# what is the "all" in Col. 1:20



## rembrandt

[quote:78d0034c68]Colossians 1
20and through him to reconcile to himself [i:78d0034c68]all things[/i:78d0034c68], whether [i:78d0034c68]things on earth or things in heaven[/i:78d0034c68], by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.[/quote:78d0034c68]

who/what is the [i:78d0034c68]all[/i:78d0034c68] in this verse?


----------



## Darren

The text speaks of Christ reconciling work as the basis on which the Fathers alienation from men has been removed or dealt with. In other words, Paul's interest is primarily in the salvific work of Christ in removing the Fathers (righteous) hostility towards the men for whom Christ represented. 

However, the text also seems to have in mind the cosmic ramifications since his work involves &quot;all things.&quot; If Christ did not come to save Angels (Heb 2:16) it seems best to understand this as a reference to the reconciliation of the cosmos (ie the removal of frustration within the creation - Rom 8:19 ff) through the final eschatological manifestation of the Kingdom of God in the new (reconciled) heaven's and earth.


----------



## alwaysreforming

I second the above! Nice work, Darren!


----------



## cornelius vantil

while I agree that the full manefestation of Christ redemptive work will be realized in the eternal state. we must not forget that there is an aspect in which this is present &quot;already&quot;. the kingdom of Christ has come, He is over all things, His kingdom is growing till the &quot;knowledge of the Lord cover the earth as the waters cover the sea&quot;. then finally at His return we will have rule of God is all its fullnes due to the redemptive work of our Lord.

-vantil


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Colossians 1:20 indicates that the reconciling work of Christ on the cross effects all things (ta panta). All things (ta panta), in this context, clearly refers to all things created, without exception-c.f. 1:16, 17. This would mean that reconciliation, IN THIS CONTEXT, is cosmic and universal not soteric and individual alone. This is not universal salvation but universal reconciliation-the universal reconciliation (to bring under subjection and into harmony with) of the cosmos (formerly chaotic due to the entrance of sin through the first Adam and the curse) to God's purposes through the work of Christ the last Adam-c.f. also Eph. 1:10, 22. I agree with Darren.


----------



## luvroftheWord

Wow! What a privilege to have Dr. Van Til alive and well and a part of our board! :bigsmile:


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Paul said:
[quote:f55e60acff]
yeah baby...sounds postmill to me!
[/quote:f55e60acff]

I don't know if you meant van til or me. I think van til. Either way, my comments fit within an Ammillennial frame as well.


----------



## pastorway

Fits the historic premil too as I agree with what has been said!

:biggrin:

Phillip


----------



## rembrandt

[quote:fb2876a1cf][i:fb2876a1cf]Originally posted by Rich Barcellos[/i:fb2876a1cf]
Colossians 1:20 indicates that the reconciling work of Christ on the cross effects all things (ta panta). All things (ta panta), in this context, clearly refers to all things created, without exception-c.f. 1:16, 17. This would mean that reconciliation, IN THIS CONTEXT, is cosmic and universal not soteric and individual alone. This is not universal salvation but universal reconciliation-the universal reconciliation (to bring under subjection and into harmony with) of the cosmos (formerly chaotic due to the entrance of sin through the first Adam and the curse) to God's purposes through the work of Christ the last Adam-c.f. also Eph. 1:10, 22. I agree with Darren. [/quote:fb2876a1cf]

In what way did God reconcile the reprobate, angels, and all cosmic forces to himself through Christ? If they are reconciled in the way that I understand the term they would be eternally saved.

Rembrandt


----------



## Rich Barcellos

[quote:61a018642a]
In what way did God reconcile the reprobate, angels, and all cosmic forces to himself through Christ? If they are reconciled in the way that I understand the term they would be eternally saved. 
[/quote:61a018642a]

The way I understand reconciliation in Col. 1:20 is subjugation to Christ as the last Adam. I qualified the meaning of reconciliation in my previous post. &quot;All things&quot; (ta tanta) in Col 1 refers to all created things, without exception. Through Christ's work, God has put everything uder His (Christ's) feet (Eph. 1:20-22). In this context (Col 1) all means all created things.


----------



## rembrandt

The way I understand Romans 5 (and Cor. 15) is that Christ is the second and last Adam of the [i:245403f0ec]new race[/i:245403f0ec]. I say this on the basis of it saying in verse 18 that his one act of righteousness was for [i:245403f0ec]all[/i:245403f0ec] men.
[quote:245403f0ec]Just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.[/quote:245403f0ec]
This verse would teach universalism, except that the &quot;all&quot; that he is referring to is the [i:245403f0ec]particular[/i:245403f0ec] people he died for and are therefore in [i:245403f0ec]union[/i:245403f0ec] to him.

So is he not the last Adam of the elect or is it all people? If it is only of the elect, then how could he have possibly have reconciled something he didn't even intend to reconcile (those things reconciled are not truly reconciled like the elect)?

thanks,
Rembrandt


----------



## cornelius vantil

Paul said:
[quote:0cc0573dc3]
yeah baby...sounds postmill to me!
[/quote:0cc0573dc3]

I don't know if you meant van til or me. I think van til. Either way, my comments fit within an Ammillennial frame as well. [/quote]

I was just joking around...basically (as I rub my hands together like a made scientist planning to take over the world with a 45 in one hand and a bible in the other...oh wait, I'm starting to sound like scary Gary North.)

-Paul [/quote]

well as a matter of fact i am very much postmill 

have my 45 with &quot;dominion&quot; engraved on it :gunfire:

ok so maybe we theonomist are a little crazy


----------



## rembrandt

?????????????

:help:


----------



## Rich Barcellos

Rembrant said:
[quote:ef5cbcf735]
This verse would teach universalism, except that the &quot;all&quot; that he is referring to is the particular people he died for and are therefore in union to him. 
[/quote:ef5cbcf735]

I agree. The antithetical parallels of Rom. 5 are clear.

[quote:ef5cbcf735]
So is he not the last Adam of the elect or is it all people? If it is only of the elect, then how could he have possibly have reconciled something he didn't even intend to reconcile (those things reconciled are not truly reconciled like the elect)? 
[/quote:ef5cbcf735]

The passage in Colossians is different. The &quot;all things&quot; [ta panta] of v. 16(2x) = all created things. These are the things in heaven, on the earth, visible and invisible, thrones, dominions, rulers, and authorities (probably references to the celestial beings). In v. 17, He is said to hold &quot;all [created] things&quot; [ta panta] together. V. 20 says that the &quot;all things&quot; mentioned previously have been reconciled to God through Christ. Now, if we take reconciliation in its limited and soteriological sense, then either this verse teaches universal soteriological reconciliation or we have to redefine &quot;all things&quot; [ta panta] in v. 20. Some commentators do this.

I think that interpretation is strained and unnecessary. If we understand reconciliation, in this context, as referring to the act of God in Christ's death which subjugates all created things to Christ, then we don't have to limit &quot;all things&quot; but qualify what is meant by reconciliation. As the incarnate Son of God and last Adam, Christ has been given the responsibility to do what the first Adam failed to do - obey perfectly, which included subduing the earth. When sin entered into the world and the curse was inflicted, it effected man and the entire earth, even the cosmos. The entrance of sin into the cosmos (man's sin and the Devil's and his angels) caused a cosmic fracture. At the cross, a slow but sure conquest and subjugation of all things was effected and is now being extended. Colossians itself testifies that Christ's cross &quot;disarmed principalities and powers&quot; (Col. 2:15). Christ is now, as the incarante and ascended God-man, &quot;the head of all principality and power&quot; (Col. 2:10). He &quot;has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him&quot; (1 Pt. 3:22). He came, in part, to &quot;destroy the works of the Devil&quot; (1 Jn. 3:8). He is head over &quot;all things&quot; to the church (Eph. 1:22). This is in persuit of the promise in Gen. 3:15 and in fulfillment of the covenant of works. Christ's headship over all things was necessitated by the fact that all things had been effected by the presence of sin. He is both like an unlike Adam. And, thank God, He is greater and much more powerful than Adam. Indeed, He will, one day, finally subdue His and our enemies and usher us into an Eden that cannot be tarnished with sin, while casting all opposition into the lake of fire. This is the way I understand the cosmic reconciliation of Col. 1:20.


