I appreciated your thoughts on Amillennialism! I'll give a link to a paper, "UNCOVERING PROPHETIC DETAILS IN REVELATION: Restoring confidence in the applicability of John’s Apocalypse, the final prophecy", as I have found the main thing preventing many folks from embracing the Amil is the confusion caused by myriad views and much poor exegesis is just too daunting for them to tackle.
Yes, the nomenclature is unfortunate but can be explained easily. It’s the prevalence of too much idealism, and not enough applicability to our times that's the trouble. Here's an attempt to rectify that (from my Dropbox) : https://bit.ly/3664VYv
I think amill and postmill both give the decisive finality of Christ's return that premill leaves out in that premill gives a second chance to unbelievers who are left behind after Christ comes back to reign over a fallen earth. Therefore a false hope is presented to an unbeliever before Christ comes back to reign whereby he might think he will decide after Christ's return if Christ s a fitting King and only then consider and trust his soul to him. However, if all the Christians have been raptured, the left behind have a King who is presumably in a glorified state. How would they survive in bodies unfit to live in the presence of infinite glory? They wouldn't last 1,000 seconds, much less a thousand years. The lost must understand the urgency of hearing and believing the gospel before Christ returns again because they won't have another chance afterwards.
I teach Revelation in both English an Spanish. I totally agree with RTS professor Dr. GK Beale that the prejudicially named A-Mil should be changed to "Inaugurated Millennium". All my students in both languages have responded well to the name change that I use.
I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not convinced that we'll get to a point where that terminology will ever become standard. Given how many books, articles, courses etc contain the term Amil we're sort of stuck with that. Not that I disagree in theory; I have similar feelings about other doctrines/theological terms too, but with this case as in those cases, our priority shouldn't be clearer terminology but clearer teaching.
PCA MTW church planter in S America; PCA MNA Hispanic Ministries coordinator ;Exec. Director to plant the RTS campus in Houston, TX; Now honorably retired from PCA teaching seminary students in Medellin, Colombia and Merida, Mexico
I too lean toward the amillenial position. I too have thought the nomenclature to be unfortunate. I've actually heard the panmillenial joke from several country pastors, and a few seminary people. I appreciate the thought you put into this post. I'm curious - do you think that if amillenialists talked more about inaugurated eschatology, that it would prevent some of the attitude of "everything's going to be replaced anyway, so nothing here really matters" that I've encountered in some premillennialists?
Hi Justin, that's a great question. I think my response would be that whether in Bible studies, articles, sermons, books etc, if we're doing exegesis properly, people will learn dogma/doctrine more naturally without necessarily knowing the terms.
I think that is far more important. With that said, I have been more direct about teaching "inaugurated eschatology" in small groups and discipleship settings for this very reason, especially because in the context I was in the prevailing cultural narrative was one of individualistic hedonism. That context led many to question present blessings, and explaining the "now and not yet" of inaugurated eschatology was incredibly helpful.
Hello Adsum,
I appreciated your thoughts on Amillennialism! I'll give a link to a paper, "UNCOVERING PROPHETIC DETAILS IN REVELATION: Restoring confidence in the applicability of John’s Apocalypse, the final prophecy", as I have found the main thing preventing many folks from embracing the Amil is the confusion caused by myriad views and much poor exegesis is just too daunting for them to tackle.
Yes, the nomenclature is unfortunate but can be explained easily. It’s the prevalence of too much idealism, and not enough applicability to our times that's the trouble. Here's an attempt to rectify that (from my Dropbox) : https://bit.ly/3664VYv
I don't know why it didn't register, but I write the substack https://apocalypsefield.substack.com
Thanks so much for taking the time to respond Steve. I'll have a look over your paper once I'm back from our holiday.
I think amill and postmill both give the decisive finality of Christ's return that premill leaves out in that premill gives a second chance to unbelievers who are left behind after Christ comes back to reign over a fallen earth. Therefore a false hope is presented to an unbeliever before Christ comes back to reign whereby he might think he will decide after Christ's return if Christ s a fitting King and only then consider and trust his soul to him. However, if all the Christians have been raptured, the left behind have a King who is presumably in a glorified state. How would they survive in bodies unfit to live in the presence of infinite glory? They wouldn't last 1,000 seconds, much less a thousand years. The lost must understand the urgency of hearing and believing the gospel before Christ returns again because they won't have another chance afterwards.
I teach Revelation in both English an Spanish. I totally agree with RTS professor Dr. GK Beale that the prejudicially named A-Mil should be changed to "Inaugurated Millennium". All my students in both languages have responded well to the name change that I use.
I don't necessarily disagree, I'm just not convinced that we'll get to a point where that terminology will ever become standard. Given how many books, articles, courses etc contain the term Amil we're sort of stuck with that. Not that I disagree in theory; I have similar feelings about other doctrines/theological terms too, but with this case as in those cases, our priority shouldn't be clearer terminology but clearer teaching.
PCA MTW church planter in S America; PCA MNA Hispanic Ministries coordinator ;Exec. Director to plant the RTS campus in Houston, TX; Now honorably retired from PCA teaching seminary students in Medellin, Colombia and Merida, Mexico
I too lean toward the amillenial position. I too have thought the nomenclature to be unfortunate. I've actually heard the panmillenial joke from several country pastors, and a few seminary people. I appreciate the thought you put into this post. I'm curious - do you think that if amillenialists talked more about inaugurated eschatology, that it would prevent some of the attitude of "everything's going to be replaced anyway, so nothing here really matters" that I've encountered in some premillennialists?
Hi Justin, that's a great question. I think my response would be that whether in Bible studies, articles, sermons, books etc, if we're doing exegesis properly, people will learn dogma/doctrine more naturally without necessarily knowing the terms.
I think that is far more important. With that said, I have been more direct about teaching "inaugurated eschatology" in small groups and discipleship settings for this very reason, especially because in the context I was in the prevailing cultural narrative was one of individualistic hedonism. That context led many to question present blessings, and explaining the "now and not yet" of inaugurated eschatology was incredibly helpful.
So yes and no, how diplomatic of me haha.
Thank you for writing this, it’s really helpful to be reminded of our mission!
Thanks Anna!
Good thoughts. Thanks!
Thanks John! That’s such an encouragement.