AMILLENNIAL PESSIMISM

PMT 2015-090 by Kenneth L. Gentry, Jr.

Amillennialists often complain that postmillennialists wrongly categorize them as “pessimistic.” They generally reject this evaluation for two reasons: (1) It is negative sounding in itself. And (2) it overlooks the fact that they believe that ultimately Christ and his people win the victory at the end of history. Still other amillennialists deny this designation because they call themselves “optimistic amillennialists.”

What do postmillennialists mean by categorizing amillennialism as “pessimistic”? Is the charge legitimate. I believe it is.

Obviously all evangelical eschatological perspectives are ultimately optimistic — even dispensationalists who make a very nice living from books on cultural decline, despair, and doom. After all, Christ does lead his people to victory in saving them from their sins in history, resurrecting them from the dead at the end of history, and establishing them in righteousness in eternity. These issues are not debated among evangelicals: Christianity is of glorious, eternal consequence. But neither are these observations relevant to the debate between the millennial views.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond

(ed. by Darrell Bock)

Presents three views on the millennium: progressive dispensationalist, amillennialist, and reconstructionist postmillennialist viewpoints. Includes separate responses to each view

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Historically amillennialism has tended to be pessimistic in terms of the question of widespread, long-lasting cultural success for the Christian faith in time and on earth. That is, regarding these matters we should note:

First, as a system of gospel proclamation amillennialism teaches that the gospel of Christ will not exercise any majority influence in the world before Christ’s return. They allow that Christianity may enjoy flashes of revival and spurts of growth (e.g., the Reformation and the Great Awakening). Yet, by its very nature the amillennial system cannot allow that Christianity will become the dominant feature of human society and culture. Otherwise, it would actually be postmillennialism.

Second, as a system of historical understanding amillennialism, in fact, holds that the Bible teaches there are prophetically determined, irresistible trends downward toward chaos in the outworking and development of history. It is true that some amillennialists such as Jay E. Adams understand the great tribulation in the Olivet Discourse as referring (correctly) to the Jewish War and the AD 70 destruction of the temple. Yet their overall eschatological system necessarily demands a prophetically-determined collapse of society in history, as we can see in the writings of Jay Adams. Otherwise, it would actually be postmillennialism.

Amillennialism v. Postmillennialism Debate

(DVD by Gentry and Gaffin)

Formal, public debate between Dr. Richard Gaffin (Westminster Theological Seminary)

and Kenneth Gentry at the Van Til Conference in Maryland.

See more study materials at: www.KennethGentry.com

Third, as a system for the promotion of Christian discipleship amillennialism dissuades the Church from anticipating and laboring for wide-scale success in influencing the world for Christ during this age. It affirms the duty for churches to disciple converts, but it does not believe there will be enough converts to affect the direction of history. Otherwise, it would actually be postmillennialism. Regarding the question of so-called “optimistic amillennialists,” it seems to me that the verses an amillennialist would use to underscore his optimism are those that endorse a postmillennial perspective. Unless, of course, he is optimistic on grounds other than direct biblical revelation. Therefore, he should come out of the closet and be a postmillennialist.