postmillennialism, premillennialism, amillennialism - your stance?

x-millennialism - What is your stance?


  • Total voters
    144
Status
Not open for further replies.

panta dokimazete

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I have tried to stay fairly clear of the controversy surrounding these issues as I believe it to be a "milk teaching" issue (see Heb 6:1-2) - that being said, I have recently been skimming articles, etc to get a better "feel" for the various positions.

On wiki I saw this graphic that I thought seemed to be a very good high-level summary of the stances.

Millennial_views.gif


I'd like to use these categories to get insight into the views on the PB.

I lean toward amillennial, so that is what I am choosing, but I am not 100% convinced.

As folks are willing, I'd also like to get a few links that help clarify the various positions.

I have made the poll public, because I am interested in who holds to the various positions.
 
The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

1. Some hold its a golden-age within the NT, as is represented in the graphic.

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.
 
The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

1. Some hold its a golden-age within the NT, as is represented in the graphic.

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.


What Daniel said. ;)
 
The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

which would make them amills, right?

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

This is the x-preterist position? If so, what is x, please?

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.

can you expand a little more on this or give a link?
 
or - even better - can you take the graphic and modify it to reflect any additional stance(s)?

I am really interested in getting a good representative view.
 
The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

which would make them amills, right?

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

This is the x-preterist position? If so, what is x, please?

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.

can you expand a little more on this or give a link?

2. No it would not make them amils as they believe in the world-wide advance of the gospel and in the Christianization of societies, which is not the traditional amil view. Moreover, postmillennialism literally means "after the millennium", so even if they share the same view as the amils on the duration of the millennium, they are still postmillennial as they believe Christ returns after the millennium.

3. Some partial preterists would hold this view, others would not.

Amillennialism has traditionally believed that there will not be any extensive conversion to Christ, or a world wide Christianization of culture and society. Some optimistic amils like Cornelius Venema would be closer to postmillennialits in this regard. While postmillennialists believe that, over the course of history, the majority of people will be converted, and the majority of nations will be Christian. In other words, they believe Christ has the victory in history.
 
I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

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

Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
 
Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillennial position.

Indeed, amillennialism is more of a 20th century teaching; although some would say that Augustine held it.

Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation" by Anthony Hoekema

Yes, sorry I forgot that Luther :luther: et al was amillennial; thanks for the link. Though the views of the Reformed were overwhelmingly postmillennial prior to the 20th century.
 
I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

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

Uh-oh!

There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.

But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.
 
Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

I can see how a Postmillennialist could interpret this in their own way but I would not say that it is inherently Postmillennial.
 
Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Uh-oh!

There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.

But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.

I would agree that all of God's people can pray this petition of the Lord's Prayer.

I don't think it's fair to say that Amil is the historic position of the Church nor THE teaching of our standards and I'm quite certain Edwards wasn't the first one to propagate the position of the nations coming under the Kingship of Christ (this has been something long held by the Covenanters--Read Symington's "Messiah the Prince"). Remember, one does not need to hold to a "Golden Age" to be Postmil and even if one does, it doesn't have to happen after the conversion of the Jews (Rom. 11). I believe the same thing about Rom. 11, but I'm not persuaded that such a conversion will usher in a Golden Age. Instead, I believe that will usher in Christ's Second Coming and Judgment. The overall emphasis (at least according to the flavor I hold to) has to do with the spread of the Gospel and its influence upon the world.

Actually, the passages of Scripture that pushed me from Amil to Postmil were the parables of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven (along with a host of others).
 
I voted Amillennialism, because I lean in that direction. Having been drilled in the pre-trib view all through my childhood, teen years, and early adulthood, I still have trouble sorting through it all. As I read through Scripture and take it for what it says, amillennialism seems to make the most sense.
 
Historic premil. If it was good enough for Jesus, the apostles, the early church . . . surely it must be good enough for me.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.

I can see how a Postmillennialist could interpret this in their own way but I would not say that it is inherently Postmillennial.

Read Iain Murray's book The Puritan Hope.
 
Actually, the passages of Scripture that pushed me from Amil to Postmil were the parables of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven (along with a host of others).

Interesting. They pushed me to Amil :)
 
Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Uh-oh!

There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.

But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.

Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered. How anyone can think that the Westminster Standards are amillennial is beyond me; read WLC 191, read the Puritans, read the Covenanters - postmilleniallism is the historic Reformed view. While I agree that the Westminster Standards do not necessarily require one to adhere to Edwards' golden-age postmillennialism - most modern postmills wouldn't fully go along with Edwards - the view that Christ's kingdom would have the victory in history, and that the majority of men and nations would be Christian, is the overwhelming Reformed position prior to the 20th century.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top