Amillenialism: Current state of Satan?

[Peairtach]

Well it says that the elect aren't deceived, even by these very cogent signs and wonders.

Of course the elect can be deceived, look at e.g. David and Solomon, but not in such a way as to lose their eternal salvation.

Can you clarify your statement? At the surface, it seems to come in conflict with 2 Thessalonians 2:8-12

2 Thessalonians 2:8–12

Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His coming; that is, the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness.​

God bless.

I don't see where the Thessalonians passage says that the elect can be deceived in such a way as to lose their salvation. The elect can be deceived alright - before they're converted, and even after, but not in such a way as to lose their salvation.

Our Lord in the Olivet Discourse is talking hypothetically when he says "if it were possible would deceive the elect" . It isn't possible but He does express the strength of the temptation/delusion in this way.

the one whose coming is in accord with the activity of Satan, with all power and signs and false wonders, and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved.

The ones mentioned in the above quote aren't the elect.

I tend to believe that the Man of Sin in II Thessalonians is the papacy. The errors which developed into the papacy and Romanism were present in seed form in the Apostle's day, as he indicates regarding the Man of Sin. The papacy is a parody of Christ (Antichrist), which has made use of lying signs and wonders, which is very deceptive, which has done more damage to souls than a "Personal Antichrist" will ever do to bodies - for a little time - at the end of history. He has also done some damage to bodies.

The Papacy won't last to the end of time.

 

[ryanhamre]

Thank you for your reply, you cleared it up for me

God bless.

 

[MW]

Matthew, you keep asserting – without substantiation, it seems to me – that when the Lord goes forth to war in the final cataclysm He no longer reigns. Of course He reigns, and that even when He is subduing all his enemies. He reigned before the thousand years, and He reigns after (we view that period differently). He reigns eternally. When the last of the elect is called and brought into the fold the reaping of the gospel harvest is over. There is an end to the day of grace through the gospel, and a beginning of the day of vengeance. I do not accept your imposing the thousand years in the manner you do upon the idealist / amillennialist view of the more recent commentators, for it is not valid. There is no “black hole in the continuum of biblical eschatology” in reality, only according to your view, which I do not acknowledge.

Brother Steve, amillennialism is realised millennialism. The millennium of Rev. 20 is a reality now. It is a reality since Christ Himself bound Satan through His own redemptive work. The conditions described in Rev. 20 are reflective of His state of exaltation. Now, if, according to the theory of an end time battle, the 1000 years literally ends -- that is, the battle literally eventuates after the 1000 years -- then the millennium ends, the conditions described in Rev. 20:1-6 are changed at a subsequent period of this earth's history. If, on the other hand, you are going to insist that nothing changes, then you are really just committing yourself to the view that the 1000 years and the end time battle of Rev. 20 are actually parallel with each other. If this discussion has brought you to the point where you feel disgusted at the very thought that the work of Christ in ushering the 1000 years can somehow be reversed or diminished, then this discussion has served a useful purpose, and I trust that more reflective study on your part will eventually lead you to see the full validity and consistency of Milligan's parallel interpretation. Blessings!

 

[TeachingTulip]

Brother Steve, amillennialism is realised millennialism.

Not so. Amillennialism is denial of a literal (chiliaistic) millennialism, in any form.

 

[MW]

Brother Steve, amillennialism is realised millennialism.

Not so. Amillennialism is denial of a literal (chiliaistic) millennialism, in any form.

Anthony Hoekema (The Bible and the Future, p. 173):

Jay E. Adams, in his book The Time is at Hand, has suggested that the term amillennialism be replaced by the expression realized millennialism. The latter term, to be sure, describes the 'amillennial' position more accurately than the usual term, since 'amillennialists' believe that the millennium of Revelation 20 is not exclusively future but is now in process of realization.

