Postmillennialism

[JonC]

I have no horse in the race so to speak. I was first taught premill dispensational teaching and was told this WAS the true view....
After a two year long study of Hebrews.... I found I could no longer support those positions...
Thought I was an optimistic Amill......but I did not realize that half the things I was reading were actually postmill men....they share much in common, although you have the hardliners in each camp....

Then you have this new group of men who have brought the doctrines back into the light....The section of Hebrews 2:4-8 I cannot shake...we are to be active as restored image bearers....so

First Adam failed, first Israel failed...Last Adam succeeds, The True Israel succeeds...
[The Elect Servant of the Lord]...Isa 49;1-8...- Isa 66...Gentiles come to the light worldwide, from sea to sea, By virtue of our saving Union with Christ we are to labor in the vineyard....the creation mandate is still in effect, that is what I see in Hebrews 2...we are called to be saints, we are called to mission...saving the lost sheep by faithful proclamation of the word and prayer...as the Spirit uses us to effectually call the elect worldwide...those who God is not willing that any perish...not one will perish....He seeks and SAVES HIS SHEEP.
I jump in these threads and see where the discussion goes...if anyone can add or show why I should not go down this path....

I'm with you (no horse in the race). I told Martin awhile back that I did not have a strong eschatology worked out (and I really still don't). When I asked, he was kind enough to recommend a few books supporting his position (amil) and I'm still working through those.

As it stands, I am leaning towards a pre-mil (historic premil) position but this may simply be a reflection of problems I have holding a previously assumed view (dispensational premil). So it's an ongoing study.

 

[Iconoclast]

I'm with you (no horse in the race). I told Martin awhile back that I did not have a strong eschatology worked out (and I really still don't). When I asked, he was kind enough to recommend a few books supporting his position (amil) and I'm still working through those.

As it stands, I am leaning towards a pre-mil (historic premil) position but this may simply be a reflection of problems I have holding a previously assumed view (dispensational premil). So it's an ongoing study.

Spurgeon was historic premill...of course Ladd....
I have tried to learn each view to some extent....then try and figure what is my responsibility in each scenario....I think postmill looks to offer the most specific answers to the questions I have as far as how shall we then live...sounds like a book title

 

[JonC]

The postmillennialist asks every amillennialist, “How can a sovereign God, who has foreordained the end from the beginning and who has all power, ever lose?” The Great Commission is not the foreordination of defeat but of victory. This optimism is seen in the Larger Catechism question and answer # 54, “How is Christ exalted in his sitting at the right hand of God?” Part of the answer states, “Christ…doth gather and defend his church, and subdue their enemies;…”

I think that is a fair, but certainly by no means unanswerable, question. And I appreciate the reference.

A few thoughts that immediately spring up is that the premillennialist (I’ll use them instead of amillennialism as amillennialists also have Satan bound at the cross) have a similar question regarding the outstanding balance of evil exercised if indeed Satan is bound. If Satan was bound at the cross, then why it that Christ’s reign is so deflated and powerless in the world? Perhaps it’s an appeal to omnipotence rather than sovereignty, but it is just as legitimate a question and one I cannot answer.

But I can respond to the first. None of the positions present a sovereign God as losing, for to do so puts God on par with Satan in a dualistic struggle for power. Satan is man’s accuser, not God’s. This, I believe, is common sense. No angel is said to have spoken anything into existence, or to sustain anything by their word. All of creation depends on God, and this includes Satan himself. Satan is the adversary and accuser of man- not God -, seeking to displace not God’s reign on His throne but His reign in the hearts of men.

So the argument countering amil/premil as presenting God as losing is only as valid as viewing the cross as an epic failure (it is a faulty argument). It assumes the purpose of the Church is to be the vehicle God uses to transform the world into a new heaven and new earth (which is a legitimate view). But it also ignores the purpose assumed by the other views – that the Church is purposed for the reconciliation of man (not to bring about a new creation but to take its proper role within that creation).

In other words, the argument that amil/premil presents God as losing assigns to that position the idea that God's plan is the post-mil doctrine they ultimately deny (God's plan is to reconcile all of creation through the Church in the present, therefore a doctrine that denies this presents God as losing). It is inconsistent (either an inconsistent argument, or an inconsistency to amil for holding both).

 

[Yeshua1]

When you think of the messianic error...is this what you are thinking of?

Yes

 

[Yeshua1]

I think that is a fair, but certainly by no means unanswerable, question. And I appreciate the reference.

A few thoughts that immediately spring up is that the premillennialist (I’ll use them instead of amillennialism as amillennialists also have Satan bound at the cross) have a similar question regarding the outstanding balance of evil exercised if indeed Satan is bound. If Satan was bound at the cross, then why it that Christ’s reign is so deflated and powerless in the world? Perhaps it’s an appeal to omnipotence rather than sovereignty, but it is just as legitimate a question and one I cannot answer.

But I can respond to the first. None of the positions present a sovereign God as losing, for to do so puts God on par with Satan in a dualistic struggle for power. Satan is man’s accuser, not God’s. This, I believe, is common sense. No angel is said to have spoken anything into existence, or to sustain anything by their word. All of creation depends on God, and this includes Satan himself. Satan is the adversary and accuser of man- not God -, seeking to displace not God’s reign on His throne but His reign in the hearts of men.

So the argument countering amil/premil as presenting God as losing is only as valid as viewing the cross as an epic failure (it is a faulty argument). It assumes the purpose of the Church is to be the vehicle God uses to transform the world into a new heaven and new earth (which is a legitimate view). But it also ignores the purpose assumed by the other views – that the Church is purposed for the reconciliation of man (not to bring about a new creation but to take its proper role within that creation).

In other words, the argument that amil/premil presents God as losing assigns to that position the idea that God's plan is the post-mil doctrine they ultimately deny (God's plan is to reconcile all of creation through the Church in the present, therefore a doctrine that denies this presents God as losing). It is inconsistent (either an inconsistent argument, or an inconsistency to amil for holding both).

Jesus did not though state that His klingdom was of this world, and that it would grew slowly, until at the end of the Age wjen he returned, so how could it be Post Mil?

 

[Iconoclast]

Yes

Okay....so explain how Paul says this has happened in Romans 15:8-16....
He says the Gentiles coming in has confirmed the promises.

 

[Yeshua1]

Okay....so explain how Paul says this has happened in Romans 15:8-16....
He says the Gentiles coming in has confirmed the promises.

Different Promise though, as the Messianic Age would install the rule of Jesus/Messiah over entire earth!

 

[JonC]

Jesus did not though state that His klingdom was of this world, and that it would grew slowly, until at the end of the Age wjen he returned, so how could it be Post Mil?

While I appreciate the focus of post-mil in galvanizing the Church to action, I also see that focus cannot be used to justify a doctrine. I do not see post-mill to be correct.

 

[Yeshua1]

While I appreciate the focus of post-mil in galvanizing the Church to action, I also see that focus cannot be used to justify a doctrine. I do not see post-mill to be correct.

The premise of it is faulty, as we have a Kingdom not of this pesent Age, and thatawaits Him to usher it in!

 

[Iconoclast]

Jesus did not though state that His klingdom was of this world, and that it would grew slowly, until at the end of the Age wjen he returned, so how could it be Post Mil?

The kingdom authority comes from heaven.
The rule and reign extends worldwide but from the Heavenly Zion and Jerusalem

 

[Iconoclast]

The premise of it is faulty, as we have a Kingdom not of this pesent Age, and thatawaits Him to usher it in!

In the other post you said we have a Kingdom that grows as each person gets saved...
What Kingdom is that?
Is there a kingdom now?what kingdom?

 

[Iconoclast]

Different Promise though, as the Messianic Age would install the rule of Jesus/Messiah over entire earth!

What promise is it?
Who says Jesus does not rule over all the earth now?

 

[Squire Robertsson]

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:30 AM Pacific.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

I don't disagree with you that this is what amil and postmil holds. I have absolutely no reason to doubt you.

I disagree that Mark 3:27 alludes to Satan being bound. I believe it is an illustration that Jesus is using to show the foolishness of the argument that he cast out demons by the power of Satan. Jesus is claiming a position in opposition to, and a power greater than Satan.

While there are many ways of interpreting that verse, I wouldn't use any of those to denounce your view or to support mine. There is no strength in the verse for either. And I admit that part of the reason I do not believe that Satan is bound is the flavor it lends to Christ's rule in a world where evil is indeed bound.

