Millennium: alternative solution (Currie misreps postmill?)


A Protestant poster on another board said that David Currie, in his book on the apocalypse, misrepresented the postmill position, in that Currie seems to suggest that postmillers are like modernists who think the world will be renewed purely by social justice apart from Christ’s renewal and power.

If Currie intended to say this, then the Protestant’s objections are valid. Postmillers do not at all believe, according to this particular Protestant, that the world’s transformation will be purely by corporal works of mercy but rather evangelization which then leads to the acceptance of the Gospel by Christ’s power, then leading to the general works of mercy.

I apologized to her on behalf of Currie and went on to suggest that the solution to the Millennium is probably, as Richard Pryor put it, “None of the above”. I think the time has come for a way to mix the three big millennium positions (amill, premill, and postmill), and here is how I responded:


I wish to apologize, you and postmillers in general have been misrepresented. I in fact would have cried outrage, and I am not even Protestant nor postmillennial. For I absolutely understand that where Protestants are definitely right is that peace on earth, and righteouness of worth in God’s eyes, is absolutely impossible without saving help and life from Christ, and the Trinity, Amen!

As you know, if you haven’t noticed already, I am espousing a “millennial” position that is not fully reconcilable with any of three traditional ones. In effect, I mix them altogether. And solution is really rather simple.

Chiliasm is ALMOST right, it just needs a “little allegory.” Specifically, let us consider the three views: chiliasm, in effect, teaches “two end of the worlds.” The end of the world at time of Antichrist, when Christ returns to the literal. Then, after a literal reign of Christ on earth with literal resurrected saints, there is “second” end of the world, followed by the great fire, and then the eternal New Creation.

So, in effect, the chiliast distinguishes THREE great stages of darkness: pagan Rome, the great Apostasy and Antichrist, and then the “Gog and Magog ordeal.”

Amillennialism reduces the stages of darkness to “two”: pagan Rome and the great apostasy and Antichrist. It is also pessimistic, in that, “because there are wheat and tares”, there can never be a near full Christianization of the world.

and if I have this correctly, postmillennialism eliminates the final darkness altogether, as if not only will the near entirety of humanity be Christianized and embrace love, but that when Christ returns, most of the world will receive him with loving arms.

Again, I think there are deficiencies in all the views, but elements of truth to all of them.

here’s what I suggest, and I can’t beleive that nobody seems to think of this.:

Chiliasm is ALMOST correct. Chiliasm is pure wine. But pure wine is too strong. There’s gotta be a little water, doesn’t there?

So here goes. The general sense of “THREE primary darknesses” of chiliasm IS correct, but not quite, because, obviously, Christ cannot reign literally on the old earth WITHIN human history. After all, “he shall come to judge the living and the dead”. So then, in the total age of the Church, there WILL be three primary darknesses, and the Millennium IS that period between the second and third. But Christ doesn’t LITERALLY return until the THIRD, hence preserving orthodoxy. BUT, there is truly an INTERMEDIATE darkness, not to be allegorized away as with amill. And, to put in a chip for postmillers, the Millennium IS in fact the greatest glory of human history, the near total Catholicization of humanity, a world that walks in the will of God, and in which there is truly peace because there is spiritual peace. But unlike postmillennialism, it does not LAST, for behold, “the mystery of iniquity is already at work, mind you, provided that he who is restraining, does still restrain, until he is gotten out of the way.” Hence, the Holy Spirit is eventually gotten out of the way, and that occurs when the world falls away from the Gospel the second time.


So herein is what I propose:

The first darkness is obviously pagan Rome. The second darkness is the MINOR apostasy, ie. NOW. The third darkness is the great apostasy and Antichrist. Christ returns at the close of the third darkness to end the world, which is when EVERBODY is resurrected and the New Eternal Creation.

Why is the Millennium a period of peace, in which Christ does not literally reign but spiritually reigns? Because in the second darkness, the world almost comes to an end. Look at the psychology: in the first conversion of the world, Catholics give scandal, hence causing great divisions. Then Catholics kill Orthodox, Catholics kill heretics, Catholics kill Protestants, Protestants kill Catholics, and Protestants divide into countless factions, many of whom mutually excommunicate the others to hell, kill one another as well.

So then man says, is this what Jesus wanted? Did Jesus come to stir up fanatics who kill one another over how to determine “Supernatural Revelation?” BS! There fore, the whole notion of supernatural revelation and intervention is wishful thinking. So now that we have science and great materialistic dominion, we obviously don’t need religion.

