Amillenialism - what are your thoughts?

[damon1272]

As the title says what are your thoughts on Amillenialism. Personally, I think that it tends to water down the gospel through spiritualizing events that pre/mid/post tribulation believers see as taking place in this reality rather than in a spiritual realm eg. 1000 year reign. Any thoughts?

[Wordupmybrotha]

Amillenialism = failed reading comprehension

They're reading everything as symbolic instead of properly distinguishing between literal, metaphorical, and symbolic.

It's as if, they want to fit the Bible to meet their preconceptions.

[damon1272]

It makes me think of that joke where the mobster is cheating on his wife and gets caught red handed. He tells her,?what are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?.
We must take the Bible seriously, not literally as there is what you say symbolic and metaphorical references nor can we change its? meaning.

[RAMCLAP]

After 2 and a half decades of studying all of the eschatological theories, the Amil view is still the one I find that requires no contortions to get to the point. It is face value of what the Bible says about the last things. It isn't perfect cuz how can it be? None of them are so it is difficult for anyone to die on their hills. But they do nonetheless.

[Garand Hunter]

Its NOT the true story. Pre trib all the way. But if some want to believe that there will be no rapture, you are right, its exercising your faith against the rapture, so yes you will not be raptured with those who do exercise their faith in it occurring pre trib. Just passin along my understanding of where to put my faith.

Psalm 1

[socal m1 shooter]

Voddie Baucham, the very well-respected pastor and preacher, holds an amillennial view of end times. You can judge for yourself whether his "reading comprehension" is failed or poor. The same message is available on YouTube, and you can download his whole series on Revelation here.

GotQuestions writes: "There are many arguments against the amillennial position, but they can be refuted through exegesis of Scripture. Careful hermeneutics (the study of the principles of interpretation), proves the amil position has legitimacy."

In their book "Not Afraid of the Antichrist," in chapter 3, Brown and Keener give a brief survey of the prevailing end times views in different church eras (emphasis mine):

[...]

Throughout history, Christians have held wildly different views about the future. Some of these views have made sense to many Christians; some of the other views have flourished only among radical fringes of the faith. Some views have been held by many Christians for centuries, such as premillennialism (a future thousand-year reign of Christ) and amillennialism (the same thousand years but as a symbol for the present age). Other views, such as predicting a specific, near deadline for the Lord?s return, have been immensely popular, though generally only until the coming of the predicted deadline proved them wrong.

Our brief survey of historic end-time views here will illustrate two matters. First, God does not just bless and use people with a particular end-time view. If you were raised with a particular view and believe that it must be true because ?all? godly people hold that view, think again.

Second, the pre-Tribulational view began with a faulty inference from Scripture and then collected proof texts to back it up. It is a minority view in Church history; no one articulated this view clearly until 1830, and it did not become widespread until the twentieth century. It flourished in particular denominations founded in its heyday, but was generally resisted by other equally evangelical movements (for example, Reformed and most Wesleyan churches) that began earlier. None of these observations makes the view wrong; they simply warn us not to assume that the view is as self-evident as those who have been schooled in it sometimes assume.

Left Behind theology?s vigorous promotion on a popular level differs starkly from its treatment at a scholarly level. It was promoted first by the Scofield Reference Bible and prophecy conferences, later by Hal Lindsey?s Late Great Planet Earth and most recently by LEFT BEHIND novels and movies. Yet most of the major academic commentaries on Matthew, 1 and 2 Thessalonians and Revelation by Bible-honoring biblical scholars (academic works published, for example, by Eerdmans or Baker) have argued against this position or simply ignored it. This observation does not by any means disprove the position. It should, however, at least alert Christians to the recognition that views exist besides those they find in some movies or novels.

So far as we can tell from their surviving work, the earliest Church fathers in the second century were premillennial and post-Tribulational. That is, they believed that Revelation 20 described a literal future thousand years, but they believed that they were currently in the Great Tribulation or (in the case of the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas) about to go through it. For example, the late second-century bishop and Church father Irenaeus wrote of ?the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule.?

Supporters of this post-Tribulational-but-premillennial position included writer-bishops such as Papias and Irenaeus, as well as a defender of the faith named Justin, who was eventually martyred. (This is why he came to be called Justin Martyr.) Although Justin did observe that not all Christians shared his views about the future thousand years, he seemed unaware of any other views about the Tribulation.

