Thinking about Millennial views

[turmeric]

I know, it's a dangerous thing to do.

I started thinking that one difference between Postmils and Amils is where the millennium is taking place, for the Posties it's here on earth as the Gospel spreads and kingdoms capitulate to Christ, for Amils it's in heaven where the dead in Christ are ruling with Him (and we do too in some sense). So that would actually make both these groups technically post-millennial since they both assert that the parousia and final judgment take place after this present time-period, which both call the millennium.

What started this was; I was trying to come up with a better name than Amillennial, because Rev.20 mentions a millennium and the word Amillennial sounds like they're saying "You know that millennium thing in Scripture? Well, we don't believe it..."which isn't really what they're saying. So if we say the millennium is actually taking place now and then the judgment will come, we're really a variety of Post-millenialists, aren't we?

I almost put this in the wading pool. Maybe it belongs in the recycling!

 

[DMcFadden]

Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism where he makes that point.

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

 

[InevitablyReformed]

Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism where he makes that point.

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

Sir,

Could you list two or three particular thoughts that have caused you change your mind? I would be interested as to what passages/concepts specifically affected you as you read those books.

 

[shackleton]

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

McFadden,
Once you have become thoroughly Amil and no longer hold to any tenets of Premil you need to read Ken Gentry's books on Postmil. It will blow your mind. Even if you don't go all the way to Postmil the arguments he makes are excellent especially when taking Josephus and other early Roman Historians into account. Once reading Gentry, (Before Jerusalem Fell, The Number of the Beast, and The Great Tribulation), the Spiritualist nature of Riddlebarger becomes very clear. Almost though persuadest me to be a Postmil.

Good stuff by Riddlbarger that goes along with his book, http://www.monergism.com/directory/...chatology/Riddlebarger-on-Amillennialism-101/, http://www.monergism.com/directory/...a/Eschatology/Riddlebarger-on-the-Antichrist/, if your interested.

 

[DMcFadden]

Daniel,

I was raised premil. My college prof (Bob Gundry) wrote the defense of the post-trib pre-mil view from a quasi dispensational perspective. In seminary, George Ladd was my prof. He is known for his vigorous defense of the historic pre-mil view from a more mainstream perspective. With two strong proponents (and no one bothering to argue an alternative view), I sort of "fell into" historic pre-mil without carefully considering the alternative views. And, with most of my parishioners and colleagues in ministry being pre-mil, there was little motivation to re-examine old presuppositions.

For the historic pre-mil, Rev 20 is the clincher. I wanted to interpret it in a normal historical-grammatical manner. Riddlebarger showed an alternative picture of Rev. 20 more consistent with my overall hermeneutic. Frankly, unless you separate Israel and the Church in your hermeneutic, there is really little reason for the millennium anyway. Riddlebarger's exposition of a comprehensive approach to eschatology from a Reformed perspective is quite convincing. He dispenses with the dispensational argument for seeing prophecy in terms of ethnic Israel by demonstrating how the NT reinterprets OT prophecy in terms of the Christ event.

Daniel, it has more to do with approach than anything else. As an ex-pre-mil himself, Riddlebarger writes for the sake of those raised as dispensationalists as well as historic pre-mils. His exposition of Daniel 9, the Olivet Discourse, Romans 11, and Rev. 20 all show the superiority of the amil system as well as identifying problems with full and partial preterism as well as various versions of postmillennialism. For those of us with pre-mil approaches, he seems to have an intuitive grasp for what persuaded us initially, what kept us in the pre-mil camp, and how the Bible could be explained in an alternative manner that was more consistent, fuller, and ultimately "biblical."

In the case of Waldron, his argument is with the dispensational version of pre-mil as exprressed by John MacArthur. Again, by demonstrating what is wrong with the dispensational hermeneutic (in such a gracious and respectful manner), Waldron would be an ideal book for a dispensational pre-mil although in dealing with MacArthur's errors, he also makes the case for an amil view against all versions of premillennialism, including my historic premillennialism.

