Postmil vs. Amil

[Sheepdog]

for the most part, i've been pretty apathetic to the distinction between these two views. however, after putting more thought into 1Cor 15:24-28, and hearing a postmillennialist describe what sounded like what is going on in that passage (a progressive increase in Christ's domain followed by His return) i decided to return to the subject. in general, i want to see what adherents of these views have to say about the Millennium. how do the views compare and differ. etc.

and sorry, no premills are invited to this party. (i already know that position as well as i'd care.)

[Armor of God]

In The Last Days According to Jesus,RC Sproul referenced Kenneth Gentry for this summation:

Amill-(pg 196)
The church age is the kingdom era prophesied in the OT--the NT church becomes the "Israel" of God.
Satan was bound during Jesus' ministry, which allowed the Gospel to spread rapidly
Insofar as Christ rules in the hearts of believers, Christians will continue to influence culture and society
In the end of times, evil will accelerate which will cullminate in the Great Trib and a personal Anti Christ
Christ will return to resurrect, judge, and establish the eternal order


Postmill- (pg 200)
Messianic kingdom was founded during Christ's ministry which fulfilled OT prophesy. NT church becomes the "Israel" of God
Kingdom is essentially redemptive and spirtual rather than physical or political
Kingdom will influence society to the point of transforming it. IOW, the message of the Gospel prospers.
Kingdom will gradually expand over time.
The Great Commission will succeed, seen by the Christianization of the nations
Spiritual prosperity will endure until the physical return of Christ who will resurrect, judge, and establish the eternal kingdom


There's one view anyway.

[Sheepdog]

Amill-(pg 196)
In the end of times, evil will accelerate which will cullminate in the Great Trib and a personal Anti Christ



both lists are interesting. i do wonder, was justification given for the above point?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Actually, that point can be taken or left, and the view would still be Amillennialism.

When the historic postmill view was utterly abandoned, and people started adopting an amill view with the caveat that history was going to get better, and calling this view "postmillennialism," the distinction is hard to make. Just think "ammillennialism with an optimistic eschatology," and that's what a postmil is these days.

[tizzidale]

The amill position given above is close to what the Orthodox Chuch un-officially teaches (I think). Personally, I don't know any more. I am a semi-preterist, in that I think many of the prophecies given in the New Testament that many pre-mills attribute to the second return of Christ actually happened during the fall of Jerusalem. But I also do not believe that the Bible actually teaches postmill doctrine concerning the Kingdom of God (and honestly I don't see it happening). So, here I am attending a pre-mill church, which thankfully doesn't spend every Sunday discussing eschatology.

rusty

[Mark_S]

Here's a chart on the subject: linky (http://www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm#chart2)

[eschaton]

I'm always interested in the origin of ideas, but I don't think that's a very popular way to look at things nowadays. I think the chart link clearly shows one of my criticisms of postmillennialism.

Postmillennialism was popular among American Evangelicals in the period of unprecedented technological growth between 1870 and 1915.

Did Jesus have the technological growth of the last couple of centuries in mind when He spoke? What justification is there for the idea that in the end of times, evil will accelerate and will cullminate in the Great Trib and a personal Anti Christ? The fact that the church has interpreted the scriptures that way, and taught that for the last couple of thousand years doesn't hold any weight does it? Why should that even be considered?

The fact that the kingdom of God is growing is not doubted. The idea that Christ's kingdom is an earthly one is doubted (John 18:36).

[A Cup of No]

The fact that the kingdom of God is growing is not doubted. The idea that Christ's kingdom is an earthly one is doubted (John 18:36).

Aren't you pre-mill? I thought sheepdog had limited this discussion to only amill and postmill.

And please read John 18:36 in context. It is not stating that Jesus' kingdom is not an earthly one, but rather not the kind of earthly one that resorts to using arms and violence to bring about its goals. That's why his followers do not fight. His kingdom, as the Greek testifies, is not from this world, but that does not mean it is not of this world.