Amillennialism is built on the foundation of inaugurated eschatology, a subject well developed in Hoekema's book. If one's interpretation of eschatology at any time ventures to undo that which has been inaugurated by the coming of Christ I would suggest that it is unworthy of the name "amillennialism" or at least morphs it into something other than it is.

 

[TeachingTulip]

If one's interpretation of eschatology at any time ventures to undo that which has been inaugurated by the coming of Christ

The Amil view certainly does not "undo that which has been inaugurated by the coming of Christ."

The Amil view simply denies a literal 1000 year reign after the second coming of Christ.

I would suggest that it is unworthy of the name "amillennialism" or at least morphs it into something other than it is.

God alone knows what you are talking about . . .

 

[MW]

The Amil view simply denies a literal 1000 year reign after the second coming of Christ.

If one wants to rest on a simplified understanding of what amillennialism teaches, and is not interested in considering what amillennialist authors like Adams and Hoekema have taught, that is one's prerogative ... and one's loss.

 

[TeachingTulip]

The Amil view simply denies a literal 1000 year reign after the second coming of Christ.

If one wants to rest on a simplified understanding of what amillennialism teaches, and is not interested in considering what amillennialist authors like Adams and Hoekema have taught, that is one's prerogative ... and one's loss.

And if one wants to redefine Amillennialism (by advocating a Postmillennial view) , so let him.

Does not mean Amils need to follow him in his erroneous views . . .

 

[MW]

And if one wants to redefine Amillennialism (by advocating a Postmillennial view) , so let him.

Does not mean Amils need to follow him in his erroneous views . . .

That claim was made above, answered by me, and retracted by the person making the claim. If you would like to further discussion and make a new claim then you will need to back it up with reasons which give me the opportunity to respond. Your claim, as it stands, contains nothing to substantiate it. One of the impoverishments of resting on a simplified understanding of things is that it leaves one without the know-how to give substance to one's truth claims.

 

[TeachingTulip]

And if one wants to redefine Amillennialism (by advocating a Postmillennial view) , so let him.

Does not mean Amils need to follow him in his erroneous views . . .

That claim was made above, answered by me, and retracted by the person making the claim. If you would like to further discussion and make a new claim then you will need to back it up with reasons which give me the opportunity to respond. Your claim, as it stands, contains nothing to substantiate it. One of the impoverishments of resting on a simplified understanding of things is that it leaves one without the know-how to give substance to one's truth claims.

I made no claim, other than I would not follow your erroneous views.

 

[MW]

I made no claim, other than I would not follow your erroneous views.

"Erroneous views" is a claim. Redefining amillennialism is a claim. Advocating a postmillennial view is a claim. To date I have substantiated my statement with reference to amillennial authors. You have chosen to retain your simplified understanding and to ignore those authors. Fair enough. But please do not impose a naive dogmatism on what to date has been a reasonable and edifying discussion.

 

[Scott1]

By way of information only.

A Case for Amillennialism, Kim Riddlebarger, p. 31

My own position is Reformed amillennialism, which can also be called "present" or "realized" millennialism. Reformed eschatology argues for a present millennial age manifest in the present reign of Jesus Christ in heaven.

 

[discipulo]

And if one wants to redefine Amillennialism (by advocating a Postmillennial view) , so let him.

Does not mean Amils need to follow him in his erroneous views . . .

That claim was made above, answered by me, and retracted by the person making the claim. If you would like to further discussion and make a new claim then you will need to back it up with reasons which give me the opportunity to respond. Your claim, as it stands, contains nothing to substantiate it. One of the impoverishments of resting on a simplified understanding of things is that it leaves one without the know-how to give substance to one's truth claims.

I made no claim, other than I would not follow your erroneous views.

Rhonda, I don’t want to interrupt your dialogue, but sometimes it helps to have someone on the other ear telling us also but in other ways, what we might need to hear.

Believe me, I was exactly in your shoes already. Not in a forum, it may be harder this way I know, but at home, reading. How about that?

Yes, I was also taken off guard the 1st time I realized, by reading

The Promise of the Future by Cornelis P. Venema

(arguably even a better manual of Eschatology than Hoekema)

that Ammilenialism is the true Millenialism! And in that sense Ammilenialism is not the better term to coin our eschatological view.

As I read it back then from Venema, I also had the same reaction as you, I sensed my categories confronted, I was patient, I gave it a thought and then it made complete sense.

Like Rev, Winzer said, Ammilenialism in fact, is truly realized Millenialism.

As you, I used to think that Millennialism was only a term applicable to the chiliastic approach of reading Rev 20 as actually being a period of 1000 years. And because of all that is going on with the pre-mill noise around us, in a sense we understand and we made ourselves understood easier when we say that we are Amill.

As you know, Dispensationalism turns Redemptive History into a succession of incoherent unrelated tupperwares, the millennium being one of those little boxes, very useful to the fridge, but nasty to understand Scripture in its Unity and Perspicuity.

Because Amills, and I surely count myself as one, don’t postpone the Kingdom and the Millennium to the second coming of Christ, we can truly claim that we are the ones taking seriously into account the Revelation that the millennium was already inaugurated as our Lord ascended to Reign at the right Hand of the Father.

You may enjoy reading:

Revelation 20: Part II - The millennium is Now by Cornelis P. Venema

Revelation 20: Part II - The millennium is Now

 

[Peairtach]

I'm sure amillennialism is not incompatible with the progress of the Church on Earth, as well as in Heaven. E.g. there are more Christians in the world today than in A.D. 33 are there not?

Postmils don't posit a perfect world before the Second Advent.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Ronda, thanks for your support. Rev. Winzer is right when he says his view is called “realized millennialism” – a phrase coined, I believe, by Jay E. Adams in his book, The Time Is At Hand – and refers to the present (realized in our own times, and through all the church age) reign of the Lord Jesus over the nations along with His martyred saints during the symbolic thousand years of Revelation 20. I think what confused you was the strangeness of Rev. Winzer’s view and his calling it by the same name modern amillennialists use, although his view is very different from what is generally called amillennialism / realized millennialism in these days.

It’s an older form of idealism (another term for describing millennialism) no longer current among amil scholars. I’ll be studying its (apparently) main proponent, William Milligan, to get a better idea of it.

César, thanks for that Venema excerpt!

You will own, Matthew (or so I think), that your / Milligan’s view of the thousand years is markedly different from what is held by contemporary amil teachers. When you say “the 1000 years and the end time battle of Rev. 20 are actually parallel with each other” you may not properly be accused of being novel as Milligan’s view does antedate the modern views, but you are certainly not in the mainstream of interpretation. And yet you speak to me as though you were and those who differ are all off the wall exegetically!

I’m surely not one to say – out of hand – that the new is better than the old, else I would not champion the superiority of the old English version of the Bible, but in this case, regarding our respective eschatologies, having weighed them, I must assert the new is better. I will, however, consider Milligan, if only to know my opponents.

Dennis Johnson wrote,

“Just as the vision genre sometimes compresses vast historical eons into symbolic images that pass like the twinkling of an eye (see Rev.12:1-5, which spans redemptive history from Genesis 3 to Acts 1), so also a split-second in time may be expanded in visionary description and simultaneous climactic events presented as successive, in order to help hearers to see different facets of Christ’s victory.” –Dennis E. Johnson, Triumph of the Lamb, pp. 176​

That to say one must be careful positing any chronological sequences in the visions of Revelation! And yet I do, as one may note in my writings on Babylon, and I have explained the reasons for doing so.

It is understood – and expressed by Hendriksen and the others in his camp – that the visions of warning and judgment recapitulate numerous times in the Apocalypse, in fact the church age and its finale are repeatedly pictured in the multiple sections – from different angles – and toward the end of the book we see in more detail what is involved. We see that toward the end the warning blasts of the trumpets intensify, as also do the judgments.