Matthew 12:29. "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his goods."
Mark 3:27. "No man can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house."
Luke 11:21-22. "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace, But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils."

All these verses are saying the same thing. From the context, Satan is clearly the strong man, and he must be bound by a stronger man before his goods can be plundered. When one then reads of Christ going forth to conquer (Revelation 6:2), and Satan being bound (Revelation 20:3), it seems perverse to me to deny that the verses in the Gospels are explained by those in Revelation. Scripture interprets Scripture.

That Satan is not utterly helpless in his bondage is shown in Revelation 9:1-3. Satan is able to send his minions out of the abyss, but they are not able to afflict God's elect.

 

[JonC]

Matthew 12:29. "Or how can one enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? And then he will plunder his goods."
Mark 3:27. "No man can enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods unless he first binds the strong man. And then he will plunder his house."
Luke 11:21-22. "When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his goods are in peace, But when a stronger than he comes upon him and overcomes him, he takes from him all his armour in which he trusted, and divides his spoils."

All these verses are saying the same thing. From the context, Satan is clearly the strong man, and he must be bound by a stronger man before his goods can be plundered. When one then reads of Christ going forth to conquer (Revelation 6:2), and Satan being bound (Revelation 20:3), it seems perverse to me to deny that the verses in the Gospels are explained by those in Revelation. Scripture interprets Scripture.

That Satan is not utterly helpless in his bondage is shown in Revelation 9:1-3. Satan is able to send his minions out of the abyss, but they are not able to afflict God's elect.

Yes, they say the same thing because they are accounts of the same event - the Pharisees are claiming Jesus cast out demons by the work of Satan.

I am sorry that to you an interpretation that does not associate this illustration with Revelation 9:1-3 is a perversion. I try to be a bit more charitable towards the brethern when it comes to eschatological positions and interpretations (although I do apologize if it appears I have not been). I believe you have misinterpreted the passage by forcing an association that does not exist, but at the same time I respect you and even the interpretation you hold (even as I believe it erroneous). I will continue to consider your position, and perhaps we can revisit it in the future (as the thread is to close soon). I agree about the identity of the "strong man" in the illustration, but I disagree with your eschatological conclusion.

And again, I regret that to you my position is a perversion as ultimately it distinguishes my theology as perverted. Once we delegate the other to such a low status, I really do not see room for common discourse. So on this point, I concede. I never claimed to be the sharpest tool in the shed, and I greatly appreciate our conversations and the resources you've suggested along this topic.The books you recommended are on my desk, and I am in the process of going through the amil position they advocate.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Yes, they say the same thing because they are accounts of the same event - the Pharisees are claiming Jesus cast out demons by the work of Satan.

I am sorry that to you an interpretation that does not associate this illustration with Revelation 9:1-3 is a perversion. I try to be a bit more charitable towards the brethren when it comes to eschatological positions and interpretations (although I do apologize if it appears I have not been). I believe you have misinterpreted the passage by forcing an association that does not exist, but at the same time I respect you and the interpretation itself. I will continue to consider your position, and perhaps we can revisit it in the future (as the thread is to close soon).

It seems to be to be basic exegesis. You have a verse that says that Satan is bound; you look for other verses that speak of Satan being bound; you find them; you think to yourself, "Maybe these verses from the Gospels help us understand the one from Revelation." Scripture interprets Scripture. It's not, as they say, rocket science.

 

[JonC]

It seems to be to be basic exegesis.

Your conclusion is not basic exegesis (it takes takes a statement explaining the absurdity of the Pharisees claim and illustrating Jesus' superiority to Satan and applies it to Satan being bound,and then associates this to a binding at the Cross). To illustrate the fallacy - if we to apply this "basic exegesis" to Isiah 14:12 and Revelation 22:6 we would end up claiming Satan and Jesus were the same (which is one argument KJO advocates have claimed). Regardless of the validity or falseness of the conclusion, it is poor exegesis.

That said, I will continue to consider your interpretation. I do not consider it perverse, just misapplied. We simply disagree. I am considering your eschatological position, so we may in time come to an agreement.

 

[Squire Robertsson]

This thread is closed.

Six Hour Warning
This thread will be closed sometime after 4:30 AM Pacific.