I awoke early this morning and having nothing to do before I go fishing decided it’s time to begin reading all the resources that Mike Ratliff put on his site about Amillennialism.
As background in the wake of the tragic murder of Charlie Kirk, I already began studying about the term “Christian Nationalism”.
There are more videos on the Founders site on this subject..
As for Mike’s archive on Amillennialism.
Here is the link:
The current article I’m reading is:
Below is one of the author’s introductory statements…I also downloaded a Kindle sample of Dr. Kim Riddlebarger’s Book, from Mike’s link, for another perspective. It’s interesting how the argument speaks about the historical Amillennialism going out of favor.
I think that is true. Particularly now with the popularity of Charlie Kirk, and his TPUSA and TPFaith groups. I was never a follower of there teaching and in fact pretty much just stayed away from it. But as I see it promoted now, there do appear to be links to Post-Millennialism all over it. Key concepts to note.
Christian Nationalism
Seven Mountain Mandate
New Apostolic Reformation (NAR)
And a lot of the current history and discussion about Israel and MAGA. Or even the trends toward Cultural Marxism or New World Order, Saving the Planet, i.e. Climate Change, etc. etc…
So where to begin….perhaps the journey starts with building up our understanding of positions such as this that were once solid reformed doctrine, and comparing them to what we see today. If you go on this journey with me. Keep me posted as to what you observe and think…
Let us have the positions clearly in our mind.
Both are teachings about the last days. Both instruct the church as to what she can expect in the future before the second coming of Jesus Christ.
They differ radically.
Reformed amillennialism teaches the church, that is, us who believe and our children, to expect increasing lawlessness in the world, apostasy from the truth in the churches, the establishment of the kingdom of Antichrist over the entire world, and great tribulation for all those who fear God and keep His commandments. To such a world, thus fully developed in sin, will Christ return.
Postmillennialism in Reformed and Presbyterian circles holds out quite a different prospect. Gradually, the gospel will convert the majority of the world’s inhabitants. True Christians will possess political power in every nation, controlling all aspects of the life of the nation so that there will be a genuinely Christian culture. This will be the “Christianizing,” as they put it, of the world. The human race will obey the law of God, at least outwardly (for many will remain unconverted). There will be earthly peace worldwide. The result will be unprecedented material prosperity. Poverty will disappear. Disease will be checked. Crime will be virtually non-existent.
Coming is a “golden age.” It will last at least for a thousand years, perhaps a hundred thousand years.
Christ will get an earthly victory in history.
This earthly victory will be the “Messianic kingdom” in its full splendor.
At this point, the postmillennialists differ among themselves.
Some have Jesus returning to the grand earthly kingdom. Others, looking hard at the disconcerting testimony of Revelation 20:7ff., that at the very end Satan will unleash an all-out assault on the church, predict that the peaceable earthly kingdom of Christ will suffer revolution at the end from the ungodly who were only submitting outwardly.
In either case, the second coming of Christ will follow hard upon the “golden” millennial age.
Merely to describe the two positions is to squelch the inevitable protest from some, “What difference does it make? Must we argue about such things? Do not both the amillennialists and the postmillennialists believe in Jesus? Cannot we live together in harmony?”
Postmillennialism tells the Reformed saints that apostasy, Antichrist, and persecution are past. It calls them to take power in the world. It assures them of future earthly ease. It leaves the people unprepared for the struggle that lies ahead for the church, the fiercest struggle that the church has ever faced. It renders the people oblivious to the gathering storm at this very moment. The abounding lawlessness in Western society, for example, does not for the postmillennialist herald the “lawless one,” the “man of sin,” of II Thessalonians 2. It is merely the prelude to the collapse of ungodly society so that the saints can take control.
I heard R. J. Rushdoony for the first time, early in my ministry, in the late 1960s as I recall, in Ft. Collins, Colorado. He described in graphic detail an impending collapse of civilization. His advice to Christians in view of this disaster? “Save your gold and silver.” This will empower the saints to reconstruct society. I did not know whether to laugh or cry. The thought of possessing any silver and gold was hilarious. The idea that a Reformed minister would strengthen Christians for their struggle in the last days by financial advice was sad.
In Ezekiel 33, the Lord instructs the watchman to signal the approach of the enemy against His people, warning that the watchman who fails to blow the trumpet of alarm shall be guilty of the blood of the people.