 

[mshingler]

Daniel,

I was raised premil. My college prof (Bob Gundry) wrote the defense of the post-trib pre-mil view from a quasi dispensational perspective. In seminary, George Ladd was my prof. He is known for his vigorous defense of the historic pre-mil view from a more mainstream perspective. With two strong proponents (and no one bothering to argue an alternative view), I sort of "fell into" historic pre-mil without carefully considering the alternative views. And, with most of my parishioners and colleagues in ministry being pre-mil, there was little motivation to re-examine old presuppositions.

For the historic pre-mil, Rev 20 is the clincher. I wanted to interpret it in a normal historical-grammatical manner. Riddlebarger showed an alternative picture of Rev. 20 more consistent with my overall hermeneutic. Frankly, unless you separate Israel and the Church in your hermeneutic, there is really little reason for the millennium anyway. Riddlebarger's exposition of a comprehensive approach to eschatology from a Reformed perspective is quite convincing. He dispenses with the dispensational argument for seeing prophecy in terms of ethnic Israel by demonstrating how the NT reinterprets OT prophecy in terms of the Christ event.

Daniel, it has more to do with approach than anything else. As an ex-pre-mil himself, Riddlebarger writes for the sake of those raised as dispensationalists as well as historic pre-mils. His exposition of Daniel 9, the Olivet Discourse, Romans 11, and Rev. 20 all show the superiority of the amil system as well as identifying problems with full and partial preterism as well as various versions of postmillennialism. For those of us with pre-mil approaches, he seems to have an intuitive grasp for what persuaded us initially, what kept us in the pre-mil camp, and how the Bible could be explained in an alternative manner that was more consistent, fuller, and ultimately "biblical."

In the case of Waldron, his argument is with the dispensational version of pre-mil as exprressed by John MacArthur. Again, by demonstrating what is wrong with the dispensational hermeneutic (in such a gracious and respectful manner), Waldron would be an ideal book for a dispensational pre-mil although in dealing with MacArthur's errors, he also makes the case for an amil view against all versions of premillennialism, including my historic premillennialism.

Dennis, I'm about where you are (80% convinced of amil.), though I haven't yet read Waldron's book. I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium. About a year ago, I listened to Doug Moo defending Historic Premil., and I commented to a friend that, if I actually embraced the hermeneutic he was using, I'd probably be amil. He rested the millennium pretty much on Rev. 20 alone. That seems fairly weak to me, considering that so many godly and learned men have interpreted Rev. 20 in a different way.

 

[Herald]

Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's A Case for Amillennialism where he makes that point.

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).

Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!

 

[Herald]

You know, next week I finish the first phase of my sermon series in Daniel. I end with chapter six. In November/December I'm on the pulpit again and I have to deal with the chapters 7-12. Actually I don't have to deal with these chapters. I could move on to something easier but that would be intellectually dishonest. The problem is that my millennial view is like soggy mashed potatoes right now. Having left dispensationalism just a few years back I have absolutely no idea what I believe regarding eschatology other than Christ is coming again to judge the quick and the dead. I've kept to a default historic pre-mil position but now I question that. It'll be interesting what my studies over the next few months will reveal.

 

[DMcFadden]

Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!

"Stay on target. Stay on target."

“Help me Obi-Bill Kenobi. You’re my only hope.”

"Trust the force . . . "

"I copy Gold Leader"

 

[Herald]

Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!

"Stay on target. Stay on target."

“Help me Obi-Bill Kenobi. You’re my only hope.”

"Trust the force . . . "

"I copy Gold Leader"

 

[Christusregnat]

Meg,

Generally, I've found that postmils will make a stronger link between this world and the next than amils do. In other words, amils are the champions of the "not yet" theology, while postmils champion the "already" in the "already not yet" paradigm.

Stated a different way, amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.

The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).

I would also venture to say that postmil thinking is generally related to some form of theonomic ethics, since postmils tend to give more weight than other schools to OT prophecies of the Messiah's kingdom. For example, you will find that the Puritans that landed in America wanted to create a "Holy Commonwealth" in order to usher in the millennium. Also, many of the songs you sing at Christmas time are postmil in content (Isaac Watts himself being postmil).

Cheers,

Adam

I know, it's a dangerous thing to do.

