-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
new postmill article
- Thread starter Iconoclast
- Start date
convicted1
Guest
Doesn't the post mill view still have heaven as a "refurbished" earth? IOW, heaven will be here?
I do not agree with this, but I agree with it more than the pre and mid views.....
I do not agree with this, but I agree with it more than the pre and mid views.....
There will still be The New Heaven and New Earth....the eternal state.
Tom Butler
New Member
I've read some post-mil arguments, but they are unconvincing so far.
I think a case can be made that our eternal dwelling place will be on a refurbished earth. I base that on John's vision in Revelation 21
And,John sees a new earth, coming DOWN our of heaven.
This is an interesting topic for discussion, but in the final analysis, whether we're with God or He's with us, we'll be where he is.
I think a case can be made that our eternal dwelling place will be on a refurbished earth. I base that on John's vision in Revelation 21
I am iintrigued with John's statement that God's dwelling place is with men; not that our dwelling place is with God.
And,John sees a new earth, coming DOWN our of heaven.
This is an interesting topic for discussion, but in the final analysis, whether we're with God or He's with us, we'll be where he is.
Last edited by a moderator:
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Similar thinking as you... also since God created Eden as a primordial temple to dwell with man... and continued in the tabernacle and temple of Israel... further continued w/ Jesus as the new temple w/ man... and later extended that to God's church being the temple w/ the Spirit sent to dwell with us... God's m.o. is to dwell with man. God's presence is the ultimate blessing of grace that he gives to his creation.
Tom Butler
New Member
I have read pre-Mil scholars, both dispensational and historic, who believe that the scriptures teach that our eternal home is on a new earth.
I think that whatever your view--pre, post, or a-mil, it would not be inconsistent with any of them.
I think that whatever your view--pre, post, or a-mil, it would not be inconsistent with any of them.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Agreed... for the most part that new creation on earth can be consistent w/ many belief systems.
However, typically practiced amongst the dispo bretheren is the escapism and a similar gnostic tendency (at least in fundamentalists circles) to look at the bodiless experience of heaven as home and the goal.
This is one of the reasons I like N. T. Wright. He makes it clear that the emphasis in the Bible is resurrection and life after life after death.
Never heard of any such statements among dispies as you suggest above both in Fundamental circles or not.
Care to elaborate on who holds such views?
As a Dipsy myself (though more of a progressive Dipsy) and well versed in the varied types, I have never come across statements or statements that allude to this. Every group I know of look to bodily resurrection of the saints and dwelling with Christ here upon the Earth.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
So when the roal is called up yonder... will you be there?
Are you just a pilgrim passing through on your way home?
All the rapture escapism talk is basically this... gnostic type bodiless "I can't wait to go to heaven" mentality.
And for the record... I used to be both a dispo actively engaged in a PhD w/ that subject as my dissertation as well as a hard nosed fundie. I know of what I speak, and what I see everyday from the fundies around me.
Perhaps we run in completely different circles. For instance, I would actually be more likely to consider the fact that if you were PD (and your church as well), then you are less fundie and more evangelical.
Great! Then with your PhD you should be able to give some examples of those who held to the statement you made regarding - bodiless "I can't wait to go to heaven" mentality. .
To my knowledge the only 'heavenly mentality' is that when we die now we go to heaven as the apostle Paul states - to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord. But I don't 'think' you are opposing this.
When it comes to the rapture, we obtain our glorified bodies in that moment.. so again, I don't see how in the world you think it is 'bodiless' mentality.
I went to TTU (Tennessee Temple University) back in the early 90's which was even then a Fundamentalist school and what I learned there is still much of what I hold today. So we could have run in different circles but again, I never heard of anything resembling your early 'beliefs'.
Lastly lets stop with the laughable but highly incorrect equation of Dipsy = gnostic view. Some of us could possibly be fairly edu-ba-cated. :thumbs:
And by the way.. I don't know about you, but as for me... I can't wait to go to heaven!
