Questions for Amillennialism

[John Bauer]

My apologies. I got distracted by—well, I no longer remember what—and ended up losing track of some discussions, including this one.

Functional Docetism, by contrast, does not deny the existence of Christ’s humanity but denies its operation. It affirms that Christ has a human nature, but it treats that nature as inert, irrelevant, or non‑operative in his present work, reign, or eschatological office. In functional Docetism, Christ’s humanity is affirmed but denied in practice. The human nature becomes passive rather than active instrument of his kingship, mediation, judgment, and rule.

I can work with that definition.

Functional Docetism is not heresy in the formal, conciliar sense, but it is a Christological inconsistency that mirrors the logic of Docetism by sidelining the operative humanity of the exalted Christ.

I can work with that, too.

This is the framework structural problem in amillennialism: It affirms Christ’s humanity but assigns his present reign exclusively to the person of the Holy Spirit or his divine nature, making his kingship “spiritual,” non‑localized, non‑bodily, and non‑incarnational.

This can’t be a problem for amillennialism because amillennialism doesn’t assign Christ’s present reign to either the person of the Holy Spirit or Christ’s divine nature, much less exclusively. In the amillennial view, the one who reigns is the person of the incarnate Son himself; the Spirit does not reign in lieu of Christ, nor does Christ reign according to his divine nature rather than as the God-man. Amillennialism expresses the ordinary economic action of the triune God: the Father enthrones and appoints the Son, the Son reigns as the risen and ascended Mediator at the Father’s right hand, and the Spirit manifests and applies the power and benefits of that reign in the church and world.

And amillennialism doesn’t make his reign “non-localized, non-bodily, and non-incarnational.” For one thing, amillennialists affirm Chalcedonian orthodoxy, as I said; Christ remains the incarnate, risen, glorified Lord, thus the one who reigns is, operatively, the embodied Mediator. It is not as if his human nature has become ubiquitous, being diffused everywhere; Christ’s reign is definitely localized, reigning from heaven at the Father’s right hand. If by localized you mean present on the earth in a visible geopolitical center, then you are simply importing your own eschatology into the definition and then using that definition against amillennialism—which is a question-begging move. Assuming the truth of your view does not magically render amillennialism false. It is possible for the operative humanity of the exalted Christ to be real while he reigns bodily over his kingdom from heaven. A bodily Christ reigning from heaven is still a bodily Christ reigning. You assume but have never shown why heavenly session is incompatible with genuinely human kingly action. There is some hidden premise at work there.

I can appreciate the problems with functional Docetism, but amillennialism is not guilty of that. In amillennialism, the reign of Christ is exercised through his person, which includes a glorified physical humanity, and entails an embodied, localized, historical kingship. However, it is neither visible nor geographically localized on Earth—neither does it need to be.

Note 1: Also, your argument against amillennialism relies heavily on a number of categorical confusions. In this view, “heavenly” doesn’t imply non-human, “invisible” doesn’t mean unreal, “spiritual” doesn’t deny incarnational, and so on.

Miscellany:​

Amillennialism affirms that Christ’s present reign is exclusively to a spiritual and non‑bodily existence.

Please quote and cite any amillennialist who says that, with an independently verifiable citation.

To affirm ontological integrity while denying operative function is not a category distinction.

Have you encountered any amillennialist who denies the operation of Christ’s exalted humanity in his kingship, who treats Christ’s human nature as real in ontology but irrelevant in activity or operation? If so, please identify who and provide evidence in the form of a quote with an independently verifiable citation.

Note 2: Your claims are self-discrediting unless you can quote an amillennial source actually saying the things you have claimed here. Unless you can do that, your problem is not with amillennialism but with a carefully manufactured strawman of it.