[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]

Author Topic: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism  (Read 30454 times)

Colleen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Gender: Female
  • I will make you free indeed
The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« on: May 01, 2003, 07:55:32 AM »
I'm beginning to study this topic and am now (thanks to some articles I have read) leaning towards the amil position. But the postmill position also seems to have some biblical qualities. Can anyone give me any reasons why the postmillennial position is any less valid than the amil position? Or the amil position less valid than the postmil position?

Sandy

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 627
  • I Stand Coram Deo
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #1 on: May 01, 2003, 04:52:43 PM »
Colleen,

If you really want Biblical answers go to the eschatology page in this site.  There are several good articles which shed much light on why postmill is not Biblical.  Start with the article entitled The Postmillenial Error.  Also the articles on the kingdom will help to answer your questions.    

Robert Powell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
  • Gender: Male
  • "fruit of the righteous, a tree of Life" Pr 11:30
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #2 on: May 02, 2003, 06:47:03 AM »
Colleen, the following link should be of interest to you as it addresses some of the pitfalls of postmillennialism. It's by a good sound biblical theologian named Anthony Hoekema.


http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/eschatology/amillennialsm/amillennialism-part-iii-a-brief-sketch-of-amillennial-eschatology-by-anthony-hoekema/

He contrasts some of Postmillennialism with Amillennialism.

Robert Powell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
  • Gender: Male
  • "fruit of the righteous, a tree of Life" Pr 11:30
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #3 on: May 02, 2003, 07:33:11 AM »
Colleen, I think something like this is probably what you are looking for. Here is a debate held a while ago, but is now no longer on the Internet..


Credenda/Agenda (vol. 10, no. 3)

Disputatio


(with a concluding response by Lee Irons,

in addition to the originally published debate)


Debate topic: Postmillennialism


Pro: Doug Jones (DJ)

Con: Lee Irons (LI)

How does Scripture characterize the development of life and culture after the Ascension? What social characteristics dominate? Triumph or tribulation or something else? Though postmillennialism and amillennialism agree on much, they part ways over this question. In short, postmillennialism maintains that the New Covenant era is a radically new world, the progressive, peaceful sanctification of individuals and cultures over millennia, leading to the Second Coming. Amillennialism denies this view as dangerous, and instead sees tribulation and suffering as characterizing the period prior to the end and looks forward to the glorious perfections of heaven.


In the following interchange, the managing editor of Credenda/Agenda, Douglas Jones (postmillennialist), and Lee Irons (amillennialist) discuss these issues. Lee Irons is a graduate of the University of California, Los Angeles (B.A. Greek) and Westminster Theological Seminary, California (M.Div.). He is currently serving as the pastor of Redeemer Orthodox Presbyterian Chapel in the San Fernando Valley (California). Some of his essays critical of postmillennialism can be found on his web page at http://members.aol.com/ironslee.


DJ-1: Triumphalism has tragically become a dirty word. But the confidence that Christ will ultimately win the world (not just a skulking minority) has been a prominent hope throughout much of Church history. After all, triumph stands at the heart of the Gospel; Christ vanquished His enemies, "triumphing over them" (Col. 2:15). But some have argued that such a hope of worldwide Gospel success is downright dangerous in that it undermines faith and confuses our priorities. But if holy triumph always tends to undermine genuine faith, then every material blessing swaddles a curse within it, and even more, heaven too will have to contain plenty of suffering to dampen the party planned there.


LI-1: Doug, I couldn't agree more with your statement that the triumph of Christ stands at the heart of the Gospel. That's precisely why I am not a postmillennialist. For if Christ's triumph is defined according to postmillennial criteria, then we must conclude that, so far at least, Christ has been miserably defeated. I can't imagine a position more calculated to destroy hope. But as an amillennialist I can truly sing, "Rejoice, the Lord is King," even when I have no tangible proof but His Word. My faith in Christ's triumph is not shaken just because the medieval ideal of a Christian society is dead, never to rise again.


DJ-2: Your criticism here involves a misconception. I've never heard any postmillennialist argue that visible success is the basis of our hope. We've always appealed to God's promises, regardless of the century. A long line of amillennial critics, however, has repeatedly pointed to two world wars and the nuclear threat as a reason to reject postmillennialism. Now that's walking by sight. There certainly appears to be a fear of success lurking in the background of such views. Why is it that though God created a world of spirit and matter, the anti-triumphalists insist on restraining the victory to the spiritual side of things, almost as if matter and cultural celebration were a little inferior and dangerous.


LI-2: Cultural activity is not inherently dangerous, for it is part of God's good creation (1 Tim. 4:4). However, "cultural success" is an oxymoron. For our only success is not found here in this passing world, but in the glory of the age to come, which is eternal (1 Cor. 7:31; 2 Cor. 4:18). This age and its culture is corruptible; the age to come is incorruptible (1 Cor. 15:50ff). This age provides a temporary, earthly city; but we seek an unshakeable, heavenly kingdom (Heb. 12:27-28; 13:14). Our treasure is not on earth, where moth corrupts, but reserved in heaven for us (Matt. 6:19ff; 1 Pet. 1:4). Why do you insist on defining "success" in terms of a corruptible treasure? Isn't the hope of heaven good enough?


DJ-3: I must say that your particular division between "earthly" and "heavenly" certainly gives me the shivers. Doesn't it have the scent of a gnostic divide of matter and spirit, as if Christ can redeem spiritual things but can't have an affect on corruptible, "fleshy" things? But the wonderful news is that God poured out His Spirit "on all flesh" (Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17) so that we have been born again "not of corruptible seed but incorruptible" in this age (1 Pet. 1:23) because God Himself took on a corruptible treasure, "flesh" (John 1:14). So why delight in corruptible treasure? Because God does. He is redeeming His creation and "will be exalted in the earth" (Ps. 46:10), not just some Platonic heaven.