God says, “I sympathize with you, but if you don’t come back to me, you’ll almost destroy yourselves.” Man says, “Yeah whatever!” So then they don’t listen and do almost destroy themselves (the minor chastisement). But in the chastisement, they are shocked into their sins and rediscover their dependence on God. (Hello, hello, TYPOLOGY: same thing happened with Jews in the exile!) Hence, there is a glorious restoration, all Christians come home to Rome (like Jews returned from foreign lands to the Promised Land), and having gotten an apocalyptic @#!-whipping, with a very soar butt, they will behave for a great time. Having learned the hard way, they rejoice in the RE-discovery of the Gospel, and embrace it with great ferventness. THAT is the Millenium.

But lo, the dragon comes out a final time, which is the incurable SECOND apostasy, the GREAT apostasy. I mean, after all this, what more can God do? God will then say, “Your world almost ended once! What more can I do for you?” And so the final apostasy is unforgivable, incurable, for (Hebrews 6) ‘having [fully] tasted of the powers of the age to come, it is impossible to bring them back!”

And then the world finally ends. And from TYPOLOGY, this is PERFECT, folks:

How many ages did the Jews go through? That is, ages that are first darkness and then light? Answer: 3! How many ages will the Church go through? 3!

Coincidence of TYPOLOGY? Maybe. I don’t think so.

Jews go through purgation, they are delivered (Egypt, Exodus). Church goes through purgation and is liberated (Pagan Rome, Catholic Christendom).

Jews fall away from Old Covenant, are Chastised by Babylon and restored. Gentiles fall away from Catholicism, are chastised and restored (the minor apostasy, the Millennium).

Jews go through OT Antichrist Antiochus, and then Jesus comes the first time. Catholics go through NT Antichrist and then Jesus comes the Second Time.

I really think that when Jesus said, “It will all be fulfilled”, he wasn’t kidding!

End Quote;


I read “Rapture” by David B. Currie and really enjoyed it. I think his comments largely reflect your statement. . .

and if I have this correctly, postmillennialism eliminates the final darkness altogether, as if not only will the near entirety of humanity be Christianized and embrace love, but that when Christ returns, most of the world will receive him with loving arms.

when he says “Postmillennialists teach that it is the duty of the Christian community to improve the world to such a point that Christ deems it ready for His return. They believe man can establish the “utopian kingdom” on earth”.
By nearly all humanity being Christianized? Sounds like modernist thinking to me, in relation to The Catholic Church’s view.

Currie sites the catechism, “The kingdom will be fulfilled. . .not by a historic triumph of the Church through a progressive ascendancy, but only by God’s victory over the final unleashing of evil, which will cause his Bride to come down from Heaven. God’s triumph over the revolt of evil will take the form of the Last Judgment after the final cosmic upheaval of this passing world” (CCC, par. 677).

I read your proposal and disagree with quite a few of the particulars, but I’m not an expert in these things, so I can’t really debate you. My question to you is . . .

How would you compare your proposal to the The Church’s statement above?


Well, I would believe my position is at least reconcilable with the Church. If I didn’t, I wouldn’t espouse it, for I know the Church is the true Church. First, I do not say that the near total Catholicization of humanity is attained through a “gradual ascendancy”. Rather, this glorious restoration of the Gospel is brought about by a crisis of apocalyptic proportions, the Minor Chastisement, that is, humanity gets knocked off their horse by the force of a cataclysm that is like the end of the world. It is in getting their butts wipped unbeleivably that reverts them back to God, like the Prodigal Son who repents only when the money runs out and the famine comes.

Secondly, there is still, ultimately, the final manifestation of sin. That is, the glorious age of restored Catholic Christendom throughout the near whole of humanity does NOT last. Behold, eventually, the Gentiles grow tired of prosperity and fall into apostasy AGAIN, a SECOND time. And THAT is the very end, when the world comes to an end truly. And then Christ returns to Judge and Resurrect the Living and the Dead.

Finally, the Church does not condemn the scenario I describe, as it is, according to EWTN’s research (especially Desmond Birch), the general scenario put forth by “countless” FULLY CHURCH APPROVED private revelations. That is not to say She says you HAVE to believe in this scenario, but that, because the messages are approved, you MAY believe in them.

Hope this helps.



Thank you for responding. First, to clarify the “gradual ascendancy” I was refering to was in the context of Currie’s comments about post-mill, and not your view. Sorry if I wasn’t clear about that. I was attempting to let Currie’s words defend themself.

I do have some questions about your position though. Are your saying the Millennium spans the entirety of the second age, or at some time after the cataclysm? I’m thinking the former because, the later suggest the millennium would be the third of four ages of The Church.

This is a good conversation. :smiley:
hope to hear your response,

Ryan 348


Hi, Ryan,

Thank you for your response and the clarification, and sorry if I misunderstood you.