----------



## cornelius vantil

. When sin entered into the world and the curse was inflicted, it effected man and the entire earth, even the cosmos. The entrance of sin into the cosmos (man's sin and the Devil's and his angels) caused a cosmic fracture. At the cross, a slow but sure conquest and subjugation of all things was effected and is now being extended. Colossians itself testifies that Christ's cross &quot;disarmed principalities and powers&quot; (Col. 2:15). Christ is now, as the incarante and ascended God-man, &quot;the head of all principality and power&quot; (Col. 2:10). He &quot;has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, angels and authorities and powers having been made subject to Him&quot; (1 Pt. 3:22). He came, in part, to &quot;destroy the works of the Devil&quot; (1 Jn. 3:8). He is head over &quot;all things&quot; to the church (Eph. 1:22). This is in persuit of the promise in Gen. 3:15 and in fulfillment of the covenant of works. Christ's headship over all things was necessitated by the fact that all things had been effected by the presence of sin. He is both like an unlike Adam. And, thank God, He is greater and much more powerful than Adam. Indeed, He will, one day, finally subdue His and our enemies and usher us into an Eden that cannot be tarnished with sin, while casting all opposition into the lake of fire. This is the way I understand the cosmic reconciliation of Col. 1:20. [/quote]

while i will throughly agree with you that in the eternal state we will have the full realization of Christ's redemptive work. i would love to know how much is that work &quot;extened&quot; now? the Lord described the kingdom in the present form as a small piece of leven that will eventually permeate the whole lump. the writer to the hebrews wrote saying that Christ is presently expecting His enemies to subjected to him. Paul taught in 1 cor. 15 that His return will happen after he has subjected his enemies, in order do away with the last enemy death. would love to hear your thoughts.

-vantil


----------



## Rich Barcellos

vantil said:
[quote:08a45f6c13]
while i will throughly agree with you that in the eternal state we will have the full realization of Christ's redemptive work. i would love to know how much is that work &quot;extened&quot; now? the Lord described the kingdom in the present form as a small piece of leven that will eventually permeate the whole lump. the writer to the hebrews wrote saying that Christ is presently expecting His enemies to subjected to him. Paul taught in 1 cor. 15 that His return will happen after he has subjected his enemies, in order do away with the last enemy death. would love to hear your thoughts. 
[/quote:08a45f6c13]

Christ has been, is, and will conquer through the gospel going out to the nations and being blessed by the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls. Just how many souls? Heaven knows. As far as the extent of His soteriological reign goes; Heaven knows. There will always be wheat and tares living and growing together (Mt. 13:30). This age will always be an evil age (Gal. 1:4). The NT is normative for Christians during the entirety of the inter-advenatal age. &quot;Through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God.&quot; Gospel victories and unbelief will coexist until the end.


----------



## Optimus

[quote:56355c10af]
Christ has been, is, and will conquer through the gospel going out to the nations and being blessed by the Holy Spirit to the salvation of souls. Just how many souls? Heaven knows. As far as the extent of His soteriological reign goes; Heaven knows. There will always be wheat and tares living and growing together (Mt. 13:30). This age will always be an evil age (Gal. 1:4). The NT is normative for Christians during the entirety of the inter-advenatal age. &quot;Through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God.&quot; Gospel victories and unbelief will coexist until the end. 
[/quote:56355c10af]

And the congregation says Amill ! oops, im mean Amen.

you cant touch the A-team, baby!:attack:

[Edited on 4-7-2004 by Optimus]


----------



## cornelius vantil

[/quote]
There will always be wheat and tares living and growing together (Mt. 13:30). This age will always be an evil age (Gal. 1:4). The NT is normative for Christians during the entirety of the inter-advenatal age. &quot;Through much tribulation we must enter the kingdom of God.&quot; Gospel victories and unbelief will coexist until the end. [/quote]

it is true that christians will suffer (cf. rom.8) , but will it be a suffering that leads to historical victory or historical defeat. we as all would agree that in the end Christ will win. yet the issue is do we see this victory in history. the scriptures present &quot;this present evil age&quot; being conquered by the gospel. daniel see a boulder that grows into a mountain that cover the earth. our Lord commanded us to disciple (not just bear witness) the nations b/c all authority in hevean and on earth is His, promised to with us while we do it. zachariah says that the result of the first coming not the second, Christ reign will be &quot;from the river to the ends of the earth&quot; david in psalm 22 says as the result of the work of Christ &quot;all the earth will worship him&quot; so just to say that believers and non-belvers will coexsist till He returns is not completely accurate.
as John said,&quot;the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ and He shall reign for ever and ever&quot;........now thats an AMEN dennis :spin:


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:1169c74cbc][i:1169c74cbc]Originally posted by cornelius vantil[/i:1169c74cbc]

it is true that christians will suffer (cf. rom.8) , but will it be a suffering that leads to historical victory or historical defeat. we as all would agree that in the end Christ will win. yet the issue is do we see this victory in history. the scriptures present &quot;this present evil age&quot; being conquered by the gospel. daniel see a boulder that grows into a mountain that cover the earth. our Lord commanded us to disciple (not just bear witness) the nations b/c all authority in hevean and on earth is His, promised to with us while we do it. zachariah says that the result of the first coming not the second, Christ reign will be &quot;from the river to the ends of the earth&quot; david in psalm 22 says as the result of the work of Christ &quot;all the earth will worship him&quot; so just to say that believers and non-belvers will coexsist till He returns is not completely accurate.
as John said,&quot;the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ and He shall reign for ever and ever&quot;........now thats an AMEN dennis :spin: [/quote:1169c74cbc]

This was a well articulated post in defense of the post mil hope both biblically balanced and Christ glorifying- it is no wonder that the Amil camp has been unable to return this ace serve. The question that we must all ask ourselves is- what effect did the first coming of Christ have on history? Did Christ first coming cause the earth to grow worse or did it cause the earth to get better? How powerful is the Gospel... Did the father really give the Son the world or was God just exaggerating in psalm 2? 

But the main question to ask ourselves is should we build our eschatology off of the newspaper or the promises of God? Obviously the promises of God... well what does God promise? I think Vantil has demonstrated this in his arguments above.

In any event does any Amil have an answer to Vantils postmil defense?

Tyler


----------



## Rich Barcellos

*what is the*

vantil said:
[quote:16f26d49cf]
the scriptures present &quot;this present evil age&quot; being conquered by the gospel.
[/quote:16f26d49cf]

According to Matt. 13:24-30, 36-43 and Lk. 20:27-40, this age includes sons of the kingdom and sons of the evil one, marriage, death, dying, and natural (unglorified) men. This age ends at the resurrection when the age to come is ushered in. If &quot;the scriptures present &quot;this present evil age&quot; being conquered by the gospel,&quot; then Rom. 12:2 ('and do not be conformed to this &quot;age&quot;') is not normative throughout the interadvental period. Are you advocating an intermediate state between the the first and second advents where the NT is not normative? It was after Christ ascended that Paul said that Satan is 'the god of this age' (2 Cor.4:4). With the new creation inagurated by Christ, the age to come has eclipsed this age and we live in the tension of the already/not yet. When the not yet comes in its fullness, Satan shall be cast into the lake of fire along with the sons of the evil one, marriage will cease, death will be no more, dying will be a relic of the past, and only glorified men will populate the new earth. When all evil is gone, this present evil age will be no more. Until that time, we live in two ages at once. Is the NT normative for the interadvental period?


