So Many Mill's???

Some say there is the "Pan" Mill----it'll all "Pan" out in the end!!!

 

Ben,

There are only THREE possible positions on the Millennium – Pre-, Post-, and A- We are not yet in it, we are in it, it is only figurative and not literal.

Premillennialism holds to the position that the millennium is a literal future event. There will be future millennium, so we are living in a pre-millennial time right now.

Postmillennialism holds to the position that Jesus inaugurated the Kingdom with His death, burial, resurrection and ascension. We are in the “millennial” kingdom right now and things will get better and better as the kingdom of God fills the earth, then Jesus will return to take over the kingdom. Generally, after two world wars provided a clear demonstration that mankind and the world was not getting better, postmillennialism has had few adherents. Most of the postmils that exist now are followers of Rushdooney, North, Gentry, DeMar, Chilton, Bahnsen, et al, and the Theonomic Postmillennial teachings that they have resurrected and modified.

Amillennialism, on the other hand has been the only serious rival to premillennialism in recent decades. Amillennialism was popularized by the Origen’s allegorical method of interpretation and Augustine’s “City of God”. Amillennialism is based of the “allegorical” or “spiritual” hermeneutic which starts with the assumption that the real meaning of the text is deeper than the plain sense of the words of the text. A contextual literal grammatical historical sense is often despised as simplistic and naive.

Postmils and Amills are preterist in that they view most, if not all, of the events of the Olivet Discourse and the Revelation as having been fulfilled in and around AD 70 with the destruction of Jerusalem.

Many leading Amills and Postmils fully acknowledge that taking the Bible in a contextual literal grammatical historical manner will inevitably lead to Premillennialism. Those who deny this have not done their homework.

“Mid-” is a prefix that goes with “trib” not “mil”.

 

And some premills are well known for their arrogance.

 

And some premills are well known for their arrogance. </font>[/QUOTE]And Amills aren't? I have seen few to rival the arrogance of someone like Bahnsen or Rushdooney and many other Amills.

 

I didn't say that some weren't.

 

I didn't say that some weren't. </font>[/QUOTE]Okey, dokey!

 

You are the second person to make this claim in the past few days on this board. But as of yet there has been absolutely no evidence presented to back up this claim. All we have are statements by you and another premiller.

I think ya'll should either ante up or stop making that statement if you can't back it up.

 

I'll post it here on this thread as well. Briefly looked through some theo journal articles that I have with me on my notebook PC, but did not find specific quotes. Will get back to you with specific refs. Some will be in Theo Journals that may not be readily available to some. Some are from books currently in print.

Oh, and I am aware of Gerstner's claim that some use their a priori theological assumptions to establish their hermeneutical method. If you want to discuss at that level later, I am up to it.

 

If you mean that we all have to try to get past our presuppositions to arrive at the truth, then I agree.

 

Ken,

We certainly are in full agreement on the laying aside presuppositions idea!!! I have some good friends who insist that I am not really a good baptist based on some of the presuppositions I have heavily discarded. I say heavily because no such decision should ever be made lightly, but on the basis of much prayer, study, and reflection.

As promised, here a quote from one of the leading amillennialists of the first part of the 20th century (should also note that around the turn of the century, most conservative evangelical theologians also supported theistic evolution, as well, so don't blast him on this if you happen to read him).

“Now we must frankly admit that a literal interpretation of the Old Testament prophecies gives us just such a picture of the earthly reign of the Messiah as the premillennialist pictures. That was the kind of Messianic kingdom that the Jews of the time of Christ were looking for, on the basis of a literal kingdom interpretation of the Old Testament promises” - Floyd E. Hamilton, “The Basis of the Millennial Faith”, (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1942) p. 38, Cited by Ryrie in Dispensationalism, Revised and Expanded (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995) p. 83

Floyd Hamilton - http://faith.propadeutic.com/authors/recentref.html

I am pretty sure I have some other clear admissions by amils that a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic leads to premil in some articles in Theo Journals as well, BibSac, JETS, WestminsterTJ, GraceTJ, etc. Have some reprints of some of Philip Mauro’s work as well. Pretty sure he makes the same admission.

Gerstner, realizing that a literal hermeneutic leads to premillennialism charges premils with picking their interpretive method because it fits their theology, this is a tacit admission that the normal method leads to premil. Pretty sure I can find that article in JETS, even though he has developed it more fully in the book.

Will get back to you on this.

 

Ken,

What was the other thread this came up on? Can't find it!

Thanks, RJP

 

Not really sure. There have been several threads along these lines lately and it's hard to find a brief quote without re-reading the threads.

 

Found a similar statement yesterday by OT Allis while looking through some Theo Journal articles. Will post later today with source. Oh, I found the other thread.

 

I said it earlier, in reference to a comment made by Allis. I have also seen it elsewhere. It is a fairly common admission, I believe.

And I don't think the original statement was arrogant. It is true that if you deny that some amills and postmills make that statement, then you haven't done your homework. It is also true that if you deny the premise of the statement, that you ahven't done your homework.

Even Craig, who I believe is an amill (correct me if I am wrong) admitted that the "face value" reading of Jer 31:31-40 leads to a premill viewpoint most likely (I forget his exact words). The "face value" reading of the OT prophets is what lead the first century Jews to look for a kingdom and they rejected Christ because he wasn't what they were looking for and he wasn't going about to establish the kingdom they were expecting based on the OT prophecies. Even his closest disciples expected a literal earthly kingdom and asked about it in Acts 1. Christ did not tell them they were wrong (as an amill would expect), nor did he tell them they were in it (as a post mill would expect). He left them to continue to believe such and simply told them it wasn't the time. As a result, the message of the early church was distinctly premillennial, as is seen in Acts 3:19-21 when a "time of restoration" is promised in line with the prophecies of the OT. A "restoration" can only be something that already existed. This alleged "spiritual only" kingdom never existed and was destroyed, and thus it can never be restored. That is a reference to the earthly kingdom prophecies of the OT, started with Abraham, reiterated to David, and reiterated many times in the prophets. We are left asking the question, If God is postmill or amill, why did he give his word in such a way that communicates something else? Since I have no answer to that, I am left with the only option that seems legitimate, and that is premillennial.

 

"Theistic" evolutionists make the same argument. They say if God didn't use evolution, then why did He leave evidence in the earth's records that He did so.

 

Many leading Amills and Postmils fully acknowledge that taking the Bible in a contextual literal grammatical historical manner will inevitably lead to Premillennialism. Those who deny this have not done their homework.

I'd agree that a literal hermeneutic definitely will lead to a premill stance. But I think that a literal hermeneutic applied across the board yields poor theology.

As I've said before I have no problem with the historic premill position, although I find amill to be more plausible taking scripture as a whole.

But the whole secret rapture thing is a whole different story. This is completely unscriptural. And even a LITERAL reading of scripture will not come up with any sort of "rapture".

 

By the way Ken that was a good point!

 

Ken and Charles,

Not the same thing at all! To compare Theistic evolution to literal interpretation is nothing more than cheap name calling. I will not allow this tag team "guilt by association" to go unchallenged!


Charles,

Thanks for finally acknowledging that a contextual literal grammatical hermeneutic leads to premillennialism. Why were we debating this on other threads? DD made a simple statement to that effect and your incredulity was as if he had claimed that all rainbows have a pot of gold at their base. Glad to see you acknowledge that you do not hold to a literal hermeneutic “across the board”.

Where will a contextual literal grammatical historical hermeneutic EVER yield “poor theology”? I have “put up” regarding the claim that numerous amillennialists have acknowledged that literal hermeneutics leads to premillennialism, I ask you to back up or back down with this statement!