What does Amillennialism /Postmillenial offer compared to what premillenialism offers?

[Covenanter]

I endorse that - with the same personal reservation.

I find that extraordinary logic, John. The glory of God , sola Deo gloria, IS one of the great Reformation truths also held by baptists, & other evangelicals, that is in no way denied by whatever interpretation we make of eschatology.

God is glorified in creation, revelation, the coming & saving work of the LORD Jesus Christ, by the proclamation of the Gospel, the salvation of sinners & the fulfilment of Old Covenant prophecy in the New Covenant Church. As redeemed sinners, we seek to live to the glory of God, & look for the return of the LORD Jesus Christ in glory to bring into being the NH&NE.

If you don't see that, you haven't begun to understand amil eschaology.

You are missing the point. The glory of God in dispensationalism is the very foundation of the theology.

Sticking to eschatology (not denying what you have said about other areas of theology), the amil and postmil positions do not depend on the glory of God for how God works in history.

If you want to go there , you haven't begun to understand dispensational eschatology.

Some of this may be a caricature - perhaps you can clarify your version of disp teaching.

OK John - what I have gathered from disps is that OC prophecy concerns Israel as a nation rather than Israel as a people. And so far every dispensation has failed, repeatedly & ultimately. God's purposes for his glory fail every time.

TCassidy's "Mediatorial Kingdom" asserts that the MK is in abeyance while Jesus remains in heaven. IOW because the nation of Israel rejected both Jesus & the Gospel, Jesus failed in his OC prophesied mission to gather the Israelites & establish them as a kingdom, in the promised land with himself, in person sitting on David's throne in Jerusalem. (See Acts 3)

God therefore had to resort to a secondary plan by saving the Gentiles while preserving the Israelite race as under judgment until another dispensation when Jesus would come in person to succeed in restoring the nation.

Further, fulfilment of Gabriel's 70 week prophecy of full salvation was not FINISHED, despite Jesus' shout of triumph from the cross, & his assurance to his disciples that “These are the words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me.” Only he doesn't know when. Mat. 24:36 One day is as 1,000 years....

And that teaching glorifies God !?!?!?​

NO! NO! NO!

Amil teaches that Jesus did fulfill & FINISH all that he came to do;
That the people of Israel did indeed recognise their Messiah & turn to him in repentance & faith by the thousands, forming the prophesied NC ecclesia, called out from a disobedient nation to form the church of the redeemed people of God;
A redeemed people that from the first promise to Abram would include all families, all nations on earth;
a redeemed people who recognise Jesus as King & Great High Priest, LORD & Saviour & all that he was prophesied to be;
and ALL to the glory of God.

See Isaiah 49 which is quoted or alluded to throughout the NC Scriptures.

When Jesus comes again it will be for resurrection & judgment, the final incarceration of Satan & all his minions & human subjects, & to bring into being the NH&NE where there will be NO rebels, no unbelievers, no carnal Israel, no sexual relationships, but a Kingdom of perfect righteousness & perfect peace.

ALL to the glory of God.

 

[John of Japan]

I think you'll find they do. Or at least Amil does; the Postmils must answer for themselves.

Can you give a quote from an amil author saying that the glory of God is essential in the theology?

Here is a dispensationalist quote: "“To the normative dispensationalist, the soteriological, or saving, program of God is not the only program but one of the means God is using in the total program of glorifying Himself”
Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 1995, 2007), 48).

I find that far too many Dispensationalists take their eschatology from the latest news. Amil takes seriously the words of Christ in Matthew 23:36-51.

I find that far too many amils think that dispensationalists "take their eschatology from the evening news." What you are mixing up is the actual theology (Bible-based) with possible--possible--fulfillments. Furthermore, what you are describing is premillennialism, not dispensationalism per se. And there is really no need for that practice in dispensationalism. The theology stands solidly without it.

