postmillennialism, premillennialism, amillennialism - your stance?

[cih1355]

Doesn't the idea that there is a second coming of Christ for the church and a second coming of Christ with the church imply that there are really three comings of Christ?

 

[RamistThomist]

Doesn't the idea that there is a second coming of Christ for the church and a second coming of Christ with the church imply that there are really three comings of Christ?

For a classic dispie, probably.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

Amils do believe Christ gets the victory in history. The second coming, judgment, and resurrection are historical events along with the new heavens and earth, the revealing of the sons of God, the deliverance of creation from futility at the resurrection etc. All historical.

But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over the course of history, but at the end of history.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

How do you pray that Christ would 'hasten the time of his second coming' if you know for a fact that can't happen for at least 1000 years?

Because certain things must be fulfilled before His second coming, therefore, we pray that these things would take place so that He would hasten the time of His second coming. An amil can't do this as he must hope for Christ's second coming prior to the fulfillment of these aforementioned things.

 

[JonathanHunt]

Here is a "quick look at amillennialism". Scroll down for a list of amillennialists, although there may be a couple who are on the list and should not be.

I really thought BH Carroll was postmillennial. John Frame is postmillennial (he said so in his Salvation Belongs to the Lord). Iain Murray is very postmillennial. John Murray is postmillennial. Warfield also. The list isn't entirely accurate.

The list says it is amil and 'a few postmil' as well.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

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.

Amils do believe Christ gets the victory in history. The second coming, judgment, and resurrection are historical events along with the new heavens and earth, the revealing of the sons of God, the deliverance of creation from futility at the resurrection etc. All historical.

But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over the course of history, but at the end of history.

The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Amils do believe Christ gets the victory in history. The second coming, judgment, and resurrection are historical events along with the new heavens and earth, the revealing of the sons of God, the deliverance of creation from futility at the resurrection etc. All historical.

But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over the course of history, but at the end of history.

The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."

If that is what constitutes victory, I would not like to see defeat. Saving a few souls in the course of history is not earthly victory, for eschatology to be truly optimistic it must believe that Christ saves cultures and societies. Traditional Amillennialism's denial of this, means that it is as socially impotent as Dispensationalism is. Ultimately, amillennialism means that the kingdom of darkness triumphs over the kingdom of Christ in history; whereas in postmillennialism the vast majority of men and nations will serve the ascended Christ. If the early Christians had been amillennialists I doubt that Rome would have persecuted them; instead they proclaimed the comprehensive kingship and earthly victory of Christ, hence, Rome was so fearful of the crown rights of Jesus Christ replacing the royal authority of Julius Caesar and his descendants.

 

[Herald]

Richard, that's probably what I am; a pan-miller. I just don't know what to believe. It's not that ignorance is bliss; it's just that I am so jaded from dispensationalism that I have avoided the subject.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

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.

 

[Coram Deo]

But there is excitement when the Church is purified through Tribulation and is spotless and pure at the marriage feast when Christ returns with Christ being Victorious over all His foes, with the Church reigning Victorious with Christ, with Christ over the Church...

That is Historic Premill and it is not pessimistic but optimistic..

And That the church is only Victorious with Christ.

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.

 

[RamistThomist]

Bahnsen's Victory in Jesus was organized and published posthumously. It should be read as four or so separate essays and not as a book.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over the course of history, but at the end of history.

The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."

If that is what constitutes victory, I would not like to see defeat. Saving a few souls in the course of history is not earthly victory, for eschatology to be truly optimistic it must believe that Christ saves cultures and societies. Traditional Amillennialism's denial of this, means that it is as socially impotent as Dispensationalism is. Ultimately, amillennialism means that the kingdom of darkness triumphs over the kingdom of Christ in history; whereas in postmillennialism the vast majority of men and nations will serve the ascended Christ. If the early Christians had been amillennialists I doubt that Rome would have persecuted them; instead they proclaimed the comprehensive kingship and earthly victory of Christ, hence, Rome was so fearful of the crown rights of Jesus Christ replacing the royal authority of Julius Caesar and his descendants.

