Consistent Amillennialism ...

[amishrockstar]

Is it inconsistent to be an Amillennialist AND an Orthodox Preterist? (why or why not?)
It seems that most Preterists are Postmillennial, while most Amils would see much of Revelation (and 2 Thes.2, etc.) as still future. Any thoughts?
THANKS

[Geek Eclectic]

To my understanding, the most important difference between amil and postmil views is that amil is not dominionist while postmil is. Unless there is something in one's theology that would forbid a dominionist view, then where one might be amil one could also be postmil. Preterism by itself, for example, neither requires nor forbids dominionism. So in reality one could be a Preterist and hold to either of these views without inconsistency.

[TyRockwell]

It depends on where you draw the line between what is past tense, or fulfilled prophecy, and what is future. It also calls into question what is orthodox, and whether unorthodox is somehow less valid. I personally believe that these labels confuse the subject because they are not biblical words. Is their usage an attempt to abbreviate concepts, or to compartmentalize concepts? Isn't a fully open discussion of the subject more likely to bring about a better outcome of dealing with the Bible if Bible terms are used?
As I understand the Bible, there is a literal thousand year reign of Jesus and his saints on earth. There is nothing in the context that seems to be allegorical, figurative, or symbolic. What would be before, is a fulfillment of certain prophecies, providing 'conditions on the ground' that allow for the release of Jesus, whom God told, in the most repeated verse in the Bible, "Sit here at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." Jesus is the one, "whom the heavens must retain until...."
Obviously, Jesus' return hasn't happened, yet. "Every eye will see him on that day."
It seems that the debate has been held on the turf of either, 'all prophecy has been fulfilled', or the turf of, 'most of it still has not yet happened.'
My position has it that a lot of it has happened, but an important few things have not. I have found that people take as literal things that should be figurative, such as, "blood up to the horses bridles." Well, does the horse have a rider? If so, it would be deep blood. If not, the horses bridle is going to be near the ground, as the horse is eating grass. Deep blood, not likely. Bloody ground, more probable, since you could fit all the people on earth into one medium large city, standing them shoulder to shoulder. Not enough blood exists on earth for five feet deep, 180 miles long. So, it is figurative. A literal intepretation of some figurative scenes has made them seem to be 'fearful.' We are challenged throughout to believe what God has written in other parts of the Bible, in our interpreting, so that we remember that God's word does not contradict itself.
Conversely, some people see symbolism in places that are literally true. Only Bible study, with a very real, asked for, work of the Holy Spirit to help us, will enable us to understand. Some people don't know that all the New Testament was written before 70 AD, except for the Revelation of Jesus Christ, written 90-95 AD. Meaning some things in the NT were going to happen, future to the writing, but long past tense for us.
Some things have been ongoing, since the time of the gospel writers, so that, "soon" means that whatever time you read the Revelation, you are in that time. "Soon" should sometimes be translated, "suddenly," as in 'unexpectedly,' such as, "in an hour that you think not."
When we read that Jesus overcomes those who make war with him, "BECAUSE with him are his called chosen and faithful followers," then we should see that there is a role that we who are his followers have to play, in bringing to completion Jesus' overcoming.
Just a few thoughts.

[Geek Eclectic]

Blah blah blah.Does any of what you said in any way address the question posed in the OP? No, it really, really doesn't. Call me crazy, but somehow I think amishrockstar would appreciate people actually answering his question as opposed to going off on off-topic premillenial tirades.

[TyRockwell]

