Do I fit anywhere in particular eschatologically?

[James Diggs]

In a recent post a new term (“transmillianism”- at least it was new to me and many of us) that described a particular eschatological view.

I have never been obsessed with the end times, especially when reduced to just end of the world scenarios whether they are “2012” or “Left Behind”. But this recent conversation did leave me wondering what camp or “label” I might fit under because I can’t seem to find one – not that I have to, or want to, but I was just wondering.

Here is what I essentially believe (so far) eschatologically:

I believe Jesus came and preached that the Kingdom of God has come in Him and that we as his followers are the first fruits of a new creation through the power of the resurrection.

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

I have no opinions about timelines and feel that much of Revelations is speaking of political, cultural, and social realities that set the stage for and predicts many events that would soon come to pass in the lives of that letter’s original audience. However, this is done in a way that has both present (especially for them) and future connotations and encourages them to wait on the same hope for the reconciliation of the world in all its fullness that we still anxiously wait for today- as does all of creation anxiously waits for it.

I believe in the fullness of Christ’s (second) coming there will be a new heaven and a new earth and a reordering of life where the lion and the lamb will lay down with one another and there will be a holy city without walls so that those from every nation from all around this reborn created order would be included in it. I have no idea what this would look like beyond this kind of poetic language and inspired dreams of our biblical prophets for the redemption of all creation.

So, does this leave me anywhere in particular as far as various eschatological categories?

[Benjamin Burch]

In a recent post a new term (“transmillianism”- at least it was new to me and many of us) that described a particular eschatological view.

I have never been obsessed with the end times, especially when reduced to just end of the world scenarios whether they are “2012” or “Left Behind”. But this recent conversation did leave me wondering what camp or “label” I might fit under because I can’t seem to find one – not that I have to, or want to, but I was just wondering.

Here is what I essentially believe (so far) eschatologically:

I believe Jesus came and preached that the Kingdom of God has come in Him and that we as his followers are the first fruits of a new creation through the power of the resurrection.

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

I have no opinions about timelines and feel that much of Revelations is speaking of political, cultural, and social realities that set the stage for and predicts many events that would soon come to pass in the lives of that letter’s original audience. However, this is done in a way that has both present (especially for them) and future connotations and encourages them to wait on the same hope for the reconciliation of the world in all its fullness that we still anxiously wait for today- as does all of creation anxiously waits for it.

I believe in the fullness of Christ’s (second) coming there will be a new heaven and a new earth and a reordering of life where the lion and the lamb will lay down with one another and there will be a holy city without walls so that those from every nation from all around this reborn created order would be included in it. I have no idea what this would look like beyond this kind of poetic language and inspired dreams of our biblical prophets for the redemption of all creation.

So, does this leave me anywhere in particular as far as various eschatological categories?

I think you fit into the "New Testament" camp....

No, seriously. You certainly don't seem to "fit" into any of the ridiculous systems and that's a good thing!

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

At least this statement causes me to think of the post-millennial view of the return of Christ. Do you think you might see yourself as a post-millennialist?

[Dave Mann]

James,

How do align your eschatology with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic (entropy).

I find it fairly easy to have a crude concordist way of integrating a Wesleyan-Arminian view of creative love and freedom with the Big Bang, evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems, especially if you take a Polkinghorne sort of approach that puts the fingers of God in at the quantum level. This God the potter of the cosmos creating and shaping it as it explodes and spreads.

I have a much harder time as the universe cools off to a cold death though.

Perhaps related to this, what cosmology do you adopt? I can think of creation in terms of panentheism better than straight theism, but neither way helps me much when trying to align entropy and eschatology.

Thoughts?

[Benjamin Burch]

James,

How do align your eschatology with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic (entropy).

I find it fairly easy to have a crude concordist way of integrating a Wesleyan-Arminian view of creative love and freedom with the Big Bang, evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems, especially if you take a Polkinghorne sort of approach that puts the fingers of God in at the quantum level. This God the potter of the cosmos creating and shaping it as it explodes and spreads.

I have a much harder time as the universe cools off to a cold death though.