Well, specifically, I’m saying, and not to deny amill as a legit secondary level of meaning, that the more suitable view of the Millennium is not the entire period from Constantine to the end of the fullness of the Gentiles, but rather, just the fullness of the Gentiles. In other words, the Millennium begins just after the Minor Tribulation and ends just before the great apostasy. So it obviously does not include the minor apostasy and trib, nor the great apostasy and great chastisement, each of which are fulfilled, like many ages of sin in all history, by Revelation 13-16.

Hope this helps to clear up, or have I misunderstood what you are asking?


Hi spualine,

I think I’ve got it. The millennium starts after the catyclism and a peaceful return to Catholicism (or while they’re returning), and ends before the immediate events leading up to Christ second coming.


To further clarify the millenium, are we talking about Rev 20:1-6?

If so, in what context do you view Christ reign in heaven for the past 2,000 year? Specifically, if you agree that His kingdom is currently present on earth, then your ideas are quite plausible.

Also, if your interested we could discuss Currie’s take on Revelation, which makes sense to me. Infact your ideas could easily fit into his view.


Well, yes, Christ reigns in heaven from the Ascension. But, behold, his “reign” on earth does not become “practical” until the age of peace, when His grace “reigns” in most mens’ hearts.

To give a broader statement, excuse me if Igive a certain discourse on this, to let you know where I’m coming from.

I see the entire collection of scenes of the dragon as an intermission that summarizes the whole of salvation history, and, at the same time, a parable of the three stage way of the saint in Catholic spirituality.

let me summarize the way of the saint. Prior to entrance into the New Covenant, the saint is a child of the devil. He does his will, not God’s, nor does he believe what God has revealed. Baptism deals the death blow to this mark, making the person a child of God. Hence, there is the “rebirth”. But behold, even after Baptism there is concupiscence. Also, the saint has some primary sinful tendencies to root out. So then the first stage is the purgative way, that is, war on the flesh. For the flesh tears against the spirit, therefore the flesh must be subjected to painful purgation. But behold, after the final dark night of the senses, the primary sinful tendencies are cast out. No longer does the devil rule this person.

Behold, the primary sinful tendencies have been beaten, and now commences the illuminative phase. So then now the saint is ever growing in his perception of God, progressively immersing himself deeper into the mind of God and his mysteries. But, again, there is sin in the world, so then as the saint grows ever deeper in his understanding, the outside world grows more sinful and more in opposition. Finally, there is the culmination of the illuminative phase called the dark night of the soul. In this phase, the saint seems abandoned by God, the outside world calls his knowledge of mystery a lie, it seems as though nothing is true about God.

But, behold, the saint eventually emerges from the dark night and the revelation he progressively receieved that had seemed a lie in pain is then vindicated, and the saint then rests in the unitive way, where, having been tested to the full, his will becomes one with the Will of God. And he enjoys a period of deep intimacy with God that is unparalleled, except that is, by the Beatific Vision itself, which is yet future.

But behold, the unitive way does not pass uninterrupted by darkness to the next age, heaven, for there is the final darkness, martyrdom. But so then, in martyrdom, the saint gives all and abandons all into the hands of God, following his Savior through the ultimate sacrifice, then, of course, crossing the threshold of life into the next age, heaven.

So, then let us apply the scenes of the dragon to the way of the saint.

In the beginning of Revelation 12, the dragon reigns in heaven, that is, prior to the “birth” of the Christ Child (Baptism, the First Coming), the dragon IS the prince of this world, for the vast majority of man is in the chains of paganism, self-deification, the glorification of himself and the Creation above the Creator. But behold, the child is born in pain (for the People of God suffered greatly to prepare the Coming of the Messiah), and ascends to the Throne, hence, yes, from Pentecost, the Kingdom is already here, and henceforth, clearly, the Woman, in the context of salvation history, is the New People of God, the Church.

But, again, just as the saint must be purged, so then the dragon does not give up that easily. He will not go down without a fight. Therefore, he fights through the enforced dark night of the senses on the children of God to prevent the world from being converted the first time. Hence, the pain of sense, pagan persecution (i.e, mostly Rome). But he does not win, for behold, he is cast out. For the blood of the martyrs, who were falsely accused (“Day and night he accused them”) was the seed of Christians (“and they overcame him by the Blood of the Lamb, and they loved not their lives unto death…”). Behold, Constantine conquered, and paganism fell, the great statue was brought down, and in its place rose up a great mountain, which is the Church.

Hence, the dragon is cast out of heaven, for in Catholic Christendom, he is no longer the ruler of this world. The beast of Daniel 7 was cast into the fire, and the kingdom was given to the “saints of the Most High.” But again, the dragon is not utterly defeated yet. He lost the war in heaven, but he is now on earth, hence he wages war on the earth, that is, “the pillar and foundation of truth”, the Magisterium. Hence, for the next 1700 years, his war, while many times including temporal troubles, is rather of deeper nature in root: a spiritual war. For his only hope, of course, is to reverse the conversion. But how? Can he do it overnight? No way. It must be process, even as the illumination of the saint is a process.

So then he pursues the woman, perhaps the initial wave of heresies. But she flies to safety by the wings, most likely Catholic Christendom, where the Church had at least a little bit of rest from the serpent, and flourished in the Middle Ages unlike any age yet, even though it was still troublesome for her (a time, times and a half time).

So the dragon spews a flood of “heresies” after the woman, in order that she might be “carried away” by error. Hence, perhaps Protestantism and the Enlightenment, attacks that are so great as to prepare the way for the minor apostasy. But the “earth swallows the flood and saves the woman”, in as much as the Magisterium, being the “foundation of truth”, swallows all lies and preserves the truth, in order that Christ’s children might not be “carried away” into error. Indeed, Trent was so good to respond to the heretical rebellion, that another council was not needed for three centuries. Likewise, Vatican I preserved the integrity of the Church in the face of the errors of the Enlightenment, and a little of the coming of the apostasy.

So then the Church is still standing after all this as the twentieth century begins, and of course, the devil is royally p.o.’d. Hence, there be something to Leo XIII’s locution, “I can destroy your Church. Give me 75-100 years”. So he runs off to make war with the remnant Catholic faithful.

So, then, in the latter half of the twentieth century, the apostasy (and therefore the figurative beast and false prophet) arises, atheism in the east, and relativistic hedonistic materialism in the West. And the deception of these is still believed.

But with the Vials of Wrath, that is, on one layer, the Minor Chastisement, shows the iniquity for what it is.

So then, through the Minor Tribulation, humanity gloriously reverts to all of the truth, that is, a great spiritual resurrection occurs, the faith of the just that had been martyred both literally and figuratively comes back to life, and there is, after the dark night of the soul of the Minor Apostasy, the unitive phase. The beast and false prophet are cast into the fire, because Christ has then completed his Redemptive work WITHIN human history by gloriously restoring the Prodigal Gentile Son to the House of the Father, and bringing about, through an epic crisis, the fullness of the Gentiles. This, then, is the chaining of the dragon, the Millennium, in which, as the saint’s will finally becomes one with the will of God, fully prepared to do whatever God calls him to do, so the Gentiles, having been shown the full consequences of iniquity, come to reaccept the light of Christ and do His will to the best degree that shall ever exist in human history.

But, again, even the unitive phase is interrupted by a final darkness. So then, because iniquity cannot be restrained forever, the force of concupiscence will exert itself one final remaining time. The Gentiles will forget that their world almost ended once, and they shall loose the dragon from his prison and apostatize the final time, the Great Apostasy, which is when Revelation 13 to 16 is played all over again, except this time, no lesson can be learned, humanity is irredeemable. So then God destroys the world by fire in the Second Coming and ushers in the Last Judgement and Resurrection.

That’s my take. Sorry it was long, but I thought I would elaborate.


Hi spauline,

Interesting stuff. Most all you wrote sounds possible, but I have to take issue with you on the millenium. I have to keep it brief on account of work though, so we can revisit things later. I’m of the impression that events in Rev 4:1 - 11:19 describe events surrounding the destruction of the temple in 70 A.D. chapter 12 describing the three key personalities and 13:1 - 20:2 being a recapitulation of the initial vision of 70 A.D… In other words all these events took place already BUT, these events can be a prophecy of a still-future, final fulfillment.

That being said a present millenium 20:2- 20:6 allows for Christ to reign NOW! That way all the references to His Kingdom in the NT have meaning to us because he is reigning. Most early church fathers believed this and I could quote some later if you like. (352) THey saw the millenium even though Christ had just as many enemies then and maybe more now.

Dealing with enemies is what reigning entails. Christ isn’t waiting to reign until after complete victory. You said it your self that the dragon rears his head one last time, and peace is interupted. We the Church Militant are active in cooperating with the Church Triumphant. Christ “must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet” (1 Cor 15:25).

One last thing. With the idea of a present millenium and prophetic events repeating themselves, I think your end time ideas would be possible. I also liked your three stage way of spirituality. :thumbsup:

talk to you later,



Hi spauline

Thanks for the compliment on the “1,000 year reign” thread. I also wanted to tell you that the stuff I’m posting there is the same stuff I was getting around to saying here. As you know, I’ve taken a liking to Currie and get my stuff from him. I was wondering if you’re alternative info is from a particular book or more your view based on different studies? It is interesting, and new to me, and I’m fascinated with the topic in general.

Hope to hear your reply,



DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit