RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He was an amillennialist who kept predicting the end of the world.
James White is Postmil
- Thread starter JM
- Start date
- Status
He was an amillennialist who kept predicting the end of the world.
ZackF
Puritan Board Professor
I’m guessing a non-optimistic amill?
I assume you are referring to his 1980 interview with Carl Henry - given not long before he died.
Dr Lloyd-Jones was optimistic in the sense that he believed that when revival came, the gospel would change lives, churches would be transformed, and in turn Christians would be salt and light in a nation. I still think his 1959 sermons on revival encourage Christians to have a God-centered theology, and an appreciation of the powerful work of the Holy Spirit to transform lives. 1 Thess 1:5
It is possible he was pessimistic in the last few years of his life. He did not see revival in the United Kingdom and he saw continued spiritual and moral decline in that nation.
I write this as the largest city in my country holds another 'gay pride' parade. I pray for revival here but I do wonder if God has given my country over to a debased mind Romans 1:28.
Bringing this back to the OP, James White has given much valuable commentary of the massive spiritual and moral decline in the West, yet is optimistic that Psalm 110 will be fulfilled in Christs rule.
According to Robert Letham (see above), the two "camps" are really just one camp with different flavors.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
That may be partly the point.
I feel like White has gotten more and more despondent about our current social climate, not without some cause.
I wonder if postmil, as well as theonomic leanings, may function for some as a coping mechanism -- a sort of brash defiance and fideistic optimism -- in response to our darkening times.
Last edited:
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Some postmillennialists believe that there will be a great tribulation prior to the millennium (J. L. Giradeau being one example). So, current events - even if they are a sign that we are headed for a great tribulation - are not necessarily a barrier to one being a postmillennialist.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
This observation is very interesting.
Edit: I should clarify, they may be a good observation in regard to White specifically, not all those that are post mill. I would agree, if you listen to White on the DL, he does come across very pessimistic about society in general vs. the other elders at Apologia which do not.
Last edited:
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Hey all, since the discussion is going on, I thought I would just ask here about the differences between Post Mill and Optimistic Amill. I see above, someone says it is the best of both worlds. Could someone set out the definitions? I somewhat tongue and cheek usually tell people I am post-amillennial. I am wondering if I am actually the later from above and just not use the correct label. Also, is Optimistic Amill the same thing as Idealism, or is that also something else?
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Thank you for pointing that out, very helpful. Sorry for missing it. I guess I fall into the third category in his explanation.
That's where I am, too. (And, for what it's worth, that's where Letham himself lands.)
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Thank you, Jason (@JM) for posting the White "conversion" to Postmil. Very instructive.
I wonder where all the Amil die-hards are on this board – I mean those who see the vital importance of the classic Amil view (i.e., Beale, Dennis E. Johnson, Wm Hendriksen, etc) to living and witnessing well in our times, such as David Engelsma (of the PRCA) is.
David J. Engelsma, Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism: https://www.amazon.com/Christs-Spiritual-Kingdom-Reformed-Amillennialism/dp/0971659206.
An online version (but not as complete as the book) : http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/item/317-a-defense-of-reformed-amillennialism
DJE mostly goes after the Postmil folks who have been attacking him and the Amil view. Have we any such Amillers here on PB?
I wonder where all the Amil die-hards are on this board – I mean those who see the vital importance of the classic Amil view (i.e., Beale, Dennis E. Johnson, Wm Hendriksen, etc) to living and witnessing well in our times, such as David Engelsma (of the PRCA) is.
David J. Engelsma, Christ’s Spiritual Kingdom: A Defense of Reformed Amillennialism: https://www.amazon.com/Christs-Spiritual-Kingdom-Reformed-Amillennialism/dp/0971659206.
An online version (but not as complete as the book) : http://www.prca.org/resources/publications/articles/item/317-a-defense-of-reformed-amillennialism
DJE mostly goes after the Postmil folks who have been attacking him and the Amil view. Have we any such Amillers here on PB?
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
There might be something to this, I dunno. I moved closer to Postmil since the scamdemic hit but I've also had more time to read and focus on scripture, and I've actually read more from the Postmil perspective. I don't see me moving away from Amil toward Postmil as a big shift and maybe Dr. White feels the same. The bigger shift for me was moving away from Historicism toward orthodox preterism, I'm struggling with the idea of "multiple embodiments" of Revelation.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
A.Joseph
Puritan Board Senior
“I'm struggling with the idea of "multiple embodiments" of Revelation.”
Why? I think it gels with covenant theology quite nicely.
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
Yes, exactly.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
That is, unless we see in hindsight prophesied events in Scripture realized: see below, "New Insights in Amillennial Eschatology":
New Insights in Amillennial Eschatology
I will argue in this paper that a lack of understanding concerning the word “sorceries” (Greek, pharmakeia, φαρμακεία) and its cognates in The Book of Revelation have led to overlooking key elements in some of its prophecies, and thus inability to appreciate their import and relevance to the times. It is accepted that the “eclectic” or “modified idealist” view (Beale)1 allows some departure from the idealist, though as to where the line is drawn there is no clear consensus. Beale himself says, “...certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation. The crucial yet problematic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past present and future.” 2 Please note this is not an academic presentation, but aimed rather at a popular audience as well as academics, so don’t hold it to the precise standards of strict academic formatting.
