• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

For amillenial brothers....thoughts?

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Having left behind Dispensational error...I thought by default I must then be Amillennial.
Then I found out that some of the men I was reading were in fact postmillennial. I thought of myself as Optimistic Amillennial in that the gospel always accomplishes God's purpose in time.

Here is a short article on this in between position as I continue to look into this issue. What are your thoughts and scriptures that speak to this:thumbs:

PESSIMISM AND AMILLENNIALISM

Amillennialism October 30, 2013 Comments: 3


PMT 2013-020 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Pessimism OptimismSome amillennialists complain that postmillennialists wrongly categorize them as “pessimistic.” They generally reject this evaluation for two reasons: (1) It is negative sounding in itself, and (2) it overlooks the fact that they argue that ultimately Christ and his people win the victory at the end of history. Still other amillennialists deny this designation because they call themselves “optimistic amillennialists.”

What do we mean by our categorization of amillennialism as “pessimistic”?

Obviously all evangelical eschatological perspectives are ultimately optimistic: Christ does lead his people to victory in saving them from their sins, resurrecting them from the dead, and establishing them in righteousness in the eternal order. These issues are not debated among evangelicals: Christianity is of glorious, eternal consequence. But neither are they relevant to debate between the millennial views.

Historically amillennialism has tended to be pessimistic in terms of the question of widespread, long-lasting cultural success for the Christian faith in time and on earth. That is, regarding these matters:

First, as a system of gospel proclamation amillennialism teaches that the gospel of Christ will not exercise any majority influence in the world before Christ’s return. They allow that Christianity may enjoy flashes of revival and spurts of growth. Yet, by its very nature the amillennial system cannot allow that Christianity will become the dominant feature of human society and culture.



DVD debate between Amillennialist Richard Gaffin and Postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry
“Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism“




Second, as a system of historical understanding amillennialism, in fact, holds the Bible teaches there are prophetically determined, irresistible trends downward toward chaos in the outworking and development of history. Though some amillennialists understand the great tribulation in the Olivet Discourse as referring (correctly) to the Jewish War and the AD 70 destruction of the temple, their system necessarily demands a prophetically-determined collapse of society in history.

Third, as a system for the promotion of Christian discipleship amillennialism dissuades the Church from anticipating and laboring for wide-scale success in influencing the world for Christ during this age. In fact, this distinguishes amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Regarding the question of so-called “optimistic amillennialists,” it seems to me that the verses an amillennialist would use to underscore his optimism are those that endorse a postmillennial perspective. Unless, of course, he is optimistic on grounds other than direct biblical revelation. Therefore, he should come out of the closet and be a postmillennialist.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You being a Reformed brother in Christ, would say that your best bet, based upon 'ditching Dispy", would be historical pre mil, as the Gospel itself will not conver the world systems to jesus, that takes him arriving here for that to happen!
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Having left behind Dispensational error...I thought by default I must then be Amillennial.
Then I found out that some of the men I was reading were in fact postmillennial. I thought of myself as Optimistic Amillennial in that the gospel always accomplishes God's purpose in time.

Here is a short article on this in between position as I continue to look into this issue. What are your thoughts and scriptures that speak to this:thumbs:

PESSIMISM AND AMILLENNIALISM

Amillennialism October 30, 2013 Comments: 3


PMT 2013-020 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.
Wouldn't trust the man:
Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (3 May 1950) is a Reformed theologian, and an ordained minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly. He is particularly known for his support for and publication on the topics of orthodox preterism and postmillennialism in Christian eschatology, as well as for theonomy and six day creation. He holds that each of these theological distinctives are logical and theological extensions of his foundational theology, which is Calvinistic and Reformed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Gentry
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Wouldn't trust the man:

Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr. (3 May 1950) is a Reformed theologian, and an ordained minister in the Reformed Presbyterian Church General Assembly. He is particularly known for his support for and publication on the topics of orthodox preterism and postmillennialism in Christian eschatology, as well as for theonomy and six day creation. He holds that each of these theological distinctives are logical and theological extensions of his foundational theology, which is Calvinistic and Reformed.

Sounds wonderful to me.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You being a Reformed brother in Christ, would say that your best bet, based upon 'ditching Dispy", would be historical pre mil, !

I know all four main positions.All try to cover the biblical teaching.

I am okay with whatever God has purposed to do.

Right now I have not seen any slam dunk arguments saying postmill is wrong.

Some of the better discussions center on Isa 65-66, and their relation to second pet3.

as the Gospel itself will not conver the world systems to jesus, that takes him arriving here for that to happen


you cannot show that from scripture, where does it say the reign is on earth


8 He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth17 His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed.
18 Blessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things.

19 And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen.

27 All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the Lord: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.

28 For the kingdom is the Lord's: and he is the governor among the nations.

29 All they that be fat upon earth shall eat and worship: all they that go down to the dust shall bow before him: and none can keep alive his own soul.

30 A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.

31 They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

I have read some of his books and there is scriptural support for the teaching.
he seems to be a nice person. I have only asked him a few questions on facebook...

I hope to visit his church a few times in this upcoming year, as well as Gary Demar.

DHK...if you compile a list of questions I will ask them when I see him face to face.....I have heard him about 20 times on sermonaudio,and follow him as a facebook friend.

Some of the Presbyterians and other reformed persons drift toward theonomy, so I am always cautious with that as they can drift over the line.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I have read some of his books and there is scriptural support for the teaching.
he seems to be a nice person. I have only asked him a few questions on facebook...

I hope to visit his church a few times in this upcoming year, as well as Gary Demar.

DHK...if you compile a list of questions I will ask them when I see him face to face.....I have heard him about 20 times on sermonaudio,and follow him as a facebook friend.

Some of the Presbyterians and other reformed persons drift toward theonomy, so I am always cautious with that as they can drift over the line.
He is a Presbyterian. Why would a Baptist go to a Presbyterian Church?

And Gary Demar?
OR frequently quotes from Dr. Ice.
Here is what Ice says about Demar:
Preterist Gary DeMar has written a book critical of Tim LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins' Left Behind series entitled End Times Fiction.[1] DeMar is jealous of the fact that people have responded to a fictionalized version of a dispensational prophecy scenario while rejecting his own misguided belief that these prophetic events were really fulfilled when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and Israel's Second Temple in the first century. Apparently, in an attempt to jazz up his dusty old view, DeMar creates some fiction of his own in his book and subsequent articles about Tim LaHaye. I guess you could say that DeMar's recent book is aptly titled End Times Fiction.
http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/gary-demars-end-times-fiction
Telling, isn't it?
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I have seen Dr.ice take a few lumps from these men

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3WrtZ_H7OU&list=PLDiRnTTAyp8xH8Wb-tK3LCmVOllSSUQMq

this link is part of a series on youtube...we can all listen and learn the differences.
You know I don't and won't listen to sermons. It is a waste of time for me.
I wouldn't listen to anything by this man. He is a heretic.
Look at what he says:
Gary DeMar of AmericanVision.com is well known not only for his work AGAINST Dispensationalism, but for his work in promoting Preterism. The problem is, DeMar is credited with creating more Full Preterists than any "leader" within the Full Preterist movement. When confronted about this, DeMar has said that he is not responsible for people taking his teaching to conclusions he does not intend. However, I wonder how that works if say a supposed Christian minister's arguments repeatedly lead people to Mormonism. Doesn't that minister have some obligation to at least clarify what he is saying and figure out why so many people are supposedly concluding something he did not intend?

