The Millennium : Some Helpful Resources

As I mentioned in a recent post about the AntiChrist my views on eschatology have changed over time (from dispensationalism to Protestant historicism) through reading certain documents and hearing certain sermons. Let me not forget to mention Bible study, meditation upon the Scriptures and fervent prayer as other means which brought about the change. My views on eschatology (AntiChrist, Millennium) changed during a period in my life which I would consider the most fruitful/fervent in terms of prayer, Bible study, evangelism, service and sanctification (2004-2009). I mention it so that no one may falsely think I became an amillennialist while being in a state of personal spiritual declension.

Premillennialism is one of the three great positions held on the Millennium with Postmillennialism and Amillennialism being the other two. In each of the three positions there are different views. In 2005 I had exchanged a more recent form of premillennialism (dispensational premillennialism) for something I believed was closer to the truth (historic premillennialism). Historic premillennialism sees the Book of Revelation as spanning the entire period of the Church age while dispensational premillennialism sees most of the things foretold in Revelation as occurring within a short period of time in the future. Great writers of the past held to historic premillennialism (e.g. John Gill, Joseph Mede, Thomas Newton, Isaac Newton, E. B. Elliott, H. Grattan Guinness) and it is believed that the Prince of Preachers himself, Charles Spurgeon, was a historic premillennialist (read here). For the first few years of my Christian life (2001-2007) I had prejudice against amillennialism and had not really bothered until the fall of 2007 to look at why godly and orthodox amillennialists held to that position on the Millennium. I thought one reason why amillennialists rejected premillennialism was possible racism toward racial Jews. Yes it is a sad fact that there have been some amillennialist Christians in the past who expressed contempt for non-Christian Jews (e.g. Augustine of Hippo) but not all amillennialists have been anti-Jew racists. Let us avoid blind generalizations. I am an amillennialist Christian and I am not anti-Semitic. I don’t know of any amillennialists personally who are anti-Semitic. Even the best of men under God’s grace still remain sinners (Ecclesiastes 7:20) so even one who may be right on a great number of fundamental Biblical doctrines may sadly be guilty of racism toward a particular racial group. That does not excuse the racism of course. And yet that does not mean all of the doctrinal positions of such a man are automatically incorrect either. Let us be noble Bereans (Acts of the Apostles 17:11) and look at how a doctrinal position stacks up Biblically. Let us lay aside strawman argumentation and labels (e.g. “you don’t take the Bible seriously”, “you spiritualize everything”, “you don’t take the Bible literally”**, “you teach replacement theology”***, etc…) and look at the Scriptures. Sola Scriptura. Acts 17:11. I hold to an amillennial understanding of the Book of Revelation because I believe the Biblical evidence points toward what has been historically labelled amillennialism*. It’s about grace. Not race. It’s about hermeneutics plain and simple. It’s about looking at how Christ and His apostles interpreted the Old Testament prophecies/promises. Does not the Christ teach us all things (John 4:25)? Should not the clearer light of the New Testament (John 1:17b; Matthew 13:16-17) help us interpret the figurative prophetic passages and dark sayings (Hosea 12:10; Numbers 12:6-8) of the Old Testament? Should not the Book of Hebrews be considered a surer guide for us than the harder-to-understand Book of Ezekiel?

* the term “a-millennial” would mean “no millennium” (just like “a-theist” means “not a theist”) but that’s not a fair and correct view of our position… we believe there is a Millennium but not in the way the premillennialists conceive it to be… I use the term because for better or worse that’s the name that has been attached to the position

** There are different styles found in the Bible : historical narrative (e.g. Genesis 6-day Creation account of events that happened close to 6000 years ago), poetic passages (e.g. Psalms, Song of Songs), parables, similitudes, proverbs, figurative prophetic passages (Hosea 12:10), etc… that means we can’t spiritualize away historical events which occurred in this physical realm (e.g. 6-day Creation account with “days” actually meaning literal days and not millions of years) or apply a wooden literalism to prophesies which were delivered in figurative language… to each its own… were not the Jews in the days of Jesus guilty of carnally interpreting His words which were meant to be taken figuratively (Jesus : “I am the bread of life”) with a wooden literalism (Jews: “how can he give us his flesh to eat?”)? I prefer saying that I take the Bible SERIOUSLY rather than using the term “literally”