Reformed amillennialism sees the enemy of the church approaching. It sees this in light of the Word of God, Holy Scripture. It is giving the warning. No opposition from dreamers of coming earthly peace will stop its trumpet.
As for those who refuse to heed the warning, their blood will be upon their own heads.
Rainbow Trout 
Finding some great quotable thoughts as I read the book sample.. most definitely I will buy the whole book.
“My purpose is to set forth the historic Protestant understanding of the millennial age. This position is commonly known as amillennialism and is centered in the present reign of Jesus Christ. Amillennialism is grounded in redemptive history, the historical acts of God as they unfold in the Bible to provide for the salvation of his people. Although it is commonly argued that amillenarians do not believe in any millennial age (the term itself, amillennial, could imply as much), this is not the case. Amillenarians believe that the millennium is a present reality (Christ’s heavenly reign), not a future hope (Christ’s rule on earth after his return). Although amillennialism has fallen into disfavor among prophecy devotees, I believe this position makes the best sense of the biblical passages that address the subject. So I write from a Reformed perspective and make no pretense of being neutral on the millennial question. However, A Case for Amillennialism is not intended to be a comprehensive treatment of eschatology. That has already been done.[1] The scope of this effort is limited to an evaluation of the three prominent millennial views held by Christians: amillennialism, postmillennialism, and premillennialism.”
LikeLike
I see this as part of a greater study that addresses not only Millennium views, but the concepts of Dispensationalism and even how to interpret Eschatology, in particular views on Interpretation of the Book of Revelation.
Interestingly in my prior studies I went through that last area extensively with the work of Dr. Stephen Dilday. I asked ChatGPT to summarize those:
Can you summarize the four ways Dr. Stephen Dilday discusses as approached to interpreting the Book of Revelation? As I recall these are pretty accurate of what he said.
Here’s a summary of the four major interpretive approaches Dr. Steven Dilday discusses for the Book of Revelation, along with key features of each. If you want, I can also give what Dilday himself favors, or strengths/weaknesses he raises.
The Four Approaches
Dr. Dilday identifies four main hermeneutical (interpretive) systems for Revelation:
Here’s how each approach works in general (and how Dilday treats them).
What Each Means
Approach
What It Says / Primary Claims
Dilday’s View / Critiques
Historicism
Sees Revelation as describing the sweep of church history, from John’s time up to Christ’s return. The visions, symbols, judgments, etc., map onto successive events in history (e.g. rise/fall of empires, papacy, major historical events).
Dilday treats this as one of the options; he does not dismiss it outright (unlike some other views), but sees issues in how consistently historicists can map symbols to events. He is critical of overly speculative identifications.
Preterism
Places most or all of Revelation’s fulfillment in the past — especially in the first century. Events like persecution under Rome, the fall of Jerusalem, etc., are central. The “soon/shortly” language is taken more literally as near to John’s own time.
Dilday plans to (or does) treat Preterism more carefully in later sermons. He points out its Jesuit origins (in terms of historic theological debates) and notes that many of its claims are used in Protestant apologetics. He seems to regard strong Preterism as problematic.
Futurism
Holds that most of Revelation (especially chapters 4–22 or large parts thereof) is prophetic of events yet to come: the end times, Tribulation, final judgment, etc. Many modern evangelical interpretations fall into this camp.
Dilday is fairly critical. He argues that Futurism (especially as popularized in “Left Behind”-style theology) fails in some respects — for example, it often detaches Revelation from its original audience/context. He also suggests that it inherits problems from Jesuit theological strategies intended to refute or sideline Reformation-era views.
Idealism
Emphasizes the symbolic, timeless, and spiritual nature of Revelation’s imagery. Rather than being tightly tied to specific historical events (past or future), Revelation is seen as portraying the ongoing, cosmic struggle between good and evil, faithfulness, perseverance, etc. The symbols are “types” or spiritual lessons rather than precise prophecies to be mapped.
Dilday is dismissive of pure Idealism as a complete hermeneutic. He sees it as inadequate for accounting for many concrete statements in Revelation (e.g. “things which must shortly take place”), and for ignoring or underplaying historical / temporal markers. He doesn’t think Idealism can bear the full weight of what the text says without losing much of its message.
Dilday’s Overall Assessment (at least from what’s in that sermon)
If you like, I can pull up quotes from Dilday that show what he finds most compelling, or how he blends the strengths of these views. Do you want that?
Here are several direct quotes, and key passages from Dr. Steven Dilday, showing what he finds compelling (or problematic) about the four interpretive approaches to Revelation: historicism, preterism, futurism, and idealism. These come from his sermon “Commentary on Revelation #3: Historicism, Preterism, Futurism, Idealism & Revelation 1”.
Key Quotes & Passages
“He [Dilday] skillfully and linguistically eliminates Futurism (the system behind the ‘Left Behind’ franchise) and Idealism as tenable systems.”
This suggests that Dilday sees serious flaws in how those approaches handle the text, especially in their more popular expressions — and that their weaknesses are not merely incidental but central.
“Pastor Dilday also touches on the histories of the four systems of prophetic interpretation, noting that many Protestants recognize the Jesuit origins of both the Futurist and Preterist systems. Futurism in Francisco Ribera (1537-1591), a Spanish Jesuit doctor of theology … Preterism in the Spanish Jesuit, Luis De Alcazar (1554-1613).”
He uses this historical note to show that these interpretive systems didn’t emerge in a vacuum; they were developed in specific historical and theological contexts, often in reaction to Protestant/unorthodox claims about prophecy and the papacy.
“How well the Jesuits have succeed with both Futurism and Preterism is undeniable, as much of Protestantism now wonders after the beast in so far as it adopts these anti-biblical, anti-Reformation and anti-Reformed-Confession views of prophetic interpretation.”
This shows that he sees a theological concern: that these systems are not just wrong or weak in places, but that their adoption may lead to abandoning or undermining historic Reformation teachings (e.g. concerning the papacy, Antichrist, etc.).
While I didn’t locate a full quote in the transcript aside from what’s in the summary, one of his arguments involves how Revelation 1:1 frames the rest of the book:
That the text “to show unto his servants things which must shortly take place” demands that any good interpretive system account for nearness or imminence in John’s context.
This burdens especially futurism & idealism: if many of Revelation’s prophecies are future (in the futurist view) or not tied to concrete time (in pure idealism), how do they responsibly deal with John’s “shortly”? Dilday treats Revelation 1:1 as a weighty criterion.
While in this particular sermon Dilday does not fully commit (at least in what’s publicly summarized) to one of the systems over the others, he indicates he finds historicism (or at least a historicist approach) and partial preterism as more promising compared to pure futurism or pure idealism. The insistence is on an approach that respects historical context, sees many fulfillments over time but does not privatize or spiritualize every element.
What These Quotes Reveal about What Dilday Considers Strong or Weak
From the above, here are some inferred strengths (in Dilday’s view) and what he sees as weak in some systems:
If you like, I can gather longer passages from Dilday’s work (full transcript excerpts) that show how he balances historicism + partial preterism (or whichever combination he seems to lean toward), so you can see more of how he constructs what he considers a better hermeneutic.
LikeLike
As part of this I’m trying to get a good handle on just what the Bible says about the Millennial Age, the issues of Dispensationalism, and the Four views of Interpretation of the Book of Revelation. That last one I’ve done a fair amount of reflection and study from the work Dr. Dilday has available.
I added some of my initial thoughts on this in the blog post comments.
You might ask why is this relevant? Maybe I’m showing my age. I’m certainly not a prophet. But it does seem that various political views both left and right are in their own way focusing on righting the world’s problems: This includes, MAGA, the TPUSA activities, and the Mamdani’s of the worldview: Cultural Marxism, Wokism, CRT, Socialism, Marxism, Climate Change, etc; and the views of the Jewish State, Israel, Gaza, Arab/Israel. Not to mention the World forums, etc. Nations raging in many ways, Russia, China and I recently read India has now more population than China…have you noticed a bit of the Hinduism beliefs are coming out in a few people in our Government. And of course we have big roles being played by the Islamic Sects and the Roman Church.
I do think we tend to Compartmentalize these various areas, I’m thinking of just stepping back and rethinking the broader Biblical view of events and timings. Maybe it’s a fruitless exercise. I will let you know. In the meantime, I need to cultivate good questions that stimulate thought and discussion, to be ready for Thanksgiving Family time.
LikeLike