The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Would amillennialism falsify UR?

Theology Biblical Theology
#1

Universalists argue that the original words used in passages the seem (in English) to teach unending punishment actually have more to do with a coming age or ages, but most Christians (and even most universalists) seem to be amillennialists.

According to the amillennialist view, aren’t there only two ages–the present Church age (interpreted as a spiritual millennium), and the future unending age?

Doesn’t that teaching logically lead to the conclusion that the punishment of the (unending) age to come is endless?

Wouldn’t it lead to the conclusion that the coming (last, and unending) age (when saints are to reign, and sinners are to weep and gnash their teeth) is the “age of ages” (the greatest of all ages)?

Where does this (amillennialist) view of the future leave any room for coming finite ages of temporal punishment?

#2

Well, I consider myself a partial preterist, but I also believe in a literal Millennium dating from 70 AD to 1070 AD. I believe Christ’s reign with his saints and angels spanned exactly one thousand years, but the end of that kingdom was preceded by a split between Eastern (Byzantine) and Western (Roman) Kingdoms in 1054 AD. This is known as the Great Schism.

As every historian of Christianity knows, the Crusades began shortly after 1070 AD (in 1095 AD). It could be said that Satan was completing his deception of the nations and gathering them for battle around that time (Revelation 20:7,8). We are not told in Revelation how long Satan’s freedom would last, but I think most believers can testify that he is freed, even unto this current time.

However, I can’t speak for all Universalists and preterists. Indeed, we are not at all in full agreement with each other on the details of our faith. One can be a premillennialist and a Universalist, another can be a postmillennialist and a Universalist, and so on. Likewise, one can be a Universalist and a preterist, another can be an annihilationist and a preterist, and so on. But I believe that Universalism and Preterism compliment each other in many ways, especially concerning the interpretation of ‘the age’, ‘the ages’, ‘the age of the ages’, ‘the ages of ages’, etc.

I am not fully familiar with what amillennialists actually teach about the Millennium, but your description certainly qualifies as an accurate expression of their belief. However, I wouldn’t limit Universalism to only one form of millennialism or preterism, since, as I explained above, interpretations vary.

No. The ‘age to come’ is simply the period in which Christ would reign from heaven with his Apostles, holy saints and angels for one thousand years, until Satan is released from his bondage (Revelation 20:7,8). In my view, those one thousand years have already passed. The Christian Church (the Second Israel) is now divided and scattered among the nations. However, the Kingdom of God is still within us (Luke 17:21), and we must still strive to live it out even in the midst of our divisions and Satan’s persecutions.

Ages (αἰῶνας) are neither unending nor eternal. This current age is, in my view, postmillennial because the one thousand years of Christ’s Kingdom on earth have already passed. ‘Heaven and earth’ will pass away, but Christ’s words will never pass away (Matthew 24:35). The second half of the 20th chapter of Revelation (verses 10-15), along with chapters 21 and 22, have yet to be fulfilled. Although Christ spiritually returned in AD 70 to symbolically “gather His elect from the four winds” (Matthew 24:31), a substantial Second Advent still had yet to be accomplished.

As I had acknowledged above, I am not entirely familiar with amillennialist views, but I don’t think it is necessary for a Universalist or a preterist to believe in a “coming ‘unending’ age”. Only Christ’s Kingdom is unending, but it is more of a condition rather than a period of time. I believe we are currently living in a “finite age of temporal punishment” or, more correctly, eonian judgement. However, the Kingdom is still ‘at hand’ if we are able to see it within ourselves and in others. The more humanity is able to realize this fact, the more able will we be made to escape eonian judgements. As eonian judgements are the conditions of a sin-stricken world, the Kingdom of God (established ‘on earth as it is in Heaven’) is the condition of a sinless world.

#3

I’m late to this show, but it seemed worth pointing out that Origen was Amill.

#4

I know this is an old post, but just joining the discussion. Recently I have been persuaded to reconsider amillennialism instead of historic (non-dispensational) pre-millennialism. This post made the useful observation that having the future ages of the church age and the millennial age before the GWT provides a helpful explanation for Christ’s various judgments. For example, Jesus said that that blasphemy of the spirit would not be forgiven in this age of the age to come.

So if ‘this age’ is the church age and ‘the age to come’ is the millennial kingdom then forgiveness can still be effected after that. That understanding fits nicely with premillennialism.

Of course ‘this age’ could be the nearly ended Jewish age while Jesus spoke and ‘the age to come’ could be the Church age / 1,000. Then forgiveness could be realized at the end of the church age. So that explanation will works with amillennialism.

