Definitions of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism

[au5t1n]

I often hear the words amillennialism and postmillennialism defined the following way:

An amillennialist believes that Christ will return after the millennium, but the nations will not be Christianized prior to his return.

A postmillennialist believes that Christ will return after the millennium, and the nations will be Christianized prior to his return.

My understanding, though, is that the words are properly defined as such:

An amillennialist believes that the Church Age is the millennium, regardless of whether he believes the nations will be Christianized or not.

A postmillennialist believes that Christ will return after the millennium, regardless of whether he believes the nations will be Christianized or not.

I notice that while the first two definitions - the more common ones - do not overlap, the second set of definitions leave room for overlap between views. Are my definitions (the second set) correct or do they need some work? Is the first set of definitions correct; and if not, why and when did the words come to be commonly used that way?

 

[au5t1n]

*bump*

 

[Scott1]

Amillennialism would say Christ is ruling spiritually now, right now from Heaven. His reign began when He conquered sin and death on the cross and ascended to the right hand of God the Father. His reign will be completed when He returns, as judge of all men.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Both Amil and Ppostmil are postmillenial regarding their view about the return of Christ. Both believe he returns after the millennium. Both believe that Christ is reigning now from heaven. Both believe the gospel will advance to the ends of the earth and all the elect will be gathered in, no matter what opposition may come. The difference is our definition of "victory" in the present evil age. Post-mil believe "victory" is the gradual transformation of the present evil age into a Christianized age. Amil's believe victory is the successful gathering of the elect in spite of all the opposition, and the conquering and immediate transformation of the present evil age with the return of Christ and the resurrection. Some broad strokes of course, but that's the big picture. They disagree over what the lasting effects of the gospel will be before Christ returns.

 

[au5t1n]

But an amillennialist may believe that the nations will be converted.

 

[Skyler]

I think Riddelbarger said something about that in one of his lectures on amillenialism... I forget which though. I think he was saying that amillenialism is postmillenial, but don't quote me on that--it's been a few months since I listened to it.

 

[au5t1n]

Yeah, I think the point I'm trying to touch on is that the two words concern only what one believes the millennium is and how it relates to the return of Christ, but that it has nothing to do with whether the nations will be converted (unless I'm mistaken).

 

[Skyler]

The term itself maybe, but the positions that they've come to describe do. Just like "theonomy" means only "God's law" but has come to describe a much more complicated position.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Both Amil and Ppostmil are postmillenial regarding their view about the return of Christ. Both believe he returns after the millennium. Both believe that Christ is reigning now from heaven. Both believe the gospel will advance to the ends of the earth and all the elect will be gathered in, no matter what opposition may come. The difference is our definition of "victory" in the present evil age. Post-mil believe "victory" is the gradual transformation of the present evil age into a Christianized age. Amil's believe victory is the successful gathering of the elect in spite of all the opposition, and the conquering and immediate transformation of the present evil age with the return of Christ and the resurrection. Some broad strokes of course, but that's the big picture. They disagree over what the lasting effects of the gospel will be before Christ returns.

Puritan sailor,

You are correct in that the distinction between amillennial and postmillenial views is the extent of the success of the gospel in this age. This is an important point. However even here we find a broad spectrum within each view.

Among amillenialists, there are those who believe the extent of the gospel's reach will only get worse until Christ returns. There are also those who believe it *may* get better, who would point optimistically to the sucess that the gospel has already enjoyed in converting sinners of many nations.

Among postmillenialists, there is a spectrum ranging from those whose view is so optimistic that they think every nation will be converted en masse to the Reformed faith, and on the other hand there are those who believe that persecution of Christians will continue until Christ's return in the majority of the world (reference the Duch annotations by the synod of Dordt), but that the best is yet to come, and that there are prophecies of the conversion of the nations such as in Jeremiah 3 and Isaiah 2 which still await their fullest fulfillment in this age.

