Thread: Question to the "Amill" PBers

When the Lord first saved me I became a dispy because I did not know there were any other options. When the Lord opened my eyes and I became reformed I then became postmill because I thought that was the answer to dispensationalism. I would say now I am a "justdon'tknowwhatthedealis-mill". With all of that I have a question for the amill PBers. I am still trying to learn about the amill position.

If amill believes in a tribulation and an antichrist, why would we not
look at the current world situation as a possible begining to this
tribulation?

What does amill really believe about the tribulation and antichrist?

I'm not familiar enough to confidently answer this.

However, we are studying through a book that is proving very helpful in understanding the amillennial position. It also takes a look at a few potential weaknesses of that position, within the context of advocating it as the most biblical and historical position of Christians.

A Case for Amillennialism
Kim Riddlebarger
Amazon.com: Case for Amillennialism, A: Understanding the End Times: Kim Riddlebarger: Books

Amill. believes we have lived, and presently live, in the tribulation (which is why John identifies himself as a "partner" with his audience and us in the tribulation in Rev. 1:9). As for the antichrist, there has historically been the two camps of those who take that to be symbolic language about a type of people or force, and the other group that believes this to be an actual person, typically the Pope.

I could be wrong, but that's what I gather from being an amillentialist and doing mild reading on it.

Or not the Pope. Paul seems to think AC would be an actual person who would appear just before the Second Coming.

I don't know. Before I was gloriously delivered from Dispensationalism myself I had all the eschatological answers. Now I consider myself something of an eschatological agnostic, a Pan-millenialist, even. (By that I mean, I believe Christ will return just like he promised, beyond that I figure it will all just pan out.)

I followed a similar path; in fact I'm rather amazed at how much dispensational, Armenian thinking I absorbed just by growing up in the south. On the other hand, now after years of post-mil thinking, I have trouble believing that Christ will come back to a defeated bride. But I am surrounded by those who take more of a middle ground.

I recently found this series of sermons on Revelation by Sinclair Ferguson to be extremely helpful. He doesn't overtly dwell on eschatology, but illuminates the broad themes regarding God's protection of the church, Christ's supremacy, and so forth.

SermonAudio.com - First Presbyterian Church

Originally Posted by Blev3rd

When the Lord first saved me I became a dispy because I did not know there were any other options. When the Lord opened my eyes and I became reformed I then became postmill because I thought that was the answer to dispensationalism. I would say now I am a "justdon'tknowwhatthedealis-mill". With all of that I have a question for the amill PBers. I am still trying to learn about the amill position.

If amill believes in a tribulation and an antichrist, why would we not
look at the current world situation as a possible begining to this
tribulation?

What does amill really believe about the tribulation and antichrist?

We do live in the tribulation right now, and the pace is stepping up.

We hear His footsteps approaching.

Read this:

Behold He Cometh, An Exposition of the Book of Revelation - Rev. Herman Hoeksema, SpindleWorks

From my reading, I don't think that there is an "amillennial" position on the details of the tribulation and the antichrist. Different prominent amillennial authors may hold to a certain understanding, but I think that there is a somewhat broad scope of answers that you may find. Someone help me out here, but isn't this more a question of preterism, historicism, futurism, etc.?

Indeed. I know that Riddleberger is an Amillennial Preterist. I believe that Scott Clark is an Amillennial Futurist (Correct me if I'm wrong). They would have different views on the tribulation and antichrist.

Amillennialism fits best with historicism in my opinion. The reformers were historicist and amillenial.

I am amil and have been for 30 years. IMO Riddlebarger is the best teacher on this subject.

I agree with Kim R that while the spirit of antiChrist has always been with us, we will probably see a final single one man who will be worse than any of them (Nero, Hitler, etc).

While the existence of physical Israel is not necessary to prophecy fulfillment about Israel (which is the church), Kim R is clear that when God fulfills the promise of Romans 11 about when the Jews turn to the Messiah, He may very likely use the existence of the physical nation and it is probably a means to that end. It could get nuked into oblivion and the rest of the Jews in the world convert, you don't need it, but it seems to be the most likely scenario.

As far as being at the very end before Jesus come back, as an amil, to me this is a no brainer. 2/3 of the world owes its existence to the electric grid.... 4 billion people. A solar flare, a pole shift, a big EMP over each continent, well, its a fragile situation. No electricity and we are dead.

The neutron was discovered in 1932. Fission was confirmed in 1939. The first atomic bombs were exploded in 1945. A couple dozen nations now have them in world with increasing Islamic hostility. I have no problem whatsoever as an amil to think that we or our kids are probably in the last generation. Between the electric grid reliance and the nukes, the world has never been like this (unless pre Noah they achieved this technology).

Amils believe that at the end of the mil Satan will be unloosed. I have no problem with thinking that it has started. UFO (demonic) sightings and activity, Islam, the fall of the west, proliferating sodomite perversions, abortion, etcetc.

So yeah, you can be amil and be thinking we are at the end of the end.

I think Riddlebarger's book will help you a lot. And his treatment of Daniel 9 (the basis for much dispy teaching) is fabulous- it is a prophecy of Jesus, not the antichrist.

Originally Posted by kevin.carroll

Now I consider myself something of an eschatological agnostic, a Pan-millenialist, even. (By that I mean, I believe Christ will return just like he promised, beyond that I figure it will all just pan out.)

That is a great way of putting it. Made me lol anyway.

Originally Posted by puritan lad

Indeed. I know that Riddleberger is an Amillennial Preterist. I believe that Scott Clark is an Amillennial Futurist (Correct me if I'm wrong). They would have different views on the tribulation and antichrist.

From my initial perusal of Mr. Riddlebarger's book, it doesn't seem he is a "preterist." He has a section that seems to refute that idea (that the second coming was when God judged and destroyed Israel in 70 A.D.). He even seems to refute the concepts behind it that might be part of "partial preterism."

Originally Posted by puritan lad

Indeed. I know that Riddleberger is an Amillennial Preterist. I believe that Scott Clark is an Amillennial Futurist (Correct me if I'm wrong). They would have different views on the tribulation and antichrist.

Actually Riddlebarger is not a preterist, since he believes that Matt 24 will happen again. He holds the double fulfillment view of prophecy and I agree after all Christ was the last OT prophet technically.