Well, I can see now that you know it all. BTW, Is it true that David Chilton cast off his Postmillennialism and went to full Preterism before he died? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/stupidme.gif" alt="stupidme" title="stupidme[/img]<br><br>Go ahead and have the last word.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Well, I can see now that you know it all</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No I don't "know it all" If I did, why would I have said that I intend to read Venema's book in the future? <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]BTW, Is it true that David Chilton cast off his Postmillennialism and went to full Preterism before he died?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>David Chilton wrote his postmillennial works in the mid-1980's. In 1994 he had suffered a massive stroke and was ill for some time after that. In early 1997, he had expressed his change to Full Preterism on a semi-public list forum (I was the co-moderator of that Christian forum where he was a member at that time). <br><br>Many of us on that forum were shocked to read of his change of views, but were also well aware of his recent illness too, and so were personally sympathetic to him (but not to his new views). Not too long after that (a matter of weeks) he had died.<br><br>But Chilton's change of eschatology is no more relevant to this discussion, than some presbyterians and Anglicans who have coverted to Romanism (e.g. Scott Hahn, Gerry Matatics, Thomas Howard, et al).<br><br>Doe J.I. Packer's [u]support and defense of the 1994 ECT Document[/u] (and later Ecumenical Documents) have any negative bearing on his earlier Calvinistic writings, such as his famous Introductory Essay to John Owen's classic book on the Death of Christ, or his Historical Introduction to Luther's Bondage of the Will, or his several books and essays on Puritanism and Calvinism? I trow not. <br><br>Colin <br><br>
Pilgrim wrote:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I will admit I do have a strong distaste for cultic views which are detrimental to the historic faith.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So do I but I would not classify anymillennial view held by Christians as "cultic" and I suspect, neither would Dr. Venema either. Perhaps you ought to re-read his book, for I am told that it is a very irenic work and thus, I would assume that he would not classify my postmillennialism as being "cultic".<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"][quote]But I suppose you would say that Cornelius Venema, for example, is simply totally confused and ignorant of history in this matter<br>Given your ridiculous statement about Dispensationalism predating Amillennialism and knowing how Venema documents carefully the TRUE history of the Amillennial and Postmillennial views, it is a reasonable conclusion on my part that you would also criticize him as one who is totally ignorant of history, etc... </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>No it is a very unreasonable conclusion for you to impute to me what I had not even said nor implied. But I did cite supporting evidence for my opinion on the history of Amillennialism. It is far from ridiculous because it is even conceded by some Amillennial theologians themselves. <br><br>DPM began in the early 19th century. Amillennialism as a distinctive system began in the late 19th century and was not even labelled as such until the early 20th century. OTOH postmillennialism has a much older history going back to Augustine, Calvin and the English Puritans. But because Amillennialism overlaps with postmillennialism, it is assumed that the former is older than the latter. In reality, Amillennialism is simply a backslidden form of postmillennialism. This is demonstrated for example by comparing the postmillennialism of 19th century Princeton Seminary up until the time of Vos, the great Dutch reformed theologian who introduced Amillennialism there in the early 20th century (in reaction to Warfield's postmill views). Kuyper and Bavinck were other contemporaries of Vos and who were Amillennial. All Dutch men. Now its interesting that Berkhof mentions that the 17th century Dutch reformed Christians were all postmillennial. (p. 716 Systematic Theology). So this eschatological backslidding can also been seen in the reformed churches in Holland too. <br><br>The article I previously cited (Amillennial History) explains this in more detail. <br><br>Now I might be able to concede that Amillennialism is older that DPM from the older writings of Roman Catholics and Lutherans who were all Amillennial, but I prefer to speak in the context of reformed Church history.<br><br>Colin <br>
Let's let Dr. Venema speak for himself on his understanding of the history of Amillennialism. Interesting enough he quotes Berkhof as well, but in context to show the opposite of what you tried to make him say.
