Christ's Second Coming: Will it be Premillennial?

Status
Not open for further replies.

tcalbrecht

Puritan Board Junior
Originally posted by JohnV
Tom:

I was referring to the Five Pillar Reconstructionist theology. It has five basic positions that it deems necessary: Calvinistic Soteriology, Postmillennial Eschatology, Presuppositional Apologetic, Theonomic Ethic, and Dominion Theology.

That's Covenant Theology, not "dominion".

Anyway, not knowing the specific of the situation of which you speak, I cannot comment.

I think we can all agree that the Word of God is preemminent, and the "supreme judge" of all matters both doctrinal and practical. Salvation does not come by works of of the law, but but faith alone in Christ alone. That the law of God is good and holy, and commended for what it says to all human institutions. And that all human authority is bound to say and act in accordance with God's revealed will.

I find in the Westminster Standards a prescription for a theonomic approach to civil government. There we find references to things such as "the wholesome laws of each commonwealth", which presupposes a standard for judging "wholesomeness".

Perhaps we disagree on the interpretation and resulting application of some of the details of the law. (What exactly does "general equity" mean in the Confession?) All the theonomists that I have read have admitted as much, and that hard work needs to be done, not simply sweeping stuff under the rug by appealing to categories and pigeoning-holing of laws. Or by appealing to larger theories such as so-called redemptive-historical approach as a way of dismissing theonomists' concerns.

Discussions are good.

[Edited on 13-12-2004 by tcalbrecht]
 

JohnV

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Tom:

In this particular case it was testified under oath that it was Dominion Theology. I have it on record, so there is no mistaking it.

Anyways, you're right about our mutual benefit from these discussions. I certainly owe a great deal to the Reconstructionists on the Board for doing a lot of the legwork in finding the relevant quotes, and for helping me to work out the concepts involved. That particular form of Reconstructionism is now so discredited that they themselves are too embarassed to repeat their former coonvictions in the same terms. What used to be "Biblically necessary" is now "adiaphora", which is quite a retreat. We all had a hand in that in some small way.
 

BlackCalvinist

Puritan Board Senior
Although I haven't skimmed the whole thread.....

anyone familiar with Messiah's Kingdom ?

http://www.messiahskingdom.com

The authors of the site are reformed.

Lotsa good church father quotes for you there. The early church was premill and futurist.... (not Dispensational premill). Kinda hard to argue with the writings of the church fathers themselves, since they constitute history. Amillennialism really didn't get a 'rise' until Origen began allegorizing prophecy (among other areas of scripture) and Augustine put it all into perspective with 'City of God'.

Of course, you've probably heard that argument a million times..... :lol:
 

Fernando

Puritan Board Freshman
the early church and the millennium

OS_X,

You might want to take a look at Charles E. Hill´s book "œRegnum Caelorum" on the subject of what the early church believed about the millennium. Hill shows that the early premillennialists believed that the souls of dead Christians waited in Sheol/Hades until Christ´s return. Other Christians believed that the souls of the righteous were in heaven with Christ. This second group were the amillennialists. In the long run the church rejected premillennialism largely because of its teaching about souls in Sheol/Hades. I think Hill makes a good case that premillennialism was not the only or even predominant view in the church from the earliest days.
 

BlackCalvinist

Puritan Board Senior
Originally posted by Fernando
OS_X,

You might want to take a look at Charles E. Hill´s book "œRegnum Caelorum" on the subject of what the early church believed about the millennium. Hill shows that the early premillennialists believed that the souls of dead Christians waited in Sheol/Hades until Christ´s return. Other Christians believed that the souls of the righteous were in heaven with Christ. This second group were the amillennialists. In the long run the church rejected premillennialism largely because of its teaching about souls in Sheol/Hades. I think Hill makes a good case that premillennialism was not the only or even predominant view in the church from the earliest days.

