What is Your Stance on the Millenia?

[SolaScriptura]

amillennial.

 

[JM]

Premil and yes, I have read Riddlebarger.

 

[Peairtach]

Amils are just postmils that have lost their nerve.

Or, a postmil who got around to reading the New Testament or Riddlebarger.

Structurally, amil is a subset of postmil, differentiated historically in fairly recent times. That is why claims that this or that person was either postmil or amil are difficult to prove.

Or amils are postmils who have blinked

Or amils are postmils that were trying to hold their breath until the national conversion of the Jews and decided to give up.

I believe that Christ has been and will demonstrate His triumph on the postmil scheme, by triumphing in history by His Word, Spirit, Providence and Church all from His place in Heaven at God's right hand.

What place does the final apostasy have in the postmil scheme?

(a) It demonstrates the total incorrigibility of the Devil and his angels, that as soon as they are released they mount a rebellion against God.

(b) It demonstrates the total incorrigibility of Man that after a long Silver Age of Christian blessing, without God's grace he is the same old Man.

Christ's Second Advent does not teach the Dawkins's of this world something they do not know, but is another tangible vindication of the Gospel which they already knew from the Bible and the Creation (see Romans 1 and 2 and Van Til). It will just confirm to them and to those withoput the Scriptures, the truth that they have been suppressing all along.

Christ wouldn't triumph by cutting the Cosmic War short, just as it looked as if the Devil was gaining the upper hand after a long stand off, as per amillennialism.

The triumph is demonstrated in the progress of history and at its end. Christ will make a display of His enemies in the progress of history. God's work in history (providence) will be to His praise.

I'll maybe get round to reading Riddlebarger sometime DV.

 

[billy.leonhart]

From what Amillennial publications do you derive this language of a "permanent stand-off between Christ and the Devil?" Please recognize that Amillennials do not adhere to the exact same paradigm across the board. However, I know of no Amillennialist that would ever make the claim that they believe in such heretical dualism. Christ and His church have already achieved victory in the cross and the resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of that victory will come on the last day, but it is manifest everytime a person is saved. Satan is already bound in that he cannot hinder this process: the process in which all of God's elect are currently being saved out of the world. There is no further victory that needs to be won. The work of Christ in His incarnation was ultimate. Through His resurrection, we have assurance that our resurrection will take place in which death (our final foe) will cease (1Cor. 15).

 

[Peairtach]

From what Amillennial publications do you derive this language of a "permanent stand-off between Christ and the Devil?" Please recognize that Amillennials do not adhere to the exact same paradigm across the board. However, I know of no Amillennialist that would ever make the claim that they believe in such heretical dualism. Christ and His church have already achieved victory in the cross and the resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of that victory will come on the last day, but it is manifest everytime a person is saved. Satan is already bound in that he cannot hinder this process: the process in which all of God's elect are currently being saved out of the world. There is no further victory that needs to be won. The work of Christ in His incarnation was ultimate. Through His resurrection, we have assurance that our resurrection will take place in which death (our final foe) will cease (1Cor. 15).

There is progress yet to be made though, in the spread and effects of the Gospel, otherwise the realised Millennial Kingdom wouldn't have spread beyond Jerusalem in the past 2,000 years and would not have had the beneficial effects it has had on Man's thinking and culture, because it was completely realised in the complex of eschatalogical events in the first century.

Was the Kingdom/Millennium realised in the First Century? In a sense "Yes" and in a sense "No". It partakes of the "already....not yet" of biblical eschatology.

Was your salvation achieved at the moment you first believed? In a sense "Yes" and in a sense "No".

 

[alhembd]

Can one be confessional and pre-mil?

I think that both the 3FU, the Westminster Standards (and their deviants: Savoy, London Baptist, etc) have room for a- and post-; but I don't see room for being confessional and pre-.

Any thoughts or ideas on that?

Warmly, Nate

What aspect of the WCF would you see as incompatible with (historic) premil? I'm not premil myself, but I've known PCA pastors who were covenant premil, and it wasn't considered a problem. It seems to me that the WCF at least leaves it open.

I myself originally thought that premillennialism would have been totally incompatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, then, I read the third volume of Thomas Goodwin's Works, and his commentary on Revelation. From comments Goodwin later makes in Christ our Mediator, I think Goodwin later became postmil, but, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, of which he was a member, Goodwin was decidedly premillennial. So was Twisse. Twisse, until his death, was the Chair of the Assembly.

So, the Westminster Divines tolerated premillennialism amongst its own members. Accordingly, I don't we can say that the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't allow for certain premillennial views (though certainly not for dispensational premillennialism).

 

[DMcFadden]

I think it would be fair to say that the direction of covenant theology naturally tends towards an amil/postmil scheme from the stanpoint of "consistency."

However, there are readers of Revelation who cannot get beyond Rev. 20 despite the arguments to the contrary by amil/postmil writers. So, you will always have some covenant thinkers who are historic premil (including many of the big name Presbyterian preachers of the 20th century). The same tendency is present among some amil interpreters of Romans 9-11. Even though they hold to a covenant hermeneutic, they see a future for ethnic Israel based on the exegetical data.

Interestingly, it will be fun to see how the progressive dispensationalists handle eschatology. Classic and modified dispensationalism were pretty tightly linked to a premil/pretrib scheme. But, since the progressive dispensational camp strikes me as being more covenant than dispensational in their hermeneutics, we may see some odd combinations in the years to come if that movement has any legs.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Which millenia are you talking about? As far as I know we have already completed six millenia

---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:53 PM ----------

Can one be confessional and pre-mil?

I think that both the 3FU, the Westminster Standards (and their deviants: Savoy, London Baptist, etc) have room for a- and post-; but I don't see room for being confessional and pre-.

Any thoughts or ideas on that?

Warmly, Nate

What aspect of the WCF would you see as incompatible with (historic) premil? I'm not premil myself, but I've known PCA pastors who were covenant premil, and it wasn't considered a problem. It seems to me that the WCF at least leaves it open.

I myself originally thought that premillennialism would have been totally incompatible with the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, then, I read the third volume of Thomas Goodwin's Works, and his commentary on Revelation. From comments Goodwin later makes in Christ our Mediator, I think Goodwin later became postmil, but, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, of which he was a member, Goodwin was decidedly premillennial. So was Twisse. Twisse, until his death, was the Chair of the Assembly.

So, the Westminster Divines tolerated premillennialism amongst its own members. Accordingly, I don't we can say that the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't allow for certain premillennial views (though certainly not for dispensational premillennialism).

Just because certain prominent Assembly members were pre-millenial, it doesn't follow that the WCF allows for pre-millenialism.

WCF 8:4 He ascended into heaven, and there sitteth at the right hand of His Father,(10) making intercession;(11) and shall return to judge men and angels at the end of the world.(12) 

WLC 1:56 WLC 56 How is Christ to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world? A. Christ is to be exalted in his coming again to judge the world, in that he, who was unjustly judged and condemned by wicked men,(1) shall come again at the last day in great power,(2) and in the full manifestation of his own glory, and of his Father's, with all his holy angels,(3) with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet of God,(4) to judge the world in righteousness.(5) 

WLC 1:191 WLC 191 What do we pray for in the second petition? A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come,(1)) ... we pray, ... that Christ would ...hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him for ever12) 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.(13)


These excerts from the WStnds bring up 2 points which contradict premillenialism. 1. Christ returns at the last day to judge the living and the dead, not prior to a 1000 year reign to reign on the earth and then judge the living and the dead after the 1000 years. 2. His kingdom is now, not future.

 

[Grimmson]

From comments Goodwin later makes in Christ our Mediator, I think Goodwin later became postmil, but, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, of which he was a member, Goodwin was decidedly premillennial. So was Twisse. Twisse, until his death, was the Chair of the Assembly.

So, the Westminster Divines tolerated premillennialism amongst its own members. Accordingly, I don't we can say that the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't allow for certain premillennial views (though certainly not for dispensational premillennialism).

Just because certain prominent Assembly members were pre-millenial, it doesn't follow that the WCF allows for pre-millenialism.

When interpreting the WCF, it should be considered to be an appropriate interpretive technique to view the confession and it’s spectrum’s of meaning in the same fashion as the framers of the confession at the assembly and those that signed on to it at the assembly. One’s application should be placed into question if it is not in line with the majority view at the assembly and those prominent members that held to a position different then your own that was present there. They would have better ground for the application and interpretation of the confession being there then someone who was removed from the assembly for about 350 years. There have been many Presbyterians that have held to a pre-mill view and have been reformed, such as James Montgomery Boice, who I mentioned in an earlier post in this thread. Therefore I think the claim can be made that the WCF does allow for the pre-mill position because those who were there in the assembly knew what they were doing and was not placed under church discipline for turning against the confession. We should always try to apply an historical reading, considering the official positions of those present; particularly the orthodox prominent members that was presiding over the assembly and those who wrote the confession. To not try to consider their historical position and not allow for their position to be read into the confession, like they did, would be to hijack their established tradition and the spectrum of flexibility with this particular position.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

From comments Goodwin later makes in Christ our Mediator, I think Goodwin later became postmil, but, at the time of the Westminster Assembly, of which he was a member, Goodwin was decidedly premillennial. So was Twisse. Twisse, until his death, was the Chair of the Assembly.

So, the Westminster Divines tolerated premillennialism amongst its own members. Accordingly, I don't we can say that the Westminster Confession of Faith doesn't allow for certain premillennial views (though certainly not for dispensational premillennialism).

Just because certain prominent Assembly members were pre-millenial, it doesn't follow that the WCF allows for pre-millenialism.

When interpreting the WCF, it should be considered to be an appropriate interpretive technique to view the confession and it’s spectrum’s of meaning in the same fashion as the framers of the confession at the assembly and those that signed on to it at the assembly.

I disagree. Just because a minority position was present, that does not mean that the original framers felt that the minority view was in line with the final document. There were some views held by divines and expressed by various delegates at the Assembly which did not make it into the final document, and cannot be made to fit its system of doctrine. The test is not just whether a view was held by someone at the assembly, but whether that view was in some way allowed and accomodated in the final wording of the standards.

 

[Peairtach]

From what Amillennial publications do you derive this language of a "permanent stand-off between Christ and the Devil?" Please recognize that Amillennials do not adhere to the exact same paradigm across the board. However, I know of no Amillennialist that would ever make the claim that they believe in such heretical dualism. Christ and His church have already achieved victory in the cross and the resurrection. The ultimate fulfillment of that victory will come on the last day, but it is manifest everytime a person is saved. Satan is already bound in that he cannot hinder this process: the process in which all of God's elect are currently being saved out of the world. There is no further victory that needs to be won. The work of Christ in His incarnation was ultimate. Through His resurrection, we have assurance that our resurrection will take place in which death (our final foe) will cease (1Cor. 15).

Well the amillennialist seems to believe in a "stand off" in history, not in the sense that all the elect will be saved, which both amils and postmils agree on, but in the sense that the First Beast (civil and/or pagan persecution of Christians) will be ended in history, in the sense that the Second Beast (Antichrist and antichrists) will not be ended in history, in the sense that Babylon (Apostate Christianity, or the World System, as some amils would posit) will not be ended in history, that the nations will be converted as nations, and that there will be world peace and beneficial cultural influence through the Gospel.

Amils say these things are impossible in this world, and yet there have been times and places where such things have already been brought about by the spread of the Gospel over the last 2,000 years. So the idea that Christians can't enjoy such things in this world is nonsense.

All postmils are saying that there will be a massive broadening and deepening of such things as have already occurred in the Millennial period over the last 2,000 years, long before the return of our Lord.


Quote from Dennis

I think it would be fair to say that the direction of covenant theology naturally tends towards an amil/postmil scheme from the stanpoint of "consistency."

Christology as much as anything else points to amil/postmil.

 

[Dennis1963]

A-millennial.

 

[JM]

It seems Amil is the default position of most Reformed folks.

 

[Wannabee]

Interestingly, it will be fun to see how the progressive dispensationalists handle eschatology. Classic and modified dispensationalism were pretty tightly linked to a premil/pretrib scheme. But, since the progressive dispensational camp strikes me as being more covenant than dispensational in their hermeneutics, we may see some odd combinations in the years to come if that movement has any legs.

I hope it's fun.

This has been a nagging issue with me for a long time. Being decidedly premil, I have often struggled with how to understand what I perceive as greater apostasy and persecution in the last days of the church and the idea of a tribulation period. I see why some claim it (and it's not dependent upon Daniel). But I just can't seem to rest there. I find too many inconsistencies to be comfortable with what is proposed in order to arrive at their conclusions.

So, I may have some sort of odd combination brewing in my own noggin, with influences from both the leaky Dispensational and historic premil positions rattling around.

 

[billy.leonhart]

Amillennialists tend to be more idealist in our approach to Revelation. We don't seek to answer the same questions that the Postmillennialists seek to answer, and we don't look at history as a dualistic battle between the Church and Satan. When Postmillennialists attempt to force the Amillennialist perspective into such a paradigm Amillennialists have no context in which to formulate an answer. Such language simply is not in Scripture. The "already / not yet" paradigm is affirmed by Amillennialists. Christ has already secured victory over sin and death (1Cor. 15), and He will return to bring it into its final culmination on the last day. This will be the marriage feast of the Lamb. Our job, as the Church, is not to bring about the wedding, but to be ready for it when it comes. This includes evangelism and personal / corporate purity. Victory over Satan is not achieved by the Church, nor is the subjection of nations. That is the work of Christ, and Amillennialists see no biblical warrant in assigning that work to the "already" portion of the "already / not yet" paradigm.

Billy
SBC
Texas

 

[Peairtach]

Amillennialists tend to be more idealist in our approach to Revelation. We don't seek to answer the same questions that the Postmillennialists seek to answer, and we don't look at history as a dualistic battle between the Church and Satan. When Postmillennialists attempt to force the Amillennialist perspective into such a paradigm Amillennialists have no context in which to formulate an answer. Such language simply is not in Scripture. The "already / not yet" paradigm is affirmed by Amillennialists. Christ has already secured victory over sin and death (1Cor. 15), and He will return to bring it into its final culmination on the last day. This will be the marriage feast of the Lamb. Our job, as the Church, is not to bring about the wedding, but to be ready for it when it comes. This includes evangelism and personal / corporate purity. Victory over Satan is not achieved by the Church, nor is the subjection of nations. That is the work of Christ, and Amillennialists see no biblical warrant in assigning that work to the "already" portion of the "already / not yet" paradigm.

Billy
SBC
Texas

What about the period of history between the "already" and the "not yet"? Is there to be no progress in there?

As an amillennialist I'm sure that you believe that the Millennium was realised at Pentecost or A.D. 70 or some other point in the First Century. Yet although that is the case, there has been great progress in Christ's kingdom since then. Will there not be greater progress between now and the Eschaton in our realised/inaugurated Millennium/Kingdom?

The progress is not just in Heaven, where the number of the saints never decreases but gets larger day by day. The progress is also on the Earth.

The Millennium/Kingdom was realised when the woman put a little yeast in three measures of meal, but that does not mean that the yeast did not make progress through the meal.

There is a correspondence between the Kingdom and individual eschatology. When we are born again our salvation is realised. But does that mean that the Christian is to make no progress towards spiritual maturity between his conversion and his death - when Christ will come for him in providence?

Is, e.g., the work of Christ's Spirit in illuminating the Scriptures over the past 2,000 years not to eventually lead to a more mature, strong, large and healthy Church?

 

[billy.leonhart]

I believe in progress. Sure. However, I don't believe that the progress we are talking about will result in a full submission of the nations to the rule of a golden era church. I think that is firmly extra-biblical. Do you think that progress in our sanctification means that we will be glorified before Christ comes back as well? Of course not (1Cor. 15:50-58). Christ will come back to complete the work. Furthermore, it is for the very reason that Satan is currently bound that we are able, as a church, to make the progress that you are talking about.

Billy
SBC
Texas

p.s. The "millennium" began when Christ died on the cross. That was when He bound the strong man and purchased our redemption. At His resurrection, He ensured our resurrection (1Cor. 15).

 

[coramdeo]

Other.......I'm with Pink. Too many brilliant godly men have differing views, haven't put my self solidly in any camp yet.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Other: feet at shoulder width, knees slightly bent.

 

[EverReforming]

In the past, I've considered myself Historic Pre-Millenial. I never really knew much about A-Millenial until recently and its something I'm just starting to sort through and try to figure out. I'm not sure where where I'll land on the scale in the end, but until then I'll keep the Hist. Pre-Mill label I've generally associated with.

 

[JM]

About a week ago I was discussing this topic with a Dispensationalist and found myself troubled by the end of the night. As I lay in bed I went over and over everything we talked about, when I got up in the morning I realized I was Amil.

I have to change my vote. This wasn't easy.

 

[jwithnell]

I'm thinking one does not have to have a remnant viewpoint to be a-mil.