We must not think recent news out of Saint Louis is cause to slacken or pause. News from Saint Louis should stir us to remain vigilant against any who would erode the freedom of the gospel: freedom from the penalty of sin, freedom from the power of sin, and one day freedom from the presence of sin.

The PCA has been at a crossroads for some time as we debate what sort of denomination the PCA will be.
Will the Presbyterian Church in America be a denomination that is “Faithful to the Scriptures, True to the Reformed Faith, and Obedient to the Great Commission,” where officers and church courts uphold the Constitutional Standards of the PCA with integrity and sincerity? Or will the PCA be a denomination characterized by latitude and leniency with regard to the Standards?
Up until recently, the General Assembly of the PCA tended to issue actions and deliverances that favored that latter course: one of latitude and leniency. As I’ve written elsewhere, the presbycrats were largely allowed to run things.
But lately, attendance at the General Assembly has seen marked increase, especially since 2018 when it was so difficult for the General Assembly to grant constitutional authority to the chapter on marriage in the Book of Church Order. And a year later attendance skyrocketed after many in the PCA were scandalized by a speech in which TE Greg Johnson, PhD reflected on his unnatural lust on the floor of the Assembly.
I. Hoping for Repentance
Many throughout the PCA were shocked that a minister of the gospel would attempt to wax eloquent about his vile affections in hopes of swinging a vote against an overture. Further grief flowed seemingly every time that minister spoke publicly. During one now infamous podcast, he even seemed to go so far as to assert that unnatural affections are not within the scope of repentance:
What I hear is that you are judging brothers for not repenting of something that cannot be repented of.
From many corners of the PCA, individual elders and church courts wrote both to TE Johnson and to his presbytery urging him to repent of his views, actions, and statements. The Standing Judicial Commission (SJC) even took the unprecedented step of re-opening a case before it to provide additional opportunity for clarification and corrections by TE Johnson on what he meant.
Despite the clarifications when the SJC re-opened the case, members of the Standing Judicial Commission nonetheless issued a blistering concurring opinion expressing concern regarding his “lack of clarity” and “tone-deafness” on matters of homosexual lust and other issues.
Further corrections and clarifications followed. But in addition to corrections and clarifications, TE Johnson engaged in additional speaking and writing on the subject of vile affections, which further troubled the Church.
For example, Ascension Presbytery reported on Johnson’s 2021 book Still Time to Care and noted not only grave concerns with the way TE Johnson “misuse[d] identity in Christ” but also and his “aberrant views on sexual orientation, his disregard of the confessional teaching on the heinousness and various aggravations of different sins, and his lack of interaction with the confessional understanding of the gift of continence.”
Further attempts were made to bring TE Johnson to repentance; letters were sent to his presbytery, dialogues on various media platforms, reviews of the book were written highlighting troubling aspects in Johnson’s views and ministry paradigm.
Johnson’s teaching, speaking, and writing on the issue of unnatural lust has deeply troubled the PCA. For example, two Covenant College faculty members noted a troubling lack of focus on the need for sanctification in his book:
[W]e’ve registered two substantial reservations, raising a worry about Johnson’s treatment of sanctification with respect to concupiscence and questions about the notion of sexual orientation as a fixed propensity that’s taken for granted in this book and by most participants in the broader debate. Since these themes are central to the book’s overall argument, they end up weakening his case for a paradigm of care. In our opinion, the paradigm of care is inadequate without a complementary devotion to sanctification.
The defects in his theology and practice have been noted across the spectrum of the denomination from GRN Council Members such as Jonathan Master, the aforementioned Covenant College professors, and even the Stated Clerk called the way he speaks about his unnatural desires, “highly imprudent.”
Despite all this, TE Johnson and the Session with whom he serves have refused to give heed to the concerns of the wider church on this matter. Memorial Presbyterian Church (MPC) continues to welcome transvestites to perform in its chapel as the church supports these folks earning a living from their “arts.”
Read More
Related Posts:

If, following careful consideration (Prov. 14:15), it is reasonably clear that the non-collection of a large debt or non-prosecution of a great evil, holds unique promise of achieving greater ends, Christians must be ready to extend unimaginably forgiving gestures.  As Paul prevailed upon Onesimus to forgive his fugitive servant Philemon, by setting him free (Philem. 1:10); as Barnabas prevailed upon the Apostles to forgive Paul for his former hostility to Christians (Acts 9:26-27), by eventually extending him the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 2:9); likewise, all Christians must be open to the Holy Spirit’s reasonable persuasion to remit truly great debts of others, with a view to advancing the Kingdom of Heaven.

All Things Forgiveness
Forgiveness is central to the Christian ethic. D.L. Moody once said: “The voice of sin is loud, but the voice of forgiveness is louder.” As a forgiven people the glory of the children of God is to be a forgiving people. But, important as forgiveness is, it’s also misunderstood, trivialized, and in the hands of some even weaponized.
The following is a guest essay from Rev. Dr. Brant Bosserman. This essay biblically and pastorally addresses the subject of forgiveness. Even if it takes a little longer to read than a normal blog post, I highly encourage it to every reader!
Forgiveness: Objective DeedsForgiveness: Subjective DispositionForgiving the UnrepentantKinds of ForgivenessFalse RepentanceForgiveness and ConsequencesForgiveness and ImprecationRadical Forgiveness
Jesus taught us to pray, “forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors” (Matt. 6:12; cf. Lk. 11:4).  It is fascinating that the only fact that the Savior asked us to mention about ourselves in prayer is that we practice forgiving.  However, exactly what forgiveness is, to whom it is due, and how it relates to correction and punishment are not widely understood.  Critics of the Faith have alleged that Jesus’ lofty ideal of forgiveness is either dangerously liberal, at odds with other details of His ethic, or laudable, but widely disregarded by Christians.  Given the central significance of forgiveness to the Gospel of how God saves sinners by faith in Jesus Christ; and given that a forgiving attitude is a fundamental mark of those who have been forgiven by God in Christ, believers can only benefit from sustained meditation on the topic.  Jesus, after all, set forth the following promise and warning as the grounds making forgiveness central to prayer: “if you forgive others their transgressions, your heavenly Father will also forgive you.  But if you do not forgive others, then your Father will not forgive your transgressions” (Matt. 6:14-15; cf. Mk. 11:25; Eph. 4:32; Col. 3:13).
Below, we will advance the following points.  As to essence of forgiveness, it is the non-collection of a debt (or non-application of a penalty) accompanied by the expulsion a vengeful disposition.  Christ’s ethic emphasizes the importance of a forgiving disposition, without neglecting the necessity of forgiving deeds, for two reasons.  Outward forgiveness can be exercised hypocritically, apart from the more difficult work of a reformation of heart.  Also, those who have forgiven a neighbor from the heart may, nevertheless, seek the application of a penalty out of love for the same party.  The potential objects of Christian forgiveness are all people, but in different fashions.  Even toward unrepentant offenders, Christ’s disciples must be prepared to repay evil with genuine kindness, entertaining a more hopeful vision of their enemies than their deeds deserve.  However, only repentant believers can be forgiven in the fullest sense, by being treated and confidently acknowledged as brothers who enjoy mystical union with Christ and oneself.  To scrutinize whether another’s repentance is genuine, and to enforce ongoing consequences for egregious sins and heinous crimes is perfectly consistent with forgiveness.  For, to forgive a party is to will their good, and to facilitate rather than impeded what is best for them (and others).  Finally, believers must be prepared to perform radical acts of forgiveness, especially in situations where one is powerless to pursue justice and/or the total forgiveness of a significant debt is likely to advance (rather than hinder) the kingdom of God.
FORGIVENESS: OBJECTIVE DEEDSWhen most people talk about forgiveness, they tend to have in mind feelings and subjective dispositions toward others.  However, the Greek and Hebrew words for “forgive” often refer to objective actions.  For example, the most frequent sense of the verb in the Gospel of Matthew is simply “to leave” something tangible behind, like fishing nets (4:20), crowds (13:36), stones (24:2), etc.  In the context of monetary debts and criminal offenses, “forgiveness” involves foregoing the right to exact a payment (Matt. 18:23-34) or pardoning rather than prosecuting and punishing a crime (Ex. 34:9; Rom. 12:17).  In His “Sermon on the Mount,” Jesus enjoins a radically forgiving disposition, setting forth the example of one who foregoes his right to retain basic property—“If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also” (Matt. 5:40); and again, “whoever takes away what is yours, do not demand it back” (Lk. 6:30).  Of course, Jesus’ directives on the topic of forgiveness are not entirely new.  The Mosaic Law required objective remission of debts every seventh year toward all of one’s Israelite neighbors (Deut. 15:1-6), regardless of whether they had squandered a loan by vice or simply fallen on hard times.
It is noteworthy that the objective forgiveness of a debt and/or penalty may be extended in greater and lesser degrees.  For example, in the Mosaic economy, the convicted thief of livestock normally had to make restitution by returning the stolen animal, and paying retribution by returning four or five times its value (Ex. 22:1).  If, however, he confessed his theft and offered the requisite “guilt offering” at the tabernacle (Lev. 6:1-6), his crime would be significantly, but not entirely, forgiven.  The thief who confessed prior to being caught only had to return the stolen property to the victim, plus a mere one-fifth of its value.  But even under the Law, direct victims could forgive certain criminal offenses entirely by foregoing legal proceedings altogether.  Well before Jesus’ ethical discourses, His father Joseph showed himself to be a “righteous man” by choosing not to prosecute, and thereby significantly forgiving, Mary for her apparent adultery (Matt. 1:19).  And yet, Joseph seems not to have initially extended the fullest objective forgiveness that could be imagined.  Although he forewent civil prosecution of Mary, he still resolved to “send her away secretly,” breaking off their plans for marriage.  This clearly indicates that an offense can be forgiven in certain objective respects, even though other consequences may be retained (for more on this point see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below).  What renders the Sermon on the Mount unique in relationship to the Mosaic Law is not that Jesus’ commands His followers to forgive in various ways.  Rather, its novelty resides in how clearly Jesus sets forth the imperative to more than forgive; that is, to remit material debt and even extend additional favor to one’s debtors.  Still, Jesus understood the substance of His ethic to have always been implied, even if not so expressed, in the Law itself (Matt. 5:17-20; Lev. 19:18).
FORGIVENESS: SUBJECTIVE DISPOSITIONParallel to the non-collection of a debt and non-prosecution of a crime, forgiveness is a determination from within not to seek personal vengeance, and to expel the ill-will that we harbor toward offenders.  Everyone knows, after all, how unpleasant it is to be despised and hated, even when disdain isn’t expressed in overt acts.  When he denounced the human tendency to regard certain men as “good for nothing” (Matt. 5:22), Jesus meant to censure an unforgiving attitude that writes-off a person forever.  Positively, subjective forgiveness must involve crediting an enemy with a better estimation of his person than his deeds deserve.  Without this constructive effort, our best attempts to expel hateful feelings will be to no avail.  If our estimation of our neighbor were a sculpture, we could think of his misbehaviors and sins as chipping away at and reducing his effigy to something distasteful that elicits ire.  Forgiveness entails an active effort to reform our image and estimation of those who have sinned against us.  This forgiving attitude is often described, figuratively, as “forgetting” or no longer “counting” a person’s crimes (Jer. 31:34; 1 Cor. 13:5; Ps. 103:12).  This is because the non-resentment that one harbors after extending forgiveness resembles the attitude he might have had if the sin had never been committed in the first place (see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below).  In its most robust expression, subjective forgiveness is not a mere disposition of indifference toward an offender as if his image were merely undeformed.  Paralleling His demands for radical deeds of forgiveness—not just remitting debt but extending undeserved credit to defaulters (Matt. 5:40-42)—Jesus requires an equally robust disposition of heart.  Christian forgiveness entails entertaining a better vision of our enemies than their deeds deserve, with the result that we are able to gladly heed the command: “bless those who persecute you” (Lk. 6:28; Rom. 12:14; cf. Matt. 5:44; 1 Cor. 4:12; 1 Pet. 3:9).  Practiced properly, subjective forgiveness is neither an exercise in fantasy nor a surrender to naivete about just how evil and dangerous certain foes may be.  Rather, there are objective grounds for crediting all men with a better estimation than their sins deserve, and unique grounds for esteeming repentant brothers the most highly of all.
The objective and subjective dimensions of forgiveness have a paradoxical relationship that forces us to appreciate the central significance of the latter.  On the one hand, it is possible to forgive another person’s financial debt begrudgingly (perhaps, for example, out of a desire to be perceived as gracious), without expelling a hateful disposition toward him from within.  Jesus denounces this sort of forgiveness as disingenuous, not being “from the heart” (Matt. 18:35).  Such forgiveness is as displeasing to God as alms given under compulsion rather than cheerfully (2 Cor. 9:7).  As pleasant as it might be to have a large monetary debt forgiven, even if not from the heart, it is far more dangerous (and potentially costly) to incur for oneself a life-long enemy.  That is why Christians are called to make peace (Rom. 12:18), and to make friends so far as they are able (Matt. 5:25).  On the other hand, one might deny a criminal complete objective forgiveness (by remitting a debt partially, or seeking a reduced penalty for a crime), and yet extend to him the fullest sort of subjective forgiveness (genuinely seeking his well-being).  God’s discipline of His people epitomizes this combination.  He often applies objective penalties with the most holy intention to bless and to sanctify His people, rather than to finally harm and destroy (see “Forgiveness and Consequences” below).  Another curiosity is that at first glance the extension of a forgiving deed may appear rather more difficult than cultivation of a forgiving heart.  Initially, one may be greatly disinclined to forgive, outright, a neighbor’s financial debt for backing into his car, but surprisingly willing to restrain the tendency to despise and/or hope the worst for that neighbor.  However, in the course of time, feelings of resentment for the car-incident may resurface again and again.  Thus, the conscious resolve to forgive from the heart may need to be repeated many times for one and the same crime.  In that respect, subjective forgiveness often proves to be rather more difficult than the one-time deed of remitting or reducing a debt.  Moreover, if one finds it difficult to renew his forgiving disposition, say, seven times, for one offense, he will find it even more challenging to expel contempt for his neighbor after seven similar offenses.  Recognizing that repeated forgiveness from the heart is profoundly difficult, Jesus nevertheless requires that His disciples be prepared to forgive their brethren “seven times in a day” (Lk. 17:4), and “seventy times seven” (Matt. 18:22).
BELIEVERS ARE REQUIRED TO FORGIVE THE UNREPENTANTHaving discussed forgiveness as both deed and disposition, we turn to the controversial question, are Christians are obligated to forgive the unrepentant?  And if so, what is the rationale?  That Christ requires his disciples to forgive unrepentant foes is clear from His teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.  It is impossible that in commanding His disciples to lend your coat to “anyone” who “wants to sue you and take your shirt” (Matt. 5:40), Jesus meant to limit the prescribed response to repentant aggressors.  The picture Jesus paints is that of a heartless enemy seeking to take the very shirt off our backs.  Toward this kind of person, even in his state of aggression, Jesus requires what we might call a “super-forgiving” disposition.  This conclusion is reinforced by the imperatives that precede and follow Matthew 5:40.  To “not resist an evil person” (5:39a), to “turn the other [cheek]” to the person who slaps you (5:39b), to go a second mile with the person who “forces you to go one mile” (5:41a), and to “love your enemies” (5:42) all imply that the offending party is still yet evil, an enemy, and unrepentant when the radical forgiveness is extended to him.  Most importantly, Jesus grounds His imperatives in the character of God.  The Father extends profound gestures of kindness to all men without exception (Matt. 5:45-48; Acts 14:16-17), repaying their offenses with longsuffering patience (Rom. 2:4; 3:25; 2 Pet. 3:9), rather than immediate retribution.
When we survey other Scriptural imperatives that require a forgiving posture toward all, we can begin to see the practical wisdom of this feature of a Biblical ethic.  We are told that the wise man seeks to “overlook an offense”—that is, to forgive rather than prosecute—wherever they can without aiding or encouraging evil (Prov. 19:11).  Evidently, this is because in a fallen world we are bound to be victims of so many sinful behaviors that it is not even so much as possible to seek tangible recompense for them all.  Biblical calls to generosity (1 Tim. 6:18; Eph. 4:28), some of which explicitly encompass our enemies (Lk. 6:35; Matt. 5:42), prescribe a super-forgiving stance, in part, because it garners respect and kindness in return (Lk. 16:1-9).  Moreover, there are “weightier provisions of the law” about which we are obligated to correct our neighbor lest he suffer the terrible consequences in this life, not to mention the life to come (Prov. 26:5; 2 Tim. 3:24-25; Gal. 6:1; 1 John 5:16-17).  On account of these, we must be prepared to simply forgive lesser debts, lest we become overbearing and lose the opportunity to gently address more serious ones.  Sometimes monetary debts must be forgiven, and loss accepted, because our debtors are so financially destitute that collection is futile (Deut. 15:1-6; Lk. 7:42).  Others are in such a calloused state of mind, that it would be folly on our part to enter upon any course of correction whatsoever for mere interpersonal slights (Prov. 9:8; 26:4; Matt. 7:6).  This non-corrective stance toward committed fools, rebels, and belligerents is the very lowest sort of forgiveness that one can exercise in this life.  For, in not collecting on his debts or seeking a corrective penalty, the hard-hearted man is being surrendered to the consequences of his own self-destructive behaviors.  Even in handing the unrepentant “over to Satan,” the disposition of a believer’s heart is not to be one of cruelty, but of tough-love and hope that the evil fruits of his rebellion might be a means through which he is brought to final repentance (1 Cor. 5:5; 1 Tim. 1:20).  This is also one reason why Biblical prayers for another person’s judgment are compatible with forgiveness.  (See “Forgiveness and Imprecation” below.)
If Jesus positively requires that believers forgive the unrepentant, and there is manifest wisdom in doing so, what compels many to conclude that forgiveness ought to be reserved for the repentant?  To begin, we have already seen that the Mosaic Law only prescribes a reduced penalty for theft if the criminal confesses and repents of his crime.  In keeping with this provision of the Law, Jesus explicitly taught, “If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him.  And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him” (Lk. 17:3-4).  Although God is, in many concrete gestures, “forgiving” to all of humanity through the course of history (Matt. 5:45-48), He withholds eternal forgiveness and imputation of righteousness (what the New Testament frequently calls “justification”) from all but those who repent and believe in Jesus Christ (Matt. 11:20-24; Lk. 10:13-15).  Indeed, the point of the “Parable of the Forgiving King” (Matt. 18:23-35) is that those who experience God’s forgiving patience in history but fail to repent of their own merciless disposition will assuredly not be forgiven in eternity.
DIFFERENT KINDS OF FORGIVENESSJohn Calvin solved the apparent contradiction between Jesus’ calls to pardon everyone (even the unrepentant) and His limitation of the same to those who repent, with reference to the objective and subjective dimensions of forgiveness (see Calvin’s comments on Matt. 18:21-35).  First, Christians must forgive unrepentant sinners (especially for non-criminal, personal offenses) by “laying aside the desire of revenge,” and repaying their evil with objective deeds of “kindness” (Matt. 5:43-48; Rom. 12:14, 17; Prov. 20:22; 24:29).  However, it is appropriate, according to Calvin, “to entertain an unfavorable opinion” of unrepentant parties.  Second, a more robust “kind of forgiving” must be reserved for the repentant brother.  Upon confessing and turning from his evil, Christians must not only treat that brother kindly but “think favorably” of him.  Calvin’s solution, although basically correct, is not entirely adequate.  Whereas the extension of kind deeds and the suspension of personal vengeance must be extended to the repentant and unrepentant alike, Calvin denies that one aspect of subjective forgiveness may be extended to the latter, namely the development of a higher estimation of his person than his deeds deserve.  We agree with Calvin that there is a qualitative difference between the forgiveness extended to the unrepentant and the repentant.  However, we submit that in all its expressions, forgiveness must entail an alteration of our very thoughts and opinions of our fellow man.  In short, we forgive the unrepentant by entertaining higher thoughts of what they may become, while we forgive a repentant brother by upholding a confident vision of the character that he presently has on account of Christ’s dwelling in Him
Read More
Related Posts:

When adopting a hermeneutical framework for reading the Bible, the standard evangelical method is to try and understand what the original author was attempting to communicate to the original audience. When you do that, the only viable method of interpreting eschatological passages is the method known as partial preterism. Partial because we do not believe everything in the Bible has already been fulfilled, but when looking at the subject objectively, it is clear that the majority of its future-oriented texts have already been fulfilled. 

If you have been following along with our more recent episodes, you will know that we have been in a mini-series in the book of Acts, looking at all the eschatological passages within. This is also part of a larger macro-series on the end-times that began in the book of Malachi, crossed the intertestamental gap and looked at the eschatology of John the Baptist, then plunged into the eschatology of Jesus, traversing critical texts in Matthew, as well as the tremendous eschatological prophecy found in the Olivet discourse. Today is our thirty-fourth episode dealing with eschatology.
With that, you may be wondering, out of 84 total episodes of the PRODCAST, why would we devote 34 episodes to eschatology? That question is easily answered. Because your eschatology will dictate the way you engage with culture. To say that differently, what you believe about the destination of human history will shape your thoughts about its direction. If you believe the world is basically barreling over a cliff’s edge, going from bad to worse, ready to implode at a moment’s notice, then you will either try and save as many people as you can before the collapse or you will huddle away in your bunker until the commander returns to rescue you. You will not be interested in fighting any losing battles. You will not put energy and effort into preserving anything or building anything because what moron would waste their time arranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship? 
No, if that is the destination we are all heading in the eschaton, then you will aim all of your efforts toward making as many converts as you can before the imminent rapture, and you will leave the time-consuming things like making disciples and building the next Christendom to fall by the wayside. And that would be the right approach if the world were moments away from catastrophe. 
But, what if, on the other hand, you believe that history is His story of great victory and that over the last two thousand years, He has been building His Church, His Kingdom has been growing, and it will continue to grow until His reign of peace covers the earth with His glory and covenant blessings? If you believe that, and there are good reasons for doing so, then you would not bury your head in the proverbial sand. You would not frantically seek to make a litany of shallow converts. Instead, you would build churches that preach the Gospel and plant new churches that make disciples. You would run like you are running the Iron Man instead of the 60-meter sprint. You, my friend, will get up and build! 
