# Thinking about Millennial views



## turmeric

I know, it's a dangerous thing to do.

I started thinking that one difference between Postmils and Amils is where the millennium is taking place, for the Posties it's here on earth as the Gospel spreads and kingdoms capitulate to Christ, for Amils it's in heaven where the dead in Christ are ruling with Him (and we do too in some sense). So that would actually make both these groups technically post-millennial since they both assert that the parousia and final judgment take place after this present time-period, which both call the millennium.

What started this was; I was trying to come up with a better name than Amillennial, because Rev.20 mentions a millennium and the word Amillennial sounds like they're saying "You know that millennium thing in Scripture? Well, we don't believe it..."which isn't really what they're saying. So if we say the millennium is actually taking place now and then the judgment will come, we're really a variety of Post-millenialists, aren't we?

I almost put this in the wading pool. Maybe it belongs in the recycling!


----------



## DMcFadden

Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's *A Case for Amillennialism *where he makes that point.

(BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).


----------



## InevitablyReformed

DMcFadden said:


> Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's *A Case for Amillennialism *where he makes that point.
> 
> (BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).



Sir,

Could you list two or three particular thoughts that have caused you change your mind? I would be interested as to what passages/concepts specifically affected you as you read those books.


----------



## shackleton

DMcFadden said:


> (BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).



McFadden, 
Once you have become thoroughly Amil and no longer hold to any tenets of Premil you need to read Ken Gentry's books on Postmil. It will blow your mind. Even if you don't go all the way to Postmil the arguments he makes are excellent especially when taking Josephus and other early Roman Historians into account. Once reading Gentry, (Before Jerusalem Fell, The Number of the Beast, and The Great Tribulation), the Spiritualist nature of Riddlebarger becomes very clear. Almost though persuadest me to be a Postmil. 

Good stuff by Riddlbarger that goes along with his book, http://www.monergism.com/directory/...chatology/Riddlebarger-on-Amillennialism-101/, http://www.monergism.com/directory/...a/Eschatology/Riddlebarger-on-the-Antichrist/, if your interested.


----------



## DMcFadden

Daniel,

I was raised premil. My college prof (Bob Gundry) wrote *the* defense of the post-trib pre-mil view from a quasi dispensational perspective. In seminary, George Ladd was my prof. He is known for his vigorous defense of the historic pre-mil view from a more mainstream perspective. With two strong proponents (and no one bothering to argue an alternative view), I sort of "fell into" historic pre-mil without carefully considering the alternative views. And, with most of my parishioners and colleagues in ministry being pre-mil, there was little motivation to re-examine old presuppositions.

For the historic pre-mil, Rev 20 is the clincher. I wanted to interpret it in a normal historical-grammatical manner. Riddlebarger showed an alternative picture of Rev. 20 more consistent with my overall hermeneutic. Frankly, unless you separate Israel and the Church in your hermeneutic, there is really little reason for the millennium anyway. Riddlebarger's exposition of a comprehensive approach to eschatology from a Reformed perspective is quite convincing. He dispenses with the dispensational argument for seeing prophecy in terms of ethnic Israel by demonstrating how the NT reinterprets OT prophecy in terms of the Christ event. 

Daniel, it has more to do with approach than anything else. As an ex-pre-mil himself, Riddlebarger writes for the sake of those raised as dispensationalists as well as historic pre-mils. His exposition of Daniel 9, the Olivet Discourse, Romans 11, and Rev. 20 all show the superiority of the amil system as well as identifying problems with full and partial preterism as well as various versions of postmillennialism. For those of us with pre-mil approaches, he seems to have an intuitive grasp for what persuaded us initially, what kept us in the pre-mil camp, and how the Bible could be explained in an alternative manner that was more consistent, fuller, and ultimately "biblical." 

In the case of Waldron, his argument is with the dispensational version of pre-mil as exprressed by John MacArthur. Again, by demonstrating what is wrong with the dispensational hermeneutic (in such a gracious and respectful manner), Waldron would be an ideal book for a dispensational pre-mil although in dealing with MacArthur's errors, he also makes the case for an amil view against all versions of premillennialism, including my historic premillennialism.


----------



## mshingler

DMcFadden said:


> Daniel,
> 
> I was raised premil. My college prof (Bob Gundry) wrote *the* defense of the post-trib pre-mil view from a quasi dispensational perspective. In seminary, George Ladd was my prof. He is known for his vigorous defense of the historic pre-mil view from a more mainstream perspective. With two strong proponents (and no one bothering to argue an alternative view), I sort of "fell into" historic pre-mil without carefully considering the alternative views. And, with most of my parishioners and colleagues in ministry being pre-mil, there was little motivation to re-examine old presuppositions.
> 
> For the historic pre-mil, Rev 20 is the clincher. I wanted to interpret it in a normal historical-grammatical manner. Riddlebarger showed an alternative picture of Rev. 20 more consistent with my overall hermeneutic. Frankly, unless you separate Israel and the Church in your hermeneutic, there is really little reason for the millennium anyway. Riddlebarger's exposition of a comprehensive approach to eschatology from a Reformed perspective is quite convincing. He dispenses with the dispensational argument for seeing prophecy in terms of ethnic Israel by demonstrating how the NT reinterprets OT prophecy in terms of the Christ event.
> 
> Daniel, it has more to do with approach than anything else. As an ex-pre-mil himself, Riddlebarger writes for the sake of those raised as dispensationalists as well as historic pre-mils. His exposition of Daniel 9, the Olivet Discourse, Romans 11, and Rev. 20 all show the superiority of the amil system as well as identifying problems with full and partial preterism as well as various versions of postmillennialism. For those of us with pre-mil approaches, he seems to have an intuitive grasp for what persuaded us initially, what kept us in the pre-mil camp, and how the Bible could be explained in an alternative manner that was more consistent, fuller, and ultimately "biblical."
> 
> In the case of Waldron, his argument is with the dispensational version of pre-mil as exprressed by John MacArthur. Again, by demonstrating what is wrong with the dispensational hermeneutic (in such a gracious and respectful manner), Waldron would be an ideal book for a dispensational pre-mil although in dealing with MacArthur's errors, he also makes the case for an amil view against all versions of premillennialism, including my historic premillennialism.



Dennis, I'm about where you are (80% convinced of amil.), though I haven't yet read Waldron's book. I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium. About a year ago, I listened to Doug Moo defending Historic Premil., and I commented to a friend that, if I actually embraced the hermeneutic he was using, I'd probably be amil. He rested the millennium pretty much on Rev. 20 alone. That seems fairly weak to me, considering that so many godly and learned men have interpreted Rev. 20 in a different way.


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils. I am just finishing Riddlebarger's *A Case for Amillennialism *where he makes that point.
> 
> (BTW, after reading Waldron on MacArthur's "Manifesto" and Riddlebarger's "Case" this week on vacation, I'm about 80% convinvced to leave my historic premil understanding for a more consistent amil position. PB strikes again. Its long tentacles reach all the way to poor Baptists vacationing in Arkansas! Either that or just being in the same state with Josh had a kind of kryptonite effect on me).



Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!


----------



## Herald

You know, next week I finish the first phase of my sermon series in Daniel. I end with chapter six. In November/December I'm on the pulpit again and I have to deal with the chapters 7-12. Actually _I don't have to_ deal with these chapters. I could move on to something easier but that would be intellectually dishonest. The problem is that my millennial view is like soggy mashed potatoes right now. Having left dispensationalism just a few years back I have absolutely no idea what I believe regarding eschatology other than Christ is coming again to judge the quick and the dead. I've kept to a default historic pre-mil position but now I question that. It'll be interesting what my studies over the next few months will reveal.


----------



## DMcFadden

> Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!


_"Stay on target. Stay on target."_

“Help me Obi-Bill Kenobi. You’re my only hope.” 

_"Trust the force . . . "_

"I copy Gold Leader"


----------



## Herald

DMcFadden said:


> Dennis, resist. You can do it. Close your mind and rest on your presuppositions!
> 
> 
> 
> _"Stay on target. Stay on target."_
> 
> “Help me Obi-Bill Kenobi. You’re my only hope.”
> 
> _"Trust the force . . . "_
> 
> "I copy Gold Leader"
Click to expand...


----------



## Christusregnat

Meg,

Generally, I've found that postmils will make a stronger link between this world and the next than amils do. In other words, amils are the champions of the "not yet" theology, while postmils champion the "already" in the "already not yet" paradigm.

Stated a different way, amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.

The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), Calvin, Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).

I would also venture to say that postmil thinking is generally related to some form of theonomic ethics, since postmils tend to give more weight than other schools to OT prophecies of the Messiah's kingdom. For example, you will find that the Puritans that landed in America wanted to create a "Holy Commonwealth" in order to usher in the millennium. Also, many of the songs you sing at Christmas time are postmil in content (Isaac Watts himself being postmil).

Cheers,

Adam









turmeric said:


> I know, it's a dangerous thing to do.
> 
> I started thinking that one difference between Postmils and Amils is where the millennium is taking place, for the Posties it's here on earth as the Gospel spreads and kingdoms capitulate to Christ, for Amils it's in heaven where the dead in Christ are ruling with Him (and we do too in some sense). So that would actually make both these groups technically post-millennial since they both assert that the parousia and final judgment take place after this present time-period, which both call the millennium.
> 
> What started this was; I was trying to come up with a better name than Amillennial, because Rev.20 mentions a millennium and the word Amillennial sounds like they're saying "You know that millennium thing in Scripture? Well, we don't believe it..."which isn't really what they're saying. So if we say the millennium is actually taking place now and then the judgment will come, we're really a variety of Post-millenialists, aren't we?
> 
> I almost put this in the wading pool. Maybe it belongs in the recycling!


