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.
He preserved his word for his own, who can see the flaws and wade through them just fine.
For the goats that hate his way, the flaws provide the strong delusion that they thrive on.
Only if they are not whoring after the false messiah when the true one comes back.
Is it your contention that anyone who doesn't believe the New Testament Scriptures were originally written in Hebrew and erroneously translated into Greek so that Christians cannot know the truth God revealed through His word are not among the "elect"? If so, WHERE are all the original Hebrew documents? Is Almighty God incapable of preserving EXACTLY what He wants His called-out ones to know?
We've been through this line of argument many times and you have YET to produce any evidence that categorically proves what you assert. Seeing as there ARE Christians - the elect - among every nation and tribe and tongue and people, we DO know that the Holy Spirit is more than able to touch every heart and lead into ALL truth those who diligently seek it - no matter what language they speak OR read.
Then I saw another angel flying in midair, and he had the eternal gospel to proclaim to those who live on the earth—to every nation, tribe, language and people. He said in a loud voice, “Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water.” (Revelation 14:6,7_
His own deal with the crud that landed in the Greek translations quite well.
Those that have no desire for the meat of his word can still lap up the milk that survived. That is unfortunately what gives rise to false doctrine like dispensationalism, and the pre-trib trap. Only strong belief breaks that barrier.
The prize is always for only those that persevere.
.
So you think He is hiding the gospel He wants proclaimer to all nations? Wow!
>> “Since the Ascension Christ’s coming in glory has been imminent” <<
.
Absolutely false!
The requirements set out in Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians demolish that completely.
Paul stated quite plainly that before Yeshua could return, there must be the falling away, and the “man of sin” must be revealed.
Since those events have not yet occurred, his return is not yet even possible. This is the big flaw that shows that pre-trib dispies are not part of his elect.
They should be studying to show themselves approved!
.
>> “That doesn’t help you...All that says is that no man will know which day or what time of the day.” <<
.
Actually, Matthew 24:36 was Yeshua’s way of telling his own exactly which day he would come: Yom Teruah.
His spoken words were exactly the words of an ancient Hebrew idiom for Yom Teruah.
He essentially told them that only those that watch diligently will know, thus the parable of the Virgins, that followed immediately after that revelation.
Later, in Revelation 3:3 he stated again that for those that “will not watch” he would come as a thief.
Those that “will not watch” are those that reject his appointed times as “feasts of the Jews.”
.
Was this the son of perdition, that nobody understands?
>> “Only if they are not whoring after the false messiah when the true one comes back.” <<
.
Yes, that is the knife that cleaves the goats from the sheep during the tribulation.
Those that are familiar with Paul’s epistles to the Thessalonians, and the Corinthians should be able to sort this out, and recognize the “man of sin.”
Strong delusion is evident in your post.
I specifically said that he has not hidden anything from his own. He said that he was hiding his truth from those to whom it was not given, or have you not read that?
Yes,same thing.
Where does dispensationalism state the rapture occurs before the man of sin is revealed? Frankly I have seen no one claim this.
3 views of timing of the rapture among the spectrum of literal milleliarians:
Pre-tribulation rapture
Mid tribulation rapture
Post tribulation rapture
All three views present scriptural evidence for their theory of rapture timing with regards to the literal tribulation and literal Second Coming of Messiah as conquering King. All believe in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth and believe YHWH is not finished with Israel as a people.
I know of no view which speaks of rapture “timing” as “dogmatic.” Very few Christians refuse fellowship based on rapture views or eschatological views in general. Only full preterism denies a future second coming and as such views the second coming as past in 70AD.
The above is from my studies of various Christian eschatology and observations here and on other forums. And each position sees the literal falling away and man of sin revealed as the trigger point for the unfolding of following prophecy to be fulfilled.
So with the above we should watch and be ready and most important follow Messiah Yeshuas command to bring His Gospel to all nations and tongues.
You're right...Turns out it's Mike Rood....
Why do attack Yeshua’s servant?
Just being funny...The man of sin is the anti Christ... The false prophet who will lead his followers to the anti Christ is a pope...
All three views present scriptural evidence for their theory of rapture timing with regards to the literal tribulation and literal Second Coming of Messiah as conquering King. All believe in a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ on earth and believe YHWH is not finished with Israel as a people.
Thank you for a great observation.
We may disagree about various aspects of the Tribulation and Rapture but that disagreement is not about who our Savior is and who the returning King is, or how He saved us by His sacrifice.
>> “Where does dispensationalism state the rapture occurs before the man of sin is revealed? Frankly I have seen no one claim this.” <<
.
Dispensationalism denies the scriptural fact that the first resurrection occurs exactly 42 Biblical months after the man of sin is revealed.
It also denies the fact that his elect will go through the trib here on Earth, as the scriptures plainly say.
The resurrection will not be a secret to anyone when it happens, it will be the biggest, most observed event that has ever occurred on Earth.
.
The only “view” that is supported by scripture (particularly Paul’s letters to the Thessalonians and Corinthians) is the post 42 month trib rapture.
Where is any other view supported in scripture?
Wherever the resurrection is mentioned in scripture, it is “at the last trump” or “After the tribulation of those days.”
Where can the resurrection be found to be any other time?
The time periods expressed in months, or in days, in the Revelation, all coincide with the appointed times of Yehova exactly to the day, as counted by his calendar, so there is obviously a specific plan in place, with no variables. This is not dogma, it is simply scripture.
To watch and be ready, one must watch in the manner set out in the scriptures, or that watching will be without fruit.
Watching is keeping Yehova’s ancient appointed times that have been kept by his own since Adam sinned.
The most important one is the unmistakable one that is the only one that occurs precisely at the new moon that begins his seventh month. The one that has been remembered as the time that no man knoweth but the Father, because no man was able to predict the appearance of the new moon.
All of the other appointed times are known well in advance, since they occur on a specific numbered day of the month.
I tend to think that is correct, but pope is not to be found in the word that I know of.
God doesn’t hide His truth from anyone. To claim He does is to call Him a liar.
Rood is an emissary of Satan not a servant of God.
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.