Amillennialism - A three-question poll (plus a fourth question)

[Ed Walsh]

Greetings to all,

Comments are invited. Especially for those who picked the fourth option. "I believe in something other than the three choices above."

Here's where I'm coming from.
I have been more than challenged about my view. One PB member openly rebuked me for doing a disservice to the Saints, who will be confused by false hope when the exact opposite happens. (The member was quite sure of his view.)

Most people would call me Postmill because of the extreme optimism I have for the future of the Gospel. But I am not. I do not see in Scripture some, as yet future era called the millennium. I believe the Bible teaches that we are now in the time called the millennium. Although I think the name 'Amillennialism' is an unfortunate term for the view because it literally means no millennium. We all believe in a millennium of some description.

As I continue my regular studies, I started a Bible survey from beginning to end with a particular purpose. I am documenting the hundreds of places where either God, a Saint, or a Prophet speaks of the entire world beholding the glory of the Lord and embracing the kingdom of God. (don't misunderstand; I have no hope for the conversion of every single person. But most of the nations will be. The promise was included in God's covenant with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob)

Habakkuk 2:14 ESV
For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

When Jesus hung on the cross praying Psalm 22 and crying out, "My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me?" I can't help but think that he recalled the rest of the Psalm that reminded Him of the future victory of His kingdom, that the increase of has no end.

Psalm 22:27;28 ESV
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you. For kingship belongs to the Lord, and he rules over the nations.

 

[RamistThomist]

I default to amil regarding the timing of the millennium. In everything else I am a futurist. First there must be the apostasy, then the revealing of the man of lawlessnes, and then the day of the Lord.

As to the verses you quoted, every premilllennialist can affirm them. They can say they refer to the millennial reign. Of course, we might disagree with them but the verses by themselves don't prove postmillennialism. Even amillennialists like Hoekema can affirm those verses for the new creation.

 

[Ed Walsh]

As to the verses you quoted, every premilllennialist can affirm them. They can say they refer to the millennial reign. Of course, we might disagree with them but the verses by themselves don't prove postmillennialism. Even amillennialists like Hoekema can affirm those verses for the new creation.

I know all this, but thanks for pointing it out. I wasn't attempting to prove anything by these verses.

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Ed, I didn’t vote, but might have picked something along the lines of the third or fourth option. But couldn’t because neither “I have no idea” or “I believe…” are accurate in describing how I think about it. I guess I’m tentatively an optimistic amil” as they say; holding to God bringing about periods of history where reformation and the spread of the gospel are gloriously seen, along with establishments of the church in the nations. But not at all sure that this is what will be the case when Christ returns.

So I look for and pray with confidence for revival of the church and for reformation of church and thus society, even world-wide. (Deleted a sentence, explanation in comment below.)

Always open to greater understanding from the Scripture.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I really hate the term “amillennial”. You are either pre or post, with variations of each. That said, the only timeline that I would emphasize is that Christ hasn’t come, but will. And when He does it will be sudden. Sudden in an unexpected way for those headed for destruction, and soon in promise for the suffering saints looking for his return in hopeful expectations.

 

[Taylor]

I really hate the term “amillennial”. You are either pre or post, with variations of each.

That is correct. I've posted this a few times on the board, but I think it is appropriate to post it again here:

In contrast to premillennialism is postmillennialism, which argues that Christ will return after the millennium. Here we enter rather slippery territory. Historically, postmillennial advocates have expected that there will be a period during which the gospel will take root to the extent that the world would be effectively Christianized. When Christ returns, it will be to a world ready and waiting to receive him.​

​

However, postmillennialism has taken other forms. Many believe that the reference to one thousand years in Revelation 20 signifies the entire period between the ascension of Christ and his parousia, seen from the angle of the saints living and reigning with Christ. From this, Christ’s return will be after (post) this figurative thousand years. In this they are at one with most amillennialists. In fact, amillennialism was commonly termed postmillennialism, since it held that the parousia comes after the time Christ reigns as depicted in Revelation.​

​

I find it hard to distinguish the two in a way that does justice to the concerns of both. There are three basic positions. First, there is the idea that a privileged period exists within the time between the ascension and the parousia, in which the world will largely be Christianized. Christ will return some time after or toward the end of this golden age. The expectation is for the gospel to triumph more or less universally in the future before the parousia. Second, at the other end of the scale are the convinced amillennialists who—perhaps influenced by the pessimism of premillennialism—teach that evil will grow worse and worse, the church will have a hard time, and eventually there will be a large-scale persecution, after which Christ will return. Here there is no period before or after the parousia corresponding to any visible millennium on earth. Third, between these poles are those who believe that the reference to the thousand years in Revelation 20 is to the whole period between the ascension and the parousia, during which the bulk of the world will become Christian. Christ will return after the metaphorical thousand years. However, within the ongoing history of the world, between ascension and parousia, there is no specially privileged time distinct from any other time, no golden age as such, but the whole period is one in which the church preaches and witnesses, the world persecutes but Christ reigns. Some might call this “postmillennialism”; others, “optimistic amillennialism.” There is a continuum, clearly distinguished from all premillennialism.​

​

—Robert Letham, Systematic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 848-9; italics original.​

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I voted in the last category because "I believe in something other than the three choices above", as I do not believe "we are in the final apostasy", however near to it we may be. The actual final apostasy will be a major renouncing of all alignment with Jesus Christ and with His people, the Church. It will likely come about when the Antichrist begins his final verbal and physical assaults on Christ and church.

@Eyedoc84 / Denver, when you say, "I really hate the term 'amillennial'. You are either pre or post, with variations of each." The problem with that formulation is Postmillennialism is a distinct view (despite its variations) radically different from the Amil / present millennial view. So to merge them simply confuses them, and confuses those who listen to such teaching.

In a nutshell, the basic postmil paradigm posits an eventual bettering world due to the faithful preaching of the gospel; not necessarily a believing world, but a bettering one, after which the LORD shall return. The basic contemporary / Reformed amil view has a Gospel-and-Christ-hating world which persecutes the church, and as the age draws to its close, and satan loosed to commence his "little season" wherein – the gospel witness silenced – he gathers the nations to globally ravage and destroy Christ's bride.

This is not pessimistic at all for the entire age is characterized in Scripture as "this present evil age [world]" (Gal 1:4), where "the whole world lieth in wickedness" (1 John 5:19). Only two ages are seen in the NT Scripture: this present age and the [eternal] age to come (Matt 12:32; Eph 1:21]. If you want to call Scripture pessimistic that is also a problem, for the entity the King of Heaven has His eye on is His kingdom in the world, the church, to which He has said, "I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction" (Isa 48:10). His church, however messed-up she may appear, is pure in His eyes: "For by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified" (Heb 10:14). And He will continue to purify her – though it be in terrible furnaces – "That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27).

The King Himself, He appeared to the eye of man and of devils to be a failure on the cross of His suffering for us – even the disciples / apostles were pessimistic – but in truth His greatest glory was seen in His faithful suffering for His beloved. And so it shall be with the Bride. She may look ragged and torn, but she is the beauty of His delight.


HIS BRIDE

a man…shall be joined to his wife,​

and they two shall be one flesh.​

This is a great mystery: but I speak​

concerning Christ and the church.​

— Paul to the Ephesians​

She is the knock-out of the ages, His bride;
even the angels are astonished, wide-eyed
at a beauty beyond what they see in themselves
and seeing such mysteries desire to delve
into how it could be, this shining like deity
in one once consort with the dark prince, in infamy
before she was redeemed, and party to the deicide.

The price He paid to win her back was steep,
a horrid cost much wondered at in glory’s Keep,
but He got her, and led her through the wilderness
of hearts, through enemies and great distress;
He taught her to stay near to Him,
hold to His word and heart when the way grew dim,
to trust Him, her friend in trouble, her guard in sleep.

It is the story of God the Son’s bride;
she is many, male and female, for whom He died;
she is rugged soldier, little child, woman fair,
all one they are, all dependent on His care.
Safe now in the Kingdom, His glory their reward,
she shines full back the glory of her Lord,
He who ever lives, and for her was crucified.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Steve, I understand how the terms have come to be used. But by you claiming that post- and a- are radically different, you are already pigeonholing the discussion to a specific version of each. Both believe Jesus reigns in a spiritual fashion during the millennium and returns at the end. In contrast to pre- versions where Jesus returns before the millennium to reign physically on earth. W/r/t millennial positions, which the term designates, that is where the “radical” difference lies.

See Taylor’s quote of Letham above.

 

[RamistThomist]

Steve, I understand how the terms have come to be used. But by you claiming that post- and a- are radically different, you are already pigeonholing the discussion to a specific version of each. Both believe Jesus reigns in a spiritual fashion during the millennium and returns at the end. In contrast to pre- versions where Jesus returns before the millennium to reign physically on earth. W/r/t millennial positions, which the term designates, that is where the “radical” difference lies.

See Taylor’s quote of Letham above.

In regards to the timing of the millennium, you are correct. With regards to the nature of the current millennial reign, Steve is correct. Optimistic amils are basically punting the hard questions to postmillennialism.

 

[Eyedoc84]

In regards to the timing of the millennium, you are correct. With regards to the nature of the current millennial reign, Steve is correct. Optimistic amils are basically punting the hard questions to postmillennialism.

I would still argue that post/a share more in common about the nature of the millennium than either does with pre. Particularly if one believes we are in some sense in the millennium now. Some posts still hold it to be future, though.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Denver / @Eyedoc84,

You said to me (post #8), "by you claiming that post- and a- are radically different, you are already pigeonholing the discussion to a specific version of each".

If by this you are alluding (or just subjectively connecting) to the Letham quote above, please don't muddy the water with Letham's (partial) preterist views, and his seeing amil and the postmil as "a continuum, rather than two completely separate theories". I realize that is a view taken by some currently, but I am writing against that.

As regards the content of the "millennial" period, as distinguished from the general structure of it, the amil / aka "modified" or "eclectic" idealist teaches a strictly evil age throughout the entire millennium, worsening greatly at the end when satan is loosed, whereas the postmil has a variety of nuances, all of which are "optimistic" in that the age will become "Christianized" or somehow "bettered" to some significant extent. That they both (amil and postmil) have the Lord returning after these profoundly differing-in-content periods is really a very minor likeness, and in no way a continuum! They are different creatures altogether despite a vague, superficial resemblance.

So for you to say I'm "pigeonholing the discussion to a specific version of each" betrays an inability to distinguish the essential paradigms of each. There is one contemporary amil view (with very minor differing nuances), and one postmil view (with larger differing nuances) – but the two are different animals, different species.

Jesus' reign – "in a spiritual fashion" you call it – during the period both amil and postmil call the "millennium", is a reign over such disparate situations, that the reign itself cannot be at all similar. In truth the premil, the amil, and the postmil are all radically different. Trying to put likeness – very superficial likeness at that – between amil and postmil is blatantly false.

Why are you trying to do this? To give some form of legitimacy to the postmil by alleging a similarity between them? The postmil is a false dream in opposition to clear Scriptural realities, and to seemingly embrace (partial) preterism along with it is monstrous compared to the simplicity of the amil / aka "modified" or "eclectic" idealist teaching.

I am set to defend the sole and distinct legitimacy of the amil view against the radically differing pre and postmil views. Sorry, Denver, you can't hitch a ride on this train!

 

[RamistThomist]

As regards the content of the "millennial" period, as distinguished from the general structure of it, the amil / aka "modified" or "eclectic" idealist teaches a strictly evil age throughout the entire millennium, worsening greatly at the end when satan is loosed,

I would like to add that as a futurist amil, I agree 100% with Steve on the content of the millennial period.

 

[Eyedoc84]

Why are you trying to do this? To give some form of legitimacy to the postmil by alleging a similarity between them?

Nope. I’ve already stated my concerns with the terminology, and so as to not derail Ed’s thread more, I’ll leave it at that.

 

[greenbaggins]

I am thankful that I have not seen it on this thread, a sort of America-centric interpretation of the last times. It is quite easy to think that because America is rapidly deteriorating in its stance on many things, tyranny is being attempted (largely successfully), etc., that therefore we are in the last final days before Christ comes back. True Christians in Germany circa 1938 would have thought the same. The NT's position is clear in Hebrews 1 and other places: all the days between first and second coming are the last days.

 

[RamistThomist]

I am thankful that I have not seen it on this thread, a sort of America-centric interpretation of the last times. It is quite easy to think that because America is rapidly deteriorating in its stance on many things, tyranny is being attempted (largely successfully), etc., that therefore we are in the last final days before Christ comes back. True Christians in Germany circa 1938 would have thought the same. The NT's position is clear in Hebrews 1 and other places: all the days between first and second coming are the last days.

It is nonetheless legitimate to make a sub-bracket within "last days." One such example would be the apostasy and then the revelation of the man of lawlessness (2 Thess. 2). Of course, such a view outlined in 2 Thess. has nothing to do with the fall of America in 2020.

 

[lynnie]

I am thankful that I have not seen it on this thread, a sort of America-centric interpretation of the last times. It is quite easy to think that because America is rapidly deteriorating in its stance on many things, tyranny is being attempted (largely successfully), etc., that therefore we are in the last final days before Christ comes back. True Christians in Germany circa 1938 would have thought the same. The NT's position is clear in Hebrews 1 and other places: all the days between first and second coming are the last days.

I thought all amils believe in some final unloosing of Satan where things get really bad, worse than Nazis or democrats : ), and the nations are gathered for a final Gog- Magog event. No? Do some amils not expect to see some final huge war before the second coming? How do they interpret the Gog- Magog reference then? Maybe we are not there yet, but do you expect something unique and as yet not seen in history? Perhaps not yet in use deadly high tech?

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hi Lane, can you see an end of the last days – as in a beginning, a long middle, and a very end – and things peculiar to each?

And about America, is she not a major player on the world stage, and may it not be that as a [former] great world power she has a major part to play in eschatological events?

One of the things I wonder about out-of-hand ruling the U.S. not involved in "very end times" machinations, is the tendency in contemporary eschatology to not see current world and national events as part of a possible boiling pot which can readily kill those in it. Indeed we are not in the latter 1930s, and while those then may have thought they were at the end, it is a sure thing there will be one generation that will be.

We may be decades away from such a time, but maybe not. These days, amid the great world powers falling and rising, amid continually imminent financial collapses, amid lethal, insane religious and political zealots itching to get their hands on – or loose those they have – WMDs, and an offended Almighty God set to judge the wickedness of man, I would consider the worsening world a prime target for His judgments, the U.S. certainly included.

 

[RamistThomist]

I thought all amils believe in some final unloosing of Satan where things get really bad, worse than Nazis or democrats : ), and the nations are gathered for a final Gog- Magog event. No? Do some amils not expect to see some final huge war before the second coming? How do they interpret the Gog- Magog reference then? Maybe we are not there yet, but do you expect something unique and as yet not seen in history? Perhaps not yet in use deadly high tech?

Traditionally, yes. Augustine and Aquinas held to such a view. Much (though to be fair, not all) modern amillennialism overreacts to Left Behind by saying it's all spiritual and the only thing left is for Jesus to return.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Jacob, I'm not sure what "modern amillennialism" – popularly speaking – thinks, but the top commentators who really set the standards for responsible exegesis and exposition – I refer to GK Beale, Wm. Hendriksen, Dennis E. Johnson, Richard D. Phillips, and the like – they all do posit the Gog and Magog reference (for example) as John uses it in Rev 20:8 as the fulfillment of the prophecy in Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39. They get specific and historical regarding Revelation prophecies realized in the very end of time. Where I differ with them is that I simply add a realized prophecy they missed.

I quote from one of my own papers,

'It is accepted that the “eclectic” or “modified idealist” view (Beale) [1] allows some departure from the idealist, though as to where the line is drawn there is no clear consensus. Beale himself says, “...certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation. The crucial yet problematic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past present and future.”' [2]​

​

[1] G.K. Beale, New International Greek Testament Commentary: Revelation (Eerdmans 1999), pp 48, 49.​

[2] Ibid., p 49​

In Hendriksen's Rev commentary he speaks of satan's "little season" let loose as possibly commencing in certain nations as far back as the mid 20th century. So the leading amil commentators do depart from the older (as in the 1800s) strictly idealist / totally "spiritualizing" view.

Geerhardus Vos, although speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a principle applicable here,

“[It] belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 133)​

O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, expressed the same sentiment:

“The usual view on this subject [‘the intelligibility of prophecy’] has been that prophecy is not intended to be fully understood before its fulfilment, that it is only when God ‘establishes the word of his servants and fulfills the counsel of his messengers,’ that the meaning and import of their words become fully manifest.” (p 25)​

Stuart Olyott in his, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, thinks likewise:

“We must realize that some of the Bible’s teachings relating to the very last days will not be understood until we are in those days. That is why it is both unwise and dangerous to draw up detailed timetables of future events. Some parts of the Word of God will not become obvious in their meaning until the days of which they speak have dawned.” (p 166)​

As regards your view, Jacob, might it not be more accurate to say you are a "futurist" where the text warrants a future realization, yet allowing certain prophecies their realization in John's day, as well as some recapitulating "spiritual" prophecies applicable during the entire age?

 

[greenbaggins]

I am not quite sure how to answer the queries. While America is an important nation, really all I wanted to point out was that America does not drive eschatology. Also, I would like to point out that most Christian generations had people who thought they were in the very last days before Christ comes back. It doesn't mean we are not in the very last few days. We could be, and we always need to be prepared. However, given how many generations of Christians thought they were in the very last few days, but weren't, makes me hesitant about my own feelings on the matter. Yes, I think we are on the verge of (or perhaps already in) a dystopian American nightmare. That doesn't automatically mean Christ is coming back very soon. That's really my only main point.

 

[RamistThomist]

As regards your view, Jacob, might it not be more accurate to say you are a "futurist" where the text warrants a future realization, yet allowing certain prophecies their realization in John's day, as well as some recapitulating "spiritual" prophecies applicable during the entire age?

Yes

 

[TheInquirer]

"I have no idea"

 

[deuteronomist]

I have no idea.

My personal suspicions, are based on analyzing history and and human nature, and technological and intellectual change.

If I were permitted to guess, I believe we are closer to the end than to the beginning, but it could be tomorrow it could be several centuries in the future.


but in truth I have no idea.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I have no idea.

My personal suspicions, are based on analyzing history and and human nature, and technological and intellectual change.

If I were permitted to guess, I believe we are closer to the end than to the beginning, but it could be tomorrow it could be several centuries in the future.


but in truth I have no idea.

We’re at least closer to the end than they were at the beginning