This is especially important to me and central to the mission of this show because I began this as a way of invigorating Christians. The tagline that I say before every episode, “to prod the sheep and beat the wolf,” is my admission that the Church in America has been in a state of gross lethargy, and we need to wake up, shake things up, and get on with building the Kingdom we have been commanded to build wherever God has called us to live. Yet, because many Churches and many within the Church have been in full-scale retreat mode, hiding from this culture for the last several generations instead of engaging it, three things have inevitably occurred:

A legion of savage wolves have multiplied like rabbits without fear of reprisal. This is because weak-kneed pastors, shallow churches, and uninvolved Christians have allowed the hounds of hell to proliferate unchecked in both the Church and throughout this world.
Because the Church has overwhelmingly abandoned culture, society around us has decayed like a year-old Ribeye, left out on the counter, and now stinks to high heaven.
Because the Church has focused so much of its energy on making converts instead of disciples, the vast majority of Christians today are spiritually immature and incapable of even lifting the sword of truth, much less wielding it in battle. 

This is why a salty little show like this exists, and this is why we focus on a topic like eschatology: because we want to see the Church get prodded into faithful activity and to see the wolves and the enemies of God beaten into submission. But to do that, we need to be focused on the right kind of eschatology. 
The Kind of Eschatology Matters
There is no debate on whether Jesus wants us to be engaged with culture. When He told us to make disciples of all the nations (Matthew 28:19), He told us to be about transforming them. That work will continue until all the nations bow their knee to King Jesus and joyfully obey Him. Further, by calling us salt (Matthew 5:13-16), Jesus intends on His Church to be the agent of preservation in a culture that would decay and rot without us. In the same way that meat would be packed with salt before the dawn of refrigeration, the nations of this earth must be packed full of Christians who will act for the preservation and renewal of the world instead of hiding from it. “This is why Jesus called us to be lights that shine in crooked generations (Philippians 2:14-16), like a lampstand (Revelation 2:5), set upon a hilltop for all the world to see (Matthew 5:14).
Yet, as we have said before, certain eschatological schools of thought invigorate our cultural engagement and others (the wrong ones), which stifle it. While a full-scale treatment of this is impossible here, I want to break down the primary schools of eschatological thinking into two camps so that you will know where this show comes from and why we are so jolly. We need to talk about eschatology in two particular ways to do this. First, when does the millennium happen? And when will Jesus’ return occur in relation to that millennium? And second, what hermeneutical framework should we use to interpret all of the eschatological passages in the Bible? Let us begin with the millennium. 
The Millennial Challenge
If you are still getting familiar with these categories, the millennial Kingdom is the one-thousand-year reign that John speaks of in Revelation 20. It is Jesus’ reign over the whole earth, where the entire planet comes under the banner of His Lordship when Satan is bound for a thousand years, and Jesus’ Kingdom of peace reigns among the nations without opposition. Concerning this passage, there are 3 primary schools of thought.  
Premillennialism
The first is called premillennialism, which holds that Jesus will return in the future to this earth (rapturing His Church out of it and crushing Antichrist’s 7-year reign of terror) before He sets up His literal and physical one thousand-year millennial Kingdom. According to the premillennialists, Jesus is not reigning at the right hand of God as Earth’s current King but is instead sitting at the right hand of God, awaiting the time when He can return and set up His millennial Kingdom. This punts the reign of Christ into the uncertain future and allows premillennials to view the world pessimistically since they believe it is still under the authority and control of the devil. While it is essential to recognize that various streams and differences exist within the premillennial camp (i.e., dispensationalism, historical premillennialism, etc.), this represents a basic schema. 
Amillennialism
The second primary millennial position is called amillennialism, which holds that Jesus is in His reign right now. Unlike premillennialism, He is not waiting for it to occur in the future; he is ruling currently in heaven. And, just as the prefix “pre” tells us something about what premillenials believe, the “a” prefix says something about what amillennialists think as well. Generally speaking, when “a” is applied to the front of a word, it is done so as negation. For instance, a theist believes in the possibility of a god, whereas an Atheist does not. The “a” in atheist negates the term theist.
Read More
Related Posts: