Thinking about Millennial views

[KMK]

I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its all about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we will have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.

1)Is it fair to say that amillenialism says God will continue to save people and shed common grace around them right in the midst of the evil decaying world system but that the proportion of those saved will probably not increase (in relation to "the world")?

2)Would amillenialsim tend to say that things will get better and better in the church?

3)Would an "optimistic" amillenialist see the proportion increasing over time?

4) Any idea if the classic view tended either way ("optimistic"/"pessimistic") or is this a recent, unhelpful distinction?

Right on!

If we asked all those who believe in a millennium but did not believe in the successful advance of the gospel fully according to God's plan to leave the room, then we'ed still have all of us in attendance; none of us would leave. As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way.

This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.

All right! A JohnV post!

I get tired of Postmills bringing out the whole 'optimistist' vs. 'pessimist' false dichotomy. It appears to be a similar tactic as the Dispensational saying, "If you believe like I do you won't have to suffer through the Great Tribulation!"

Is the account of Gideon only needing 300 men to defeat the Midianites who 'lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude' pessimistic?

If the Lord chooses to pare down His army to but a few in order to win the ultimate battle, it is not pessimistic. It is glorious. If it brings God greater glory then it is in fact, 'optimistic'!

 

[JohnV]

As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way.

This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.

John V,

So, you are convinced of these things happening prior to Christ's second return? Is this one description of how it will happen?

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.


Or this?


Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.



Cheers,

Yes.

Amillennialism is a post-mil view too.

 

[JohnV]

All right! A JohnV post!

Thanks Ken, but I'm sorry to say that it's temporary. I'm laid up for a bit again, so I have some time on my hands lately.

 

[KMK]

All right! A JohnV post!

Thanks Ken, but I'm sorry to say that it's temporary. I'm laid up for a bit again, so I have some time on my hands lately.

Your loss is our gain!

 

[Roldan]

Here we go I did a search on this board and found the dialogue I had concerning this somewhat anyways.....I would reccomend reading through it I found it to be extremely helpful, not sure where Paul's posts went but here you go nonetheless...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/what-all-col-1-20-a-619/

Then we actually did more on this here..

http://www.puritanboard.com/f43/ezekiel-36-35-a-791/

Its kinda hard to figure out who is saying what since the format is off but any questions let me know i can redo it if i have to i guess

HOLLA!!!

 

[MW]

I get tired of Postmills bringing out the whole 'optimistist' vs. 'pessimist' false dichotomy.

I don't. It is a timely reminder to be watchful and diligent, and not allow the sight of defeat to quench faith's zeal. One thing is certain -- the world is not going to be Christianised in any sense of the word if the church doesn't pray and labour for that end, i.e., the end cannot be accomplished without the God appointed means.

 

[Roldan]

I get tired of Postmills bringing out the whole 'optimistist' vs. 'pessimist' false dichotomy.

I don't. It is a timely reminder to be watchful and diligent, and not allow the sight of defeat to quench faith's zeal. One thing is certain -- the world is not going to be Christianised in any sense of the word if the church doesn't pray and labour for that end, i.e., the end cannot be accomplished without the God appointed means.

What defeat? and why would my faith's zeal be quenched if I believe in a Sovereign Lord? I just don't get it

 

[turmeric]

Meg,

I think I know, but where would you say the idea of common grace ending would come from?

I'm not sure, will have to study it more.

Also, when it says that the elements will melt with fervent heat, how does that reconcile with God's promise to regenerate the heavens and the earth in Romans 8, and where Christ talks about the "regeneration of all things"?{/quote]

My understanding was that this happens and then the new heaven and earth appear and all that has not been destroyed will be redeemed. I read a book by a guy named Wolters that suggested that not everything would be destroyed, but only what is irredeemably corrupt or partakes of the "present age" rather than "the age to come". Again, I need to study this more.

 

[MW]

What defeat? and why would my faith's zeal be quenched if I believe in a Sovereign Lord? I just don't get it

The sight of defeat, that is, when we do not see all things under Christ's feet.

Why would faith's zeal be quenched? Because the vision of declension rather than revival tends to make exasperated prophets like Elijah despair that they are the only ones left and therefore escape for their lives rather than confront the enemy. A view of the end times as one of increasing apostasy and wickedness tends to have the same effect on the church.

 

[Christusregnat]

My understanding was that this happens and then the new heaven and earth appear and all that has not been destroyed will be redeemed. I read a book by a guy named Wolters that suggested that not everything would be destroyed, but only what is irredeemably corrupt or partakes of the "present age" rather than "the age to come". Again, I need to study this more.

Thanks Meg!

I happen to believe that the present world will be redeemed, and released from the bondage of corruption. Thank you for letting me know your view!