Some later Church fathers, however, accused Papias and Irenaeus of ?error? regarding the Millennium. Indeed, the fourth-century Church historian Eusebius called Papias a dimwit and said that premillennialists were the only sorts of heretics he knew of who could be talked out of their error! (Whatever view you hold on the Millennium, keep in mind that it appears explicitly in just one passage in one chapter of the Bible. One passage seems a slender basis for charging others with serious error!)

Many later Church fathers still expected a future Tribulation. After Constantine became a Christian emperor in 324, however, most Christians in the Roman Empire thought that their period of tribulation was over. Some Christians subsequently supposed that Christ was reigning on earth through the Roman emperor, and would do so for a literal thousand years until the final judgment. That view, of course, caused some problems in the 1300s. Yet it was promoted especially by some early Puritans centuries afterward.

A much more common version of the amillennial view today?the view that the Millennium symbolizes Christ?s present reign?is what we normally mean by amillennialism. On this view, the Millennium stretches between Jesus? first coming and His Second Coming, and the particular number of years is not meant literally. By the late second and early third centuries, the philosophically oriented Alexandrian church leaders rejected the idea of a literal future thousand years as ?fleshly.? In the fourth and fifth century, Augustine developed the idea that the Millennium symbolizes the entire present age, and most medieval thinkers followed him. Sixteenth-century Reformers such as Luther and Calvin continued this view. They did not believe in a future Millennium, but they did accuse the Pope of being the Antichrist (others applied that designation to Turkish invaders or to the Reformers themselves).

Subsequently some Catholic scholars spoke of a future Tribulation, to show that the Pope could not be the Antichrist. Isaac Newton (1643?1727) expected a literal future Millennium but still had no inkling of any snatching out of Christians before the Tribulation.

Meanwhile, postmillennialism had begun to flourish in many evangelical circles. This was the view that Christians would successfully establish God?s Kingdom on earth, setting up the throne for Jesus so He could return. After all, Scripture said that Christ would be seated at God?s right hand until He made His enemies a footstool for His feet (see Psalm 110:1; Acts 2:34?35). So instead of Christ returning before the thousand years, He would return afterward.

Jonathan Edwards, a leading voice in America?s First Great Awakening, was postmillennial. So were Charles Finney and most leaders in the Second Great Awakening that evangelized much of the early nineteenth-century United States. As evangelical revivals worked to evangelize the world and bring social change (for example, by abolishing slavery), many evangelical leaders envisioned a world that would get better and better. Both the secular idea of Manifest Destiny in the United States and what some did with Charles Darwin?s theory of evolution suited the optimistic spirit of the age. The tragedies of World War I, however, shattered both liberal and evangelical optimism about the future. Today some Reformed and charismatic circles have revived postmillennialism, but it remains a decidedly minority view among Christians generally.

A few thinkers during the Middle Ages and the Reformation period were premillennial, but premillennialism made its most splendid ?second coming? in the 1800s. Dispensational (pre-Tribulational) premillennialism helped drive this resurgence, but there were also historic (post-Tribulational) premillennialists. This was true even in the Brethren movement where dispensationalism first flourished.

Yet none of the views circulating before the nineteenth century?original, historic premillennialism, amillennialism or postmillennialism?envisaged Christians being raptured before a special period of tribulation. Hundreds of Christian thinkers read and commented on prophecies in the Bible, yet the idea of a Rapture before the Tribulation does not seem to have occurred to anyone before about 1830. If it was clear in the biblical text, why did nobody notice it before it became part of a new doctrinal system? (Our opinion, of course, is that it is not clear in the biblical text.)

Some Christians today in pre-Tribulational circles would be shocked to meet an average nineteenth-century Christian in the United States, who would likely be postmillennial. The nineteenth-century Christian might be no less horrified to learn of some twenty-first-century Christians? premillennial approach. History shows us that no end-time view merits trust simply because it is the dominant view in a particular time or group. We need to go back to the Bible inductively to see what it actually says.


[...]

Greg Koukl, the well-respected apologist, shares how his views shifted from pre-trib rapture to his current view in a famous article, "The Rap on the Rapture."

Personally, I think some of the responses in this thread are a great example of the old bromide, "history shows no one ever learns anything from history."

[socal m1 shooter]

Final thought, the late Michael Heiser, a regular guy in many respects who worked his way through graduate school has a great series called "Why an Obsession with Eschatology is a Waste of Time."

If you believe you have all the answers, give the first couple of posts in that series a careful reading, and then see what you think.