[eschaton]

Aren't you pre-mill? I thought sheepdog had limited this discussion to only amill and postmill.

And please read John 18:36 in context. It is not stating that Jesus' kingdom is not an earthly one, but rather not the kind of earthly one that resorts to using arms and violence to bring about its goals. That's why his followers do not fight. His kingdom, as the Greek testifies, is not from this world, but that does not mean it is not of this world.

Hi L,

I was pre-mill about fifteen or twenty years ago. It's been so long since I changed I can't remember when that was at the moment. I believe Christ's Kingdom is spiritual:

Joh 6:15 8:15 Ps 45:3-7 Isa 9:6,7 Da 2:44 7:14 Zec 9:9 Lu 12:14 Lu 17:20,21 Ro 14:17 Col 1:12-14

[A Cup of No]

Hi L,

I was pre-mill about fifteen or twenty years ago. It's been so long since I changed I can't remember when that was at the moment. I believe Christ's Kingdom is spiritual:

Joh 6:15 8:15 Ps 45:3-7 Isa 9:6,7 Da 2:44 7:14 Zec 9:9 Lu 12:14 Lu 17:20,21 Ro 14:17 Col 1:12-14

I apologize for my comment, then.

[eschaton]

I apologize for my comment, then.

No problem. There's nothing to apologize for really.

I was orginally pre-trib because that's what the people in my family who knew anything about it were. Plus the Late Great Planet Earth made a big impression on me when I was a teenager. I eventually switched to post-trib, and then to amill. But I might not fit everybody's definition of amill. I simply don't believe in a literal thousand year kingdom of Christ ruling with the saints on this earth.

[Sheepdog]

interesting. i'll soak a bit before i make in more contents.

[Sheepdog]

I'm always interested in the origin of ideas, but I don't think that's a very popular way to look at things nowadays. I think the chart link clearly shows one of my criticisms of postmillennialism.

Postmillennialism was popular among American Evangelicals in the period of unprecedented technological growth between 1870 and 1915.

i agree, that is a particularly loaded way of presenting postM. This is borderlining on genetic fallacy, and really we apexed in technology around the same time popular dispenSENSATIONALism became popular... if anything, let the premill's make that silly mistake.

still, there is an element of truth. in Old Europe, they spent hundreds of years building the cathedrals. the visionaries who designed these monstrous and awesome structures knew they would never see them to completion. to them, this was their gift to future generations.

can you imagine premills taking on a project like that? Jesus is coming back at any time (quick, look busy :wink:). it'd be more productive to fire gospel tracts at people, some would say. and this in a cultural-religious downswing, when the US and Europe needs more sowers, not more reapers? i don't mean to bash premills and say they can't respond, i know they think they have good Biblical justification for their views. i'll defer on that point, but i intend to be more active on this topic since i perceive that the current Christian zeitgeist is doing more harm than good.

[Armor of God]

both lists are interesting. i do wonder, was justification given for the above point?
To answer your question, Sheep, the information given was just a brief outline. There really wasn't too much discussion to back it up.

Sproul's book is more of a survey than anything. He doesn't stay too long in one area.

[Sheepdog]

ok, Armor.


I was going to say, Eschaton, after reading the chart a little bit more closely, it wasn't so much that he was loading the debate, just noting that the popularity of these views were parallel to the pre-World War optimism and the pessimism thereafter.

[spauline]

I am a Catholic who is somewhere between amill and premill: in this view, based upon an abundance of approved Private Revelation (i.e., countless Catholic mystics from roughly 6th century until now), prior to the very end of the world, that is, the Great Apostasy and Tribulation (that has always been a part of general Catholic teaching), there will occur a MINOR Apostasy and conditional [MINOR] Tribulation that will manifest all the errors of rejecting the Catholic dogmas and graces, thereby ending with the Reunion of Christians (i.e., pretty much all Christians return to the Catholic Church), and a glorious Age of Peace (which is then properly the "Millennium") in which The Blessed Virgin's Immaculate Heart triumphs, and the Gospel of Jesus reigns in the hearts of men for a "reasonably long time". Finally, at the end of this Age of Peace the fallen nature of man exerts itself the ultimate time in human history with the Great Apostasy, Antichrist and Great Tribulation, which then of course is followed by the Second Coming and New Creation.