LI-3: The distinction between earthly and heavenly is not mine but Scripture's (Jn. 3:12, 31; 1 Cor. 15:44-49; Col. 3:1-2). However, this is not a Platonic division between matter and spirit but an eschatological contrast between "this age" and "the age to come" (Matt. 12:32; Mark 10:30; Eph. 1:21). Both matter and spirit are part of the creation, both old and new. But the culture of this age will pass away in the age to come: food (1 Cor. 6:13); marriage (Luke 20:34-36); material possessions (1 Tim. 6:7, 19), etc. Enjoyment of culture is not inherently sinful. Only, "those who use the world should be as though they did not make full use of it, for the form of this world is passing away" (1 Cor. 7:31).


DJ-4: No one denies that heaven and earth differ, but that alone doesn't imply that this age decays inevitably. Your citations force different contexts into one mold. Some speak of the destruction of the Old Covenant system (Heb. 12:25ff), others of persecution (1 Cor. 7), and others of the ethical degeneracy of worldliness (Matt. 6:19, cf. Jn. 17:13ff.; 1 Jn. 2:17). The error is to make one of these contexts -- say, suffering -- the dominant characteristic of this age. But the victory of Christ also promises the restoration "all things" (Matt. 17:11), "times of refreshing" (Acts 3:19), and "the times of restitution" (Acts 3:21; cf. Isaiah 65:17ff) so that the Father might gather "all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth" (Eph. 1:10, cf. 1:21).


LI-4: Are you saying that 1 Cor. 7:31 applies only during times of persecution? Anyway, the Bible clearly teaches that tribulation is the dominant characteristic of this age for believers (Matt. 16:24; Jn. 16:33; Acts 14:22; Rom. 8:18). To teach otherwise is to miss the two-stage pattern of Christ's life: sufferings first, then glory (Luke 24:26; Phil. 2:5-11). As those united to Christ we cannot expect anything different (Jn. 15:20; 1 Pet. 2:21). We all agree that there will be times of refreshing. But when? At the coming of Christ (Acts 3:19-21; cp. 2 Thess. 1:7). We are to wait patiently for that day, setting our hope fully on the grace to be brought to us at His blessed appearing (1 Pet. 1:13; Phil. 3:20; Tit. 2:13).


DJ-5: But some of the texts you cite won't allow Christ's earthly glory to be postponed (Acts 3:24; Rom. 8:22). The New Covenant marked the end of the old world and the beginning of the New. The prophets foretold a glorious restoration starting in the "latter days" (Is. 2:2; Micah 4:1; Hos. 3:5; Joel 2:28; Dan. 2). And the apostles taught that their lifetime was that "upon whom the ends of the world are come" (1 Cor. 10:11; 7:31; cf. 1 Pet. 4:7; Heb. 1:2; 9:26; Acts 2:17; 1 John 2:18). Christ's triumph initiated a New Heavens and Earth (2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 12:26ff; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:5; Is. 65, 66). Yet in the midst of this celebration, amils and premils sit worrying about too much fun. Postmillennialists worry that you're gutting the glory of the New Covenant.


LI-5: Even assuming your wooden interpretation of "until now" (Rom. 8:22), the text still doesn't support your contention, unless all groaning ceased in Paul's day. The "latter days" passages are of no help either, if you understand the already-not-yet dynamic of Biblical prophecy. Christ already reigns from the throne of David, and yet the visible glory of Christ's kingdom is still not yet. We are already raised with Christ, but the bodily resurrection is still future. Your reference to the New Heavens and Earth texts is easily refuted: the NT clearly views Isa. 65:17 as being fulfilled when Christ returns, not before (Rev. 21:1 and 2 Pet. 3:13). Your reading of OT prophecy is dispensational in its literalism.

Continued in part II


Robert Powell

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 221
  • Gender: Male
  • "fruit of the righteous, a tree of Life" Pr 11:30
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #4 on: May 02, 2003, 07:34:46 AM »
Part II


DJ-6: Now this is a curious response. Earlier you interpreted your "corruption" verses with the strictest literalism ("this world is passing away"), but now you want to exclude other readings for literalism. Which will it be? The passages I cited are gloriously figurative, but of what? You agreed that they symbolize the New Covenant era, but then you ask us to believe that figurative language of earthly restoration, cultural blessing, and worldwide gospel triumph actually symbolize that "tribulation is the dominant characteristic of this age." That's quite an elephant to swallow. And how can the New Heaven and Earth "clearly" and only depict the perfection of heaven if it still includes childbirth, death, and sin? (Is. 65:20ff.).


LI-6: Your dispensational hermeneutic is evident in the fact that you prefer your literal interpretation of Isa. 65 over the authoritative interpretation of the apostles. You say that Is. 65:20ff teaches that the curse will still be present. John says that there will be no more curse in the New Heavens and Earth (Rev. 22:3). Which will it be-your interpretation or the apostles'? The irony of all this is that you worry that I am "gutting the glory of the New Covenant" because I don't share your ardent thirst for a Golden Age characterized by imperfection, death, and sin.


DJ-7: I'd still love to hear how restoration language symbolizes inherent corruption. Your claim about the apostles' view just begs the question. Peter taught that "the end of all things was at hand" (1 Pet. 4:7), and so the New Heaven and Earth was imminent (2 Pet. 3:10-14). Jude interpreted Peter this way too. Were they wrong? Like Isaiah, John's vision contains more than the final state, namely, the Incarnation, struggle, earthly neighbors, and the threat of hell (Rev. 21:3,7,8,24). John's "holy city" was present back then (Heb. 12:22), being a kingdom they were "receiving" (Heb. 12:28). Thus we pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." Is tribulation, then, also the "dominant characteristic" of heaven?


LI-7: What's so great about your Golden Age if it involves "struggle, earthly neighbors, and the threat of hell?" Your anemic Golden Age will come to an end. Ours endures forever! Your decrepit Golden Age groans with death and non-glorified bodies. Ours is delivered from the bondage of corruption, death having been swallowed up in victory! Your gloomy Golden Age has struggling sinners threatened with hell. Hope you enjoy it, because that's as good as it gets. My money is on Christ's return and the resurrection of the body! Having hijacked Rev. 21-22 in support of your really neat but still imperfect earth, are there any texts left in your Bible to take me to heaven?