It depends on where you draw the line between what is past tense, or fulfilled prophecy, and what is future. It also calls into question what is orthodox, and whether unorthodox is somehow less valid. I personally believe that these labels confuse the subject because they are not biblical words. Is their usage an attempt to abbreviate concepts, or to compartmentalize concepts? Isn't a fully open discussion of the subject more likely to bring about a better outcome of dealing with the Bible if Bible terms are used?
As I understand the Bible, there is a literal thousand year reign of Jesus and his saints on earth. There is nothing in the context that seems to be allegorical, figurative, or symbolic. What would be before, is a fulfillment of certain prophecies, providing 'conditions on the ground' that allow for the release of Jesus, whom God told, in the most repeated verse in the Bible, "Sit here at my right hand, until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet." Jesus is the one, "whom the heavens must retain until...."
Obviously, Jesus' return hasn't happened, yet. "Every eye will see him on that day."
It seems that the debate has been held on the turf of either, 'all prophecy has been fulfilled', or the turf of, 'most of it still has not yet happened.'
My position has it that a lot of it has happened, but an important few things have not. I have found that people take as literal things that should be figurative, such as, "blood up to the horses bridles." Well, does the horse have a rider? If so, it would be deep blood. If not, the horses bridle is going to be near the ground, as the horse is eating grass. Deep blood, not likely. Bloody ground, more probable, since you could fit all the people on earth into one medium large city, standing them shoulder to shoulder. Not enough blood exists on earth for five feet deep, 180 miles long. So, it is figurative. A literal intepretation of some figurative scenes has made them seem to be 'fearful.' We are challenged throughout to believe what God has written in other parts of the Bible, in our interpreting, so that we remember that God's word does not contradict itself.
Conversely, some people see symbolism in places that are literally true. Only Bible study, with a very real, asked for, work of the Holy Spirit to help us, will enable us to understand. Some people don't know that all the New Testament was written before 70 AD, except for the Revelation of Jesus Christ, written 90-95 AD. Meaning some things in the NT were going to happen, future to the writing, but long past tense for us.
Some things have been ongoing, since the time of the gospel writers, so that, "soon" means that whatever time you read the Revelation, you are in that time. "Soon" should sometimes be translated, "suddenly," as in 'unexpectedly,' such as, "in an hour that you think not."
When we read that Jesus overcomes those who make war with him, "BECAUSE with him are his called chosen and faithful followers," then we should see that there is a role that we who are his followers have to play, in bringing to completion Jesus' overcoming.
Just a few thoughts.
I didn't say, "blah, blah, blah." Someone misrepresented my post. BTW, he did bring up orthodoxy. You have a problem with Psalm 110:1? not to mention, 2?

[amishrockstar]

"Little Shepherd"
I do appreciate your reply...
I can definitely see how whether you believe in "dominionism" or not, how that will shape your position; from the studies I've been doing lately, I've been seeing Amil and Postmil positions as being in agreement on sooo many things (even their interpretation of Rev. 20). Your post cleared up some things for me --Thanks

[Geek Eclectic]

I didn't say, "blah, blah, blah." Someone misrepresented my post. BTW, he did bring up orthodoxy. You have a problem with Psalm 110:1? not to mention, 2?He didn't bring up orthodoxy. He said "orthodox preterist," a term that is synonymous here with other terms such as "partial preterist" or "historical preterist." It's meant to distinguish proper preterism from the heresy of full preterism(neo-hymenaenism, pantelism). I see that you're new here, so it's understandable if this terminology is new to you.

And concerning Revelation and II Thessalonians, the amount of prophecy believed to already be fulfilled or still future is more a function of preterism/historicism/futurism than of amillenialism/postmillenialism. In fact, amil and postmil agree for the most part except for the dominionist belief that's part of modern postmillenial belief. Preterism doesn't necessitate either amil or postmil beliefs(though they mesh quite well), and neither amil or postmil beliefs necessitate Preterism(though, again, they mesh quite well).

And no, I have no problem with Psalm 110:1-2. It actually looks like one of the passages used to justify being postmillenial rather than simply amillenial. There are other verses in the Bible concerning Jesus that say things like he'll bring all nations underfoot and rule with a rod of iron prior to the very end-times stuff that everyone within orthodoxy agrees to such as Jesus' final physical return, the physical Resurrection of humanity, and the final judgment. To Preterists, this great, final event is synonymous with what futurists call the Rapture(though we don't use that term because it is so tied into other futurist beliefs that its use would be confusing and unhelpful).

[TyRockwell]

He didn't bring up orthodoxy. He said "orthodox preterist," a term that is synonymous here with other terms such as "partial preterist" or "historical preterist." It's meant to distinguish proper preterism from the heresy of full preterism(neo-hymenaenism, pantelism). I see that you're new here, so it's understandable if this terminology is new to you.

And concerning Revelation and II Thessalonians, the amount of prophecy believed to already be fulfilled or still future is more a function of preterism/historicism/futurism than of amillenialism/postmillenialism. In fact, amil and postmil agree for the most part except for the dominionist belief that's part of modern postmillenial belief. Preterism doesn't necessitate either amil or postmil beliefs(though they mesh quite well), and neither amil or postmil beliefs necessitate Preterism(though, again, they mesh quite well).

And no, I have no problem with Psalm 110:1-2. It actually looks like one of the passages used to justify being postmillenial rather than simply amillenial. There are other verses in the Bible concerning Jesus that say things like he'll bring all nations underfoot and rule with a rod of iron prior to the very end-times stuff that everyone within orthodoxy agrees to such as Jesus' final physical return, the physical Resurrection of humanity, and the final judgment. To Preterists, this great, final event is synonymous with what futurists call the Rapture(though we don't use that term because it is so tied into other futurist beliefs that its use would be confusing and unhelpful).
I see Psalm 110:1-2 as preceding the premmillenial physical return of Jesus. Since it was quoted several times in the new testament, and they seemed to expect that Jesus' return could be in their own lifetimes, and a millenium is not mentioned before Revelation, how could it not mean that its demonstration, though not its universal implimentation, precedes Jesus' return?