Declaring a Position: I am Amil
This has been a point of consternation for me, over the years, but one that is finally coming to an end. I grew up Classic Dispensational, moved to Progressive Dispensationalism (for the last 10yrs 
approx), and finally have consummated with the Amillennial position. I first read A Case for Amillennialism by Kim Riddlebarger about five years ago; and it piqued my interest (even though I was avowedly against amillennialism, as a staunch dispy/premiller). I went on to read other books by Hoekma, Grenz, Beale, et al., all amillers, and very helpful in my decision making on this issue; beyond that, and since then I have read much of TF Torrance who is certainly amil in approach (and I think, of course for good reason, since much of this issue revolves around how one conceives of time and eternity). I have gone back and forth over the years, but the reality is is that I think amil when I approach scripture; and at the same time, though, I’ve been trying to fit that thinking into the Progressive Dispy framework — which in the end really doesn’t work.
Anyway, I’ve kind’ve put this issue on the back burners, given other things going on in life, both physically and theologically; but recently was prompted to revisit it, so I picked up Riddlebarger’s book again wherein he provides some really good exegesis on key texts in regards to establishing the veracity of the amil position contra the premil/dispy approach (or even again postmil for that matter). After re-reviewing this, thinking through the strong arguments for the amil position (its interpretation of key texts like: Dan. 9; Mt. 24; Rom. 9–11; Rev. 20; etc.), from both a biblically theological and dogmatical orientation I am more than happy to identify as an amiller. This might seem “quick,” but I assure you it’s not; I’ve been dealing with this issue for years, and it’s time for me to just admit that amil is the best way forward (the only reason I’ve been holding onto dispyism is sadly for sentimental reasons, more than anything else, it’s what I grew up with, it’s where all my ties, culturally, have been). In fact I really find it to be a very refreshing and edifying way to approach scripture; so often I felt I had to contrive things to make the dispy system work. In other words I find the amil system very much so to represent a straightforward reading of scripture; and the thing I find most refreshing is its focus on Christ as the touchstone to scripture (vs. the nation of Israel a la dispyism), by way of interpretation.
Anyway, there it is, from here on out I’ll be known as an amillennialist in regards to this all important interpretive issue. The scriptures actually open up through this approach in ways that were shut down in my dispy days (i.e. Daniel 9 takes on a whole new perspective, very Messianic in orientation). I would encourage anyone interested in this issue to pick up Kim’s aforementioned book: A Case for Amillennialism; it is very good, and straightforward, especially for those who come from a dispy background (it will give you alot to chew on, at least).
Caveat: Riddlebarger’s book is promoting a “Federal approach” of interpreting things, he has a whole section devoted to this kind of interpretation in chapters: 4–11. What his book is helpful for, instead, is introducing folks to the issues (Grenz’s book: “Millennial Maze” is actually better for this); but really what I’ve found helpful are his chapters: 12-15 and his interpretation of key texts relative to this issue. There are certain literary features of interpretation that Riddlebarger appeals to that are helpful; but I am aware of another approach of interpretation that does not have to ground itself in the ‘Federal or Covenantal’ “way” here, it is known as the Canonical Critical approach (most commonly associated in its ‘Evangelical’ form with John Sailhammer). This approach appreciates the literary themes and motifs emphasized in scripture, which Federalists, at points, pick up on (although their approach is more ‘loaded’ with excess theological baggage than I am comfortable with). Anyway, the way I’m approaching this will be through this lens (more of the ‘canonical approach’); and then the ‘Covenantal’ approach provided by folks like T. F. Torrance (and the ‘Evangelical Calvinists’ of Scotland).
29 Responses to “Declaring a Position: I am Amil”
Recent Comments
 | Bobby Grow on EC Book… |
 | Bev Mitchell on EC Book… |
| Bobby Grow on “TEC” Archive… |
 | Jon Sellers on “TEC” Archive… |
| Bobby Grow on “TEC” Archive… |
Copy Info
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.
Congratulations Bobby! The Federal Calvinists will be reassured by this move of yours
As preimill I am, of course, not happy to see a compatriot jump ship, but one must follows the Scriptures to the best of their ability. Go well my friend.
Yeah, it should get me in the door in ways you’re unable
. . . . You’re the one who prompted to re-think this again, Myk; it’s all your fault 
! But I do have to go where I think scripture does, and this is it. Certainly the hardest point is the Greek in Rev; but the context helps clarify how the Greek should be understood there (i.e. in re. kai eidon pattern).
You’re historic premil, right; I would be interested to hear how you interpret Daniel 9 and other texts at some point. I don’t think they’ll be different than the amil position, eh?
Ah brother I always knew you were an anonymous amiller. Glad to see you come out of the closet!
Myk or Bobby – TFT was definitely amill no?
Glen,
I know
! Thank you, brother!
I’m sure TFT was amil, but of course not ‘Federal’; which is also what I want to qualify, while Riddlebarger is w/o a doubt Federal I am not. And there are plenty of examples of non-Fed Calvinists who were amil (I’m assuming Knox, Fraser, Binnings, Campbell, et al not to mention Sibbes and the whole “Spiritual Brethren” group in England).
As I look at scripture it just seems to be the most natural unforced way to read things. I have a hard time reading scripture non-dispy premil (I don’t see a real compelling reason for the premil approach if its not dispy — with the whole Israel/Church distinction framed it is in dispy ways . . . with this I see a reason for the literal one thousand yrs; but beyond this as the chronology of Revelation is unfolded around chptrs 19 and 20 the dispy/premil approach seems to be really problematic).
Anyway, I’m “in,” Glen; and happy to be. Let it be known, there are non-Federal amillers (I’m one), and I know you are too, Glen, eh?
TFT has a whole addendum in his book “Incarnation” on eschatology; I think he’s certainly amil, just framed differently than the Feds do it (for different reasons)— I’ll have to reread his section there.
From this angle, it certainly appears you’ve made a sudden about0face. Happy you’ve found eschatological peace!
I finally found the amill talks that first got Craig’s and my attention.
http://www.puritanfellowship.com/2009/07/end-times-made-simple-sam-waldron.html
I’d have to say the two-age concept makes a lot of sense and I really appreciated Mr. Waldron’s respectful “tone” when speaking of those who disagree with him.
The concept of the millenium being more of an overview instead of a literal 1,000 years makes sense in light of the continuity of the rest of Scripture. Still sorting and waiting for the light bulb to go on, though.
Craig ordered that second book you recommended a while back. We figured it would be a good resource for him regardless of whether it helps me any.
Heather,
Yeah, this has been an issue for me for awhile.
One thing I want to caveat is that there is often times an “Covenant” or “Federal” way being amil; I want to say upfront, of course, that this is not my way. Riddlebarger’s book has a whole section devoted to Federal ways of interpreting things, this is not my approach; “my approach” is refined through folks like Torrance and understanding through a “single-will” of God (which is fodder for another post).
I’ll have to check out that link, I’m almost positive these guys are Federal; but that doesn’t mean we can’t learn from them too (at least in this re.).
What book did you buy? Lubeck’s or Blaising/Bock (on PD)?
It’s probable they’re federal. I think there is also a link to Mr. Riddlebarger’s site at the bottom of the post.
Part of the reason I stopped reading books about eschatology is because of the intermingling of various doctrines. I’m not smart enough to be able to separate details and was starting to feel that if I accept one aspect of the author’s view, I’d have to take the whole thing.
I do recall you have said that isn’t necessary. Craig’s far more balanced that way, too.
In my case, it might be smarter to study scripture first and then take another look at the various systems of thought.
But, you’re right about being able to learn from them. I just need a good guide. Or better yet, a good Guide.
We got Lubeck’s book. Craig thought it looked to be a good investment.
Excellent, Heather! Lubeck’s book is great, you guys will really benefit from it.
Ah, forming views is certainly a process; a life-time process for sure. I think reading and studying scripture is indeed the way to go, and I think getting some of Ray’s principles in place will help you to better work through the various interpretive traditions, for sure. Ray is premil, but the principles he’s providing don’t necessitate that one be premil or amil.
It is strange for me to say that I am amil in some ways; I have been grown dipsy premil for so long I feel a bit naked
.
It is strange for me to say that I am amil in some ways; I have been grown dipsy premil for so long I feel a bit naked
Don’t I know it!
That feeling is not so different from the one that follows a recognition that TULIP-style Calvinism can lead to a very un-Christ centered world view.