 

[John of Japan]

Some of this may be a caricature - perhaps you can clarify your version of disp teaching.

I'm about to teach a 3 credit course on dispensationalism, and you want me to give all that to you here on the BB in just a few posts?

Well, maybe I can help you some. First and foremost, what do you think a dispensation is?

 

[John of Japan]

Could you clarify this with an example..or two...just so this statement is not misunderstood.

See the Ryrie quote in my post to Martin. I could certainly give other quotes. As Ryrie puts it on that same page, the glory of God is a sine qua non of dispensationalism.

Here is where it is a watershed issue....I have been reading mostly postmill writers the last few years and they call that whole system into question and claim it is just the opposite.....each dispensation ending in failure...until the new heaven and new earth.

Well of course each dispensation ends in failure--the failure of Mankind, not God. Would we expect spiritual victory from a fallen mankind? What do you think a dispensation is, anyway? Without your answer on that definition being correct, it's fruitless to continue because you won't understand the theology.

Postmill writers see the gospel being victorious in the world, overcoming the evil by sinners being regenerated in massive numbers worldwide.

That's not how the original postmils put it. The eschatology was originally based on the idea that the social gospel would succeed, with Christianity bringing in a world subject to Christ, after which Christ would come to claim His kingdom. It was a teaching based on the liberal idea that Mankind is not inherently sinful. That's why it almost completely faded out after WW2, during which Hitler and others proved without a doubt the depravity of Mankind.

As for a conservative postmil theology, I'd like to know how they get around the depravity of man. It's a game killer for them. Mankind is only getting worse and worse, as the Bible clearly teaches. "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived" (2 Tim. 3:13).

 

[John of Japan]

And so far every dispensation has failed, repeatedly & ultimately. God's purposes for his glory fail every time.​

Absolutely wrong--a complete misunderstanding. God succeeds every single time.

God therefore had to resort to a secondary plan by saving the Gentiles while preserving the Israelite race as under judgment until another dispensation when Jesus would come in person to succeed in restoring the nation.

Nope, the salvation of the Gentiles was and is part of God's original plan.
​

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Can you give a quote from an amil author saying that the glory of God is essential in the theology?

The glory of God is essential in all theology.
I have very few books on Amil and no intention of ploughing through the internet to please you, but this is in the introduction to Amillennialism Today by William Cox: "Suffice it here to say that every person who is born again immediately becomes a child of the King and immediately begins an eternal reign with the King, and that the present phase of that reign is a mere foretaste of what lies beyond the second coming and the ushering in of the eternal state." That IMO is glorious. Amillennialism paints a particularly glorious picture because Eternity broke into history at the incarnation; Christians have already been initiated into the kingdom of God and tasted the joys of heaven (Colossians 1:13)

I find that far too many amils think that dispensationalists "take their eschatology from the evening news." What you are mixing up is the actual theology (Bible-based) with possible--possible--fulfillments. Furthermore, what you are describing is premillennialism, not dispensationalism per se. And there is really no need for that practice in dispensationalism. The theology stands solidly without it.

I can only say that every Dispensationalist that I have known reasonably well, without exception so far as I can remember, has become excited by every piece of news concerning Israel, and every Dispy website I have looked at has pieces of news about that or the beast 'proving' that the rapture is coming. I particularly remember when Greece (I think it was) joined the E.U, making ten members. Everyone was talking about the beast out of the sea with ten crowns on its horns. I do not find that historic Premils do that.

 

[John of Japan]

The glory of God is essential in all theology.

Well of course it is. But it is foundational in dispensationalism in a way that it is not in other eschatologies.

I have very few books on Amil and no intention of ploughing through the internet to please you, but this is in the introduction to Amillennialism Today by William Cox: "Suffice it here to say that every person who is born again immediately becomes a child of the King and immediately begins an eternal reign with the King, and that the present phase of that reign is a mere foretaste of what lies beyond the second coming and the ushering in of the eternal state." That IMO is glorious. Amillennialism paints a particularly glorious picture because Eternity broke into history at the incarnation; Christians have already been initiated into the kingdom of God and tasted the joys of heaven (Colossians 1:13)

Sorry, that does not answer my request for a quote from an amil to the effect that the glory of God is essential to the eschatology.