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Response 2 your last 2 statements:
I didn't say dispy=gnostic. I have been using terms to say "gnostic type" or similar to gnositicism (as far as the outcome at least). If that wasn't clearer, then my apologies to you.
Secondly, your last statement is my whole point!!! Why do you want to go to heaven? I am looking forward to the resurrection and recreation of everything. I am looking forward to the new heavens and new earth/New Jerusalem. Eternity is here on earth... it is not in heaven. Thus the focus is misplaced.
PS - I love the hyperbole about "can't wait to go to heaven" except that if taken literally would imply that you want to kill yourself. Just an fyi. Words have meaning. Of course I know you didn't have that connotation. But denotations are important as well. Just throwing that out there. Shoot it down or catch and use it later.... no biggie.
PPS - I dropped out of the PhD program for multiple reasons... I just mentioned it b/c I have done a lot of academic research in the area of dispensationalism. I don't have a PhD (may never). Currently working on a ThM though (almost finished!) I am even published in the Journal of Dispensational Theology. Embarrassing right? Now that I'm an Amill... I have to carry that shame w/ me everywhere ;-)
Last edited by a moderator:
Ok, I missed your main thrust but it still doesn't remove the point that you are still equating the view toward a gnostic 'type' view.. regarding the thrust of your statement it is still much the same though tempered slightly.
Then you have a meaning that I have never encountered. Just as Paul stated that he longed to depart and be with Christ (who was were at this time?) but to also stay because he was needed here (paraphrase obviously). Scripture throughout it speaks continuously of things like lifestyles is in heaven, a hope laid up for us in heaven, our Lord/Master in heaven, that in heaven we have a more enduring substance.. ect... this is all regarding events prior to the Resurrection and recreation. But things we are to look toward as well. Therefore such statements about going to Heaven should not be odd but in fact biblical, when we are speaking to things prior to the Resurrection to come.
I don't know of anyone who does not joyfully await the coming resurrection and recreation, but what shall we do till then... soul sleep? Where will we be and will you be joyful in that fact?
I realize eternity is here on Earth, where did I say or insinuate otherwise? I know of no one who disagrees. Heaven is only spoken of as the event that is prior to that point and that people greatly desire to with and see the God who loved them and the Christ who gave Himself for them.
I of all people know words have meaning, but I will disagree with you on that
You presume a meaning to a phrase in which 'your' definition does not logically follow except to simply give all potential definitions and in that I agree if it is a part from context. "I can't wait to go to heaven" does not mean, a literal sense, that one wishes to kill him/herself to get there faster unless context dictates it. It literally means that they are excited to one day or at some time soon to be in heaven - any denotation implied must be done so with context of the situation. If the situation does not require the denotation you give (which I agree if the context yields it) But to simply state the phrase always implies this you must superimpose the additional facet that one would like to kill themselves to get there faster. This presupposes they have no line they will not cross or morals they will not throw away to have something faster. Yes, words have meaning but this does not say what you presume it means.I glad for you in either case. I point was simply that I would like to hear examples of those who held to the statement you made regarding - bodiless "I can't wait to go to heaven" mentality.
Last edited by a moderator:
I like and keep looking at these verses as I believe we are in the Kingdom now. I have not come to a settled position on end-times...but I see these ideas and writings as being a correct biblical view of who we are in Christ:
If someone holds another view...{a "mystery form of the Kingdom"}..how do you avoid the teaching of these verses?
saturneptune
New Member
I must confess my end times theology has been formed more by books on the market from the 60s and 70s than Scripture. That was in the form of Hal Lindsey.
I always dismissed postmills as a myth because they basic idea that they presented was that everything will get better until Christ returns. That was way over simplified, and basically not true.
Forgetting the different raptures, if there is such a thing, for a moment and focusing on the mills, the postmill I had pictured was from a worldly view, in other words, things are getting worse in terms of economies, war, peace, morality, etc...... The idea of premil is that things get so bad, Christ comes riding in on His white horse to rescue us from afar.
