A Quick Look at Amillennialism
What Amillennialism Is Not:
- It does not deny the existence of a "millennium."
- It is not a product of either a particular Protestant denomination or a product of Roman Catholicism.
- It does not require one to be a pedobaptist or immersionist.
- It does not require one to be a Calvinist or Arminian.
- It does not require one to be a Covenant theologian or anti-covenant theologian.
- It is not liberalism.
- It is not as divided as Premillennialism.
- It does not symbolize everything in the Bible.
- It does not have a non-literal understanding of the Bible.
- It is not the materialistic view of the millennium as held by all Premillennialists.
- It does not hold to a literal "golden age" on earth like the many Postmillennialists.
- It is not "replacement theology."
- It is not anti-semetic.
What Amillennialism Is:
- It follows a “grammatical-historical” literal interpretation of the Scriptures.
- It looks at the Bible as a unit which contains no contradictions.
- It believes there is no “gap” in Daniel’s prophecy of Seventy Weeks, but that it was fulfilled with the desolation of the Temple and destruction of Jerusalem by Titus and the Roman army in 70 A.D. (as the Tribulation judgment against non-believing Israel).
- It agrees with evangelical preterism that the prophecies concerning the nation Israel have been historically fulfilled, for the most part, and all remaining prophecies concerning Israel will be fulfilled in the church which has always been the “Israel of God.” (Eph. 1:23; Galatians 6:6)
- It believes explicitly in the millennium of Revelation 20.
- It interprets the one thousand year period mentioned only in Rev. 20 as a complete period of time, the length of which is only known by God. (Such symbolism is hermeneutically consistent with Psalm 50:10 and 1Chron. 16:15).
- It believes the millennial kingdom of Christ began with His incarnation and will consummate at His Second Coming.
- It could better be called a “Realized Millennium.”
- It believes that the millennium is the literally the spiritual reign of Christ on earth in the kingdom of His church and in the saints in heaven.
- It believes entrance to the on-going millennium is gained solely through the new birth, and that John refers to this as the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 (supported by Eph. 2:1,5,6 and Colossians 2:13 and 3:1.)
- It believes that every person who is born again immediately becomes a child of the King and immediately begins an eternal reign with that King, and that the present phase of that reign is a mere foretaste of what lies beyond the Second Coming.
- It believes that Satan has only such power as God permits and must bow to the authority of the Gospel as a bound and defeated foe because of the Cross, unable to stop the spread of the Gospel to the uttermost parts of the world (Revelation 20:3).
- It believes that although he cannot prevail against the Church, Satan still goes about as a roaring lion tempting, defying, deceiving, until Christ shall put him down finally at His Second Coming.
- It believes that good and evil will exist side by side until the harvest, which Jesus said will be the end of the world (Matt. 13:39).
- It believes that Satan will be allowed to mount one final climactic antichrist rebellion and apostasy just before the Second Coming (Revelation 16:14; 20:7,8).
- It believes in only one first resurrection and only one last trump.
- It believes the Second Coming of Christ to be a literal, visible, bodily coming.
- It believes that at the Second Coming all the saints, living and dead, will be raptured to meet the Lord in the air, given new spiritual bodies, and then escort their King to the earth.
- It believes that the millennium will end with the Second Coming of Christ followed by the judgments of the living and the dead, saved and lost (Matt. 13:24-30; 47-53) and the creation of a new heaven and earth.
- It views the Second Coming as the consummation of the Redemption story prior to everlasting glory on the New Earth.
History of Amillennialism:
Dr. John Walvoord, a dispensational premillennialist, admitted, “Reformed eschatology has been predominantly amillennial. Most if not all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were amillennial in their eschatology, following the teachings of Augustine.” (Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan.-Mar., 1951)
Dr. Louis Berkof said, “The name is indeed new, but the view to which it is applied is as old as Christianity.” Since the second century it has “been the view most widely accepted, is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical Confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in Reformed circles.” (Systematic Theology, p. 708)
Just to name a few Amillenarians and a couple of the many like-minded Postmillers:
Jay Adams
Oswald Allis
Augustine of Hippo
Richard Barcellos
Herman Bavinck
G. K. Beale
Louis Berkhof
G. C. Berkouwer
James P. Boyce
John Calvin
B. H. Carroll
Everett I Carver
Adam Clark
William Cox
John L. Dagg
Mark Dever
J. Ligon Duncan III
David Engelsma
Eusebius of Caesarea
Sinclair Ferguson
John Frame
Richard Gaffin, Jr.
William Grier
Henry Halley
Floyd Hamilton
Hank Hanegraaff
William Hendriksen
Charles Hill
Herschel Hobbs
Anthony Hoekema
Michael Horton
Lee Irons
Dennis Johnson
Martyn Lloyd-Jones
Tim Keller
Simon Kistemaker
Meredith Kline
Abraham Kuyper
Martin Luther
C. J. Mahaney
William Masselink
Phillip Mauro
Edward McDowell
Melancthon
Leon Morris
Edgar Mullins
George L. Murray
Iain Murray
John Murray
J. I. Packer
Albertus Pieters
A. W. Pink
Vern S. Poythress
Richard Pratt
Robert S. Rayburn
Herman Ridderbos
Kim Riddlebarger
Jason E. Robertson
O. Palmer Robertson
William Rutgers
L. R. Shelton
Robert Strimple
Augustus H. Strong
Ray Summers
Cornelius Van Til
Cornelis Venema
Geerhardus Vos
Samuel Waldron
Bruce Waltke
B. B. Warfield
James White
Knox White
Martin Wyngaarden
E. J. Young
Huldrych Zwingli
Council of Ephesus, 431
Confession of the Evangelical Free Church of Geneva, 1848
The Westminster Confession of Faith, 1647
The London Baptist Confession, 1689
The New Hampshire Baptist Confession, 1833
Confession of the Free-Will Baptist, 1834
The Augsburg Confession
Revelation 20:6, "Blessed and holy is the one who shares in the first resurrection! Over such the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ, and they will reign with Him for a thousand years."
Posts
73 Spoke Up:
This is fascinating, Jason. A couple of surprises in there for me--Jay Adams and Herschel Hobbs. Not to mention the Free Will Baptists. Though I must admit those free willys probably aren't like the ones we know today.
That's an accurate representation of Amillennialism.
Thanks.
Speaking as someone from a Free-will background, historically, Benjamin Randall, the initial founder of the group, came from something of a Presbyterian background. He seemed to have fallen into company with the Campbell boys (Church of Christ founders) and was persuaded against Calvinism. Most of his reaction is against the doctrine of total inability. The more solid Free willers consider themselves Reformed Arminians in the vein of Jacob Arminius. They don't tend toward later developments in Arminianism like the Weslyan variety and certainly not open theism.
In spite of his dislike of Calvinism, Randall still had other baggage that came along, Amillennialism among it. The first pro-Amillenial book I ever read was written by a Free-will Baptist preacher.
Jason, curious if you picked up the little book on Revelation 20 by Matt Weymeyer at the Shepherd's Conference? I thought he had some solid critiques of the holes in Amillennial conclusions.
I would have to get the book in front of me to be more specific.
Fred
Jason,
We need to take Gary Demar and RC SProul off of the list. I know for certain that they are Postmil. Although most of the modern day Postmil guys would agree with everything listed with the exception of #14.
Great post,
Gene
I think Warfield was Post Mil.
Although the concept of amillennialism is "as old as Christianity", the term is rather new. So many of the older theologians called themselves postmil because all amillers are postmil to an extent though not all postmillers are amil.
It is possible that Warfield is an example of that.
I do find conflicting quotes by some of the men on the list. I want this list to be as accurate as possible, so if anyone thinks someone should be added or removed from the list, please provide proof. Thanks.
Has Ezekiel's prophecy of a temple been fulfilled?
Every Amill list I have seen has Sproul on it, but I am not completley finished with "The Last Days According to Jesus".
I do know that the PCA is overwhelmingly Amill.
I hope to talk to RC and Lig about their views when they come to Anaheim next month.
I believe that B.H Carroll, founder of SWBTS, was also a Postmillennial.
