Preterist Amil Reminders
Here are a few reminders about Preterist Amillenarianism since there was a recent attempt to re-define it falsely:
What Amillennialism Is Not:
- It does not deny the existence of a "millennium."
- It does not require one to be a pedobaptist or immersionist.
- It does not symbolize everything in the Bible.
- It does not have a non-literal understanding of the Bible.
- It does not hold to a literal "golden age" on earth like the many Postmillenarians.
- It is not "replacement theology."
- It is not anti-semetic.
1. It follows a grammatical-historical-literal interpretation of the Scriptures which includes the allegorical interpretations. For example, Amilleniarians recognize that Galatians 4:21-31 is literally requiring its readers to recognize the allegorical or "spiritual" lessons God taught us in Genesis with reference to Sarah and Hagar. Such literal interpretive principles leads one only to conclude that Israel as an ethnic group in the OT was real but typological spiritually. And that Abraham's true offspring or true "Israel" has nothing to do with one's ethnicity but one's faith (Galatians 3:29).
2. It looks at the Bible as a unit which contains no contradictions.
3. 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).
4. It believes explicitly in the millennium of Revelation 20 as a complete period of time, the length of which is only known by God, and that 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 Ephesians 2:1,5,6 and Colossians 2:13; 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.
5. 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). 15. 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.
6. 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.
Just to name a few of the many Amillenarians* and some of the many like-minded Post-millenarians:
- Jay Adams
- Augustine
- Richard Barcellos
- Herman Bavinck
- G. K. Beale
- Louis Berkhof
- G. C. Berkouwer
- John Calvin
- B. H. Carroll
- John L. Dagg
- Mark Dever
- Ligon Duncan
- Sinclair Ferguson
- John Frame
- William Hendriksen
- Anthony Hoekema
- Dennis Johnson
- Martyn Lloyd-Jones
- Leon Morris
- John Murray
- J. I. Packer
- A. W. Pink
- Vern S. Poythress
- Herman Ridderbos
- Kim Riddlebarger
- O. Palmer Robertson
- Sam Storms
- Ray Summers
- Cornelius Van Til
- Cornelis Venema
- Geerhardus Vos
- Samuel Waldron
- Bruce Waltke
- James White
Go here for a longer list. And go here for more on Amillenarianism.
(**All of the above are Amil but all are not preterist Amil like yours truly.)
Posts
15 Spoke Up:
One thing that put me against premillennialism is their insistence that the 1000 years is a literal 1000 years. Given the massive amount of symbolic numbers in the book of Revelation (666, 144,000, etc) this does not seem to fit with good grammatical interpretation.
And... given the fact that the Gospels were made up of "cutting and pasting" different stories of Jesus' ministry, and thus portrays these events occurring at different times in each Gospel, and yet are still inerrant and inspired... why can't we accept that the book of Revelation is not written in chronological order?
I didn't make the list!?
You must want Amillennialism to appear desirable.
Wasn't A.W. Pink a Dispie for the early part of his life before switching to being Amil.?
how many are actually preterist's & Amil?
SB,
If you are referring to the list I wanted to respond... 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.
just a comment on the literal numbers thing... the number 666 isn't necessarily a measurement or counting anything, just an image. And many, including myself, believe that 144,000 is literal. Why would he write 144,000 and not mean 144,000? It's not like that is a common number that can be associated with anything. And then even describing that 12,000 are specifically coming from each tribe... well, that seems to demand a literal interpretation. I would think you would need a pretty good reason to NOT interpret that literally.
I also wanted to just say a word about using history or people who hold to the view as a reason for believing it. I'm not trying to sway anyone with this, just throw out a caution when defending sides.
- Doctrinal development is a normal process that has has occurred within the church for 2,000. dispensationalism as we know it today is dependent upon literal hermeneutics and futurism in Revelation, both of which weren't in common use in the middle ages. eschatology itself wasn't well formed until recent times.
- the ultimate test isn't whether something is historic or who holds to it. I'm not saying that's what you're saying, but just bringing the warning.
- many parts of dispensationalism have been held in different portions throughout history.
- now obviously my view is not Amill and I don't pretend to know the system clearly, so my desire isn't to do that, but from what I understand, covenant theology as we know it can be traced to William Ames in the 1600's. if that is not accurate, you can let me know.
Make sure Jason that you post a list of us preterist-posties too. After all A's and posts are all really posts when you come down to it.idd
Dear Jason,
Thank you for this helpful post.
I really appreciate it.
Cindy Bleil
This is an interesting debate. Dr. MacArthur does what every person does,.. support his own view.
The most interesting thing is in this debate, the amils generally defend with "history" ie: most of the old guys believed this position and defend in a similar way by listing the other people who believe this way.
Sounds to me like name dropping, ...
Therefore, lets give Dr. MacArthur the respect due.
For the record, my escatalogical position, called the two step:
Step 1) Lotsa people die
Step 2) God wins in the end.
I only know of one other person who holds this position and they dont call it the Two Step. No names to drop.
Now tell some lost soul about the Grace of God in Jesus Christ!
Sterling VanDerwerker
I want "drop any names", but many of us believe that doctrine still matters.
Thank you so much for pointing out that Calvin was not pre-mil. All this time, and now we find out that Calvin himself wasn't as good of a Calvinist as J. Mac! ;) I've heard MacArthur say a few times that "Calvin never had his eschatology straight." Just because he didn't agree with you doesn't mean that he never had it straight.
Also, I don't think that anyone is ridiculing MacArthur for defending his position; it's more the maligning of the alternate positions in order to prove his own.
Are you sure Dever is amill because I've never really gotten that impression, I know Schreiner at SBTS is amill so you can add him.
I'll say this..... Over at Team Pyro Phil Johnson said that the discussion didn't center on the gospel and all I can think about is how it seemed to center on the gospel from MacArthur's position. Did anyone else get how he would have to approach a "Jew"? Seemed pretty central to the gospel to me and I might add to the apostles.
Galatians clearly demolishes another gospel that appeals to birthright. As soon as you go down that road,......dare I say it......You are proclaiming another gospel, which is no gospel. I say that with much love and respect for Dr. MacArthur, but as Paul loved the gospel and he loved Peter, he confronted him about not being straightforward about it.
Jason, thank you for this clarification of the Amil teaching. This has been new understanding for me. It made me think about how we are to go about the business of the Kingdom if indeed, we recognize Him as ruling and reigning on His throne right now. I am encouraged by this understanding and being of the same mind with those who taught the same (Calvin, Pink) also encourages me.
I've been studying the Amil position since you've first posted and have really had my eyes opened to what the Bible could actually be teaching me in regards to setting my "affection on things above" (Col. 3:1-4)
Again, thanks be to God for His illuminating Word, and to you for sharing your insight on this subject.
Post a Comment