----------



## danmpem

mshingler said:


> I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium.



Could you elaborate a little more on that please?


----------



## DMcFadden

Dan,

Premillennialism comes in two flavors: historic and dispensational. The first takes the traditional view of the Church that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hope and the Gentiles are grafted into the tree as the spiritual seed of Abraham. Not all Israel is Israel and all that. Dispensational hermeneutics depend upon two key presuppositions, the first of which is that Israel = ethnic Israel, NEVER the Church and the Church NEVER equals Israel (even metaphorically).

If you are an historic premillennarian, you have already accepted the standard hermeneutic seeing the Church as the extension (not replacement) of Israel. With such a position, there is really little logic for a millennium. And, it creates several problems. You have resurrected saints mingling with natural-bodied tribulation saints who are marrying, giving in marriage, and procreating. 

For dispensationalism, you have a reinstitution of the OT sacrifices in the new Temple while Jesus rules on the throne in Jerusalem in addition to a number of other oddities and anomalies.

So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.


----------



## danmpem

DMcFadden said:


> So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.



That's where I'm at right now. I am not sold on dispensational premil, I am very much more historic premil, because of the relationship between the church and Israel. I guess I liked it, because it let me have my cake and eat it too (church/Israel + 1,000 year millennium).

Thanks for having so much patience with me.


----------



## mshingler

danmpem said:


> mshingler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that, once you give up the distinction between Israel and the church and the idea that there has to be a future dispensation when ethnic Israel regains prominence and the old "dividing wall" goes back up, then there seems little need for a millennium.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate a little more on that please?
Click to expand...


Ditto what Dennis said above. 
Since I no longer see all the prophetic O.T. passages as something that must be fulfilled in a reconstituted, ethnic Israel, apart from the church, it seems there is little place for an earthly millennium following Christ's return. Actually some historic premils. readily admit that this is a weakness in their position (Millard Erickson for example). 
If you say to a dispensationalist that Rev. 20 is the only mention of the "1,000 years" in Scripture, they will likely respond that there are lots of O.T. prophecies that clearly refer to this same period - prophecies that have yet to find a literal fulfillment in national Israel, as their hermeneutic/presuppositions require. The historic premil., however, follows basically the same hermeneutic as the amil. and is left with the fact that, indeed, Rev. 20 is the only mention of the "1,000 years."


----------



## Scott1

> Christusregnat
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> Stated a different way, *amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic *about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.
> 
> The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), *Calvin,* Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).



What then of this distinction I hear between "optimistic" and "pessimistic" amillenialism?

I have heard that Mr Calvin was amillenialist, though he did not emphasize eschatology- is this correct?


----------



## Scott1

DMcFadden said:


> Dan,
> 
> Premillennialism comes in two flavors: historic and dispensational. The first takes the traditional view of the Church that Jesus is the fulfillment of Israel's hope and the Gentiles are grafted into the tree as the spiritual seed of Abraham. Not all Israel is Israel and all that. Dispensational hermeneutics depend upon two key presuppositions, the first of which is that *Israel = ethnic Israel*, NEVER the Church and the Church NEVER equals Israel (even metaphorically).
> 
> If you are an historic premillennarian, you have already accepted the standard hermeneutic seeing the Church as the extension (not replacement) of Israel. With such a position, there is really little logic for a millennium. And, it creates several problems. You have resurrected saints mingling with natural-bodied tribulation saints who are marrying, giving in marriage, and procreating.
> 
> For dispensationalism, you have a reinstitution of the OT sacrifices in the new Temple while Jesus rules on the throne in Jerusalem in addition to a number of other oddities and anomalies.
> 
> So, once you leave dispensational hermeneutics for historic premillennialism, you might as well go all the way and become amil or postmil.



Very helpful, thank you.

In the modern dispensational premillennial position, I hear Israel defined as (always) "sons and daughters of Jacob."

How much ethnicity is this taken to mean?

For example, we know a married couple, one Jewish, one Gentile- are their children "Israel" in the dispensational hermeneutic?

In the case of the modern day Syrians- there is some Jewish blood from the time the northern kingdom of Israel was conquered by the Assyrian empire, producing the Samaritans and now, through the centuries, a small amount of Jewish blood remains in some there.

So, were the Samaritans "sons and daughters of Jacob"?

Are the modern day Syrians who might have, say 1/32 Jewish ancestors "sons and daughters of Jacob" in this hermeneutic?


PS I feel like I have moved to a new level having used the word "hermeneutic"!


----------



## Me Died Blue

Honestly, right now I'm still a panmillennialist - it'll all pan out in the end.