[RAMCLAP]

Its NOT the true story. Pre trib all the way. But if some want to believe that there will be no rapture, you are right, its exercising your faith against the rapture, so yes you will not be raptured with those who do exercise their faith in it occurring pre trib. Just passin along my understanding of where to put my faith.

Psalm 1

Those who hold the Amil view do believe in a "Rapture". At the end of time at the return of Christ. Just not before that.

[RAMCLAP]

Can't spell Amillenialism without "anal". Plase move to butt stuff thread

All Christians should be more concerned about their sanctification than their eschatological understanding.

[Darto]

After 2 and a half decades of studying all of the eschatological theories, the Amil view is still the one I find that requires no contortions to get to the point. It is face value of what the Bible says about the last things. It isn't perfect cuz how can it be? None of them are so it is difficult for anyone to die on their hills. But they do nonetheless.

I agree. At the end of the Gospels, Jesus said in 3 days the walls of Jerusalem would be torn down. They weren't.

Jesus: "Some of you standing here will see these things": They didn't.

The whole point of the prophets in the OT and Jesus in the NT was to read scripture (The Pentateuch) in spirit and in truth. And to put off the worldliness of literal interpretations.

The Paraphrases are quoted as bad mouthing Jesus because he and the disciplines came "eating and drinking". And harvesting a meal on the Sabbath. Such literal interpretations of the law were avoiding the spiritual truths of those passages, according to Jesus' response.

Jesus said the literal meaning of passages about divorce in the OT were there only because "Your hearts were hard".

Over and over in NT Jesus says "It is written... but I say unto you (something different from what the words written say but something spiritually true to those words). This is clearly one of Jesus favorite doctrines, he dwells on it. Read the Sermon on the Mount.

And/Or watch The Chosen series on Amazon Prime. Both Catholics and amillennialists will love that series.

The early church fathers were mostly all amillennial. The promise of a soon coming rapture not have happened, they had little choice. When Jesus departed from the disciples in a cloud it was with a promise to return "very soon". Not to be taken literally. They were supposed to have spiritual eyes, they were not supposed to be "of this world".

Its the spirit vs.the physical. The age old war. Lift up your eyes and see the spiritual (surely this is Jesus message). It was also the message of the OT prophetical books. As opposed to the literal first five books, the Pentateuch.

[RAMCLAP]

I agree. At the end of the Gospels, Jesus said in 3 days the walls of Jerusalem would be torn down. They weren't.

Jesus: "Some of you standing here will see these things": They didn't.

The whole point of the prophets in the OT and Jesus in the NT was to read scripture (The Pentateuch) in spirit and in truth. And to put off the worldliness of literal interpretations.

The Paraphrases are quoted as bad mouthing Jesus because he and the disciplines came "eating and drinking". And harvesting a meal on the Sabbath. Such literal interpretations of the law were avoiding the spiritual truths of those passages, according to Jesus' response.

Jesus said the literal meaning of passages about divorce in the OT were there only because "Your hearts were hard".

Over and over in NT Jesus says "It is written... but I say unto you (something different from what the words written say but something spiritually true to those words). This is clearly one of Jesus favorite doctrines, he dwells on it. Read the Sermon on the Mount.

And/Or watch The Chosen series on Amazon Prime. Both Catholics and amillennialists will love that series.

The early church fathers were mostly all amillennial. The promise of a soon coming rapture not have happened, they had little choice. When Jesus departed from the disciples in a cloud it was with a promise to return "very soon". Not to be taken literally. They were supposed to have spiritual eyes, they were not supposed to be "of this world".

Its the spirit vs.the physical. The age old war. Lift up your eyes and see the spiritual (surely this is Jesus message). It was also the message of the OT prophetical books. As opposed to the literal first five books, the Pentateuch.

He didn't say the walls would be torn down in 3 days. Those that He said "would see these things" did. In fact the whole of the Olivet Discourse was fulfilled in 70 AD concluding the end of the Jewish Age. Just not the end of the world.

[Garand Hunter]

Correct Ramclap ! And any version I have heard of Amin has no rapture, just Jesus showing up at the 2nd coming.

Psalm 1

[Kokopelli]

Second, the pre-Tribulational view began with a faulty inference from Scripture and then collected proof texts to back it up. It is a minority view in Church history; no one articulated this view clearly until 1830, and it did not become widespread until the twentieth century. It flourished in particular denominations founded in its heyday, but was generally resisted by other equally evangelical movements (for example, Reformed and most Wesleyan churches) that began earlier. None of these observations makes the view wrong; they simply warn us not to assume that the view is as self-evident as those who have been schooled in it sometimes assume.