DJ-8: Help me if I've misunderstood, but it looks as if you've abandoned exegetical arguments in favor of an appeal to personal taste, as if to say, "Scripture may teach postmillennialism, but I think it's nasty." You've again passed on addressing some of my previous challenges - inconsistent literalism? restoration symbolism? the Lord's Prayer? And your "decrepit Golden Age" objection itself confuses parts and wholes. Wheat fields (Matt. 13:24ff.) can have a minority of tares without the whole being "characterized by imperfection." Christ's kingdom proceeds by progressive sanctification, with Christ subduing all His enemies throughout the millennia until the Second Coming, when only death still stands (1 Cor. 15:25,26). What's so great about that? Christ says it's a precious "treasure" (Matt. 13:44).


LI-8: Postmillennialism is unbiblical because it teaches that this world is not passing away (against 2 Pet. 3:10-13; 1 Cor. 7:31) and that both the glory of Christ's heavenly reign in this present age (the already) and the glory of his return (the not yet) are not enough (against Col. 3:1-4). Postmillennialism's impatient demand for something more in between indicates a disturbing dissatisfaction both with our Savior's first coming and his second. Its need for this world to improve in order for the church to be victorious both belittles her present heavenly-resurrection victory in Christ and contradicts the apostolic command to "fix our hope fully" on the visible consummation of that victory when Christ returns in power and great glory (1 Pet. 1:13).


DJ-9: It appears that you've never moved beyond your opening claims. I replied to your latest objections in my fourth paragraph, but you didn't engage my answers. Similarly, you have declined to give any answer to my charges that amillennialism involves inconsistent literalism, context equivocations ("world"), and confused symbolism (restoration=tribulation). Amillennialists really need to address these sorts of questions in a credible way that avoids sliding into a veiled gnosticism. Any view that is forced to explain away "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven" is highly suspect. Postmillennialism merely rejoices that the Father is gathering "all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth" (Eph. 1:10).


Thanks so much Lee for taking part in this discussion. Perhaps it will start others.






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Lee's response to the last paragraph (not published with the original debate):


As you can see, I was given 8 paragraphs and Doug was given 9 (both the opening and the closing argument). In addition, each of us was limited to exactly 115 words per paragraph, so I necessarily could not respond to every argument. There are a number of questions that Doug raises in his concluding paragraph that I would like to address.


Doug says, "It appears that you've never moved beyond your opening claims. I replied to your latest objections in my fourth paragraph, but you didn't engage my answers."


Well, it was my last paragraph: a conclusion is not a good time to move beyond one's opening claims. It is rather the time to wrap up what one has said thus far in a clear and compelling way. Doug's fourth paragraph hardly addresses the objections of my concluding paragraph at all. In my conclusion I am concerned about postmillennialism's "disturbing dissatisfaction both with our Savior's first coming and his second," due to "its need for this world to improve in order for the church to be victorious." Doug's arguments in the fourth paragraph only address my interpretation of texts which I think show that this world will pass away when Christ returns and which Doug thinks show only "the destruction of the Old Covenant system" in AD 70 (preterism). Fine - he's a preterist and I'm not. But that doesn't address my basic critique of postmillennialism, which is that it has a twofold error: (1) it belittles the church's present heavenly-resurrection victory in Christ (which victory was a reality even in the first century during times of persecution and suffering), and (2) it contradicts the command of Peter to fix our hope fully (not partly) on the Second Coming. In other words, it undermines both the already aspect of our victory and the not-yet aspect. I don't think Doug appreciates the depth of this critique which depends on Geerhardus Vos's insights into the semi-eschatological nature of the church's existence between the two comings of Christ. But, of course, it would be very difficult for a preterist to grasp this critique, since preterism interprets the already texts as fulfilled in AD 70 (e.g., see Doug's fifth and seventh paragraphs).


Doug continues, "Similarly, you have declined to give any answer to my charges that amillennialism involves inconsistent literalism …"


He is referring here to the fact that I take 1 Cor. 7:31 as literally teaching that this world is passing away, whereas he sees it as a symbolic way of speaking of the destruction of the Old Covenant system in AD 70. But then I inconsistently (he claims) turn around and want to take Isa. 65:17ff symbolically of heaven. The answer here is simple. If I am guilty of inconsistent literalism, then so is he. For he wants to take Isa. 65:17ff literally, but then when it comes to 1 Cor. 7:31, he wants to take that symbolically. But this is getting us nowhere. The fact is, everyone takes certain portions of Scripture literally and certain portions figuratively. But is that a problem? Are we required to be totally consistent and take the entire Bible either literally or figuratively? Such a requirement is not only silly but impossible. The real issue is not who is consistently literal or consistently figurative, but what did the apostles teach? In other words, the correct interpretation of Isa. 65:17ff is the interpretation of Peter (2 Pet. 3) and John (in Rev. 21-22). Both texts clearly teach that in the New Heavens and Earth, there will be no unrighteousness (2 Pet. 3:13), no death (Rev. 21:4), and no curse (Rev. 22:3). But if the New Heavens and Earth are a Golden Age prior to the return of Christ (as postmils teach), they are required to reject this inspired, apostolic commentary on Isa. 65:17ff. I pressed Doug on this and he never answered me. I do not take Isa. 65:17ff symbolically and 1 Cor. 7:31 literally because I have an arbitrary hermeneutic that suits my position, but because I have a non-arbitrary commitment to the hermeneutical priority of the apostles over all autonomous, man-made assumptions regarding how that OT prophets should be interpreted. Doug's hermeneutic is dispensational and autonomous because he refuses to submit to the authoritative interpretation of Christ's inspired representatives.


"… context equivocations ('world') …"


I assume that he is referring here to 1 Cor. 7:31 again. The context of that verse, he says in paragraph four, is persecution. Therefore, it is the fallacy of equivocation to interpret Paul's statement that "this world is passing away," as if Paul was referring to the passing of this present evil age at the consummation. Instead it should be interpreted preteristically as a reference to the crisis that accompanied the passing of the Old Covenant era when God judged Israel in AD 70. I'm assuming that's the argument.


My answer is that we simply have an honest difference of opinion regarding the interpretation of this verse. It doesn't clarify matters to accuse me of a "context equivocation" (whatever that is). The fact is, I think "world" means the entire age prior to the consummation (also called "this present evil age" - Gal. 1:4). Doug thinks it means the Old Covenant era. Let's not hide this legitimate exegetical difference by slinging around accusations of logical fallacies. This question can only be settled by getting into a debate over preterism, which is obviously beyond the scope of this debate.