Perhaps related to this, what cosmology do you adopt? I can think of creation in terms of panentheism better than straight theism, but neither way helps me much when trying to align entropy and eschatology.

Thoughts?

I think since most people assume a straight theist creation as opposed to panentheist, they would tend to see God as doing something to (a part of the restoration) before the cold death that stops it and makes it not possible....

[Jim Chabot]

James, I am by no means an expert in the precise terminology used here.

With that disclaimer, I would hazard to guess that your views on the expanding kingdom ushering Christs return as the old creation passes away, would place you in the postmillenial category.

Your views on revelation being unfolded during the intended audiences lifetimes places you in the preterist camp.

I will leave you with the fine folks at Wikipedia, for the fine print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Interestingly, we share very similar views in this area. The expanding kingdom gives me pause, mainly because I don't see it happening, otherwise I think that you and I are on the same page.

[James Diggs]

At least this statement causes me to think of the post-millennial view of the return of Christ. Do you think you might see yourself as a post-millennialist?

I think post-millennialist are so because of a particular belief surrounding when events (second coming?) take place in relation to the Millennial kingdom on a time line. I haven't really factored in a belief in a Millennial kingdom at all or have an opinion on what that means or how that fits with anything else. So I don't think I can describe my eschatological views in relation to beliefs about a Millennial kingdom. So I don't see myself as a post-millennialist (or any kind of "millennialist").

[Dave Mann]

I think since most people assume a straight theist creation as opposed to panentheist, they would tend to see God as doing something to (a part of the restoration) before the cold death that stops it and makes it not possible....

So, the Eastern Orthodox didn't get the memo? ;^)

[Billy Cox]

How do align your eschatology with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamic (entropy).

I find it fairly easy to have a crude concordist way of integrating a Wesleyan-Arminian view of creative love and freedom with the Big Bang, evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems, especially if you take a Polkinghorne sort of approach that puts the fingers of God in at the quantum level. This God the potter of the cosmos creating and shaping it as it explodes and spreads.

I have a much harder time as the universe cools off to a cold death though.

I don't think that eschatology of any vintage jives with the law of entropy because eschatology deals with imminence (which is actionable) while entropy merely deals with eventuality (which is not actionable).

What if 'eternity' is merely a billion years? What if it is just a million years? I don't see that it matters. Even 100,000 years might as well be an eternity from our perspective.

[Benjamin Burch]

James, I am by no means an expert in the precise terminology used here.

With that disclaimer, I would hazard to guess that your views on the expanding kingdom ushering Christs return as the old creation passes away, would place you in the postmillenial category.

Your views on revelation being unfolded during the intended audiences lifetimes places you in the preterist camp.

I will leave you with the fine folks at Wikipedia, for the fine print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism

Interestingly, we share very similar views in this area. The expanding kingdom gives me pause, mainly because I don't see it happening, otherwise I think that you and I are on the same page.

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

[Billy Cox]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?

[Jim Chabot]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

Agreed. Can any thinking person fit perfectly into any of the boxes? I was looking only for a close fit.

I guess if you want to pick nits ok, but could it that Christ is the engine behind the expansion of the kingdom that ushers his return?

[Benjamin Burch]

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?

I think there is certainly something to be said for that. But, that works better - imho - in panentheistic thinking than theistic thinking.

Unless you want to press your language into Post-millennialism.

[Benjamin Burch]

Agreed. Can any thinking person fit perfectly into any of the boxes? I was looking only for a close fit.

I guess if you want to pick nits ok, but could it that Christ is the engine behind the expansion of the kingdom that ushers his return?

Of course Christ is. I was just trying to make a (what seems to me to be bigger than a nit) distinction between Postmil and James' statements.

I also tried to use the words "I think," I don't think," and "my understanding."

[Jim Chabot]

Actually I'm wondering if Amillenialism is a better fit. I hadn't thought to go there, but then James mentioned that he really doesn't figure the millenial reign into this.

And here is more of the best scholarship available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillenialism

[Jim Chabot]

Of course Christ is. I was just trying to make a (what seems to me to be bigger than a nit) distinction between Postmil and James' statements.

I also tried to use the words "I think," I don't think," and "my understanding."

Sorry, I hit reply instead of advanced and missed the smiley face placement.

[Benjamin Burch]

Sorry, I hit reply instead of advanced and missed the smiley face placement.

Fair enough! Just wanted to make sure you understood where I was coming from and that I wasn't trying to be picking!

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

I think post-millennialist are so because of a particular belief surrounding when events (second coming?) take place in relation to the Millennial kingdom on a time line. I haven't really factored in a belief in a Millennial kingdom at all or have an opinion on what that means or how that fits with anything else. So I don't think I can describe my eschatological views in relation to beliefs about a Millennial kingdom. So I don't see myself as a post-millennialist (or any kind of "millennialist").

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.

[Benjamin Burch]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.

That is how I viewed Post-millennial, too.

[Jim Chabot]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.

I was where you are until a couple of minutes ago. Apparently the big difference between post and amil is the literal 1000 years. I had never really looked at Amillenialism, and I had assumed that it was cantmakeupyourmindmillenialism, which is the distant cousin of panmillenialism, not to be confused with pantheism which is another genus entirely.

[James Diggs]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I don't see that happening, but I generally lean toward it, at least in theory.

I see that the conversation is moving on, which is okay with me as I'm quickly left in the dust in these kinds of exchanges.

Actually Scott, I am not very knowledgeable at all about such things. I am just trying to use what I already believe as a base line to try and begin to understand some of these very elaborate positions. I hardly know anything about post millennialism or the others at all. I may have been to quick to dismiss the view because it frames the passion in relation (post) to something haven’t developed much of an opinion on (millennial kingdom).

Thank you though for chiming in- it’s helping me thing through this stuff.

[James Diggs]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

What is Preterism’s view of the second coming? Is it that it already came? I certainly don’t believe that. Does that make me a “partial preterist"? looking at the wiki page (thanks Jim) I can see myself there in a general sense, but if there are specifics about which parts have been fulfilled and which hasn’t already in an historical sense I am not sure I am ready to draw such particular and absolute lines.

And yea I would say that Christ ushers in the Kingdom so if postmil says it’s the other way around I would not fit there.

[Dave Mann]

I don't think that eschatology of any vintage jives with the law of entropy because eschatology deals with imminence (which is actionable) while entropy merely deals with eventuality (which is not actionable).

What if 'eternity' is merely a billion years? What if it is just a million years? I don't see that it matters. Even 100,000 years might as well be an eternity from our perspective.

Billy, I'm not following this at all, which is probably reflective of me being out of my waters on this stuff.

Do you mean "Imminence", as in "soon to happen", or "Immanence", as in "divine presence"?
Either way I'm not parsing the meaning of your first statement. The latter makes your assertion more sensible to me but I'm not sure that's what you mean.

IMO, I can't separate issues of immanence (divine presence) from any understanding of current creation, incarnation or the eschaton. I have a very hard time with traditional (perhaps half baked) articulations theism, as they seem to want things both ways: a God that is entirely separate from creation and a God that is omnipresent. IMO, that leaves open massive questions about how God creates and sustains, the results of which lead to a God-free clock. My take on most theistic articulations is to appeal to a sort of magical form of creation ex nilo, and thus in terms of eschatology, a re-creation ex-nilo by the same sort of out of band magic. This doesn't line up with what I see in scripture regarding Christ's resurrected body, his transfiguration, and the prophetic language of a new earth, particularly that in Revelation in which heaven descends.

Also not tracking your comment on "eternity". Are you suggesting that after a couple of billion years we'll all be so fed up with streets of gold that we won't mind the whole thing sort of just (st) petering out? Serious question, despite the glib language.

[James Diggs]

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?

I think there is certainly something to be said for that. But, that works better - imho - in panentheistic thinking than theistic thinking.

Unless you want to press your language into Post-millennialism.

I think I tend to think Billy’s statement is true in a very real way, yet still hold to a belief that the coming of Jesus won’t be here in all it’s fullness until Christ himself returns.

Also you said in response to something else,

I think since most people assume a straight theist creation as opposed to panentheist, they would tend to see God as doing something to (a part of the restoration) before the cold death that stops it and makes it not possible....