Further, DeMar has many glaring examples of not being just an innocent bystander whose work has been misunderstood. DeMar has spoken at Full Preterist conferences with no distinction that Full Preterism has any issues. DeMar has been/is a member on several Full Preterist forums where he posts without any distinction that anything is different between his supposed Partial-Preterism and the Full Preterist hosts. But of all the things, it is DeMar's view of the Christian eschatological situation that has bred so many Full Preterists...and rightly so for the Full Preterists who follow DeMar's views.

DEMAR THINKS CHRISTIAN ESCHATOLOGY IS GARBLED MESS

The premise by Partial-Preterists like DeMar that drives a person straight into Full Preterism is best cited by one of DeMar's own comments:

"... I'm willing to listen to what others say on an issue, especially on eschatology since it's been a garbled mess for centuries. It's conceivable that so-called eschatological heretics are seeing something I'm not seeing. They're willing to take the risk. Many are not." -- source

Now, think about that for a moment. If Christian eschatology has really been a "garbled mess", then Full Preterists by ALL MEANS should be at the table to help straighten it out. After all, the present "scholars" such as DeMar are part and parcel of the "scholars" who for centuries have been teaching this supposed "garbled mess". Why should ANYONE turn to these "scholars" who couldn't get it right? Who says that they got it right now?

http://unpreterist.blogspot.ca/2013/01/gary-demar-wants-you-to-be-full.html

He himself is confused on eschatology. Why should he be trusted?
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
DHK
He is a Presbyterian. Why would a Baptist go to a Presbyterian Church?

years ago my wife and I went to these week long family bible conferences...morning prayer...breakfast...two morning messages..lunch, activites and games in the afternoon...evening message...all week long.

There were times to mingle with Presbyterians ...and usually one of the 5 speakers would be a Presbyterian. they knew they believed different from the RB's so the topics assigned to them were neutral.

the messages were excellent ...I believe they are Christians...I do not agree on their biblical view of the Covenant continuity, or ecclesiology.

They are very close on everything else. I am closer to a solid biblical Presbyterian, than many an evangelical.

If you listened to sermon links...I would post some for you...if others were curious....listen to any sermon by Sinclair Ferguson, David Silversides, Bill Shishko...Ted Donnely....there are many more
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You know I don't and won't listen to sermons. It is a waste of time for me.
I wouldn't listen to anything by this man. He is a heretic.
Look at what he says:


http://unpreterist.blogspot.ca/2013/01/gary-demar-wants-you-to-be-full.html

He himself is confused on eschatology. Why should he be trusted?

The article makes some personal attacks on Him ...even though that is what he was being accused of....he is not a heretic. the article is trying to put words in his mouth.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
DHK


years ago my wife and I went to these week long family bible conferences...morning prayer...breakfast...two morning messages..lunch, activites and games in the afternoon...evening message...all week long.

There were times to mingle with Presbyterians ...and usually one of the 5 speakers would be a Presbyterian. they knew they believed different from the RB's so the topics assigned to them were neutral.

the messages were excellent ...I believe they are Christians...I do not agree on their biblical view of the Covenant continuity, or ecclesiology.

They are very close on everything else. I am closer to a solid biblical Presbyterian, than many an evangelical.

If you listened to sermon links...I would post some for you...if others were curious....listen to any sermon by Sinclair Ferguson, David Silversides, Bill Shishko...Ted Donnely....there are many more
No, that is not the point. There are many "good" Christians from many walks of life. I find them in the Plymouth Brethren, Christian Missionary Alliance, and other evangelical groups.

But I don't believe in the ecumenical movement. The Bible says "How can two walk together except they be agreed." (Amos 3:3)
Fellowship is possible for me on a personal level but not on an ecclesiastical level. Thus I would not attend their churches. I would always look for a church of like faith and order to attend.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Having left behind Dispensational error...I thought by default I must then be Amillennial.
Then I found out that some of the men I was reading were in fact postmillennial. I thought of myself as Optimistic Amillennial in that the gospel always accomplishes God's purpose in time.

Here is a short article on this in between position as I continue to look into this issue. What are your thoughts and scriptures that speak to this:thumbs:

PESSIMISM AND AMILLENNIALISM

Amillennialism October 30, 2013 Comments: 3


PMT 2013-020 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Pessimism OptimismSome amillennialists complain that postmillennialists wrongly categorize them as “pessimistic.” They generally reject this evaluation for two reasons: (1) It is negative sounding in itself, and (2) it overlooks the fact that they argue that ultimately Christ and his people win the victory at the end of history. Still other amillennialists deny this designation because they call themselves “optimistic amillennialists.”

What do we mean by our categorization of amillennialism as “pessimistic”?

Obviously all evangelical eschatological perspectives are ultimately optimistic: Christ does lead his people to victory in saving them from their sins, resurrecting them from the dead, and establishing them in righteousness in the eternal order. These issues are not debated among evangelicals: Christianity is of glorious, eternal consequence. But neither are they relevant to debate between the millennial views.

Historically amillennialism has tended to be pessimistic in terms of the question of widespread, long-lasting cultural success for the Christian faith in time and on earth. That is, regarding these matters:

First, as a system of gospel proclamation amillennialism teaches that the gospel of Christ will not exercise any majority influence in the world before Christ’s return. They allow that Christianity may enjoy flashes of revival and spurts of growth. Yet, by its very nature the amillennial system cannot allow that Christianity will become the dominant feature of human society and culture.



DVD debate between Amillennialist Richard Gaffin and Postmillennialist Kenneth Gentry
“Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism“




Second, as a system of historical understanding amillennialism, in fact, holds the Bible teaches there are prophetically determined, irresistible trends downward toward chaos in the outworking and development of history. Though some amillennialists understand the great tribulation in the Olivet Discourse as referring (correctly) to the Jewish War and the AD 70 destruction of the temple, their system necessarily demands a prophetically-determined collapse of society in history.

Third, as a system for the promotion of Christian discipleship amillennialism dissuades the Church from anticipating and laboring for wide-scale success in influencing the world for Christ during this age. In fact, this distinguishes amillennialism and postmillennialism.

Regarding the question of so-called “optimistic amillennialists,” it seems to me that the verses an amillennialist would use to underscore his optimism are those that endorse a postmillennial perspective. Unless, of course, he is optimistic on grounds other than direct biblical revelation. Therefore, he should come out of the closet and be a postmillennialist.

I am amillennial and optimistic. I am amillennial because I believe amillennial doctrine comports more closely to Scripture than any other. I am optimistic because I know HIM who wins!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Postmillennialism which was a popular view during the 19th century but lost favor with the advent of the two World Wars has undergone somewhat of a renewal in recent years. Proponents of postmillennialism look to the Great Commission and the sovereignty of God as basis in part for the renewal, and often refer to those of other millennial persuasion as “pessimillennialists”. One recent development in postmillennial thought has been labeled theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism.
Generally the movements proponents hold that the civil laws of Old Testament, theocratic Israel are normative for all societies in all times. Under such a system, crimes such as homosexuality and adultery would be capital offenses, punishable by death, according to some theonomists. Leading Reconstructionist spokespersons are quick to add that the establishment of such a republic would have to be established through democratic means, and would, by virtual necessity, be accompanied by a mass spiritual revival, including large scale conversions to Jesus Christ. [Christianity Today, April 21, 1989, page 38.]

Christianity Today was once a reputable source. I cannot say at this time since I no longer read it!
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I am amillennial and optimistic. I am amillennial because I believe amillennial doctrine comports more closely to Scripture than any other. I am optimistic because I know HIM who wins!

Like I said I thought I was an optimistic Amill...based on one section of scripture;

14 Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

15 For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
16 To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?

17 For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.


This tells me that God wants us to be faithful and accurate in speaking with people and the results belong to Him and I am sure all Christians who know scripture agree on this.

What I was challenged by was the idea that many of the postmill men were getting much more specific with applying many portions of scripture to both historical events from the first century....and also teaching more about what our participation in the Kingdom right now should be.