*** I hold to EXPANSION theology not REPLACEMENT theology

Like in my previous post on the topic of AntiChrist I will present here a list of documents and audio sermons which helped me come to my present understanding of eschatology. I would say the first document which seriously led me to reconsider historic premillennialism was a very good book written by Patrick Fairbairn, a postmillennialist, called “Prophecy viewed in respect to its distinctive nature, special function, and proper interpretation (1866)” which can be downloaded for free here. (Note : Charles Spurgeon, thought by some to be a historical premillennialist, had recommended the book.) I had decided to read it because it dealt with hermeneutics and the author was well-reputed for his published works on Biblical typology. I didn’t read the book because the author was promoting at the end of his book a postmillennialist view of Revelation chapter 20. In fact I only became aware of the author’s postmillennialism when I got near the end of the book. In the part of the book dealing with the Millennium issue he brought up good arguments against premillennialism which bothered me at the time (around the beginning of the fall of 2007). Yet I was not convinced enough to adopt the postmillennial view of the author. I thought within myself that it would be good to find a prophecy book written by an orthodox Protestant amillennialist in order to look at the Biblical arguments put forth in support of amillennialism. I forget if I audibly prayed to God at that time in order to find the right book on the topic. Whether or not I did so at the time the Lord knew my thoughts and He knew my sincere desire to adhere to a correct understanding of the Millenium.

Patrick Fairbairn

Approximately 2 weeks after having for the first time a desire to read a prophecy book written by an amillennialist I was sent by a Pentecostal brother-in-Christ a book dealing with the Millennium issue…. written by an amillennialist! The book was written by W. J. Grier and called “The Momentous Event” (in French : “Le grand dénouement”). I had not told my Pentecostal friend or anyone else for that matter that I was having questions concerning the Millennium issue itself. He already knew I had rejected the secret rapture teaching 2 years earlier. This same brother-in-Christ had tried years earlier (months after my conversion) to convince me that the secret rapture teaching was false but I was not mature enough spiritually at the time to calmly consider his arguments. It would be another 4 years (early 2005) before I would completely reject the secret rapture teaching. My friend seeing my initial resistance to his warnings concerning the secret rapture teaching thought it was best to send me the aforementioned book at a later time. His timing could not have been better… I believe it was not a happy coincidence… God led me to question the premillennial position and also led my friend who was living in another city (and as I mentioned before unaware at that time that I was reconsidering the Millennium issue) to send me the book shortly after.

I read the book (about 120 pages) and finally came to the conviction that amillennialism was the correct view of the Millennium of Revelation chapter 20. I enjoyed the book and have recommended it to others. I think the book is a good starting point for looking at the Millennium issue.

historic model for amillennialism, source : http://www.genevaninstitute.org

futurist model for amillennialism, source : http://www.genevaninstitute.org

After reading Grier’s book I desired to learn more about what amillennialism generally teaches so I subsequently read more documents and listened to sermons. Here are the TEXT DOCUMENTS I remember reading after receiving amillennialism :

Philip Mauro, “The Hope of Israel, What Is It?”

General outline for “The Gospel Millennium” series of sermons (source : www.LetGodBeTrue.com)

George B. Fletcher, “The Millenium : What It Is Not”

www.LetGodBeTrue.com : “What About the Land?”

www.LetGodBeTrue.com : “Who Is The Seed of Abraham?”

Anthony Hoekema, “Amillennialism : Introduction”

Cornelis P. Venema, “Revelation 20: Part I – The Premillennialist Case”

Cornelis P. Venema, “Revealtion 20 : Part II – The Millennium is Now”

Cornelis P. Venema, “Revelation 20 : Part III – The Binding of Satan”

Cornelis P. Venema, “Revelation 20 : Part IV – The Believer’s Reign with Christ”

Philip Mauro, “Things Which Must Soon Come to Pass”

Tony Warren, “Amillennialism : A Word Direct From the Scriptures”

Ralph Woodrow, “His Truth is Marching On” (sold here)

David J. Engelsma, “A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism”

Philip Hughes, “The Millennial Reign”

David L. White, “My Shift to Covenant Theology and Amillennialism”

Lewis Neilson, “Why Not Postmillennialism?”