I agree with both Billy (with qualifier) and with your response to Dave. How do these things relate to theistic verses panentheistic thinking? Am I contradicting myself?

[James Diggs]

Interestingly, we share very similar views in this area. The expanding kingdom gives me pause, mainly because I don't see it happening, otherwise I think that you and I are on the same page.

I can see why it is hard to see, I have trouble seeing it too sometimes. For me it is a mustard seed thing both in terms of my faith to see it and live it (Matthew 17:20) and in terms of how the Kingdom itself starts out really small (Matthew 13:31-32).

Actually I'm wondering if Amillenialism is a better fit. I hadn't thought to go there, but then James mentioned that he really doesn't figure the millenial reign into this.

And here is more of the best scholarship available.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amillenialism

I can see why you might say this. But this still seems to be a view related to a very specific interpretation of Revelations 20 and I really have no position on that particular text. Also I wonder if Amillenialism over spiritualizes God’s Kingdom now in a way that is too pessimistic for my tastes concerning how I believe the Kingdom of God is present in real ways and in the real world today - even if just in mustard seed ways.

I'll have to think more about it

[Paul DeBaufer]

I find the timing of this thread very interesting as I began reading The Second Coming ed. by H. Ray Dunning just this morning. I do believe that I read part of an essay from it last year for a theology class.

I began reading it because I really don't have a good handle on the terminology or theology of the eschaton. Hopefully betwixt this thread and Dunning's book I may become less confused.

[Paul DeBaufer]

With an incarnational understanding of the Church, perhaps the Second Coming is in progress now, and has been since the day of Pentecost?

I think that Michael Lodahl asks a similar question in Claiming Abraham:

I am wondering about the viability of an alternative eschatology, a humbler, morte localized hope. I am wondering about the possibility that God entertains a hope that, even yet, the exaltation of the Crucified Lord will attract more and more people toward Jesus and his community of disciples, the church. But that hope goes hand in hand with a church that actually does practice the sort of eschatological life Paul describes in Philippians 2:1-11.... There is no evidence that God is interested in coercing Christians into such a life together; why should we expect that at some point God will resort to coercion, a kind of divine violence, in order to usher in a world of righteous love?

The process of mutual giving-and-receiving in Philippians 2:1-11--offered by Paul as the model for corporate existence together as the Christian community--does inded suggest a very different reading of divine power, and by extension a very different interpretation of Christian eschatology. The church is that gathered community, the eschatological community, which together makes this confession of humble Love Divine. Perhaps other religious traditions, most notably Islam, can justifiably await a dramatically divine denoument to the world as we know it. The church, on the other hand, apparently is called to embody, in the midst of the world as we know it, a radically different reality. Perhaps the church is called to BE the age to come.

Not sure how this fits into this discussion, but it feels as though it does.

[Larry Parsons]

Preterism can't really be understood without it's reference to the second coming - of which James does not fall into that camp.

He does in fact have a "preterist" view of much of Revelation, but not the whole.

I also don't think that he's Postmillennial in that I don't think James would say that the expanding of the kingdom ushers in Christ - but that Christ ushers in the Kingdom.

That seems to have been my understanding of Postmil...

Ben, What do think of this idea concerning the postmillennial view, The Kingdom was estabished in the finish work of Christ, it is being established progressively throughout history until it will be established finally on the Last Day. The Kingdom was established when Christ came, but it has not reach it full development. (Like the mustard tree. This what I believe what post-millennism is albout.
Thanks
Larry P

[Ryan Scott]

I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

I feel my view is almost the opposite. Perhaps this has more to do with the entropy discussion and the idea of this world fading away as the Kingdom comes. I sort of see the Church becoming more marginalized as time goes on - sort of the idea of a remnant. God continues to refine the Church until Christ's return where the chaotic, dying world is replaced with a new one - one in which the Church is perfectly at home and one which seems foreign and unbearable to those who have lived in the way of dying world.

[David Graham]

Qoute:/ "I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation."/ Quote James Diggs.

JAmes, thank you for outlining your understanding of this matter. It is hard to understand, and I for one feel uncomfortable in accepting one of the popular "packaged" views on the subject, as all seem to be inadequate.

Now while I basically agree on your premise that the Kingdom of God will be continually expanding while the old order continually "passes away", the fruits of this are not always seen on this earth and possibly wont be seen during the present covenant period. For as history shows us, the visible church grows and declines in different parts of the world at different times, whereas the invisible church, (the church triumphant) continues to grow in heaven. Of course, that is not to say that the visible church is wholly comprised of the faithful people of God, for some within the institutional church are not redeemed; yet the visible church reminds us of God's continuing redemptive presence in the world. Still, it might well be that at the very end of this age, that the visible church will be virtually non existent, for Christ asked the question: "when the Son of man comes, will he find faith on the earth"? Jesus also said: "Wide is the way that leades to destruction and many walk therein, but narrow is the way that leads to life and few there be that find it". So in spite of the many great advances in the Christian faith around the world, the scriptures give us no comfort in saying that we will ever be in the majority. Nonetheless, the Christian influence has been widely pervasive, and the value of human beings is probably regarded as being better now, even in predominately non Christian societies (at least notionally) than it has ever been before. However, the kindom of God has certainly not come even into the nominally Christian areas of the world, since injustice, inequality, lawlessness, greed and violence still are rife in most of these societies.

So I guess, while I see advances in the kingdom of God here on earth, in the end, it will only be the coming of Christ that will bring about the giant leap required to finally usher in this kingdom so that the whole earth will be fully redeemed. Heaven, however, witnesses the ever expanding kingdom of God even now.

Well, that's what I think anway.
Cheers and Blessings,
Dave

[Larry Parsons]

In a recent post a new term (“transmillianism”- at least it was new to me and many of us) that described a particular eschatological view.

I have never been obsessed with the end times, especially when reduced to just end of the world scenarios whether they are “2012” or “Left Behind”. But this recent conversation did leave me wondering what camp or “label” I might fit under because I can’t seem to find one – not that I have to, or want to, but I was just wondering.

Here is what I essentially believe (so far) eschatologically:

I believe Jesus came and preached that the Kingdom of God has come in Him and that we as his followers are the first fruits of a new creation through the power of the resurrection.

I believe that the Kingdom of God is continually growing, coming, and expanding as part of this new creation while the old creation is simultaneously passing away until Christ returns in all his fullness and brings the reality of the resurrection to fruition in all of creation.

I have no opinions about timelines and feel that much of Revelations is speaking of political, cultural, and social realities that set the stage for and predicts many events that would soon come to pass in the lives of that letter’s original audience. However, this is done in a way that has both present (especially for them) and future connotations and encourages them to wait on the same hope for the reconciliation of the world in all its fullness that we still anxiously wait for today- as does all of creation anxiously waits for it.

I believe in the fullness of Christ’s (second) coming there will be a new heaven and a new earth and a reordering of life where the lion and the lamb will lay down with one another and there will be a holy city without walls so that those from every nation from all around this reborn created order would be included in it. I have no idea what this would look like beyond this kind of poetic language and inspired dreams of our biblical prophets for the redemption of all creation.

So, does this leave me anywhere in particular as far as various eschatological categories?

James, you may not agree with me but I would consider you to be a preterist post-millennialist The reason I'm saying you are preterist becuse you seem believe the book of Revelation is a contemporary book and I believe most preterist scholar will agree with you on that. Even those they believe bulk of the book of Revealation has nothing to do with second coming. Now don't know if you would go along with that ideal or not. I think that most preterist scholar would go along with the idea that Revelation was not only a contemporary for those who first read book but for all time.
Thanks
Larry P.

[Larry Parsons]