"… and confused symbolism (restoration=tribulation)."


This is a reference to Doug's earlier argument in his sixth paragraph, "The passages I cited are gloriously figurative, but of what? You agreed that they symbolize the New Covenant era, but then you ask us to believe that figurative language of earthly restoration, cultural blessing, and worldwide gospel triumph actually symbolize that 'tribulation is the dominant characteristic of this age.' That's quite an elephant to swallow."


The passages in view here are the OT prophecies of a glorious restoration for the people of God in the latter days (Is. 2:2; Micah 4:1; Hos. 3:5; Joel 2:28; Dan. 2). I agreed that they are fulfilled in Christ, but I said that they are fulfilled in a two-stage manner: "Christ already reigns from the throne of David, and yet the visible glory of Christ's kingdom is still not yet." In other words, the death and resurrection/ascension of Christ is the first stage of fulfillment; but we await a visible fulfillment of those promises in the New Heavens and Earth when Christ returns.


Now what Doug has done is to twist my words into a bizarre non sequitur. Paraphrasing his argument, he says, "Lee agrees that there is an already aspect of the fulfillment of these promises in the present prior to the coming of Christ; but Lee also believes that the present age is characterized by suffering and tribulation; therefore, Lee believes that the glorious promises of the OT symbolize suffering and tribulation."


There is a logical fallacy here. For when I speak of the present fulfillment of the glorious OT promises during the church age, I am speaking of their fulfillment in Christ's resurrection as the firstfruits and in his ascension to the right hand of God, as well as the church's present position of being spiritually raised with him and being seated with him in the heavenly places. The inner man is being renewed even when the outer man is perishing (2 Cor. 4:16). The church, from the spiritual point of view, is a kingdom of priests unto God (Rev. 1:6), even when, from the point of view of her outer existence in the world, she is partaking of "the tribulation and the kingdom and the patience which are in Jesus" (Rev. 1:9). Thus, to say that the glorious promises, in their present semi-eschatological fulfillment in Christ, symbolize suffering and tribulation is to confuse the earthly and the heavenly, the inner man and the outer man. The glorious promises symbolize the glorious reality of the church's present heavenly victory as she is seated with Christ in the heavenly places according to the Spirit, even though her outer man is perishing according to the flesh.


But furthermore, Doug seems to have committed the same error of the disciples before the resurrection. They reasoned precisely in the same fashion. They could not harmonize the teaching of Christ that, on the one hand, the kingdom of God had arrived, but that, on the other hand, the King must go to Jerusalem and suffer and be killed and be raised on the third day. Jesus said that this way of thinking is from below. Jesus taught that the disciples of his kingdom must take up their cross and follow him, for suffering is the only way to glory (Matt. 16:21-28).


"… Amillennialists really need to address these sorts of questions in a credible way that avoids slipping into a veiled gnosticism …"


This is a low blow. I guess Paul was a gnostic, because he believed in the already and the not-yet, because he taught that this present evil age is passing away and that the superlative glory of the New Creation (which is already a reality in Christ) would be made manifest at the blessed appearing of Christ. The charge of gnosticism is utterly without foundation, because gnosticism teaches that matter and the creation are inherently evil and sinful. I clearly rejected this view in my second and third paragraph. The incarnation and the resurrection of the body clearly refute gnosticism. Amillennialists are not gnostics simply because they believe that the creation will be redeemed only when Christ returns rather than before.


On Doug's definition of gnosticism, postmillennialists are gnostics too, because they reject the "health-and-wealth" heresy which teaches that faith-filled Christians ought never be ill or poor. A gold-bedecked faith-healer might ask, "Come on, Doug, you got a problem with the body or with money? Are you denying the saving, transforming power of the Gospel to redeem our bodies and material wealth?" Of course, the answer that Doug would give (I would hope) is, "No, I am not denying that God made the body and material possessions. Both are good. I just believe that physical illnesses will not be done away with until the resurrection of the body when Christ returns. And as far as money goes, it is not inherently sinful and it can and should be used by Christians for the glory of God, but I don't see any promise in Scripture that all Christians will necessarily be wealthy, or that if they are poor it is because of their lack of faith." If Doug can refute a "health-and-wealth" heretic like this without being a gnostic, then why can't I say that the hope of a redeemed creation will not be fulfilled until Christ returns? The gnostics denied that the creation could be redeemed in principle; amillennialists teach that it will be redeemed, but not in this present age.


Doug's accusation of "veiled gnosticism" is a cheap shot. On one level, it is an incoherent charge, because it could just as easily be leveled against his own position (given his faulty definition of gnosticism). But more importantly, it demonstrates the weakness of his own position if he must resort to below-the-belt name-calling rather than substantive theological analysis.


"… Any view that is forced to explain away 'Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven' is highly suspect. Postmillennialism merely rejoices that the Father is gathering 'all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth' (Eph. 1:10)."


Finally, we come to Doug's concluding argument - his parting shot, his most devastating blow. Well, if this is the strongest argument he's got, then postmillennialism is weaker than I had thought. He makes it sound as if only a postmillennialist can rejoice in the truth of these two texts. Let's take "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." The amillennialist prays this prayer too, knowing that it will be answered when Christ returns. The text of the Lord's Prayer says nothing about the timing of the answer of this prayer. It does not say, "Thy will be done on earth prior to the second coming, as it is in heaven." And if it did say that, it would still not support postmillennialism, because even the Golden Age will contain (to use Doug's words) "struggle, earthly neighbors, and the threat of hell." It certainly sounds like God's will shall be done on earth a little less than it is in heaven.


And what about Eph. 1:10? Again, the text is utterly silent on whether this gathering of all things in Christ will occur before or after Christ returns. The context suggests that it has already occurred through Christ's ascension as head over all things (Eph. 1:20-22). This verse might refute certain forms of premillennialism, but both amillennialists and postmillennialists agree that by virtue of his ascension to the right hand of God the Father, Christ is presently Lord over all creation, both heaven and earth.


