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.
Rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Rev 2:11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
Do the churches overcome??? No...It is the individuals in the churches who over come...
1Jn_5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jn_5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
We born again Christians who belong to churches (or not) have overcome already...There are many members of churches who have not overcome...
Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
Rev 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
Rev 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.
Rom 8:17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
We're not going to be glorified and then face judgment...
2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with him: if we deny him, he also will deny us
Rev 20:4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
Christians are of this group and will already be judged and resurrected long before this 2nd group gets to the final judgment...
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Won't be any Christians dying the second death... Born once, die twice...Born twice, die once...
No it's not. (Gr. oikonomia, "management," "economy"). (1.) The method or scheme according to which God carries out his purposes towards men is called a dispensation. God has changed the way He deals with man several times. Today we are i n the dispensation of grace as opposed to the dispensation of the law.
Beautiful!
Another verse that I believe points out that Christians will not be judged at the Great White Throne Judgment is:
Rev. 20:12 ...And the dead were judged according to their works...
Christians are saved by Faith Alone, so we are not the ones being judged.
Amillennialilsm makes the mistake of trying to put all the different people, nations and Angels together into one judgement. As Walvoord points out:
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.
Catholics will never understand the answer to the questions in #77. During this dispensation of grace since the death and ressurection of Christ God is not dealing with Israel per the law as He will again after the church is taken out off of this earth. God is gathering Israel but will deal with them specifically after the church is taken (the fullness of the Gentiles has come in). No one other then those who trust in Christ alone is saved during this dispensation of grace.
I don't like to use the word spiritualizing in those cases...Even when a verse must be spiritualized, it is still understandable...
The Catholics and other must attach metaphor or allegory on to the phrase since they don't have a clue what it means...Most of the time it means, throw the phrase out since we can't understand it anyway, allegorized or not...
Good point.
You posted a LOT of verses about a ‘second death’ and ‘reigning’; but NONE about Christians NOT being at the Great White Throne Judgement.
I guess this is the 'is' of your interpretation.
For me; when I read 'each' it means EACH, and ALL, and EVERYONE.
Are you joking?
>> “. During this dispensation of grace since the death and ressurection of Christ God is not dealing with Israel per the law as He will again after the church is taken out off of this earth.” <<
.
There is absolutely nothing in scripture that says anything like this.
Where did you get this idea?
God is always dealing with everyone according to the law.
The law is his very definition of sin and of love. What else is there?
Grace allows our forgiveness for PAST transgression of his law, but is not a license to continue in sin.
.
.
I will pray that before it’s too late you will realize what being filled with the Holy Spirit causes in a persons life.
Being filled with the Holy Spirit does not cause one to post non scriptural nonsense to this forum.
.
You are really close to something here - In the greatest aspect of ekklesia, I believe it is transferable directly to the Hebrew idea of 'congregation' - The 'congregation', the gathered 'called out ones' did not begin at Pentecost - It began in Egypt, or even before that with Abraham himself... One could even argue that it began right in the Garden, soon after the fall. In that greater sense, it is a single, continuous, contiguous, entity. There is no difference between the pre-Calvary and post-Calvary 'congregation' wrt intent, purpose, and salvation. It is monolithic. The difference is only between 'the thing hoped for' before Calvary, and 'the thing realized' going forward from Calvary. In the whole of these, those from among that whole with a true heart (projecting ever forward to the end), ARE true Israel. These, en toto, are the true Church. The very same thing.
The division between the two MUST be false to the reality of YHWH's intent, for of a surety, it is the same Blood which saves them all. And it's purpose has never changed, what it has been 'called out' to do - it is external to it's own self: To go out into the world and recover into itself as many of the Sons of Adam as possible, within the grace of YHWH. To win as many as possible. The grand scheme is to save the Sons of Adam, and True Israel is the physical mechanism YHWH is using to perform that task, under the egis of His role as Messiah, the ultimate Israel.
But the Bible contains other threads, both internal and external to that greater scope of Israel. As that touches the prophecy, it must necessarily must take place, as the prophecy is the primary proof of YHWH against all comers - And it is incorrect to say that all of the prophecy is all about Messiah.
The inheritance is a solid proof of that fact - Most of the prophecies we are arguing over are tied up in that Inheritance. And the Inheritance is strictly promised to bloodline Israel according to the various sons thereof. The inheritance, according to Torah, cannot be transferred - it is specifically given to the exact tribe it is promised to. So I see no means by which that inheritance can wind up anywhere else - Judah's no doubt winds up in Messiah, but what of the other 12 tribes? And the lion's share winds up in Ephraim, not Judah, who, of the promises, retains his land, the scepter, and the rod...
And there are also specific declaratory promises made to the two nations of Israel, the two wives, consisting of their respective bloodline tribes. To answer your question regarding this point, in this sense, the church cannot have subsumed all of that, because Judah (the House of Judah) is still married to YHWH - She has never received a bill of divorcement, even though she had been put away for a time... That House of Judah is the national Israel that we know today. They hail out of, and trace their roots to, the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi (the priestly line) - These are the tribes of the House of Judah.
These two examples are provably true (the Inheritance and promises specific to the two Houses), separate from Messiah, and separate from the church, and more importantly (for this conversation), they remain unfulfilled.
Thanks for the link, although to me, this is very much a new tone coming from the Roman church. I have read reams of this stuff (from them), and this is decidedly different. To be honest, I find it hard to believe, as the Roman church therein draws a distinction between itself and 'Protestant' Replacement Theology... However, I have found her to be the main progenitor thereof historically, the Protestants (those that preach Replacement theology) having retained such from before the Reformation. To draw such a distinction (and place the blame upon Protestants) is highly disingenuous, IMHO. In fact, one would not have to venture far to find that argument espoused by your coreligionists right here on FR:RF, as it has been since I arrived here many years ago.
The construct that 'Israel is special, but we don't know why' shows the inexperience of this new tone, because the Bible tells you 'why', and does so explicitly. What is not admitted revolves around the rejection of the Millennial Kingdom - Understandable confusion, considering a retained amillenialist viewpoint.
I don't know how that can jibe, btw, because if one does not admit the promises yet to be fulfilled, then one need not admit Israel's 'specialness' either.
But that being said, perhaps you should show it to 1F1L1B...
The same as always, the believing Hebrews, with the believing gentiles grafted in.
Those who keep the commandments of YHWH and have the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah.
What is silly is your insistence on the English word 'horses'. - The word could mean 'horses', but the generic term means 'leapers'. It can also be 'swallow or stork'... So something that 'leaps' or 'flies' that men ride upon...
And I am sure my fellows can assure you that I am not a dispensationalist. I am much closer to a millenial-historist.
BRAVO!! We don't normally agree (and not perfectly here either), you and I, but this is a peach! There is a bit of universalist in me, I guess, but the exclusionary sense cannot be right, lest almost all of humanity, the great majority of the Sons of Adam, both before and after the cross, are doomed from the get-go. That is in conflict with the Father's stated will and purpose. I don't know how far it does go, but I think the Blood of Messiah has a much greater impact than most exclusionary groups allow.
Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess...
Thanks for your kind reply. That particular passage has huge implications if folks think it through.
Who is the prince of Persia that could delay an Archangel for months?
Who is the chief prince of Gog?
Who is Apollyon, who comes up out of the pit?
It is foolishness to think the war in the heavens is not being waged here too.
WAKE UP!
ABSOLUTELY. PRECISELY. Packed down, perfectly. Every_jot_and_tittle.
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.