I read and seek to obey any revealed responsibility that I come across.

Amill...seem more general where postmill are looking for action in this present world.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Postmillennialism which was a popular view during the 19th century but lost favor with the advent of the two World Wars has undergone somewhat of a renewal in recent years. Proponents of postmillennialism look to the Great Commission and the sovereignty of God as basis in part for the renewal, and often refer to those of other millennial persuasion as “pessimillennialists”. One recent development in postmillennial thought has been labeled theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism.

Christianity Today was once a reputable source. I cannot say at this time since I no longer read it!

Yes...exactly. At first I was almost offended when I read some of the terms.I tried to set aside my previous views and read it fresh but somewhat skeptical. I balance it by trying to re-read some amill sources...it is a work in progress.

Dispensational men do not seem to offer a valid challenge.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
He is a Presbyterian. Why would a Baptist go to a Presbyterian Church?

And Gary Demar?
OR frequently quotes from Dr. Ice.
Here is what Ice says about Demar:

He himself is confused on eschatology. Why should he be trusted?

I have been listening to the youtube debate...he destroys Ice.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
He is a Presbyterian. Why would a Baptist go to a Presbyterian Church?

And Gary Demar?
OR frequently quotes from Dr. Ice.
Here is what Ice says about Demar:



I have been listening to the youtube debate...he destroys Ice.

I don't know either of the men. I know OF them and OF their doctrine by what I read on the internet.
I don't know what you listen to, or what these guys debate. For all I know it could be what is better for you: Orange juice vs. Apple juice (j/k).
IOW, the topic of the debate has some relevance.
But what has even more relevance to what you are telling me is the person's art of debating.

I know of Muslim apologists that few Christians can defeat, and the same goes for Catholic apologists. Both are very good debaters. They are skilled in what they do. There is an art in debate. Just because one of them is better than the other doesn't make him right. It simply may make him a better and more logical speaker.

1 Corinthians 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

Apparently Paul was not good at debating either. He relied on the Holy Spirit of God.
 

Iconoclast

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I don't know either of the men. I know OF them and OF their doctrine by what I read on the internet.

both are good speakers

I don't know what you listen to, or what these guys debate.

I listen to any view that challenges what I understand from a scriptural viewpoint...I want truth, so I am not afraid to listen those who biblically challenge the positions I hold...

I was listening to part 2....on the great tribulation....the time texts...this generation.

For all I know it could be what is better for you: Orange juice vs. Apple juice (j/k).
I look at that also:laugh:
IOW, the topic of the debate has some relevance.
But what has even more relevance to what you are telling me is the person's art of debating.

I do not pay attention to debate tricks, ie, if a person mis-speaks,etc.

I know of Muslim apologists that few Christians can defeat, and the same goes for Catholic apologists. Both are very good debaters. They are skilled in what they do. There is an art in debate. Just because one of them is better than the other doesn't make him right. It simply may make him a better and more logical speaker.

You are correct that this is a consideration. Gary Demar works directly on the verses in mt 24... he makes a power point presentation showing that Jesus was speaking to that generation, then he will quote from premill guys and older writers.


1 Corinthians 2:3 And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling.
4 And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

Apparently Paul was not good at debating either. He relied on the Holy Spirit of God.


These men are not looking to be deceptive ....they are about scripture.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes...exactly. At first I was almost offended when I read some of the terms.I tried to set aside my previous views and read it fresh but somewhat skeptical. I balance it by trying to re-read some amill sources...it is a work in progress.

Dispensational men do not seem to offer a valid challenge.

gary demars wrote the reduction of christianity, and he holds to the niew that we are to be a nation ruled by the OT laws as isreal was, and that cannot be supported by the Bible,as ONLY Isreal was given the Law from god to uphold!

And post mil/amil both still have the problem that satan is the god of this world system until Jesus retums !
 
Top