Friday, March 26, 2010

Realized Millennialism

 I can't buy all that some postmill authors such as Greg Brahnsen say. Greg Bahnsen writes, "Thus we conclude that Reformed theology was launched with a postmillennial perspective, a heart-felt confidence in the promises of Scripture to the effect that Christ would subdue the whole world with the gospel. The dogmatics, commentaries, and prayers of Calvin form a beautiful and orchestrated presentation of an eschatological hope which would become a doctrinal distinctive and motivating power throughout the history of Reformed Christianity." But Calvin did not write on Revelation and I feel that Brahnsen is reading into Calvin's writings for his own viewpoint. Kim Riddlebarger says that amil is historical and so the opposing camps can claim any position from history when in history the terms postmil and amil were not used.

The choice between postmil and amil has been the underlying topic of this blog and finally I want to come out with my choice. I feel comfortable with amil, or "realized millennialism" after much reflection and reading Jay E. Adams' "The Time is at Hand" pictured here. It just doesn't seem that every day the world is getting better and better and that Christianity is being heralded all over the globe. 

Both postmil author Gentry and amil author Adams point out that Revelation had to have been written before 70 AD and here is where Adams gets his "realized millennialism". The kingdom of God is at hand we read in Revelation, happened shortly, and most (Rev. 1-19 and some of 20), but not all, of Revelation has happened.

Christ is on the throne on high and remains there until he puts all enemies under Him--with the last enemy being death, defeated at His second coming. This kingdom of God, the millennium which is only mentioned once in Scripture, really means an extended period. Christ can come at any time, and doesn't have to wait for the earth to be Christianized as postmil believe. This is my conclusion. Even so, Lord Jesus, come quickly.


  1. Great post. I came to a similar conclusion for the same reasons.

  2. I think I agree with you here.. it's the way I've been leaning..

  3. Enjoyed reading the post again. Great post!

  4. I agree with Riddlebarger the most (a little less realized than Jay Adams, perhaps).

    Has anyone else ever noticed how Bahnsen's and Gentry's views are all tied together - systemized in such a way that if one part fails, the entire system falls apart? You know, reconstructionism, revisionism, theonomic, postmillennialist, (VanTil) presuppositional only apologetics, federal vision, etc..

    Further Note: Bahnsen (not, Brahnsen) :) Thanks!

  5. Hey Deb! Nice to get your post. Gentry is not tied to Federal Vision at all and I haven't really studied Bahnsen.I will correct the spelling. Thanks, Deb.

  6. Thanks for the update on Gentry. I think I mistakenly lumped him in there. I have some friends in the OPC and they agree that Gentry is not federal vision too. My bad. Thanks!


Please be very respectful when you comment. I will try to respond to all comments in a timely manner. All comments are now moderated.