----------



## Darren

> [i:60a7799873]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:60a7799873]
> [quote:60a7799873][i:60a7799873]Originally posted by cornelius vantil[/i:60a7799873]
> 
> it is true that christians will suffer (cf. rom.8) , but will it be a suffering that leads to historical victory or historical defeat. we as all would agree that in the end Christ will win. yet the issue is do we see this victory in history. the scriptures present &quot;this present evil age&quot; being conquered by the gospel. daniel see a boulder that grows into a mountain that cover the earth. our Lord commanded us to disciple (not just bear witness) the nations b/c all authority in hevean and on earth is His, promised to with us while we do it. zachariah says that the result of the first coming not the second, Christ reign will be &quot;from the river to the ends of the earth&quot; david in psalm 22 says as the result of the work of Christ &quot;all the earth will worship him&quot; so just to say that believers and non-belvers will coexsist till He returns is not completely accurate.
> as John said,&quot;the kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ and He shall reign for ever and ever&quot;........now thats an AMEN dennis :spin: [/quote:60a7799873]
> 
> G'day Tyler,
> 
> You suggest that the differences properly understood can be found in the answer to your question &quot;what effect did the first coming of Christ have on history?&quot;
> Then immediately, you clarify your question further when you narrow &quot;history&quot; to the temporal effects, and specifically the&quot;effects&quot;as they are manifest on earth as measured by the gradual amelioration of sin and evil from our culture and one imagines the cause, man's sinful (unregenerate) heart. This is evident in your question &quot;Did Christ first coming cause the earth to grow worse or did it cause the earth to get better?&quot; Moreover, implicit in your thinking is the belief that if evil is not ameliorated in this way then &quot;How powerful is the Gospel...&quot;
> Furthermore, you seem to labour under the impression that brothers who hold to the realised mill position have their eschatology shaped by temporal manifestations of sin as reported in the newspapers, I assumed biblical revelation is the supposed point of comparison!
> 
> The serve is not an ace if it is returned!
> First, there is nothing in Psalm 2, 22, Dan 2, Zech 9 or for that matter Isaiah that cannot be understood to be referring to the consummation.
> Dan 2 teaches us about the invincibility and ultimate victory of the Kingdom and even its inauguration, ie it will appear &quot;at the time of those kings&quot; (Mk 1:15). However, it does not speak to the issues relating to what constitutes victory. Indeed, the promise of Psalm 2 revolves around the content of the Messiah's inheritance not the timing of it, Psalm 2 does not even speak to the issue that separates Realised Mill and Post Mill. Similarly, Zech 9 only confirms what both camps readily agree on - that the King's dominion will extend over all the earth (His reign began at his ascension). That Psalm 22 affirms that the Messiah will fulfill - inherit both the Abrahamic and Davidic promises is undisputed amongst reformed men. Psalm 22 speaks about the content of His inheritance (the families/nations). That you interpret &quot;all the families of the earth will remember and turn...&quot; as a promise of a golden age is *a* possible interpretation, but hardly the only one.
> 
> Second, Rich Barcellos' point is a pressing one for those who contend for a earthly kingdom (contrast with Jn 18:36). He implied your eschatological framework (in which you interpret the O.T texts) is inadequate in that it does not seem to be sensitive enough to the two eschatological ages of the N.T. Clearly, N.T does not teach the Post Mill view of a gradual removal of the temporal effects of sin and evil. Nor does it see the victory of the gospel in terms of social, economic and political transformation. Rather, the N.T maintains the eschatological tension between the two ages so that &quot;this age&quot; (Rom 12:2) and its evil implications is antithetical to the age still to come when our Lord returns to consummate all things.
> Instead of a gradual transformation, the N.T teaches a cataclysmic end to Satan's Kingdom (it will be crushed - not slowly squeezed see Dan 2:44; Matt 13:39-40; Rom 16:20; Rev 19:11ff) then, and only then we will hear the voices from heaven declare &quot;the Kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.&quot; Rev 13:15
> 
> Having said that, I am a positive A Millenialist, and I want to argue that the Kingdom will advance during this age, however, I do not see the issue turning on the amelioration of evil in this present age, but rather in the gathering of the elect (plundering of the strong man's home see Mk 3:27) through the proclamation of the Gospel until all the elect are gathered into the Kingdom (Goldsworthy - K.o.G, God's people, God's place under God's rule) and then the Lord will return and will crush Satan and his Kingdom forever (consummation).
> 
> In my opinion, the Bible teaches this tension between the Kingdom now and the kingdom come. We are taught throughout the N.T about this tension, that's why we need to patiently wait (Rom 8:25). Moreover, Christ's eschatological victory is what encourages us to press on even though we are hard pressed, because though we share in the suffering of Christ we know we shall also share in his vindication and victory at the consummation (2 Cor 4:7-11; Phil 3:10). Consequently, the premise of Post Millennialism that Kingdom of God speak of a fleshly kingdom that will witness the gradual amelioration of evil in this age is in my view the real issue at hand. I believe Riddlebarger is correct on this point, the debate is not over the 'success' but what we believe constitutes the 'success.' The Realised Mill position believes the success is seen now in the plundering of the strong man's house (gathering of the elect) and the Post Mill expects it to manifest through a golden age where evil is eradicated (almost) and culture, politics etc are transformed.


----------



## Roldan

Darren that was an outstanding explanation of the optimistic A-mil position. Woke up my wife when I yelled AMEN! Now THAT was well articulated and biblical.

But to add to this discussion, I would also agree with Darren that to promote the expansion of the kingdom through the conquering of the gospel(the fullfilment of the great commission) in NO WAY implies some earthly golden age that at best is actually gold plated.

I think here at this point our Covenantal paedo Postmil brothers have abandoned the already/not yet aspect of prophecy, where in other areas of covenant theology strongly affirms it (example: Jer. 31).

Yes, it is true that God has promised a time of universal worship, peace, and prosperity, but that will occur only, as the consistent witness of the NT declares, when the Lord Jesus Christ returns. Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. TRUE. But this it will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means &quot;completion&quot;, &quot;perfect&quot;:1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7).

In other words, God's elect and God's created cosmos enter into COMPLETE(to telos) and Perfect(to telos) deliverance from sin and its consequences (see Rom. 8:18-23). The present earth and heavens will replaced with a &quot;new heaven and a new earth, the HOME of righteousness&quot;(2 Peter 3:13).

God's creational purpose(creative covenant) will be fulfilled in the NEW creation. 

Postmil assert that Christ will be with His people to oversee the task of successfully completing its commission and that this is the postmil hope, and also claim that ONLY the postmil view can account for this, is not true at all. The realized mil certainly believe that this age will not end until Christ's purposes are fulfilled. 

The postmil view has failed to establish the making disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them requires that fulfillment be in Postmil terms.

The Lord only knows of TWO ages, the present age and the age to come. Postmil view teach THREE ages, the present evil age, a future golden age, and the age to come. Jesus NOWHERE predicts some glorious future on earth before the end of the world, as the postmil would have us believe. On the contra, the things He Himself experienced are the things that His Church will experience. A disciple is not above his teacher or a slave above his master, &quot;In fact, EVERYONE who wants to live a godly life in Christ Jesus WILL be persecuted,while evil men and imposters will go from BAD TO WORSE, deceiving and being deceived&quot; (2 Tim. 3:12,13).

As the reign of the truth of the gospel is extended, also the forces of evil will gather strength, especially towards the end.

I want to make some other observations but this post is long already and conclude when a postmil brother will obviously object.

In Unity of the Faith, Roldan

ps. Vantil was Amil.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:ce4b094fc7] G'day Tyler, [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

Good day from the States... on a side note &quot;Middleton&quot; is my mothers last name...

[quote:ce4b094fc7] You suggest that the differences properly understood can be found in the answer to your question &quot;what effect did the first coming of Christ have on history?&quot; 
Then immediately, you clarify your question further when you narrow &quot;history&quot; to the temporal effects, and specifically the&quot;effects&quot;as they are manifest on earth as measured by the gradual amelioration of sin and evil from our culture and one imagines the cause, man's sinful (unregenerate) heart. This is evident in your question &quot;Did Christ first coming cause the earth to grow worse or did it cause the earth to get better?&quot; Moreover, implicit in your thinking is the belief that if evil is not ameliorated in this way then &quot;How powerful is the Gospel...&quot; 
Furthermore, you seem to labour under the impression that brothers who hold to the realised mill position have their eschatology shaped by temporal manifestations of sin as reported in the newspapers, I assumed biblical revelation is the supposed point of comparison! [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

Well my point was not to narrow the Gospels power to "historical effects" but to [b:ce4b094fc7] emphasis [/b:ce4b094fc7] that the Gospel also has "historical effects." I truly believe that Christianity is more then just a set of abstract doctrines or that Christianity is only relevant to individuals or the heaven... I think Christianity is a complete worldview and has answers for all of lives problems and histories problems... as such since Chrisantiy is relevant to all areas of life I believe it will have a positive affect on all areas of life. 

[quote:ce4b094fc7] The serve is not an ace if it is returned! [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

As are in complete agreement here... so long as it is understood that I made the comment before anyone returned it.

[quote:ce4b094fc7] First, there is nothing in Psalm 2, 22, Dan 2, Zech 9 or for that matter Isaiah that cannot be understood to be referring to the consummation. [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

So Christ crushes the evil kingdoms of the world in Heaven (Dan 2)? Christ dashes the kings of the earth who will not bow to Him in heaven (Psalm 2)? 

[quote:ce4b094fc7] Dan 2 teaches us about the invincibility and ultimate victory of the Kingdom and even its inauguration, ie it will appear &quot;at the time of those kings&quot; (Mk 1:15). However, it does not speak to the issues relating to what constitutes victory. [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

But it does... it says that the crushing of the nations and the setting itself up in there place would be Christ's Kingdom's victory.

[quote:ce4b094fc7] Indeed, the promise of Psalm 2 revolves around the content of the Messiah's inheritance not the timing of it, Psalm 2 does not even speak to the issue that separates Realised Mill and Post Mill. [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

So would you agree with me and say that Christ has been given dominion over the nations and that all nations are obligated to follow Christ and submit to his law or else they will perish? If you agree with that then we are left with the question... now that we know that the nations belong to Christ how should that effect our view of the Gospels success? What power, what person, what worldview is able to defend against the Christ conquest of liberation... if nothing then why would Christ stop short of anything less then a world empire?