I started thinking that one difference between Postmils and Amils is where the millennium is taking place, for the Posties it's here on earth as the Gospel spreads and kingdoms capitulate to Christ, for Amils it's in heaven where the dead in Christ are ruling with Him (and we do too in some sense). So that would actually make both these groups technically post-millennial since they both assert that the parousia and final judgment take place after this present time-period, which both call the millennium.

What started this was; I was trying to come up with a better name than Amillennial, because Rev.20 mentions a millennium and the word Amillennial sounds like they're saying "You know that millennium thing in Scripture? Well, we don't believe it..."which isn't really what they're saying. So if we say the millennium is actually taking place now and then the judgment will come, we're really a variety of Post-millenialists, aren't we?

I almost put this in the wading pool. Maybe it belongs in the recycling!

 

[danmpem]

I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium.

Could you elaborate a little more on that please?

 

[DMcFadden]

Dan,

Premillennialism comes in two flavors: historic and dispensational. The first takes the traditional view of the Church that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hope and the Gentiles are grafted into the tree as the spiritual seed of Abraham. Not all Israel is Israel and all that. Dispensational hermeneutics depend upon two key presuppositions, the first of which is that Israel = ethnic Israel, NEVER the Church and the Church NEVER equals Israel (even metaphorically).

If you are an historic premillennarian, you have already accepted the standard hermeneutic seeing the Church as the extension (not replacement) of Israel. With such a position, there is really little logic for a millennium. And, it creates several problems. You have resurrected saints mingling with natural-bodied tribulation saints who are marrying, giving in marriage, and procreating.

For dispensationalism, you have a reinstitution of the OT sacrifices in the new Temple while Jesus rules on the throne in Jerusalem in addition to a number of other oddities and anomalies.

So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.

 

[danmpem]

So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.

That's where I'm at right now. I am not sold on dispensational premil, I am very much more historic premil, because of the relationship between the church and Israel. I guess I liked it, because it let me have my cake and eat it too (church/Israel + 1,000 year millennium).

Thanks for having so much patience with me.

 

[mshingler]

I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium.

Could you elaborate a little more on that please?

Ditto what Dennis said above.
Since I no longer see all the prophetic O.T. passages as something that must be fulfilled in a reconstituted, ethnic Israel, apart from the church, it seems there is little place for an earthly millennium following Christ's return. Actually some historic premils. readily admit that this is a weakness in their position (Millard Erickson for example).
If you say to a dispensationalist that Rev. 20 is the only mention of the "1,000 years" in Scripture, they will likely respond that there are lots of O.T. prophecies that clearly refer to this same period - prophecies that have yet to find a literal fulfillment in national Israel, as their hermeneutic/presuppositions require. The historic premil., however, follows basically the same hermeneutic as the amil. and is left with the fact that, indeed, Rev. 20 is the only mention of the "1,000 years."

 

[Scott1]

Christusregnat
Puritanboard Freshman

Stated a different way, amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.

The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).

What then of this distinction I hear between "optimistic" and "pessimistic" amillenialism?

I have heard that Mr Calvin was amillenialist, though he did not emphasize eschatology- is this correct?

 

[Scott1]

Dan,

Premillennialism comes in two flavors: historic and dispensational. The first takes the traditional view of the Church that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hope and the Gentiles are grafted into the tree as the spiritual seed of Abraham. Not all Israel is Israel and all that. Dispensational hermeneutics depend upon two key presuppositions, the first of which is that Israel = ethnic Israel, NEVER the Church and the Church NEVER equals Israel (even metaphorically).

If you are an historic premillennarian, you have already accepted the standard hermeneutic seeing the Church as the extension (not replacement) of Israel. With such a position, there is really little logic for a millennium. And, it creates several problems. You have resurrected saints mingling with natural-bodied tribulation saints who are marrying, giving in marriage, and procreating.

For dispensationalism, you have a reinstitution of the OT sacrifices in the new Temple while Jesus rules on the throne in Jerusalem in addition to a number of other oddities and anomalies.

So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.

Very helpful, thank you.

In the modern dispensational premillennial position, I hear Israel defined as (always) "sons and daughters of Jacob."

How much ethnicity is this taken to mean?

For example, we know a married couple, one Jewish, one Gentile- are their children "Israel" in the dispensational hermeneutic?

In the case of the modern day Syrians- there is some Jewish blood from the time the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian empire, producing the Samaritans and now, through the centuries, a small amount of Jewish blood remains in some there.

So, were the Samaritans "sons and daughters of Jacob"?

Are the modern day Syrians who might have, say 1/32 Jewish ancestors "sons and daughters of Jacob" in this hermeneutic?


PS I feel like I have moved to a new level having used the word "hermeneutic"!

 

[Me Died Blue]

Honestly, right now I'm still a panmillennialist - it'll all pan out in the end.

 

[Christusregnat]

Scott,

The term "postmil" is mainly used as a more recent term. The reason for this is that the crystalization of the "postmil" view has mainly been in reaction to the dispensational view, begun in the 1800's. Thus, Calvin would not have identified himself as a postmil (nor would have George Gillespie for that matter), but they are both clearly in support of an overwhelming success of the gospel in time and history. For instance, read some of Calvin's comments on Isaiah, and you will find his recognition that all Gentile nations will serve Christ. See, for example, his comments on Isaiah 19 where it discusses Egypt and Syria being included in God's family.

As for optimistic and pessimistic amil, I would say that optimistic amil is very similar / the same as postmil. Pessimistic amil is generally what I described as dividing the "now and not yet" VERY strongly. Heaven and earth are almost ontologically separated in the pessimistic amil position. History will see a sharp decline in the effect of the gospel among the nations, and a few of the chosen people will be saved.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Adam

Christusregnat
Puritanboard Freshman

Stated a different way, amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.

The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).

What then of this distinction I hear between "optimistic" and "pessimistic" amillenialism?

I have heard that Mr Calvin was amillenialist, though he did not emphasize eschatology- is this correct?

 

[Roldan]

As for optimistic and pessimistic amil, I would say that optimistic amil is very similar / the same as postmil. Pessimistic amil is generally what I described as dividing the "now and not yet" VERY strongly. Heaven and earth are almost ontologically separated in the pessimistic amil position. History will see a sharp decline in the effect of the gospel among the nations, and a few of the chosen people will be saved.

I think we must define what in da world does "gospel success" means. I hear that thrown around alot as if any reformed would actually believe that the gospel will not do its job as intended by our God, it just seems so weird to me.

But the problem as far as I see it is that the postmil would say that gospel succession can only mean a christianization of all nations ushering in the golden age but the amil will say that gospel succession means that it will save God's elect who are in all nations but not that it will christianize entire nations or most of the nation so then the postmil will accuse the amil of pessimism because they don't have a million kabillion trillion or watever people getting saved hence God loses cause there are more people in hell than heaven, thats silly to be quite frank. If being optimistic means to believe that the gospel will do its job, then for heavens sake we are all optimistic, don't you think.

There needs to be more clarification on the whole optimism vs pessimism thing cause again quite frankly its ridiculous if you ask me.


ps. please excuse my ramblings of fustration

btw, I am an Amil or realized milleniallist per Jay Adams and I believe the gospel will do its job even in the midst of the coming persecutions and apostacy again what is the gospels job I've actually had a discussion here a few years ago with Paul manata(posty) maybe i should go search for it

thanx for listening holla!

 

[turmeric]

I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its all about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we will have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.

Now I holla'd.

 

[Christusregnat]

Ricky,

Thanks for the interaction!

I think we must define what in da world does "gospel success" means. I hear that thrown around alot as if any reformed would actually believe that the gospel will not do its job as intended by our God, it just seems so weird to me.

Good point! Definitions are key. Gospel success must be defined in terms of Scripture. Whatever Scripture predicts, promises, or foretells about the effect that the gospel will have on earth is how we ought to define success:

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.

If we say that the knowledge of the LORD will NOT fill the earth, and cause all the Gentiles to seek it, then we are not biblical about the success of the gospel.