By Chilton,
"Can the doctrine of the Church be accurately described as either postmillennialist or amillennialist? In general, the difference between those traditionally called "amillennialists" and those traditionally called "postmillennialists" has been set in terms of their interpretations of the "thousand years" (in Latin, the millennium) of Revelation 20. ''Ami!lennialists" have usually seen this text as a reference to the condition of the saints reigning in heaven, while "postmillennialists" have understood it as a description of the saints' dominion on earth. As we shall see, however, this way of framing the question can actually obscure some very important facts about the Christian view of "the Millennium." If we wish to gain an understanding of the orthodox position, we must understand that the answer to this precise question cannot be determined primarily by the exegesis of particular texts. For example, "amillennialists" often disagree with each other about the precise nature of the resurrection(s) in Revelation 20 (to cite only one of several major points in dispute). And one of leading "postmillennialist" scholar of the early part of this century, proposed an exegesis of Revelation 20 which most theologians would consider to be classically "amillennialist"! Our framing of the question, therefore, should be broad enough to account for the diversity of approach among the various amillennialist and postmillennialist camps. In essence, the question of the Millennium centers on the mediatorial Kingdom of Christ: When did (or will) Christ's Kingdom begin? And once we pose the question this way, something amazing happens- something almost unheard of in Christian circles: Unity! From the Day of Pentecost onward, orthodox Christians have recognized that Christ's reign began at His Resurrection/Ascension and continues until all things have been thoroughly subdued under His feet, as St. Peter clearly declared (Acts 2:30-36). "The Millennium," in these terms, is simply the Kingdom of Christ. It was inaugurated at Christ's First Advent, has been in existence for almost two thousand years, and will go on until Christ's Second Advent at the Last Day. In "millennial" terminology, this means that the return of Christ and the resurrection of all men will take place after "the Millennium." In this objective sense, therefore, orthodox Christianity has always been postmillennialist.That is to say, regardless of how "the Millennium" has been conceived (whether in a heavenly or an earthly sense),regardless of the technical exegesis of certain points in Revelation 20-orthodox Christians have always confessed that Jesus Christ will return after (''post'') the period designated as "the thousand years" has ended. In this sense, all "amillennialists" are also "postrnillennialists."
At the same time, orthodox Christianity has always been amillennialist (Le., non-millenarian). The historic Church has always rejected the heresy of Millenarianism (in past centuries, this was called chiliasm, meaning thousand-year-ism). The notion that the reign of Christ is something wholly future, to be brought in by some great social cataclysm, is not a Christian doctrine. It is an unorthodox teaching, generally espousedby heretical sects on the fringes of the Christian Church."

Thanks
Larry P

[Billy Cox]

Okay, it was just a thought. You are more knowledgeable than I about such things. I've generally seen "post" as fairly undefined as far as a time table is concerned, including the literal 1000 years. I view it as an expansion of and gradual advance of the Kingdom to the point that the Church is the most influential body on the face of the planet and culminating with the return of Christ and the establishment of his rule on earth.

Pre-mil is like trashing the hotel room with full faith that the hotel maid will clean it up in due time. Post-mil is like believing that the hotel maid won't show up until we make the room spotless.

[Benjamin Burch]

I think that Michael Lodahl asks a similar question in Claiming Abraham:



Not sure how this fits into this discussion, but it feels as though it does.

Dr. Lodahl has said some things to me in person and in class which has totally reshaped my eschatological outlook. It has been so helpful for someone who (1) comes at this from a process philosophical perspective, (2) a panentheistic perspective, and (3) a concern for the law of entropy and the difficulties there as Dave Mann has suggested.

I am not really at liberty here to discuss it on a private forum, though.

[Hans Deventer]

I feel my view is almost the opposite. Perhaps this has more to do with the entropy discussion and the idea of this world fading away as the Kingdom comes. I sort of see the Church becoming more marginalized as time goes on - sort of the idea of a remnant. God continues to refine the Church until Christ's return where the chaotic, dying world is replaced with a new one - one in which the Church is perfectly at home and one which seems foreign and unbearable to those who have lived in the way of dying world.

I'm with you. There's a pretty strong principle in the Scriptures that something needs to die before it can bring forth fruit.

[Hans Deventer]

I think that Michael Lodahl asks a similar question in Claiming Abraham:

I am wondering about the viability of an alternative eschatology, a humbler, more localized hope. I am wondering about the possibility that God entertains a hope that, even yet, the exaltation of the Crucified Lord will attract more and more people toward Jesus and his community of disciples, the church. But that hope goes hand in hand with a church that actually does practice the sort of eschatological life Paul describes in Philippians 2:1-11.... There is no evidence that God is interested in coercing Christians into such a life together; why should we expect that at some point God will resort to coercion, a kind of divine violence, in order to usher in a world of righteous love?

