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.
LOL, gotta love those dogs.
You are right that prior to the emergence of the institutional church the dominant view was Premillennial. If you can find some articles that will compare and contrast pre-nicene Premillennialism with modern Premillennialism I would be very interested in reading them.
How many times will you pretend that nobody has answered that already??? Here's a hint (and you'd finally get it if you stopped avoiding answering the question that has been posed to you several times now) who is the "Wife of Jehovah"?
You cannot say it is the "church". I hope you know why, but I'll be happy to explain it to you once again if you need me to.
“Wife of Jehovah” doesn’t say who Israel is. Maybe this will make it clearer, is there anyone alive today we can say belongs to or is part of Israel.
Is TIger Woods paer of Israel?
Is Steven Spielberg part of Israel?
Is “miss Israel” part of Israel?
Put some meat on the bones, can you? If I go down the street and start asking someone who the wife of Jehovah is, they will look at me as if I have two heads.
Btw, if you don’t know, just say so. No shame in it, since no dispensationalist knows apparently. The fellow posting this series, is silent because the person asking the question doesn’t believe the Gospel. Is that what a Christian does? I thought we were always supposed to be ready to give answer about the faith.
What is the criteria for someone to be considered part of “Israel”?
You would think I am asking someone to explain the theory of relativity.
Your theories and arguments have been thoroughly debunked in the 8th session of this installment and now you apparently pretend that thread never took place...
Of course Peter says the heavens and earth will melt away because they will...After the 1000 reign of Jesus on Earth...
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.
Misquoting scripture again to prove something that isn't true...You guys never learn...
Rev 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
Jesus does NOT say that the New Jerusalem is a bride or church...Jesus says the New City is adorned AS a bride...Adorned 'like' a bride would be adorned...So that's not even a good try on your part...
that’s why I asked for some dispensationalist to define Israel, AND NO ONE HAS.
You have been thoroughly schooled on this topic in the previous thread...No need to repeat it...Go back and read that thread...
I have posted the scriptural response to that question twice. The last time I wrote "Ezekiel 37:11." This is one of the reason I prefer to just post the scriptures without references. If someone is walking in, and taught of, the Holy Spirit, the scriptures will speak to his heart. If he does not have, or is grieving, the Holy Spirit, no amount of explanation will suffice. When one is taught of the Holy Spirit, all the scriptures he has diligently studied flow through his heart and mind, comparing scripture with scripture, ready and willing to be obedient as a little child.
I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you. A little while, and ye shall not see me: and again, a little while, and ye shall see me, because I go to the Father.
Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless. And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction. Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
I don't see him allowing others to miscontrue him as Catholic (so the Catholic Church is blamed for his teaching) and then publicly denying the Catholic Catechism. "That would strain credulity at that."
The Council of Trent teaches that the Ten Commandments are obligatory for Christians and that the justified man is still bound to keep them; the Second Vatican Council confirms: "The bishops, successors of the apostles, receive from the Lord . . . the mission of teaching all peoples, and of preaching the Gospel to every creature, so that all men may attain salvation through faith, Baptism and the observance of the Commandments."
Church should not accept members who deny Vatican II, official says
The Second Vatican Council's teaching, particularly on Judaism and other religions, is rooted in traditional Christian theology and the Bible, and the Catholic Church should not offer concessions to those who do not accept its teaching, said an Israeli-born Franciscan who serves as a judge on a top Vatican court.
Msgr. David Jaeger, a judge at the Roman Rota, defined as worrying a tendency, "here and there in Catholicism, to look leniently upon stray groups that are marginal but well-publicized who denounce the doctrine of the council, including the declaration 'Nostra Aetate'" on the relationship of the church to non-Christian religions.
Msgr. Jaeger, who grew up in a Jewish family, spoke about "Nostra Aetate" during a conference on the Second Vatican Council at Rome's Opus Dei-run Holy Cross University May 3-4.
"While often presented as if it were absolutely new," he said, the teaching of "Nostra Aetate" "perfectly corresponds to the most ancient intuitions of Christian theology" when it affirms "there can be, and in particular cases, are elements of truth and holiness" in other religions, he said. In addition, the document emphasized that Judaism has a special status, which "already was extensively explained by St. Paul, particularly in the Epistle to the Romans."
The council's document explained the church's "doctrine on Judaism, the only religion which, while not knowing Christ, has its origins in biblical revelation, which is why the church does not regard it simply as a 'non-Christian religion,' but ascribes to it a unique status," Msgr. Jaeger said.
While recognizing the unique and special relationship between God and the Jewish people, he said, the council did not say say that Judaism was a "parallel path to salvation" and it did not deny that somehow, in the end, all salvation would be accomplished through Christ.
Obviously motivated by the horrors of the Holocaust, but also by centuries of injustices and persecution of Jews "by those who called themselves Christians and believed they therefore could justify their brutality, the declaration took care to severely condemn such conduct and to highlight the complete illegitimacy of supporting it with any reference to Christianity," he said.
"The proof of Nostra Aetate's effectiveness is that it seems strange to have to say it today," the monsignor said.
However, he said, "One must take this occasion to express the deep hope that leniency will be denied" to anyone who does not accept the council's teaching and "that there will be no being content with fake, quasi-adhesions accompanied by evident verbal and mental reservations to the teaching of the Second Vatican Council in general and to 'Nostra Aetate' in particular."
"In fact," he said, "the extreme gravity of the counter-witness of those who have, for centuries, abused the name of Christ and the term Christian to persecute and oppress the Jews must never be forgotten or underestimated in any way."
Where is this Part 8? I’m asking if there’s a corresponding thread on FR.
Of course Peter says the heavens and earth will melt away because they will...After the 1000 reign of Jesus on Earth
LOL, one can read 2 Peter front to back and back to front, and you will not find any mention of the so called 1000 year reign! why not? because it’s not Biblical.
2 Peter 3:7 speaks of the “day of judgement”, or as I like to call it, Judgement Day. v10 says when Jesus returns, it will be like a thief, we won’t know the exact day. please note, Jesus will come again ONE TIME, not twice.
when He does return, IT IS JUDGEMENT DAY, THE LAST DAY.
v10 says “ and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire and the earth and the works upon it will be burned up.”
get it? Judgement Day when Jesus returns AND THEN the earth is destroyed. NO 1,000 YEAR MILLENIAL KINGDOM.
while we are in 2 Peter, you might note 2:1 warns about false teachers bringing destructive heresies, just sayin.
oh, I forgot. please let me know what post # “Israel” was defined in in thread #8. you and BB keep alluding to it, but I can’t find one, so if either of you can say the post number, I would love to go back and read what Israel is to the dispensationalist.
is it an ethnic group?
is it a religion?
is it an ethic group that follows a religion?
If you can find some articles that will compare and contrast pre-nicene Premillennialism with modern Dispensational Premillennialism I would be very interested in reading them.
If you do a search with the keywors Premillennial, Amillennial, or Dispensational you should find the series starting with the 1st part.
Of course it does. Catholics and others who corrupt the meaning of scripture don't understand that but it's true nonetheless.
>>If I go down the street and start asking someone who the wife of Jehovah is, they will look at me as if I have two heads.<<
I see part of your problem. "People on the the street" are as bad a place to get understanding of scripture as the Catholic Church is.
Ok, that ‘s one dispensationalist who has no idea of who/what Israel is. Anyone else?
Who did God put back in their land in 1948?
I find that line of inquiry interesting, particularly in light of Ezekiel 36, et al.
I am not aware that God put anyone back in their land in 1948. Who are you referring to and how do you know God was the one who did it?
any Scripture to support these assertions or do we just take your word for it. I would think if it was so “stunning” you would have given me six verses that say in 1948 God was going to give some people back their land. but as with most things dispensational, it’s an enigma, wrapped in a riddle.......
“he said he would” WHERE???
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.