If one looks at postmill, not as that things on earth must get better to usher in Christ's reign in a material sense, but think outside that box, then one starts with the premise that Christ is here, in charge, and running things right now. It is not what we feel, or see, it is what the Scripture says. The last few verses of Matthew state that Jesus has been given all authority. That guarantees success of the Gospel, as He told us to go, teach, and baptize. There are many other verses, but the idea is that post mill looked at in a spiritual manner becomes much more acceptable because God/Jesus is in charge.
I am not saying that my ideas are set or changed, but my mind has opened due to the recent postmill threads. The Rapture is another subject.
I still see no merit to amill and even less to Preterism. Anyway, it has gotten me thinking. Hal Lindsey is interesting, but not the basis of a final set of beliefs. I should have settled this long ago.
I always dismissed postmills as a myth because they basic idea that they presented was that everything will get better until Christ returns. That was way over simplified, and basically not true.
Forgetting the different raptures, if there is such a thing, for a moment and focusing on the mills, the postmill I had pictured was from a worldly view, in other words, things are getting worse in terms of economies, war, peace, morality, etc...... The idea of premil is that things get so bad, Christ comes riding in on His white horse to rescue us from afar.
If one looks at postmill, not as that things on earth must get better to usher in Christ's reign in a material sense, but think outside that box, then one starts with the premise that Christ is here, in charge, and running things right now. It is not what we feel, or see, it is what the Scripture says. The last few verses of Matthew state that Jesus has been given all authority. That guarantees success of the Gospel, as He told us to go, teach, and baptize. There are many other verses, but the idea is that post mill looked at in a spiritual manner becomes much more acceptable because God/Jesus is in charge.
I am not saying that my ideas are set or changed, but my mind has opened due to the recent postmill threads. The Rapture is another subject.
I still see no merit to amill and even less to Preterism. Anyway, it has gotten me thinking. Hal Lindsey is interesting, but not the basis of a final set of beliefs. I should have settled this long ago.
saturneptune
Good post:thumbsup:
This is true for many of us here.
Yes...exactly....it was hard enough to try and take in the Premill ideas,and charts, i was almost relieved that the Post and Amill view could be dismissed without even looking at the basis of it, but rather just a quick glance at a caricature of it,:laugh:
Good post:thumbsup:
This is true for many of us here.
Yes...exactly....it was hard enough to try and take in the Premill ideas,and charts, i was almost relieved that the Post and Amill view could be dismissed without even looking at the basis of it, but rather just a quick glance at a caricature of it,:laugh:
Last edited by a moderator:
Here is another one from Ken Gentry:
http://postmillennialism.com/2012/09/christs-kingdom-for-the-nations/
http://postmillennialism.com/2012/09/christs-kingdom-for-the-nations/
Here is another one from Ken Gentry:
http://postmillennialism.com/2012/09/christs-kingdom-for-the-nations/
In yesterday’s post, I noted the inherent redemptive racism in dispensationalism. Today I will show why their view of the millennium is mistaken in this regard.
Yet in Scripture Christ’s kingdom is pan-ethnic, rather than Jewish. While on earth Christ forthrightly teaches that God would soon set aside national Israel as a distinctive, favored people in the kingdom. As I show in ch. 7 on hermeneutics (pp. 174–76), Matthew draws a gloomy picture of Israel’s condition and prospects. In Matthew 8:11–12, in the context of the Gentile centurion’s faith, Matthew records Jesus expressly teaching that the “sons of the kingdom shall be cast out” while “many from the east and west” shall enjoy the Abrahamic blessings. In Matthew 21:43 he parabolically teaches the rejection of national Israel when he says: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” In Matthew 23–24 he prophesies the removal of Israel’s beloved temple, declaring that it will be left “desolate” (Mt 23:38) during the great tribulation (Mt 24:21) when men should flee Judea (Mt 24:16). He emphatically notes that “all these things shall come upon this generation” (Mt 23:36; 24:34).
