Posted on 08/17/2014 10:21:22 AM PDT by 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.
I never ask anyone from the Temple Institute what moved them to work on rebuilding the temple, now...Perhaps you could write them and ask them if you are interested...
From the Catholic DRA:
Apocalypse 20:1-15 DRC1752
And I saw an angel coming down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit, and a great chain in his hand. And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time.
And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
The rest of the dead lived not, till the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection. In these the second death hath no power; but they shall be priests of God and of Christ; and shall reign with him a thousand years. And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
And they came upon the breadth of the earth, and encompassed the camp of the saints, and the beloved city. And there came down fire from God out of heaven, and devoured them; and the devil, who seduced them, was cast into the pool of fire and brimstone, where both the beast And the false prophet shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and one sitting upon it, from whose face the earth and heaven fled away, and there was no place found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing in the presence of the throne, and the books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged by those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works. And hell and death were cast into the pool of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life, was cast into the pool of fire.(DRA)
I highly recommend reading chapter 19 as well. Then chapter 21. So no problems with translations. However your interpretation seems to take chapter 19, 21 and 22 literal but somehow ignore or apply allegory to chapter 20.
the “1,000 years” is representative of the period between the resurrection and the second coming.
2 Peter 3:8 alludes to not a literal 1,000 years.
why does God need to use the term “1,000 years” to represent this time period?
because God does not want us to know the exact day or hour of his second coming and if the Bible said they would reign for 1981 years, we could calculate when the Second Coming will be.
where do you find the 1,000 year reign in Matthew 24?
Would a genuine Catholic insult Catholics who love blessed Mary, the mother of God with us ?
So please tell us your theory. Is some Muslim Mahdi 12er going to sit in the Vatican?
Good questions. Now answer them please.
Or are you a prederist who believes the entire olivet discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD?
I know of some Iraqi and Iranian evangelical blog sites. Just Google it. The home churches are growing in the heart of Islam.
I noticed you weren’t posting, but I thought you might enjoy some of the pretzel twisting on who/what is Israel.
Oh, I suppose I'll review the thread.
who/what is Israel
I've been suggesting in these threads for years, that folks examine all the different ways "Israel" gets used. Jacob's new name. The tribes coming from him, considered collectevly. The united kingdom. The northern kingdom, in contrast to Judah. The servant of the LORD. Physical descendants of Jacob, vs. the believing remnant. "They are not all Israel who are of Israel". "The commonwealth of Israel", to which believing Christian gentiles are now explicitly in. Galatians 6:16. And there's a reference in Joshua somewhere, telling us that "all Israel" included stray foreigners. Who is the "synagogue of Satan" in Jesus' letters to the 7 churches? Who are the "unbelievers" in Judea that Paul hopes to be delivered from, in Romans 15?
Has anyone brought up Isaiah 49, where the servant of Yahweh is both Israel, and the one who redeems Israel?
Listen to me, O coastlands,
and give attention, you peoples from afar.
The LORD called me from the womb,
from the body of my mother he named my name.
He made my mouth like a sharp sword;
in the shadow of his hand he hid me;
he made me a polished arrow;
in his quiver he hid me away.
And he said to me, “You are my servant,
Israel, in whom I will be glorified.”
But I said, “I have labored in vain;
I have spent my strength for nothing and vanity;
yet surely my right is with the LORD,
and my recompense with my God.”And now the LORD says,
he who formed me from the womb to be his servant,
to bring Jacob back to him;
and that Israel might be gathered to him—
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD,
and my God has become my strength— he says:
“It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to bring back the preserved of Israel;
I will make you as a light for the nations,
that my salvation may reach to the end of the earth.”
Thanks for letting me know you did not read the chapters cited.
No one is calculating 1000 years from resurrection to second coming. I believe some in 800 AD were predicting that one.
IF you read the text you will see a clear chain of events from Revelation chapter 19-20.
Unless you want to admit you are a preterist and you believe the second coming was actually in 70 AD. That would fit your timeline.
The Olivet discourse deals with the tribulation and second coming of Jesus Christ.
You will have to read chapter 25 for those who enter the Kingdom.
Excellent points about Isaiah 49; harmonizing all the Scriptures is a wise approach.
You care to point out where God says he doesn't want anyone to know when he's coming??? Well, we know you can't do that...In fact he DOES want us to know...So we will be ready...
Because he wants us to know it is 1,000 years.
Biblical history (according to historians) is approx. 6000 years old...That's puts us at the end of the 6 day mark of creation...God rested on the 7th day; the 7th 1000 year period...The 1000 year period spoken of in Revelation and Psalms...
First of all, one has to be careful with the 'Ready to pass away' thing - According to Yeshua, it cannot pass away until every jot and tittle of Torah AND the Prophets is fulfilled. That time, according to Yeshua in His Revelation is unarguably at the moment of the last trumpet:
Rev 10:7 But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished, as he hath declared to his servants the prophets.
And it may take much longer than that - As Torah and the prophets go well beyond the Kingdom... But the mystery given to His prophets is finished at that time, so one would at least have to get to there.
As to the Temple, the problem with your position is that it ignores Ezekiel's Temple, described in great detail, with sacrifices and processes that have never been performed before... That temple, where the whole world comes to (on the three Holy Days that require it)... That Temple, where the Prince who will come will take his breakfast, on the porch of the Eastern Gate... The Eastern Gate, which has remained shut for the exclusive use and purpose of that Prince. That same gate where He will arrive in power and glory after touching down on the Mount of Olives...
I know that it is a tradition among Christians that the 'triumphal entry' fulfilled that last bit, but such a claim is made in ignorance - The triumphal entry had to have happened at the northern gate - the way to Bethlehem.
No, that Eastern Gate must be there for His arrival - And if it is there, so then too must the Temple be there. Until every jot and tittle is done, it will certainly come to pass.
I don't think that's right...
They will be saved out of great peril - probably the Magog War - And their Savior will reveal Himself to them... And they will look upon him who they have pierced... At the end of Magog, the Jews purify the land - That speaks to me of conversion as a nation. The Muslims will be gone. I think that is the time for the Temple's construction.
Just as before, satan's seed will sit upon the Throne of YHWH, claiming to be YHWH - That requires a legitimate throne to be there. What that means, is a throne in the Holy of Holies, or more likely this time, THE Throne: the Ark of the Covenant.
That is why I see the War of Magog as separate from the war of Har Megiddo.
The season, yes. The day and hour, no.
Matthew 24:36 "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but My Father only."
After the graves are spread wide open, those of us who have not died will get the ride of our lives...On the way up our bodies will change into glorified bodies and then head due North at the speed of light
Only the speed of light?
How limiting.
Dead bodies?
What about those whose body was completely destroyed by fire or being dinner for wild animals or...?
Revelation 3:20
Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with that person, and they with me.
I guess John must have heard it wrong.
AFTER the GWT judgment?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.