Amil believes more than a few souls will be saved, actually a multitude from every tribe and tongue. And the idea of "saving a culture" is quite ambiguous. How am I to save the Mona Lisa? How much culture did God save through Noah? Amils don't believe the kingdom of darkness triumphs at all. The elect are saved no matter how hard Satan opposes them. The wicked fail to conqeur the church and the gates of hell do not prevail. That's optimistic. Perhaps not by an earthly idea of victory. But we live by the wisdom of God not of men. Final earthly come with the return of the King and the hosts of heaven. You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.

 

[RamistThomist]

And the idea of "saving a culture" is quite ambiguous

Being premil, this is not a defense of postmil. However, Revelationk 22 says "kings bring their wealth" into the New Jerusalem. That's cultural.

But what I think postmils mean by this is that when peolpe get converted they change the way they live. If more and more people get converted, they will bring their values into the public sphere, becoming salt and light for that culture.

At least, when I was postmil that how I viweed it.

 

[Poimen]

You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.

God conquers all despite the appearance of the victory of Satan. For "We walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7 and "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." Acts 14:22

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."

If that is what constitutes victory, I would not like to see defeat. Saving a few souls in the course of history is not earthly victory, for eschatology to be truly optimistic it must believe that Christ saves cultures and societies. Traditional Amillennialism's denial of this, means that it is as socially impotent as Dispensationalism is. Ultimately, amillennialism means that the kingdom of darkness triumphs over the kingdom of Christ in history; whereas in postmillennialism the vast majority of men and nations will serve the ascended Christ. If the early Christians had been amillennialists I doubt that Rome would have persecuted them; instead they proclaimed the comprehensive kingship and earthly victory of Christ, hence, Rome was so fearful of the crown rights of Jesus Christ replacing the royal authority of Julius Caesar and his descendants.

Amil believes more than a few souls will be saved, actually a multitude from every tribe and tongue. And the idea of "saving a culture" is quite ambiguous. How am I to save the Mona Lisa? How much culture did God save through Noah? Amils don't believe the kingdom of darkness triumphs at all. The elect are saved no matter how hard Satan opposes them. The wicked fail to conqeur the church and the gates of hell do not prevail. That's optimistic. Perhaps not by an earthly idea of victory. But we live by the wisdom of God not of men. Final earthly come with the return of the King and the hosts of heaven. You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.

Multitudes get saved but they have no lasting effect on society. Only postmils really believe that a great multitude are saved in comparison to the wicked. Amils do believe that the kingdom of darkness wins in the course of history, only some souls are rescued out of it. Societal salvation means that a society becomes Christian, as amils deny any widespread societal salvation. The Amil may believe that we are victorious in eternity, but they do not believe we have the victory over the course of history; thus it is optimistic in regard to eternity, but pessimistic in regard to history. The apostles viewed their suffering as victory, as it would lead to earthly victory as the gates (defensive weapons) of hell would not prevail against the advance of Christ's kingdom; thus our suffering is unto victory in history, not to defeat. Ultimately, the amil has to believe Christ's kingdom is the loser in history, as sin abounds over grace.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Christ is victorious at the right hand of God (1 Cor. 15); not from an earthly throne in Jerusalem. Christ is king over the church NOW, He rules over the nations NOW, He demands that the nations be discipled NOW, as Christ is with the church NOW (Matt. 28:18-20). We suffer tribulation in history in the hope of victory in history before Christ returns.

BTW my comments about it "not being very exciting" where directed at amils; I recognize that premils believe in victory, just not in the same way.

But there is excitement when the Church is purified through Tribulation and is spotless and pure at the marriage feast when Christ returns with Christ being Victorious over all His foes, with the Church reigning Victorious with Christ, with Christ over the Church...

That is Historic Premill and it is not pessimistic but optimistic..

And That the church is only Victorious with Christ.

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.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.

God conquers all despite the appearance of the victory of Satan. For "We walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7 and "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." Acts 14:22

Yes He conquers in history as He is sovereign over the course of history; postmillennialists walk by faith, though the kingdom of Christ appears small in the world, it shall crush all other kingdoms in history (Dan. 7). The apostles started off as a small group, yet, through their preaching, the ascended Christ eventually conquered pagan Rome.

It is this faith which inspired the early Covenanters (who were almost to a man postmillennial) to lay down their lives for Christ's royal prerogatives, knowing that the cause of Christ would be vindicated on the earth, as the nations would bow before Him before His return.

 

[Poimen]

Daniel:

As Patrick mentioned, amillenialists do believe in victory. To continue to assert otherwise only causes confusion.

Personally I have a lot of respect for my postmillenial brethren though I find myself in disagreement.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Daniel:

As Patrick mentioned, amillenialists do believe in victory. To continue to assert otherwise only causes confusion.

Personally I have a lot of respect for my postmillenial brethren though I find myself in disagreement.

I agree that you believe in victory in eternity, but I do not believe that amillennialism can possibly do justice to the victory of Christ's kingdom over the course of history. As I see it, amillennialism means that the wicked triumph in history while the godly are defeated until Christ returns - this is not the perspective of Psalm 1.

 

[Poimen]

Daniel:

As Patrick mentioned, amillenialists do believe in victory. To continue to assert otherwise only causes confusion.

Personally I have a lot of respect for my postmillenial brethren though I find myself in disagreement.

I agree that you believe in victory in eternity, but I do not believe that amillennialism can possibly do justice to the victory of Christ's kingdom over the course of history. As I see it, amillennialism means that the wicked triumph in history while the godly are defeated until Christ returns - this is not the perspective of Psalm 1.

Amillenialism teaches that the wicked do not triumph in history no matter how many or how little there are or conversely how many godly there are or how little. Christ reigns now and we participate in His victory by faith; end of story.

 

[Poimen]

BTW, amillenialism sees eternity as part of history so all of history leads up to final judgment and new creation.

 

[SoCalReformed]

At this time, I lean toward Postmillennial eschatology.

 

[SoCalReformed]

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

It does?

Where?
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689

 

[bookslover]

Richard, that's probably what I am; a pan-miller. I just don't know what to believe. It's not that ignorance is bliss; it's just that I am so jaded from dispensationalism that I have avoided the subject.

As I like to say: the fact that, throughout church history, the church has teased out three basic eschatalogical positions from the same biblical material (pre-, post-, and a-) should be a hint that we don't know as much about the endtimes as we like to think we do. It also shows that, in the Bible, God has not given us enough information to be able to figure it all out in detail (Jesus Himself said so explicitly) but He has given us just enough information so that we need to live by faith that He knows what He's doing.

All of which should lead to humility on our part. Whichever position you hold, do so sincerely, but do so lightly. We could all be wrong!

 

[Pilgrim]

Here is a "quick look at amillennialism". Scroll down for a list of amillennialists, although there may be a couple who are on the list and should not be.

I really thought BH Carroll was postmillennial. John Frame is postmillennial (he said so in his Salvation Belongs to the Lord). Iain Murray is very postmillennial. John Murray is postmillennial. Warfield also. The list isn't entirely accurate.

I think that list was put together when the author was newly amil. If I recall correctly a few of the names were subject to question. I too thought Carroll was postmil (a common position in the late 19th century) and a SBC pastor friend of mine recently said he was too.

 

[Pilgrim]

I am tentatively amil but have a lot more reading to do on the subject.

 

[Pilgrim]

Doesn't the idea that there is a second coming of Christ for the church and a second coming of Christ with the church imply that there are really three comings of Christ?

For a classic dispie, probably.

Yes, sounds like pre-trib.

 

[Thomas2007]

All of which should lead to humility on our part. Whichever position you hold, do so sincerely, but do so lightly. We could all be wrong!

This is why I hold to all three positions simultaneously - "schizomillienialism"

 

[KMK]

The confession does not speak of a future millenial kingdom. Therefore, it teaches a 'realized' millennium by defalt!

How's that?

 

[KMK]

Because certain things must be fulfilled before His second coming, therefore, we pray that these things would take place so that He would hasten the time of His second coming.

A postmil, then, does not pray for the hastening of 'the time of His second coming', but for the hastening of the dawn of the millennium.

An amil can't do this as he must hope for Christ's second coming prior to the fulfillment of these aforementioned things.

What 'aforementioned' things? The destruction of Satan? What?