[quote:ce4b094fc7] Similarly, Zech 9 only confirms what both camps readily agree on - that the King's dominion will extend over all the earth (His reign began at his ascension). That Psalm 22 affirms that the Messiah will fulfill - inherit both the Abrahamic and Davidic promises is undisputed amongst reformed men. Psalm 22 speaks about the content of His inheritance (the families/nations). That you interpret &quot;all the families of the earth will remember and turn...&quot; as a promise of a golden age is *a* possible interpretation, but hardly the only one. [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

I think it is the only one... that Covenant theologians can argue.

[quote:ce4b094fc7] Second, Rich Barcellos' point is a pressing one for those who contend for a earthly kingdom (contrast with Jn 18:36). He implied your eschatological framework (in which you interpret the O.T texts) is inadequate in that it does not seem to be sensitive enough to the two eschatological ages of the N.T. [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

But the postmill camp especially as articulated by Bahnsen, Gentry and DeMar does indeed hold to an already not yet... we just all so think hold to the ICC that is Inauguration, Continuation, and Consummation of the Kingdom... it is the Continuation aspect that the Amil camp seems to forget or not have room for... the Church is not an irrelevant piece of the puzzle but is an important aspect and the stuff we do in between the start and finish have serious implications... that is why I think Christ will continue to bless his Church and not leave her orphaned in unprotected... Christ will bless his Church because and the churches labors will not be in vain. 

[quote:ce4b094fc7] Clearly, N.T does not teach the Post Mill view of a gradual removal of the temporal effects of sin and evil. Nor does it see the victory of the gospel in terms of social, economic and political transformation. Rather, the N.T maintains the eschatological tension between the two ages so that &quot;this age&quot; (Rom 12:2) and its evil implications is antithetical to the age still to come when our Lord returns to consummate all things. Instead of a gradual transformation, the N.T teaches a cataclysmic end to Satan's Kingdom (it will be crushed - not slowly squeezed see Dan 2:44; Matt 13:39-40; Rom 16:20; Rev 19:11ff) then, and only then we will hear the voices from heaven declare &quot;the Kingdom of the world has become the Kingdom of our Lord and His Christ.&quot; Rev 13:15 [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

But why not view Christ victory as complete... Christ defeated Satan at the cross, Christ defeats Satan in his return why not also think that Christ defeats Satan in history as well? If Christ does defeat Satan in history then there are going to be historically victories for Christ's Church to speak about- is there not? 

[quote:ce4b094fc7] Having said that, I am a positive A Millenialist, and I want to argue that the Kingdom will advance during this age, however, I do not see the issue turning on the amelioration of evil in this present age, but rather in the gathering of the elect (plundering of the strong man's home see Mk 3:27) through the proclamation of the Gospel until all the elect are gathered into the Kingdom (Goldsworthy - K.o.G, God's people, God's place under God's rule) and then the Lord will return and will crush Satan and his Kingdom forever (consummation). 

In my opinion, the Bible teaches this tension between the Kingdom now and the kingdom come. We are taught throughout the N.T about this tension, that's why we need to patiently wait (Rom 8:25). Moreover, Christ's eschatological victory is what encourages us to press on even though we are hard pressed, because though we share in the suffering of Christ we know we shall also share in his vindication and victory at the consummation (2 Cor 4:7-11; Phil 3:10). Consequently, the premise of Post Millennialism that Kingdom of God speak of a fleshly kingdom that will witness the gradual amelioration of evil in this age is in my view the real issue at hand. I believe Riddlebarger is correct on this point, the debate is not over the 'success' but what we believe constitutes the 'success.' The Realised Mill position believes the success is seen now in the plundering of the strong man's house (gathering of the elect) and the Post Mill expects it to manifest through a golden age where evil is eradicated (almost) and culture, politics etc are transformed. [/quote:ce4b094fc7]

We are also taught that in our struggle with sin we have received been regenerated and "all things have become new" and we are also told that we will never be rid of sin until Christ returns... but should we conclude that in between of our regeneration and glorified bodies that sin in our personal lives will become worse and worse... or should we conclude that we will be sanctified and though are sanctification will be a battle we are on the winning side? Well in the very same way Christ has started his kingdom... and all though this present evil age will not be destroyed until his consummation- Christians are on the winning side in history even though casualties may build in battles.... I suggest that every argument you use based upon the now and then distinction to show that Gospel simply cannot have political social and economic relevance... could with equal force be used to say that believes will not be sanctified because the believer sanctification also has the same eschatological tension... but if we think that Christians will be sanctified in this life more and more... then we must also make room for God doing the same thing in history as He extends His empire over the world... Satan cannot stop it... Christ need only ask and the world is His... and I believe in the great commission Christ sent His church to claim what is rightfully his.

Christ is no mere tribal deity He is Lord of the world and He will reign from sea to sea... what he started he will continue until he finishes it.

Tyler 


[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:e3b1fdbfb9][i:e3b1fdbfb9]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:e3b1fdbfb9]

But why not view Christ victory as complete... Christ defeated Satan at the cross, Christ defeats Satan in his return why not also think that Christ defeats Satan in history as well? If Christ does defeat Satan in history then there are going to be historically victories for Christ's Church to speak about- is there not? 

Christ is no mere tribal deity He is Lord of the world and He will reign from sea to sea... what he started he will continue until he finishes it.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:e3b1fdbfb9]

AMEN! But at the Second coming.

Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. TRUE. But this will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means &quot;completion&quot;, &quot;perfect&quot;:1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7).


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:87f9eee946][i:87f9eee946]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:87f9eee946]
[quote:87f9eee946][i:87f9eee946]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:87f9eee946]

But why not view Christ victory as complete... Christ defeated Satan at the cross, Christ defeats Satan in his return why not also think that Christ defeats Satan in history as well? If Christ does defeat Satan in history then there are going to be historically victories for Christ's Church to speak about- is there not? 

Christ is no mere tribal deity He is Lord of the world and He will reign from sea to sea... what he started he will continue until he finishes it.

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:87f9eee946]

AMEN! But at the Second coming.

Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. TRUE. But this will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means &quot;completion&quot;, &quot;perfect&quot;:1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7). [/quote:87f9eee946]

Rholdan, remember the ICC, inauguration, Continuation and Consummation... the Amil camp simply does not due justice to the continuation of the Kingdom... it simply jumps from the start to the finish... making in between essentially useless... Why is the Church still here if not to fulfill the great commission? And will the Church fail in her task when Christ guides and has promised to ensure His peoples success? Our labor is not in vain Christ has resurrected... if not even death could stop Christ what will stop the Gospel the Church is commissioned to share? ... it is a Gospel not ordained by angels but by the very Son of God. I think the Gospel is an unstoppable force and has relevance for politics, economics and culture... therefore let us stop handing them all over to Satan and let us start handing these areas of life over to Christ and Christ's law and see what a powerful Savior Christ is, the savior of not mere individuals but of the human race. Yes it is a war and causality will happen but we are on the winning side!!! 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:aa839cfb74][i:aa839cfb74]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:aa839cfb74]

Rholdan, remember the ICC, inauguration, Continuation and Consummation... the Amil camp simply does not due justice to the continuation of the Kingdom... it simply jumps from the start to the finish... making in between essentially useless... Why is the Church still here if not to fulfill the great commission? And will the Church fail in her task when Christ guides and has promised to ensure His peoples success? Our labor is not in vain Christ has resurrected... if not even death could stop Christ what will stop the Gospel the Church is commissioned to share? ... it is a Gospel not ordained by angels but by the very Son of God.

therefore let us stop handing them all over to Satan and let us start handing these areas of life over to Christ and Christ's law and see what a powerful Savior Christ is, the savior of not mere individuals but of the human race. Yes it is a war and causality will happen but we are on the winning side!!! 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:aa839cfb74]

Once again I say !

Let me reiterate what I said previously concerning this.

&quot;Postmil assert that Christ will be with His people to oversee the task of successfully completing its commission and that this is the postmil hope, and also claim that ONLY the postmil view can account for this, is not true at all. [b:aa839cfb74]The realized mil certainly believe that this age will not end until Christ's purposes are fulfilled.[/b:aa839cfb74] 

The postmil view has [i:aa839cfb74]failed[/i:aa839cfb74] to establish the making disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them requires that fulfillment be in Postmil terms. &quot;


----------



## Roldan

[quote:bd3f1eb5c9][i:bd3f1eb5c9]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:bd3f1eb5c9]

[b:bd3f1eb5c9]And I have heard much talk here by the Amillennialists that the gospel will go forth. That many will be saved. If so, how can a large group of Christians not make an impact on society?[/b:bd3f1eb5c9]


[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:bd3f1eb5c9]

OH NO! I disagree with Paul on something, not even Paul is perfect! LOL!

Many will be saved but many will also become worse(wheat,tares) The gospel WILL accomplish the great commission bringing the ELECT out of all nations but at the same time reprobates continue to be born and grow worse.

Got to go to church but will be back tonight to respond to the &quot;gnostic&quot; remark.

But you still my nizze fo shizzle!


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:c896eb6212][i:c896eb6212]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:c896eb6212]
[quote:c896eb6212][i:c896eb6212]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:c896eb6212]

Rholdan, remember the ICC, inauguration, Continuation and Consummation... the Amil camp simply does not due justice to the continuation of the Kingdom... it simply jumps from the start to the finish... making in between essentially useless... Why is the Church still here if not to fulfill the great commission? And will the Church fail in her task when Christ guides and has promised to ensure His peoples success? Our labor is not in vain Christ has resurrected... if not even death could stop Christ what will stop the Gospel the Church is commissioned to share? ... it is a Gospel not ordained by angels but by the very Son of God.

therefore let us stop handing them all over to Satan and let us start handing these areas of life over to Christ and Christ's law and see what a powerful Savior Christ is, the savior of not mere individuals but of the human race. Yes it is a war and causality will happen but we are on the winning side!!! 

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:c896eb6212]

Once again I say !

Let me reiterate what I said previously concerning this.

&quot;Postmil assert that Christ will be with His people to oversee the task of successfully completing its commission and that this is the postmil hope, and also claim that ONLY the postmil view can account for this, is not true at all. [b:c896eb6212]The realized mil certainly believe that this age will not end until Christ's purposes are fulfilled.[/b:c896eb6212] 

The postmil view has [i:c896eb6212]failed[/i:c896eb6212] to establish the making disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them requires that fulfillment be in Postmil terms. &quot;

 [/quote:c896eb6212]

This Amil version of victory reminds me of the foot ball team who lost according to the score board but whose coach tells you guys are winners in my books because you tried your best... the Amil presents Christ's people as the ones trying their best but losing in the score board the post mill presents the church as the ones doing the stumping... now I ask you which one portrays the Christ as truly victorious in the battle for history, only if you qualify victory to mean &quot;try your best&quot; can we consider the Amil as presenting a victorious Christ of history...

I guess it all goes back to our definition of victory... is Christ the savior of every realm or only the spritual realm. Post mil say every realm including the spiritual and physical the Amil say the spritual realm only.

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Saiph

Jesus did not say, &quot;I have made all new things&quot;, He said, &quot;I have made all things new.&quot;


----------



## Roldan

There is NO evidence for referring the OT passages to the millennium of the New, there is an overwhelming army of evidence for indentifying it with the Perfect eternal state. Isaiah 65:17 sets the stage and time for the entire prophecy: &quot;Behold I create a new heavens and a new earth.&quot; This prophecy, recapitulated in verse 22 of the next chapter, is chronologically applied by Peter, in 2 Peter 3, and John, Revelation 21, to a time FOLLOWING the coming of Christ. They interpret Isaiah as refering to the eternal state. In both these NT passages, the Isaiah prophecy is clearly linked with a time subsequent to the millennium. Peter interprets Isaiah's &quot;promise&quot; as one which will be PRECEEDED by the destruction of the wicked and the melting away of the present heavens and earth. Revelation 21 locates the fulfillment of the prophecy at exactly the same time, John perfectly places it AFTER the thousand years, the resurrection and the white throne judgment. Other passages of a parallel nature also must refer to the new earth, not the millennial earth. 

The contents of Isaiah's POETIC prophecy are no more literal than the description of the eternal state in Rev. 21 and 22. Who can interpret all the details of those two chapters literally? In both, Isaiah and Rev., language is used,in terms of what was considered most pleasant and astonishing in that day, to get across what words with their present limitations are incapable of correctly expressing. How else can perfection be described in words which have imperfect objects and concepts as recipients? It is difficult to understand why this passage should be misinterpreted when it clearly is indentified with the eternal state by the New Testament. The millennial references is totally without evidence, but its identification with the eternal state is affirmed by an abundance of biblical evidence. 

This one passage has been singled out to demonstrate the way in which OT passages which actually refer to restoration from captivity, the New Testament age, and the eternal state are erroniously applied to the assumed golen-age. 

Amillennialist or Realized Millennialist are in agreement with the Postmillenialist that we expect the millennium to be an age of imperefection. In oposisition to them, we do not view it as the fulfillment of the golden-age prophecies. We believe the prophesies to be truly GOLDEN perfect not GOLD PLATED! This is not to say that no OT prophecies refer to the present age, quite the contrary. But in accord with both Old and New Testament teaching, they find fulfillment of the &quot;golden-age&quot; prophecies in the eternal state, only then can it be said that all that glitters is Gold. 

It is also interesting that postmil have to resort to OT prophesies that speak nothing of a golden age but refer unanimously to the golden age of new heaven and new earth which is Heaven. 

The New Testament knows absolutlely nothing of IMPERFECT golden-age preaching. While there is a consistent appeal to look for the PERFECT golden-age of heaven, nothing can be found about an imperfect interim. Everywhere the eternal state is held out as the future hope of the church militant. The millennium is never preached as such. The only satisfactory explanation is that the millennium is a present reality not a future hope. 

Old Testament passages frequently cited to substantiate the reality of an unrealized millennium(either in its Pre- or Post- form) do not hold any weight. 

Isaiah 65:17-25 in one clear example. We both would agree that the passage speaks of a golden-age. The Postmil(as well as the Premil)will argue that the passage mentions children dying at one hundred years old, and sinners accursed at the end of the same period time. Taking this TOO literally, they insist that it must refer to an imperfect golden-age. And since the one thousand years obviously pertain to a time in which sin and death remain, they feel it is perfectly natural to superimpose the one passage on another. 

Careful examination, however,shows two faults with this presupposition. First, there must be unquestionable evidence for indentifying the Isaiah prophecy with Revelation 20. This evidence is totally lacking. The two are brought together in an unatural union. Who can prove, scripturally, that when Isaiah wrote &quot;the wolf and the lamb shall feed together,&quot; he was speaking of the SAME period that John calls the &quot;thousand years&quot;? There are indications in the passage itself that it is not to be treated literally like &quot;dust&quot; becoming the serpent's food can hardly be literal.

Ezekiel's new temple is not a physical building that will yet be erected on a mound of dirt in the earthly city of Jerusalem, but the spiritual body of Jesus Christ (cp. Ezek. 40-48 with John 2:18-22 and I Pet. 2:1-10). 

Would this advocate gnosticism?

The irenic Bavinck was not too severe when he said that to interpret the prophecy of the Old Testament literally means that one &quot;breaks with Christianity and lapses back into Judaism.



To the praise of our Glorious King who now reigns forever, AMEN.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:940fc9d61a][i:940fc9d61a]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:940fc9d61a]

This Amil version of victory reminds me of the foot ball team who lost according to the score board but whose coach tells you guys are winners in my books because you tried your best... the Amil presents Christ's people as the ones trying their best but losing in the score board the post mill presents the church as the ones doing the stumping... now I ask you which one portrays the Christ as truly victorious in the battle for history, only if you qualify victory to mean &quot;try your best&quot; can we consider the Amil as presenting a victorious Christ of history...

I guess it all goes back to our definition of victory... is Christ the savior of every realm or only the spritual realm. Post mil say every realm including the spiritual and physical the Amil say the spritual realm only.

Tyler

[Edited on 4-13-2004 by Tertullian] [/quote:940fc9d61a]

Tert, can you go back to my post's and show me where I have said that the optimistic Amil view is that we will &quot;try our best&quot;?

You are debating the wrong Amil position and in this case are taring down a strawman, your arguments would work very well with a pessemistic Amil and I would stand with you in that warfront.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Saiph

Roldan:

I am currently a Realized Millenialist (aka. Amillenialist) but I must say everything I have read of the PostMil position has me stumped. 

I am seriously almost converted.
Have you read any of Bahnsen's FREE articles on http://www.cmfnow.com ??

Also, the Matthew 24/70 A.D. fulfillment had me thinking differently about the &quot;Last Days&quot;.

Do you think the amillennial viewpoint leads to Neo-gnosticism ? ? (ie. Separating the Physical and the Spiritual into a false dichotomy)


----------



## Roldan

[quote:b8b687939c][i:b8b687939c]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:b8b687939c]
Roldan:

I am currently a Realized Millenialist (aka. Amillenialist) but I must say everything I have read of the PostMil position has me stumped. 

I am seriously almost converted.
Have you read any of Bahnsen's FREE articles on http://www.cmfnow.com ??

