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.
About what?
Strange...
Let's try that...
2Co_5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
We are confident, I say, to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Act 21:13 Then Paul answered, What mean ye to weep and to break mine heart? for I am ready not to be bound only, but also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus.
Php 1:20 According to my earnest expectation and my hope, that in nothing I shall be ashamed, but that with all boldness, as always, so now also Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.
Php 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
Php 1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
Php 1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
Seems Paul was awful anxious to die (just so he could go spend a couple thousand years in the ground?)...
Luk_23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.
Thanks all for the replies on this thread. I think I’m hopelessly behind in the conversation though so I don’t think I could catch up to comment well. So I’ll just sit this out for now and activate Lurker Mode on this one. Maybe next round!
Thanks again,
A different son, a wandering one, met him along the way. With both in need, of rest and feed, approached the end of day.
They each desired, for they were tired, a fare that each could pay.
The first and then the new, an Irishman and a Jew, took their appointed places. The Irish said, "The Galway bred don't love to help the rover."
Answered the Jew, "since I am new, I'll take the second spot. If one they choose, then both won't lose and one will have his cot."
So separately, and equally, they waited each their turn. Approaching shrouds, the threatening clouds, promised each of them a shower.
The rain did fall, and cast a pall, on every hopeful thought. As night approached and cold encroached, for them there was no shelter. It chilled the bone, they crouched alone, beneath the windy torrents.
Each begged a ride, and did not hide, their plight from passersby. Who did not care, as unaware, what tender mercies buy. With lads and lasses, attending masses, no Galway man will stop.
Finally came a priest, and he at least, would help so thought the Jew. But he looked away, as if to say, your fate does not concern me. Then loudly cried the Jew, as by the Catholic flew, "How can you do this ?"
The car ground to a halt. The priest backed up. The Jew felt a surge of hope and joy and asked the priest if the Irish could get in the ark too. The priest took them both to the inn, of which he did not approve, for men and women shared that inn.
All of them poor, they opened the door to light, and warmth, and shelter, and hot Irish tea.
>>was Golda Meir part of Israel?<≤≤p> God is not dealing with Israel as a nation at this point other than gathering them back to their land in preparation for when the church is taken from this earth. In that regard your question is I material to the salvation of Golda. Therefore it matters not that she is part of Israel or not. It was a question from ignorance.
Your second question was;
>>was Golda Meir saved, assuming she never believed in Jesus?<≤≤p> During this dispensation of grace there is only one way to salvation. That is through faith in Christ alone. So once again your question was one of ignorance since no one can know whether or not she had a that faith. Your attempt to get people to play God was not from the Holy Spirit although it was from a spirit.
Well done!!
Nothing indicates that a person WILL be with the Lord immediately after death.<<
Thank you for posting that. "Asleep" takes on a whole new meaning with that in mind.
Did Paul not write THIS???
1 Thessalonians 4:15-77
For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
Sounds mighty EXPLICIT to me.
(I've always assumed that Paul was going to be one of those 'dead in Christ'.)
'Him' is NOT Paul; and 'today'??? Jesus was in Paradise?
Just WHERE is THAT?
Jesus said: " Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
But that is the exact message of John’s first epistle, and chapter 2 of Paul’s epistle to the Romans.
.
I am convinced that our soul/spirit goes to heaven the second we die...That leaves our worthless dead bodies in the ground, or scattered with the winds...As such, I have no problem with the scripture you quoted...
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mystery; We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.
It is clear here to me that Paul does not mean actual sleep...He uses 'sleep' as a metaphor for being dead to show that the time spent in the ground is not permanent...'We shall not all sleep'...The inference is that we shall not all die...
Since Paul tells 'me' that we will be present with the Lord at the moment of death, those in the ground are only bodies, void of soul and spirit...They can not go to heaven because they are corrupt...Are the souls of Christians corrupt??? Nope...
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
So back to the top...
When the Rapture takes place, the dead bodies will rise first, be changed from corruptible to incorruptible bodies to be united with our souls in heaven...
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 while shooting past that red Dragon that's in that sea up there (that's another story) and head up to Glory...
Where DO you get your info?
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompence unto them:
Rom 11:10 Let their eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back alway.
I can only assume that this is why modern Jews reject their Messia, Jesus...
John 3:13
“And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.”
Where is "under the altar?"
In the parlance of the Revelation, that seems to be where the "dead in Christ" reside.
.
well, here we have a good example of the dispensational hokey pokey, put your left in, put left foot out......
start the music:
God is not dealing with Israel as a nation at this point, except he is gathering them to their land ( sounds like dealing with them, but I digress ) now Golda was born in Ukraine so she must have been gathered by God back to the land, so that must make her part of Israel. then we are told whether she is part of Israel or not doesn’t matter for salvation purposes, but Paul tells us in Romans that “all Israel will be saved” so Golda, brought back to her land, must be part of Israel and therefore is saved, but then we are told that in this dispensation of grace, only those who have faith in Christ will be saved, so Golda is not saved, do the hokey pokey.......
now you can see why no other dispensationalist decided to answer my question and even this hokey pokey answer doesn’t contain straight yes or no answers. maybe the Jews in the nation of Israel today are just the “jv team” and real Israel ( when the Christians leave of course ) will be the real Israel.
historical, orthodox Christianity has always taught since Peter spoke in Acts 2, that Jesus is ruling from David’s throne NOW and this Kingdom is ETERNAL ( not 1,000 years )
Isaiah 9:7 and 2 Samuel 7:12-16.
>> “And what happens to the UNbelievers on that Day?” <<
.
They get to watch in horror, knowing that the ten days of wrath of the bowl judgments are about to come upon them.
(Oh happy day?)
any dispensational friends wish to tackle something I always wondered?
in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness taking his seat in the “temple of God”
what is this “temple of God”? where can one find it?
There IS a difference between asking a question and getting an answer and ignoring the answers you don't like in order to continue with the charade that little ol' you confounded the Dispies.
>> in 2 Thessalonians 2:3-4, Paul speaks of the man of lawlessness taking his seat in the “temple of God” <<
.
Not a dispy, but the words “Temple of God” are most likely a mistranslation when Paul’s Hebrew letter was translated to Greek. The true words had to be Mercy Seat, or Holy Place, which is where he will stand, atop the Ark of the Covenant, when he makes this declaration.
I do not believe that there will be a temple, unless Antichrist has it built himself.
.
I told you I would rest easy in that you would not understand.
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.