I have responded point-by-point to Doug's concluding argument. As far as his critique of my position goes, I don't think he has proved his case. Regarding his own positive exegetical evidence for the postmillennial view, the texts he cites just don't teach what he thinks they teach. I am glad for the opportunity to discuss this subject with him, and I hope that others have profited as well.



Colleen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Gender: Female
  • I will make you free indeed
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #5 on: May 02, 2003, 11:13:44 AM »
Thanks Sandy and Robert. That's the kind of Christian help I was expecting. I appreciate your help in our search for truth.

Colleen

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 126
  • Gender: Female
  • I will make you free indeed
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #6 on: June 13, 2003, 10:29:25 AM »
 Ps 110:1  <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
 2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

This scripture was given by my postmillennial friends showing how Christ must bring a peace in the midst of His enemes, and this will only happen in the worldwide peace of the millennial reign where Christ will bering peace to the earth. How do I answer this passage that Christ must rule in the midst of his enemies?

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2003, 02:40:33 PM »
Quote
>>>
Ps 110:1  <<A Psalm of David.>> The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
2 The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

This scripture was given by my postmillennial friends showing how Christ must bring a peace in the midst of His enemies, and this will only happen in the worldwide peace of the millennial reign where Christ will bring peace to the earth. How do I answer this passage that Christ must rule in the midst of his enemies?
<<<

Most errors in interpretation stem from our seemingly inability to "fully" comprehend that it is the victory and ascendancy of Christ that stands as the focal point of the Gospel. It is not if Christ will bring peace and rule in the midst of His enemies, but how. Most bad interpretations come from the very same mindset that is often manifested in stubbornness and deeply entrenched church tradition. Note that this error of the Postmillennarian is the same error of the Judaizers that went before them, and indeed the same error of the Premillennarians that came after the Judaizers. Namely, they do not earnestly seek to honestly discern between the authority of the word in the Spiritual over the Physical or the figurative over the literal. We must earnestly discern between worldwide, national or international righteousness, and the individual righteousness of particular election. They do not discern the promises that the enemies of God would be defeated, and the 'worldwide' peace and righteousness that Christ would establish, has already been accomplished in the triumph of Christ Jesus. The Judaizers still wait for it, the Premillennialists still wait for it, and many Postmillennialists still wait for it. But it has been established and it is finished! Christ is not coming again to set up a millennial Kingdom on earth, nor a golden age on earth, He's already come and established both. Maybe not to the world-accepting specifications of some, but established and accomplished in the Biblical specifications. The scriptures speak clearly to the issue of fulfillment of those verses you quoted, and indeed to any verses hat are quoted in support of an alleged future golden age. The age is now.

Luke 1:70-75
  • "As he spake by the mouth of his holy prophets, which have been since the world began:
  • That we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hand of all that hate us;
  • To perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember his holy covenant;
  • The oath which he sware to our father Abraham,
  • That he would grant unto us, that we being delivered out of the hand of our enemies might serve him without fear,
  • In holiness and Righteousness before him, all the days of our life."

So what are people waiting for? AS i SAID, They do not fully comprehend that Christ already came and saved His people (Matthew 1:21), saved Israel from all her enemies. It was for this reason that He was born. Christ already came and performed the mercy that God had promised to Abraham. Christ already came and delivered "His people" that they would serve Him in "righteousness" all the days of their life. Christ already came and brought Peace and Safety to Israel. He already came and established His reign as King in His kingdom wherein His people reign on earth--as they do in heaven. So why are Postmillennialists waiting for a future establishment of righteousness and peace when God says that Christ has accomplished that task? Was the righteousness of God ever promised to the whole world without exception, or was it promised to all in the world who are elect? Did God promise to Christianize the world, or to Christianize all who are elect in the world? Did God promise that the world would someday conform to the image of His Son, or did He promise that those whom He has chosen/elected to be conformed from before the foundation of the world would conform? These are pertinent questions. Because many Postmillennarians are making certain assumptions that negate the scriptures of His "already" Millennial Kingdom reign, and His "already" calling of the world to rigjhteousness, and His "already" established peace and righteousness on earth through His rule. Christ's Righteousness is the only righteousness for man, and it's "already" been established in the earth through His Life, Death and Resurrection.

2nd Peter 1:1
  • "Simon Peter, a servant and an apostle of Jesus Christ, to them that have obtained like precious faith with us through the righteousness of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ:"

Christ is not coming again to make the world righteous, nor did Christ come over 2000 years ago to make the world righteous. He came for all "in the world" whom the Lord had before predestinated, to be made righteous in Him. The whole world being Christianized apart from the church, is not his plan. ...and it never was!

John 17:9
  • "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

It is the case of "pie-in-the-sky" theology to think that Christ wants to Christianize the world. In one sense only does He want to Christianize the world. And that is in the same sense as He takes away the sins of the world. i.e., only that remnant chosen, the few of the world who were before Chosen of God unto Salvation.

He prays "not" for the world, but for the remnant elect that was Predestinated to be conformed to the image of Christ. That is the way that He brought Peace to the World, and Righteousness to the world.

Luke 2:14
  • "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men."

It's Done, it's fulfilled. This is the prophesied Peace. Christ is not coming to bring peace to the world, but a sword, because the type Peace He brings to us, means we're at enmity with the world. So the use of that psalm to support this doctrine is sloppy or careless exegesis at best, and/or typical use of an unsound hermeneutic where scriptures are misapplied. Rampant in our day. Look carefully at that very scripture you say they gave you in support of their view. Does it really, or is it misapplied? Let's examine it and see.

Psalms 110:1
  • "The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool."

What does this Psalm really foretell? That Christ would come and immediately establish a worldwide Millennial peace among his enemies where the world is righteousness? Or that Christ must ascend to heaven and sit at the right hand of God until His enemies were His footstool--through the gospel being preached on earth? Look to the scriptures that comment on this passage. You will see how many sloppily interpret this to make it appear as supporting such views when really is does not?

God Himself interpreted this psalm as He inspired the Apostle Paul to speak of it as Jesus Christ's first advent. Not a future thousand year golden age.

1st Corinthians 15:25-28
  • "For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
  • The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.
  • For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
  • And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

Thus it becomes "perfectly" clear that Jesus is even now reigning at the right hand of the father, and will continue to reign there until He has subdued all things he proposed. Not will reign in some mythical future worldwide millennial Utopian kingdom on earth, but is reigning in the millennial Kingdom right now, and we reign on earth right now with Him. Universal Peace was not for all the world, it was for Jerusalem (Isaiah 66:13), for all the elect of the church universally. It was not to immediately make the whole earth righteous as He reigned, but to reign that "His People" would be righteous in His kingdom. So is Messiah reigning? To say he is not is Heresy considering God says very plainly that he is. And even according to Psalms 110:1 Christ had to rule waiting until his Father finally subdued every enemy beneath His feet. Then would universal Peace be upon the universal church, not the whole unsaved world. Christ reigns now and is translating those He spoils out of His enemy's Kingdom, into His own Kingdom. Just how many Kingdoms is Christ going to reign as King in?

Colossians 1:12-13
  • "Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light:
  • Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:"

The point being, we cannot uphold that Christ has fulfilled the prophecy and established His Kingdom, is reigning there and translating us into that very same Kingdom, while at the same time declaring He's coming again to establish a kingdom and millennial reign in a golden age.

Clearly, by the scriptures we see He does reign in the midst of His enemies, and is subduing all things, and will continue to do so until all things have been put under His feet. The last being death. So the passage of Psalms is fulfilled, according to the infallible word of God.

Hebrews 2:8
  • "Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him."

It's been an ongoing action ever since Christ ascended to the throne of God. Psalms is being fulfilled now, and when we receive what scripture says very plainly, it's not a future event.

Hebrews 10:12-13
  • "But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;
  • From henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool."

 So how can that Psalm even be debatable, it refers to Christ's first advent, not a golden age (which isn't mentioned in scripture at all) or future millennial Kingdom of Peace. Christ's Kingdom has brought Peace, else we are of all men most foolish and gullible to be calling ourselves Christian, free of enmity against God. It has been established by the Prince of peace. To claim it has not, is to twist scripture.

Luke 1:79
  • "To give light to them that sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace."
John 14:27
  • "Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid."

No contradiction because He came "not" to bring peace to the world (worldly Peace) and not to bring millennial peace as the world defines it, but to bring Peace on earth between the elect and God, and a millennial reign that only the children of God can understand.

Philippians 4:7
  • "And the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."

The Peace that Christ brought to the world is peace with God, a destroyed enmity with God wherein with the binding of Satan, our enemies cannot harm His church. We can pick up that serpent and not be hurt. We are truly in Safety and at Peace, secure from our all our enemies because of His work. We might be killed, but we can never be harmed by our enemies. Moreover, not only did God not promise worldly Peace, He clearly told us to expect just the opposite in the world. Sadly, some Christians are just not listening.

John 16:33
  • "These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world."

So what books are these Christians reading that declares that we will have this great golden age of Peace free from trouble in the world. A peace where not only won't we have tribulation, but the whole world will be Christianized? When Christ came to Israel His people were either brought peace in Christ, or they weren't. He either reigns now, or He doesn't.

Ephesians 2:14-15
  • "For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
  • Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;"
Hebrews 13:20
  • "Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,"

Where is it even debatable that Christ already brought Peace to the world. But as long as we have professing Christians thinking carnally, they will continue to make the exact same errors of thiw world. In the psalm, the error is that they do not discern that world peace would not come immediately upon the beginning of Messiah`s reign, but is an ongoing action of the gospel of peace brought about by the missions of the kings and Priests who reign on the earth--namely, us. In this way the mustard seed grows into a great tree, not some instant magical millennium when Christ returns, but by extending the kingdom through the preaching of the gospel by those now in the kingdom and patience of Christ.

Romans 10:15
  • "And how shall they preach, except they be sent? as it is written, How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, and bring glad tidings of good things!"

If we are waiting for a golden age of peace, then we fall right into the same errors of God's congregation which went before us. Those still waiting for the first coming of Christ, those still waiting for Elijah to come back, those still waiting for Christ to establish His Kingdom, they are all wating for things which have already occurred.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Colin292

  • Guest
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #8 on: June 19, 2003, 12:30:12 AM »
Quote
Most errors in interpretation stem from our seemingly inability to "fully" comprehend that it is the victory and ascendancy of Christ that stands as the focal point of the Gospel. It is not if Christ will bring peace and rule in the midst of His enemies, but how. Most bad interpretations come from the very same mindset that is often manifested in stubbornness and deeply entrenched church tradition. Note that this error of the Postmillennarian is the same error of the Judaizers that went before them, and indeed the same error of the Premillennarians that came after the Judaizers.

I think this kind of Ad hominem is entirely unhelpful in evaluating the merits or lack of merits in postmillennialism. To accuse Postmillennialism of the same errors of the "Judaizers" is clearly a false witness. Remember, that postmillennialists are just as commited to the gospel of sovereign grace and to sola fide as any other Calvinists who take a different millennial view. This shouldn't even be necessary to have to say this.

Quote
They do not earnestly seek to discern between the Spiritual and the Physical.

Another error of fact. Postmillennialists do earnestly seek to discern between spiritual and physical and there is nothing in the postmill system that says otherwise.

Quote
They do not earnestly discern between worldwide or the national righteousness, and election or individual righteousness.

Again wrong, unless you can cite a postmillennialist supporting this point of yours.

Quote
They do not discern that promise that the enemies of God that would be defeated, and the 'worldwide' peace and righteousness that Christ would establish, has already been accomplished.

Really? And in Canada, homosexual marriages have just been legalised in Ontario with no Appeal by the Federal Government Is this your example of peace and righteousness "already been accomplished"? Perhaps the United Nations is another example of this so called worldwide accomplished peace and righteousness? Is the 1973 legalisation of Abortion another present "accomplishment" of worldwide peace and righteousness?

Quote
The Judaizers wait for it, the Premillennialists wait for it, and the Postmillennialists wait for it. But it is done.

I wasn't aware that the "Judaizers" ever had a specific eschatology. Funny how Paul overlooked mentioning that in his Epistle to the Galatians. But even if they did, it is entirely dishonest to compare them to premillennialists and to postmillennialists.