Earlier I stated that more Christians have been killed (for being Christians) in this and the last century than in all the previous centuries of the church age combined. It was retorted that there are more Christians now than in all the past centuries, and I think that illustrates the increasing intensity. Indeed, there are more Christians now than ever, as the power of God in calling His elect out of the nations is loosed by the witness of His churches – even in murderously hostile lands – and the Spirit-empowered witness of His missionaries across the globe. The Lord is active in the ends of the earth to call His people to Himself. And at the same time the hatred of Satan through his children is manifest against the saints. Things are moving on to a climax. The power of good and the power of evil are both waxing greater, exponentially so.

So, yes, there is a battle all through the ages of the church. There are warnings and judgments also. But the Scripture is clear that at the end of this age there will be a final intensification of this conflict. I have written above concerning Rev 16, and 19, and 20 and this final conflict, this last blow of the dark powers against the saints, and the Lord’s vengeance and ending of it. I just don’t buy the idea that it’s all melded together in one amorphous struggle of good and evil with no climactic denouement, as Rev. Winzer apparently holds. There is a climactic denouement, and it is called Armageddon, and the battle of Gog and Magog. The Scripture specifically says – twice! – there is an end of the thousand years, and “a little season” after that where the enemies of the Lord are gathered for judgment. If one wants to say, “No, that’s just symbolic for continuing dynamics throughout the age”, we’ll just have to disagree, as the reading of this passage speaks explicitly of time sequences. I won’t spiritualize what is distinctly temporal in its import.

The work of Christ during the thousand years cannot be “reversed or diminished” as I am charged with asserting. Who can stay His hand!? The work of Christ during the thousand years will be fulfilled – all the gold will have been taken out of the ground – and the furnace of affliction in the little season will finish the purifying of it.

Nonetheless, Matthew, I will consider Milligan in the interim period, and at some point I will weigh in on him. Thanks for your graciousness in dealing with me.

When my wife and I are back in NYC we will be “homeless” for a while (though we’ll have an apt to stay in), and even computerless! – till I buy a small Macbook Air, so that we’re not completely unwired – and it may be some months before I’m settled and able to return here, in any substantial manner.

Back to the states. The land of trouble. But my people, and my church.

 

[TeachingTulip]

Hello Ronda, thanks for your support. Rev. Winzer is right when he says his view is called “realized millennialism” – a phrase coined, I believe, by Jay E. Adams in his book, The Time Is At Hand – and refers to the present (realized in our own times, and through all the church age) reign of the Lord Jesus over the nations along with His martyred saints during the symbolic thousand years of Revelation 20. I think what confused you was the strangeness of Rev. Winzer’s view and his calling it by the same name modern amillennialists use, although his view is very different from what is generally called amillennialism / realized millennialism in these days.

It’s an older form of idealism (another term for describing millennialism) no longer current among amil scholars. I’ll be studying its (apparently) main proponent, William Milligan, to get a better idea of it.

Thank you Pastor, for the clarification and assurance that I need not overreact to this terminology as I did. Sound correction and patient explanations are always appreciated!

BTW, so are book recommendations. I am presently reading Stuart Olyott's "Dare To Stand Alone." It is proving to be a good commentary on the Book of Daniel, as well as an encouraging devotional.

 

[MW]

Back to the states. The land of trouble. But my people, and my church.

Dear Steve, I pray the Lord grants you journeying mercies, and that you may prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers.

Once you have settled in and had an opportunity to read Milligan I look forward to discussing the subject with you, knowing that by that time Milligan will have done all the hard work and you will be ready to stand on the side of the consistent amillennialist.

Blessings!

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Thanks, Matthew!

 

[Tirian]

Back to the states. The land of trouble. But my people, and my church.

Dear Steve, I pray the Lord grants you journeying mercies, and that you may prosper and be in health even as your soul prospers.

Once you have settled in and had an opportunity to read Milligan I look forward to discussing the subject with you, knowing that by that time Milligan will have done all the hard work and you will be ready to stand on the side of the consistent amillennialist.

