Blog of A Plodding Visionary
Millennial Views
So which views on the Millennium are consistent with Scripture (as interpreted by Reformed Theology)?
(Hint: Three are considered consistent; only one is not.)
Or, refer back to the original post for background information.
While all four major views have inconsistencies, it is my opinion that the premillennial views (both dispensational and historic) require a great deal of imagination and assumption of details that are not explicit in Scripture (or even appear inconsistent with the rest of Scripture). In addition, it seems that it is a stretch to take the only passage in Scripture that specifically deals with the Millennium (Rev. 20:1-6) and determine that it must refer to an earthly reign. Remember that Christ Himself said “my kingdom is not of this world.” I also find it difficult to accept postmillennialism, as I see little evidence that we will enjoy a perfected society prior to Christ’s return. It seems that the amillennial view, which emphasizes a heavenly millennium, best harmonizes with Scripture when taken as a whole. This is and has been the primary eschatological view presented on this website for the last 18 months.
On the other hand, while I have moderately strong personal views on this topic, it is important to again point out that three of the four major millennial views are considered to be consistent with Scripture. Even if I may not agree, the other views may be perfectly legitimate. I could even be wrong (though I don’t think so).
In fact, while the fourth view (which emphasizes two peoples of God and dual paths of salvation) is generally rejected among Reformed theologians due to inconsistency with Scripture, it is still actually considered to be within the realm of Christian orthodoxy and has many adherents among Bible-believing theologians. While among most Reformed Christians the view is believed to be false, it is not all the way over to being an unorthodox/heretical belief.
-
#2 written by Joel 4 years ago
From my interpretation of Scripture, I do not see that the present earth and society will be perfected or glorified prior to Christ’s return. Instead, I believe that this glorious renewal will take place in the New Heavens and New Earth after Christ has returned in glory and in judgment.
By “evidence” I mean that the Scripture passages pertaining to the subject do not seem to favor this degree of renewal in this world but the next.
-
#3 written by David 4 years ago
Great
Often I read those ‘no evidence’ comments and they are speaking of the kind of newspaper exegesis that does a discourtesy to the position. (ie, statements like “WWII killed PM as a reasonable position.)
I am curious how you feel your Amil view impacts your sitz em leben, so to speak? In other words, in light of Schaeffer’s “how should we then live” question, how does your eschatalogical view enrich, unfold and interact with the answer to that question?
-
#4 written by Joel 4 years ago
The main difference between my view and what I see as a common postmillennial view is that I expect complete fulfillment of a restored land in the new earth. On this earth, we may never see a truly Christian government. In the new earth, Christ will have dominion over all. There will be no evil; no opposition. Also compare that to the premillennial view which states that in Christ’s reign on this earth, there will be opposition and even a successful rebellion!
In accordance with my eschatological view I do not see a specific mandate to “claim America for Christ” or make the culture and society inherently Christian. At this phase, Christ’s reign is heavenly and it is manifest in the hearts of His followers. This is a time for evangelism (as is commanded by Christ in the Great Commission). With Satan bound so that he cannot deceive the nations to the point of stopping the spread of the Gospel, now is a time to spread the Good News and further the Kingdom. I believe that evangelism, not political reform, is the means of expanding the Kingdom.
Now this is not to say that we just let society go. However, a spiritual battle for a spiritual kingdom requires the use of spiritual tools, not physical tools. Theonomic postmillennialists may choose to use grassroots politics as a means of societal transformation, although I do not believe we can expect to see any changes in society until there are changed hearts.
Christ has reigned in heaven from His ascension and will reign in heaven until the time when He will return. This is my understanding of the “millennial kingdom”. Through evangelism, however, I believe we can see and reap the benefits of that kingdom on earth… though it will not be consummated until the new heavens/new earth.
-
#5 written by Joel 4 years ago
-
- Comment Feed for this Post
“I also find it difficult to accept postmillennialism, as I see little evidence that we will enjoy a perfected society prior to Christ’s return.”
What evidence are you looking at?