[color:blue]II. A BRIEF HISTORY OF AMILLENNIALISM
The view which today is known as Amillennialism has a long history of advocacy going back to the beginning of the Christian era. Since the fourth and fifth centuries, it has been the predominant position within the Christian church. Though Premillennialism has had its advocates throughout the history of the Christian church and has enjoyed a resurgence recently among conservative evangelicals in North America, it is safe to say that Amillennialism has been the consensus position of the largest portion of the Christian church. Louis Berkhof is correct when he remarks as follows regarding Amillennialism:
Some Premillenarians have spoken of Amillennialism as a new view and as one of the most recent novelties, but this is certainly not in accord with the testimony of history. The name is new indeed, but the view to which it is applied is as old as Christianity. It had at least as many advocates as Chiliasm among the Church Fathers of the second and third centuries, supposed to have been the heyday of Chiliasm. It has ever since been the view most widely accepted, is the only view that is either expressed or implied in the great historical Confessions of the Church, and has always been the prevalent view in Reformed circles)1
Though Berkhof does not mention the claim of many present-day postmillennialists that Amillennialism, not Postmillennialism, is the relative newcomer, his observations are applicable to this claim.
It is generally agreed that though the view known today as Amillennialism was already present in the earliest period of the Christian church, the great church father, Augustine, was instrumental in establishing this view as the predominant one. By treating the millennium of Revelation 20 as a symbolical description of the church’s growth in the present age, Augustine gave impetus to the amillennialist contention that the millennium does not follow chronologically the early history of the New Testament church. With the exception of some exponents of Premillennialism, the tenets of amillennialist teaching prevailed throughout the Middle Ages and during the Reformation. The Reformers were aligned with this broad tradition, though soon after the Reformation advocates of Postmillennialism arose especially within the Reformed tradition.
However strong the influence of Postmillennialism may have been within the Reformed churches, especially in North America during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the predominant view today is that of Amillennialism. Though advocates of Postmillennialism are found among the Reformed churches, and though the majority of conservative evangelicals in North America are premillennialists, the prevailing view among the Reformed churches and the Christian church, broadly conceived, remains that of Amillennialism.2
Where the historic creeds and confessions address themselves to the subject of the future, they are more congenial to an amillennialist view than to the other major millennial views. This is true of the Reformed confessions, though they do not explicitly address some of the differences between Amillennialism and Postmillennialism.3
[*]Systematic Theology, p. 708. The following sources offer representative presentations of the amillennial view: A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future; idem, ‘Amillennialism’, in The Meaning of the Millennium, ed. Robert G. Clouse, pp. 155-88; G. Vos, The Pauline Eschatology; G. C. Berkouwer, The Return of Christ; William E. Cox, Amillennialism Today (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1972); William Hendriksen, More Than Conquerors (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1939); and Robert B. Strimple, ‘Amillennialism’, in Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond, ed. Darrell L. Bock, pp. 81-129.[*]Though the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches do not have a dogmatic position on the millennium, their traditions have commonly identified the kingdom of Christ with the church during the present age. If the term applies, therefore, they are amillennial in outlook.[*]The one exception to this pattern may be the Second Helvetic Confession of 1566. This confession was first written by Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s successor and an influential Reformer in his own right, and later adopted by the Swiss Reformed churches as a confession of their faith. Next to the Heidelberg Catechism, it has been the most popular Reformed confession among the international family of Reformed churches. This confession seems to condemn Postmillennialism when it declares: ‘Moreover we condemn the Jewish dreams that before the day of judgement there shall be a golden age in the earth, and that the godly shall possess the kingdoms of the world, their wicked enemies being trodden under foot; for the evangelical truth (Matt. 24 and 25, Luke 21), and the apostolic doctrine (in the Second Epistle to the Thessalonians 2, and in the Second Epistle to Timothy 3 and 4) are found to teach far otherwise’ (Chap. 11; quoted from The Creeds of Christendom, ed. Philip Schaff (1931; reprint, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985], III: p. 853.[/LIST] In His Grace,