Blessings!

Pastor Winzer,

Though my brain frequently melts as I try to follow the details of this discussion I find myself identifying most closely with the position you are outlining.

In simple terms, how would you describe the condition of the church and the world just prior to the return of Christ - what does it look like?

Warm regards,
Matt

 

[MW]

In simple terms, how would you describe the condition of the church and the world just prior to the return of Christ - what does it look like?

I wouldn't seek to describe "the times and the seasons," as they belong to the secret things of the Lord. As far as the church and her commission is concerned, the plenary power of the Lord Jesus Christ gives every encouragement to go into all the world and to teach so as to make disciples of all nations, Matthew 28:18-20. All the OT promises to Israel relative to the ingathering of the nations are the rightful inheritance of the Lord Jesus Christ, and this leads to hopeful expectation concerning the preaching of His name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, Luke 24:44-48. The apostle to the nations certainly went forth on the understanding that he should bear Christ's name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel, Acts 9:15, and did so for the hope of the promise made of God unto the fathers, Acts 26:6, and went forth with the confidence that God would open the eyes of the Gentiles, and turn them from the power of Satan unto God, verses 17, 18. As we survey the various places to which the apostle was sent, sometimes only "some" believe, as in Thessalonica, Acts 17:4; but in other places, like Berea, "many of them believed," verse 12. It is notable that whenever he speaks of the mission to the Gentiles he regards its prospect in the most glowing terms. He appropriates the OT promises that the fulness of the Gentiles shall come in, Romans 11:25. He does not immediately enlarge on this in chapter 11 because his main scope was to show God's faithfulness to His promise that all Israel shall be saved; but a little later he appeals to the OT as it refers to "all" the Gentiles, Romans 15:11, with the expectation that the Root of Jesse shall reign over the Gentiles, as a mass, and that they shall trust in Him, verse 12. Indeed, he sees the Gentiles as an offering to God made acceptable through Jesus Christ and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, verse 16. Again, in Ephesians, the same breadth of expectation pervades the apostle's thoughts. He understands the fulness of times to include a special dispensation in which God will gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth, Eph. 1:10. In this work of reconciliation and unification the joining together of Jew and Gentile through the apostolic ministry is just the beginning; for the apostle envisages the work to keep growing unto an holy temple in the Lord, Eph. 2:22. Nothing less than a new creation is expected, in which the manifold wisdom of God might be known by the church unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places, Eph. 3:8-11.

In all of this we see that the lot of suffering and persecution which God apportions to the church in this world should never be permitted to dampen the spirits of faithful workmen. God is doing marvellous things. He is answering prayer by terrible things in righteousness. We should look up, expect great things from God, and attempt great things for God.

Blessings!

 

[Scott1]

While still considering this whole area of scripture, I'm pretty comfortable saying amillennialism, a realized millennium, acknowledges that good and evil will grow side-by-side, without the one ever completely overcoming the other, until our Lord's return.

From our perspective, as limited creatures, that will not always be clear to us in our own time, far less in history past.

Yet, it would seem to be the state of things in a fallen world, being redeemed by God's plan, until He returns as judge.

 

[Peairtach]

While still considering this whole area of scripture, I'm pretty comfortable saying amillennialism, a realized millennium, acknowledges that good and evil will grow side-by-side, without the one ever completely overcoming the other, until our Lord's return.

Well I'm quite happy to say that beastly statist persecution (the Beast), antichristian and Antichristian teaching (the False Prophet), and the apostate Christian Church (Babylon) will be eliminated long before our Lord's Second Advent E.g. Revelation 18-19. Many Christians in the world already enjoy freedom from these things.

That doesn't mean an end to sin, tribulation or death.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I think that the reason so many people have trouble believing that satan is currently bound is because they refuse to see that all of the death and evil in the world is really because of our own sin. It is much easier to blame bad things on the devil.

 

[Notthemama1984]