A Case for Amillenialism

[Grinch]

Just started this book yesterday. Anyone read it? Thoughts? Comments?

I (like Kim Riddlebarger, the author) came from a very heavy dispensational background before God mercifully opened my eyes. As a result I was a dogmatic "pre-mil/pre-tribber" for years. I have since abandoned that and am examining everything carefully as Paul commands [1 Thess 5:21] and at this point lean more towards the 'amil' view. I am not dogmatic on anything however and am still earnestly investigating.

Anyhow, just curious if anyone had already read Riddlebarger's work.

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by Grinch]

 

[wsw201]

Very good book. I think you will enjoy it.

 

[VanVos]

Yes very good book, convinced me of the amillennial position.

VanVos

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

The issue is the Kingdom of Christ and His dominion and authority over everything. Keep on that path and you will end up on the correct path.
Dispensationalism

 

[RamistThomist]

He does a great job annihilating the premillennial case; however, he does not understand postmillennialism and that is embarrassingly clear. Check out a recent thread on Postmillennialism and Apostacy, or something like that. I show quotes from the book where he does not understand postmillennialism.

To merely quote North or Rushdoony, assume that to be the strongest postmillennial argument, and then to merely dismiss it because it does not live up to amillennial assumption, does not constitute a valid argument against the position.

I find it odd that amillennialists are so reactionary against the Neo-Postmillennial case even though both share the same exegetical foundations. Oh well...

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
He does a great job annihilating the premillennial case; however, he does not understand postmillennialism and that is embarrassingly clear. Check out a recent thread on Postmillennialism and Apostacy, or something like that. I show quotes from the book where he does not understand postmillennialism.

To merely quote North or Rushdoony, assume that to be the strongest postmillennial argument, and then to merely dismiss it because it does not live up to amillennial assumption, does not constitute a valid argument against the position.

I find it odd that amillennialists are so reactionary against the Neo-Postmillennial case even though both share the same exegetical foundations. Oh well...

Jacob,

It is like trying to discuss dispensationalism now days. The progressive dispensationalist has moved the argument so much you have to find out what has been redefined. At one time Postmil meant you believed in a literal 1000 year reign before Christ returned. That has evidently changed. That is a major move.

I am half way through

I would also recommend Lorraine Boettners Milleniam and Anthony Hoekema's The Bible and the Future.

 

[Myshkin]

I am currently going back and forth between Riddlebarger's book and Hoekema's book for amill, and Mathison's book on postmillenialism. At this point, early on in the game, I am more and more becoming amill. I do agree with Jacob that Riddlebarger did not interact enough with postmill, and was heavier on premill, esp. the dispensational variety. I am waiting for a book from an amiil, that focuses entirely on defeating postmill. in all its forms; and vice versa. I understand Dispensational premill has had a broad influence, but many have gotten past this and are wanting to focus strictly on the amill. vs. postmill debate. At least I am, and it sounds like Jacob is too.

I find Riddlebarger's writing to be very clear, and the tone of this book is a model of how the debate ought to be carried on. I would recommend it as a great supplement to Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future".

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by RAS]

 

[rgrove]

Riddlebarger's book is good for the "this age and the age to come" teaching as well as it's treatment of premillennialism (as already noted). When I read it I was an amill and was convinced by his (very brief) arguments against postmillennialism. As I read more from postmills past and present, though, I personally found that his treatment was dreadful. He also doesn't do any justice to the OT in the book. He focuses so much attention on the dual age formula that OT prophecy is virtually ignored. Cornelis Venema is only slightly better, but not much really. His footnotes on it were better than what he had in the book part.

As for the statement that all past postmills held to a literal thousand year millennium this isn't quite true. Postmills have always had a wide variety of interpretations. I've found the 20th century two age theme in 18th and 19th century writers as well. It just wasn't as systematized as it is now is the key. But if you're looking for it you can see it. I was just reading Hodge and I could see it in his writing, but it wasn't expressed the same way we would now. Also, calling the time of millennial blessings in the New Covenant era a "golden age" does not mean that you're denying the "this age and the age to come" formula. This is a mistake that Venema makes in my opinion. There will be no time in any postmill scenario that I've seen where this still won't be the "present evil age" because death will still reign and unbelief will still be present and nominal/professing only Christians will still be present, etc.

Overall, though, Riddlebarger's work is one of the best current apologetics for Amillennialism. I'm always happy when I see it on a store shelf. It blows away any belief that amills are liberal yadayadayada...

[Edited on 8-23-2005 by rgrove]

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

I find it odd that amillennialists are so reactionary against the Neo-Postmillennial case even though both share the same exegetical foundations. Oh well...

Isn't it the case that the majority of the anti-postmil amils come from the continental reformed groups, e.g., the CRC, PRC, etc? And that this has more to do with confessional rather than exegetical positions?

"We therefore condemn all who deny a real resurrection of the flesh (2 Tim. 2:18), or who with John of Jerusalem, against whom Jerome wrote, do not have a correct view of the glorification of bodies. We also condemn those who thought that the devil and all the ungodly would at some time be saved, and that there would be and end to punishments. For the Lord has plainly declared: "Their fire is not quenched, and their worm does not die" (Mark 9:44). We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in 2 Thess., ch. 2, and 2 Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different." (Second Helvetic Confession, Chap. 11)

Whether this statement is intended by its authors to condemn postmillennialism per se is not clear. What is clear that is it used by modern amils to condemn postmillennialism. (See http://www.prca.org/articles/amillennialism.html)

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Draught Horse
He does a great job annihilating the premillennial case; however, he does not understand postmillennialism and that is embarrassingly clear. Check out a recent thread on Postmillennialism and Apostacy, or something like that. I show quotes from the book where he does not understand postmillennialism.

To merely quote North or Rushdoony, assume that to be the strongest postmillennial argument, and then to merely dismiss it because it does not live up to amillennial assumption, does not constitute a valid argument against the position.

I find it odd that amillennialists are so reactionary against the Neo-Postmillennial case even though both share the same exegetical foundations. Oh well...

Jacob,

It is like trying to discuss dispensationalism now days. The progressive dispensationalist has moved the argument so much you have to find out what has been redefined. At one time Postmil meant you believed in a literal 1000 year reign before Christ returned. That has evidently changed. That is a major move.

I am half way through

I would also recommend Lorraine Boettners Milleniam and Anthony Hoekema's The Bible and the Future.

What I was getting at is that the neo-postmil position is harder to refute because it uses amillennial exegesis and follows it out to its logical conclusions.

Venema just dismisses Bahnsen, Gentry et al as "of the controversial type." Perhaps they are, but that is not an argument. (Btw, I like a lot of what Venema says on other matters).

[Edited on 8--23-05 by Draught Horse]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jacob,
I was being fair. I mentioned Beottners millennium book.

If I were to read a modern Postmil who would you recommend. I kinda hate the word NEO. It conjures up bad things to me.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
Jacob,
I was being fair. I mentioned Beottners millennium book.

If I were to read a modern Postmil who would you recommend. I kinda hate the word NEO. It conjures up bad things to me.

I understand. The only problem I have with Boettner is that towards the end of his life he really wasn't "on his game" with eschatology. He is good, but the debate has moved beyond him. For example, amillennialists/postmillennialists usually do not wrangle over "the traditional texts" any more, but more on that elsewhere.

Keith Mathison is very readable and writes in an engaging style. However, he is not all that deep and he knows that he can't cover all the issues in his book (he doesn't really deal with dispensationalism since he already wrote a book on it).

Gentry (He Shall Have Dominion is probably the most formidable, if you can get past the "theonomy" stigma that most people throw at him. However, his books aren't always easy to come across.

Chilton is very hard-hitting, but he did become full-preterist later on in life; however, that should not cloud the issue on his earlier stuff.

I wasn't trying to be contentious in my earlier post; I apologize if I came across that way.

 

[Romans922]

Doctrines that are described as Neo or New, always raise my antennas.

 

[RamistThomist]

What about Neo-Dooyeweerdianism?

I understand the hesitation; I was using it for definitional clarity.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by puritancovenanter

Originally posted by Draught Horse
He does a great job annihilating the premillennial case; however, he does not understand postmillennialism and that is embarrassingly clear. Check out a recent thread on Postmillennialism and Apostacy, or something like that. I show quotes from the book where he does not understand postmillennialism.

To merely quote North or Rushdoony, assume that to be the strongest postmillennial argument, and then to merely dismiss it because it does not live up to amillennial assumption, does not constitute a valid argument against the position.

I find it odd that amillennialists are so reactionary against the Neo-Postmillennial case even though both share the same exegetical foundations. Oh well...

Jacob,

It is like trying to discuss dispensationalism now days. The progressive dispensationalist has moved the argument so much you have to find out what has been redefined. At one time Postmil meant you believed in a literal 1000 year reign before Christ returned. That has evidently changed. That is a major move.

I am half way through

I would also recommend Lorraine Boettners Milleniam and Anthony Hoekema's The Bible and the Future.

What I was getting at is that the neo-postmil position is harder to refute because it uses amillennial exegesis and follows it out to its logical conclusions.

Venema just dismisses Bahnsen, Gentry et al as "of the controversial type." Perhaps they are, but that is not an argument. (Btw, I like a lot of what Venema says on other matters).

[Edited on 8--23-05 by Draught Horse]

Just to through-out here, J, anything with "neo" attached to it IS NOT a good thing! Good theology does not invent "new" doctrines. Plus, I take it (and could be wrong) you're thinking there should always be an "argument" (or what you assume passes for sound argumentation.) ??? Calvin teaches that there are sophist arguments not worth a response.

So far, it appears your line of argumentation relies on opponents reading enough Bahnsen so as to quote and agree with him; if they don't quote or agree with him, they are either mis-representing him or are wrong. (The Emperor has no clothes, J.)

A sign that a person's eschatology is Biblical is that it will always focus on Christ - not the teacher of it (Bahnsen, et al.) It will lift-up and edify the flock, not flaunt, brag nor exult over the divisions suffered in the Body. God's truth does not change - the eschatology of the Bible has always been there. The predominant eschatology of the Church, historically, has been some form of Amillennialism (though not labelled as such.)

Aren't boards like PB neat? Posters can "refute" a scholar's position with a keystroke...instead of engageing the argument legitimately by writing a counter treatise (so positions can be fairly heard and thoroughly scrutinized.)

But then, we're not serious about theology, posting on PB, are we?

(off soapbox)



Robin

 

[Robin]

PS. Jacob,

Please U2U me and/or tell me here, which points do YOU think Riddlebarger has misrepresented in his book, OK? I want to be clear and not presumptious....

I will talk with him about said points and either get back here and/or have him do so.

This is important because your statment sounds a bit bordering on slighting my pastor's reputation. ??? I'd like to clear that up.


With Respect,

Robin

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin
Just to through-out here, J, anything with "neo" attached to it IS NOT a good thing! Good theology does not invent "new" doctrines. Plus, I take it (and could be wrong) you're thinking there should always be an "argument" (or what you assume passes for sound argumentation.) ??? Calvin teaches that there are sophist arguments not worth a response.

So far, it appears your line of argumentation relies on opponents reading enough Bahnsen so as to quote and agree with him; if they don't quote or agree with him, they are either mis-representing him or are wrong. (The Emperor has no clothes, J.)

A sign that a person's eschatology is Biblical is that it will always focus on Christ - not the teacher of it (Bahnsen, et al.) It will lift-up and edify the flock, not flaunt, brag nor exult over the divisions suffered in the Body. God's truth does not change - the eschatology of the Bible has always been there. The predominant eschatology of the Church, historically, has been some form of Amillennialism (though not labelled as such.)

Aren't boards like PB neat? Posters can "refute" a scholar's position with a keystroke...instead of engageing the argument legitimately by writing a counter treatise (so positions can be fairly heard and thoroughly scrutinized.)

But then, we're not serious about theology, posting on PB, are we?

(off soapbox)



Robin

First,
Robin doesn't like my definiens. That's fine; I can change it. Secondly, and I won't spend too much time here, the charge that "if its new it aint true" is a weak one, although it has much rhetorical force. The Romanist church could easily apply that to Calvin/Luther. But, you might say, they were being biblical. Yes, they were, and that is what I am trying to do as well. I just used a term to differentiate me from both amillennialism and Puritan postmillennialism.

As for my argumentation merely being a repitition from Bahnsen--which it isn't, by the way--I can charge Robin with repeating exactly what Riddlebarger, Kline et al are saying, and with the same rhetorical effectivness.

A sign that a person's eschatology is Biblical is that it will always focus on Christ - not the teacher of it (Bahnsen, et al.) It will lift-up and edify the flock, not flaunt, brag nor exult over the divisions suffered in the Body. God's truth does not change - the eschatology of the Bible has always been there. The predominant eschatology of the Church, historically, has been some form of Amillennialism (though not labelled as such.)

I agree with the first sentence, although as we will see it is quite irrelevant to the discussion. She then says that my eschatology isn't Christ-centered because it focuses on Bahnsen whereas (reasoning by way of implication) that her eschatology is Christ-centered because...well...it just is.

Actually, she says that amillennialism is the historic position and that means...well..I don't really care what it means. It is asking a loaded historical question that cannot be answered by 21st century students.

(BTW, I can make St. Athanasius to look like a postmillennial partial-preterist; Also, the Romanist church interpreted Augustine in a way different from the Reformed church--so the historical argument backfires).

Riddlebarger writes

As Meredith Kline points out, "Revelation 20:7-10 by itself refutes the postmillennial projections, for it is evident that the nations of this world have not become Christianized institutions during the millennium."

Actually, postmillennialism teaches that the nations will apostasize at the end of the millennium. So, Kline's objection is null and void. Almost as embarrassing is when he tried to critique theonomy...

Riddlebarger continues

How can such a thing happen, if Christ's kingdom has truly transformed the political, cultural, and economic affairs of all nations?

Simple. The apostasy mentioned above.

The global revolt betrays the postmillennial insistence that the nations will be Christianized.

Repeat last two steps

Taken from A Case for Amillennialism, pp. 223-224.

His critiques on premillennialism buried it forever. They are quite good and I will gladly join Riddlebarger in them. But if you are going to critique a system, try to understand it first.

Listen, its fine to disagree with the postmillennial outlook and our interpretation of Revelation 20, but don't take the postmillennial outlook (gospel takes over the world) and then say, well, Revelation 20 says there will be a falling away, so the nations can't be Christian. Well, that is bad reasoning. Its a half-truth, and the wrong half at that.

If they are saying that there will be a revolt at the end of the millennium, fine; no argument there.

But it does not logically follow that since there will be an apostasy at the end of the millennium, then there can't be victory during the millennium!

In fact, the apostasy rather suggests it

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin
PS. Jacob,

Please U2U me and/or tell me here, which points do YOU think Riddlebarger has misrepresented in his book, OK? I want to be clear and not presumptious....

I will talk with him about said points and either get back here and/or have him do so.

This is important because your statment sounds a bit bordering on slighting my pastor's reputation. ??? I'd like to clear that up.


With Respect,

Robin

I didn't mean to slur Pastor Riddlebarger's reputation. I really wasn't too bothered by it. The best amillennial treatment of postmillennialism is by Donald Bloesch in his Essentials of Evangelical Theology.
Saying someone misrepresented a postiion is not a character-assassination. It is tough to write a popular book on eschatology that will have buried the postmillennial case. I cut people slack on that. I just don't take their criticisms of postmillennialism seriously because of it.

 

[Robin]

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Robin
PS. Jacob,

Please U2U me and/or tell me here, which points do YOU think Riddlebarger has misrepresented in his book, OK? I want to be clear and not presumptious....

I will talk with him about said points and either get back here and/or have him do so.

This is important because your statment sounds a bit bordering on slighting my pastor's reputation. ??? I'd like to clear that up.


With Respect,

Robin

I didn't mean to slur Pastor Riddlebarger's reputation. I really wasn't too bothered by it. The best amillennial treatment of postmillennialism is by Donald Bloesch in his Essentials of Evangelical Theology.
Saying someone misrepresented a postiion is not a character-assassination. It is tough to write a popular book on eschatology that will have buried the postmillennial case. I cut people slack on that. I just don't take their criticisms of postmillennialism seriously because of it.

J,

Thanks for the prompt reply...I still have questions...

Please explain the nature of the apostasy: total/partial? Does Christ arrive to a saved earth or does He rescue/intervene in the midst of battle? (The manner in which Christ returns matters, btw.)

R.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by Robin

Originally posted by Draught Horse

Originally posted by Robin
PS. Jacob,

Please U2U me and/or tell me here, which points do YOU think Riddlebarger has misrepresented in his book, OK? I want to be clear and not presumptious....

I will talk with him about said points and either get back here and/or have him do so.

This is important because your statment sounds a bit bordering on slighting my pastor's reputation. ??? I'd like to clear that up.


With Respect,

Robin

I didn't mean to slur Pastor Riddlebarger's reputation. I really wasn't too bothered by it. The best amillennial treatment of postmillennialism is by Donald Bloesch in his Essentials of Evangelical Theology.
Saying someone misrepresented a postiion is not a character-assassination. It is tough to write a popular book on eschatology that will have buried the postmillennial case. I cut people slack on that. I just don't take their criticisms of postmillennialism seriously because of it.

J,

Thanks for the prompt reply...I still have questions...