I have all kinds of stuff on this on my blog and website, which are referenced in my sig.

GB!
scott

[Sheepdog]

that is very interesting. i never heard a distinctively Catholic view on eschatology. thank you for that spauline.

[A Cup of No]

1 Cor 15 is fairly definitive for my eschatology. Of course, when doing eschatology, it's easy to find one text, make it the standard by which you rule all others, and then adjust the other passages to make them fit that set one. This would all be easier if we said that the different biblical authors had different eschatological ideas, but that's not a very evangelical position, is it?

[Sheepdog]

maybe not different eschatological ideas, but eschatological approaches?

[A Cup of No]

maybe not different eschatological ideas, but eschatological approaches?

What do you mean?

[spauline]

that is very interesting. i never heard a distinctively Catholic view on eschatology. thank you for that spauline.

you're welcome! :lol:

However, I should emphasize that my beliefs are more of a minority position in the RCC. Most Catholics who even know anything about eschatology would tend more toward amill. It's just that I have been looking into these issues for about 4 years now, and the more I learn, the more I believe this "mystics' scenario" of an intermediate ["minor"] apostasy and subsequent restoration of faith is far more appropriate in light of the total Catholic tradition than the more pessimistic view of a one-apostasy scenario and the denial of a temporary triumph of the Redemption prior to great falling away.

[Sheepdog]

for instance, when Paul get's eschatological, it's usually to serve a specific purpose. for instance, 1Cor 15 is eschatological-- but Paul was dealing with a specific heresy, the denial of resurrection.

then you have Revelation, which is in it's own category.

[A Cup of No]

I get what you're saying. Yeah, in Paul, we usually get parts of his underlying theology when he uses it to address a certain congregational problem.

[Armor of God]

If sheepdog doesn't mind, I'm going to shift the focus of this thread (since it's kind of died) to Revelation 20:7-9 while keeping it in a postmil vs. amil context. If I need my own thread I apologize in advance, and I'll make the necessary switch.

Anyway, as I understand the amil view, they believe this "short while" or "little while" (spoken of in vs 3) that Satan is released comes at the end of the millennium, and he's apparently given the ability to once again deceive nations. IOW, the chain from the early verses is thrown down, and he's allowed to run amok. I've heard it guessed that this will be a short period of intense, possibly global persecution of the church, until Christ returns (in vs. 9) and crushes all His enemies.

This would apparently stand in contrast to postmil, who claim that the Great Comission will be successful, and the majority of the world will be Christianized to usher in Christ's return.

So my question is, how do postmills deal with Rev. 20:7-9 and Satan's release for a "short while?"

[Gavin]

Are most preterists amill or postmill? I know Gentry is post. I could not even tell what Sproul was from reading his book, which was kind of disappointing.

[dizzle]

Hey Gavin, I think it is a mixed bag, with some of both. I believe Sproul is amill.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Are most preterists amill or postmill? I know Gentry is post. I could not even tell what Sproul was from reading his book, which was kind of disappointing.THey most common tendency is to be "neo-postmillennial." It's an amillennial view of he millennium, with preterism and an optimistic view of history added in.

It would be less confusing for all concerned if it were called "neo-amillennialism," since it is, in fact, a new variety of amillennialism (as they reject the historical postmillennial view of the millennium as a future golden age). But then they wouldn't be able to bash amillennialists for not being optimistic, which is a favourite pastime for Ken Gentry and Gary North.

However, you can be a preterist without holding the neopostmil view of history.

[Hitch]

If sheepdog doesn't mind, I'm going to shift the focus of this thread (since it's kind of died) to Revelation 20:7-9 while keeping it in a postmil vs. amil context. If I need my own thread I apologize in advance, and I'll make the necessary switch.

Anyway, as I understand the amil view, they believe this "short while" or "little while" (spoken of in vs 3) that Satan is released comes at the end of the millennium, and he's apparently given the ability to once again deceive nations. IOW, the chain from the early verses is thrown down, and he's allowed to run amok. I've heard it guessed that this will be a short period of intense, possibly global persecution of the church, until Christ returns (in vs. 9) and crushes all His enemies.

This would apparently stand in contrast to postmil, who claim that the Great Comission will be successful, and the majority of the world will be Christianized to usher in Christ's return.

So my question is, how do postmills deal with Rev. 20:7-9 and Satan's release for a "short while?"I reckon this wil be more of an echo of the first century jews 'filling their cup'.

[dizzle]

I have no problem using neo-postmill. I have used that myself. But since there isn't any significant oldschool postmills, the "neos" are pretty much what is left, and it is understood what is being talked about with those who are in these types of discussions. Thus since "neo" has pretty much taken over, I am not so sure it is necessary with the old view, which has died, can be designated with classic.

And there are plenty of pessimistic amils, it isn't as if Gentry makes that up. I thinks Theonomy is a bit optimistic about the pessimism of amil and should be postmill and get it over with already.

[Sheepdog]

no it's fine, Armor. that's an interesting question

[spauline]

Anyway, as I understand the amil view, they believe this "short while" or "little while" (spoken of in vs 3) that Satan is released comes at the end of the millennium, and he's apparently given the ability to once again deceive nations. IOW, the chain from the early verses is thrown down, and he's allowed to run amok. I've heard it guessed that this will be a short period of intense, possibly global persecution of the church, until Christ returns (in vs. 9) and crushes all His enemies.

This would apparently stand in contrast to postmil, who claim that the Great Comission will be successful, and the majority of the world will be Christianized to usher in Christ's return.

So my question is, how do postmills deal with Rev. 20:7-9 and Satan's release for a "short while?"

I used to call myself postmill, but in light of this question, I'm not sure what I'd call myself. From what I understand, amill only sees basically TWO great subages of sinful resistance to the Redemption that Christ mediates through the Church: one in the beginning of Church history (pagan Rome) and one at the very end (The Great Apostasy/AC).

My view inserts an INTERMEDIATE period of evil (the MINOR apostasy) that brings the total great ages of sin in the Church history to THREE and that is subsequently healed and leads to the "Age of Peace", a great RESTORATION of Catholicism that more or less spreads nearly worldwide.

So, in other words, the amill outline (Catholic Version), from what i understand is as follows:

I. Pagan Rome Persecutes / Catholic Christendom
II. Great Apostasy / Second Coming and New Creation


Whereas the general scenario derived from most approved Catholic mystics is:

I. Pagan Rome Persecutes / Catholic Christendom
II. Minor Apostasy / Restoration of Catholicism (Age of Peace)
II. Great Apostasy / Second Coming and New Creation

In the first view (amill), it is more hard-hearted, in that it implies that the first significant apostasy in Church history is in fact the last, and is hence "unforgivable" and, thereby, "unhealable".

The second view is more soft-hearted, for it admits that the current apostasy is somewhat understandable, given the MORAL (not doctrinal) scandal of the Pre-Prot-Rev Catholic clergy and the subsequent unimaginable division in Christianity wrought through the loss of trust in the RCC. On that basis, it views the current (Minor) apostasy as "healable" (and, therefore, "forgivable") because God can abandon the world into the consequences of its rejection of the various teachings and graces of the RCC, thereby using the associated coming tribulation as a "learning lesson", so to speak. Hence, after this epic learning lesson and subsequent restoration and fruitfulness of Catholicism, the second (Great) apostasy will then certainly be "unforgivable" and "unhealable".

[Gavin]

Hey Dee Dee, what are you, postmil? Have you discussed your reasons for this in another thread? Thanks,

gavin

[dizzle]

Yes Gavin, I am.

[Gavin]

THey most common tendency is to be "neo-postmillennial." It's an amillennial view of he millennium, with preterism and an optimistic view of history added in.

It would be less confusing for all concerned if it were called "neo-amillennialism," since it is, in fact, a new variety of amillennialism (as they reject the historical postmillennial view of the millennium as a future golden age). But then they wouldn't be able to bash amillennialists for not being optimistic, which is a favourite pastime for Ken Gentry and Gary North.

However, you can be a preterist without holding the neopostmil view of history.

Hey Theonomy, can you clarify the difference between "old school postmill" and new postmill?

gavin

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Sure Gavin

Old school postmill, or just "postmill" to those haven't adopted the terms of the last 20 years, is the view that went under the name "postmillennialism" up until the mid to late twentieth century. For example, it was the mainstream postmillennial position when Lorraine Boettner defended postmillennialism against the amil and premil views in the Meaning of the Millennium in 1977, edited by G. Clouse. In this view, "the millennium" is a future thousand year reign on earth, just like in premillennialism. Human history is building up to this golden age of peace and righteousness on earth, after the Gospel has transformed the world. At the end of this millennium, Christ returns. So it's a lot like premillennialism in its view of what the millennium is, simply differening on the pre/post question with rspect to Christ's return. Ever since the reformation until, say, the eighties and for many even the nineties, if you had asked a theologian what postmillennialism was, that's the answer you'd get.

However, the new "postmillennialism" universally rejects that view of the millennium, which is why I say it is confusing that they take th epostmil label at all, given that as far as millennial views is concerned, it's not postmillennial.
It declares that the view of the millennium taught up to the 80s in the name of postmilennialism is a false view of the millennium. Instead, it adopts the view of the millennium as taught by amillennialism. This view can be construed in a couple of ways. It could be construed in a historicist type of way, where the thousand year reign takes place between Jesus' ascension and sending of the Holy Spirit, and His second coming. Or it could be construed in a more idealist way, where the thousand year reign depicts that reign that we all have in Christ, and the first resurrection is regeneration. So it's not a historical postmillennial view of the millennium, it's the amillennial view of the millennium. However, the new postmillennialism is a specific kind of amillennialism, since it adds to this view of the millennium a view of history (not a view of the millennium) that says the Gospel will transform the world over time, making it progressively more godly.

That's why I prefer to call it neo-amillennialism, but since some of the more vocal proponents of this view have chosen to call it postmillennialism for reasons known only to themselves, and to rather viciously attack amillennialism, I am prepared to have people call it postmillennialism so as to avoid conflict.

[Gavin]

Thanks, thats helpful. So if I am understanding you right, in classic postmill, you have the church age, and THEN the millennium, whereas in neo-postmill, the church age IS the millenium? I am assuming Gentry is a "neo-postmill," correct?

I have considered myself optimistic amill. I am not really sure how this would substantially differ with neo-postmill.

[Chief of Staff Lizard]

Thanks, thats helpful. So if I am understanding you right, in classic postmill, you have the church age, and THEN the millennium, whereas in neo-postmill, the church age IS the millenium? I am assuming Gentry is a "neo-postmill," correct?

:yes2:
I have considered myself optimistic amill. I am not really sure how this would substantially differ with neo-postmill.

It does not.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Thanks, thats helpful. So if I am understanding you right, in classic postmill, you have the church age, and THEN the millennium, whereas in neo-postmill, the church age IS the millenium? I am assuming Gentry is a "neo-postmill," correct?

I have considered myself optimistic amill. I am not really sure how this would substantially differ with neo-postmill.Right, Gentry is neo-postmill, and if you are optimistic amill, then so are you.