Definitions of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism

[Puritan Sailor]

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.

Not really. Like I mentioned before, many "post mils" today hold to the Amil view of the timing of the millennium but keep the Christianization concept of the old post-mil view. Perhaps we should call them neo-post-mils or something, just to define the new category. Either variation fits with the language of the Standards, so most presbyters shouldn't have a problem with it.

 

[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.

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.

I am not redefining the terms, but I believe they are commonly used incorrectly. I posted this thread hoping someone well studied on the history of millennial positions in Reformed theology would be able to tell me whether their common use is what they are actually intended to convey. Regarding Bahsen's position, it is not inconsistent with an Amillennial view of the millennium. One may believe in the Christianization of the nations as well as theonomic rule, while holding an Amillennial view of the millennium - i.e., that the millennium is the church age.

 

[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.

I am not redefining the terms, but I believe they are commonly used incorrectly. I posted this thread hoping someone well studied on the history of millennial positions in Reformed theology would be able to tell me whether their common use is what they are actually intended to convey. Regarding Bahsen's position, it is not inconsistent with an Amillennial view of the millennium. One may believe in the Christianization of the nations as well as theonomic rule, while holding an Amillennial view of the millennium - i.e., that the millennium is the church age.

With all due respect but it seems you may be forcing these two defenitions to die the death of a thousand qualifications.

 

[au5t1n]

Well, I don't get to decide what the words mean or don't mean - if that's what they mean, then that's what they mean. It isn't that complicated for amillennial to mean that the church age is the millennium, and postmillennial that Christ returns after the millennium. I want to know if this is their historical use. If so, then they were not intended to convey a belief for or against Christianization, but rather to convey the nature of the millennium - which makes a lot more sense given the makeup of the words themselves.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Well, I don't get to decide what the words mean or don't mean - if that's what they mean, then that's what they mean. It isn't that complicated for amillennial to mean that the church age is the millennium, and postmillennial that Christ returns after the millennium. I want to know if this is their historical use. If so, then they were not intended to convey a belief for or against Christianization, but rather to convey the nature of the millennium - which makes a lot more sense given the makeup of the words themselves.

Unfortunately, the names have evolved to be associated more with your understanding of "Christianization" rather than the specifc timing of the millennium. There are other theological presuppositions associated with the millenial view than just the timing. A couple generations back, the camps were more clear about that. But due to the scholarly interaction of the amils and post-mils, the newer postmils have blurred the distinctions regarding the timing of the millennium, instead turning the debate into the nature of the millennium. Sorry, it doesn't get cut and dry in eschatology.

 

[jwright82]

Well, I don't get to decide what the words mean or don't mean - if that's what they mean, then that's what they mean. It isn't that complicated for amillennial to mean that the church age is the millennium, and postmillennial that Christ returns after the millennium. I want to know if this is their historical use. If so, then they were not intended to convey a belief for or against Christianization, but rather to convey the nature of the millennium - which makes a lot more sense given the makeup of the words themselves.

Fair enough fair enough. I should pay better attention to the posts. I was mistaken about what this post was all about, my apologeze, I am sorry.

 

[au5t1n]

No worries. I guess words really do change.

Maybe this is why people give me funny looks when I use the word "conversation" in the older sense of the word.

 

[CNJ]

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".)

Jay E. Adams is considered an amillenialist, but he describes his view as a "realized millennialist". I like his book The Time is at Hand. Riley, you might fit Adam's category. I have decided this view myself. See http://millennialdreams.blogspot.com/

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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".)

Jay E. Adams is considered an amillenialist, but he describes his view as a "realized millennialist". I like his book The Time is at Hand. Riley, you might fit Adam's category. I have decided this view myself. See Millennial Dreams

Thanks! While I haven't read, "The Time is at Hand", I did read your post on your blog in which you make reference to Adams' "realized escatology." While I agree that we are now experiencing Christ's millenial reign, I also believe (based on biblical prophecies) that we will continue to see an increasingly greater outpouring of God's grace on the nations, resulting in more faithful churches around the globe and a greater number of Christians, including in nations in which there are now few Christians. I don't gather that this is yours or Adams view based on your post. Although I do not believe that persecution will cease until Christ returns, or that Christ's return must necessarily be a long way off, I think my eschatological optimism would put me under the "postmillenial" umbrella.

 

[Peairtach]

Some amils believe that the conquest of the Earth by the Gospel posited by postmils is a possibility but that unlike postmils do not believe it is clearly foretold in Scripture.

Amils can't deny that the Church has made progress since the first century, e.g. there are more Christians in the World today than there were then. But they believe that as the Church makes progress in history it will always be countered by the Devil in such a way that the Church and true Gospel will never decisively triumph in history, but will always be frustrated.

Evil will always make equal and opposite or greater progress than Christ will, by His Spirit, Word, Church and Providence. Christ will never triumph over the forces of Evil in the World in history. Christ will not triumph by His Gospel in history, but only by His Second Advent at the end of the World, which of course will convert no-one. This is what amils believe.

I believe some variety of postmil is closer to the biblical teaching.