Please explain the nature of the apostasy: total/partial? Does Christ arrive to a saved earth or does He rescue/intervene in the midst of battle? (The manner in which Christ returns matters, btw.)

R.

False dichotomy. This is almost the horns of a bad dilemma. If I say "saved earth" then I make it out to be universalism.
If I say he comes to rescue the church in the midst of the battle, then I retract my own position.

But I think I can break the horn of the first dilemma. I will qualify it to mean--age of gospel success. To say more, althoug if I wanted to I would (over)use Isaianic imagery to get my point--to say more would be to go beyond Scripture. Stop the dilemmas. You know what I mean.

PS: I do like the battle imagery, though. However, I don't see a modified battle motif as contradictory to postmillennialism.

 

[rgrove]

Is there an unwritten rule someplace that says eschatalogical discussions must end up like this? The question originally asked was for brief comments on this book by people on the board. In that vein Postmills here have said:

- Excellent contemporary presentation of amillennialism
- Excellent treatment of premillennialism, especially dispensationalism
- Good treatment of "this age and the age to come" (that was systemetized in the early 20th century, hence very new on the scene, I might add)

We make one criticism and one criticism alone, that our position was very poorly presented in the book and we have to "instead of engageing the argument legitimately by writing a counter treatise (so positions can be fairly heard and thoroughly scrutinized.)" And if we feel our position was poorly presented and merely say so without a 2000 word essay detailing every point when the question didn't request such a thing we're "slighting" the pastor. Good grief. Sad. Very, very sad.

I repeat my recommendation of the book for the reasons already given with the same criticism that absolutely it does not do a good job in it's treatment of postmillennialism of any variety. I sincerely hope that any future editions contain improved treatment of Postmillennialism which was the standard eschatology of the Reformed churches for centuries before WWII. And I'll continue to "slight" him in the future by listening to the excellent radio program he's on and purchasing future books written by him.

[Edited on 8-24-2005 by rgrove]

 

[Grinch]

I definitely appreciate all the comments.

I think (based on the comments) that this book will be perfect for me, as the area I am most interested in is the refutation of dispensationalism's eschatology. Sounds like this book does a marvelous job of that.

 

[RamistThomist]

I will say this once again--the book is quite valuable for other purposes. I have referred to it much more frequently than I have to Mathison's book. Riddlebarger did a good job on the book, but another few comments (more with the format of the book than anything else):

---No name index at the back; This makes it hard to find who said what where.

--Endotes--I hate endnotes (Mathison's is the same way)

But I think this was more to do with the publisher than anything else.

 

[crhoades]

Originally posted by Draught Horse
I will say this once again--the book is quite valuable for other purposes. I have referred to it much more frequently than I have to Mathison's book. Riddlebarger did a good job on the book, but another few comments (more with the format of the book than anything else):

---No name index at the back; This makes it hard to find who said what where.

--Endotes--I hate endnotes (Mathison's is the same way)

But I think this was more to do with the publisher than anything else.

Ahhh, the marks of a good book! Footnotes and a superb index. Books shouldn't be published without them! (not referring to current book under discussion) Just wanted to say

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

There seems to be little difference now between optimistic-Amil and neo/theonomic-Postmil, if any. Historic Postmil is quite different, though.

 

[RamistThomist]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
There seems to be little difference now between optimistic-Amil and neo/theonomic-Postmil, if any. Historic Postmil is quite different, though.

That is correct. That is why I am always amused at the knee-jerk reactions to the exegesis of Gentry/Demar--it is virtually identical in most places to that of standard (if there ever was such a thing) amillennial exegesis (we would have the millennium a bit longer, perhaps). This goes to prove a psychological point of mine--people are more opposed to the personalities of a position than to the merits of said case.

 

[wsw201]

{MOD}

We need to stay on subject and that is about what we think of the book. If you want to start a new thread about Amill vs Postmill you can or you can pick it up on the vast number of threads on this topic.

{MOD OFF}

 

[Myshkin]

My apologies Wayne. Considering that most threads end up other than how they started, I did not have the thought that this would need relocation. Thanks for your correction. I'll move my post.

 

[wsw201]

No problem Allan.

We got the word from the higher ups to try and keep the threads on topic.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I just used a term to differentiate me from both amillennialism and Puritan postmillennialism.

Jacob....How about Progressive Disp... (oops)... Postmillenailism?

Oh yeah, back to the book?


Ummmm... Good book? Never read that one.

I became an Amil after reading The Meaning of the millennium: four views many years ago.

[Edited on 8-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]