I can only say that every Dispensationalist that I have known reasonably well, without exception so far as I can remember, has become excited by every piece of news concerning Israel, and every Dispy website I have looked at has pieces of news about that or the beast 'proving' that the rapture is coming. I particularly remember when Greece (I think it was) joined the E.U, making ten members. Everyone was talking about the beast out of the sea with ten crowns on its horns.

You're talking about the popular version of premillennialism, not the theological version. There is a big difference. A lot of those popular sites are jokes. Try this website with tons of articles by genuine dispensational scholars, none of them (that I can tell) looking at the newspaper for theology or even prophetic fulfillment: Pre-Trib Research Center -.

I do not find that historic Premils do that.

Of course they do! My grandfather preached in WW2 that Mussolini might be the Antichrist, as many others did. He got over it, though, and quit that nonsense in his later writings.

Let me repeat my question from Post #24: "What do you think a dispensation is, anyway?"

 

[John of Japan]

Here is a great quote from dispensational scholar Thomas Ice on exactly what I've been saying about the "popular" view of prophecy:

"It is amazing to me what is increasingly passing today as Bible prophecy teaching. In most cases it has nothing to do with the Bible, and when they use the Bible it is too often twisted and turned into something the Bible really does not say. Someone said recently to me that too many 'prophecy ministries' are like going to a UFO conference, mostly lacking in the actual teaching of the Bible but filled with speculative theories. Every couple of months some new 'breakthrough' is put forth, after many, many hours of study . . . of course. Years ago it was that the rapture was going to take place on Israel's Feast Day—the Feast of Trumpets. Then came the Psalm 83 war, the Harbinger, followed by the Shemitah, and the Blood Moons. On and on it goes, whipping many prophecy followers into a state of frenzy, yet these speculations are always wrong and nothing significant ever happens. The advocates present themselves as the smartest guy in the room and are supremely confident in their speculations."

From: Pre-Trib Research Center -

 

[Covenanter]

I'm about to teach a 3 credit course on dispensationalism, and you want me to give all that to you here on the BB in just a few posts?

Well, maybe I can help you some. First and foremost, what do you think a dispensation is?

I gave you a summary in ONE post.

A dispensation is an administration period paralleled by a spiritual condition not always discreet periods, there's overlap, animal sacrifices needed until Calvary -
e.g.
Eden - innocence ending with disobedience;
Antediluvian - grace or condemnation, ending with the flood, but obviously grace or condemnation continues;
Babel anarchy - continuing for mankind until Pentecost, & in a sense continuing until Jesus returns;
Grace - Covenant with Abraham & his seed, continuing throughout time;
Mosaic - Covenant of blessed relationship with God conditional on obedience, with various Messianic types provided for salvation of those who have a living faith;
Messianic - New Covenant in the blood of Jesus for all nations, ending all OC types, temple, priesthood, nation of Israel, ending with Jesus' return in glory;
NH&NE - all godless angels, spirits, people eternally condemned, all the redeemed with God in glory in his perfect Kingdom.

The redeemed are only ever saved by grace, through faith in Christ to the glory of God, throughout all dispensations.

After the fall, no-one could be saved by obedience, good works, law keeping etc.

Only Christ, as our Covenant Surety kept every detail of the Law as man for man - the second Adam.

As Venantius Fortunatus 535-600 put in the hymn "Welcome happy morning"

Maker and Redeemer, life and health of all,
you from heaven beholding human nature’s fall,
of the Father’s Godhead true and only Son,
Adam’s race to rescue, Adam’s form put on.
​

We sing to the Mediaeval tune "Noel nouvelet."