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] DPM began in the early 19th century. [color:red]Amillennialism as a distinctive system began in the late 19th century and was not even labelled as such until the early 20th century</font color=red>. OTOH postmillennialism has a much older history going back to Augustine, Calvin and the English Puritans.</font><hr></blockquote><p> While [color:red]the term “A-Mil”</font color=red> may not have been in existence that long it does not mean that the doctrine was not taught or not true. When did the term “computer” come into existence (did Augustine use one or name it?)—yet you use one don’t you? Your argument from [color:red]silence of a term</font color=red> in ancient history is indefensible, but expected. Not only that, but it is untrue as well:<br><br>Westminster Theological Journal. electronic edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1998,<br><br><blockquote>[color:red] Amillennialism as the most consistent expression of Reformed covenantal theology maintains that the fulfillment of the Abrahamic promises awaits the consummation , the present age of the Spirit being semi-eschatological. </blockquote> </font color=red> Dr. Walvoord, a DPM admits that,<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue] Reformed eschatology has been predominantly A-Mil. [color:red]Most if not all of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation were A-Mil in their eschatology, following the teachings of Augustine</font color=red> (Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan-Mar, 1951). </blockquote></font color=blue> And I am sure you will have an explanation of one called Hippolytus, who according to you, was arguing against something that did not even exist in 3rd century,<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]The intense interest of Hippolytus in eschatology is not coincidental; nor is it simply a function of his larger exegetical interests, which placed him (together with Origen) in the first rank of the biblical scholars of the third century. …. [color:red]Only in his Chapters Against Gaius does he present a forthright attack on amillennialism, ..... </font color=red> <br><br>Thus the chiliasm of Hippolytus is affirmed by H. Bietenhard (“The Millennial Hope in the Early Church,” SJT 6 [1953] 19–20); L. Gry ( Le millénarisme dans ses origines et son développement [Paris: Alphonse Picard et fils, 1904] 94–95; and Neumann ( Staat und Welt , 70, 76), but denied by d’Alès ( La Théologie , 198-99) and L. Atzberger ( Geschichte der christlichen Eschatologie [Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1896] 278–80). </blockquote></font color=blue> Or, how could these be arguing against or for something that did not exist before the 19th-20th Centuries?<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue] Pelikan, Tradition, pp. 128-129, A shift away from premillennialism was clearly under way. It had no place in the theology of the Alexandrian school. [color:red]Origen</font color=red> in particular denied a future millennium by his allegorization of OT passages…. [color:red]Eusebius of Caesarea</font color=red> rejected Papias’ millenarianism as “bizarre” and “rather mythological.” [color:red]After the time of Constantine it becomes clear that the doctrine was waning, and through the influence of Tyconius and Augustine it was pushed completely into the background and replaced by another scheme of eschatology, which, since the fifth century, has been regarded more or less as the orthodox teaching. This view is generally known as amillennialism.</font color=red> <br><br>Augustine gave up the view that the one thousand years of Revelation 20 were to be understood literally as referring to a future reign of Christ on the earth between the two resurrections. The one thousand years referred to the history of the Church, representing the perfect period of time appointed by God for the Church’s sojourn in the world. Then would come the last .judgment. The Church was identified as the kingdom of God. The first resurrection ( Rev 20: 1–6 ) was thought to be the regeneration of the soul. For hundreds of years following Augustine, all forms of millenarianism were regarded as heretical aberrations. <br><br>This adherence to the Augustinian concept of the millennium carried over into Protestantism. Calvin and Luther denied the possibility of a future, literal one-thousand-year reign of Christ, as did Lutheran and Reformed confessions. Though militant radicals such as Thomas Müntzer preached a type of literal millennium, it was not until the seventeenth century that deviations from Augustinian amillennialism became respectable.<br><br>In seventeenth-century England a new, optimistic variety of eschatology developed, the Puritan doctrine of the latter-day glory. Its earliest proponents were Thomas Brightman, William Gouge, John Cotton and John Owen. They often disagreed as to the details, but there were many characteristic points held in common. They dropped the Augustinian equation of the millennium with the whole age of the Church. They held an optimistic view of the last period of world history. It would be marked by the coming of the kingdom of God by the power.<br><br>The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society. electronic edition. Garland, TX: Galaxie Software, 1998.</blockquote></font color=blue> Most ascribe the doctrine of a-millennialism to Augustine (AD 400). This term was unknown to Augustine, however he is usually credited with crystallizing amillennial teachings. Augustine in effect sounded the death knell to chiliasm. He set forth in clear terms that the Church was the spiritual kingdom of God upon the earth, and that the Church was presently in the millennium,<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo in North Africa, stands preeminent among theologians of all time. His influence upon all Christian faiths has been significant. His emphasis on a personal experience of the grace of God as necessary to salvation has caused Protestants to accept him as a forerunner of the Reformation. His emphasis on the church, her creed, and sacraments has appealed to Roman Catholics. [color:red]His teaching that the Millennium was the period between Christ’s first and second comings, during which time the church would conquer the world, has contributed greatly to amillennial and postmillennial theologies of past and present.</font color=red> Augustine’s teaching that man is in all his parts perverted by sin profoundly influenced Calvinistic theology. <br><br>Vos, Howard Frederic, and Thomas Nelson Publishers. Exploring Church History. Originally Published in 1994 Under Title: Introduction to Church History; and in Series: Nelson's Quick Reference. Nelson's Christian cornerstone series. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996. </blockquote></font color=blue> Even another source (Anti-A-Mil) agrees with the history of the A-Mil view tracing back to Augustine,<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Two points should be noted about this theological anti-Semitism ...... [color:red]Second this replacement theology can be traced to Augustine and some other early church fathers, whose theological system had no place for the Jews. Today their system is known as covenant theology and is sometimes referred to as amillennialism.</font color=red><br><br>Israel My Glory : Volume 51 Issue 2. Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1999.</blockquote></font color=blue> And again, <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]The following concepts develop between 313 and 590 A.D: purgatory ....... [color:red]Augustine popularizes the amillennial view of eschatology, which strips Israel of future blessing. </font color=red><br><br>Israel My Glory : Volume 57 Issue 6. Bellmawr, NJ: The Friends of Israel Gospel Ministry, Inc., 1999.</blockquote></font color=blue> Victorinus was an ecclesiastical writer who flourished about 270 [[color:red]so old to be so young</font color=red> [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]], and who suffered martyrdom probably in 303, under Diocletian. He was bishop of the City of Pettau (Petabium, Poetovio), on the Drave, in Styria (Austria) in his Commentary On The Apocalypse Of The Blessed John, the Twentieth Chapter,<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Those years wherein Satan is bound are in the first advent of Christ, even to the end of the age; and they are called a thousand, according to that mode of speaking, wherein a part is signified by the whole, just as is that passage, "the word which He commanded for a thousand generations," although they are not a thousand. Moreover that he says, "and he cast him into the abyss," he says this, because the devil, excluded from the hearts of believers, began to take possession of the wicked, in whose hearts, blinded day by day, he is shut up as if in a profound abyss. And he shut him up, says he, and put a seal upon him, that he should not deceive the nations until the thousand years should be finished. "He shut the door upon him," it is said, that is, he forbade and restrained his seducing those who belong to Christ. Moreover, he put a seal upon him, because it is hidden who belong to the side of the devil, and who to that of Christ. For we know not of those who seem to stand whether they shall not fall, and of those who are down it is uncertain whether they may rise. Moreover, that he says that he is bound and shut up, that he may not seduce the nations, the nations signify the Church, seeing that of them it itself is formed, and which being seduced, he previously held until, he says, the thousand years should be completed, that is, what is left of the sixth day, to wit, of the sixth age, which subsists for a thousand years; after this he must be loosed for a little season. The little season signifies three years and six months, in which with all his power the devil will avenge himself trader Anti-christ against the Church. Finally, he says, after that the devil shall be loosed, and will seduce the nations in the whole world, and will entice war against the Church, the number of whose foes shall be as the sand of the sea.</blockquote></font color=blue> The following quote by the early church historian Eusebius from his classic work The History of the Church clearly demonstrates the amillennial, consummationist outlook held by the early church. Speaking of the grandsons of Jude, he writes, <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]"the grandsons of Jude.... When asked [by the Emperor Domitian] about Christ and his kingdom--what it was like, and where it would appear--they explained that it was not of this world or anywhere on earth but angelic and in heaven, and would be established at the end of the world, when he would come in glory to judge the quick and the dead ...." [The History of the Church by Eusebius] from Charles Ludwig, Ludwig’s Handbook of New Testament Rulers and Cities.<br><br>Quoted in the article "The Return of Nero" by Gary Stearman, Prophecy in the News, Vol. 16, No. 5, May 1996, p. 6.</blockquote></font color=blue> Two of the preeminent creeds of the early church that contain verses that clearly lean towards an amillennial belief are the Apostles’ Creed and the Nicene Creed. The Apostles’ Creed contains the words, <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]"He [Christ] shall come again to judge the quick and the dead," implying that both judgement and the resurrection will take place at His coming. The Nicene Creed states that Christ "shall come again with glory to judge the quick and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end." Note that Christ’s kingdom is viewed here as eternal, not as a temporal reign of 1000 years.</blockquote></font color=blue> By far the early church statement of faith that most vividly presents the early church’s belief in an amillennial, "consummationist" eschatology is The Athanasian Creed. Attributed to Athanasius, the Bishop of Alexandria and the champion of the Council of Nicaea, around 325 A.D., the creed ends with these words, <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]"He shall come again to judge the living and the dead. At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire. This is the catholic faith, which except a man have believed faithfully and firmly he cannot be in a state of salvation." </blockquote></font color=blue>Let us analyze these closing verses more carefully to see how they align with the belief system we know today as amillennialism, and how they oppose any belief in an earthly 1000 year reign of Christ.<br><br> <ul>[color:red]He shall come again to judge the living and the dead.</font color=red> This simply means that there will be those who are alive as well as those who are dead when He comes (1 Thess. 4:15). Notice that judgement of the living and the dead occurs at His coming (cf. Matt. 25:31-46), not a thousand years after His coming. <br><br>[color:red]At whose coming all men shall rise again with their bodies ....</font color=red> Thus, at Christ’s coming all rise, the good and the evil alike (cf. John 5:28,29, Matt. 12:41,42). Not just the good, and then a thousand years later the wicked. <br><br>[color:red]...and shall give account for their own works. And they that have done good shall go into life eternal, and they who indeed have done evil into eternal fire.</font color=red> This is a clear reference to Matt. 25:31-46. Athanasius views this as taking place after the resurrection (or translation), making it a post-resurrection judgement. This is in sharp contrast to the dispensational view that Matthew 25:31-46 is only a judgement of "living, mortal Gentiles" who survived the tribulation. Note again that it (i.e. Matt. 25:31-46) is viewed as a judgement of all men, the Jew and the Gentile, the wicked as well as the good. [/LIST] There are many more historical comments and connections in the ECF as well. You need to restudy your Church History.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img]
Joe wrote:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]While the term “A-Mil” may not have been in existence that long it does not mean that the doctrine was not taught or not true.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I was not basing my argument on when the term came into existence. Infact, the article I will cite below points out that the doctrine preceded the term itself. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]When did the term “computer” come into existence—yet you use one don’t you[?]</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>The term "computer" came into use before the PC I am using did, so your argument is backwards.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Your argument from silence of a term is indefensible, but expected.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It is not an argument from silence, but a historical fact. But this whole history of Amill/Postmill is really a minor issue compared to whether one of them is Biblical. My main argument for postmillennialism is not dependent on whether it is older that Amillennialism. Historic Premillennialism is even older than both, but for all the wrong reasons. Thus, even if Amill is older than postmillennialism, it doesn't decide the issue Biblically.<br><br>I will ignore the quote from the recently deceased Dr. Walvoord. Dispensationalists have not been honest about their own history of dispensationalism, so he would lack credibility in this discussion. Walvoord's 1990 response to the book, House Divided: The Breakup of Dispensationalism is only one example of his inability to deal with non-millennial eschatology.<br><br>Here is the article I cited in a previous link:<br><br><blockquote>"Amillennial History"<br>by Jack Van Deventer<br><br>"Several years ago I came across an article on the Web by Kim Riddlebarger that, among other things, touched on the history of amillennialism. What struck me was Riddlebarger's difficulty in tracing amillennialism's history. That was odd, I thought, since amillennialists often claim their position traces back to the early church. Why would it be that difficult? Indeed, after checking several church history books at the university library, I found a noticeable absence between "Allegorization" and "Anabaptist." Amillennialism is nowhere to be found. Riddlebarger wrote, "[T]he term amillennialism, as we will see, was not used in the nineteenth century, and the origin of the term is shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, Gaffin asks the poignant question in this regard, `Who coined the term amillennial?'"1 Gaffin continues, "What prompted the invention of the word amillennial?"2 Since the word postmillennial was already in common use before the word amillennial, it's safe to assume that amillennialism represented a departure from postmillennialism. And, it was a recent departure. <br><br>"Amillennialists agree that the term amillennialism is of recent origin.3 Strimple wrote, "The term amillennialism has been widely current since sometime in the 1930s, although when it was first used remains a mystery."4 O.T. Allis referenced a 1943 article by amillennialist Albertus Pieters stating that Abraham Kuyper coined the term. (Kuyper died in 1920.) Allis was unsure whether or not Pieter's claim was true.5 Peiter's 1937 book was less specific, "Recently, those who take this view have begun to call themselves, or to be called `amillennialists.'"6 No attribution to Kuyper was made and it remained unclear who originated the term, amillennialists or their opponents. <br><br>"The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (ISBE) had no reference for the word amillennialism in its 1915 and 1929/1930 editions. However, a premillennial document in 1915 made reference to postmillennialists and "anti-millennialists."7 A 1921 pamphlet entitled Non-millennialism vs. Pre-Millennialism stated that "Post-millennialists [were] rapidly changing to Non-millennialists," where the non-millennialist position was certainly the doctrine that would later be called amillennialism.8 Erickson wrote that large numbers of postmillennialists changed their positions to amillennialism.9 This shift was large enough to prompt a book by dispensationalist Charles Feinberg called Premillennialism or Amillennialism? in 1936. This is the earliest use of the term I've found so far.10<br><br>"Amillennialist Louis Berkhof was defensive when the position's historicity was questioned. He wrote (apparently in 1938 or earlier), "Some Premillenarians have spoken of Amillennialism as a new view and as one of the most recent novelties, but this is certainly not in accord with the testimony of history. The name is new indeed, but the view to which it is applied is as old as Christianity."11 Adams, with similar hyperbole, wrote, "Augustine strongly advocated amillennialism, and it was the exclusive view of all the Reformers."12 Since several amillennialists claim Augustine as one of theirs, it's important to quote R. Bradley Jones refutation of his amillennial colleagues: "Some writers speak of Augustine as an Amillennialist. This is hardly accurate. He can more correctly be classified as a Postmillennialist."13 Moreover, Bahnsen's historical survey of leading reformers demonstrates the amillennial claims above to be groundless; rather the reformers were predominantly postmillennial.14<br><br>"J. Marcellus Kik believed amillennialism began with the writings of Geerhardus Vos who wrote extensively on eschatology from 1911 to 1930 and later. Kik wrote, "It was not till the advent of Geerhardus Vos that the amil position was introduced. I am personally sorry that the remarkable talents of Vos were diverted from the historic Princeton position."15 Kik lamented that the postmillennial heritage of Princeton, represented by theological greats such as Archibald Alexander, Joseph A. Alexander, Charles Hodge, A.A. Hodge, and B.B. Warfield, had eroded. Vos' doctrines were a departure from postmillennialism such that the new theological perspective warranted a new term for identifying it. The terms anti-millennialism and non-millennialism were used until the word amillennialism eventually stuck. <br><br>"Returning to Gaffin's question regarding the invention of the word amillennial, one is left wondering what prompted the development of the doctrine behind the invention. Clearly pessimism had permeated the Church from 1880 to 1920. Premillennial pessimism with its emphasis on Armageddon, Antichrist, ruin, and rapture had become the buzz of the day. Postmillennialism was viewed as unrealistic given the increased apostasy, liberalism, wars, etc. that were viewed by many as the signs of the nearness of Christ's coming. Having become convinced of history's downward spiral, yet having rejected dispensationalism as unbiblical, presbyterian, and Reformed people were in need of their own theological rationale for pessimism. Not wanting to be left behind, they apparently believed they needed a theological basis for abandoning their traditional postmillennial doctrines of gospel success, historical optimism, and conversion of the nations to Christ. The amillennial solution was to reassign the biblical victory passages to the heavenly or spiritual realm. The kingdom of God was allegorized, spiritualized, and explained away as other-worldly, another spiritual dimension, a land beyond time and beyond our grasp. The prophecies of doom and destruction, of course, were retained and applied to the earthly realm. In other words, keep the curses, discard the blessings. Although a younger doctrine than dispensation-alism, amillennialism met the same need and fit the mood of the day"</blockquote><br><br>Footnotes<br><br>Again, whether Amill is older or younger than Postmillennialism, is not a fundamental issue. I could easily grant that Amill is older or as old as postmillennialism and it still would not affect the Biblical and Reformed case for postmillennialism. <br><br>But my position is that Amillennialism is a backslidden view of the Biblically consistent eschatology of postmillennialism. Just compare 19th century Princeton Seminary with 20th century Princeton and with Westminster Seminary. (Obviously I am not saying that WTS is as bad as liberal Princeton). WTS has a different eschatology from that of 19th century Princeton. The reformed Dutch theologians (e.g. Vos, Kline and Gaffin) can be credited for this backslidden change from Princeton's Postmillennialism. Dr. Oswald T Allis's and J. Gresham Machen's and John Murray's postmillennialism was not so widely known unfortunately, and was buried under the reformed Dutch invasion of WTS. <br><br>Colin
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Again, whether Amill is older or younger than Postmillennialism, is not a fundamental issue.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Then why did you raise it? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img] [color:red]You said:</font color=red><br><br><blockquote>[color:blue] Amillennialism as a distinctive system began in the late 19th century and was not even labelled as such until the early 20th century. OTOH postmillennialism has a much older history going back to Augustine, Calvin and the English Puritans.</blockquote></font color=blue> [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/confused.gif" alt="confused" title="confused[/img] After the overwhelming "evidence" that Pilgrim posted and the brief historical comments I quoted (and there are so many more) it is nice to see you finally recant--i.e. [color:red] is not a fundamental issue</font color=red> [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img], though it is a very important issue.
Joe wrote:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Again, whether Amill is older or younger than Postmillennialism, is not a fundamental issue.<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Then why did you raise it?</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>It was mentioned as only a minor point in my original post. Pilgrim and you seemed to have elevated it into a "major" one, in both of your responses to it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]it is nice to see you finally recant--i.e. "is not a fundamental issue"</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Joe, I did not "recant" of anything I merely made a clarification over a minor point. And the "evidence" that you and Pilgrim provided is hardly "overwhelming" or convincing, given that Amillennnialism and Postmillennialism overlap in many areas. <br><br>If anything, I could easily say that the "evidence" given by you and Pilgrim only supports the historicity of postmillennialism, despite the facts being interpreted by the Amillennial historical revisionism of Dr. Venema. But I do want to thank Pilgrim for taking the time for supplying the quotations from Dr. Venema. Again I say, I look forward to reading his book. I only wonder if Pilgrim can say the same thing about Mathison's book (or Gentry's book)?<br><br>Colin
While I do intend on replying to Pilgrim's post which cites the venerable Dr. Venema, I thought I would post Dr. Keith Mathison's Review of Venema's book from the Ligonier website:<br><br><blockquote>The Promise of the Future. By Venema, Cornelis P..<br>Banner of Truth 538 pp.<br><br>Book Review by Keith A. Mathison<br><br>An Optimistic Amillennialism?<br><br>For over 20 years, the standard amillennial textbook in Reformed colleges and seminaries has been Anthony Hoekema's classic work The Bible and the Future. This state of affairs may soon change because of the recent publication of a new book by Cornelis Venema entitled The Promise of the Future. Dr. Venema, professor of doctrinal studies at Mid-America Reformed Seminary, has given the church a well-written and comprehensive textbook on eschatology from a Reformed and amillennial perspective.<br><br>The book is divided into six parts and sixteen chapters and covers all of the major topics of individual and cosmic eschatology. The two chapters in Part One set forth the author's basic presuppositions and also outline some of the most important eschatological concepts found in Scripture: the Kingdom, the Covenant, the Day of the Lord, the "Already/Not Yet" nature of this present age. These chapters provide the reader with some very valuable hermeneutical principles.<br><br>In Part Two, Venema deals with the nature of death and the intermediate state. In his examination of these biblical doctrines he deals with several unbiblical views such as annihilationism, soul-sleep, and purgatory. Part Three sets forth one of the central elements of any orthodox Christian eschatology - the future Second Coming of Christ at the final consummation of this age.<br><br>The chapters in Part Four deal with various "signs of the times" such as the preaching of the Gospel to all the nations, the salvation of all Israel, tribulation, apostasy, and the rise of the Antichrist. Surprisingly, since it is uncommon for amillennialists to take this position, Venema concurs with the interpretation of Romans 11 held by Charles Hodge and John Murray among others. He agrees that Romans 11 refers to a future conversion of a large number of Jews to Christ. Not surprisingly, Venema argues that biblical references to apostasy, antichrist, and tribulation - while possibly having a first century fulfillment as their primary reference - refer also "to events that will characterize the present age until Christ's second coming" (p. 145).<br><br>In Part Five, Venema evaluates the various millennial views. He notes that broadly considered there are two basic positions regarding the temporal relationship between Christ's Second Coming and the millennium: premillennialism and postmillennialism. He then points out that within each of these two positions there are two distinctive types. The two types of premillennialism are historic premillennialism and dispensational premillennialism. The two types of postmillennialism are postmillennialism proper and amillennialism. Venema proceeds by first explaining the basic tenets of each of the four major views. He does so in a fair and irenic manner. He then offers a critique of the two premillennial positions, an exposition of Revelation 20, and a critique of postmillennialism proper.