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.
Never mind: here I go again!!
"WHEW!", says Mary!
And ALSO 'believe' the Right Stuff about communion; too!
Try this instead:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3193827/posts?page=453#453
And I never indicated a pre-trib rapture. See link above for the detailed order of events to come.
Which goes back to the trust and faith comment of mine earlier.
You’re still refusing to accept a unified Bible.
All of the writings about this have to fit together, but you are throwing out Yeshua’s and Paul’s statements, all of which are in perfect agreement, to stuff things in a different order than they told us.
Also the appointed times are in control, and must be fulfilled in the exact number of days/months stated in the Revelation. The number of days between Trumpets, Atonement,and Tabernacles never vary, never have, never will. Purim plus 1335 days to Trumpets plus 10 days to Atonement plus 5 days to Trumpets, takes us to chapter 16, verse 18, the earthquake.
Then begins a parenthetical parallel time period as seen from Earth from chapter 17:1 through chapter 18:24 describing the bowls as experienced from their point of view.
After that we are with him, reigning on Earth. A recap of all events begins thereafter, without details or any particular coherance, but generally in order, as John runs through the events he has just revealed, quickly in his own mind. That recap is chapter 19 through 22.
This all fits the rest of the word, without curious lumps or gaps.
.
LOL!
>> “Now then; post the description of the second.” <<
.
Woe unto those that were not part of the first resurrection!
Lots of ‘splainin to do, to no avail.
.
It is you that are trying to deflect the entirety of Yeshua’s words.
He says there are no done deals, and so do all of his apostles. They all plainly state that we must endure to the end, and also that many will fail to endure.
You deflect God’s word using your favorite crutch: Attack his chief 21st century minister.
.
Yet what you call a ‘recap’ starting in Revelation 19 has the second coming before the ‘first resurrection.’ All there and no gaps.
Wedding Feast
Second Coming
Satan bound
First Resurrection
Satan loosed
Satan thrown into Lake of Fire
Great White Throne Judgment
That is why you have to read it all to understand.
The wedding feast would be empty of ‘guests’ without the first resurrection, that brings all of the guests up.
Read the detailed description first, and then the recap won’t bother you.
P.S.
The details begin in the ancient scriptures!
Do you understand what “because of their unbellief” means?
I just showed you some of many passages that show that to be a false statement.
>>You deflect God’s word using your favorite crutch: Attack his chief 21st century minister.<<
Only if Satan is you god
And I pointed out that it was because of their unbelief. Unbelief after having been shown the truth before their eyes were blinded. So even those people saw the original truth which was the point of the discussion. The contention was, and is,that the truth has been hidden for centuries.
>> “I just showed you some of many passages that show that to be a false statement” <<
.
No, you did not!
You showed passages that you either do not understand, or you hoped that I didn’t understand.
For every one of those passages that you misinterpret, there are at least 10 places where it is plainly stated that we must endure to the end.
>> “ The contention was, and is,that the truth has been hidden for centuries.” <<
.
No, that was just your agitprop.
Yeshua’s own do not have the difficulties that you live with.
Nah, there are 3 parts to the first Resurrection...The firstfruits; the harvest and then the gleanings...And somewhere in there is the Rapture...ALL before the 2nd coming of Jesus...And long before the 2nd Resurrection...
For every one of those passages that you misinterpret, there are at least 10 places where it is plainly stated that we must endure to the end.
Sorry Charlie...No misinterpretation at all...
Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
There's no way to wrongly interpret that verse or the scores of verses like it...It says what it means and means what it says...It is dishonest to claim the verse(s) means something else...
So what do you do with the opposing verses??? You guys throw one out in favor of the other...You'll never understand the scriptures until you can reconcile ALL of the scriptures...
you have given a detailed explanation of what you feel Revelation 19-22 teach and I have read it, as I do all the posts people direct to me. ( not hard, there usually aren’t that many, lol )
it is very easy to disprove that the second coming happens before Satan is bound for a 1,000 years and that is by Revelation 20:9 “ and they marched up over the broad earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city”
this verse tells us there are still Christians on the earth, the saints and beloved city can only mean the remnant Church. and if there are still Christians on the earth, the second coming can not have happened yet.
there are too many other verses that are absolutely clear, no interpretation needed, when Jesus Christ appears at his second coming, it is THE END.
Matthew 24 - the disciples ask, what will be the sign of your coming AND THE CLOSE OF THE AGE? Jesus explains the great falling away, the rise of false teachers, the wickedness, sacrilege and great tribulation which will occur. v29 says IMMEDIATELY AFTER the tribulation of those days, the sun will be darkened, the moon will not give its light, heaven and earth will be shaken because it is the DAY OF THE LORD, THE LAST DAY, JUDGEMENT DAY. it will be a day like any other, people will be going about their business marrying, working and playing and then suddenly like a thief in the night, it will all be over. this tells us there will not be some great physical battle or war going on, the war is spiritual and it will appear the devil’s side is winning. there is no 1,000 year reign mentioned in Matthew 24.
1 Corinthians 15:23-24 “ then at his coming, those who belong to Christ. THEN COMES THE END.....
V25 “for he MUST REIGN.... “ note the present tense, He is reigning when Paul penned these words. v24 could not be clearer, when Jesus comes again, then comes the end.
matches PERFECTLY with Matthew 24.
2 Thessalonians 2:1-8 Jesus will destroy the lawless one by his appearing and his coming. ( notice all the verses only describe one day of the Lord, one coming. )
2 Peter 3:10 but the day of the Lord will come like a thief AND THEN the heavens will pass away......
AND THEN. all the verses are consistent, when Jesus comes again in glory, the show is over.
right now, the OT and NT elect are reigning with Christ and will accompany Him when He returns again.
the marriage supper of the Lamb occurs throughout the 1,000 year period ( from the cross to the 2nd coming ) and it is participated in and by all members of the Body of Christ, whether on earth or in heaven by worshipping the Lamb.
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.