Undecided on a Particular View of Eschatology
- Thread starter Ivan
- Start date
- Status
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
I used to say I was a pan-millennialist, knowing that Christ is coming again and it will all pan out in the end. This was a tongue-in-cheek way of indicating that I was not settled in my eschatology. Kim Riddlebarger, I think, said that was a cop-out. Lol.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
From a non theologians perspective, I would say you need to differentiate between covenant theology and dispensationalism. They are very different ways of looking at the whole of Scripture.
Dispensationalism is going to look for different means of redemption at different times in history and a separate redemptive plan for people with some Jewish ancestry verses everyone else. This will get you to very different places interpreting the Old and New Testaments. It sees discontinuity and separation.
Covenant theology is going to see the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, pointed toward the redemptive work of Christ, by grace through faith, beginning through the covenant community of Israel and expanding to every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue, in accord with God's plan from the beginning. It sees continuity and unity in redemption.
The millennial view really springs from these (dispensationalism v covenant theology), rather than the reverse. The former is going to drive a (modern dispensational) premillennial view. The latter an amillennial, postmillennial or possibly historic premillennial one.
Once one understands covenant theology, there is no way one can hold the modern premillennial position.
One could hold covenant theology, but certainly not be clear on one of the other millennial views.
A very good book on this is Kim Riddlebarger's, A Case for Amillennialism.
Dispensationalism is going to look for different means of redemption at different times in history and a separate redemptive plan for people with some Jewish ancestry verses everyone else. This will get you to very different places interpreting the Old and New Testaments. It sees discontinuity and separation.
Covenant theology is going to see the whole of Scripture, Old and New Testaments, pointed toward the redemptive work of Christ, by grace through faith, beginning through the covenant community of Israel and expanding to every tribe, nation, kindred and tongue, in accord with God's plan from the beginning. It sees continuity and unity in redemption.
The millennial view really springs from these (dispensationalism v covenant theology), rather than the reverse. The former is going to drive a (modern dispensational) premillennial view. The latter an amillennial, postmillennial or possibly historic premillennial one.
Once one understands covenant theology, there is no way one can hold the modern premillennial position.
One could hold covenant theology, but certainly not be clear on one of the other millennial views.
A very good book on this is Kim Riddlebarger's, A Case for Amillennialism.
Ivan
Pastor
Okay, I was a bit cryptic. Yes, within a covenant theological content. Jim, I'm definitely a pan-millennialist and I'm not concerned about what Kim Riddlebarger might say about that.
Some are SO sure about their millennialism. I can't see how anyone can be certain about much, except the rudiment of the subject: Christ will come again and all will be put right.
Some are SO sure about their millennialism. I can't see how anyone can be certain about much, except the rudiment of the subject: Christ will come again and all will be put right.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
Hi Ivan,
I am one of those sure of my view, though it is a difficult area. I suppose the value of studying it is the tremendous implications and impact of getting it wrong on one’s life. For instance, if one holds to the premil view, we’ll expect to be raptured out before the serious tribulation starts (though there are views within the fold, such as mid-trib, and pre-wrath), and how one prepares one’s mind – and life – would be different than if one were postmil, expecting things to generally get better and the Christians in it for the long haul. For the postmil, one would see the secular culture as a field to be sown with the Word of God and spiritual labors with the expectation of that culture becoming “Christianized” and bearing at least outward observance of God’s Law. One would be devoting one’s life and energy to infusing the Mosaic Law into the political-legal arena, with the expectation of its becoming the law of the land.
For the amil, or one holding that the present age is the millennial period, we see that we are in a worsening world, with the main threats either intense worldly seduction from an increasingly antichristian culture, and/or persecution from hostile ruling authorities – with no hope of these things getting better, not in the long run, though there could be short-term improvements. We fight for justice for the downtrodden and speak for those with no voice, even though we go against the grain when we do it in Christ’s name. The focus for the amil is that we
To the amil the Kingdom of God to be secured and sustained is the church, not the culture or the political arena, though one may speak to the culture, whether by Christian witness, works of art and literature, or works of mercy, calling those who love the truth out of the power of darkness and into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. Ditto with the political-legal arena – one may seek to influence those therein to uphold God’s agenda of righteousness and compassion, and to become disciples of Christ, but the amil does not desire build the Kingdom of God in and of the worldly institutions of culture, law and politics.
To the amil the church is the manifestation of God’s Kingdom and rule in this world, and the House in which He lives. I suppose one’s eschatological view will seriously affect one’s attitude to the culture, politics, and the areas of one’s heartfelt labors. It will also affect one’s expectations of suffering-to-come, and preparing one’s mind and heart in that regard.
I do think that having a suspended judgment is wise till one is confident one has a sound view. And it does seem that John (or rather the Spirit of Christ through him) assumes we can understand His revelation to the churches, both then, and now, as the principles remain valid throughout the age:
There is a blessing to those who undertake to comprehend, and it is no small one, but substantial.
I am one of those sure of my view, though it is a difficult area. I suppose the value of studying it is the tremendous implications and impact of getting it wrong on one’s life. For instance, if one holds to the premil view, we’ll expect to be raptured out before the serious tribulation starts (though there are views within the fold, such as mid-trib, and pre-wrath), and how one prepares one’s mind – and life – would be different than if one were postmil, expecting things to generally get better and the Christians in it for the long haul. For the postmil, one would see the secular culture as a field to be sown with the Word of God and spiritual labors with the expectation of that culture becoming “Christianized” and bearing at least outward observance of God’s Law. One would be devoting one’s life and energy to infusing the Mosaic Law into the political-legal arena, with the expectation of its becoming the law of the land.
For the amil, or one holding that the present age is the millennial period, we see that we are in a worsening world, with the main threats either intense worldly seduction from an increasingly antichristian culture, and/or persecution from hostile ruling authorities – with no hope of these things getting better, not in the long run, though there could be short-term improvements. We fight for justice for the downtrodden and speak for those with no voice, even though we go against the grain when we do it in Christ’s name. The focus for the amil is that we
“may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world; Holding forth the word of life...” (Philippians 2:15, 16)
To the amil the Kingdom of God to be secured and sustained is the church, not the culture or the political arena, though one may speak to the culture, whether by Christian witness, works of art and literature, or works of mercy, calling those who love the truth out of the power of darkness and into the Kingdom of God’s dear Son. Ditto with the political-legal arena – one may seek to influence those therein to uphold God’s agenda of righteousness and compassion, and to become disciples of Christ, but the amil does not desire build the Kingdom of God in and of the worldly institutions of culture, law and politics.
To the amil the church is the manifestation of God’s Kingdom and rule in this world, and the House in which He lives. I suppose one’s eschatological view will seriously affect one’s attitude to the culture, politics, and the areas of one’s heartfelt labors. It will also affect one’s expectations of suffering-to-come, and preparing one’s mind and heart in that regard.
I do think that having a suspended judgment is wise till one is confident one has a sound view. And it does seem that John (or rather the Spirit of Christ through him) assumes we can understand His revelation to the churches, both then, and now, as the principles remain valid throughout the age:
“Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.” (Rev 1:3)
There is a blessing to those who undertake to comprehend, and it is no small one, but substantial.
Ivan
Pastor
I lost my post! That's one of the things I don't like about the new PB setup. Oh, well.
Great answer, Steve.
To be brief, dispensationalism is dangerous to society. Imagine having a President who takes it seriously. Makes me shudder.
Postmillennialism sounds like utopia to me, not based in reality. If it were true, then there must be a reformation, revival, renewal (whatever you want to call it) of the church of a gargantuan proportion. Regardless as to how the world is trending, look at the Church!
The Amillennialism view makes much more sense to me. If I had to say what I am I'd say I'm amil.
Great answer, Steve.
To be brief, dispensationalism is dangerous to society. Imagine having a President who takes it seriously. Makes me shudder.
Postmillennialism sounds like utopia to me, not based in reality. If it were true, then there must be a reformation, revival, renewal (whatever you want to call it) of the church of a gargantuan proportion. Regardless as to how the world is trending, look at the Church!
The Amillennialism view makes much more sense to me. If I had to say what I am I'd say I'm amil.
Scott1
Puritanboard Commissioner
It's been interesting to learn that the term "amillennialism" is not a historic term, it is of relatively recent use. It used to be what was broadly called "postmillenialism" and the two terms have many similarities.
Today, some blend the two.
GI Williamson said he can be called either an "optimistic amillennialist" or a "non-utopian postmillennialist."
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Amils are postmils that have lost their nerve 
Both amil and postmil believe that Christ returns at the end of the Millennium. But postmils believe that the world is being progressively Christianised in the meantime.
Because certain postmil hopes, like the conversion of the Jews haven't happened yet, many postmils have turned to amil. They need more patience. Christ's work in history takes time. It's a slow gradual process and like personal sanctification it often appears to ebb aswell as flow E.g.:
Both amil and postmil believe that Christ returns at the end of the Millennium. But postmils believe that the world is being progressively Christianised in the meantime.
Because certain postmil hopes, like the conversion of the Jews haven't happened yet, many postmils have turned to amil. They need more patience. Christ's work in history takes time. It's a slow gradual process and like personal sanctification it often appears to ebb aswell as flow E.g.:
Ivan
Pastor
I guess we could parse it in many ways.
---------- Post added at 04:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------
Amils are postmils that have lost their nerve
Richard, that takes a lot of nerve!
Well, it could happen, but not in my lifetime.
I can appreciate that. I can tell you this, the Church better get in gear, at least in this generation, if it wants to be a part of what God is doing.
nnatew24
Puritan Board Freshman
I would agree that the differences between post- and Amill are not that significant, and maybe even not that important. But when you get to the differences between the two and premill, especially dispensational premillennial, the stakes are much higher.
I like to call myself an optimal Amillennialist. I certainly hope and pray that there is a mass conversion before Christ's return, but I do not see this taught in the text of scripture (our perception of current events is not a valid argument either way, in my opinion). But then again, I don't see any kind of national revival of the Jews taught in Romans 11, so there are probably some fundamental hermeneutical differences between me and a post-mill brother.
OT prophecy, as Richard cited above (Habakkuk etc.) is very tough to interpret. Does this speak of things before the King returns, or after the new heavens and the new earth? There's some tough questions, but I think that the fundamentals are easily discernible (and thus dispensational/premill can easily be shown as erroneous).
I like to call myself an optimal Amillennialist.
I certainly hope and pray that there is a mass conversion before Christ's return, but I do not see this taught in the text of scripture (our perception of current events is not a valid argument either way, in my opinion). But then again, I don't see any kind of national revival of the Jews taught in Romans 11, so there are probably some fundamental hermeneutical differences between me and a post-mill brother.OT prophecy, as Richard cited above (Habakkuk etc.) is very tough to interpret. Does this speak of things before the King returns, or after the new heavens and the new earth? There's some tough questions, but I think that the fundamentals are easily discernible (and thus dispensational/premill can easily be shown as erroneous).
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Professor
That seems to me just plain silliness.
I don’t much like the term “Christianise” (spelling in deference to the Brits). I knew a “Christianized” woman once. She gave outward observance to the commands and customs of the Faith, till they crossed her will, and then she threw them overboard. It is synonymous (in this usage) with “whitewashed”, and refers to those who for various reasons outwardly profess what they inwardly do not hold. One could say they are either hypocrites or deluded.
To imagine that the nations will become “Christianized” and the world will be in a “golden [some say silver] age” is ludicrous. “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can know it?” (Jer 17:9). All who are not actually born again of God’s Spirit “walk according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience . . . and [are] by nature the children of wrath” (Eph 2:2, 3); in other words, the living dead, who, if they die in that condition, will be the undying damned. And these constitute the citizens of the “golden age” of the postmillennialists? Whitewashed wicked on their “good” behavior?
One branch of the postmils, who aim to see the entire Law of Moses instituted as the legal code for the nations of “the golden age” – that includes the penal codes with their numerous death penalties – has given rise to an opposition that is determined to eradicate the Christian community and their Law Book, the Bible. From the Babylon thread:
Which brings me, b) to a book I just started reading – speaking of vehement hatred for the Christian church, and for the Christian Scriptures! – and that is Chris Hedges’, American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America. Very interesting! This guy, a graduate of Harvard Divinity School, an award-winning NY Times reporter, grew up in a Presbyterian home, his father a minister, but in an uber-PCUSA-type liberality where the Bible was acknowledged to be only a writing of man (“not the literal word of God”), and when the son started at Colgate University, the father made him start a gay and lesbian organization to give support to that community in the school.
Hedges now loudly trumpets – with respect from the NYTimes and the American liberal intelligencia – that the Bible is filled with rank hate literature, manifesting throughout a hate and bigotry-promoting “God”. From an opening excerpt in the first chapter, “Faith”:
One might think this was being written about militant Islam, but no, it is written about the evangelical Christian community, with an eye especially focused upon the Theonomy / Christian Reconstruction movement, as they are taken as the basic Christian paradigm affecting American society today. The above is just the opening salvo.
After railing against the conservative Protestant view of the Bible, Hedges says,
Hedges continues,
I initially purchased this book to get a take on how the secular world was viewing and critiquing the Theonomy / Christian Reconstruction movement (and its adherents in the Charismatic churches), as I am slowly working on a critique of my own. But I have come upon more than I bargained for: an intellectual, sociological, and legal groundwork – being laid in many different quarters – for the eventual marginalization and then criminalization of both us and our Law, the Law of God in the Old and New Testaments. This is not just a loose-cannon antichristian, but a Harvard-educated, respected journalist who has the ear and attention of many. Already the government is scrutinizing the “hard core” Christian community, and such books (there are more) inform their perceptions and strategies. Slowly we are being perceived as dangerous to the health and safety of society, and as laws are enacted against our Law, we shall – from loyalty to our King – become outlaws.
Hedges now loudly trumpets – with respect from the NYTimes and the American liberal intelligencia – that the Bible is filled with rank hate literature, manifesting throughout a hate and bigotry-promoting “God”. From an opening excerpt in the first chapter, “Faith”:
One might think this was being written about militant Islam, but no, it is written about the evangelical Christian community, with an eye especially focused upon the Theonomy / Christian Reconstruction movement, as they are taken as the basic Christian paradigm affecting American society today. The above is just the opening salvo.
After railing against the conservative Protestant view of the Bible, Hedges says,
Hedges continues,
I initially purchased this book to get a take on how the secular world was viewing and critiquing the Theonomy / Christian Reconstruction movement (and its adherents in the Charismatic churches), as I am slowly working on a critique of my own. But I have come upon more than I bargained for: an intellectual, sociological, and legal groundwork – being laid in many different quarters – for the eventual marginalization and then criminalization of both us and our Law, the Law of God in the Old and New Testaments. This is not just a loose-cannon antichristian, but a Harvard-educated, respected journalist who has the ear and attention of many. Already the government is scrutinizing the “hard core” Christian community, and such books (there are more) inform their perceptions and strategies. Slowly we are being perceived as dangerous to the health and safety of society, and as laws are enacted against our Law, we shall – from loyalty to our King – become outlaws.
The "apocalyptic violence" Hedges refers to is precisely the imposition of Mosaic Law, "Christian dominion", and the penalties for rebellion against these. He and others see the Christians as far more of a threat than Islam. In truth, the authentic Faith has been co-opted by a purportedly "spiritual" but actually political agenda.
When someone said recently (on another thread) that the postmil and the premil views “tended to be more literal and carnal” what they meant was that their “millenniums” would result in worldwide material (and spiritual) blessings in this present age. In truth, the postmil view (of which Theonomy is a strain, many postmils not holding to it) is far removed from the amil, and in opposition to its basic tenet: the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, nor will it ever be. What happens after the Day of Judgment will be on a new earth, in the eternal state.
The extreme sector of the postmil camp, by its writings, its widely publicized views, and its spread among some politically active and vociferous professing Christians, is going to bring down the wrath of the society upon us, and with good reason, for that sector sees the secular government and the pluralistic society as an evil to be eradicated, and they are increasingly being taken very seriously by critical thinkers, government agencies, and unbelievers, all of whom see a threat to their persons and their society of lethal dimensions. We shall be hated of all nations, but not for the gospel, rather for a quasi-“Christian” dangerous political agenda!
Endtimes views have immensely serious societal and political implications. The Dispensational view will embroil us in wars in the Mid East, and bring gross disrepute to the gospel of Christ in that region, and the extreme sector of the postmils will embroil us in violent domestic conflict and eventual criminalization. These things ought to be no-brainers, but certain apocalyptic views cancel out brainwork with their “dangerous enthusiasm”. The offense of the Gospel is enough, but to add manmade offenses . . .
Let no one say I have no right to raise these issues – it’s my and my children's heads the repercussions are going to fall on!
Psalms 86:9, 10, "All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name. For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone."
Revelation 15:4, "Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest."
Some observations:
1. The Scriptures manifest that Christ is the King of all the earth, the heir of all things. Nothing less than all nations is worthy of Him.
2. Our commission is straightforward -- teach all nations. In terms of labour, prayer, and hope, the church is to have nothing less than the harvest of the nations as its goal of witness.
3. Christianised nations are of the same nature as Christianised churches; yes, there are hypocrites in them; but it is for the Lord of the harvest to separate the tares from the wheat.
4. It sounds ludicrous to Christianise nations; but it sounds ludicrous to Christianise a sinner. God can and does do it. Abraham believed it when it looked less like a reality than it does now, Romans 4:17, 18. Let us believe in Him who quickeneth the dead and calleth those things which be not as though they were.
How would you respond to those who assert that the above verses refer to the New Heavens and New Earth rather than to events prior to Christ's return?
That their eschatology is so heavenly minded it is of no earthly good.
It would be of no earthly good for Christ to return, draw the nations to himself and teach them his ways, and be their shepherd forever in the new earth?
I'm playing devil's advocate here because I genuinely don't know that I could give a satisfactory answer to this question. One of my roommates holds the position I mentioned above.
I thought your original question was from the amillennial view, but this expresses more of a premillennial perspective. The premillennial view does not understand the saving work of Christ. It humbles Christ and carnalises His kingdom. Christ sits at God's right hand until all His enemies are made His footstool. The Holy Spirit is the Advocate who dwells with us for ever. It is by the power of the Holy Spirit that Christ's kingdom increases without end.
I was referring to the amillennial perspective. Does it demand, for consistency, that Christ's enemies become a footstool prior to his second advent, then?
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
How does the post-mil overcome 1) The ‘many’ as compared to the ‘few’:
Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”
(Luke 13:23-24)
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
(Matthew 7:13-14)
And 2)The predicted expansion of evil and apostasy:
Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
(2 Timothy 3:12-13)
...when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?
(Luke 18:8b)
Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?” And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able.”
(Luke 13:23-24)
Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.
(Matthew 7:13-14)
And 2)The predicted expansion of evil and apostasy:
Yes, and all who desire to live godly in Christ Jesus will suffer persecution. But evil men and impostors will grow worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived.
(2 Timothy 3:12-13)
...when the Son of Man comes, will He really find faith on the earth?
(Luke 18:8b)
Sorry, I must have misunderstood the meaning of "draw."
From the amillennial perspective, yes, there would be no earthly good in simply speaking of these nations being gathered to Christ at His coming because an amillennial viewpoint incorporates an inaugurated eschatology. Such an eschatology teaches one great coming kingdom of the future that penetrates the present. If there is no present reality of this eschatological vision in history then there is no genuine penetration of the kingdom.
Yes, "he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death... And when all things shall be subdued under him, then shall the Son also be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all," 1 Cor. 15:25, 26, 28.
Verse 8, "But now we see not yet all things put under him." Reformed eschatology accredits both the now and the not yet of biblical testimony.
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
You confuse what men "see" with what has been spiritually actualized and accomplished on the cross.
There is no "not yet" when it comes to the gospel truth that Jesus Christ has destroyed the powers of the devil and conquered death on behalf of His elect. (Hebrews 2:14, I Cor. 15:54-57)
The Devil goes about as a lion seeking whom he may devour. Ths saints grow weak and sick and die. Any understanding of biblical eschatology must incorporate its own hope of realisation in the histories and lives of God's people.
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
Do you deny that Jesus Christ destroyed him who had the power of death, that is, the devil, through His own death? (Hebrews 2:14)
Do you deny that through Jesus Christ, the elect sons of God have presently achieved victory over death? (I Cor. 15:57)
Of course not, but the simple distinction of de jure and de facto must not be overlooked. There is redemption accomplished and redemption applied. An eschatology of victory must not be interpreted gnostically so as to shut Christ out from history. He who said, My kingdom is not of this world, also said, For this cause came I unto this world; He who said, I have all power in heaven and earth, also said, Go ye into all the world. There is an historical realisation of that which is Christ's right by covenant.
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
What you are saying, is that Christ's accomplishments on the cross are yet to be personally or historically realized and/or applied.
I disagree with your futuristic eschatology, and I decidedly reject your implication that my Amill view is in any way, "gnostic."
Reject it as you will, if what Christ has accomplished has no effect in space and time then all He has accomplished is a salvation of consciousness, which is gnostic. The Christian message proclaims Jesus Christ is Lord of the quick and the dead.
Reformed Rush
Puritan Board Freshman
Christ has accomplished and purchased, in the "fullness of time," as The divine and perfect Surety sent from God, the necessary salvation of His elect, born in all times, past as well as future.
???
Yes?
Jesus Christ died for those elect of God already asleep in their graves, as well as for those living in His Day, as well as for all those who would follow in time after His incarnation and prior to His second coming.
???
And in time He applies that salvation so that individuals who were once rebels to this King of kings and Lord of lords are made personally and individually to bow before Him. Hence there is a realisation in history of His authority.
This argument is ridiculous. If one acknowledges that people today still die, then one must accept that, in spite of the fact that Christ has already conquered death on the cross, the full application of what has already been purchased (glorified resurrection) is yet future.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Poll