Voddie Baucham is incorrect.

One of the arguments most opponents to the Rapture use is that it can't be right as it was a theory developed much later in comparison to other views. They all say that it began around 1830 through the ministry of J.N.Darby. Actually the pretrib rapture position does have historical precedent. A sermon was delivered in AD 373 by the Byzantine leader Pseudo-Ephraem entitled "On the Last Times, the Antichrist, and the End of the World" or "Sermon on the End of the World". This includes a concept very similar to the pretrib rapture.

The term, ?Premillenialist? means someone who believes Christ will return just before His millennial (thousand year) reign on earth. In reality, the early church believed in a ?Pretribulation? return of Christ for His ?Bride? the church, composed of believing Christians. The tribulation is a seven-year period of God?s wrath, foretold by the prophet Daniel that occurs before the millennial reign of Christ. This return is called the rapture. (Greek: harpazo = Latin: rapture) Saint Victorius, Bishop of Petau, wrote of the pretribulation return when he wrote a Revelation commentary about the church being taken out. As did Pseudo Ephraem in AD 372.

These were not mere theories of men but actual teachings from the Bible itself. In John 14:1-3 Jesus says he will return for His own. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17 says that Christ will come for His people then, in 1 Thessalonians 5:3, comes the destruction and verse 9 calls it God?s wrath. This is verified by 1 Thessalonians 1:10, 2 Thessalonians chapter 2, 1 Corinthians 15:51-58 and James 5:7-9, all of which speak of the pretribulation return of Christ. Its purpose is to keep believers safe from the approaching global crisis.

Darby did not come up with anything ?new? and many mistakenly credit him with the idea of the pretribulation ?catching away? of believers. Reverend Morgan Edwards? ?The Millennium? (1788) predated Darby by seventy years. Joseph Mede also wrote about the Rapture. (1586-1638)

[MrTokarev]

Its NOT the true story. Pre trib all the way. But if some want to believe that there will be no rapture, you are right, its exercising your faith against the rapture, so yes you will not be raptured with those who do exercise their faith in it occurring pre trib. Just passin along my understanding of where to put my faith.

Psalm 1

Your position is that some Christians will not be raptured because they don?t ascribe to the correct version of the rapture?

[socal m1 shooter]

All Christians should be more concerned about their sanctification than their eschatological understanding.

I pretty much agree. There is nothing wrong with studying the prophecies regarding end times, so long as 1) we keep first things first? ?work out your salvation in fear and trembling,? ?making every effort to keep the unity of the spirit? ? and 2) we are careful to live out the wise admonition ?in essentials, unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things, charity.?

Is there a mature believer who has not seen that conversations regarding end times prophecies often generate a lot of controversy, and sometimes conflict? Am I the only one who thinks it isn't unlike the whole C19 vaxx controversy where people were being attacked and condemned (and worse) for merely questioning the wisdom of taking an unproven vaccine? Other believers here on CG would possibly agree.

This very thread could be a decent example of that. One responder appeared to dismiss other believers, including (indirectly) Voddie Baucham (who, if you take the trouble to actually listen to the message linked upthread, has a very sophisticated argument supporting his views), writing ?Amillenialism = failed reading comprehension.? Is that a good example of working out one?s salvation in fear and trembling?

Two examples of this uncharitable behavior were cited by Baucham in that message: one from Kim Riddlebarger, a retired pastor from Anaheim, and one from Sam Storms, a pastor in Oklahoma City. Judge for yourself, are these men suffering from ?failed reading comprehension??

Kim Riddlebarger
Sam Storms

Voddie Baucham is incorrect. [...]

Where does he go wrong, exactly? Can you provide an example or two, or clarify, instead of making a vague, unsupported assertion?

He's a man, just like you and I, fallible, just like you and I, so he could be wrong. But did you actually listen to what he said?

Regarding the book that I linked upthread from Brown and Keener, I'm not necessarily defending their writings-- they are entirely capable of taking care of that themselves-- but their book is worth considering and they make some very compelling arguments against dispensationalism. As with other books I have read (and suggested, though not in this thread), working out your own salvation in fear and trembling can mean, do some praying, do some reading, do some thinking, make an effort to understand.

Just because you can cite a few obscure references who may make mention of a pre-trib rapture at different times in the 2000-year+ history of the church, that doesn?t make it a majority or even a common perspective. For example in the history of astronomy you can find people who occasionally mention a heliocentric solar system, but so what? it wasn?t a prevailing view until after Copernicus.