<br><br>Part Six includes four chapters covering the most fundamental elements of cosmic eschatology: the resurrection of the body, the final judgment, the doctrine of eternal punishment, and the new heavens and earth. In each of these chapters, the author does an excellent job of presenting the biblical view as well as critiquing various unbiblical alternatives. In the chapter on the resurrection of the body, Venema includes a thorough discussion of the nature of the resurrection body as well as an insightful evaluation of the recent debate between Murray J. Harris and Norman Geisler over Harris's understanding of the nature of the resurrection body. This discussion will prove to be especially valuable to those who are dealing with recent attempts among hyper-preterists and others to revive Harris's doctrine.<br><br>In his discussion of the doctrine of eternal punishment, Venema offers very helpful critiques of annihilationism and universalism, and in his discussion of the new heavens and earth, he offers a needed corrective to those who have tended to picture heaven as an ethereal and immaterial realm. He points out that there is a parallel between individual and cosmic redemption. The individual receives a new resurrection body that is free from sin and the effects of the curse, but the resurrection body is not immaterial. There is continuity between it and the present body. Likewise, there is continuity between the present heavens and earth and the new heavens and earth, and even though the curse will be removed, these new heavens and earth are not some kind of immaterial Gnostic realm.<br><br>Venema is to be commended for several things. First, his book is comprehensive without being shallow. He discusses all of the important issues and does so in depth. Second, his book treats those with whom he disagrees (including postmillennialists like myself) fairly. This is a rare trait in eschatological works and one for which we can be thankful when we see it. Finally, and this will be important to postmillennial readers, Venema is one of the few amillennialists who not only claims to be an "optimistic amillennialist" but also actually seems to be one in reality. Unlike many amillennialists, Venema takes very seriously the biblical promises of the power of the Holy Spirit in the spread of the Gospel. He expects widespread conversion to Christ across the world. He expects the conversion of the Jews to Christ. He expects the kingdom of Christ to gradually overcome the kingdom of Satan.<br><br>My reservations about the book are few and may be considered more as topics for further discussion rather than as criticisms. I will simply list these as comments:<br><br>First, in his criticism of postmillennilaism, Venema only criticizes that version of postmillennialism that understands the millennium to be a specific period of time in our future within the present inter-advental age. There are, however, a growing number of postmillennialists who understand the millennium to be symbolic of the entire inter-advental era. Venema's work raises the possibility of discussing how much difference actually exists between his "optimistic amillennialism" and those versions of postmillennialism (like my own) that see the millennium as spanning the entire period of time between Christ's first and second advent.<br>Second, a primary area of disagreement in interpretation centers on the so called "signs of the times." <br><br>Venema allows that many, if not all of these, have primary reference to the first century, but he insists that they have secondary fulfillments throughout the present age and possibly ultimate fulfillments immediately before the Second Coming of Christ. Venema's discussion shows that the relationship between postmillennialism, "optimistic" amillennialism, and preterism is one that deserves further exploration and study.<br><br>All Christians should benefit from Venema's work. Those who are postmillennialists should especially appreciate the fact that he has rejected some of the most troubling elements of traditional amillennialism - especially the debilitating defeatism found in the writings of some well-known authors. Venema seems to have taken to heart many of the important exegetical and theological points that postmillennialists have made over the years.<br><br>Kenneth Gentry has recently written an article about some of the profound changes taking place within evangelical eschatology - the rise of progressive dispensationalism, the resurgence of postmillennialism, and the rise of biblical preterism. If Venema's book gains a wide hearing, we may be able to add to that list a movement in amillennialism towards a more optimistic and biblical hope for the future. The promise of the future is certainly not one of defeat. It is one of hope, and it is one of victory.<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Keith A. Mathison (Ph.D. Whitefield Theological Seminary) is the author of Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God; Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope; and The Shape of Sola Scriptura.</blockquote><br><br>From the URL: <br>http://www.gospelcom.net/ligonier/review/revheader.php?resourceid=190<br><br>Colin <br>
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/rolleyes2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