Philip Mauro, “The Gospel of the Kingdom”

Mark Alvis, “Ezekiel’s Temple”

Here is a list of known amillennialist authors : L. Berkhoff, A. Kuyper, W. Hendriksen, O.T. Allis, D.H. Kromminga, G.C. Berkouwer, A.A. Hoekema, G. Girod, H. Hoeksema, R.C.H. Lenski, J. Adams, G. Voss, A. Pieters, F.E. Hamilton, G. Murray, W. Rutgers, M.J. Wyngaarden, W. Messelink, W.J. Grier, W. Cox, T. Graebner, A. Hughes, Kliefoth.

source: http://pastormattblog.com/

*****************************************

Here is a list of AUDIO SERMONS/INTERVIEWS teaching/promoting the amillennialist view of Revelation:

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 1”

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 2”

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 3”

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 4”

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 5”

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 6”

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 7”

http://www.LetGodBeTrue.com : Mr. Crosby, Sermon : “The Gospel Millenium – Part 8”

Chris Hand, “Are the 1000 Years of Revelation 20 Literal? Revelation 20:1-15”

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=1130217042

Chris Hand, “Amillennialism Described and Defended Matthew 24:1-51”

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=12402191718

Chris Hand, “Amillennialism (continued) & Historic Premillennialism Revelation 20:1-15”

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=320255628

Chris Hand, “Dispensationalism Defined”

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=3902103021

Chris Hand, “Dispensationalism – It’s Doctrine Examined”

http://www.sermonaudio.com/playpopup.asp?SID=3230216251

Kim Riddlebarger’s Lectures on Amillennialism :

http://christreformedinfo.org/mp3s-and-real-audio-of-academy/

Art Azurdia, “The Anticipation Of The Consummation (Revelation 20:1-3)”

Art Azurdia, “The Anticipation Of The Consummation (Revelation 20:4-6)”

Art Azurdia, “The Last Battle Take 2 (Revelation 20:7-10)”

Sam Waldron on Chris Arnzen show (“Iron Sharpens Iron”) : “The End Times Made Simple”

http://sharpens.blogspot.ca/2008/03/dr-sam-waldron-end-times-made-simple.html

Sam Waldron on Chris Arnzen show (“Iron Sharpens Iron”) : “Amillennialism Defended”

http://sharpens.blogspot.ca/2010/02/blog-post_22.html

Making People Think About Words

Version française/French version

In our daily lives we use words to express our thoughts. Have you ever wondered how we learned some commonly used words which are essential to communicating ideas such as “this”, “that”, “as”, “why” or “however”?

One of the words used in our daily conversations is the word “if”. Strictly using one’s five physical senses (taste, touch, hearing, sight, smell) and limiting oneself to the observable world could one learn the meaning of the word “if”? Could the meaning of such a word be acquired through the senses in some way? Additional question : how could one teach the meaning of the word “if” to another person?

Did you learn the meaning of the word “if” with your eyes? Have you ever seen an object in the physical universe which can define the meaning of “if”?

Did you learn the meaning of the word “if” with your sense of smell? Have you ever smelled an odor in the physical universe which can define the meaning of “if”?

Did you learn the meaning of the word “if” with your sense of taste? Have you ever tasted something in the physical universe which can define the meaning of “if”?

Did you learn the meaning of the word “if” with your sense of touch? Have you ever touched something in the physical universe which can define the meaning of “if”?

Did you learn the meaning of the word “if” with your ears? Have you ever heard a sound in the physical universe which can define the meaning of “if”?

To teach another person the meaning of the word “if” could I simply point to something in the physical universe and say “Look! It’s an if!” ?

If it be the case for the word “if” what can be said about words such as “conjunction”, “premise”, “assumption”, “condition”, “inference”, “argument”, “conclusion”, “syllogism”, “when”, “how”, “thus”, “then” and “now”? What can be said about words such as “God”, “justice”, “wrath”, “peace”, “evil”, “righteousness”, “conscience”, “mercy” and “grace”?

**************************

QUESTIONS:

• IF the knowledge of the meanings of those words did not come about through sense experience how is it that we know them?
• IF such knowledge was rather innate (a priori knowledge) than acquired (a posteriori knowledge) then who is the Author of this innate knowledge of words?
• Can material causes alone have brought about that which is immaterial (e.g. the word “if” and its meaning, laws of logic)?
• How did the word “God” get into our vocabulary?

**************************

Recommended reading : Saint Augustine’s “De Magistro”

Augustine, Astrology and Twins

Augustine of Hippo

I have been reading portions of Augustine’s “City of God” in the past week.   I particularly enjoyed some of Augustine’s arguments against astrology (Book V, Chapters 1, 2, 5 and 6) which is condemned by the Word of God.  Here are some of the things he wrote concerning the mistaken belief that the position of stars determines one’s destiny :

“In a word, human kingdoms are  established by divine providence.  And if any one attributes their existence to fate, because he calls the will or the power of God itself by the name of fate, let him keep his opinion, but correct his language.  For why does he not say at first what he will say afterwards, when some one shall put the question to him, What he means by fate?  For when men hear that word, according to the ordinary use of the language, they simply understand by it the virtue of that particular position of the stars which may exist at the time when any one is born or conceived, which some separate altogether from the will of God, whilst others affirm that this also is dependent on that will.  But those who are of opinion that, apart from the will of God, the stars determine what we shall do, or what good things we shall possess, or what evils we shall suffer, must be refused a hearing by all, not only by those who hold the true religion, but by those who wish to be the worshippers of any gods whatsoever, even false gods.  For what does this opinion really amount to but this, that no god whatever is to be worshipped or prayed to?” (Augustine, “City of God”, Book V, Chapter 1)

“They, however, who make the position of the stars depend on the divine will, and in a manner decree what character each man shall have, and what good or evil shall happen to him, if they think that these same stars have that power conferred upon them by the supreme power of God, in order that they may determine these things according to their will, do a great injury to the celestial sphere, in whose most brilliant senate, and most splendid senate-house, as it were, they suppose that wicked deeds are decreed to be done,–such deeds as that,  if any terrestrial state should decree them, it would be condemned to overthrow by the decree of the whole human race.  What judgment, then, is left to God concerning the deeds of men, who is Lord both of the stars and of men, when to these deeds a celestial necessity is attributed?  Or, if they do not say that the stars, though they have indeed received a certain power from God, who is supreme, determine those things according to their own discretion, but simply that His commands are fulfilled by them instrumentally in the application and enforcing of such necessities, are we thus to think concerning God even what it seemed unworthy that we should think concerning the will of the stars?  But, if the stars are said rather to signify these things than to effect them, so that that position of the stars is, as it were, a kind of speech predicting, not causing future things,–for this has been the opinion of men of no ordinary learning,–certainly the mathematicians are not wont so to speak saying, for example, Mars in such or such a position signifies a homicide, but makes a homicide.  But, nevertheless, though we grant that they do not speak as they ought, and that we ought to accept as the proper form of speech that employed by the philosophers in predicting those things which they think they discover in the position of the stars, how comes it that they have never been able to assign any cause why, in the life of twins, in their actions, in the events which befall them, in their professions, arts, honors, and other things pertaining to human life, also in their very death, there is often so great a difference, that, as far as these things are concerned, many entire strangers are more like them than they are like each other, though separated at birth by the smallest interval of time, but at conception generated by the same act of copulation, and at the same moment?” (Augustine, “City of God”, Book V, Chapter 1)

“Cicero says that the famous physician Hippocrates has left in writing that he had suspected that a certain pair of brothers were twins, from the fact that they both took ill at once, and their disease advanced to its crisis and subsided in the same time in each of them. Posidonius the Stoic, who was much given to astrology, used to explain the fact by supposing that they had been born and conceived under the same constellation.  In this question the conjecture of the physician is by far more worthy to be accepted, and approaches much nearer to credibility, since, according as the parents were affected in body at the time of copulation, so might the first elements of the foetuses have been affected, so that all that was necessary for their growth and development up till birth having been supplied from the body of the same mother, they might be born with like constitutions.  Thereafter, nourished in the same house, on the same kinds of food, where they would have also the same kinds of air, the same locality, the same quality of water,–which, according to the testimony of medical science, have a very great influence, good or bad, on the condition of bodily health,–and where they would also be accustomed to the same kinds of exercise, they would have bodily constitutions so similar that they would be similarly affected with sickness at the same time and by the same causes.  But, to wish to adduce that particular position of the stars which existed at the time when they were born or conceived as the cause of their being simultaneously affected with sickness, manifests the greatest arrogance, when so many beings of most diverse kinds, in the most diverse conditions, and subject to the most diverse events, may have been conceived and born at the same time, and in the same district, lying under the same sky.”  (Augustine, “City of God”, Book V, Chapter 2)

