mister rogers said:
↑
I have recently taken the more amillenial view (I prefer the term postmillenial, however that has a different meaning to many these days). But I still have difficulty believing the return of the Jews to their historic land this past century has no prophetic significance. Thoughts?
Gonna refocus a little. Perhaps the amill/postmill views can still be consistent with the view that the recent return of the nation of Israel is a part of the unfolding of Ezekiel 36-37, and that this is in line with what Paul was talking about in Romans 11:25-32? That the Jews as a nation being reestablished could be part of God's plan to bring them (as a whole eventually in the future) to saving faith in Christ (grafted into true spiritual Israel) before His return? I'm mostly interested in what amill and postmill might say (positive or negative). Seen some good feedback so far. Any other takers?
I would say the Amill view is just above Partial Preterism and just below Full Preterism.
Difference between amillennialism & preterism
Could someone please tell me the differences between amillennialism and preterism (partial vs full as well)?
I've tried googling and found several websites, but truth be told, I got so lost in it that I quit still not really knowing any answers.
Thanks in advance.
Just dumb it down royally, please.
Amillennialism - Wikipedia
Amillennialism (
Greek:
a- "no" +
millennialism), in
Christian eschatology, involves the rejection of the belief that
Jesus will have a literal, thousand-year-long, physical reign on the earth. This rejection contrasts with
premillennial and some
postmillennial interpretations of
chapter 20 of the
Book of Revelation. For the most Christians this question was solved by the
Council of Ephesus.
The amillennial view regards the "thousand years" mentioned in Revelation 20 as a
symbolic number, not as a literal description; amillennialists hold that the
millennium has already begun and is identical with the current
church age. Amillennialism holds that while Christ's reign during the millennium is
spiritual in nature, at the end of the church age,
Christ will return in
final judgment and establish a permanent reign in the new heaven and new earth.
Many proponents dislike the name "amillennialism" because it emphasizes their differences with premillennialism rather than their beliefs about the millennium. "Amillennial" was actually coined in a pejorative way by those who hold premillennial views. Some proponents also prefer alternate terms such as
nunc-millennialism (that is, now-millennialism) or
realized millennialism, although these other names have achieved only limited acceptance and usage.
[1]
====================================
Early church
Few
early Christians wrote about this aspect of eschatology during the first century of Christianity, but most of the available writings from the period reflect a
millenarianist perspective (sometimes referred to as
chiliasm). Bishop
Papias of Hierapolis (A.D. 70–155) speaks in favor of a pre-millennial position in volume three of
his five volume work and Aristion[
when?] and
the elder John echoed his sentiments, as did other first-hand disciples and secondary followers.
[3] Though most writings of the time tend to favor a millennial perspective, the amillennial position may have also been present in this early period, as suggested in the
Epistle of Barnabas, and it would become the ascendant view during the next two centuries.
[4][5][6][7][8][9] Church fathers of the third century who rejected the millennium included
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215),
Origen (184/185 – 253/254), and Cyprian (c. 200 – 258).
Justin Martyr (died 165), who had
chiliastic tendencies in his theology,
[10] mentions differing views in his
Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, chapter 80:
"I and many others are of this opinion [premillennialism], and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise."
[11]
Certain amillennialists such as
Albertus Pieters understand
Pseudo-Barnabas to be amillennial. In the 2nd century, the
Alogi (those who rejected all of John's writings) were amillennial, as was
Caius in the first quarter of the 3rd century.
[12] With the influence of
Neo-Platonism and
dualism,
Clement of Alexandria and
Origen denied premillennialism.
[13] Likewise,
Dionysius of Alexandria (died 264) argued that Revelation was not written by John and could not be interpreted literally; he was amillennial.
[14]
Origen's idealizing tendency to consider only the spiritual as real (which was fundamental to his entire system) led him to combat the "rude"
[15] or "crude"
[16] Chiliasm of a physical and sensual beyond.
Premillennialism appeared in the available writings of the early church, but it was evident that both views existed side by side. The premillennial beliefs of the early church fathers, however, are quite different from the dominant form of modern-day premillennialism, namely
dispensational premillennialism.
[17]