Also, the Matthew 24/70 A.D. fulfillment had me thinking differently about the &quot;Last Days&quot;.

Do you think the amillennial viewpoint leads to Neo-gnosticism ? ? (ie. Separating the Physical and the Spiritual into a false dichotomy) [/quote:b8b687939c]

What has you stumped?

Yes I have read Bahnsen, Warfield, Boetner, Rushdooney, Kik, Gentry Jr., etc... and even though they differ on some points their main thrusts are basically the same and in my opinion, and obviously in the opinion of others Realizers, it is unconvincing and under the scrutiny of scripture is found wanting. Have you read &quot;The Time is at Hand&quot; by Jay Adams? It is an optimistic approach to the Amil position and is devestating to the post and the pre viewpoints but he does focus more on the Pre for the post use almost the same arguments as them to predict some utopian manifestation BEFORE the parousia. 

Concerning Matt. 24/70 a.d. I also take a Preterist viewpoint and does not harm the &quot;optimistic&quot; Amil position. Adams is also preterist.

Neo-gnosticism? of cours not. Would you agree with the dispensationalist who consider Post-mil gnostics? There are various prophecies that are not considered physical but spiritual by the postmil camp, would that put them under the umbrella of neo-gnosticism as well?

Do not be discouraged, our Hope is in the return of Christ not on a return of an imperfect garden of eden.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Saiph

How do the dispensationalists call PostMils gnostic ? ?

Here is waht has me stumped:

[quote:a1586e7f74]

The inward reign of the Savior must become manifest in public righteousness: genuine hearing of the word, genuine religion, and genuine faith are seen in faithful doing of the law, outward helping of the oppressed, and practical aid to the afflicted (James 1:22-2:26). To restrict the reign of Christ to inward matters is to lose touch with the true character of submission to the King.

We must admit, therefore, that the kingdom of Christ is not merely internal and other-worldly. It has external expression on earth at the present time. "The kingdom of God and His righteousness" makes provision for every detail of life (Matt. 6:31-33). It is, as Paul taught, "profitable for all things, holding promise for the life that now is, as well as for that which is to come" (I Timothy 4:8). In a famous kingdom-parable, Christ authoritatively explained that the field (the kingdom) is the world (Matt. 13:38). In the perspective of Scripture, God's redeemed kingdom of priests - the church (I Peter 2:9) - presently "reigns upon the earth" (Revelation 5:9). Our confidence, calling, and prospect is encapsuled in the wonderful song, that "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15). The Messianic kingdom must be seen, then, as this-worldly, external, and visible - not merely internal to man's heart and other-worldly.

Greg Bahnsen
[/quote:a1586e7f74]

The Amil view seems pacifistic and unconcerned with the world when compared to this view.

Does the Optimistic approach of Adams deal with this ? ?


P.S. One element I find troubling with all views is their arbitrary interpretations of certain prophecies being translated spiritually or literally, in order to prove their position. I would like to have an eschatology that is multi-perspectival in the Poythresian sense.

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Roldan

[quote:db20613d45][i:db20613d45]Originally posted by Wintermute[/i:db20613d45]
How do the dispensationalists call PostMils gnostic ? ?

Here is waht has me stumped:

[quote:db20613d45]

The inward reign of the Savior must become manifest in public righteousness: genuine hearing of the word, genuine religion, and genuine faith are seen in faithful doing of the law, outward helping of the oppressed, and practical aid to the afflicted (James 1:22-2:26). To restrict the reign of Christ to inward matters is to lose touch with the true character of submission to the King.

We must admit, therefore, that the kingdom of Christ is not merely internal and other-worldly. It has external expression on earth at the present time. "The kingdom of God and His righteousness" makes provision for every detail of life (Matt. 6:31-33). It is, as Paul taught, "profitable for all things, holding promise for the life that now is, as well as for that which is to come" (I Timothy 4:8). In a famous kingdom-parable, Christ authoritatively explained that the field (the kingdom) is the world (Matt. 13:38). In the perspective of Scripture, God's redeemed kingdom of priests - the church (I Peter 2:9) - presently "reigns upon the earth" (Revelation 5:9). Our confidence, calling, and prospect is encapsuled in the wonderful song, that "the kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He shall reign for ever and ever" (Revelation 11:15). The Messianic kingdom must be seen, then, as this-worldly, external, and visible - not merely internal to man's heart and other-worldly.

Greg Bahnsen
[/quote:db20613d45]

The Amil view seems pacifistic and unconcerned with the world when compared to this view.

Does the Optimistic approach of Adams deal with this ? ? [/quote:db20613d45]

The pessemistic Amil view &quot;seems&quot; pacifistic.

Adams absolutely deals with it. I agreed with everything that bahnsen said except for his Theonomic tendencies in that article but that does not entail a &quot;golden age utopia&quot;. Thats our point.

Before you jump ship I suggest you read the optimistic approach first then make a change or not, preferable not.LOL!

I understand that you are coming from a &quot;pessemistic&quot; amil viewpoint and Bahnsen's critique is devestating but his critique is uneffectual to the optimism of our view.

Grace and Peace, Roldan

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Saiph

Eze 36:33 - 37

Thus saith the Lord GOD; In the day that I shall have cleansed you from all your iniquities I will also cause [you] to dwell in the cities, and the wastes shall be builded. 
And the desolate land shall be tilled, whereas it lay desolate in the sight of all that passed by. 
And they shall say, This land that was desolate is become like the garden of Eden; and the waste and desolate and ruined cities [are become] fenced, [and] are inhabited. 
Then the heathen that are left round about you shall know that I the LORD build the ruined [places, and] plant that that was desolate: I the LORD have spoken [it], and I will do [it]. 
E Thus saith the Lord GOD; I will yet [for] this be enquired of by the house of Israel, to do [it] for them; I will increase them with men like a flock. 



How do you interpret this and the &quot;Sit at my right hand UNTIL, I make thine enemies a footstool&quot; passages ? ?

In the PostMil view it seems like the gospel succeeds, and in the other views it fails miserable.


----------



## Saiph

:goodpost:


----------



## Roldan

Paul, yo da man! I love that fact that you can put aside our alliance on other doctrines and come out gunz blazing:gunfire: when you are in disagreement.

But I have to go teach the youth now (scary) and will be back tonight to do this :tank:

peace

[Edited on 4-14-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Saiph

Paul:

How do you interpret this passage.

Luk 18:7,8 And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? 
I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? 

It does not sound too Postmillenial to me.
I am open to hearing what Posties say about it.


----------



## Saiph

2Pe 3:4 
And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation. 

This verse seems to indicate scoffers will &quot;see&quot; no obvious golden age around them. Unless a man is born again he cannot &quot;See&quot; the kingdom of God.

Also your verses do not answer my question, note:

[quote:f3a589d864]

Revelation 20: 

7 And when the thousand years are finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 
8 and shall come forth to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to the war: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. 
9 [b:f3a589d864]And they went up over the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down out of heaven, and devoured them.[/b:f3a589d864] 
10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where are also the beast and the false prophet; and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 
11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat upon it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne; and books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of the things which were written in the books, according to their works. 
13 And the sea gave up the dead that were in it; and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 
14 And death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death, even the lake of fire. 
15 And if any was not found written in the book of life, he was cast into the lake of fire. 


[/quote:f3a589d864]

The portion I posted in bold shows that there is a &quot;faith&quot; on the earth at this time.


Also, do not the Parables of Matthew 25 argue for a more Amil position ? ? ?


I think Isa. 65 and Ezekiel 36 can be translated in light of an Amil position as well.
All progress in science can be traced back to Christian influence. Every doctor has to borrow from a Christian worldview in order to carry out their duty.

So in that sense, sans natural accidents. We usually think of those who live short lives due to health as &quot;accursed&quot;.

Then take Christ's statements like this into context as well:

[quote:f3a589d864]
Luk 13:1-3
There were present at that season some that told him of the Galilaeans, whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. And Jesus answering said unto them, Suppose ye that these Galilaeans were sinners above all the Galilaeans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, Nay: but, except ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish. 
[/quote:f3a589d864]

Just seeking for lucidity. The Postmil position is appealing.
I just need to see it in Scripture more clearly.


----------



## Optimus

Paul ( and other post millas ),

im new to this, so what you wrote caught my attention..


[quote:b874d5df03]
So, when Jesus returns it is AFTER the millennium. After the glorius millennium the nations will be deceived, i.e., a great apostasy.
[/quote:b874d5df03]

So, let me get this straight...

NOW the nations are decieved, then(in the millenuim) they will not be decieved, but then again the nations become decieved?uzzled:


----------



## Saiph

So Postmil can be summed up in a timeline as:


[quote:62272802e3]
Unknown beginning of 1000 Golden Age Of Revival (literal or figurative)

Satan Bound during that era from &quot;deceiving&quot; whole nations at a time.

A great apostasy when Satan is loosed for a final rebellion.

The glorious return of Christ to consign His enemies to hell forever.
[/quote:62272802e3]


My understanding of Amil:

[quote:62272802e3]

Satan is bound and millenial reign is the Present Church Age.

Apostasy abounds. The Gospel is spreading like hidden leaven. Only those who are born again can see it.

A final apostasy culminates in the loosing of Satan.

The glorious return of Christ to consign His enemies to hell forever.

[/quote:62272802e3]


Amils are postmil in that they believe Christ returns at the end of the millenial reign. But I think you are right. To say they are optimistic is silly. That optimism is exactly what sets the Postmil position apart from them.


----------



## Saiph

As agent Mulder's poster says: &quot;I Want To Believe.&quot;

What about all the doom and gloom passages of a persecuted Church ? ? ?


----------



## Saiph

Explain what this means:


[quote:543d921c3a]
Rev 20:4 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. 
Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This [is] the first resurrection. 
Rev 20:6 Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 
[/quote:543d921c3a]

I cannot get the crazy dispensational interpretation out of my mind.

What is the 1st and 2nd resurrection ? ? ?


Does the term [i:543d921c3a]hoi loipoi ton nekron[/i:543d921c3a] imply martyrs get a special status and resurrection ? ?


Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Tertullian

[quote:63989c8f73] I cannot get the crazy dispensational interpretation out of my mind. 

What is the 1st and 2nd resurrection ? ? ? [/quote:63989c8f73]

Paul's response was beautiful but I just also want to point out that this interpretation that Paul gace from my perspective is the only one that can do full justice to this passage as a whole. The Amil position is forced to chop this passage up when they deal with that must just stay away from it and say that it is to difficult to touch until after we have looked at the "pessimistic" bible passages about the persecuted church that they allege prove God orphaned His Church in a big bad cruel world once they have established that the church will be hopelessly defeated they glaze right over this passage saying what it cannot mean and then saying that is why we have to read it like it is contradictory and then conjecture that it is talking about two different things at once, namely the saints triumphant reign in heaven and Satan's triumphant reign on earth. Yet the Amil is basically asking us to throw out the part about Satan gathering an army and attacking the triumphant Saints for how in the world is Satan going to fight people in Heaven? The Postmil on the other hand by showing that the victory of the Saints takes place on earth for first the gentiles are regenerated (First resurrection) binding Satan's authority on the earth which at one time reigned from sea to sea except for Israel but now God's kingdom liberates all nations not just Israel. Then after the Gospel has completed its task of gathering the elect and transforming this world (ex. politics, war, poverty) with all the power that we would expect from a Gospel of God! Satan will be the one gathering his few remnant to wage war- yes it will be Satan not Christ who is left with the remnant... and then Christ will come and destroy Satan at the second resurrection... even so come lord come. 

This Postmil interpretation is far superior to either the Dispensational interpretation which though correctly views the whole passage on earth cannot explain how physically resurrected Saints live for a thousand years with death and decay around them from their unregenerate unresurrected pagan neighbors. Postmil thus solves the Amils and Disp problems. 


[quote:63989c8f73] Does the term hoi loipoi ton nekron imply martyrs get a special status and resurrection ? ? 

Mat 19:28 And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. [/quote:63989c8f73]

A second what Paul said in his last post- God adds grace to grace. 

What we do here on earth matters... if we are martyred for Christ will God forget our death or will he not punish our the enemies of the cross... Rome where are you? The people you persecuted are still around... what shall we say but echo the wise words of Saul's teacher Gamaliel "If the [Christian] origin is of men, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men, you will only find yourselves fighting against God" (Acts 5:39) With verses like these I wonder how people can be pessimistic about Christ liberating abilites... why is the Gospel of human or Divine origin if it be Divine then every body opposing it will fight against God and God does not lose- even battles in history he will not suffer deteat. 


Tertullian

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Saiph

I must admit, I will have to think about it. Your note about the &quot;Orphaned Church&quot; seems to do justice to the Church as &quot;Bride&quot; also. Christ building His church/bride and nurturing and protecting and cleansing her until the end of the age. Also as Queen. 

Yet He calls His Bride to suffer. Why ? ? ?

It seems on the surface in Premil the gospel fails, and Christ throws His wife to the wolves like Lot offering His daughters to the men of Sodom.

You would think the success of the gospel would be more obvious in 2000 years, and Orthodoxy would be more clear.
What about all the division ? ?


----------



## Roldan

*Roldan's Rebuddle to Paul Manata*

Paul's quotes will be in regular type and my responses in bold.

First let me say that I am enjoying this and totally respect my brothers in the common faith. Paul is very blessed in his biblical knowledge. I am no theologian or scholar so will not try to debate as such but will engage in what I disagree with other brothas by what I have studied and learned of Reformed Theology for the last 10 years and all aspects of it.

Please bare with me as I, in meekness, try my best to show that my optimism as an Amil is not &quot;silly&quot; and is VERY biblical.


1. &quot;Notice that my question was not answered.&quot; 

[b:c2e1767dee]They most certainly was. The reader must notice that Paul only quoted half of my response to his question. Allow me to reitterate what my answer was to the whole &quot;die&quot; issue of Isa. 65:[/b:c2e1767dee]

Old Testament passages frequently cited to substantiate the reality of an unrealized millennium(either in its Pre- or Post- form) do not hold any weight. 

Isaiah 65:17-25 in one clear example. We both would agree that the passage speaks of a golden-age. The Postmil(as well as the Premil)will argue that the passage mentions children dying at one hundred years old, and sinners accursed at the end of the same period time. Taking this TOO literally, they insist that it must refer to an imperfect golden-age. And since the one thousand years obviously pertain to a time in which sin and death remain, they feel it is perfectly natural to superimpose the one passage on another. 

Careful examination, however,shows two faults with this presupposition. First, there must be unquestionable evidence for indentifying the Isaiah prophecy with Revelation 20. This evidence is totally lacking. The two are brought together in an unatural union. Who can prove, scripturally, that when Isaiah wrote &quot;the wolf and the lamb shall feed together,&quot; he was speaking of the SAME period that John calls the &quot;thousand years&quot;? There are indications in the passage itself that it is not to be treated literally like &quot;dust&quot; becoming the serpent's food can hardly be literal.

The contents of Isaiah's POETIC prophecy are no more literal than the description of the eternal state in Rev. 21 and 22. Who can interpret all the details of those two chapters literally? In both, Isaiah and Rev., language is used,in terms of what was considered most pleasant and astonishing in that day, to get across what words with their present limitations are incapable of correctly expressing. How else can perfection be described in words which have imperfect objects and concepts as recipients? It is difficult to understand why this passage should be misinterpreted when it clearly is indentified with the eternal state by the New Testament. The millennial references is totally without evidence, but its identification with the eternal state is affirmed by an abundance of biblical evidence.

[b:c2e1767dee]sorry forgot to bold.[/b:c2e1767dee]

2. &quot;Furthermore, men like Owen believe that we are in the new heavens and earth right now, in a sense! I believe that we are, in a sense! Christ is *currently* making all things new. Thus we are in the new heavens and earth but not the consumated one.&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]AMEN![/b:c2e1767dee]




3.&quot;Similar to Christ being King but there are still enemies. So, again, what does the &quot;optamistic amil&quot; (we could say &quot;closet postmill) say to this???&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]Simple, ALL enemies will be crushed at the consumation.*There will be no heathen remnants to rebel later in history. [/b:c2e1767dee]*

4.&quot;What does &quot;death&quot; mean? Isa 65 says people will *die*! What theological gymnastics can be put forth?&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]Well lets do a backflip back to the response above. Also here is a question, will all humans in the &quot;golden age&quot; die at exactly 100yrs old? After all that is what the text says, now I WONDER what hermenuetic magic will follow.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Let the us reading this remember the symbolic nature of prophecy and its already/not yet characteristics.[/b:c2e1767dee]
[b:c2e1767dee]Also its typical and spiritual fulfillments.[/b:c2e1767dee]

5.&quot;I have studied them and believe them all to be arbitrary, ad hoc, responses.&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]:Let the reader not that my answers were not ad hoc but direct responses.[/b:c2e1767dee]


6.&quot;But, take a postmill perspective and the passage fits&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]Not really, when understanding the nature of prophecy and applying it the Amil fits bettter.[/b:c2e1767dee]


7.&quot;Moreover, I did not say that ALL of Isa 65 would be fulfilled. We have to recognize certain prophetic technichs employes here.&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]Ahhhh, you mean spiritual?[/b:c2e1767dee]


