A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism, Part I

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
Perisseuo	A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism, Part I		Lead	[-]
Posts: 310 11/21/07 21:08:49	Tags : None Article Just wondering, do you ascribe to Engelsma argument. I fall on the amillennial side, but are the postmillennials that threatening? John Chaney "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism, Part I	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 494 11/22/07 13:12:01	I haven't read Dr. Engelsma's series, so I don't know if he supports his position more than in this article. But all I see here is emotion-laden casting of stones, rather than well-reasoned argumentation. He assumes the very points under discussion -- does the Bible actually teach increasing lawlessness and apostasy throughout the church age, or does it teach increasing godliness throughout that time? He makes a reference to 2 Thess. 2, without explaining why that passage teaches what he believes (and not, as the preterist version of postmillennialism teaches, a prophecy of the great apostasy and judgement in 70 AD). There's not much different in the mode of argumentation here than what I generally hear from evangelicals in general. The evangelical world has been so inundated with sensationalistic pre-mil thought, that if anyone questions such things as a pre-trib rapture, a single anti-christ yet to come, etc., then those who question these things are immediately assumed to be liberals, denying the clear teaching of the Bible. Dr. Engelsma's article seems to take on the same tone. I see no problem, in principle, with the idea that theological thought should grow in precision through the ages. It has already done so, as is well obvious. I remember a number of years ago reading Berkhof's book on the history of doctrine. It amazed me that the church, for several hundred years after the apostles, did not have a well-defined concept of the substitutionary atonement -- they generally believed that the extent of Christ's sacrifice was to be an example for believers (to live a self-sacrificial life). The church finally came to understand what is, for us, a basic, foundational doctrine. Of course, there's the refinement of theology with the Reformation and the reformed creeds. So why should we not expect further refinement and depth of understanding in the future? Why should we not expect that the church in the future will come to consensus about eschatology? Why should we not expect that the church in the future will come to consensus about the mode and objects of baptism? I don't think we can act as if the Reformation creeds were the be-all and end-all of theological development. Right now, we accept all 3 eschatological positions (excepting dispy premil) in the Reformed world, because it is obvious the Holy Spirit has not worked a common understanding in His Church yet. But, if and when He does so in the future, I would expect that the Church would say that the consensus position (which I would hope would be postmil) is THE position of the church, and other viewpoints are outside the pale of orthodoxy. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas	Re: A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism, Part I	#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 329 11/23/07 14:40:32 Administrator	Personally, I do not think he is as irenic as he could have been in this series. Thus, I see this as a shortcoming and I almost did not run the series because of this. However, in coming articles you will see his arguments from Rev. 20, Matt 24, Isaiah 64:17, which are beneficial to a fuller understanding of the Amil view..... His articles will be tempered by others I plan on running by: Hoekema, Riddlebarger, Neilson, etc. In Christ, 5 Solas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Perisseuo	Some history	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 310 11/28/07 00:18:09	Going off on a tangent, but it somewhat falls within the topic. My impression is that historically within the Reformed camp the eschatology had elements from both the amill and postmill positions so as their not being much debate on the differences - everyone had a working agreement. It wasn't until later years that the two became pronounced into two separate camps. If that is so, when did it really started happening and what brought it on? John Chaney "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: Some history	#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 494 11/28/07 08:59:17	Not being a history buff, I'm sure someone could correct me. But my impression is that there has not really been "a-mil" vs. "post-mil" in the Reformed world until the 20th century. Instead, there was Reformed eschatology in general vs. the "chiliasts," or what would be comparable to pre-mils (not dispys). It seems that both amils and postmils point back to various Reformers through history to buttress their position, but I don't believe the amil/postmil distinction was really defined to that degree. There was a general thought that Christ instituted His kingdom at His first coming, and that He will reign until His second coming, and then the eternal state. That's the basic outline of both amil and postmil eschatology -- the difference is in how much earthly success Christ's kingdom has before His second coming. The Puritans also saw a mass conversion of the Jews, which is the particular version of postmil thought outlined in Iain Murray's "Puritan Hope." But that's probably the closest to any defined postmil thinking. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Perisseuo	Part III	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 310 12/06/07 11:07:56	Engelsma makes the best case against postmillennialism in Part III when he speaks against the 'Golden Age' of the church and with Preterism. I wonder if those two, "Golden Age" and Preterism, are necessary in establishing a postmillennial model? John Chaney "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: Part III	#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 494 12/06/07 15:43:46	All I see is statements, but not proofs. For example, *Quote:* The ungodly always dominate. The worlds rulers always condemn the cause of the true church. The wicked always oppress the saints. The only hope of the church in the world, and their full deliverance, is the second coming of Christ and the final judgment. He just states this, and says in the next line, "This is Reformed doctrine." But I can look at 1 Cor. 15:25-26 and see a very strong argument for postmillennialism. What does Paul say? "He [Christ] must reign until He has put ALL His enemies under His feet." So the reign of Christ continues until all enemies have been subdued. And what's the end point of that process of subduing ALL His enemies? "The last enemy to be destroyed is death." Both amils and postmils see the conquering of death (the resurrection) being at the second coming of Christ. So PRIOR to that second coming, ALL other enemies of Christ will have been subdued. This doesn't sound like "The ungodly always dominate." What about his attacks on preterism? Again, bare statements with no proof. And think about this one: *Quote:* Whatever in the New Testament, and in the Old as well, predicts tribulation for the people of God has already been completely fulfilled. Nothing of this applies to the church any longer. Thus, huge chunks of Holy Scripture are made irrelevant to the church, including most of the book of Revelation. Let me take that same line of argument and apply it to other Scriptures. I assume Dr. Engelsma would say that Isaiah's prophecy of Immanuel (Isa. 7:14) has been fulfilled with the birth of Christ. I assume he would also say that Isaiah 53 has been fulfilled with the death of Christ. Does that then mean that those "huge chunks of Holy Scripture are made irrelevant to the church"? Of course not. The fact that a passage of Scripture has been fulfilled in the past does not mean that passage is irrelevant to us today. We look back at the Isaiah prophecies and take comfort in the fact that God made these promises of a Messiah, and then that He faithfully fulfilled those promises. Likewise, I can believe that much (not all) of NT prophecy has been fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD, and still find much application and comfort today. Fulfilled prophecy is not thereby irrelevant prophecy. To answer your final question, *Quote:* I wonder if those two, "Golden Age" and Preterism, are necessary in establishing a postmillennial model? I would first want to define those terms. It seems that Engelsma likes to use the term "Golden Age" in a derisive fashion, without really considering what postmils believe about the future. But if we remove those negative connotations from the term "Golden Age," then it would be true that "Golden Age" is necessary for postmillennialism -- that's by definition what postmil thought consists of. And preterism is not essential to postmillennialism -- the Puritans (see Iain Murray's "Puritan Hope") seemed to see a future apostasy, a future great tribulation, all following the millennial age. There are variations among postmils, just as there are among other positions. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas	Re: Part III	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 329 12/17/07 11:09:35 Administrator	Just to let you know the series will not begin again until Dec. 30th. So, don't worry if it is not in the next issue of RPM. In Christ, 5 Solas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism, Part I	#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 494 12/17/07 11:39:02	Rats. I thought maybe it wouldn't continue at all... Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Perisseuo	VIII - Latest installment	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 186 01/17/08 10:37:00	Any thoughts about PostMills only use the OT, ignoring the NT in developing their eschatology? What about Isaiah 65 posing the most difficult argument for the Amills according to Gentry? John Chaney "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB) Last Edited By: Perisseuo 01/17/08 12:36:35. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Re: Ignoring the OT	#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 463 01/17/08 12:17:18	It depends on what is meant by "ignoring" the OT. When I read the NT in light of the OT, especially the postmil passages referred to, I see the NT as fitting right in line with them. I see Matt. 28:18-20 as being thoroughly consistent -- Christ now has all authority, just as Ps. 2 prophesied, and now reigns over all, and sends out His messengers to disciple the nations. Sounds like a glorious future to me. Engelsma mentioned Matt. 13 as well -- again, that fits right in with postmil thought. Paul in 1 Cor 15 says that Christ must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet, with the last enemy being death -- so all Christ's enemies are subdued PRIOR TO the general resurrection at His second coming. Fits right in with the OT. You see, I could say the same thing as Engelsma but change the issue to infant baptism. One might say (in fact anti-paedobaptists do say) paedobaptists ignore the NT teaching ("believe and be baptized," etc.) and base their thought on the OT (covenant with Abraham, circumcision, etc.). However, we paedobaptists say that we are reading the NT in the light of the OT, as a continuation of the OT, and so we don't need to have explicit NT prooftexts of our position (for example, we don't need to find Paul saying, "Baptize your babies"). No, we believe the NT teaching is thoroughly consistent with OT teaching. Likewise with postmil. When the NT is read in light of the OT, I believe the NT fully supports postmil. Is there a NT prooftext saying "There will be a time of glory before the second coming?" No. But I don't need one, since the entire Bible supports that conclusion. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Perisseuo	Sorry, I meant ***	#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 187 01/17/08 12:35:17	Engelsma wrote that PostMills only use the OT while ignoring the NT. * This belongs underneath's Rod's post. Yuku takes some understanding John Chaney** "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB) Last Edited By: Perisseuo 01/17/08 12:38:35. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
jetbrane	Threatening Post-mills	#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 9 01/22/08 00:11:02	They are only threatening if they actually believe what they confess and work to that end. A-mills find them so threatening because within the DNA of their eschatology is eventual failure. I mean you find me threatening enough and in the end that threat is due to a difference in our eschatology. Nice to see you again John. I trust the wife and the family are doing well. Smile, Bret Hence men are on the one hand born in the flesh liable to sin and death from the first Adam, and on the other hand are born again in Baptism associated with the righteousness and eternal life of the Second Adam. Augustine -- Bishop of Hippo
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Perisseuo		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 190 01/23/08 13:02:33	jetbrane wrote: They are only threatening if they actually believe what they confess and work to that end. A-mills find them so threatening because within the DNA of their eschatology is eventual failure. I mean you find me threatening enough and in the end that threat is due to a difference in our eschatology. Nice to see you again John. I trust the wife and the family are doing well. Smile, Bret Bret, sorry I don't see it that way - I don't see one's eschatology as being the driving-force in practicing one's Christianity. If I read your post claim correctly. Unless that eschatology is as simple as the 2nd Coming. That is an essential in our daily practice, but it is non-essential in our daily practice whether it is adopting the post-, a-, or pre- scheme. Why do you think it is so? Thanks for the greeting. Though you may have me confuse with someone else as I am single. John Chaney "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby	Part IX Response	#14	[url]	[-]
Posts: 465 01/24/08 08:08:18	Engelsma throughout this section seems to be unclear in the use of terms such as "earthly," "literal," "physical," "spiritual," etc. Here's an example. God's calling them "my people" which were not His people does not refer to earthly Israel, as the literalist must hold, but to the spiritual church of Jew and Gentile (cp. Hosea 1, 2 with Rom. 9:24-26). This is in the context of his attack on the postmil view of Isa. 65, calling it "earthly" and "literal" interchangeably. However, in this quotation, one can see that we must make some proper distinctions. True, in the NT we see that "my [God's] people" are not equated with literal descendants of Israel, but are broadened to include both Jew and Gentile. However, that does not make them "non-physical." The NT church is very physical -- it exists in a physical world, it has physical impact on the world, etc. While the NT church is "spiritual Israel," the NT church is not thereby non-physical. Likewise with Isa. 65. I can see non-literal fulfillment of this. For example, I believe the lion/lamb imagery is not referring to zoo animals, but to unclean and clean animals; the fulfillment is in the unclean Gentile nations coming to dwell in peace with the clean people of Israel, as we now see in NT times (the middle wall of partition being broken down). However, that does not imply or necessitate that there are not very physical and visible outworkings of that peace -- earthly peace between nations, universal submission to the reign of Christ, etc. Merely showing that something has a "spiritual" or "non-literal" fulfillment does not thereby prove that it does not have "physical" impact. Now to another point. Engelsma has been criticizing North for interpreting Isa 65 literally. But now he says, North, Gentry, and their cohorts cannot even explain the glorious opening words of this important prophecy literally: "I create new heavens and a new earth" (v. 17). A literal interpretation does not vaguely and lamely speak of a "fundamental transformation of the way our world presently works," as North does in the quotation given in the August, 1996 issue of the SB. Isaiah did not prophesy a "fundamental transformation of the way our world presently works." He prophesied a new world. Such will be its newness, said the prophet, that it will be radically different from the present world. It will be a new world in distinction from "the former" world. Shortly thereafter he says, North's interpretation does not do justice to the plain sense of the main thought of this important prophecy, much less explain it literally. OK, which way do you want it? You criticize North for interpreting the passage literally. But then you criticize him for not interpreting the "new heavens and new earth" literally. Consider this "new heavens and new earth" concept, in light of the NT (as Engelsma emphasizes). Look at what Paul says in 2 Cor 5:17: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, [he is a] new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." The words "he is a" are not in the Greek; Paul literally says, "If anyone is in Christ, new creation!" The fact that the people of God are incorporated into Christ is evidence that the new creation has arrived, and that all things have become (not will become) new. So, according to Paul's interpretation of the new creation, we already live in the new creation. Engelsma here uses "literal" or "plain sense" interpretation when it suits him -- he wants to use the "plain sense" of "new heavens and new earth" to say we are not living in that time; but he doesn't want to use the "plain sense" of long life (Isa 65:20). Which is it? Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org Last Edited By: rodkirby 01/24/08 08:25:30. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Perisseuo	Question needs to be ask	#15	[url]	[-]
Posts: 200 02/21/08 10:13:32	What are the differences between post-mill reconstructionalist and post-mill 'in general'? I do not know really know the proper name of the 'in general' crowd? Engelsma seems to argue in his articles first against reconstructionists, then broadens it out. Are the post mill differences between the two just a matter of tweaking or are they major? In addition, does preterism fall under another category of post-mill or would preterists be considered in the 'in general' camp? John Chaney "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas		#16	[url]	[-]
Posts: 155 02/21/08 18:00:18 Administrator	Revivalist Postmillennialism: the millennium represents an unknown period of time marked by gradual Christian revival and widespread successful evangelism, followed by Christ's return. Reconstructionist Postmillennialism: the Church increases its influence through successful evangelism and expansion, finally establishing a theocratic kingdom of 1000 years duration (literal or figurative) followed by the return of Christ. Preterism: the book of Revelation was prophecy at the time, but all or most of it has already been fulfilled in the very early days of the Church; esp. centering around the destruction of the Temple and the Jewish nation in 70 A.D. Differences: Full Preterism: All of Christian prophecy was fulfilled in the first century, including the return of Christ and the resurrection of believers. The resurrection is interpreted to mean receiving a spiritual body after death, with no promise of a physical resurrection for any besides Christ. Partial Preterism: Most of prophecy was fulfilled in the first century, except Christ's return then was as a judge of Israel, but not his final literal coming. He is still to return and literally raise the believing dead. In Christ, 5 Solas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
rodkirby		#17	[url]	[-]
Posts: 469 02/22/08 06:37:17	Good summary, although your "Revivalist Postmillennialism" category should probably be characterized as a more sudden Christian revival -- something akin to a worldwide Great Awakening. It's also marked by the mass conversion of the Jews. This was the view of many Puritans -- see Iain Murray's "Puritan Hope." The Preterist positions tend to overlap the various Postmil positions -- think of a Venn diagram with intersecting circles. Some (many) Recon Postmils are partial preterists; others are not. Ditto with Revivalist Postmils. I am not aware of any in either of the Postmil camps who holds to Full Preterism, since that position has been roundly condemned as heretical by leaders in both camps. Rod Kirby, Ph.D. Dominion Christian High School Marietta, GA dominionchristian.org
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Goldberry of Withywindle	It's a fringe movement.	#18	[url]	[-]
Posts: 424 02/23/08 14:46:20	I don't think one can identify as full preterist and postmil, because postmil implies there are yet significant events to be fulfilled. Full preterism essentially denies that, saying that from now on, thing will just continue as they are on the large scale, with only "personal eschatology" having any future fulfillment. That is, the resurrection is as resurrected as it's gonna get, except for individuals. Jesus has returned, only individuals are left to experience it individually. So I think you're right, you can't place full preterism within postmillennialism at all. There is a sense in which the terms partial preterism and full preterism are themselves misleading, because they imply that there are significant commonalities. But how can you say that a broadly orthodox variant of eschatology has significant commonalities with rank anti-creedal heresy? Full preterism is a bizarre heresy, not an eschatological variant. ~Jane~ Suddenly I was abuzz with ideas. What about issuing stickers printed with the words, "This apostrophe is not necessary"? What about telling people to shin up ladders at dead of night with an apostrophe-shaped stencil and a tin of paint? Why did the Apostrophe Protection Society not have a militant wing? Could I start one? Where do you get balaclavas? -- Eats, Shoots and Leaves
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
ItalianCalvin	hey look where I found you	#19	[url]	[-]
Posts: 1 03/07/08 23:41:14	this is great site
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote