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.
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.
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.
If you would like to be added to this ping list please mail me.
Thanks! Keep on —
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.
HP's also believe there is only one first resurrection (Rev. 20) literally interpreted. One elect people of God, one second coming, literally interpreted. And we are premillennialists!
I only bring this up to correct the misconception one would get from reading your series, that there is only two possible eschatological views in consideration, Dispensationalist Premill and Amill. There is a third view, Historic Premill, which is not represented.
Correction, this sentence should say:
The way this series reads, one would think that it is only Berkhof and the Amills who dispute the dispensational and pretrib scenario described:
to say dispensationalists are confused, is to be kind.
to prove this, I would like one to define “Israel” for me.
Paul says famously in Romans 11 “and so all Israel will be saved”.
who is Israel??
Here's a thought...defend your Amillennial Eschatology. Make a better argument from the Bible than the one given for Premillennialism in this thread. It's going to take more than calling people "confused" or "foolish". Let's see if you are up to the challenge.
There are so very many Scripture passages that speak of the new heaven and new earth that I find it incredulous that Amillennials imagine this old, corrupted and fallen earth and the heaven, where the angels rebelled and were cast to earth, is all that Almighty God has planned for. I remember reading in 2 Peter 3:10-13:
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done in it will be laid bare. Since everything will be destroyed in this way, what kind of people ought you to be? You ought to live holy and godly lives as you look forward to the day of God and speed its coming. That day will bring about the destruction of the heavens by fire, and the elements will melt in the heat. But in keeping with his promise we are looking forward to a new heaven and a new earth, where righteousness dwells.
It struck me how we make so much fuss over material things and place such importance on them for our happiness, yet, when we realize that ALL these things will be destroyed and only what is done for Christ will last, that our "treasure" is secure with God, it has to influence the kind of people we are and will be.
God's promise of a new heaven and earth has always been a promise that HE will fulfill. He said through the prophet Isaiah:
See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy. I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more. “Never again will there be in it an infant who lives but a few days, or an old man who does not live out his years; the one who dies at a hundred will be thought a mere child; the one who fails to reach a hundred will be considered accursed. They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit. No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the work of their hands. They will not labor in vain, nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the Lord, they and their descendants with them. Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, and dust will be the serpent’s food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,” says the Lord. (Isaiah 65:17-25)
"For just as the new heavens and the new earth Which I make will endure before Me," declares the LORD, "So your offspring and your name will endure. "And it shall be from new moon to new moon And from sabbath to sabbath, All mankind will come to bow down before Me," says the LORD. (Isaiah 66:22,23)
There is nothing to argue about, Jesus said very plainly that he was going to come back and rapture the good people like me out of this hell hole and after that he was going to come back and rule for a thousand years.
The beauty of being consistent in your method of interpretation is you begin to see how great God's love for the lost is and how incredible His plan is to bring us home. The Amillennialists have twisted themselves into knots with their supersesionist error and undeveloped eschatology that only sees one judgement. They miss the wedding feast of the Lamb. They don't understand who the Bride of Christ is. They fail to see how the two distinct peoples in God's plan are united because they insist they are both people.
On top of these errors the Amillennialists fail to be honest enough to acknowledge that their eschatology emerged centuries after the Apostolic Era ended and only because of a shift in how Scripture is interpreted. As we progress in this series I continue to hope that our Reformed FRiends open their eyes and see how their eschatology is flawed by the Romanism they failed to reject. For me I think it's a waste of time to discuss eschatology with RC's until they believe The Gospel. They are to indoctrinated with their sacramental system of salvation and church as their savior to see their error.
You and I both see it, but surprisingly a lot of Christians don't either because their church tells them something different, or they've never been exposed to it in a Bible study.
I'm sure to those who don't hold scripture above the teaching of man that would be how they see it. Perhaps you could prove from scripture how God has not kept His word to Israel.
