Bob Moore
Reformed Apologist
This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I hope you would agree that one can be Premillenial, Postmillenial, or Amillenial and still be considered orthodox.
Bob Moore said:This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
Bob Moore said:This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
Bob Moore said:This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
I am more than a little confused and upset over this comment as well. I can understand one thinking that amillennialism is wrong, but the charge of heterodoxy is one that demands substantial evidence. After all, it was Augustine who definitively crushed chiliasm in the early church and solidified amillennialism as the orthodox understanding of the end times. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Dutch Reformed Churches, and the Westminster Assembly (excepting the Puritans) all viewed amillennialism as the proper view of the end times. I am persuaded that Scripture teaches the same. Moreover, amillennialism does not necessitate the position that Israel no longer figures into God's plan.Bob Moore said:This was not addressed to me, but I can't let it slide. Pre or Post are both defensible (the former more so than the latter), but A is not defensible as an orthodox position because it denies that Israel still figures in God's plans. The church most certainly has not supplanted Israel, and to hold that it has is far outside the bounds of orthodoxy.
Jon_ said:I am persuaded that Scripture teaches the same.
Certainly not disparate enough to be made a test of orthodoxy, but they are pretty dissimilar in their view of the world just before the Parousia. Amillennialists believe there will be increasing apostasy and chaos in the world, whereas, postmillennialists believe the world will increasingly come to faith and order before Christ's return. During the golden age of imperialism and the growing number of foreign missionaries, it seemed as though the world would soon be converted or at least have the gospel delivered to every man (supposedly a prerequisite of the second coming).ChurchandCrown said:I am persuaded that Postmillennialism is correct but lets face it, the differences between amillennialism and postmillennialism are minute.
Jon_ said:postmillennialists see growing belief.
True enough. If one wishes to be consistent with 2 Thess 2:1-3, some period of deception must come, but on the whole, the postmillennial view is very positive. Whereas the amillennial view sees the church as very distinct from the wickedness of the world, the postmillennial view sees the world as becoming at least superficially Christian, even if not elect. That is, Christianity and Christian morals will be observed and respected if not believed. At least, this is how I understand the postmillennial view. I do not presume to speak for the whole, just my understanding of it.ReformedAnglican said:Even Jonathan Edwards saw a period of apostcy prior to Christ's return.
Jon_ said:I am more than a little confused and upset over this comment as well.
I can understand one thinking that amillennialism is wrong, but the charge of heterodoxy is one that demands substantial evidence. After all, it was Augustine who definitively crushed chiliasm in the early church and solidified amillennialism as the orthodox understanding of the end times. Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, the Dutch Reformed Churches, and the Westminster Assembly (excepting the Puritans) all viewed amillennialism as the proper view of the end times. I am persuaded that Scripture teaches the same. Moreover, amillennialism does not necessitate the position that Israel no longer figures into God's plan.
I would hear you more on this issue, for it is at the least provocative, and a subject worth inquiry.
I believe that (the assertion is clashes with Scripture) is precisely the point to be discussed.Bob Moore said:Un huh, and why did they do that since it clashes with Scripture?
I must respectfully disagree. Augustine was the first theologian to correctly outlay the distinction between time and eternity. He desribes time as the product of a temporal mind, and that sequence is essential to the nature of time. Since God is non-temporal and does not think sequentially, it follows that God is a timeless being, eternity being the antonym of time, a timeless being is an eternal being. He treats this matter especially in City of God, Book XI, Chapters 5 & 6.Bob Moore said:The early church expected Christ's return at any moment. Augustine, et al failed to consider that time with God is not the same thing as time with man.
I'm sorry, but I think you'll have to be more direct in your criticism. I do not see how any of this follows or is relevant to amillennialism. Amillennialism makes no symbolism out of the rapture, tribulation, or Armageddon. They are all interpreted to be actual events that have yet come to pass. Amillennialism does not at all deny that these will be real occurances.Bob Moore said:Consequently, as time passed and the Lord tarried other interpretations of "behold I come quickly" began to be considered. Augustine gets a lot of the credit (blame) for this view, but his view requires that things that ought to be taken literally because they are written that way be seen as only symbolic. The rapture, tribulation, Armageddon, and so forth are all relegated to mere symbolism and are contained in a millennial age during which Christ is not physically present on earth, but rules through influence on Christian lives which, by the way, is exactly what he is doing today, and we are not in the Millennium.
