SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
amillennial.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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.
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.
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).
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."
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.
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