Defined in Ezekiel 37:11 The hand of the Lord was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, 2 And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. 3 And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord God, thou knowest. 4 Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. 5 Thus saith the Lord God unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: 6 And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the Lord. 7 So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. 8 And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. 9 Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord God; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. 10 So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. 11 Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. 12 Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. 13 And ye shall know that I am the Lord, when I have opened your graves, O my people, and brought you up out of your graves, 14 And shall put my spirit in you, and ye shall live, and I shall place you in your own land: then shall ye know that I the Lord have spoken it, and performed it, saith the Lord.
More questions without answering ones posed to you? Please go back to Part 8 some questions awaiting you.
Thanks for that. As I read the prophetic books and passages more, I find I am more aligned with HP.
I agree with your comments.
Thanks for posting. Great topic of discussion.
Was going to post more but my gentle dogs started barking viciously. Does not happen often. Only when JWs and Mormons at the door. Well they were Mormons but across the street. And I did not even train them to do that:)
Thank you. Dispensationalists and amills argue as if they are the only two peas in the pod, after one side refutes the other side, they leave people with the conclusion that their view is the only alternative. Not so.
If you are interested, here’s a link with a great mass of evidence from the Fathers, theologians who wrote on prophetic themes in the years immediately following the 1st century early church, and before the councils. Evidence as to which is the historic view (the Fathers were obviously premills, hence “Historic” Premill).
http://answersinrevelation.org/Ecfs.html
ok, you asked for a better argument than this article from Scripture. the article states “rome” denies any future kingdom on earth after the second advent.
you posted Scriptures that prove that “rome” is correct. Isaiah 65 states that a new heaven and new earth will be created and God will rejoice over Jerusalem. what is “Jerusalem”? it can’t be that piece of earth in the middle east, 2 Peter 3 says that will be destroyed. besides God doesn’t rejoice or take delight in a piece of dirt.
no, Revelation 21:2 tells us this city, this new Jerusalem is the bride of Christ, Israel or as it is more commonly known, the Church.
Matthew 24 makes it clear Jesus returns on judgement day, the last day. after “the day of the Lord” as 2 Peter calls the last day, the earth will be destroyed by fire. there CAN’T be any 1,000 year millennial kingdom since this earth will not exist.
the kingdom has been established as Paul states in Colossians 1:13-14.
if one doesn’t understand what “Israel” is in the Scriptures, everything goes off the rails from there.
that’s why I asked for some dispensationalist to define Israel, AND NO ONE HAS.
Why? Because they know once they do, this 19th century theory can be picked apart like shooting fish in a barrel.
one example, Jeremiah 32:38-40 states Israel shall be his people and He will make an everlasting covenant with them. v.41 says he will plant them in this land.
is this future or has it been fulfilled? Dispensationalists say its future, “rome” or more properly the historical Christian faith, says Jesus has fulfilled this prophecy.
what does the NT say? 1 Peter 1:9 and 1:10 both call the Church “ God’s people “. wait a minute, Jeremiah says once the new covenant is made, Israel will be God’s people. there can be only one conclusion, Israel is the Church.
next Jeremiah says God will make an everlasting covenant with Israel. 1 Corinthians 11:25 says “this cup is the NEW COVENANT in my blood”. wait a minute, Jeremiah says this new covenant will be made with Israel, God’s people. who celebrates the Lord’s table but the Church? Hebrews 13:20 says this covenant in Christ’s blood is ETERNAL. but wait a minute, Jeremiah says the new eternal covenant will be with Israel, God’s people. there can only be one conclusion, Israel is the Church.
finally, since I have shown the prophecies of Jeremiah have been fulfilled by Jesus Christ, so must Jeremiah 33:41, I will place them in this land. WHAT LAND? He has placed us in HIS KINGDOM, THE NEW JERUSALEM.
where is Israel defined there?
He has absolutely kept his word with Israel. the question is, who is Israel?
can you tell me?
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.