“Do not those very persons whom the medical sagacity of Hippocrates led him to suspect to be twins, because their disease was observed by him to develop to its crisis and to subside again in the same time in each of them,–do not these, I say, serve as a sufficient refutation of those who wish to attribute to the influence of the stars that which was owing to a similarity of bodily constitution?  For wherefore were they both sick of the same disease, and at the same time, and not the one after the other in the order of their birth? (for certainly they could not both be born at the same time.)  Or, if the fact of their having been born at different times by no means necessarily implies that they must be sick at different times, why do they contend that the difference in the time of their births was the cause of their difference in other things?  Why could they travel in foreign parts at different times, marry at different times, beget children at different times, and do many other things at different times, by reason of their having been born at different times, and yet could not, for the same reason, also be sick at different times?  For if a difference in the moment of birth changed the horoscope, and occasioned dissimilarity in all other things, why has that simultaneousness which belonged to their conception remained in their attacks of sickness?  Or, if the destinies of health are involved in the time of conception, but those of other things be said to be attached to the time of birth, they ought not to predict anything concerning health from examination of the constellations of birth, when the hour of conception is not also given, that its constellations may be inspected.  But if they say that they predict attacks of sickness without examining the horoscope of conception, because these are indicated by the moments of birth, how could they inform either of these twins when he would be sick, from the horoscope of his birth, when the other also, who had not the same horoscope of birth, must of necessity fall sick at the same time?  Again, I ask, if the distance of time between the births of twins is so great as to occasion a difference of their constellations on account of the difference of their horoscopes, and therefore of all the cardinal points to which so much influence is attributed, that even from such change there comes a difference of destiny, how is it possible that this should be so, since they cannot have been conceived at different times?  Or, if two conceived at the same moment of time could have different destinies with respect to their births, why may not also two born at the same moment of time have different destinies for life and for death?  For if the one moment in which both were conceived did not hinder that the one should be born before the other, why, if two are born at the same moment, should anything hinder them from dying at the same moment?  If a simultaneous conception allows of twins being differently affected in the womb, why should not simultaneousness of birth allow of any two individuals having different fortunes in the world? and thus would all the fictions of this art, or rather delusion, be swept away.  What strange circumstance is this, that two children conceived at the same time, nay, at the same moment, under the same position of the stars, have different fates which bring them to different hours of birth, whilst two children, born of two different mothers, at the same moment of time, under one and the same position of the stars, cannot have different fates which shall conduct them by necessity to diverse manners of life and of death?  Are they at conception as yet without destinies, because they can only have them if they be born?  What, therefore, do they mean when they say that, if the hour of the conception be found, many things can be predicted by these astrologers? from which also arose that story which is reiterated by some, that a certain sage chose an hour in which to lie with his wife, in order to secure his begetting an illustrious son. From this opinion also came that answer of Posidonius, the great astrologer and also philosopher, concerning those twins who were attacked with sickness at the same time, namely, “That this had happened to them because they were conceived at the same time, and born at the same time.”  For certainly he added “conception,” lest it should be said to him that they could not both be born at the same time, knowing that at any rate they must both have been conceived at the same time; wishing thus to show that he did not attribute the fact of their being similarly and simultaneously affected with sickness to the similarity of their bodily constitutions as its proximate cause, but that he held that even in respect of the similarity of their health, they were bound together by a sidereal connection.  If, therefore, the time of conception has so much to do with the similarity of destinies, these same destinies ought not to be changed by the circumstances of birth; or, if the destinies of twins be said to be changed because they are born at different times, why should we not rather understand that they had been already changed in order that they might be born at different times?  Does not, then, the will of men living in the world change the destinies of birth, when the order of birth can change the destinies they had at conception?” (Augustine, “City of God”, Book V, Chapter 5)

“But even in the very conception of twins, which certainly occurs at the  same moment in the case of both, it often happens that the one is conceived a male, and the other a female.  I know two of different sexes who are twins.  Both of them are alive, and in the flower of their age; and though they resemble each other in body, as far as difference of sex will permit, still they are very different in the whole scope and purpose of their lives (consideration being had of those differences which necessarily exist between the lives of males and females),–the one holding the office of a count, and being almost constantly away from home with the army in foreign service, the other never leaving her country’s soil, or her native district.  Still more,–and this is more incredible, if the destinies of the stars are to be believed in, though it is not wonderful if we consider the wills of men, and the free gifts of God,–he is married; she is a sacred virgin:  he has begotten a numerous offspring; she has never even married.  But is not the virtue of the horoscope very great?  I think I have said enough to show the absurdity of that… For what is there which more intimately concerns a body than its sex?  And yet, under the same position of the stars, twins of different sexes may be conceived. Wherefore, what greater absurdity can be affirmed or believed than that the position of the stars, which was the same for both of them at the time of conception, could not cause that the one child should not have been of a different sex from her brother, with whom she had a common constellation, whilst the position of the stars which existed at the hour of their birth could cause that she should be separated from him by the great distance between marriage and holy virginity?” (Augustine, “City of God”, Book V, Chapter 6)

To download Augustine’s “City of God” go to this website:

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102

For a Christian critique of astrology :

http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Astrolgy.html

http://christiananswersforthenewage.org/Articles_Horoscope.html