Cheers,

Adam

 

[Christusregnat]

Yes.

Amillennialism is a post-mil view too.

Excellent! So you believe that all of the nations will become Christ's disciples, and that there will be world peace through Messiah's reign over all nations before Christ's second coming? That is, that all nations will flow to Zion to receive the Law, and follow in His ways?

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

Is the account of Gideon only needing 300 men to defeat the Midianites who 'lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude' pessimistic?

Ken,

Absolutely excellent point! This is the same point made by our Savior when He tells us that the Kingdom of God starts out as the "little flock", or the mustard seed, which fulfills God's purpose by becoming the largest tree that overshadows all the other trees. Or, the leaven that leavens the whole lump, or the Rock in Daniel that destroys the nations, and then fills the whole earth.

The kingdom of God starts off very small, but ends the biggest, the most glorious, with all of the nations flowing into it, becoming Christ's disciples, and learning to obey Him in all things! God confounds the "wisdom" of the wise!

Cheers,

 

[JohnV]

Yes.

Amillennialism is a post-mil view too.

Excellent! So you believe that all of the nations will become Christ's disciples, and that there will be world peace through Messiah's reign over all nations before Christ's second coming? That is, that all nations will flow to Zion to receive the Law, and follow in His ways?

Cheers,

Will be? It hasn't happened already? The gates of hell already cannot avail against the city of God; God's irresistible grace already accomplishes all that it is sent to accomplish. God's Word already does not return to Him empty. God is doing in history exactly what His will desires. Christ's certain dominion is established even now already.

In this godless generation, where even churches are making a mockery of God's Word (e.g., in Canada they're publicly blessing and celebrating gay marriages) I can still see the advance of the gospel, the power of Christ's authority, and the victory over the power of sin.

Whatever my views on such things are, be assured, they are only my views, nothing more. To the degree that they are an expression of my personal millennial view to that degree are they merely adiaphora. I refuse to knowingly build doctrine on adiaphora; so I keep my millennial views in check.

 

[Roldan]

The sight of defeat, that is, when we do not see all things under Christ's feet.

Well that would beg the question of what does "all things" entail? I know what the postmil version of that is and I'm just not remotely convinced that scripture warrants that pressup.

Why would faith's zeal be quenched? Because the vision of declension rather than revival tends to make exasperated prophets like Elijah despair that they are the only ones left and therefore escape for their lives rather than confront the enemy. A view of the end times as one of increasing apostasy and wickedness tends to have the same effect on the church.

I believe that and my zeal is not quenched and I'm sure no other amil's either but you did forget one point that Christ Kingdom via the gospel message also increases alongside this wickedness hence enter the wheat and tares parable as also part of Christ kingdom lectures.

 

[Christusregnat]

Whatever my views on such things are, be assured, they are only my views, nothing more. To the degree that they are an expression of my personal millennial view to that degree are they merely adiaphora. I refuse to knowingly build doctrine on adiaphora; so I keep my millennial views in check.

This may sound pious, but anything scripture speaks about is NOT a matter of indifference. Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, not by those he thinks to be important. If scripture doesn't speak about eschatology, then it is adiaphora. If it does, then your statement is an affront to the authority of Scripture. I would ask you to prove that Scripture is agnostic with regard to eschatology.

Cheers,

 

[Christusregnat]

Well that would beg the question of what does "all things" entail? I know what the postmil version of that is and I'm just not remotely convinced that scripture warrants that pressup.

All things, entails all things: all of Christ's enemies must be made His footstool, and then the final enemy, death, will be conquered. All nations, all families, all high thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. The power and kingdom of Satan, the unbelief of the Jews, the blindness of the nations of the earth, the unconverted soul. This is what Scripture describes as "all things" which must be subjected to Christ our Lord before the resurrection of the dead.

Cheers,

 

[blhowes]

This may sound pious, but anything scripture speaks about is NOT a matter of indifference. Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, not by those he thinks to be important.

Did you get the impression that John was saying he thought certain parts of scripture were not important? I didn't read it that way.

 

[JohnV]

I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.

 

[blhowes]

I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.

My take on it was that, if you were saying that anything was not important, it was your opinion about the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.

 

[Christusregnat]

John,

I probably misread what you stated. Forgive me.

However, would you mind giving me some insight on what you intended to say?

"Whatever my views on such things are, be assured, they are only my views, nothing more. To the degree that they are an expression of my personal millennial view to that degree are they merely adiaphora. I refuse to knowingly build doctrine on adiaphora; so I keep my millennial views in check."

Again, forgive me for misreading, and I look forward to understanding more.

Cheers,

Adam

I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.

 

[KMK]

I think what John meant by 'adiaphora' was that a particular Millenial view is not essential to saving faith.

 

[Anton Bruckner]

I think what John meant by 'adiaphora' was that a particular Millenial view is not essential to saving faith.

one exception being, the hyper preterists that believe all of revelation has been fulfilled.

 

[KMK]

I think what John meant by 'adiaphora' was that a particular Millenial view is not essential to saving faith.

one exception being, the hyper preterists that believe all of revelation has been fulfilled.

I am not ready to go quite that far with *all* hyperpreterists but I share your grave concern.

 

[JohnV]

We don't know which millennial view is right. We can disagree with each other and still be within the doctrinal givens which the church has laid out. The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them.

So, as such I try deliberately not to put my own view of the millennium under any doctrinal understanding. I won't let something unchangeable stand on something that is changeable. It would be too poor a foundation. What God has made certain to us must remain absolutely certain; and those things which we do not fully understand we should be humble enough to admit that we do not understand.

Sure, there are many questions that remain unanswered. I don't understand everything even about some of the plainest truths. But that does not undermine the fact that doctrines are made certain by the fact that God has said so. It takes a lifetime of diligence to understand even a part of God's revelation. But through it all, from my poor understanding at the beginning up 'til now, the Word's own meaning took priority over my own understandings, my own presuppositions. And so I continue to learn.

 

[JohnV]

I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.

My take on it was that, if you were saying that anything was not important, it was your opinion about the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.

That's right, Bob. It's very important to be able to discern the difference between opinion and doctrine.

 

[Christusregnat]

So, as such I try deliberately not to put my own view of the millennium under any doctrinal understanding. I won't let something unchangeable stand on something that is changeable. It would be too poor a foundation. What God has made certain to us must remain absolutely certain; and those things which we do not fully understand we should be humble enough to admit that we do not understand.

John,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position! I admire your desire to walk humbly with your God, and pray that I may imitate it.

I think there are two issues: one is the specific issue of the millennium, and the other is the broader issue of eschatology. This is why the terms "pessimistic" and "optimistic" were used earlier, because not everyone who holds to a particular way of thinking identifies it with Rev. 20, and the "thousand years". The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.

That said, I do not think that the Westminster Standards, or the puritans generally, are silent on the Scripture's teaching regarding eschatology in general. They may have wisely been reticent to identify with a particular view of the Rev 20 issue, but not with the progress of the gospel in general.

Thanks for the interaction, and for your thoughts.

Cheers,

 

[KMK]

The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.

Interesting. I have never thought about that before.

That must be why the Divines did not use the actual word 'amillennial' when they were writing the Standards! (That is as close to a 'tongue in cheek' emoticon that I can find)

 

[Christusregnat]

Very sly Ken!

The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.

Interesting. I have never thought about that before.

That must be why the Divines did not use the actual word 'amillennial' when they were writing the Standards! (That is as close to a 'tongue in cheek' emoticon that I can find)

 

[JohnV]

So, as such I try deliberately not to put my own view of the millennium under any doctrinal understanding. I won't let something unchangeable stand on something that is changeable. It would be too poor a foundation. What God has made certain to us must remain absolutely certain; and those things which we do not fully understand we should be humble enough to admit that we do not understand.

John,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position! I admire your desire to walk humbly with your God, and pray that I may imitate it.

I think there are two issues: one is the specific issue of the millennium, and the other is the broader issue of eschatology. This is why the terms "pessimistic" and "optimistic" were used earlier, because not everyone who holds to a particular way of thinking identifies it with Rev. 20, and the "thousand years". The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.

That said, I do not think that the Westminster Standards, or the puritans generally, are silent on the Scripture's teaching regarding eschatology in general. They may have wisely been reticent to identify with a particular view of the Rev 20 issue, but not with the progress of the gospel in general.

Thanks for the interaction, and for your thoughts.

Cheers,

You're welcome.

For what it's worth, escatology is doctrinal, millennial views are not. The WS and TFU are very clear on escatology. It is foundational teaching, as reflected in the fact that it is included in the Apostles' Creed.

The Dispensationalists were not the first to have shifting sand (their own choices as to how to interpret the Bible) as a foundation for doctrine. The bottom line is that this is what is objectionable about Dispensationalism, not just their particular millennial view: you may not do that sort of thing to Biblical/doctrinal theology.

Have a blessed Lord's Day. In church is where you hear God's Word with the blessing of the Holy Spirit Himself upon it.

 

[MW]

The sight of defeat, that is, when we do not see all things under Christ's feet.

Well that would beg the question of what does "all things" entail? I know what the postmil version of that is and I'm just not remotely convinced that scripture warrants that pressup.

If the church's missionary focus is not the complete subjugation of all visible creation to Jesus Christ then it is not fulfilling its commission. This is not an issue of what will be accomplished, but of what we are obliged to strive to accomplish as the body of Christ in the world.