Quote
Christ is not coming again to set up a millennial Kingdom, or a golden age,

Here I would agree with you. Christ's Second Advent is after (post) the millennium.

Quote
What are they waiting for? They don't comprehend that Christ already came and Saved Israel from all her enemies.

Yet National Israel was severely persecuted by the Gentiles during the siege of Jerusalem in AD 67-70. But if you mean Israel as the NT church, it was also persecuted by the Jews and then later by the Romans and later still by the Roman Catholic authorities.

Quote
Christ already came and performed the Mercy that God had promised to Abraham. Christ already came and delivered His people that they would serve Him in "Righteousness" all the days of their life. Christ already came and brought Peace.

This bringing of righteousness and peace is a very gradual occurence like the grain of the mustard seed or the leaven that will eventually leaven the whole lump.

Quote
He already came and established His reign as King in His kingdom

Postmills agree with you here.

Quote
So why are Postmillennialists waiting for a future establishment of righteousness and peace, when God says that Christ has accomplished that?


Postmill are not "waiting", they are working to extend the already established Kingdom of God on earth. Righteousness and peace has been brought to earth by Christ's finished work on the Cross, but it has yet to extend over all the earth.

Quote
Was the righteousness of God promised to the world, or to all in the world who are Elect?

Both, since their is no limit to the extent of God's righteousness.

Quote
? Did God promise to Christianize the world, or to Christianize all who are elect in the world.

Both, since their is no limit to the extent of Christ's kingship and Christianization.

Quote
id God promise that the world would someday conform to the image of His Son, or did He promise that those whom He has chosen to be conformed from before the foundation of the world, would conform?

I think you need to be more careful in not setting up a false dichotomy.

Quote
Post millennialists are making assumptions which negate scriptures of His "Already" Kingdom reign, and His already calling of the world, and His already established Peace and righteousness on earth.

Wrong. Postmills gladly affirm Christ's "Already" Kingdom reign and His "already" calling of the world and His "already" established peace and righteousness on earth. But all these are but seeds planted by Christ which have yet to bloom into a tree that will cover all the earth. Matt 13:31-32.

Quote
Christ's Righteousness is the only righteousness, and it's already been established in the earth.

Yes it has been already "establish in the earth", but it has not yet been fully developed over all the earth. If you have a new born baby, you have "established" your parenthood, but you do not yet have a fully developed offspring. If you plant a seed and it sprouts, you have established plant, but that plant is not yet a fully grown tree. The Kingdom of God is the same thing.

Quote
Christ is not coming to make the world righteous, nor did Christ come to make the world righteous. He came for all "in the world" whom the Lord had before predestinated to be righteous in Him, to be righteous. The world being Christianized is not his plan. And it never was!

So God's plan is to have the world anti-christianized? So why should we then obey the great commission which tells us to "go therefore and teach all nations" and baptize them and "teach them whatsoever Christ has commanded"? Matt 28:19, 20.

Quote
It is the case of "pie-in-the-sky" theology to think that Christ wants to Christianize the world.

Of course, an Anti-christianized world is much better right?

Quote
What does this Psalm [110:1] really foretell? That Christ would come and immediately establish a worldwide Millennial Peace among his enemies where righteousness is worldwide? Or that Christ must ascend to heaven and sit at the right hand of God until His enemies were His footstool through the gospel being preached on earth?

Postmillennialism does not teach that "Christ would come and immediately establish a worldwide Millennial Peace among his enemies". 

Quote
. You see how they sloppily interpret this to make it appear as support, when it really is not?

Where is the evidence of this "sloppiness" when separated from your own misrepresenation of postmillennialism?

Quote
God Himself interpreted this psalm as He inspired the Apostle Paul to speak of it as Jesus Christ's first advent. Not a future thousand year golden age.

Postmillennialism agrees with you here.

Quote
Thus it becomes "perfectly" clear that Jesus is even now reigning at the right hand of the father, and will continue to reign there until He has subdued all things. Not will reign in some mythical future worldwide millennial utopian kingdom, but is reigning in the millennial Kingdom right now. Universal Peace was not for all the world, it was for all the elect of the universal Church. It was not to immediately make the whole earth righteous as He reigned, but to reign that "His People" would be righteous in His kingdom. So is Messiah reigning? To say he is not is Heresy considering God says very plainly that he is. And even according to Psalms 110:1 Christ had to rule waiting until his Father finally subdued every enemy beneath His feet. Then would universal Peace be upon the universal Church, not the whole unsaved world. Christ reigns now and is translating those He spoils of his enemies Kingdom, into His own Kingdom. Just how many Kingdoms is Christ going to reign as King in?

You seem to be constantly confusing postmillennialism with that of premillennialism. Postmillennialism teaches that Christ is reigning now and opposes the premillennial idea of a future only millennial reign.

Quote
In the psalm it is that they do not discern that earth-wide peace would not come immediately upon the beginning of Messiah`s reign, but is an ongoing action of the gospel of peace brought by the kings and Priests who reign on the earth. Namely, us. In this way the mustard seed grows into a great tree, not some instant magical millennium when Christ returns, but by the extending the kingdom by the preaching of the gospel by those now in the kingdom and patience of Christ.

Again, where does any postmillennialist say this worldwide peace comes "immdiately"? Where do they claim some "instant magical millennium"? Postmills agree with you about the Mustard Seed (which is a postmillennial parable).

Quote
If we are waiting for a golden age of peace, then we fall right into the same errorsof God's congregation which went before us. Those still waiting for the first coming of Christ, those still waiting for Elijah to come back, those still waiting for Christ to establish His Kingdom, they are all wating for things which have already occured.

Its interesting that in all your bravado against postmillennialism, you never once cited any postmillennial writer. Instead, you resorted to using strawman fallacies or bifurcation fallacies and Ad Hominem rhetoric. None of the scripture citations you have used have any opposition to the system of postmillennialism.

Colin

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #9 on: June 19, 2003, 07:49:09 AM »
Quote
Most errors in interpretation stem from the very same mindsets manifested in pride, stubbornness and deeply entrenched traditions. Note that this error of postmillennialism is the same error of the Judaizers before them, and indeed the same error of the Premillennialists after the Judaizers.

I think this kind of Ad hominem is entirely unhelpful in evaluating the merits or lack of merits in postmillennialism. .