Well, Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary....what do we do ? Evaluate what was right with his theology and toss out the rest. I think many premill folks today do the same in regard to the state of the soul after death when compared to the early church. So the church rejecting premillennialism because of its' teaching about souls in Sheol/hades is irrelevant to whether or not the Bible teaches premillennialism. While the two are related to oneanother, they really don't have any huge bearing on oneanother. Name me one legit (no quacks, please) premillennialist today who believes that the souls of Christians dwell in 'Abraham's bosom' until the return of Christ.
 

BlackCalvinist

Puritan Board Senior
in addition, if I'm reading 'Dialogue with Trypho' correctly, Irenaeus says of those who deny the 1000 year reign of Christ and believe that souls are instantly taken to heaven upon death, ALSO DENY A BODILY RESURRECTION. Would this be the same group you refer to ?
 

Fernando

Puritan Board Freshman
OS_X,

We´ve got at least two different issues here: 1) The historical issue of what the early church believed about the millennium, and 2) The far more important issue of what the Bible actually teaches.

You referred to a website that makes some claims on issue 1; the early church was premillennial and amillennialism is a Johnny Come Lately. I replied by referring you to a historical theological study by Charles Hill that presents a different viewpoint. If you are interested in historical theology, we can discuss the issue of the millennium on that basis. If you want to discuss it on a biblical basis, no problem. But please don´t use the common tactic of making a historical claim and then when it´s challenged dropping history and thumping your Bible. We all subscribe to the supreme authority of Scripture here.
 

Fernando

Puritan Board Freshman
millennium

Originally posted by OS_X
in addition, if I'm reading 'Dialogue with Trypho' correctly, Irenaeus says of those who deny the 1000 year reign of Christ and believe that souls are instantly taken to heaven upon death, ALSO DENY A BODILY RESURRECTION. Would this be the same group you refer to ?

Again, I refer you to HIll's book. He deals with this very issue in-depth.

Justin Martyr was one of the early premills, and even he acknowledged that some who held the true orthodox faith differed with him about the millennium. The orthodox of course accepted the resurrection of the "flesh" (original wording of the Apostles' Creed). Those who rejected the resurrection were called "Gnostics."
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
Amill vs Postmill

What is the simplistic definition of the difference between these two views?

Or if someone can, the simplistic definition of each of these views.

Thanks
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
Thow in Premill

Might as well throw in Pre-mill into the definitions. And any other if you fell like it.

TD
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
or you could read something by Millard Erickson. The reason I say is that Boettner's arguementation was affected by old age, at least that is what I heard.
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
I was actually looking for...

a one to two sentence loose definition from some of you here on this board. Sometimes as I read the posts, amill and post mill become somewhat cluttered in my mind.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
technically amillennialism is postmill, of sorts. We are living in the millennium now, and Christ will return at the end of the millennium. Postmillennioalism would see the millennium, in its entirety, at a later date and it a golden age. amill- sees us living now in the spiritual reign of Christ.
 

tcalbrecht

Puritan Board Junior
Premillennialism?

Frankly, I never really understood premillennialism, either historical or dispie.

I do not undertand what is going on during this future millennium, nor do I really understand who is involved.

Supposedly Christ is physically on the earth with His saints, doing what? Are they just literally sitting on thrones ala Rev. 20:4,5? Are they actually in Jerusalem? Are there unconverted, untransformed people still populating the earth? Satan is bound, but is there sin on the earth? Are folks scattered over the face of the earth, or is there a mass pilgrimage to Jerusalem?

[Edited on 16-12-2004 by tcalbrecht]
 

tdowns

Puritan Board Junior
Excellent!

The timing issue is key to my understanding. I appreciate the effort, your response was very helpful. The timing was what was confusing, pre is before, and post after, so I couldn't quite figure out the A, but, now I understand that distinction, I also understand that there are many differences within each. I'm going to pick up one of those books that covers a few different takes. I've read a disp version of that, but it was a wash! And I've read Demar and Sproul (Very convincing to me), but never a good summary of the different views, especially as they get into the historic, theo, reconst, etc. One of those books is a must for me for the holidays.

Thanks Paul

TD

[Edited on 16-12-2004 by tdowns007]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top