&quot;The reader will also note that Eze 36 has not been delt with. What does it mean that the earth will look like eden but there will be hethen nations *present*??? What does it mean that God's people will rule??? Remember that there are hethen nations PRESENT. How will this be reinterpreted? What will the forthcomming answer be?&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]Not reinterpretated but how is it interpretated by most Reformed theologians historically and biblically, not that majority always matters but let the reader note that I am in good company.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]First note that nowhere in the text of Eze. 36 is any mention of the &quot;earth&quot; looking like eden, that is the postmilla reading the golden age into the text. The text speaks of cities that were ruined being rebuilt to look like eden. Israel as a nation was God's garden. If we look back to Eze. 28:13,14 we see that the prophet here uses and also joins two illustrations for the dwelling place of God, a garden and a mountain. Then we turn to chpt. 40:16: &quot;palm trees-see also vv. 22, 31, 34, 37. The decoration in Israel's ancient sancturaries was mainly botanical; varieties of trees and plants decorated the sacred area(Ex. 25:34;37:19; 1King 6:18,29,32,35). In this respect the sancturaries of Israel suggested the beauty of the Garden of Eden and set before Israel the GOAL of again dwelling in God's garden(28:13,14 note[/b:c2e1767dee])[b:c2e1767dee]&quot;[/b:c2e1767dee] [i:c2e1767dee]The Reformation Study Bible[/i:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Also research your commentaries to see this same interpretation[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]What's the point you ask, if not already obvious. The prophets depict the nation of Israel and its temple the garen of eden. The Church now is Israel and therefore the garden of eden /mountain NOT the earth.[/b:c2e1767dee] [b:c2e1767dee]The Church as the garden of Eden will reach its fullness of beauty in the second coming.[/b:c2e1767dee] [b:c2e1767dee]Allelujah!!!!![/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]So when the kingdom is extended through the preaching of the gospel and many are saved and brought into the &quot;garden of God&quot;, the heathen will take notice. God will fill the Church and will be evident to the heathen.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Let the reader also take notice that right after vs 35 speaks of the Eden, vs. 36 says that &quot;..the NATIONS WHICH ARE LEFT ALL AROUND..&quot; If ALL nations will be subdued hence bringing in the golden age garden of eden, WHY are there NATIONS LEFT?![/b:c2e1767dee]

&quot;Further, let the reader note that I have based my argument for postmillenialism off covenant theology. Has this even been touched?!!? Again, the promises to Abraham INCLUDE the physical earth, all the while these promises mention &quot;surrounding hethen nations&quot; therefore, it cannot be the eternal state.&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]So you agree with the Dispo here? The postmilla is still waiting for an physical promise that has been fulfilled in Joshua 13-21:45? Did we forget that the promise land that was promised physically that was ALREADY fulfilled was the shadow of the eternal state of New heavens and New earth?[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Furthermore Abraham was promised a physical piece of land on the earth but even Abraham understood that there was something better, Eternity with God the real promise land.[/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]We cannot jump from a Historical-Grammatical hermenuetic to a Disp Literalistic hermen. when convenient to our theology.[/b:c2e1767dee]

&quot;Lastly, what has not been delt with is my argument from believers (AFB). Roldan, as an optamistic amill, said that he has confidence that the NATIONS will be blessed. That the great commission will be fulfilled. That &quot;righteousness&quot; will cover the earth. Now, how can a large increase in Christians NOT make an impact on society?&quot;

[b:c2e1767dee]Again I will reiterate what I said to this:[/b:c2e1767dee] 

[b:c2e1767dee]Many will be saved but many will also become worse(wheat,tares) The gospel WILL accomplish the great commission bringing the ELECT out of all nations but at the same time reprobates continue to be born and grow worse. [/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Wow that was long and tiresome but I will not fold!!!![/b:c2e1767dee]

[b:c2e1767dee]Its hard to answer every single thing for me anyways, can we take one at a time, you pick.[/b:c2e1767dee]










[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## Roldan

Paul says: &quot;Basically, optamistic amill is an oxymoran, a contradiction (as Gentry argues), or as I say, closet postmills. We can get into this if you want to.&quot; 

You still my dog, posty!


----------



## Saiph

Why is the Church a suffering Bride right now then ? ? ?


----------



## Saiph

I did read your post. I am still not 100% convinced.


I believe any preterism, partial or full, to be absurd.

I used to accept partial until I thought about it in context of all historical data.

For instance, if 70 A.D. was a Parousia of judgment on the Jews, then so was the holocaust. Any genocide could be categorized that way, which diminishes the emphasis of the parousia in the New Testament.

Stalin's bloodbath would have to be considered a parousia as well.



[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Wintermute]


----------



## Saiph

I have only read Sproul's book on Preterism.
I thought it implied several minor parousias ? ?

I am printing out your last post. I will read it.


----------



## Roldan

[quote:d75f0f0ebe][i:d75f0f0ebe]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:d75f0f0ebe]
[quote:d75f0f0ebe]
Paul is very blessed in his biblical knowledge. I am no theologian or scholar so will not try to debate as such but will engage in what I disagree with other brothas by what I have studied and learned of Reformed Theology for the last 10 years and all aspects of it. 
[/quote:d75f0f0ebe]

Well, I thank you for the compliment. And, we are the same with respect to &quot;theologian and scholar.&quot; I am not one either. Hopefully, when I finish schooling I will lay claim to that title, but for now this is just a testing ground for me. Your compliments should be saved for those like Webmaster, Fred Greco, Pastor Way, Rich Barcellos, etc. Those men who are either in the ministry or training to be so (forgive me if I left out others). Also, you have studied Reformed theology for 10 yrs! This puts you way, way, ahead of me. Indeed, I have only been a Christian for almost 5 years. I hope I don't sound arrogant or rude or dogmatic, to you. This is just how I debate. I hope that my interaction with brothers who are very close theologically to me has proved that I harbor no ill feeling towards those who I differ on many more issues with. I deabte all the same.


[Edited on 4-16-2004 by Paul manata] [/quote:d75f0f0ebe]


No offense taken my brotha, you my man!

I love to be challenged the way you do and find it fun to debate with creative and gunz blazing type cats like you.

What gets under my skin is the exagerated humbleness of people who want to debate and get bent out of shape if you come out dropin bombs.

I love you MAAAAAAAN! 
:bigcry:

the smiley things are coo


----------



## Dan....

Paul, Richard and Mark,

Thank you for the discussion. I have been learning much from them.

I have a question for Paul.

I am sort of confused as to what is to be defined as postmillennialism.

From what I've always heard, postmillenialists teach that millennium does not begin until some extended period after the resurrection of Christ.

What you are saying, if I have understood you, is that the millennium began with the resurrection of Christ and extends to the second coming (the same as does the amillennialists). If this is true, then what is the difference between postmillennialism and &quot;optimistic&quot; amillennialism? Is it simply a difference in semantics? Or is there more to it?

Also, has this interpretation of the millennium (from resurrection to second advent) always been considered a postmillenial interpretation? I have heard that many of the puritans were postmillenial. Were they in agreement with this interpretation of the millennium (resurrection to second advent), or did they hold that the millennium was to begin an extended time after the resurrection of Christ?

(By the way, I guess I would be considered by all three of you to be a &quot;pessimistic&quot; amillenialist (though I believe that the gospel has been triumphant). However, I have enjoyed the conversation.)

Thanks,


[Edited on 4-17-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## Dan....

Thanks Paul.

The article was very helpful.


----------



## cornelius vantil

Are you advocating an intermediate state between the the first and second advents where the NT is not normative? It was after Christ ascended that Paul said that Satan is 'the god of this age' (2 Cor.4:4). With the new creation inagurated by Christ, the age to come has eclipsed this age and we live in the tension of the already/not yet. When the not yet comes in its fullness, Satan shall be cast into the lake of fire along with the sons of the evil one, marriage will cease, death will be no more, dying will be a relic of the past, and only glorified men will populate the new earth. When all evil is gone, this present evil age will be no more. Until that time, we live in two ages at once. Is the NT normative for the interadvental period? [/quote]

i apologize for my late response....unix shell scripting is killing me!!!!! well a common charge against postmills is the one that we do not hold to 2 age model of biblical eschatology as taught by the late dr. vos. they say by looking towards victory of the church in history we are inserting an additional age. let me just say that this is simply not the case. we see the kingdom as established in 1st century, but growing over time into maturity...not setting up a diffrent age. Our Lord describes it as a &quot;mystery&quot; in the parables. the illustrations of the mustard see, leaven teaches us that the kingdom start small, but gradually grows big and fills the earth.


----------



## cornelius vantil

*Paul's posts*

Paul i must say i have really enjoyed your post on postmillennialism. they have been ver encouraging


----------