 

[rlvaughn]

What I was driving at is that the glory of God is the very foundation of dispensational premillennialism. However, I do not see that in other eschatologies. One big reason I serve God is to glorify Him, as per my theology. What is there in other eschatologies (not just the Bible, but the theologies) that encourages their adherents to live for God's glory?

John, could you clarify in what sense or way that dispensational premillennialism encourages you to glorify God in a way the historic premillennialism, amillennialism, or postmillennialism does not or would not? I'm having trouble understanding the whole point of this thread.

Thanks!

 

[John of Japan]

I gave you a summary in ONE post.

A dispensation is an administration period paralleled by a spiritual condition not always discreet periods, there's overlap, animal sacrifices needed until Calvary -

That is an incorrect definition.

e.g.
Eden - innocence ending with disobedience;
Antediluvian - grace or condemnation, ending with the flood, but obviously grace or condemnation continues;
Babel anarchy - continuing for mankind until Pentecost, & in a sense continuing until Jesus returns;
Grace - Covenant with Abraham & his seed, continuing throughout time;
Mosaic - Covenant of blessed relationship with God conditional on obedience, with various Messianic types provided for salvation of those who have a living faith;
Messianic - New Covenant in the blood of Jesus for all nations, ending all OC types, temple, priesthood, nation of Israel, ending with Jesus' return in glory;
NH&NE - all godless angels, spirits, people eternally condemned, all the redeemed with God in glory in his perfect Kingdom.

I have no idea where you got this set of dispensations, but it certainly isn't what I teach, as per the correct meaning of "dispensation." So far you would have a failing grade, if you were one of my students.

The redeemed are only ever saved by grace, through faith in Christ to the glory of God, throughout all dispensations.

After the fall, no-one could be saved by obedience, good works, law keeping etc.

I certainly agree with this, as do all revised dispensationalist teachers.

Only Christ, as our Covenant Surety kept every detail of the Law as man for man - the second Adam.

As Venantius Fortunatus 535-600 put in the hymn "Welcome happy morning"

Maker and Redeemer, life and health of all,
you from heaven beholding human nature’s fall,
of the Father’s Godhead true and only Son,
Adam’s race to rescue, Adam’s form put on.
​

We sing to the Mediaeval tune "Noel nouvelet."

That's beautiful, but I don't see any relevance.

 

[John of Japan]

John, could you clarify in what sense or way that dispensational premillennialism encourages you to glorify God in a way the historic premillennialism, amillennialism, or postmillennialism does not or would not? I'm having trouble understanding the whole point of this thread.

Thanks!

I did not start out as a dispensationalist, but in the historic premil camp along with my father and grandfather. When I applied to my mission board, I was rejected the first time due to my opposition (taught me by my grandfather) to the phrase in the doctrinal statement, "the church as peculiar to the age of grace." I was then mentored by Dr. Monroe Parker (may his memory be honored) and studied on my own this area of dispensationalism, and was then accepted by the board when I could agree.

I continued studying down through the years, coming closer and closer to being an outright dispensationalist. I remember staying on deputation with a man in CA who said after our discussion, "I'm telling your board you're not a dispensationalist!” I replied, "They're the ones who told me that!'

I learned in my studies that the glory of God was the foundation of dispensationalism, but it didn't strike home until one day when I praised the sermon of another mentor, who was at that time the director of our board and a solid dispensational theologian, and he rebuked me, telling me that praising his sermon did not glorify God. That really clicked, and was probably the final thing that made me a dispensationalist.

Years before I had memorized 1 Cor. 10:31, but when it made sense theologically--in dispensational theology--it had a profound effect on my life and ministry.

 

[prophecy70]

I have no idea where you got this set of dispensations, but it certainly isn't what I teach, as per the correct meaning of "dispensation." So far you would have a failing grade, if you were one of my students.

Can you tell us what your meaning is?