Christ harvests. He threshes. As He receives and teaches His own, we are purified and learn to be thankful for having been rescued from our current pitiful existence here.
Bobby, it is so worthwhile to allow the Lord to burn away the chaff so that we are only clinging to and loving Him. I do believe that is a main point of our life’s experiences.
I’ve had to accept that where my intellect and understanding fail, He still is faithfully holding everything together. That’s a pretty comforting blanket to wrap around when when you’re feeling exposed.
Yeah, I was weaned on dispensationalism; seriously its been apart of my identity since I was basically born. Harry Ironside was a prominent figure in my house-hold as my dad referred to him when he was putting together his sermons. I grew up with charts like this):
http://www.armageddonbooks.com/hallc.jpg
http://www.yeshuatyisrael.com/images/revelation_chart.jpg
It is good to know that “what” we know isn’t decisive, but “who” we know. Of course what we know helps us know who we know much better, which is why studying is such an important part of our development as Christians growing in the grace and knowledge of Jesus Christ. It is important to rest in Him in this process, and understand the unconditionality of His love for us. Whether we are classic dispy premil or amil won’t ultimate make a differency in Heaven; except that one will know they were wrong and the other right, or maybe both wrong
hehe.
Both wrong, Bobby. Historic premill is the way to go.
Yikes!
I think I’ve seen a version of that first chart somewhere fairly recently. It seems a lot of Bible Belt Christians hold to the Fall of Satan-recreation-”Gap” theory that the beginning of the chart appears to represent. I’d never heard of that concept until I was an adult. But if I’d grown up with access to visual aids like that, I think I’d have had nightmares pretty regularly.
The black line charts tend to give the impression that God is impersonal and cold.
Under dispensationally influenced teaching, I really used to wonder how in the world it could be considered a blessing to have come in contact with the Revelation prophecy.
I do appreciate your emphasis on resting in Christ. That is easy to forget when we live in a society that places so much emphasis on the ability of the human intellect to make sense of information.
Maybe you’re right about everyone being wrong. Craig said something very similar about an hour ago. Guess we’ll find out eventually.
Nah, historic premil really doesn’t have any compelling reasons for holding to a literal 1000 years in the future — theologically. The only thing hist. premil hangs on is the grammar of the Greek, which is somewhat compelling; but when coupled with the rest of the context (to read it linearly) it seems problematic. Plus you have to be post-trib, which just does not work.
Hi Heather,
Not all dispys are followers of those charts; progressives are not, but some can be a little daunting and cold as you say.
I’m not a “pan” out kind of guy, I am convicted about my position from scripture; but I’m willing to be wrong, as you’ll notice, only in Heaven
. . . . which I don’t plan on 
.
Bobby,
Just gotta throw my post-mil 2c in here. I’m kind of a modified post-mil (w/ modified partial preterist position), not quite like the 19th century version. The kingdom grows until the whole earth is discipled. The Great Commission will be a success (not like dispy pre-mil where Christ, the Spirit and the church are all failures).
Well, at least there doesn’t seem to be anathematizing here on this blog over what hasn’t happened yet. I heard a quote attributed to Rushdoony that went like this: “I have no problem changing my eschatology in mid-air.”
Peace.
Hi Scott,
Thanks. I don’t think dispy premils believe that the church and the Spirit are failures; much like amil they are just realistic about the state of this world (as Jesus makes clear in the Olivet discourse). To be honest I think Postmil has good intentions; but I just don’t see it as realistic per the teaching of scripture. The church and the Spirit are not failures, remember the Church, part of it, right now, are in heaven — and have overcome the world (as we have by faith).
I just will never see the merits of postmil (I understand it), I just don’t see it reflecting the trajectory that Jesus said would characterize the world preceding and at His coming.
“I have no problem changing my eschatology in mid-air.”
I love that!
Seriously, though. I have no problem with accepting that the preterist position has a point. A person would have to be totally ignorant of history (or in denial) to be able to overlook the fulfillment (at least in part) of much of Biblical prophecy. It is interesting to me, though, that the events of history also seem to be somewhat cyclical. Ecclesiastes 1:9-11 appears to reference this. Is it not possible that God uses very similar patterns throughout the ages in order to accomplish His plan?
I dunno. But the thought has crossed my mind that both preterists and futurists could be partially correct.