----------



## Christusregnat

Scott,

The term "postmil" is mainly used as a more recent term. The reason for this is that the crystalization of the "postmil" view has mainly been in reaction to the dispensational view, begun in the 1800's. Thus, Calvin would not have identified himself as a postmil (nor would have George Gillespie for that matter), but they are both clearly in support of an overwhelming success of the gospel in time and history. For instance, read some of Calvin's comments on Isaiah, and you will find his recognition that all Gentile nations will serve Christ. See, for example, his comments on Isaiah 19 where it discusses Egypt and Syria being included in God's family.

As for optimistic and pessimistic amil, I would say that optimistic amil is very similar / the same as postmil. Pessimistic amil is generally what I described as dividing the "now and not yet" VERY strongly. Heaven and earth are almost ontologically separated in the pessimistic amil position. History will see a sharp decline in the effect of the gospel among the nations, and a few of the chosen people will be saved.

Hope that helps.

Cheers,

Adam









Scott1 said:


> Christusregnat
> Puritanboard Freshman
> 
> Stated a different way, *amils can tend to be somewhat more pessimistic *about the future of the gospel in this world (before Christ's return), whereas postmils tend to be more optimistic about the future of the gospel in this world, with the cap-stone bring Christ's return.
> 
> The postmil view is a rather new name, but not a new idea. Those who have held to the triumph of the gospel include such luminaries as Athanasius, Augustine (in some of his writings), *Calvin,* Gillespie, Rutherford, most of the Pilgrims and Puritans in the American Colinies, and some might even make the case for the Westminster Assembly's Larger Catechism being optimistic about the triumph of the gospel (see Q&A re: the 2d petition in the Lord's Prayer).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What then of this distinction I hear between "optimistic" and "pessimistic" amillenialism?
> 
> I have heard that Mr Calvin was amillenialist, though he did not emphasize eschatology- is this correct?
Click to expand...


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> As for optimistic and pessimistic amil, I would say that optimistic amil is very similar / the same as postmil. Pessimistic amil is generally what I described as dividing the "now and not yet" VERY strongly. Heaven and earth are almost ontologically separated in the pessimistic amil position. History will see a sharp decline in the effect of the gospel among the nations, and a few of the chosen people will be saved.



I think we must define what in da world does "gospel success" means. I hear that thrown around alot as if any reformed would actually believe that the gospel will not do its job as intended by our God, it just seems so weird to me. 

But the problem as far as I see it is that the postmil would say that gospel succession can only mean a christianization of all nations ushering in the golden age but the amil will say that gospel succession means that it will save God's elect who are in all nations but not that it will christianize entire nations or most of the nation so then the postmil will accuse the amil of pessimism because they don't have a million kabillion trillion or watever people getting saved hence God loses cause there are more people in hell than heaven, thats silly to be quite frank. If being optimistic means to believe that the gospel will do its job, then for heavens sake we are all optimistic, don't you think. 

There needs to be more clarification on the whole optimism vs pessimism thing cause again quite frankly its ridiculous if you ask me.


ps. please excuse my ramblings of fustration 

btw, I am an Amil or realized milleniallist per Jay Adams and I believe the gospel will do its job even in the midst of the coming persecutions and apostacy again what is the gospels job I've actually had a discussion here a few years ago with Paul manata(posty) maybe i should go search for it 

thanx for listening holla!


----------



## turmeric

I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its _all_ about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we _will_ have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.

Now I holla'd.


----------



## Christusregnat

Ricky,

Thanks for the interaction!



Roldan said:


> I think we must define what in da world does "gospel success" means. I hear that thrown around alot as if any reformed would actually believe that the gospel will not do its job as intended by our God, it just seems so weird to me.



Good point! Definitions are key. Gospel success must be defined in terms of Scripture. Whatever Scripture predicts, promises, or foretells about the effect that the gospel will have on earth is how we ought to define success:

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a *rod out of the stem of Jesse*, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and *he shall smite the earth*: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall *he slay the wicked*. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: *for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea*. 10 *And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse*, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; *to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious*. 

If we say that the knowledge of the LORD will NOT fill the earth, and cause all the Gentiles to seek it, then we are not biblical about the success of the gospel.

If we say that not ALL FAMILIES of the earth will be blessed in stem of Jesse, then we do not believe that the success of the gospel, as presented in Scripture, will actually take place. If we do not agree that all nations will be made Christ's disciples, and that the great commission will be fulfilled, then we do not believe in the success of the gospel.

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass *in the last days*, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations shall flow unto it*. 3 And *many people shall go and say*, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and *he will teach us of his ways*, and we will walk in his paths: for *out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem*. 4 And *he shall judge among the nations*, and *shall rebuke many people*: and *they *shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: *nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more*. 

"Peace on earth, good will toward men". This is what Christ told the disciples to do: "Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." Isaiah says that the nations will desire that Christ "teach them His ways." This is gospel success.



Roldan said:


> There needs to be more clarification on the whole optimism vs pessimism thing cause again quite frankly its ridiculous if you ask me.



It is not ridiculous. Many more passages could be quoted about how all nations will submit to Christ after His Incarnation. Notice the passages above talk about the stem of Jesse, and the "last days". Those are words used to describe Christ's incarnation and the gospel age. In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism:

"Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), *acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan*, we pray, that the *kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed*, the *gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in*; the *church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and *made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins*, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and *hasten the time of his second coming*, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends."


Notice, before Christ comes back again, the fullness of the Gentiles must be called, the magistrates of the earth Christianized, those yet in their sins may be converted by the ministry of the church, and Satan's kingdom destroyed. That succinctly describes gospel success.



Roldan said:


> ps. please excuse my ramblings of fustration



No worries! I'll forgive your frustration if you forgive my long-windedness 

Cheers,


----------



## Scott1

turmeric said:


> I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its _all_ about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we _will_ have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.


1)Is it fair to say that amillenialism says God will continue to save people and shed common grace around them right in the midst of the evil decaying world system but that the proportion of those saved will probably not increase (in relation to "the world")?

2)Would amillenialsim tend to say that things will get better and better in the church?

3)Would an "optimistic" amillenialist see the proportion increasing over time?

4) Any idea if the classic view tended either way ("optimistic"/"pessimistic") or is this a recent, unhelpful distinction?


----------



## turmeric

My only response, because I'm hardly an expert, is that at some point the common grace will end and judgment begin because "the elements will melt with fervent heat". Until then, I'm sure people will continue to be saved.


----------



## Christusregnat

Meg,

I think I know, but where would you say the idea of common grace ending would come from?

Also, when it says that the elements will melt with fervent heat, how does that reconcile with God's promise to regenerate the heavens and the earth in Romans 8, and where Christ talks about the "regeneration of all things"?

Cheers,

Adam






turmeric said:


> My only response, because I'm hardly an expert, is that at some point the common grace will end and judgment begin because "the elements will melt with fervent heat". Until then, I'm sure people will continue to be saved.


----------



## MrMerlin777

I know I've said this many times before in other threads but this is a good thread for a repeat.

I highly recommend _More than Conquerors._ by William Hendricksen for a good basic primer on Revelation from a realized/gospel millenial (ie a-mil) POV.


----------



## JohnV

Scott1 said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its _all_ about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we _will_ have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Is it fair to say that amillenialism says God will continue to save people and shed common grace around them right in the midst of the evil decaying world system but that the proportion of those saved will probably not increase (in relation to "the world")?
> 
> 2)Would amillenialsim tend to say that things will get better and better in the church?
> 
> 3)Would an "optimistic" amillenialist see the proportion increasing over time?
> 
> 4) Any idea if the classic view tended either way ("optimistic"/"pessimistic") or is this a recent, unhelpful distinction?
Click to expand...


Right on!

If we asked all those who believe in a millennium but did not believe in the successful advance of the gospel fully according to God's plan to leave the room, then we'ed still have all of us in attendance; none of us would leave. As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way. 

This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.


----------



## Scott1

> JohnV
> Puritanboard Postgraduate
> 
> This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism;



Does "how that will happen" have something to do with God electing more and more people for salvation versus the church advancing the Kingdom through all of society?


----------



## JohnV

Scott1 said:


> JohnV
> Puritanboard Postgraduate
> 
> This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does "how that will happen" have something to do with God electing more and more people for salvation versus the church advancing the Kingdom through all of society?
Click to expand...


You're asking me a question concerning things I do not know. I believe that even Jesus Himself made an answer similar to this. All those who are elect will most certainly come to salvation. How many that is, whether it will be more and more, or whether what we are given in the Word about the end times is more about the victory over sin and the realm of evil, is something that we do not know. There are three basic views about that, and each one of them is one which the Church does not deny freedom of conscience.


----------



## Christusregnat

JohnV said:


> As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way.
> 
> This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.



John V,

So, you are convinced of these things happening prior to Christ's second return? Is this one description of how it will happen?

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a *rod out of the stem of Jesse*, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and *he shall smite the earth*: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he *slay the wicked*. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 *The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid*; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for *the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea*. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; *to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious*. 


Or this?


Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass* in the last days*, that the mountain of the LORD's house *shall be established in the top of the mountains*, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations shall flow unto it*. 3 And *many people *shall go and say, *Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths*: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And *he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks*: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. 



Cheers,


----------



## KMK

JohnV said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think the folks who talk about "optimistic" and "pessimistic" are referring to what life in this world is like, so if some of us don't think the present millennium means raging political success, we're pessimists. I rather resent that - it really doesn't seem as if Scripture is encouraging us to have such an approach to the success of the Gospel, as if its _all_ about our political success now. (BTW, the pentecostals got into "dominion theology" a variety of postmill while I wasn't lpaying attention; I thought they were all solidly Dispensational.) The Scripture says in this world we _will_ have tribulation - which can mean political persecution as well as other things. Yet even in those circumstances the Gospel continues to spread. Of course, amills beileve that eventually things will get worse, and no one wants to hear that. But I don't feel it's too optimistic to say it never gets better than this, I'm looking forward, optimistically, to the new heaven and new earth, where righteousness dwells. That doesn't excuse inaction in sharing the Gospel and helping our neighbors and trying to restrain depravity as God allows us.
> 
> 
> 
> 1)Is it fair to say that amillenialism says God will continue to save people and shed common grace around them right in the midst of the evil decaying world system but that the proportion of those saved will probably not increase (in relation to "the world")?
> 
> 2)Would amillenialsim tend to say that things will get better and better in the church?
> 
> 3)Would an "optimistic" amillenialist see the proportion increasing over time?
> 
> 4) Any idea if the classic view tended either way ("optimistic"/"pessimistic") or is this a recent, unhelpful distinction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right on!
> 
> If we asked all those who believe in a millennium but did not believe in the successful advance of the gospel fully according to God's plan to leave the room, then we'ed still have all of us in attendance; none of us would leave. As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way.
> 
> This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.
Click to expand...


All right! A JohnV post!

I get tired of Postmills bringing out the whole 'optimistist' vs. 'pessimist' false dichotomy. It appears to be a similar tactic as the Dispensational saying, "If you believe like I do you won't have to suffer through the Great Tribulation!"

Is the account of Gideon only needing 300 men to defeat the Midianites who 'lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude' pessimistic?

If the Lord chooses to pare down His army to but a few in order to win the ultimate battle, it is not pessimistic. It is glorious. If it brings God greater glory then it is in fact, 'optimistic'!


----------



## JohnV

Christusregnat said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a so-called pessimistic amillennialist I am fully persuaded, convinced, that the gospel will advance just as God has planned it, and that sin can not stand in its way.
> 
> This is not about who is more optimistic about the advance of the gospel; it's only about how that will happen. There's nothing inherently less optimistic in amillennialism than in postmillennialism; and permillennialism deserves the same respect in that department.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John V,
> 
> So, you are convinced of these things happening prior to Christ's second return? Is this one description of how it will happen?
> 
> Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a *rod out of the stem of Jesse*, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and *he shall smite the earth*: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he *slay the wicked*. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 *The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid*; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for *the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea*. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; *to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious*.
> 
> 
> Or this?
> 
> 
> Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass* in the last days*, that the mountain of the LORD's house *shall be established in the top of the mountains*, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations shall flow unto it*. 3 And *many people *shall go and say, *Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths*: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And *he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks*: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Yes. 

Amillennialism is a post-mil view too.


----------



## JohnV

KMK said:


> All right! A JohnV post!



Thanks Ken, but I'm sorry to say that it's temporary. I'm laid up for a bit again, so I have some time on my hands lately.


----------



## KMK

JohnV said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> All right! A JohnV post!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks Ken, but I'm sorry to say that it's temporary. I'm laid up for a bit again, so I have some time on my hands lately.
Click to expand...


Your loss is our gain!


----------



## Roldan

Here we go I did a search on this board and found the dialogue I had concerning this somewhat anyways.....I would reccomend reading through it I found it to be extremely helpful, not sure where Paul's posts went but here you go nonetheless...

http://www.puritanboard.com/f45/what-all-col-1-20-a-619/

Then we actually did more on this here..

http://www.puritanboard.com/f43/ezekiel-36-35-a-791/

Its kinda hard to figure out who is saying what since the format is off but any questions let me know i can redo it if i have to i guess

HOLLA!!!


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> I get tired of Postmills bringing out the whole 'optimistist' vs. 'pessimist' false dichotomy.



I don't. It is a timely reminder to be watchful and diligent, and not allow the sight of defeat to quench faith's zeal. One thing is certain -- the world is not going to be Christianised in any sense of the word if the church doesn't pray and labour for that end, i.e., the end cannot be accomplished without the God appointed means.


----------



## Roldan

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get tired of Postmills bringing out the whole 'optimistist' vs. 'pessimist' false dichotomy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't. It is a timely reminder to be watchful and diligent, and not allow the sight of defeat to quench faith's zeal. One thing is certain -- the world is not going to be Christianised in any sense of the word if the church doesn't pray and labour for that end, i.e., the end cannot be accomplished without the God appointed means.
Click to expand...


What defeat? and why would my faith's zeal be quenched if I believe in a Sovereign Lord? I just don't get it


----------



## turmeric

Christusregnat said:


> Meg,
> 
> I think I know, but where would you say the idea of common grace ending would come from?


 
I'm not sure, will have to study it more.



> Also, when it says that the elements will melt with fervent heat, how does that reconcile with God's promise to regenerate the heavens and the earth in Romans 8, and where Christ talks about the "regeneration of all things"?{/quote]
> 
> My understanding was that this happens and then the new heaven and earth appear and all that has not been destroyed will be redeemed. I read a book by a guy named Wolters that suggested that not everything would be destroyed, but only what is irredeemably corrupt or partakes of the "present age" rather than "the age to come". Again, I need to study this more.


----------



## MW

Roldan said:


> What defeat? and why would my faith's zeal be quenched if I believe in a Sovereign Lord? I just don't get it



The *sight* of defeat, that is, when we do not *see* all things under Christ's feet.

Why would faith's zeal be quenched? Because the vision of declension rather than revival tends to make exasperated prophets like Elijah despair that they are the only ones left and therefore escape for their lives rather than confront the enemy. A view of the end times as one of increasing apostasy and wickedness tends to have the same effect on the church.


----------



## Christusregnat

turmeric said:


> My understanding was that this happens and then the new heaven and earth appear and all that has not been destroyed will be redeemed. I read a book by a guy named Wolters that suggested that not everything would be destroyed, but only what is irredeemably corrupt or partakes of the "present age" rather than "the age to come". Again, I need to study this more.



Thanks Meg!

I happen to believe that the present world will be redeemed, and released from the bondage of corruption. Thank you for letting me know your view!

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

JohnV said:


> Yes.
> 
> Amillennialism is a post-mil view too.




Excellent! So you believe that all of the nations will become Christ's disciples, and that there will be world peace through Messiah's reign over all nations before Christ's second coming? That is, that all nations will flow to Zion to receive the Law, and follow in His ways?

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat

KMK said:


> Is the account of Gideon only needing 300 men to defeat the Midianites who 'lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude' pessimistic?



Ken,

Absolutely excellent point! This is the same point made by our Savior when He tells us that the Kingdom of God starts out as the "little flock", or the mustard seed, which fulfills God's purpose by becoming the largest tree that overshadows all the other trees. Or, the leaven that leavens the whole lump, or the Rock in Daniel that destroys the nations, and then fills the whole earth.

The kingdom of God starts off very small, but ends the biggest, the most glorious, with all of the nations flowing into it, becoming Christ's disciples, and learning to obey Him in all things! God confounds the "wisdom" of the wise!

Cheers,


----------



## JohnV

Christusregnat said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> Amillennialism is a post-mil view too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent! So you believe that all of the nations will become Christ's disciples, and that there will be world peace through Messiah's reign over all nations before Christ's second coming? That is, that all nations will flow to Zion to receive the Law, and follow in His ways?
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


Will be? It hasn't happened already? The gates of hell already cannot avail against the city of God; God's irresistible grace already accomplishes all that it is sent to accomplish. God's Word already does not return to Him empty. God is doing in history exactly what His will desires. Christ's certain dominion is established even now already.

In this godless generation, where even churches are making a mockery of God's Word (e.g., in Canada they're publicly blessing and celebrating gay marriages) I can still see the advance of the gospel, the power of Christ's authority, and the victory over the power of sin. 

Whatever my views on such things are, be assured, they are only my views, nothing more. To the degree that they are an expression of my personal millennial view to that degree are they merely adiaphora. I refuse to knowingly build doctrine on adiaphora; so I keep my millennial views in check.


----------



## Roldan

armourbearer said:


> The *sight* of defeat, that is, when we do not *see* all things under Christ's feet.



Well that would beg the question of what does "all things" entail? I know what the postmil version of that is and I'm just not remotely convinced that scripture warrants that pressup.



> Why would faith's zeal be quenched? Because the vision of declension rather than revival tends to make exasperated prophets like Elijah despair that they are the only ones left and therefore escape for their lives rather than confront the enemy. A view of the end times as one of increasing apostasy and wickedness tends to have the same effect on the church.



I believe that and my zeal is not quenched and I'm sure no other amil's either but you did forget one point that Christ Kingdom via the gospel message also increases alongside this wickedness hence enter the wheat and tares parable as also part of Christ kingdom lectures.


----------



## Christusregnat

JohnV said:


> Whatever my views on such things are, be assured, they are only my views, nothing more. To the degree that they are an expression of my personal millennial view to that degree are they merely adiaphora. I refuse to knowingly build doctrine on adiaphora; so I keep my millennial views in check.



This may sound pious, but anything scripture speaks about is NOT a matter of indifference. Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, not by those he thinks to be important. If scripture doesn't speak about eschatology, then it is adiaphora. If it does, then your statement is an affront to the authority of Scripture. I would ask you to prove that Scripture is agnostic with regard to eschatology.