If you listen to Dr. Riddlebarger's second lecture on Amillenialism on his site, it deals with the question of Post-millenialism and its adherents. Amillenialism, he says, is a fairly recent term. For most of church history there have only been two terms for one's view on the millenium: post or pre. Therefore many of the previous centuries theologians would call themselves postmillenial, but their beliefs actually match up with present day amillenialism, rather than present day postmillenialism.
At least that was my understanding from Dr. Riddlebarger's lecture. I haven't taken the time to check him out in the sources yet, but I will sometime.
Steve, you are correct. It makes researching this term quite difficult. If I had listed all who believed that the Second Coming will take place after the Millennium the list would be very, very long and filled with most of the theologians who have held to Biblical theology.
I believe Sproul now espouses a preterist view (which I assume is a form of amillenialism).
Bill
Runninbill, Dr. Sproul would be a partial-preterist. The term "preterism" was once what we know of today as partial-preterism, but the term was highjacked by what is now the full-preterist camp forcing those who believe in an actual return of Christ to have to add the "partial" part to their description.
Scott, you are right. I have RC Sproul's systematic theology CD's in which he calls himself a partial-preterist. Good stuff that old man.
In Warfield's article titled, The Millennium and the Apocalypse, he seems to be very keen on a 'golden age' awaiting the Church before the return of Christ. Then again, the rest of his article seems Amil, and since he never uses any explicit terminology one way or the other, I don't know.
BTW,
Why do I have to be your fact checker?
:-)
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...
Has Ezekiel's prophecy of a temple been fulfilled?
Yeah, it's called the church! The body of Christ is the Temple of the Spirit.
http://www.rts.edu/quarterly/spring99/water.html
Wow - so much has happened while I was blog-napping. Jason has gone from Dispensational, to Post-Millennial to Amillennial in the span of the past few days. My head is spinning.
I've never been postmil, Bret. That rumor came from a post I did on my Covenant theology when I spoke of my post-mil timing of the rapture and Lord's return. Some thought I used the term "postmil" to define my eschatology.
BTW, why the long naps?
Gene, do you think that grammatical-historical interpretation of the last chapters of Ezekiel would support that conclusion?
God is not finished with the Jewish Nation. Those that bless them He will bless.
Conspiculously missing is Martyn Lloyd-Jones.
Am I wrong in thinking that he was amil?
Dyspraxic Fundamentalist said...
Gene, do you think that grammatical-historical interpretation of the last chapters of Ezekiel would support that conclusion?
I used to be a dispensationalist my self. The "grammatical / historical" catch phrase sounds very scholarly on the surface. I take the WHOLE bible in the G/H context. Which means that the New Testament helps interpret the Old.
If you disagree with me and insist that that Ezekiel’s temple is going to be built in the future then you have just destroyed the Book of Hebrews.
Christ is my high priest
Christ is my sacrifice
Christ is my temple (John 2:19-21)
ALL of the OT prophets were pointing us to Christ.
So stop looking to another temple with another priesthood and more sacrifices! That would be a denial of the finished ork of Christ.
Gene
Gene, I would refer you to Jeremiah 31:
15 ¶ Thus saith the LORD; A voice was heard in Ramah, lamentation, and bitter weeping; Rachel weeping for her children because they were not.
Now obviously nobody who believes in the inspiration of Scripture can deny that this is a prophecy of Herod's massacre of infants.
However, the immediate context of this verse is talking about something completely different. A prophetic subject that is no less inspired.
Does the fact that this has a New Testament fulfillment that is not revelaed in the context of the Old Testament text meant that we should not bother to find out what this verse means in the immediate grammatical context? Of course not.
This passage has a contextual meaning and a fulfillment that is hidden.
Prophecies can have multiple fulfillements.
Likewise, if you are going to argue that Ezekiel's temple is fulfilled in the Church, then you need to be sure that the grammatical context of the prophecy does not provide another meaning.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
Annette Harrison, or anyone else, can you tell me more about Lloyd-Jones's eschatology. Links, references, or quotes would be helpful. If I have proof, I will gladly add him to the list.
