Millennial Series: Part 9: Amillennial Eschatology

Bible.org ^ | 1950 | John F. Walvoord

[wmfights]

While amillennialism has its influence in all areas of theology, it is natural that it should affect eschatology more than any other. As a form of denial of a future millennial kingdom on earth, it stands in sharp contrast to premillennial eschatology.

In previous discussion of amillennialism, it has been brought out that amillennialism is by no means a unified theology, including within its bounds such diverse systems as modern liberal theology, Roman Catholic theology, and conservative Reformed theology. It is therefore impossible to generalize on amillennial eschatology without dividing it into these major divisions. Aside from various small sects who include within their tenets the premillennial concept, premillennialism for the most part presents a united front on eschatology in all major areas. Amillennialism, however, disagrees within itself on major issues. Modern Liberal Eschatology

Modern liberal eschatology almost without exception follows the amillennial idea. Modern liberalism usually disregards postmillennialism, or the idea of a golden age of righteousness on earth, as well as premillennialism which advances such an age after the second advent. For them, all promises of ultimate righteousness are relegated to the life after death.

Homrighausen has called the idea of a millennium on earth “a lot of sentimental heavenism.”1 He goes on to denounce both millennial otherworldliness and the idea that this world is heaven as well: “Millennialists are right in their basic discoveries that this world is fragmentary and needs re-creation. They are right in their insistence that this is an ‘end’ world; things here come to an end and have a limit. They are right in their insistence upon the other world, and in their emphasis upon the pull of God’s power of resurrection. But their abnormal interest in the other world, their reading of eschatology in mathematical terms of time, their otherworldliness and consequent passivity as regards this world, is wrong. But Christians need to be saved, too, from that modern dynamic materialism which romantically sentimentalizes this world into the ultimate. This identifies the time world with the eternal world. This paganism is a hybrid attempt on the part of man to make the creature into the creator. In Christian circles it makes the Kingdom of God a blueprint for a world order. We admire this vehement realism, but we absolutely reject its presumptions that this world is a self-contained and a divine heaven. We live on earth! One world at a time.”2 In other words, there will be no millennium of righteousness on earth either before or after the second advent.

In modern liberalism, there remains a form of postmillennialism which believes that the kingdom of God in the world is advancing and will be ultimately triumphant. In one sense this can be regarded as amillennial in that it denies any real fulfillment to millennial promises. It is dyed in bright hues of optimism and visionary idealism. Its doctrinal background is postmillennialism rather than amillennialism even though amillennialism often has an optimistic note as well. In modern liberal eschatology, the idea of progress and improvement is treated with some skepticism even as it is in modern philosophy. The trend is that indicated by Homrighausen—”one world at a time.” spiritual terms, rather than in bodily terms. This is not to say that there will be no judgment, and no rewards or punishments awaiting us. Indeed, we are being judged all the while, and the rewards and punishments can be seen even now. Every day is Judgment Day.”6 In other words, Harner believes there will be no future judgment and no future resurrection of the body. The principle of spiritualizing Scripture is carried by the modern liberal to its ultimate extreme unencumbered with any idea of inspiration of Scripture and need for literal interpretation. Such is the legacy of spiritualization and unbelief as they combine in modern liberal amillennialism. Roman Catholic Eschatology

It is not within the scope of this discussion to treat the large area involved in Roman Catholic eschatology. The objections of Protestant theology to Roman eschatology have been the subject of voluminous writings ever since the Reformation. In general, however, it may be said that Roman eschatology tends to take Scripture more literally than modern liberal amillennialism. A vivid doctrine of judgment for sin after death, of resurrection of the body, and ultimate bliss for the saints are central aspects. Protestant objection has been principally to the doctrine of purgatory with all its kindred teachings and to the denial of the efficacy of the work of Christ on the cross, making unnecessary any purgatory or any human works whatever to qualify the believer in Christ for immediate possession of salvation, and security, and immediate entrance into heaven upon death. As in modern liberal amillennialism, however, Roman theology would be impossible if a literal method of interpretation of Scripture was followed. Roman theology concurs with amillennialism in denying any future kingdom of righteousness on earth after the second advent, and in its essential method follows the same type of spiritualization as modern liberalism. Amillenarians group together the judgment of the nations (Matt 25:31-46), the judgment of the church (2 Cor 5:9-11), the judgment of Israel (Ezek 20:33-38), the judgment of the martyrs (Rev 20:4-6), the judgment of the wicked dead (Rev 20:11-15), and the judgment of the angels (2 Pet 2:4; Rev 20:10). It is not the purpose of the present discussion to refute the amillennial position on the judgments nor to sustain the premillennial, but the wide divergence of the two viewpoints is evident.

Of major importance in arriving at the respective doctrines characterizing the amillennial and premillennial concept of the judgments is the determining factor of spiritualizing versus literal interpretation. The amillenarian can deal lightly with the various Scripture passages involved, and with no attempt to explain them literally. The difference in character between the church being judged in heaven and the living nations being judged on earth as in Matthew 25 is glossed over and made the same event, even though there is no mention whatever of either the church or of resurrection in Matthew 25. The judgment of martyrs before the millennium and the judgment of the wicked dead after the millennium as outlined in Revelation 20 is brought together by the expedient of denying the existence of the millennium after the second advent.

It is obvious that the amillennial viewpoint is a combination of spiritualizing and literal interpretation. While they believe in a literal second advent and a literal judgment of all men, they do not apply the form of literal interpretation to the details of the many passages involved. It is because the premillenarians insist on literal interpretation of the details as well as the event that they find the various judgments differing as to time, place, and subjects.

The extent of spiritualization being used by amillenarians in eschatology is highly significant, as has been noted in previous discussions. The spiritualizing principle has been excluded so far as robbing eschatology of any specific events such as the second advent or a literal resurrection of the dead. On the other hand the spiritualizing method has been used whenever the literal method would lead to the premillennial viewpoint. It is precisely on the points at issue between them that the spiritualizing method is used by the amillenarians. The premillennial interpretation is thus waved aside as inadequate, confused, or contradictory not by sound exegetical methods but by denial that the passages in question mean what they seem to mean if taken literally. It is for this reason that the controversy between the millennial views often has more sound and fury than facts, and in the minds of many scholars the matter is settled before it is fairly examined.

Even Louis Berkhof who is notably lucid and factual in his treatment of theological disputes writes concerning premillennialism: “In reading their description of God’s dealings with men one is lost in a bewildering maze of covenants and dispensations, without an Ariadne thread to give safe guidance. Their divisive tendency also reveals itself in their eschatological program. There will be two second comings, two or three (if not four) resurrections, and also three judgments. Moreover, there will also be two peoples of God, which according to some will be eternally separate, Israel dwelling on earth, and the Church in heaven.”7

We can hardly expect those who admittedly are bewildered and confused to be able to debate the issues, though Berkhof does much better than most amillenarians. The attitude of Berkhof, however, is significant. To him it is transparent that any doctrine other than the amillennial interpretation is simply impossible. But should amillennialism be taken for granted? Why should there not be three or four resurrections instead of one? What is wrong with there being two peoples on earth? Why on the face of it should we dispute the distinction between the rapture and the second coming? The answer is simply that it contradicts amillennialism, but it does not contradict the Bible literally interpreted. Certainly if one is to reject a doctrine because it is complicated, no theologian could for a moment accept the doctrine of the Trinity or debate the fine points of the relation of the two natures in Jesus Christ.

The doctrine of the eternal state, however, is for the most part one of agreement rather than disagreement. Those who distinguish the program of God for Israel and the church find them fulfilled in the eternal state in the respective spheres of the new earth and the new heavens. While this is rejected by the amillenarians who merge all the saints of all ages into one mass of redeemed humanity, it is not of the same importance theologically as other points of divergence. Reformed amillenarians and premillenarians unite on the important point of a literal eternity, in which both heaven and hell will be peopled.

The millennial controversy can only be dissolved by a careful analysis of the details of premillennialism. The amilliennial contention is, in brief, that premillenarians do not have a case, that their interpretations are confused, contradictory, and impossible. The answer to these charges has, of course, already been made in the abundant premillennial literature available today. It is the purpose of the discussion which will follow, however, to take up the mainsprings of the premillennial interpretation of Scripture and to establish the important and determining interpretations of Scripture which underlie premillennialism as a system of theology. Amillennialism has failed to present any unified system of theology or eschatology. Within its ranks, consistent with its main principles, are the widest divergences on every important doctrine. The purpose of the further discussion of premillennialism is to show that a consistent premillennialism can be erected with principles embedded in its system of interpretation. These at once are determining and corrective so that a premillenarian is always properly a conservative and Protestant theologian. The issues raised briefly in the survey of amillennial theology which is here concluded will be considered again seriatim as they come in conflict with tenets of premillennialism.

This article was taken from the Theological Journal Library CD and posted with permission of Galaxie Software.

1 Elmer G. Homrighausen, “One World at a Time,” Contemporary Religious Thought, Thomas S. Kepler, editor, p. 372.

2 Loc. cit.

6 Nevin C. Harner, I Believe, p. 83.

7 Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, p. 710.

[editor-surveyor]

>> “what you call “the rapture” is the second coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the world” <<

.
Negatory!

The rapture is the first resurrection, which takes place, as Yeshua told us in Matthew 24, at the end of the 3.5 year tribulation, at the last trump, ten days before the beginning of the millennial reign of King Yeshua, and his elect (the church in a loose way).

.

[metmom]

Your questions are not simple yes or no questions as you posit because no one, including yourself, knows another person's heart.

Saying that Golda Mier never believed in Jesus BY ALL ACCOUNTS, does NOT tell anyone the condition of her heart, and thus makes it impossible to answer that question.

Peter, the guy you claim to be your first pope, says this......

Acts 4:12 And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

Jesus says.....

John 14:6 Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

Jesus is the only way to God. Jew or Greek. Male or female. Slave or free.

Doesn't matter. No one who doesn't put their faith in Christ is saved.

Heritage doesn't matter. Works don't matter.

[redleghunter]

The Scriptures are clear, Jesus will have one second coming and when he comes again, it will be Judgement Day, the end of the world. 2 Peter 3:3-10.

First you must not have read the scriptures I posted from Revelation 19-20 earlier. Clearly the text shows Christ coming WITH His bride and not for the bride. So this is the point where you must assert there is no gathering or rapture of believers as outlined in 1 Thessalonians 4.

[metmom]

let me get this straight, you believe that if a Muslim gives to the poor, feeds the hungry, clothes the naked, visits the imprisoned and cares for the elderly, BUT REJECTS JESUS CHRIST AND HIS OFFER OF SALVATION, this Muslim can be saved by his works????

Hey, that's essentially what your current pope is preaching.

Heck, he even says atheists can be saved if they obey their consciences.

[metmom]

what you call “the rapture” is the second coming of Jesus Christ at the end of the world, so yes it is mentioned in the NT.

You're wrong about what the rapture is.

It's not the second coming of Christ to the earth.

It proceeds it, Jesus coming to remove His bride b3efore the Tribulation.

When He actually comes back and touches down, that is the second coming and the beginning of the millennial reign.

[redleghunter]

Yet according to Revelation 19-20 the second coming occurs before Satan is loosed for a short time. Clearly it seems you want some scriptures to be LITERAL when suitable for your theories, but spiritualizing when convenient.

So goes the question: Were all the OT Messianic prophecies literally fulfilled?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “and be left outside the gate with wailing and gnashing of teeth ?”

“And here we’ve seen the arrogance of the Catholic church in stating that very thing.” <<

.
The “catholic church” will be part of the gnashing, but Yeshua was quite clear in Matthew 7:23 that “many” will be there gnashing their teeth, and that they will be of those that once declared his name, and tasted of the opportunity for salvation, and he is backed up completely by Paul in Hebrews 3, 4, and 6, if you care to read those chapters (or not).
.

[redleghunter]

LOL you do realize af_vet_1981 is Roman Catholic?

[editor-surveyor]

>> “was Golda Meir part of Israel as defined in the Bible?”

“was Golda Meir saved, assuming she never believed in Jesus Christ?” <<

.
Would you be asking FReepers to play God?

Only Yehova knows Golda’s heart.
.

[redleghunter]

I agree we are saved by God’s Grace. Good soldiers follow orders and obey. Ps. 119 (all of it) shows the heart of a faithful soldier in Christ.

[metmom]

Would you be asking FReepers to play God?

Looks like.

It's their game of gotcha.

Then they can hit the abuse button on someone and accuse them of being anti-Semitic, and try to get them banned.

[redleghunter]

Correct it was Paul. However you have proved here not to know what is not scriptural about literal dispensationalism.

What exactly is not scriptural about a literal approach to prophetic scriptures? And who exactly is affirming that dispensationalism is doctrine?

Take the theoretical label of dispensationalism off for a moment and the stereotype of a sweating Alabama pastor in a blue polyester suit preaching it and what you get is an examination of Scriptures as revealed.

I am persuaded God will fulfill every promise made. And every promise will be fulfilled both spirituality and physically in Christ Jesus.

[redleghunter]

Sure your questions in post #77 only the Holy Spirit can answer.

This is how Jesus Christ answered the question:

John 3:6-8 NASB

That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

[redleghunter]

re: JW’s. I am getting at when I speak with them, they use the fact the word “Trinity” is not found in the Bible as proof the Trinity is false. I was comparing this to your seeming using the same tactic by asking how many times we fin the word “church” after Revelation 3. we don’t need to find the word if we find the church, as in the description of the two witnesses can only be the church.

Oranges and pecans as Fr. Sullivan my Jesuit debate teacher would say. Why? Because in one book, Revelation, specific terms and words are used. Did I seem dogmatic in my statements? No I said it was curious.

I will surely ping you when the Prots and Evangelicals debate the FRJWs on the Trinity and Deity of Jesus Christ. The only Catholics who show up to those discussions seems to be Salvation and the gentleman pinged above.

[redleghunter]

Good I agree there is a rapture. And the scriptures provided show this to happen sometime before the second coming.

[Salvation]

The word “rapture” is not in the Bible.

[redleghunter]

Hi Salvation. Do you have your Latin Vulgate handy?

deinde nos qui vivimus qui relinquimur simul rapiemur cum illis in nubibus obviam Domino in aera et sic semper cum Domino erimus

Or at least that is what Jerome translated from the Greek word 'harpazo' So it is there.

[Salvation]

So where is it in the Bible?

[Religion Moderator]

Be sure to provide the English translation when it is not commonly known.

[af_vet_1981]

btw, the Lord isn’t going to judge everyone according to their works and we aren’t saved by our works. we are saved by grace.....really, get a refund from whoever taught you the Faith.

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; 42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

41Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all? 42And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season? 43Blessed is that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so doing. 44Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath. 45But and if that servant say in his heart, My lord delayeth his coming; and shall begin to beat the menservants and maidens, and to eat and drink, and to be drunken; 46The lord of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. 47And that servant, which knew his lord's will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. 48But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory: 32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: 33 And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. 34 Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: 35 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: 36 Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me. 37 Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink? 38 When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? 39 Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? 40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. 41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: 42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: 43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. 44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? 45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. 46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be. 13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last. 14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie. 16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star. 17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely. 18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.