The process of mutual giving-and-receiving in Philippians 2:1-11--offered by Paul as the model for corporate existence together as the Christian community--does inded suggest a very different reading of divine power, and by extension a very different interpretation of Christian eschatology. The church is that gathered community, the eschatological community, which together makes this confession of humble Love Divine. Perhaps other religious traditions, most notably Islam, can justifiably await a dramatically divine denoument to the world as we know it. The church, on the other hand, apparently is called to embody, in the midst of the world as we know it, a radically different reality. Perhaps the church is called to BE the age to come.

A few things. I'm quite sure the church is called to be the age to come, as sure as I am that for most of it's existence, it failed miserably.

Second, if we humans are free indeed to make choices, it is very unlikely that all will come to faith. If they crucified the Lord Himself, no level of Christ-like living will produce that universal salvation. God won't coerce people into a life of living together, that's right. So there is no hope in that direction.

The more humble, localized hope is actually the high road to despair, for then our hope is in humans in stead of God.

[G R 'Scott' Cundiff]

Pre-mil is like trashing the hotel room with full faith that the hotel maid will clean it up in due time. Post-mil is like believing that the hotel maid won't show up until we make the room spotless.

That's pretty good! Thanks.

As a Wesleyan I can't help myself for being optimistic about God's grace. When I read about the Day of Pentecost and it's promised empowering, I think the Church has been given everything necessary to advance the Kingdom among the nations and in every culture.

I'm the first one to admit that we believers aren't getting the job done. Because of that you might say that in practice I'm pre-mil while in theory I'm post-mil. In theory, then, I still expect Christianity to get it's act together, that there will be a world-wide revival in which the nations turn to Christ. In my theory, though, I'm not on the "spotless" side as in your illustration, just a switch from where we are now, with the majority refusing to believe or follow the teachings of Jesus. Rather, a new day when only a minority refuses to believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus.

[Dave Mann]

Dr. Lodahl has said some things to me in person and in class which has totally reshaped my eschatological outlook. It has been so helpful for someone who (1) comes at this from a process philosophical perspective, (2) a panentheistic perspective, and (3) a concern for the law of entropy and the difficulties there as Dave Mann has suggested.

A lot going on here...

It would be interesting to hear more about this if at all possible. As much as I love the idea of non-coercive love as described by Oord (and I guess Lodhal too) I have some real problems with it if taken to an extreme as I think it just devolves into Theism v2.0.

In my way of thinking, "the fall" happened as soon as God committed to the creative act including the Big Bang and with it, admitted a degree of freedom and the embrace of what Fretheim calls "the divine if". In this way of thinking, death, suffering and entropy are all a necessary cost of doing business when God hovers over the deep and moves to shape the void. I'm fine with this (as it relates to the problem of pain) because I would rather exist in pain than not exist, so I side with God and praise him for creating.

But I can't align what I see in the unfolding of creation with a fully and entirely non-coercive God. I'm entirely swayed by the challenge of the fine tuned universe. We have a life bearing universe only by the thinnest of margins. There are only 3 options as I see it. First, it all happened by chance, which is ultimately where the scientific materialists (atheists) come out. Second, God kept his hands out of it once he lit the fuse. I think that the way I hear "non coercive love" described by Oord (and perhaps suggested by the Lodhal quote above?) is compatible with this view. The clock is wound and started but it is set on a shelf and left to run free from the interference of a coercive God. I think this is functionally the same as theism. A third alternative would be God as cosmic potter, whose hand is literally in all things guiding and shaping them (but not fully controlling) them as they unfold. This allows for massive amount of freedom and thus preservation of the divine "if", can be aligned with pain and suffering as a result but still allows God the potter and shaper to have direct creative influence. I can line that up in my mind with evolution and self-organizing dynamical systems and all of it. I'm pretty sure I part ways with Oord on this this. Not sure about Lodhal.

I should note that I don't think one needs to pick up process philosophy to get here. All it takes is an understanding of "objects" from the standpoint of dynamical systems (math). We're all pretty comfortable with understanding named whirlpools, storms and even rivers as dynamic objects. A river doesn't contain the same water one day to the next. In the same way, my body doesn't contain the same star dust that it did 20 years ago. My body is quite literally a different body than it was. If you add to this the insights of sociology then "Dave Mann" as a stable identity is rooted in a set of dynamical social (and physical) relationships and it is these relationships that give my identity constancy. I have no problem at all in thinking of my body dying and decaying and returning to start dust and for a creative loving God resurrecting "me" from star dust and breathing back into me the breath of life that comes from his identity forming relatedness to me. I am appealing to panenthesism here, I guess, as I'm calling out to the same God who "coerces" the cosmos to be life giving to "coerce" the star dust to give rise to this bodily form again.

[Aside, if somebody wants to make a run at this from a purely theistic POV, have at it but expect problems integrating it with the known universe.]

Where I do get stuck though is on the question of entropy. I'm not sure how to think about a new earth happening en masse or for there to be an eternity (the issue Billy Cox raised). The notion of balance and equilibrium that sits at the heart of shalom may have a physical metaphor if we could talk about a universe that achieves equilibrium. In all the discussions about dark matter, I've never heard that suggested. Usually the discussion is whether or not the universe expands forever to a cold death or the universe collapses and entropy reverses (all bets are off at that point). Could there be just enough dark matter for the universe to stabilize? Side note, it's been reported that Villani's work that just earned him a Fields medal implies that entropy happens at different rates at different times!!

[Thomas Oord]

Y'all,

The issue of eschatology is really important, and I've enjoyed reading some of the posts in this thread. Unfortunately, getting ready for the new year means that I can't engage the thread fully. But I did want to make these points briefly about my own view:

1. I think God is the almighty and all-loving Creator.
2. I think God never entirely controls others -- coercion -- either at the beginning or the end of our universe.
3. I think God is "hands on" by working through a variety of means to create and sustain all creation.
4. I think Christians can have genuine hope for God's victory at the end of the age, but I beleive this victory can be secured through the power of God's persuasive love and creaturely cooperation.
5. I affirm what I call a "participatory eschatology," whereby creation has a role to play in the fulfillment of God's desire to redeem all creation.
6. I haven't got all of this figured out! : )

Tom

[Larry Parsons]

That's pretty good! Thanks.

As a Wesleyan I can't help myself for being optimistic about God's grace. When I read about the Day of Pentecost and it's promised empowering, I think the Church has been given everything necessary to advance the Kingdom among the nations and in every culture.

I'm the first one to admit that we believers aren't getting the job done. Because of that you might say that in practice I'm pre-mil while in theory I'm post-mil. In theory, then, I still expect Christianity to get it's act together, that there will be a world-wide revival in which the nations turn to Christ. In my theory, though, I'm not on the "spotless" side as in your illustration, just a switch from where we are now, with the majority refusing to believe or follow the teachings of Jesus. Rather, a new day when only a minority refuses to believe in and follow the teachings of Jesus.

Scot, It was John Jefferson Davis made a contrasts between his own postmillennial view with premillennialism " Generally speaking the pre-mill's is more oriented toward helping those who have been hurt by the system than addressing the systemic evil" And the reason why the church is not move as fast as we should because half it believe victory will only after the Rapture and if we believe that we will never try to reform the world. we all talk about apostasy and we are living in the laodicean age but let me tell you something and you may not believe it But greatest Revival in the history of the Christian church occurred in communism China. In 1947 China had one million Christians with in 40 years the church grew between 50 and 100 million and if we just take 50 million number and what this means the church in China grew at a rate over 5 times the general population growth rate. Since this would equals at least 3000 conversions every day for 40 years so in one sence Pentecost has repeated everyday in China for 40 years. We could travel around the world and see what God's church is doing and we would see a victories church. I know people will say Larry don't read the news paper and watch T.V I like what Loraine Boetter a Presbyterian postmillennialist had to say about the world condition They are only speed bumps to slow us down. There will be up and down and sometime it will look like the church is losing the battle and at other time it will look like the church is winning. We will never have to be air-lifted to safety to prevent us from being over power by the antichrist
Scot if you ever run into Harold Graves Sr. tell him I said hi, we meet at the Kentucky camp meeting.
Thanks
Larry P