After critiquing both premillenialism and postmillenialism in two chapters near the end of volume three in the "Great Doctrines of the Bible" set titled The Church and Last Things he (MLJ) says,
"What, then, is the thousand years? I suggest to you that it is a symbolical figure to indicate the perfect length of time, known to God and to God alone, between the first and the second comings. It is not a literal thousand years, but the whole of this period while Christ is reigning until His enemies are made His footstool and He returns again for the final judgment." (225)
Thanks Steve.
"We need to take Gary Demar and RC Sproul off of the list. I know for certain that they are Postmil. "
I'm pretty sure that I just heard Sproul say he was Amill. The question is confused because some people use a three terms in order to describe the various views while others only use 2. Technically, Amill is a variation of Post mil because it holds the position that Christ returns after the millennium. In any case, with modern terminology, I believe Sproul would be considered A-mill.
And to confirm what someone else has already said, Sproul does hold to what would be called partial-preterism (against the heretical teaching of hyper-preterism).
In Christ alone,
mike
Jason,
"I hope to talk to RC and Lig about their views when they come to Anaheim next month."
Where will they be appearing? And when?
Mike, thanks.
Doug, The Cross of Christ: Redemption Accomplished Conference. Sept. 8-9 at Sarang Community Church in Anaheim, CA.
$30 for pastors
Thanks for the list, Jason. Though i've visited a few times, this is my first comment. You and i disagree on much (which is, i hope, alright) but i really enjoyed this a-mill discussion...enlightening and helpful. God bless.
Mike
Thanks for the list. It was a good condensed synopsis of the amillennium position which I find many people just do not understand because of the barrage of dispensational teaching that exists in most churches.
I too will be at Anaheim, especially since I live in there, for the Ligonier conference next month.
Jason, I am curious, since you are a baptist, why do you care what all those presbys and such think about the millenium? As a baptist, you disagree with so much of their theology (primarily ecclessiology). So are they "experts" or not?
Gene, although I am not a classic dispensationalist, belief in a future temple does absolutely nothing to the book of Hebrews. None of the points you raised has anything to do with a future temple. I know this isn't a thread on the temple, but I thought I should make that point.
Thanks Jason. Lord bless. :-)
Jason, when you writing about amill theology, you say that, "It is not the materialistic view of the millennium as held by all Premillennialists."
Could you be more specific about this. I realize you are thinking of this in negative terms, so could you explain why?
Irenaeus,
In case you were not aware sacrifices and the temple go hand in hand. The book of Hebrews precludes any further sacrifices being accepted or sanctioned by God.
Irenaeusii, I disagree with you more than any of my Presbyterian brothers, and I still care about you.
Besides, I haven't even agreed with everything I have ever written... or preached. (A little humility there, don't get use to it.)
humility's not so bad once you get used to it.
Scott, I am reading through all of his works. So far, I have not found something I disagree with.
Before you pull some quote out, make sure you have a reference to it. I have all his works and have seen some of the stuff online about what he supposedly says on an issue.
A near fulfillment of the Ezekiel prediction might be Zerubabel's temple of Herod's expansion of it. This can be so because the near fullfilment of the prophecies weren't full fullfilments, take the near fullfilment of Emmanuel in the birth of Isaiah's son Maher-shalal-hashbaz.
In the "is" column, point 4 is debatable, as is point 10 (I've seen arguement that the first ressurection is Christian physical death).
Nevertheless, pretty good list.
This was a "quick look" as noted in the title, thus I did not deal with fringe debates within the amil position. The definition above is the common views of the vast majority of amillers (and most postmillers as well except for #14 as already noted by Gene).
I think you can add Hank Hanegraaff to the list
Further tweaking the list:
Under the "is not" list, you might want to add "is not anti-semetic" and maybe "is not a part of the end-times apostacy" (both of those being charges I've seen from our DP brothers and sisters).
Point 16, add "believes in _one_ Second Coming and _one_ Day of Judgement"
And maybe find someplace to squeeze in "interprets the Old Testament in light of the completed revelation given in the New Testament."
Lee, thanks for the input. I added the "not anti-semetic."