So, if 1 Thessalonians is to be believed, (not to mention Jesus Himself, with proper understanding of the time reference) amillenialism can not be correct. Therefore, despite the fact that many churches support it, I hold it to be outside the bounds of orthodoxy (heterodox, if you like).
Indeed, yes.Bob Moore said:You sure about that?
This little snippet here is mostly correct. There are just two small correction or clarifications that I want to point out. The first is that many people regard Rome as Antichrist. This is especially pronounced in the second and third generations following the Reformation. While ecumenicism has greatly affected this position, it nevertheless lives on, mostly in amil and postmil circles. The second clarification is that amillennialism does not view the millennium, tribulation, and Antichrist as merely "symbolic." They are taken to be figurative. The millennium is now. Tribulation is now. These do not amount to denials of Scripture. They are not inconsistent with Scripture. View concerning the Antichrist is varied. It's really hard to nail that one down as being strictly specific to amillennialism because there is so much mystery concerning the prophecy. I believe he will be a real person, but that it is possible a "position" or "title" could also be what is meant, and that a specific person will hold that title who will fulfill the prophecy.Bob Moore said:Jon,
I don't recall where I got this set of comments on Amillennialism, but they are not original with me. However, I agree with them. The thing is, Jon, that it does not matter in the least what the majority view is if that view even faintly contradicts Scripture. Nor does it matter to me that many Reformed churches favor Amillennialism. I don't.
"Amillennialism: Although this belief system was present from the early days of Christianity, St. Augustine (354 - 430 CE) was largely responsible for the establishment of amillennialism as formal church belief. It remained the generally accepted system throughout Christianity until the 19th century. Many mainline Protestant denominations -- including many Reformed theologians and some Baptists -- still teach Amillennialism. They believe that the Kingdom of God is present in the world today through the presence of the the heavenly reign of Christ, the Bible, the Holy Spirit and Christianity. Both good and evil will continue in the world until the current Church Age ends suddenly as Christ returns to the sky above the earth. The Rapture follows. The Redeemed are transported to heaven where they will adopt spiritual bodies. The majority of humanity will be sent to Hell at this time for eternal punishment. The world will be abandoned. History is no more. Under this belief system, we are currently living in the Millennium and in the Tribulation period. Events described in The Olivet Discourse (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21) and in most of the book of Revelation are seen as occurrences which have already happened, or which are symbolic in nature and not to be taken literally. The Antichrist is looked upon figuratively and not as a real person. Amillennialism has gone out of favor in most conservative Protestant theological circles."
Of course, all are quite free to disagree. Many do.
Jon_ said:...The second clarification is that amillennialism does not view the millennium, tribulation, and Antichrist as merely "symbolic." They are taken to be figurative....
The millennium is now. Tribulation is now.
These do not amount to denials of Scripture. They are not inconsistent with Scripture.
View concerning the Antichrist is varied. It's really hard to nail that one down as being strictly specific to amillennialism because there is so much mystery concerning the prophecy. I believe he will be a real person, but that it is possible a "position" or "title" could also be what is meant, and that a specific person will hold that title who will fulfill the prophecy.
But amillennialists do not deny the millennium is already fulfilled or that it is just a symbol of something. What is denied is that it is a literal 1000 year period (just as most postmils do, so I wouldn't understand that a literal 1000 years is what you are advocating).
Instead, the millennium has already been ushered in. Satan is bound now.
The church is undergoing also undergoing tribulation now. As DrWarfield said, there are differences of opinion concerning a period of apostasy in the postmil camp. It wouldn't surprise me if that were true of amilliennialism too.
In any case, I'm still not quite sure what your main points of objection are. Do you oppose the figurative interpertation of the millennium/tribulation/Antichrist? I'm just trying to understand why you consider amillennialism as unorthodox.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?