Postmillennialism believes that racial Jews will enter the kingdom in great mass in the future (Ro 11:11–25). The hermeneutical rub comes when dispensationalists distinguish Jew from Gentile and exalts the Jew over saved Gentiles, along with turning back redemptive history by re-engaging “the weak and beggarly elements” of the sacrificial system. As I noted previously Isaiah 19:19–25 expressly teaches that Gentiles will enter the kingdom on an equal footing with righteous Jews: “In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth” (v 23). Here the former enemies receive an equal share of God’s favor. In Zechariah 9:7 God speaks of his future favor upon other enemies of Israel. He refers to Ekron, one of the five chief cities of Philistia (Jos 13:3; 1Sa 6:16): “I will remove their blood from their mouth, and their detestable things from between their teeth. Then they also will be a remnant for our God, and be like a clan in Judah, and Ekron like a Jebusite.” This (former) Philistine enemy will be like “a clan in Judah.”
Israel’s demise from dominance directly relates to her covenantal failure: she crucifies the Messiah, the Lord of glory. Jesus makes this point in his parable of the householder (Mt 21:33ff). Although the Romans are responsible for physically nailing Christ to the cross (Jn 18:30–31), when covenantally considered the onus falls squarely on those who instigate and demand it: the first century Jews. The biblical record repeatedly affirms that the Jews seek his death (Mt 20:18–19; 26:59, 66; 27:1; 27:11–25; Mk 10:33; 15:1; 14:64; Lk 18:32; 23:1–2; 23:22–23; 24:20; Jn 18:28–31; 19:12, 15). In doing so they commit the most heinous sin of all time; their leading role in this becomes a constant refrain in the New Testament: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross” (Ac 5:30; cf. Ac 2:22–23, 36; 3:13–15a; 4:10; 5:28; 7:52; 10:39; 13:27–29; 26:10; 1Th 2:14–15).
The New Testament-era church is not a distinct body of God’s people for a time; rather it is the restructured body of God’s people for all time. This new covenant church is one with the Jewish forefathers, being grafted into the Abrahamic root and partaking of its sap (Ro 11:17–18). Because of the redemptive work of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). In Ephesians Paul emphasizes this. Though in the past the Gentiles (Eph 2:11) were “strangers to the covenants of promise” (2:12), Christ has brought them “near” (2:13) by breaking down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile through redemption (2:14–15). This makes one people out of two separate peoples (2:16–17), who worship one God (2:18). This makes the Gentiles “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (2:19) in that they are built upon one foundation (2:20–22).
http://postmillennialism.com/2012/09/christs-kingdom-for-the-nations/
In yesterday’s post, I noted the inherent redemptive racism in dispensationalism. Today I will show why their view of the millennium is mistaken in this regard.
Yet in Scripture Christ’s kingdom is pan-ethnic, rather than Jewish. While on earth Christ forthrightly teaches that God would soon set aside national Israel as a distinctive, favored people in the kingdom. As I show in ch. 7 on hermeneutics (pp. 174–76), Matthew draws a gloomy picture of Israel’s condition and prospects. In Matthew 8:11–12, in the context of the Gentile centurion’s faith, Matthew records Jesus expressly teaching that the “sons of the kingdom shall be cast out” while “many from the east and west” shall enjoy the Abrahamic blessings. In Matthew 21:43 he parabolically teaches the rejection of national Israel when he says: “Therefore I say to you, the kingdom of God will be taken away from you, and be given to a nation producing the fruit of it.” In Matthew 23–24 he prophesies the removal of Israel’s beloved temple, declaring that it will be left “desolate” (Mt 23:38) during the great tribulation (Mt 24:21) when men should flee Judea (Mt 24:16). He emphatically notes that “all these things shall come upon this generation” (Mt 23:36; 24:34).
Postmillennialism believes that racial Jews will enter the kingdom in great mass in the future (Ro 11:11–25). The hermeneutical rub comes when dispensationalists distinguish Jew from Gentile and exalts the Jew over saved Gentiles, along with turning back redemptive history by re-engaging “the weak and beggarly elements” of the sacrificial system. As I noted previously Isaiah 19:19–25 expressly teaches that Gentiles will enter the kingdom on an equal footing with righteous Jews: “In that day Israel will be the third party with Egypt and Assyria, a blessing in the midst of the earth” (v 23). Here the former enemies receive an equal share of God’s favor. In Zechariah 9:7 God speaks of his future favor upon other enemies of Israel. He refers to Ekron, one of the five chief cities of Philistia (Jos 13:3; 1Sa 6:16): “I will remove their blood from their mouth, and their detestable things from between their teeth. Then they also will be a remnant for our God, and be like a clan in Judah, and Ekron like a Jebusite.” This (former) Philistine enemy will be like “a clan in Judah.”
Israel’s demise from dominance directly relates to her covenantal failure: she crucifies the Messiah, the Lord of glory. Jesus makes this point in his parable of the householder (Mt 21:33ff). Although the Romans are responsible for physically nailing Christ to the cross (Jn 18:30–31), when covenantally considered the onus falls squarely on those who instigate and demand it: the first century Jews. The biblical record repeatedly affirms that the Jews seek his death (Mt 20:18–19; 26:59, 66; 27:1; 27:11–25; Mk 10:33; 15:1; 14:64; Lk 18:32; 23:1–2; 23:22–23; 24:20; Jn 18:28–31; 19:12, 15). In doing so they commit the most heinous sin of all time; their leading role in this becomes a constant refrain in the New Testament: “The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross” (Ac 5:30; cf. Ac 2:22–23, 36; 3:13–15a; 4:10; 5:28; 7:52; 10:39; 13:27–29; 26:10; 1Th 2:14–15).
The New Testament-era church is not a distinct body of God’s people for a time; rather it is the restructured body of God’s people for all time. This new covenant church is one with the Jewish forefathers, being grafted into the Abrahamic root and partaking of its sap (Ro 11:17–18). Because of the redemptive work of Christ “there is neither Jew nor Greek . . . for ye are all one in Christ Jesus” (Gal 3:28). In Ephesians Paul emphasizes this. Though in the past the Gentiles (Eph 2:11) were “strangers to the covenants of promise” (2:12), Christ has brought them “near” (2:13) by breaking down the wall of separation between Jew and Gentile through redemption (2:14–15). This makes one people out of two separate peoples (2:16–17), who worship one God (2:18). This makes the Gentiles “fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God” (2:19) in that they are built upon one foundation (2:20–22).
based upon my understanding of the Bible, would say A Mil would be superior to Post Mil, as dont see where God commissioned the Church in the World , that he intended it to bring the Kingdom in over the whole earth, and have the world system subjected under it!
Wait, come on, seriously Icon.. your going to go with this junk. That is sad
Do you consider God a racist?
Did you consider Him a racist when He chose the Jews in the OT?
Is he a racist if He chooses to fulfill and establish His promises to them (the Jewish nation), literally?
There is so much more I can go into this on the above that is so far off base, I don't even understand why you would 'consider' putting it up.
Allan,
Do not over -react to this phrase...redemptive racism.... I think he is using it to describe the current view among evangelicals and John Hagee types ...who fawn over all things to do with national Israel.
Deut 7 indicates that God was not a respector of persons...or a "racist" and we should not be.
Allan....how do you view the verses offered concerning Israel at Jesus time?
I am in between on my end time views...still a work in progress...I just want to get some feedback on the verses...here is the latest short article
http://postmillennialism.com/2012/10/the-fulfillment-of-malachi-45/
so here are what verses are being offered:
and from the second article:
Last edited by a moderator: