[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This sounds like amillennialism, not postmillennialism. Just saying, it's a minor point, no big deal.

I don't agree with all David Chilton says about things, but here is what he said about the a-mill and post-mill position, with remarks about premill.

What is the position of the historic, orthodox Church on the question of the Millennium? Can the doctrine of the Church be accurately described as either postmill-ennialist or amillennialist? In general, the difference between those traditionally called “amillennialists” and those traditionally called “postmillennialist” has been set in terms of their interpretations of the “thousand years” (in Latin, the millennium) of Revelation 20. “Amillennialists” have usually seen this text as a reference to the condition of the saints reigning in heaven, while “postmillennialists” have understood it as a description of the saints’ dominion on earth. As we shall see, however, this way of framing the question can actually obscure some very important facts about the Christian view of “the Millennium.” If we wish to gain an understanding of the orthodox position, we must understand that the answer to this precise question cannot be determined primarily by the exegesis of particular texts. For example, “amillennialists” often disagree with each other about the precise nature of the resurrection(s) in Revelation 20 (to cite only one of several major points in dispute). And Benjamin Warfield, perhaps the leading “postmillennialist”scholar of the early part of this century, proposed an exegesis of Revelation 20 which most theologians would consider to be classically “amillennialist”!1 Our framing of the question, therefore, should be broad enough to account for the diversity of approach among the various amillennialist and postmillennialist camps. In essence, the question of the Millennium centers on the mediatorial Kingdom of Christ: When did (or will) Christ’s Kingdom begin? And once we pose the question this way, something amazing happens –something almost unheard of in Christian circles:Unity! From the Day of Pentecost onward, orthodox Christians have recognized that Christ’s reign began at His Resurrection/Ascension and continues until all things have been thoroughly subdued under His feet, as St. Peter clearly declared (Acts 2:30-36). “The Millennium,” in these terms, is simply the Kingdom of Christ. It was inaugurated at Christ’s First Advent, has been in existence for almost two thousand years, and will go on until Christ’s Second Advent at the Last Day. In “millennial” terminology, this means that the return of Christ and the resurrection of all men will take place after “the Millennium.” In this objective sense, therefore, orthodox Christianity has always been postmillennialist. That is to say, regardless of how “the Millennium” has been conceived (whether in a heavenly or an earthly sense) – i.e., regardless of the technical exegesis of certain points in Revelation 20 –orthodox Christians have always confessed that Jesus Christ will return after (“post”) the period designated as“the thousand years” has ended. In this sense, all “amillennialists” are also “post-millennialist.” At the same time, orthodox Christianity has always been amillennialist (i.e., non-millenarian). The historic Church has always rejected the heresy of Millenar-ianism (in past centuries, this was called chiliasm, meaning thousand-year-ism). The notion that the reign of Christ is something wholly future, to be brought in by some great social cataclysm, is not a Christian doctrine. It is an unorthodox teaching, generally espoused by heretical sects on the fringes of the Christian Church.2