I did not add the others for these reasons:
"not apostacy" = the whole post makes that point
"one and one" = #'s 16-20 cover that subject without getting into the issues of types of "Day of Judgment" in every prophecy text
"interprets" = I agree with you, but I also believe that it is true that it interpets the NT in light of the OT as well. And I covered that in #'s 1 and 2. In fact, the Dispys reinterpreted many of the OT prophecies in light of what they believed about Rev. 20. They claim to be literal, but that is really only true of that one text; for had they been true to the H/G/L interpretation of all the Scripture they would not have practically rewritten the OT to support their view of Rev. 20.
And concerning Hank, is he amil or postmil? Can anybody give me a quote or link to verify?
Dispensationalists “have practically rewritten the OT to support their view of Rev. 20”?
Wow. Do you really believe that?
Jason, you can add Origen to the list of amills. I don't have specific quotes handy, but he is in there also.
The belief in premillenialism can be built from the NT alone. I would encourage Jason to read the 3 views on the millenium book. Blaising does an excellent job presenting the "new creation" model.
Concerning Origen, I know that his allegorizing influenced Augustine's amillennial eschatology. So I may put him on the list.
But, Oh, no way, not the Blaising book. Ken Gentry does an excellent job showing the absolute blantant fallacies in Blaising's arguments.
I am not surprised that Dispensationalism is once again trying to prove their system of theoloy in a different way. How many ways would this make it now? This is like Landis trying to explain those testosterone levels. But once again, Blaising's "Creation Model" is just hermeneutically a mess. Just consider the way he uses "Scofield Hermeneutics" on Isaiah 65:17-20.
But, just hold your horses, I will be posting the exegetical data starting next week.
Well, it is kind of funny how we all look at the same evidence and then decide who kicked whose tail. I think Blaising exposed the others for the frauds they are.
Consider how preterisms' entire argument rises and falls on whether or not Revelation was written prior to AD 70. Classic.
So many make the unwarranted assumption that believing that the church is spiritual israel must necessitate that amill theology is correct. Even some of Jason's points for and against can be held to by covenant premillenialists, prewrath premills, progressive dispies, etc.
Augustine became amill when he started judging theology by circumstances in the world.
As for Origen, you are aware the the guy was a heretic, right?
Hello,
The following link covers various quotes by Hank and list other Preterist as well.
http://www.preteristarchive.com/StudyArchive/h/hanegraaff-hank_answer-man.html
Interesting. I didn't know that my late grandfather (W.J.Grier) was still 'known'. As you're amill and ex-dispy, perhaps you could tell me what's the most clear & convincing argument for premillenialism?! (Since you're going to look into the exegesis next week and presumably explain why you think premill wrong, anyway.) I see its influence in America but don't understand it - that is, I don't understand how people hold to it, so I obviously don't understand it sufficiently.
Rosemary, I hope you don't mind me calling you that since I didn't know how to do the little things over the e's, I would say that the most influencial reason for many being dispensational is Israel becoming a nation again in 1948. For being premillenial, well that is a little more tricky. I will deal with that next week.
You can add Iain Murray to the list. Although a lot of people have taken him for Post-mill, he explains the confusion and says that he's amill in the "writer's retrospective" interview w/ Mark Dever (9marks.com).
Mark Dever could also be amil. I would think that he is because of his strong CT perspective but I searched around and coulnd't find anything explicit.
Also, CJ Mahaney is amil, at least according to monergism.com. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/bio/contempreform.html
I look forward to your exegesis (especially since this is an issue that I am particularly wrestling through right now).
Thanks Jason. I'd vaguely thought that dispensationalism contributed to the setting up of the political state of Israel, having been already popularised by the Scofield Bible. If that was the case(?), and also that event is a reason many are now dispy, it's sort of self-fulfilling/perpetuating isn't it?
Chew on this instead, it examines some of the Preterist viewpoints:
http://thingsthelordtoldme.blogspot.com/
The link above is a list about hyper-preterism, not preterism. I think we all would agree, at least most of us, that hyper-preterism has went beyond a reasonable exegesis and interpretation of Scripture.
Amillennialism is not hyper-preterism.
Any thoughts on a Christian Mill??
Mark, my post does describe the Christian millennium.
I added Mark Dever because upon researching his doctrinal statements through 9Marks, he definitely holds to a Amil view the current world and the "Last Day" as being "one judgement."
The State of Israel is Satan's Israel. It will be taken by the Antichrist.
Consistent Dispensationalists should have nothing to do with Zionism. God will retore Israel in His timing, not ours.
Premillennialists who want to send money and political support to Israel are thinking carnally.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
I note that Iain Murray's 'The Puritan Hope' is Postmillenialist, although I suppose he may have changed his mind since then.
As a Postmillenialist, I would suggest respectfully that 'golden age' needs to be defined, otherwise one may be led to believe that postmillenialists are a bunch of social gospel libs who believe in a human-realised millenium, not a millenium brought in by a movement of the Spirit.
I'm sure you did not mean to create confusion.
Hiraeth, if it matters, Iain Murray has explained the confusion at people taking his 'The Puritan Hope' as postmill: he's amill. See comment above made by Bobby Jamieson at 6.09pm on 5th.
amen, Matthew!
In his chart on p. 198 of "Last Days According to Jesus", Sproul lists Oswald T. Allis, John Calvin, John Murray, Augustus H. Strong and B.B. Warfield as Postmillennialists. He also lists Iain Murray as Postmil, but I guess we now have the answer from the horse's mouth :) But Murray did show in "The Puritan Hope" that the Puritans were largely postmil. Regarding the confessions you list, the only one of them that is explicitly Amil is Augsburg. The 2nd Helvetic is amil. I'm not familiar with all of them, but I wouldn't think any of them would exclude an amil view, to be sure.
The majority of Reformed theologians today are amil, but postmil was more prevalent before the 20th century. Not all postmils hold to a literal 1000 year kingdom.
Is Mark Dever an amillennialist? What is your source? I went to his church for four years, and he rarely spoke on it. I've heard him disagree with partial preterism, postmillennialism, and dispensationalism but never could pin him down on amillennialism vs. historic premillennialism.
I knew A. W. Pink eventually rejected his own dispensationalism, but I thought he was still premillennial. Citations?
I plan to provide a post with essential and sufficient proof of as many theologians' and pastors' eschatological positions as I can. I do not want to discuss those details in this comment section because I already know that people like to argue about this WAY too much. But I would encourage you to research this on your own, reading their sermons and writings. I promise you it is worth your time. You will not only discover their positions, but you will also discern their gracious attitude about this subject.
# It does not require one to be a Calvinist
You mean, I can join your club?
Uh, OK then, where's da joining form?
I agree with your comments re Amil. However, number 10 could be worded better. You say:
"It believes entrance to the on-going millennium is gained solely through the new birth, and that John refers to this as the first resurrection in Revelation 20:6 (supported by Eph. 2:1,5,6 and Colossians 2:13 and 3:1.)."
Surely the wicked and righteous inhabit the current millennium. Surely entry to the kingdom of God comes through the new birth?
The rest appears sound to me.
Paul
How do you prove that Luther, Knox or Augustine were not POST-mill- and were in fact A-mill?
I'd have to second Jonathan's question, particularly with Augustine. Augustine's eschatology was much more closely related to postmillennialism. He did offer an Amill possibility, but he clearly believed in a period of sabbath celebration after the sixth millennium, and before the Second Advent.
"Now the thousand years may be understood in two ways, so far as occurs to me: either because these things happen in the sixth thousand of years or sixth millennium (the latter part of which is now passing), as if during the sixth day, which is to be followed by a Sabbath which has no evening, the endless rest of the saints, so that, speaking of a part under the name of the whole, he calls the last part of the millennium—the part, that is, which had yet to expire before the end of the world—a thousand years; or he used the thousand years as an equivalent for the whole duration of this world, employing the number of perfection to mark the fullness of time." (Augustine - City of God, Book XX, Chapter 7)
Thanks Jason, I was looking for information on the Amil position tonight and came across this post. It is just what I was looking for.
Post a Comment