J. Ligon Duncan on Eschatology
I came across this comment by J. Ligon Duncan on escatology recently and was amazed by the way that it expressed my own particular leanings on the question of the millennium. Its always wonderful when you can find someone as brilliant as Duncan express a certain viewpoint or position that you hold to, but may not be able to express or defend adequately.The specifics of the millennial question have never been the main focus of my teaching on eschatology, but I suppose I'd be characterized as amil or postmil on most matters relating to that (I say a- or post- partly because on the one hand I look for continuity between the already and the not yet in terms of the reign of God's kingdom on earth [in a way that most amils don't], and yet on the other hand do not conceive of a "golden age" in the way that classic postmillennialism does - I see a simultaneously increasing opposition to the kingdom growing alongside an ever advancing and expanding kingdom).
Men like Duncan who are such accomplished scholars know more about eschatology than most of us could ever hope to know, even if it is not their main area of expertise. If someone so knowledgeable on such a subject can express a certain amount of uncertainty as to exactly how something like the millennium will play out, I hope we can all recognize that our own positions should probably be subject to some scrutiny. Any thoughts on the millennium or Duncan's particular position?
posted by Andrew Stout | 9:22 AM
4 Comments:
'Already-Not Yet' tends to be the anthem of the amillennialist (Eldon Ladd), while 'definitive-progressive-final’ is the trumpet herald of the postmillennialist (Chilton). For me, I actually lean toward the latter. The key to ones eschatology depends on Hermeneutics – we can both read the same scripture and come to two wide conclusions, the main ones are the “until” passages of Ps 110:1 and Eph 4:13; the enemies becoming a footstool, and the unity of the faith. How I Read it Jesus will not come back ‘until’ these two things occur. The definitive-progressive-final means that victory has been achieved, is being achieved in history (as compared to an amil interpretation) and it will be achieved finally. An amil view tends to put off any real victory to the final state and I just don’t see that in my bible. Plus that Spurgeon quote is awesome!
“The Holy Ghost would never suffer the imputation to rest upon His Holy name that He was not able to convert the world” Its Spurgeon so it must be true! Right?
JB
It is all to easy to point out where others have gone wrong than to help point them in the right direction. That is to say, winning a debate often becomes more important that discovering God's truth.
My prayer is the God will continue to reveal his plan to us and stir us to act.
What I do know is that God's purposes will be fulfilled and his Kingdom will come in fullness...and its will be spectacular. But I'm sure you already knew that.
But for the amillennialist, I just wonder why they have hope in an advancing Kingdom, but are not in faith to say that all the nations (which are His possession) will recognize Christ as King and His Kingdom as great (like in Ps. 2)?
Jon,
In my reading of the passages that deal with the millennium and the return of Christ, I see a certain ambiguity surrounding these things, which I think anyone would agree with. It seems to me that amillennialism provides a better basis for dealing with these ambiguities while emphasizing the cross as the focal point of history, and the thing which defines the victory that we experience as Christians.
While there is no doubt that much of amillennial thought has been characterized by a rather pessimistic view of the future growth of the church, I don't think that this is something that is inherent within amillennialism as a position. I think that a weak pneumatology contributes to this pessimism, so perhaps an amillennialism with a more robust understanding of the work of the Spirit could provide us with a more "optimistic amillennialism" (a term I've stolen from the likes of Ern Baxter and Timothy Keller).
Regardless, I like what I've heard R.C. Sproul say before: Of the four basic millennial positions, dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism, amillennialism, and postmillennialism, I am only confident enough to say that one of these could be wrong according to the witness of Scripture, and that is dispensational premillennialism.
Ruth,
"What I do know is that God's purposes will be fulfilled and his Kingdom will come in fullness...and its will be spectacular."
Amen! This is the end of each of the historic millennial positions; it’s just a matter of how exactly we are going to get there. As for amillennialists not "being in faith" that the nations will recognize Christ, I don't think it can be said that they lack faith, but that they have a particular conviction from Scripture as to how these things will come about. I think a case could be made that the "already/not yet" emphasis of amillennialism puts the issue more in the arena of faith than the idea of a "golden age" of postmillennialism does. I'm not saying that the latter is lacking faith in any way, I'm simplying saying that I don't think it's fair to characterize amillenialists as lacking faith.
By the way Ruth, I really want to thank you for your contributions to the blogs! They're very insightful and they really force me to think through my position, which is about as high a compliment as I know to give.
Wow, this is way to long of a response, especially considering that I don't vehemently disagree with anything from the previous comments.
I should stop writing.
I think I will.
Right
now
.
How can one reconcile any pessimistic eschatology (all but postmil) with this magnificent promise of progressive restoration, in history, before Christ returns?
"For behold I create a new heavens and a new earth; and the former shall not be remembered or come to mind. But be glad and rejoice forever in what I create; for behold I create Jerusalem as a rejoicing, and her people a joy.
I will rejoice in Jerusalem; and joy in My people; the voice of weeping shall no longer be heard in her, nor the voice of crying. No more shall an infant from there live but a few days, nor an old man who has not fulfilled his days; for the child shall die one hundred years old. But the sinner being one hundred years old shall be accursed. They shall build houses and inhabit them; they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit. They shall not build and another inhabit; they shall not plant and another eat; for as the days of a tree, so shall be the days of my people, and my elect shall long enjoy the work of their hands. They shall not labor in vain, nor bring forth children for trouble; for they shall be the descendants of the blessed of the Lord, and their offspring with them. It shall come to pass that before they call, I will answer, and while they are still speaking I will hear. The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent's food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain, says the Lord.
... Isaiah 65: 17-25.
Note that death has not yet been defeated. This is a fantastic view of the glorious New Creation in which we reside. Glory! A clearly
powerful, eschatological prophecy!
Andrew, your observation is on target: the amil and premil brothers and sisters cannot grasp this hope and joy absent the baptism and intimacy of the Holy Ghost. Don't join them; minister to them; and rejoice as they are filled and envisioned, as you have been!
For equipping & edification, see:
"Millennialism and Social Theory," (Gary North, 1990, I.C.E), and
Q & A 191, Larger Catechism, WCF (1640): "What do we pray for in the second petition?"
Appreciate you hospitality.
Well done on your blog!
Post a Comment
<< Home