Colin

Perhaps you don't understand the rules of the forum. A summary reading of them before you post is suggested. Provide a scriptural basis for your contentions.

You are of course free to think whatever you like. however, you cannot make a defense of Postmillennialism without Biblical backing. I count exactly "0" scripture in your winded post, only unfounded accusations and denials.

 Nevertheless, the error inherent in both Premillennial and Postmillennial thinking is the same error of the Judaizers, and I think that this was sufficiently demonstrated by their "own" mis-handling of scripture, not my handling of it. The example given in Psalms was just one example. This demonstrates plainly that we simply cannot read scripture in a vacuum and then declare that our Eschatology is proven. Unfortunately, that is what Premillennialists, Postmillennialists, and the Judaizers do/did.

As for Postmillennial's other "correct" doctrines, that has nothing whatsoever to do with this discussion. The topic here is their eschatology and the Bible. This is the eschatology Forum.


Quote
Its interesting that in all your bravado against postmillennialism, you never once cited any postmillennial writer.

Correct! And I never will. We're not here to quote the vaunted authors, whether good or bad, but to examine doctrines dealing with eschatology in the light of scriptures. Again. If you want to post here, fine. But read the rules first. My so-called bravado against Postmillennialism is witnessed by scripture which refutes its myths and claims, and explains its "mis-applied" prophetic passages. As was done with the Psalms quote they use, and which was obviously not addressing a future golden age.

It's easy to write a rambling post saying someone is wrong when one presents no scripture proofs of the legitimacy of the teaching, or the biblical merits in Postmillennialism.

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"I acknowledged my sin unto thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord; and thou forgavest the iniquity of my sin. Selah. -Psalms 32:5"

Reformer

  • Affiliate Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1830
  • Reformed and Evangelical
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #10 on: June 19, 2003, 09:07:39 AM »

You seem to be constantly confusing postmillennialism with that of premillennialism. Postmillennialism teaches that Christ is reigning now and opposes the premillennial idea of a future only millennial reign.

Do you intend to add anything biblical to this discussion at all? No one is confusing the two, but they both use fulfilled passages to support their eschatology of future fulfillment. Post-millennial and Pre-millennial doctrine are both supported by fulfilled scripture, which they claim is future. They both look for a future millennial reign of Christ through these scriptures. If you don't think that is a similar form of eschatology and a similar way they exegete, then there is no sense in discussing anything. There is no future millennial reign of Christ because Christ's millennial reign started at the cross. That is a biblical given. And He must continue that reign until the end. The bible proves it.

 1 Corinthians 15:24-26
 "Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."

Christ's reign started at the cross, and it continues until Satan is loosed.

 Revelation 20:2
 "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"


If Satan was bound at the cross, then it's clear that the millennial reign started there. There is no post-mill millennial reign in the future.

I read extensively and I am very disappointed at the lack of exegetical evidence for post-millennialism. It seems more concerned about the world in its doctrines of dominion theology, than spiritual things. Very much like pre-millennialism. To write a book bemoaning the pessimism of Amillennialism does not prove post-millennialism. And lamenting the errors of pre-millennialism does not prove post-millennialism. Where are the real scripture proofs that speak of this golden age?  Please present them. Rhetoric aside, if post-millennialism is biblical, then just provide biblical evidence.

 1 Peter 3:15
   "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:"

 Don't just moan about how Amillennialists misrepresent the doctrine, show from scripture that post-mills have reason for their hope to expect a golden age on earth. It's empty bravado if you can't.

By the way, the reason we don't quote a lot of authors here is that this forum is set up specifically as a "biblical" forum. To deal with scripture, not people who write books. We look for God's truth, not man's interpretation.

 Psalm 51:6
 "Behold, thou desirest truth in the inward parts: and in the hidden part thou shalt make me to know wisdom."


Gilda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 80
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2003, 02:38:50 PM »
I would like to discus the postmil doctrine in a dignified and Christian manner, without all the emotion and wild accusations against amills. Nor do I want wild accusations against postmils. Is there anyone here who will discuss with me the merits of postmil versus amil? I think that the postmil position can be defended by scripture.

John B.

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 40
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a llama!
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2003, 04:16:44 PM »
Colleen,

I don't respond very often to posts on this forum anymore, mainly because I don't have the time to do it justice.

In my mind the Post-mil. postion all boils down to one very simple idea: the world becomes more and more "Christianized" during the millennial reign, then when the world is "subdued" for Christ and His Kingdom is established on Earth, them Christ returns.

I know that many Post-mills would say that I am over simplifying their position, and maybe I am, but the essence of Post-mill. theolgy is as I have summarized.

This "Christianizing" the world is patently absurd.

Lu 18:8 - I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth.

It sounds to me as if the Lord, himself, is refuting Post-mill theology.

John B.

Tony Warren

  • Administrator
  • Affiliate Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2306
  • Gender: Male
    • The Mountain Retreat
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #13 on: June 29, 2003, 09:18:17 AM »
>>>
I would like to discus the postmil doctrine in a dignified and Christian manner, without all the emotion and wild accusations against amills.
<<<

By all means. Please present your case why Postmillennialism is a Biblical doctrine.

Quote
>>>
I think that the postmil position can be defended by scripture.
<<<

It all depends upon what you mean by defended? What scriptures would you like to present that supports a Postmillennial eschatology?

Revelation 20:3-4
  • "And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
  • And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Do you agree this is the millennial (1000 year) reign of Christ? or do you have a different understanding of these verses?

nosce te ipsum"
 
Peace,
Tony Warren
"And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,  And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.  -Revelation 20:7-8 32:5"

re4med

  • Guest
Re: The Doctrine of Postmillennialism
« Reply #14 on: June 29, 2003, 12:02:29 PM »
Revelation 20:3-4

"And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years."

Quote
Do you agree this is the millennial (1000 year) reign of Christ? or do you have a different understanding of these verses?

No.  I certainly do not.  The bible frequently uses the number "1,000" in a figurative sense and I think that this is how it should be taken here in this passage.


 


[ Home | Eschatology | Bible Studies | Classics | Articles | Sermons | Apologetics | Search | F.A.Q. ]