expression have any pessimism in the authority, reign, or power of Christ; nor do any of them doubt the promises of God through Christ Jesus that the victory of sin and death have been won, and that the last days will end in triumph. There is no aspect of "world flight" in Biblical eschatology.

All three millennial views begin on the same line, having the truths stated in the Confessions in common. Where they diverge is beyond the line of where the revelation stops, where men speculate and draw conclusions. The different views reflect the differences in those conclusions, not differences in the confessional and doctrinal unity of the faith.

If there were a "world flight" involved it would necessarily occur before that line of divergence, not after. For the confidence we need that would ward off a reaction of "world flight" is already found in the promises found in the confessional statements of the church.

I am of those sometimes referred to as "pessimistic" Amillennialist. Some might refer to the concept of "world flight" that they perceive in that view. But I deny both terms. It is not a pessimistic eschatology; and "world flight" is repugnant to the concepts I believe. Yet though I say I believe in the Amil view, it is not part of the doctrine I believe. That can and may only consist of those things that God has revealed. I believe in the Amil view, but it is not cast in stone: I may change that. But the doctrines that the Church has bequeathed to me in her confessional history, these things are uncompromisable. I judge myself, and submit myself to the judgment of the Church on these things. Thus the idea of "world flight" is not possible. It is not part of the Amil view.

 

[KMK]

Is 'world flight' another word for 'laziness'?

 

[RamistThomist]

Is 'world flight' another word for 'laziness'?

Not necessarily. Most would define it as prematurely writing off the redemption of this world in anticipation of the rapture. I kind of stand in the middle on this. While I believe God's norms to be valid in all ages and applicable in all cultures (sometimes with different applications), I also find it hard to say "Maranatha" without holding to some form of immanency.

 

[KMK]

I also find it hard to say "Maranatha" without holding to some form of immanency.

Are you referring to the 'at any moment' type of immanency?