There are others who see an end to the ages of the ages in the Lake of Fire with converted mankind being extracted out of the LOF. However, that understanding seemed to push things to far forward to me. I’ve understood that the LOF is prepared only for the Devil and his angels and so mankind will never enter those fires.

Any further thoughts form anyone else on the compatibility of universalism and the Church age as the millennium?

#5

I am Eastern Orthodox and, as such, thoroughly universalist. I would posit two great eras of the history of man:

  1. from the creation of Adam to the conception of Christ

  2. from the conception of Christ to His Second Coming

#7

I have studied over 1,700 pages of the Orthodox Church’s liturgy. The words of the liturgy are the words of the Church. Universalism is all over the place in those 1,700 pages. I would bet good money that I could pick any page at random, start reading, and come to an affirmation of universalism within 10 pages (at most). In fact, sometimes the affirmations occur several times on a page, and/or on several consecutive pages. The overall tone and tenor of the liturgy is universalistic. There isn’t much there to hang non-universalism on. There are some (comparatively few) harsh passages in the liturgies of the Great Fast, but none of them is a clear teaching of non-universalism. Universalism is baldly and bluntly stated in the liturgies so many times that it must be in there literally hundreds of times in those 1,700 pages.

I therefore conclude that the teaching of the Orthodox Church is universalism. This isn’t to deny that there are plenty of non-universalist Orthodox believers, both today and in the past. But none of them (even the very greatest of saints) is the Church. We are each merely sons of the Church, and therefore each of us is fallible. In any case, the Orthodox liturgies are the only “official” teaching of the Orthodox Church. Every other Orthodox writing is only the opinion of the author.

In short, I would ask those of my Orthodox brethren who ignore the universalistic teachings of the liturgy: How can you NOT be a universalist if you are Orthodox? :slight_smile:

#8

St. Gregory of Nyssa is revered in the EO church, is he not? And he was most certainly a universalist. Right?

Love,

Andy

#9

“Concepts create idols; only wonder comprehends anything." - Gregory of Nyssa

#10

Rough sketch of the ages as I presently see them(through the glass darkly)

one Creation to Noah

two Noah to second advent

three Second advent to great white throne

four Great white throne/lake of fire/final adversaries subjected and reconciled until God becomes all in all

five Everlasting age after death is anulled and God is all in all.

I dont think amillenialism is all that popular. Almost everyone I have ever known believed in at least four ages- one past. One we’re in. the millenial age. an everlasting age.

#12

Thanks for the input above, but please don’t hi-jack the post.

The original question is does amillennialism underline UR because it make the 1,000 equal to the church age and thus removes one age from the calendar of many theologies?

The question of whether Eastern Orthodox is UR is a great question. Perhaps someone ought to start another post on that.

#13

But is this a fair and true statement OR a mere assumption that’s actually driving the question/s asked?

#14

yeah. Frankly I’ve been lost on that question. Seems like every camp claims that their view is the historic view whether pre, post, a, or preterist. I haven’t had the time the thoughtfully prove that for myself, so I’ve focused on the Scriptures themselves. Afterall, just because a majority in the past concluded that something is true does not make it absolutely certain. Though, it should be more seriously considered.

#15

It seems to me that 1 Cor 15:22-28; Eph 1:9-11; Col 1;15-20; Rom 8:18-23; John 12:32 and Phil 2:9-11 still add up to a UR conclusion regardless of what view, not to mention Romans 11:32-36.

#16

yes, agreed. I have no question about that. However, I am trying work on my millennial view. so another related question is when Jesus says ‘this age’ and ‘the age to come’ what ages does he have in view. Different UR eschatologies answer that question differently.

#17

My view, for two cents worth, is centered around what I think is Paul’s view on the ages in Ephesians.

In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

I see it as all about the first-fruits/ecclesia " He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created."

Jame’s first fruits in 1:18 are for me the same as Paul’s, “that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.”

Continuing in Ephesians 1

These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in** this age but also in the one to come**.

Then in Eph 2

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10** For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.**

So Paul sees this age, the one to come, and ages to come, in his “administration suitable to the fulness of times”.

This for me co-ordinates with Roman’s 8

For I consider that the sufferings of this present time(this age) are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed(age to come and ages to come) to us. 19 For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God…in hope 21 that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God…23 And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, **the redemption of our body.
**

So Paul sets this glorious revelation at the time of the redemption of our body. Without listing a bunch of verses Paul sets the redemption of our bodies at the end of this age, at the coming of the Lord… “Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.”

This second advent, according to Peter also, begins the “period of the restoration of all things”, just as with Paul…

19 Therefore repent and return, so that your sins may be wiped away, in order that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord; 20 and that He may send Jesus, the Christ appointed for you, 21 whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time…

The reason I mention the first fruits is that this whole idea integrates with Rev 20

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years. 5 The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection. 6 Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection; over these the second death has no power, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.

We are a kind of first fruits of His creation. Those who partake in the first resurrection will participate as priests with Christ in the continuing “administration suitable to the fulness of times, the gathering together into one of all things in Christ”

So we have this age, “this present time” in which we “suffer with Him that we may also reign with Him”. We will reign with Him through the first resurrection initiating “the age to come”- the millenial reign, and begin the “period of the restoration of all things”, the setting free of the whole creation from futility(into the glorious freedom of the children of God). Then at the end of that age there is the great white throne and the lake of fire which is the second death, which I see as the beginning of another finite age.

In 1 Cor 15 Paul says Christ must reign until every adversary is subjected, all rule power and authority abolished, and God becomes all in all(everything in everyone). Therefore, in my opinion, as long as there is death there is time so I believe there is at least one more age involved in the lake of fire period until the last adversary bows the knee and the fire has brought the last hidden thing to light, having consumed the last of darkness and the last of death swallowed up by immortality, initiating a final everlasting age once God is all in all.

But so little is written about the time beyond the great white throne I think it is presumptive to speak to clearly about that. But this age, the one to come, and ages to come are clearly in Pauls eschatology and it must have been the common eschatology of the church because Paul writes to the Thessalonians

Now** as to the times and the epochs, brethren, you have no need of anything to be written to you**. 2 For you yourselves know full well that the day of the Lord will come just like a thief in the night.

The thief is death, imo- and until the actual historic Day of His appearing comes(obviously I believe there will be such a day :slight_smile: we must walk as children of the day so that we will awaken in that first resurrection on that Day. No one knows the Day or the hour, only the Father in heaven, so go up on the roof, Watch and Pray and keep LOOKING UP :wink:

“More than that, I count all things to be loss in view of the surpassing value of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord, for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and count them but rubbish so that I may gain Christ, 9 and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith, 10 that I may know Him and the power of His resurrection and the fellowship of His sufferings, being conformed to His death; 11 in order that I may attain to the resurrection from the dead.”

#18

Thanks Eaglesway. I think your view might be called historic premillennialism which has been my view.

However, recently I was reconsidering amillennialism which understands the 1,000 to be a figurative time frame for the church age, between Christ’s first and second advent. The challenge with amillennialism is that view takes one age out of the discussion. Some NT passages seem to be more easily understood with a millennial age after the church age and before the LOF age. One would also need to answer the question about Satan, that is what does it mean that he is bound, if 1 Peter 5:8 warns us that he is prowling around. And a-millennialists understand the first resurrection in Rev 20 to be the spiritual resurrection to the new birth.

For pro amillennial thoughts someone pointed out to me that Rev 20:1-6 actually doesn’t say anything about peace, but only that Satan is restricted from deceiving the nations. That could describe this time period in that Satan’s devils are still on the loose and there has been no world wide attack on either Christians or Jews since Christ. I know many point to OT passages that speak of the restoration of all things, but Isaiah 65 speaks of the New Heavens and Earth and the 1,000 years is before that.

Okay am thinking out loud here.

#19

Yes, the Orthodox Church venerates St. Gregory of Nyssa. He was the president of the Second Ecumenical Council, and the Seventh Ecumenical Council referred to him as “the Father of Fathers”.

St. Gregory of Nyssa was certainly a universalist here on earth, and he is most certainly a universalist now. :slight_smile:

#20

No. The only authoritative interpreter of the Bible is the Church, and the Church gives her interpretation in the liturgy. If it’s in the liturgy, a member of the Orthodox Church has to believe it. If it’s not in the liturgy, it is (at best) doubtful. :slight_smile:

#21

No hijacking intended. Consider:

Of the main millennial viewpoints of which I am aware (amillennialism, postmillennialism, premillennialism, and dispensational premillennialism), amillennialism comes closest to the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Since the Orthodox Church has for 2,000 years taught both universalism and amillennialism, there is clearly not a contradiction between the two. :slight_smile:

#22

From a fulfilled perspective it is indeed “figurative” speaking of wholeness or fullness (1000 e.g., Psa 50:10) equating to the 40yr biblical generation i.e., AD30-70. Thus the primary “ages” involved were “this age” = old covenant and “the age to come” = new covenant.

Where reference is made to “ages” plural, this is understood as referring to any successive era as encompassed by the everlasting new covenant age (from age-to-age), as Paul says “world without end” Eph 3:21. From the fulfilled perspective there is NO eschatology (no end) relative to the new covenant age… biblical eschatology was all about the end of the old covenant age; thus NO end to the new covenant age… hence Paul’s “world without end”.