Regardless of how we understand the actual playing out of events, we can all agree that Jesus IS currently reigning and we who are currently stuck in the temporal realm WILL eventually see the full fruition of His victory….
Bobby,
I don’t think dispy pre-mils think they are failures either; I just took an opportunity for a tongue-in-cheek comment. A while back I did an eschatology survey of my blog readers, and there were a considerable number of variations on a theme.
One approach I’ve taken is in trying to keep the obvious things in view when interpreting the obscure. The book of Revelation has quite a bit of metaphorical language, and to try to get things to fit, people force the dot connecting. Every view has its problems, and I appreciate the experts that note that up front.
Steve,
Thanks for the good word. I agree, this is a challenging area of study; and so it is important to be approached with humility, but certainly with conviction.
Yes, I would identify, at this point as partial historist in re. to the Olivet discourse; and partial futurist in re. to the Olivet discourse
(but in a sense so are all the systems, dispy premillers just tend to emphasize the future while amillers can tend to emphasize history).
There is a whole range represented in all camps. So not all amillers are the same, same as premillers; they emphasize different things. For example I would associate with a camp of amillers who see a real hope for a remnant of ethnic Jews per Rom 9–11 (actually this is no different than what I held as a Prog Dispy — except for what the “Land” or millennium represents). I would also not identify as partial preterist, since my view is even more limited than what they would say in re. to fulfillment in the past (that’s why I would say I’m partial historist).
It is true that there is a general consensus amongst all historic Christians on the general themes of end times; but that’s not what we’re talking about then, are we
?
I’m really not all that interested in changing things in mid-air. There are real reasons for holding to things, I’m afraid that quote is a little too relativist in orientation for me.
I’m really not all that interested in changing things in mid-air. There are real reasons for holding to things, I’m afraid that quote is a little too relativist in orientation for me.
I get that. And you’re right, it is important to strive to have as accurate an understanding as possible. This is part of the reason I’m forever tied in a knot worrying I’ve missed understanding something really important.
The quip just cracked me up because I was still thinking in terms of “both” perspectives being wrong.
And, this subject came up here a while back and someone else tossed a similar line to you.
Honestly, it depends on what day of the week it is for me as to whether or not I can answer this question with any sense of conviction (but I mostly sound like an amil—and not the “postive” kind either).
It so happens that I’ve just begun a 3-part series on how to read biblical prophecy. Maybe you’ll find it interesting.
Heather,
Theology definitely takes work and is a process; it’s dynamic, and that’s because our God is dynamic. I’m not a fan of Rushdoony at all, so maybe that bias’s me against his statement.
But like I said statement like that are rather relativist.
Yeah, I’m certainly not the “postive” kind.
It seems like the better I “understand” the positions (and I’ve been working on them over the last 14yrs), at points this makes it hard to own one. But I’ve definitely come the conclusion that dispyism isn’t the best one (even though I see PD with the most merit). I’ll keep working on this stuff, who knows maybe I’ll end up Historic Premil
.
Thanks, I’ll look forward to your series!
The move from Dispy premill to A-mill I can really relate to. Difference was, I ‘kept going’ and have settled on postmill.
I don’t think the ‘change mid-air’ quote is all that bad. I think it’s just reflecting the reality that we have different degrees of certainty about various doctrines of scripture and therefore there is, for some views we hold, a necessary admission of a possibility we’ll be wrong. I’m far more certain of Christ’s divinity than I am of my post’mill’ism, for example, and I think that actually reflects the relative clarity of scripture on and the relative importance of those two doctrines.
Hi Pete,
We can’t all be right
.
Yes, I agree, there is a spiraling continuum of importance relative to doctrine. If that’s what Rushdoony was getting at, then that’s great!
Thanks Bobby, indeed we can’t
I’ve no idea whether it a. was Rushdoony, or b. whether whoever said it (Rushdoony or not) meant it that way, but I have heard others use it that way.
From over here in the UK, my perspective would be that a-mill is the majority report, but more by default than anything else. Eschatology isn’t the big deal it is over in the States. Some of which is healthy, and some of which is actually a neglect of the scriptures and a ‘british’ unwillingness to have an opinion on something that might be controversial.
That’s not to say no-one is thought-through on it, whether a, pre or post. I’m generalising massively.
i am amil.