Any Chiliasts on here?

[Sovereign Grace]

I am starting to rethink my Amill view of eschatology and think that the historic-premill view may be more biblically affirmed. Yet, there are so things I am still trying to flesh out. If there are some Chiliasts on here, let me know on this thread and I'll ask you some questions to clear up my thoughts. Thanks in advance.

 

[Warren]

Hey man, I'd read the first two chapters of the Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich, before taking the plunge. I think its free online.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Hey man, I'd read the first two chapters of the Socialist Phenomenon, by Igor Shafarevich, before taking the plunge. I think its free online.

Trust me when I say I know the amill position. I have been that the first 9+ years of my Christian walk, but Chiliasm is not that far off from the amill view. Both have Jews and Gentiles as one in Christ, that Israel of the bible is not the nation of Israel, but the spiritual Jews that are both Jew and Gentile in their lineage. It is the millennial view of the 1,000 years where they veer off from being the same. This is where I am trying to see if I am still amill of Chiliast now.

 

[Warren]

Well, this won't convict you of amil, so much as trace the origins of millennialism.

I don't mean to sound spooky, but when I learned Christian Chiliasm traces an ideological bloodline to the Montanists, my worldview shattered and left me with irreconcilable pieces.

Sounds trite, and pardon the embellishment, but the Russian did a thorough work examining the lineage of cults. I'll copy a few excerpts, if you'd like...

Let me ask though, do you believe there will be death in an earthly Millennium?

 

[Pilgrim]

I am starting to rethink my Amill view of eschatology and think that the historic-premill view may be more biblically affirmed. Yet, there are so things I am still trying to flesh out. If there are some Chiliasts on here, let me know on this thread and I'll ask you some questions to clear up my thoughts. Thanks in advance.

I'm premil but I'm not going to be able to go into much detail here due to time constraints. I only know of one or two others on here that post regularly. You might try the FB group "Historic (Classic) Premil." It might take a little while to get answers there as well, but it is probably more likely to happen there than it will here.

One of the better introductory sermon series I've come across in recent years is this one by a Reformed Baptist pastor. This is the first of about 7 messages that is basically an excursus on the subject within his series on the Sermon on the Mount. I haven't listened to it in a few years, but I remember it being food for thought on Rev. 20 and on rebutting the amil two age view, if nothing else.

The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony is a Reformed organization that holds to premillennialism.

One thing to note is that while some of the older writers (including Calvinistic writers like Bonar, Spurgeon and Ryle) affirm that the church is spiritual Israel in some sense, their teaching on the restoration of Israel will look somewhat "dispensational" since they taught that there was unfulfilled prophecy pertaining to national/ethnic Israel. Regarding certain texts, they will insist that Israel means national/ethic Israel where amils and modern "historic" premils will say it refers to the church instead. But this was basically the "Historic" Premil view before George Ladd's teaching came to the fore.

Regardless, it is a good idea to investigate something thoroughly instead of backing away because you read one sentence that is too close to something else that you reject or come across bad teaching by those who hold to a certain view. Examples would include rejecting infant baptism because Romanists and liberals do it or rejecting Baptist views because most of them aren't 5 point Calvinists or decide they can't be Baptist because some cults reject infant baptism and practice immersion. But some do make snap decisions based on things like that.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I am Amill but it is a very cold winter here in New Zealand. So for now I have become a Chilly-ist

 

[Taylor]

I am still very unsure of my position. I wrote a paper recently offering a very surface-level examination of the two views (Amil. and Hist. Premil.). I tentatively landed on the Historic Premillennial position. However, I have since begun to seriously re-think this. I am currently in a state of limbo regarding the issue.

 

[RamistThomist]

I used to be premil, or maybe that is my default position. I know it fairly well. My own view now is some form of nuclear apocalypticism

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Well, this won't convict you of amil, so much as trace the origins of millennialism.

I don't mean to sound spooky, but when I learned Christian Chiliasm traces an ideological bloodline to the Montanists, my worldview shattered and left me with irreconcilable pieces.

Sounds trite, and pardon the embellishment, but the Russian did a thorough work examining the lineage of cults. I'll copy a few excerpts, if you'd like...

Let me ask though, do you believe there will be death in an earthly Millennium?

I heard a poster from another forum who stated he didn't believe in a 7 year trib, and I do not think that either, at this point. I see th anti-Christ being the papacy and Babylon being the RCC.

Now, to answer your question about death during the Millennium? No. But I am not settled in any camp as of now.

 

[Warren]

Ah, so that's what you mean by historic-premil. I need to remember not all premillennialism is dispensational.

I ask myself, if there is no death, what happens to the unconverted in that time? They don't have incorruptible resurrection bodies, so they must die. There must be death in the millennial kingdom, then.

 

[RamistThomist]

Ah, so that's what you mean by historic-premil. I need to remember not all premillennialism is dispensational.

I ask myself, if there is no death, what happens to the unconverted in that time? They don't have incorruptible resurrection bodies, so they must die. There must be death in the millennial kingdom, then.

There is, but Isaiah 65:20 hints it will be an anomaly.

 

[Justified]

I used to be premil, or maybe that is my default position. I know it fairly well. My own view now is some form of nuclear apocalypticism

What does that amount to? Does it mean the world ends up a nuclear wasteland, and then Jesus comes back?

How did you come to such a conclusion? Geopolitics, the Bible, or both?

 

[RamistThomist]

I used to be premil, or maybe that is my default position. I know it fairly well. My own view now is some form of nuclear apocalypticism

What does that amount to? Does it mean the world ends up a nuclear wasteland, and then Jesus comes back?

Hillary is going to provoke Russia into a nuclear war because she is controlled by what CS Lewis called "The Macrobes."

How did you come to such a conclusion? Geopolitics, the Bible, or both?

Both. I don't mind saying I hold to a roughly amillennial structure, just so some Reformed don't hyperventilate. But unlike most amils, I have futurist content into my system (or just content in general).

 

[Warren]

Hahaha, Fallout confirmed.

 

[RamistThomist]

Hahaha, Fallout confirmed.

To quote Stephen Lang's character in Gods and Generals, I don't intend to survive a nuclear war. Right when I became amill yet held to futurist views (just quoting church fathers), I got ridiculed as Left Behind. But oh well.

 

[Justified]

Hillary is going to provoke Russia into a nuclear war because she is controlled by what CS Lewis called "The Macrobes.

Which is why I hope Trump wins. Putin likes Trump. Improved relations with Russia would be such a great thing. Despite all the negative attention they receive from the media, I think they're doing a lot of things right there.

 

[Warren]

Hahaha, Fallout confirmed.

To quote Stephen Lang's character in Gods and Generals, I don't intend to survive a nuclear war. Right when I became amill yet held to futurist views (just quoting church fathers), I got ridiculed as Left Behind. But oh well.

Oh, I'd much rather go in the pyroclasm, than become Hillary's paranoid splinter government's mutant service dummy.

What would that make one? A post amillennium historic premillennialist?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

Ah, so that's what you mean by historic-premil. I need to remember not all premillennialism is dispensational.

I ask myself, if there is no death, what happens to the unconverted in that time? They don't have incorruptible resurrection bodies, so they must die. There must be death in the millennial kingdom, then.

Where I am struggling in understanding Chiliasm is the portion of what happens upon Christ's return. Are all raised and judged or are only the saints? After the 1,000 years, are the goats raised and judged? What got me to thinking about a possible change from amill to Chiliasm is from Genesis 17 where God told Abraham...this is where Abram's name becomes Abraham...He would make an everlasting covenant with Abraham's ppl and an everlasting possession of the land He would give them. The same Hebrew word...'owlam...is used. So, if the covenant is everlasting, meaning eternal, would not the land be an everlasting, meaning eternal, possession, too? In amill, the earth is destroyed, so the land would not be an everlasting possession.

 

[Warren]

One of the promises the Jews rejected was the Kingdom. For us, the everlasting land is fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth, but we live the eschaton here and now, in Christ's Kingdom. He reigns now... If that makes sense.

 

[richardnz]

Not all amills think the physical world will be destroyed, for example AA Hoekema in “The Bible and the Future”. Similarly Patrick Fairbairn in “The Typology of Scripture”. In Vol 1,Chapter 6, “Inheritance Destined for the Heirs of Blessing” he shows the relationship between the land covenant, heaven, resurrection, the better country, the garden of Eden, the Church, the new heavens and new earth, the city of God and other related things.
Note also Appendix D, “Does The Original Relation of The Seed of Abraham to The Land of Canaan afford any Ground for Expecting their Final Return to it?”—P. 405.
and Appendix E, “The Relation of Canaan to The State of Final Rest (Heb. 4:1, 10)”—P. 422

https://www.monergism.com/typology-scripture-ebook

I have found that dispensationalists are confused when presented with Rom 4:13, “The promise made to Abraham and his offspring that he should be heir of the world...”. They cannot see how the promise made to Abraham regarding the Promised Land means that his descendants inherit the world. There is no OT scripture that says that. They do not want to investigate further because that could lead to the collapse of their theories regarding the return to the land of Israel. If only they would read Fairbairn and other such writers they would be amazed at how the patriarchs understood the significance of the possession of Canaan, and how beautifully the Old and the New Testaments fit together in the explanation of the promise. It is easier to understand these things if you are already committed to Covenant Theology.

 

[RamistThomist]

I don't think the physical world as a whole will be destroyed. I do think NATO and HRC will destroy much of it.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Both. I don't mind saying I hold to a roughly amillennial structure, just so some Reformed don't hyperventilate. But unlike most amils, I have futurist content into my system (or just content in general).

Would your eschatology now be similar to that of the Protestant Reformed Churches? If you go onto Youtube, there are a number of videos from the recent British Reformed Fellowship conference in Northern Ireland that expounds their viewpoint.

 

[RamistThomist]

Both. I don't mind saying I hold to a roughly amillennial structure, just so some Reformed don't hyperventilate. But unlike most amils, I have futurist content into my system (or just content in general).

Would your eschatology now be similar to that of the Protestant Reformed Churches? If you go onto Youtube, there are a number of videos from the recent British Reforme Fellowship conference in Northern Ireland that expounds their viewpoint.

No doubt there is overlap. I try to avoid terms like "amillennial," since it would have been irrelevant for most of the church age. But yeah, probably.

 

[MW]

(or just content in general).

The present rule of Christ is the content, which is recognised by those who have ears to hear.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

One of the promises the Jews rejected was the Kingdom. For us, the everlasting land is fulfilled in the new heavens and new earth, but we live the eschaton here and now, in Christ's Kingdom. He reigns now... If that makes sense.

But, as Apostle Paul laid out in Romans 2, the true Jew is not those of fleshly lineage, but the true Jew is one who has had the circumcision of the heart and not the foreskin. Both natural born Jew and Gentile fit this now. They are one in the body of Christ. So, I am NOT a dispensationalist at all. They see the promises of the Jews and the promises of the Gentiles as not the same. So, I am the biggest CT'er you'll find, as God has always dealt with His ppl in covenants. The Adamic, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosiac, et al prove this to be biblical fact.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

FTR, Christ is ruling now. He is not waiting to rule when He comes at the consummation of all things, but rules now.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I am starting to rethink my Amill view of eschatology and think that the historic-premill view may be more biblically affirmed. Yet, there are so things I am still trying to flesh out. If there are some Chiliasts on here, let me know on this thread and I'll ask you some questions to clear up my thoughts. Thanks in advance.

I'm premil but I'm not going to be able to go into much detail here due to time constraints. I only know of one or two others on here that post regularly. You might try the FB group "Historic (Classic) Premil." It might take a little while to get answers there as well, but it is probably more likely to happen there than it will here.

One of the better introductory sermon series I've come across in recent years is this one by a Reformed Baptist pastor. This is the first of about 7 messages that is basically an excursus on the subject within his series on the Sermon on the Mount. I haven't listened to it in a few years, but I remember it being food for thought on Rev. 20 and on rebutting the amil two age view, if nothing else.

The Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony is a Reformed organization that holds to premillennialism.

One thing to note is that while some of the older writers (including Calvinistic writers like Bonar, Spurgeon and Ryle) affirm that the church is spiritual Israel in some sense, their teaching on the restoration of Israel will look somewhat "dispensational" since they taught that there was unfulfilled prophecy pertaining to national/ethnic Israel. Regarding certain texts, they will insist that Israel means national/ethic Israel where amils and modern "historic" premils will say it refers to the church instead. But this was basically the "Historic" Premil view before George Ladd's teaching came to the fore.

Regardless, it is a good idea to investigate something thoroughly instead of backing away because you read one sentence that is too close to something else that you reject or come across bad teaching by those who hold to a certain view. Examples would include rejecting infant baptism because Romanists and liberals do it or rejecting Baptist views because most of them aren't 5 point Calvinists or decide they can't be Baptist because some cults reject infant baptism and practice immersion. But some do make snap decisions based on things like that.

How does the Chiliast/pre-mill view the resurrection of the just and unjust? Do they see a general resurrection where both are resurrected at the same time?