If we say that not ALL FAMILIES of the earth will be blessed in stem of Jesse, then we do not believe that the success of the gospel, as presented in Scripture, will actually take place. If we do not agree that all nations will be made Christ's disciples, and that the great commission will be fulfilled, then we do not believe in the success of the gospel.

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

"Peace on earth, good will toward men". This is what Christ told the disciples to do: "Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." Isaiah says that the nations will desire that Christ "teach them His ways." This is gospel success.

There needs to be more clarification on the whole optimism vs pessimism thing cause again quite frankly its ridiculous if you ask me.

It is not ridiculous. Many more passages could be quoted about how all nations will submit to Christ after His Incarnation. Notice the passages above talk about the stem of Jesse, and the "last days". Those are words used to describe Christ's incarnation and the gospel age. In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

"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."


Notice, before Christ comes back again, the fullness of the Gentiles must be called, the magistrates of the earth Christianized, those yet in their sins may be converted by the ministry of the church, and Satan's kingdom destroyed. That succinctly describes gospel success.

ps. please excuse my ramblings of fustration

No worries! I'll forgive your frustration if you forgive my long-windedness

Cheers,

 

[Scott1]

I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its all about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we will have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.

1)Is it fair to say that amillenialism says God will continue to save people and shed common grace around them right in the midst of the evil decaying world system but that the proportion of those saved will probably not increase (in relation to "the world")?

2)Would amillenialsim tend to say that things will get better and better in the church?

3)Would an "optimistic" amillenialist see the proportion increasing over time?

4) Any idea if the classic view tended either way ("optimistic"/"pessimistic") or is this a recent, unhelpful distinction?

 

[turmeric]

My only response, because I'm hardly an expert, is that at some point the common grace will end and judgment begin because "the elements will melt with fervent heat". Until then, I'm sure people will continue to be saved.

 

[Christusregnat]

Meg,

I think I know, but where would you say the idea of common grace ending would come from?

Also, when it says that the elements will melt with fervent heat, how does that reconcile with God's promise to regenerate the heavens and the earth in Romans 8, and where Christ talks about the "regeneration of all things"?

Cheers,

Adam

My only response, because I'm hardly an expert, is that at some point the common grace will end and judgment begin because "the elements will melt with fervent heat". Until then, I'm sure people will continue to be saved.

 

[MrMerlin777]

I know I've said this many times before in other threads but this is a good thread for a repeat.

I highly recommend More than Conquerors. by William Hendricksen for a good basic primer on Revelation from a realized/gospel millenial (ie a-mil) POV.

 

[JohnV]

I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its all about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we will have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.

1)Is it fair to say that amillenialism says God will continue to save people and shed common grace around them right in the midst of the evil decaying world system but that the proportion of those saved will probably not increase (in relation to "the world")?

2)Would amillenialsim tend to say that things will get better and better in the church?

3)Would an "optimistic" amillenialist see the proportion increasing over time?

4) Any idea if the classic view tended either way ("optimistic"/"pessimistic") or is this a recent, unhelpful distinction?

Right on!

If we asked all those who believe in a millennium but did not believe in the successful advance of the gospel fully according to God's plan to leave the room, then we'ed still have all of us in attendance; none of us would leave. As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way.

This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.

 

[Scott1]

JohnV
Puritanboard Postgraduate

This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism;

Does "how that will happen" have something to do with God electing more and more people for salvation versus the church advancing the Kingdom through all of society?

 

[JohnV]

JohnV
Puritanboard Postgraduate

This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism;

Does "how that will happen" have something to do with God electing more and more people for salvation versus the church advancing the Kingdom through all of society?

You're asking me a question concerning things I do not know. I believe that even Jesus Himself made an answer similar to this. All those who are elect will most certainly come to salvation. How many that is, whether it will be more and more, or whether what we are given in the Word about the end times is more about the victory over sin and the realm of evil, is something that we do not know. There are three basic views about that, and each one of them is one which the Church does not deny freedom of conscience.

 

[Christusregnat]

As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way.

This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.

John V,

So, you are convinced of these things happening prior to Christ's second return? Is this one description of how it will happen?

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.


Or this?


Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.



Cheers,