I would of failed out of your class a long time ago.

Do you actually tell your students that what you say is truth? Or do you present other Ideas that people have as well?

 

[prophecy70]

Here is a great quote from dispensational scholar Thomas Ice on exactly what I've been saying about the "popular" view of prophecy:

Watching this mans debates with preterists, is a majority of the reason what drove me to where I stand now.

 

[John of Japan]

Can you tell us what your meaning is?

It's not my meaning, it's "the meaning." I'm waiting to see what Martin says he thinks a dispensation is. In the meantime, I suggest you look up the word "dispensation" in the Bible, then chase down that meaning, because that is exactly the meaning we use in dispensational theology. (It occurs 3 times in the KJV, but the word occurs 7 times in the Greek NT).

I would of failed out of your class a long time ago.

Not if you paid attention, studied well for the quizzes and tests, and produced a fair research paper.

Do you actually tell your students that what you say is truth? Or do you present other Ideas that people have as well?

I'd be a miserable teacher if I didn't present other views. Out of 23 lectures, I have lectures on ultra-dispensationalism, Scofield and his mistakes, covenant theology (2 lectures), new covenant theology, and the views of many dispensationalists about the final apostasy and about the 7 churches of Asia. In one lecture I even disagree with the "me" of 1975, as revealed in a Bible study I did at the time about when the church began.

My students are allowed to write research papers that disagree with my positions, but they must have sufficient sources, good reasoning, and a good summation.

 

[Covenanter]

That is an incorrect definition.
I have no idea where you got this set of dispensations, but it certainly isn't what I teach, as per the correct meaning of "dispensation." So far you would have a failing grade, if you were one of my students.

I certainly agree with this, as do all revised dispensationalist teachers.

That's beautiful, but I don't see any relevance.

I got that set of disps from my understanding of Scripture. They may not be yours but hopefully you will agree that they are fully Scriptural, even if they do not comply with Scofield's disps - I didn't look him up - he certainly gets a failing grade. Do you actually disagree with my set of disps?

I'm very happy that you agree with the "solas" of the Reformation, not that they were new.

That hymn expresses the eternity of the plan of redemption by the incarnate Christ through all disps, however defined.

 

[John of Japan]

I got that set of disps from my understanding of Scripture. They may not be yours but hopefully you will agree that they are fully Scriptural, even if they do not comply with Scofield's disps - I didn't look him up - he certainly gets a failing grade. Do you actually disagree with my set of disps?

Yes, I disagree strongly with most of your set of dispensations, because your understanding of what a dispensation means is faulty. But I commend you for the obvious study you put into making up your list.

 

[Yeshua1]

It's not my meaning, it's "the meaning." I'm waiting to see what Martin says he thinks a dispensation is. In the meantime, I suggest you look up the word "dispensation" in the Bible, then chase down that meaning, because that is exactly the meaning we use in dispensational theology. (It occurs 3 times in the KJV, but the word occurs 7 times in the Greek NT).

Not if you paid attention, studied well for the quizzes and tests, and produced a fair research paper.


I'd be a miserable teacher if I didn't present other views. Out of 23 lectures, I have lectures on ultra-dispensationalism, Scofield and his mistakes, covenant theology (2 lectures), new covenant theology, and the views of many dispensationalists about the final apostasy and about the 7 churches of Asia. In one lecture I even disagree with the "me" of 1975, as revealed in a Bible study I did at the time about when the church began.

My students are allowed to write research papers that disagree with my positions, but they must have sufficient sources, good reasoning, and a good summation.

You mean that one cannot claim to prove theology by the ole "The Holy Spirit showed that to me?"

 

[John of Japan]

You mean that one cannot claim to prove theology by the ole "The Holy Spirit showed that to me?"

Correctamundo.

 

[Yeshua1]

Correctamundo.

Many, especially in Charasmatic Chaos theology, cliam just that though!