My own view is the latter, in that I believe that the best is yet to come, and that there are prophecies concerning the success of the gospel in this millenial age which have not yet been fulfilled to the extent that they willl be before Christ returns. Yet we ought not to think that Christ's return is necessarily a long way off (for we don't know this). And the Scriptures are clear that persecution continues until Christ's return.

Do you think this view is amillennial or postmillenial? I would suggest historically that it has been seen as a version of postmillenialism. (Plus I can't stand the term, "amillennial".)

 

[au5t1n]

The problem, though, is that amillennial really just means the millennium is not a literal thousand years, but the entire church age. There are amillennialists who believe the nations will definitely be converted in this age. In fact, I'd say most postmillennialists are also amillennialists, with the exception of those who believe in a future 1000 year golden age. However, most postmillennialists do not believe in a future 1000 years; they believe that the millennium is the church age, which is the amillennial position; hence, there is significant overlap between the two. At least, this is my understanding.

 

[Turtle]

Conquerors

Among amillenialists, there are those who believe the extent of the gospel's reach will only get worse until Christ returns. There are also those who believe it *may* get better, who would point optimistically to the sucess that the gospel has already enjoyed in converting sinners of many nations.

Among postmillenialists, there is a spectrum ranging from those whose view is so optimistic that they think every nation will be converted en masse to the Reformed faith, and on the other hand there are those who believe that persecution of Christians will continue until Christ's return in the majority of the world (reference the Duch annotations by the synod of Dordt), but that the best is yet to come, and that there are prophecies of the conversion of the nations such as in Jeremiah 3 and Isaiah 2 which still await their fullest fulfillment in this age.

What is the measure of the gospel having a greater reach? If the nations prove to be increasingly hateful and malicious to Christians before Christ returns, is it proof that the gospel is petering out with a whimper?

In these things we are more than conquerors: in tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and sword. As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

To you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If things will wax better and better, these verses seem obsolete.

Bryan

 

[Ivan]

I wish Christ would come today to put an end to these discussions.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Among amillenialists, there are those who believe the extent of the gospel's reach will only get worse until Christ returns. There are also those who believe it *may* get better, who would point optimistically to the sucess that the gospel has already enjoyed in converting sinners of many nations.

Among postmillenialists, there is a spectrum ranging from those whose view is so optimistic that they think every nation will be converted en masse to the Reformed faith, and on the other hand there are those who believe that persecution of Christians will continue until Christ's return in the majority of the world (reference the Duch annotations by the synod of Dordt), but that the best is yet to come, and that there are prophecies of the conversion of the nations such as in Jeremiah 3 and Isaiah 2 which still await their fullest fulfillment in this age.

What is the measure of the gospel having a greater reach? If the nations prove to be increasingly hateful and malicious to Christians before Christ returns, is it proof that the gospel is petering out with a whimper?

In these things we are more than conquerors: in tribulation, distress, persecution, famine, nakedness, peril, and sword. As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.

To you who are troubled, rest with us when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.

If things will wax better and better, these verses seem obsolete.

Bryan

Bryan,

In answer to your question, the success of the gospel in this present age is not, in my view, to be measured primarily by the attitude of civil governments and other powerful institutions of this world, which persecute the church, but by the increase of credible conversions to Christ, the increase of the number of true churches, and their increased dispersal throughout many regions and nations of the world.

 

[au5t1n]

Brothers, the topic of this thread is whether the words are commonly used/defined correctly, not whether the nations will be converted.

 

[Berean]

I wish Christ would come today to put an end to these discussions.

A big

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Brothers, the topic of this thread is whether the words are commonly used/defined correctly, not whether the nations will be converted.

I think Bryan just needed me to clarify my view, so that he could answer my question of whether my view should be called postmillenial or amillennial.

 

[au5t1n]

Hey, why y'all gotta be hatin' on the thread? I just want to know what the words really mean is all!

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

Brothers, the topic of this thread is whether the words are commonly used/defined correctly, not whether the nations will be converted.

I think Bryan just needed me to clarify my view, so that he could answer my question of whether my view should be called postmillenial or amillennial.

No worries. I didn't mean to jump on you guys, I was just worried this would turn into an argument between those who believe in the Christianization of the nations and those who don't. N.b. The first half of this post is directed at Berean and Ivan btw, not you guys.

 

[Ivan]

Hey, why y'all gotta be hatin' on the thread? I just want to know what the words really mean is all!

---------- Post added at 01:46 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:45 PM ----------

Brothers, the topic of this thread is whether the words are commonly used/defined correctly, not whether the nations will be converted.

I think Bryan just needed me to clarify my view, so that he could answer my question of whether my view should be called postmillenial or amillennial.

No worries. I didn't mean to jump on you guys, I was just worried this would turn into an argument between those who believe in the Christianization of the nations and those who don't. N.b. The first half of this post is directed at Berean and Ivan btw, not you guys.

Zzzzzzzz...uh...what...somebody say something to me?

 

[Berean]

Nothing personal, Austin. Discussion and debate are great. But someday they will come to an end. That's all. As Buddy Holly said, "Rave on."

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The problem, though, is that amillennial really just means the millennium is not a literal thousand years, but the entire church age. There are amillennialists who believe the nations will definitely be converted in this age. In fact, I'd say most postmillennialists are also amillennialists, with the exception of those who believe in a future 1000 year golden age. However, most postmillennialists do not believe in a future 1000 years; they believe that the millennium is the church age, which is the amillennial position; hence, there is significant overlap between the two. At least, this is my understanding.

You need to keep in mind that there has been some evolution in the terms and positions too. Amil strictly speaking, refers to the position that the millennium is not literal, but symbolic of the period of time between the two comings of Christ. Postmils, historically, believed in the literal millennium/golden age where the world is completely Christianized before the return of Christ. But over time, many post-mils have adopted the non-literal Amil view of the millennium, but retained the gradual transformation element of the old postmil view. And many Amil's had grown more "optimistic" about the possibilities of mass conversions and positive effects in the world but stop short of a "Christianized" world, understanding that persecution and tribulations will continue until Christ returns. So yes, there is a lot more overlap now than there use to be. And I would not be surprised if the two views evolved or merged even more in the coming years. We'll probably need some new names soon as the views outgrow their historic names.

 

[Turtle]

Brothers, the topic of this thread is whether the words are commonly used/defined correctly, not whether the nations will be converted.

It is a bit challenging to settle on a common definition of the various camps of thought, seeing that they all have their variations. Is it a problem that the definitions are a bit broad?

I don't think having varied definitions of the camps of thought is a problem as long as we don't waste our time trying to prove the camps of thought. After all, isn't it our hope to test discrete propositions against the scripture, regardless of which camp of thought puts it forward as theirs? In other words do we care who has the best summary or who authored the latest book? Don't we just hope to test claims with the book that sheds light?

The claim that the nations will be Christianized before Christ's return is testable. Some propose, "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord;" is fulfilled before Christ returns; Some say it is after He returns. There are many verses that talk about the nations, tribes, and kindreds before Christ's return (and what we cane expect and how we are to be encouraged to persevere), as well as after. Sorry if I hijacked your thread!

 

[jwright82]

These two papers helped me out a lot, you could say that my own view is a melding of the two.
Here they are:
This one is by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. and it is an amill critique on the postmill perspective http://newhope2.timberlakepublishing.com/files/Gaffin Theonomy and Eschatology.pdf.
Here is Bahnsen's defence of the postmill perspective PT031.

Here is the link to everything that Monergism.com has on Eschatology Monergism :: Eschatology.

 

[Osage Bluestem]

I wish Christ would come today to put an end to these discussions.

I agree.

This is actualy an interesting point you make though. I have noticed that the practical application of these escatologies in the lives of the adhearants is that the Amillenialist is looking for Christ to return everyday and the Postmillenialist thinks the return is far off because they do not see the word Christianized yet.

 

[jwithnell]

Interestingly, Webster's Dictionary defines postmillennialism as Christ's return after a future millennium. So the OP is correct as far as strict definitions go. However, I and many others who hold to a postmil view, see Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension as His triumph and the beginning of the millennium.

One difference that seems big to me, is the amillennialist view of God maintaining a remnant of believers through time (largely drawn from the OT prophets) rather than seeing the church and its influence increasing through time.

Another interesting tidbit; I've seen a number of authors mention that the postmil view had many more adherents prior to the end of the 1800s when the increasing viciousness of warfare culminating in World War I drove many away from a more optimistic perspective. World events shouldn't drive your theology, but I always found this point interesting.

 

[au5t1n]

These two papers helped me out a lot, you could say that my own view is a melding of the two.
Here they are:
This one is by Richard B. Gaffin Jr. and it is an amill critique on the postmill perspective http://newhope2.timberlakepublishing.com/files/Gaffin Theonomy and Eschatology.pdf.
Here is Bahnsen's defence of the postmill perspective PT031.

Here is the link to everything that Monergism.com has on Eschatology Monergism :: Eschatology.

Please read the original post. The question concerns definitions. Bahnsen is an amillennialist too.

---------- Post added at 11:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:38 AM ----------

Another interesting tidbit; I've seen a number of authors mention that the postmil view had many more adherents prior to the end of the 1800s when the increasing viciousness of warfare culminating in World War I drove many away from a more optimistic perspective. World events shouldn't drive your theology, but I always found this point interesting.

A popular name for World War I as it was happening was "Armageddon." Of course, we wouldn't expect them to have called it "World War I." "Armageddon" would have seemed like an appropriate name given that the style of warfare was unprecedented in history - submarines, planes, machine guns, and a whole lot of nations. You can hardly blame them for thinking that. I would have been worried too!

 

[Curt]

Nothing personal, Austin. Discussion and debate are great. But someday they will come to an end. That's all. As Buddy Holly said, "Rave on."

Oh yeah, Buddy Holly. My father told me about him.

 

[jwright82]

Please read the original post. The question concerns definitions. Bahnsen is an amillennialist too.

Two things:
1. You are going to have to sho me where Bahnsen defines himself as an amill, he has always defined himself as a postmill.
2. Any good defense and/or critique of a P.O.V. will always involve defining the terms under discussion, so I feel that my post is within the context of the original post.

 

[au5t1n]

Please read the original post. The question concerns definitions. Bahnsen is an amillennialist too.

Two things:
1. You are going to have to sho me where Bahnsen defines himself as an amill, he has always defined himself as a postmill.
2. Any good defense and/or critique of a P.O.V. will always involve defining the terms under discussion, so I feel that my post is within the context of the original post.

Did Bahnsen believe that the millennium is the entire church age, rather than a future 1000-year period? It is possible to be postmillennial and not amillennial, if one believes in a future millennium prior to Christ's return, and there are some postmils like that. But if I am not mistaken, Bahnsen was an amil postmil.

 

[jwright82]

Please read the original post. The question concerns definitions. Bahnsen is an amillennialist too.

Two things:
1. You are going to have to sho me where Bahnsen defines himself as an amill, he has always defined himself as a postmill.
2. Any good defense and/or critique of a P.O.V. will always involve defining the terms under discussion, so I feel that my post is within the context of the original post.

Did Bahnsen believe that the millennium is the entire church age, rather than a future 1000-year period? It is possible to be postmillennial and not amillennial, if one believes in a future millennium prior to Christ's return, and there are some postmils like that. But if I am not mistaken, Bahnsen was an amil postmil.

Bahnsen labled himself a postmill. Integeral to his thought here was also his beleif in theonomy. He beleived that the kingdom of God would physically overtake the kingdoms of this world and a golden age, I don't remember if he held to a literal 1,000 years or not, would come that was basically a theonomic goverment. If you are redefining these terms than I can see your point, but you would need to show why Bahnsen would qualify as a amill when he labled himself a postmill. Also these papers may help answer your original question so I thought they might be helpful to you or anyone else.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

What would happen if a man being examined by before prebsbytery were to say that he is both amillennial and postmillenial at the same time? I bet you'd have a lot of TEs/REs gritting their teeth and pulling their beards out.