postmillennialism, premillennialism, amillennialism - your stance?

[RamistThomist]

This may or may not have been posted already, but even if it has it is worth Reposting.

A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism

This piece by Prof. David J. Engelsma is wonderful.

I hope it is better than his book on the Spiritual Kingdom.

Did not read it. Want to elaborate?

http://beretta-online.com/articles/theology/engelsma1.pdf

First of all, I am not postmil so of much of the book, I don't care (it being a critique of postmil). However, at best Engelsma comes close to libeling Christian teachers. At worse he has some heterodox views which seems to contradict his own doctrinal statndards.

First of all Engelsma has a weird view: resurrection of the soul. His interpretation of Rev 20 demands such an odd construct.

And then there is just the sheer name calling in the book:

Throughout the book Prof. Engelsma frequently misrepresents the views of the postmillennial theologians he disagrees with. For example, in a chapter entitled “Jewish dreams,” he calls the postmillennial vision a “carnal” kingdom, “exactly the kind of Messianic kingdom dreamed and desired by the Jews n the days of Christ’s kingdom” [emphasis added], and he adds that postmillennialists want “Christ as the king of an earthly kingdom and … political power and earthly glory” (p 8). He goes so far as to begin slinging mud by saying that for any postmillennial brother in Christ, “Christ’s coming is not his hope, the carnal kingdom is” (p 11). It is, in fact, difficult to count the number of times Engelsma uses the term “carnal kingdom” in his book to describe the postmillennial view of the kingdom of God.

On Englesma's grounds, Ezekiel 36 and Revelation 21-22 are earthly and carnal since they portray realities that cannot seriously be spiritualized away.

 

[Robert Truelove]

I have never been convinced that Q. 191 of the Larger Catechsim is 'clearly' Post-mil. As one who holds to an Amil. position, I can affirm the answer to question 191 without hesitation.

One of the problems with the Post/Amil argument is these terms were not used as antithetical positions in history. I know the term amillenialmsm is fairly new; not sure how far the term postmillennialism goes back.

From my understanding of history, you had the pre-mil view(s) and then you had the post-mil view(s) that also incorporated what has now been segregated out as a separate position called amillenialmsm.

I believe in the victory of Christ and the gospel. The thing is, Christ has won in every century past, he is winning today, and he will win tomorrow. That has not meant and does not necessarily mean all the nations will be converted to Christ. The victory of Christ is seen as much in the martyrdom of hundreds of thousands like the the case of the Waldenses in the Piedmont; virtually wiping Christianity out of the region. This is every bit a victory as entire nation coming to Christ. According to my understanding of Revelation, Christ is not waiting for Christianized nations, but for the last martyr who will die for him (Rev 6:9-11).

As far as being active in kingdom growth, I believe that every Christian should be involved in working that out; it is our commission. What irks me the most about the dogmatic branch of reconstructionist postmillers, is that I have experienced, as a pastor, division over this issue when for me I have in times past been happy to make it a matter of liberty. That's not been good enough for those who are dogmatic reconstructionists. I've experienced it in the church, in other relationships, and on the Internet. I'm honestly at the place when someone comes to our church and is dogmatic on things like theonomy, postmillennialism, and reconstructionism, that I'm up front in telling them that we may not be the church they are looking for. I wish this were not the case because I honestly see these positions as a matter of liberty, but experience has shown that those that tend to strongly hold these views can be very divisive. This is sad because we are probably the most practically post-mil/reconstructionistic (I hope that's a word church that I know of for our size. Sadly, we don't have a marble bust of Rushdoony in the foyer so for all else that can be said about it, it just isn't enough for some.

Finally, its not just the actions of some that I find distasteful, but their lack of action. In the recent march in Atlanta against abortion for instance, I did not see one of the many aggressive post-millers I know in attendance. One individual I know who works for a well known reconstructionist ministry could not attend the march because they would not let him off work!!!

Boil it all down...in my ministry I want to be engaged in influencing the culture with the gospel, see sinners come to Christ, and raise godly children. I want to do what I can to see that godly laws are legislated and ungodly ones are struck down, etc. If this makes me a confused amillennialist than so be it.

As a pastor, I am much more interested in a demonstration of power; what you are doing to bring the gospel to all spheres of life, than I am in your talk; whatever 'ism' is your fancy. What I want to see is are you consistent in giving both of your time and money to the work of the ministry, making contributions to our food drives for the poor, going out of your way to get off work and march (yes even in the freezing rain) in the streets of our city against the evils of our day, sharing the gospel with the lost, being active in looking or opportunities to advance the gospel for Christ versus always being 'out of the know', etc. I have no interest in talk. As you can see from the length of my postm I am 'talked out' on this subject

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

 

[MW]

First of all Engelsma has a weird view: resurrection of the soul. His interpretation of Rev 20 demands such an odd construct.

The application to the intermediate state is basic amil teaching. Non-historicist postmils also accept it -- e.g., Warfield: "It, too, embraces the whole inter-adventual period, but that period as passed in the security and glory of the intermediate state." (Biblical Doctrines, p. 658.) My personal opinion is that the Apocalypse has suffered from gross misunderstanding because it has not been interpreted according to its own thematic statement, which is the comparison of the here with the hereafter.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Please elaborate, brother

And did you vote?

 

[MW]

Please elaborate, brother

And did you vote?

I didn't vote becase you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. I hold the "Puritan hope" within the amil framework of exegesis.

The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.

 

[panta dokimazete]

The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.

(don't faint, now! )

 

[MW]

The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.

(don't faint, now! )

 

[KMK]

Please elaborate, brother

And did you vote?

I didn't vote becase you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. I hold the "Puritan hope" within the amil framework of exegesis.

The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.

Could you write a book for us? Perhaps a commentary on Revelation? Nothing fancy. Maybe in your spare time...

 

[MW]

Could you write a book for us? Perhaps a commentary on Revelation? Nothing fancy. Maybe in your spare time...

That's just not possible. But I would suggest anyone who reads the book should try to do so from beginning to end in one sitting, and keep in mind the suffering condition of Christ's servants (the things which are) in comparison with the key statement of chap. 1:7, that He cometh with clouds (the things which shall be hereafter).

 

[holyfool33]

Dispensational Pre-Mil

 

[dwayne]

Amill or Postmill is the way to go. The only problem is that I found Amills rather boring and unmotivated. Excitement for eschatology is only found with the Premills and the Postmills. From the rapture right prognosticators to the erudite work of the Postmills, these two groups have passion. But the amills.

There is not much to get excited about if Christ's kingdom is predestined to defeat in history, while humanists rule the world.

Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world so don't look for it,his kingdom ultimate place is the new heavens and the new earth. Kim Riddlebarger in "A Study of American Postmillenialism" says,"Another critical factor which must be kept in view is that the term postmillenial is usually understood today as an eschatological position quite distinct from "amillennialism." in fact, it is generally understood that one who adopts a postmillennial eschatology self-consciously rejects the amilllennial understanding of the millennial age and nature of the reign of Christ. However, the term amillennialism, as we will see, was not used in the ninteenth century, and the origin of the term is shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, Gaffin asks the poignant questionin this regard, "Who coined the term amillennial?" The problem is that apparently there is not a clear-cut defining moment when the term amillennial comes into standard usage and the position is recognized as something quite distinct from postmillennialism. This problem is illustrated by the treatment given this subject by Louis Berkgof, Berkhof, himself a Princeton graduate, and astudent of B.B.Warfield, pointed out in 1938 that "the name [amillennialism]is new indeed, but the view to which it has applied is as old as Christianity. And yet, virtuallyall historians of doctrine agree that what is now known as amillennialist is generally the eschatology of historic Christianity. Even B.B.Warfield, usually portrayed as postmillennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend SamuelG. Craig, that amillennialism of the type held by his esteemed Dutch colleagues Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper "is the historic Protestant view, as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period including the Westminster StandardS."What then are the differences between "amillennialism" and "postmillennialism," and how do these terms develop unique distinctives".

 

[dwayne]

I have question for the postmillennialist on this site such as DanielRitchie that said that amillennialist was pessimistic about their end times belief's.How long will it take for this victory to take place? I see the world around us is not getting better and better,but is getting worse,for instance the slaughter of million's of babies avery year just for starters.

 

[dwayne]

I have never been convinced that Q. 191 of the Larger Catechsim is 'clearly' Post-mil. As one who holds to an Amil. position, I can affirm the answer to question 191 without hesitation.

One of the problems with the Post/Amil argument is these terms were not used as antithetical positions in history. I know the term amillenialmsm is fairly new; not sure how far the term postmillennialism goes back.

From my understanding of history, you had the pre-mil view(s) and then you had the post-mil view(s) that also incorporated what has now been segregated out as a separate position called amillenialmsm.

I believe in the victory of Christ and the gospel. The thing is, Christ has won in every century past, he is winning today, and he will win tomorrow. That has not meant and does not necessarily mean all the nations will be converted to Christ. The victory of Christ is seen as much in the martyrdom of hundreds of thousands like the the case of the Waldenses in the Piedmont; virtually wiping Christianity out of the region. This is every bit a victory as entire nation coming to Christ. According to my understanding of Revelation, Christ is not waiting for Christianized nations, but for the last martyr who will die for him (Rev 6:9-11).

As far as being active in kingdom growth, I believe that every Christian should be involved in working that out; it is our commission. What irks me the most about the dogmatic branch of reconstructionist postmillers, is that I have experienced, as a pastor, division over this issue when for me I have in times past been happy to make it a matter of liberty. That's not been good enough for those who are dogmatic reconstructionists. I've experienced it in the church, in other relationships, and on the Internet. I'm honestly at the place when someone comes to our church and is dogmatic on things like theonomy, postmillennialism, and reconstructionism, that I'm up front in telling them that we may not be the church they are looking for. I wish this were not the case because I honestly see these positions as a matter of liberty, but experience has shown that those that tend to strongly hold these views can be very divisive. This is sad because we are probably the most practically post-mil/reconstructionistic (I hope that's a word church that I know of for our size. Sadly, we don't have a marble bust of Rushdoony in the foyer so for all else that can be said about it, it just isn't enough for some.

Finally, its not just the actions of some that I find distasteful, but their lack of action. In the recent march in Atlanta against abortion for instance, I did not see one of the many aggressive post-millers I know in attendance. One individual I know who works for a well known reconstructionist ministry could not attend the march because they would not let him off work!!!

Boil it all down...in my ministry I want to be engaged in influencing the culture with the gospel, see sinners come to Christ, and raise godly children. I want to do what I can to see that godly laws are legislated and ungodly ones are struck down, etc. If this makes me a confused amillennialist than so be it.

As a pastor, I am much more interested in a demonstration of power; what you are doing to bring the gospel to all spheres of life, than I am in your talk; whatever 'ism' is your fancy. What I want to see is are you consistent in giving both of your time and money to the work of the ministry, making contributions to our food drives for the poor, going out of your way to get off work and march (yes even in the freezing rain) in the streets of our city against the evils of our day, sharing the gospel with the lost, being active in looking or opportunities to advance the gospel for Christ versus always being 'out of the know', etc. I have no interest in talk. As you can see from the length of my postm I am 'talked out' on this subject

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Very well said

 

[GoYouBlues]

Postmillenial position here.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

amillennial, thanks to Kim Riddlebarger's books A Man of Sin and A Case for Amillenialism.

 

[RamistThomist]

I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.

 

[KMK]

I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.

Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?

 

[BertMulder]

Has any of you read Hoeksema's

Table of Contents for Behold he Cometh

 

[RamistThomist]

I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.

Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?

As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist?

Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment).

I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century.

I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. Given my ontology, this makes perfect sense).

 

[KMK]

I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.

Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?

As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist?

Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment).

I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century.

I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. Given my ontology, this makes perfect sense).

I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?

 

[RamistThomist]

Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?

As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist?

Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment).

I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century.

I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. Given my ontology, this makes perfect sense).

I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?

No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).

But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the bodily sense.

 

[KMK]

As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist?

Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment).

I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century.

I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. Given my ontology, this makes perfect sense).

I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?

No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).

But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the bodily sense.

I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.

 

[RamistThomist]

I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?

No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).

But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the bodily sense.

I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.

True, in post 139 I expressed my dissatisfaction with millennial schemata. I think they reflect a modernity-complex that wants to reduce everything into tidy categories.

However, to be fair to the premillennialist, when he says "second coming" he means by "second coming" the "second bodily coming. Thus he can unequivocally affirm that the Kingdom has come in Christ, that Christ has come in judgment on Jerusalem, and that the Kingdom spreads across the globe.

 

[KMK]

No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).

But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the bodily sense.

I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.

True, in post 139 I expressed my dissatisfaction with millennial schemata. I think they reflect a modernity-complex that wants to reduce everything into tidy categories.

However, to be fair to the premillennialist, when he says "second coming" he means by "second coming" the "second bodily coming. Thus he can unequivocally affirm that the Kingdom has come in Christ, that Christ has come in judgment on Jerusalem, and that the Kingdom spreads across the globe.

I share your concern about using labels. They are useful to a point but they can often cause confusion (like Daniel Ritchie labeling himself a 'postmil')

But, just to clarify...

You are Premil in that you believe in a future literal Kingdom inaugurated by a second bodily coming of Christ but, the book of Revelation does not describe that second coming nor is there any future for ethnic Israel.

Am I on the right track?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.

True, in post 139 I expressed my dissatisfaction with millennial schemata. I think they reflect a modernity-complex that wants to reduce everything into tidy categories.

However, to be fair to the premillennialist, when he says "second coming" he means by "second coming" the "second bodily coming. Thus he can unequivocally affirm that the Kingdom has come in Christ, that Christ has come in judgment on Jerusalem, and that the Kingdom spreads across the globe.

I share your concern about using labels. They are useful to a point but they can often cause confusion (like Daniel Ritchie labeling himself a 'postmil')

But, just to clarify...

You are Premil in that you believe in a future literal Kingdom inaugurated by a second bodily coming of Christ but, the book of Revelation does not describe that second coming nor is there any future for ethnic Israel.

Am I on the right track?

Close. I look for a millennial kingdom that takes place in the created-order (not some Kantian "spiritual" kingdom).

the book of Revelation does describe it (chapter 20), but it is hinted at all over the Old Testament prophets.

Revelation might or might not hint at a future Israel. That is necessary to progressive dispensationalism but not to me. Dispensationalists hold that the nation of Israel mediates blessings to the world from Jerusalem during the millennial kingdom. I hold that Jesus mediates blessings to the world during the millennial kingdom. Israel is lagniappe.

So if a future Israelic conversion is proved false, that doesn't do much for my position.

 

[MW]

Close. I look for a millennial kingdom that takes place in the created-order (not some Kantian "spiritual" kingdom).

I cannot see how this is possible when your premil scheme binds you in to the expectation that only the personal and visible appearing of Jesus Christ can usher in the millennial kingdom. This effectively reduces all "kingdom" hope to a future period, and thereby nullifies any anticipation of the reigning King renewing the face of the earth prior to His triumphal advent by means of Word and Spirit.

I also think you mistakenly describe the amil position when you call it a Kantian "spiritual" kingdom. I agree the kingdom is spiritual -- righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; but that does not mean it takes place outside the created order. Amils regard God's kingdom as present in the Christian influence which brings light to the world.

 

[panta dokimazete]

Rev. Winzer, I did not see your name on the poll, but I take it you are amil?

 

[MW]

Rev. Winzer, I did not see your name on the poll, but I take it you are amil?

Amil in exegesis, postmil in application. That's why I didn't vote.

 

[panta dokimazete]

gotcha - was wondering and appreciate the clarification

 

[Gesetveemet]

Rev. Winzer, I did not see your name on the poll, but I take it you are amil?

Amil in exegesis, postmil in application. That's why I didn't vote.

Sir, are you saying that you believe sin will be minimized before the return of our Lord?



William