Basically my view is this: the pharmakeia of Revelation 18:23 and 9:21 (a variant in the latter reading φάρμακον pharmakon – drugs – does not affect translation) are the very drugs used and heralded by the sixties and seventies counterculture that were exported into most of the world and which – in retrospect – are seen to constitute a prophesied event clearly depicted in Scripture. The Greek pharmakeia is generally translated “sorceries” in the New Testament. Geerhardus Vos, although speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a principle applicable here,
O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, expressed the same sentiment:
Stuart Olyott in his, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, thinks likewise:
[These three men are all of the Amillennial school of eschatological interpretation.] The reason this has not been widely recognized is that those who live godly have no notion what the dark practice of sorcery entails, a practice that astonishingly became a national and even global recreation of sorts, and for many also having a spiritual or psychic aspect. In short, what was Biblically termed sorcery became widespread and accepted. In 2016 one of these substances, marijuana, is quickly gaining legal and cultural approval across the United States (and elsewhere in the world as well).
[see attachment for continuing the article]
New Insights in Amillennial Eschatology
“Does God give only academicians and seminarians insight and
understanding? May He not use even wilderness-trained men?”
understanding? May He not use even wilderness-trained men?”
I will argue in this paper that a lack of understanding concerning the word “sorceries” (Greek, pharmakeia, φαρμακεία) and its cognates in The Book of Revelation have led to overlooking key elements in some of its prophecies, and thus inability to appreciate their import and relevance to the times. It is accepted that the “eclectic” or “modified idealist” view (Beale)1 allows some departure from the idealist, though as to where the line is drawn there is no clear consensus. Beale himself says, “...certainly there are prophecies of the future in Revelation. The crucial yet problematic task of the interpreter is to identify through careful exegesis and against the historical background those texts which pertain respectively to past present and future.” 2 Please note this is not an academic presentation, but aimed rather at a popular audience as well as academics, so don’t hold it to the precise standards of strict academic formatting.
Basically my view is this: the pharmakeia of Revelation 18:23 and 9:21 (a variant in the latter reading φάρμακον pharmakon – drugs – does not affect translation) are the very drugs used and heralded by the sixties and seventies counterculture that were exported into most of the world and which – in retrospect – are seen to constitute a prophesied event clearly depicted in Scripture. The Greek pharmakeia is generally translated “sorceries” in the New Testament. Geerhardus Vos, although speaking of discerning the Antichrist, enunciated a principle applicable here,
“[It] belongs among the many prophecies, whose best and final exegete will be the eschatological fulfillment, and in regard to which it behooves the saints to exercise a peculiar kind of eschatological patience.” (The Pauline Eschatology, p. 133)
O.T. Allis in his book, Prophecy and the Church, expressed the same sentiment:
“The usual view on this subject [‘the intelligibility of prophecy’] has been that prophecy is not intended to be fully understood before its fulfilment, that it is only when God ‘establishes the word of his servants and fulfills the counsel of his messengers,’ that the meaning and import of their words become fully manifest.” (p 25)
Stuart Olyott in his, Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, thinks likewise:
“We must realize that some of the Bible’s teachings relating to the very last days will not be understood until we are in those days. That is why it is both unwise and dangerous to draw up detailed timetables of future events. Some parts of the Word of God will not become obvious in their meaning until the days of which they speak have dawned.” (p 166)
[These three men are all of the Amillennial school of eschatological interpretation.] The reason this has not been widely recognized is that those who live godly have no notion what the dark practice of sorcery entails, a practice that astonishingly became a national and even global recreation of sorts, and for many also having a spiritual or psychic aspect. In short, what was Biblically termed sorcery became widespread and accepted. In 2016 one of these substances, marijuana, is quickly gaining legal and cultural approval across the United States (and elsewhere in the world as well).
[see attachment for continuing the article]
For the time being, I have tabled looking at Revelation as an eschatology text. I'm looking at it as a "Revelation of Jesus Right Now" text.
It draws so much from the Old Testament, and I find it profitable to try to look at it as if I knew my Old Testament as well as the First Century believers did.
One little observation convicted me. Looking at Babylon throughout Scripture, for example, we see how society in rebellion always tends to equate itself with God. Likewise for people. "Come out of her" takes on a different emphasis. You can't flee from Babylon as if you had that ability because, if you think you have that power, you still live in Babylon.
You can only flee toward Christ.
It draws so much from the Old Testament, and I find it profitable to try to look at it as if I knew my Old Testament as well as the First Century believers did.
One little observation convicted me. Looking at Babylon throughout Scripture, for example, we see how society in rebellion always tends to equate itself with God. Likewise for people. "Come out of her" takes on a different emphasis. You can't flee from Babylon as if you had that ability because, if you think you have that power, you still live in Babylon.
You can only flee toward Christ.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
I rather see it as the church being forced to turn its eyes to heaven
What if a post-mil time were right around the corner after such a dark time? Prophesied goodness has happened many times before at the least likely moments. There would be no surprise for it to happen again.
Abraham received a promise of a multitude like the sand on the seashore, though 200 years later it was still Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, his four wives, and their children, and he never lived to see the intense and miraculous population explosion of his children in Exodus 1. He never even had the land as his possession in his lifetime and bought his wife's tomb. But come it did. There was a glorious possession and flourishing in the time of Solomon, but before then was bondage in Egypt, the time of the wilderness, the spiritual darkness of the times of the judges, the spiritual low in the time if Eli, the oppression of Saul, but nonetheless it came. Riches, land, spiritual livelihood, a temple, grand flourishing, and the manifest presence of God in the temple. All the world was astonished by it.
Abraham's was told that in him would all the nations of the earth be blessed, but it was 2000 years before Pentecost came and the work of the Spirit took off in the Gentile world. It was a thousand years after Psalm 67 that the nations did begin to praise Him. Until then, Ninevahs were generally exceptions. Who was expecting the outpouring of the Spirit when it came? The Jews had just crucified the Messiah; yet not long afterward, 3000 saved and baptized at the first sermon, 5000 at another, continuous adding to the church in between. Christ had unexpectedly turned the world upside down.
And since then, who would have thought thought Luther's 95 theses would fuel the Reform efforts into a wildfire? The papacy suffered a massive blow.
Who would have thought there would be a Puritan age?
Who thought that in the midst of England's spiritual and moral deadness (and it was very much like the Western world today), and in the midst of the theological and spiritual problems of America, that there would come revival on these two places, very much by the instrumentality of one man, George Whitefield? Not to mention the faithfulness of the other Methodists as well. 100 years later Ryle writes that the good influence of that work of God was still being realized.
The times are awful. And I watch in sadness as the polluting influence of my nation begins to intrude on the East. If we want God to be maximally glorified then this could be a very good thing, if I may say so. Perhaps the Lord intends, rather than let the world fall into decay, to try everything it has in defying Him so He can show Himself mighty. Let the nations rage so that Christ can subdue them (Ps 2).
Believing too that such optimism has a Scriptural base though I do need more study, such a view I find to best correspond to the greatness of God, His depths of compassion, His infinite goodness, and the worth of the death of His Son.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I wonder how much of White's view is from hanging out with Doug Wilson. I became postmil in 2004 because I hung out with the Auburn Avenue crowd. In order to not avoid fatal defeaters, preterists need to explain how they can conveniently call a halt to the "it was fulfilled in 70 AD" take on Revelation, yet not apply it to the entirety of chapter 20.
This is why traditional postmillennialism is much better. Mind you, I think they have problems with Matt 24, but at least they don't have a system that logically leads to a denial of the resurrection.
This is why traditional postmillennialism is much better. Mind you, I think they have problems with Matt 24, but at least they don't have a system that logically leads to a denial of the resurrection.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
This is certainly possible, but if it was about hanging out with someone, it was more likely the people at his own church. However, based on his explanation (the video), it does sound like he came to this conclusion by scripture. The whole conversation is going text to text.
I am positive he has come to this conviction through the influence of Durbin, and perhaps a little Wilson. But it's not a bad thing to receive one's convictions from others. That's just the nature of Christian community. I don't think there's a single belief I have now that I didn't get from "hanging out" with another Christian, either through personal interaction or through reading a book. We should be wary of the notion that the only legitimate beliefs we hold are those we got from "me, my Bible, and God." It just rarely, if ever, truly happens that way. Of course, we don't want to be Christian chameleons, changing colors every time we are in a new environment. But it is a good thing to be shaped by our brethren.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
That's true, but Doug Wilson cleverly cornered the Reformed Baptist market on cultural issues, and if Durbin still goes to his church, that would make sense.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
"If Durbin still goes to his church..."
Who is the "his" in the sentence above? Doug Wilson's church? (Jeff Durbin never went to Doug Wilson's church). Or James White's church? (Jeff Durbin never went to James White's church. Rather James White left PRBC to join Jeff Durbin's church).
Just as general info, Jeff Durbin has been a member and founding Pastor of Apologia Church for over a decade.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
I was talking about White and Durbin. Thanks for the clarification.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
JM
Puritan Board Doctor
I got the impression people thought Dr. White's eschatology changed due to the influence of others (Wilson, Durbin, etc). I'm saying the influence of others got him to take another look at eschatology in light of scripture and he changed his views to be more in line with what he believes scripture teaches.
Yours in the Lord,
jm
Yours in the Lord,
jm
This seems to me to be the most plausible scenario.
- Status