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat

Roldan said:


> Well that would beg the question of what does "all things" entail? I know what the postmil version of that is and I'm just not remotely convinced that scripture warrants that pressup.



All things, entails all things: all of Christ's enemies must be made His footstool, and then the final enemy, death, will be conquered. All nations, all families, all high thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. The power and kingdom of Satan, the unbelief of the Jews, the blindness of the nations of the earth, the unconverted soul. This is what Scripture describes as "all things" which must be subjected to Christ our Lord before the resurrection of the dead.

Cheers,


----------



## blhowes

Christusregnat said:


> This may sound pious, but anything scripture speaks about is NOT a matter of indifference. Man is to live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God, not by those he thinks to be important.


Did you get the impression that John was saying he thought certain parts of scripture were not important? I didn't read it that way.


----------



## JohnV

I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.


----------



## blhowes

JohnV said:


> I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.


My take on it was that, if you were saying that anything was not important, it was your opinion about the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.


----------



## Christusregnat

John,

I probably misread what you stated. Forgive me.

However, would you mind giving me some insight on what you intended to say?

"*Whatever my views on such things are, be assured, they are only my views, nothing more. To the degree that they are an expression of my personal millennial view to that degree are they merely adiaphora. I refuse to knowingly build doctrine on adiaphora; so I keep my millennial views in check.*"

Again, forgive me for misreading, and I look forward to understanding more.

Cheers,

Adam



JohnV said:


> I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.


----------



## KMK

I think what John meant by 'adiaphora' was that a particular Millenial view is not essential to saving faith.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

KMK said:


> I think what John meant by 'adiaphora' was that a particular Millenial view is not essential to saving faith.


one exception being, the hyper preterists that believe all of revelation has been fulfilled.


----------



## KMK

Anton Bruckner said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think what John meant by 'adiaphora' was that a particular Millenial view is not essential to saving faith.
> 
> 
> 
> one exception being, the hyper preterists that believe all of revelation has been fulfilled.
Click to expand...


I am not ready to go quite that far with *all* hyperpreterists but I share your grave concern.


----------



## JohnV

We don't know which millennial view is right. We can disagree with each other and still be within the doctrinal givens which the church has laid out. The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them. 

So, as such I try deliberately not to put my own view of the millennium under any doctrinal understanding. I won't let something unchangeable stand on something that is changeable. It would be too poor a foundation. What God has made certain to us must remain absolutely certain; and those things which we do not fully understand we should be humble enough to admit that we do not understand. 

Sure, there are many questions that remain unanswered. I don't understand everything even about some of the plainest truths. But that does not undermine the fact that doctrines are made certain by the fact that God has said so. It takes a lifetime of diligence to understand even a part of God's revelation. But through it all, from my poor understanding at the beginning up 'til now, the Word's own meaning took priority over my own understandings, my own presuppositions. And so I continue to learn.


----------



## JohnV

blhowes said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hope I didn't give that impression. I was trying to say the opposite. Please excuse me if I came across wrongly.
> 
> 
> 
> My take on it was that, if you were saying that anything was not important, it was your opinion about the scriptures, not the scriptures themselves.
Click to expand...


That's right, Bob. It's very important to be able to discern the difference between opinion and doctrine.


----------



## Christusregnat

JohnV said:


> So, as such I try deliberately not to put my own view of the millennium under any doctrinal understanding. I won't let something unchangeable stand on something that is changeable. It would be too poor a foundation. What God has made certain to us must remain absolutely certain; and those things which we do not fully understand we should be humble enough to admit that we do not understand.



John,

Thank you for taking the time to explain your position! I admire your desire to walk humbly with your God, and pray that I may imitate it.

I think there are two issues: one is the specific issue of the millennium, and the other is the broader issue of eschatology. This is why the terms "pessimistic" and "optimistic" were used earlier, because not everyone who holds to a particular way of thinking identifies it with Rev. 20, and the "thousand years". The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.

That said, I do not think that the Westminster Standards, or the puritans generally, are silent on the Scripture's teaching regarding eschatology in general. They may have wisely been reticent to identify with a particular view of the Rev 20 issue, but not with the progress of the gospel in general.

Thanks for the interaction, and for your thoughts.

Cheers,


----------



## KMK

Christusregnat said:


> The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.



Interesting. I have never thought about that before. 

That must be why the Divines did not use the actual word 'amillennial' when they were writing the Standards!  (That is as close to a 'tongue in cheek' emoticon that I can find)


----------



## Christusregnat

Very sly Ken!






KMK said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. I have never thought about that before.
> 
> That must be why the Divines did not use the actual word 'amillennial' when they were writing the Standards!  (That is as close to a 'tongue in cheek' emoticon that I can find)
Click to expand...


----------



## JohnV

Christusregnat said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, as such I try deliberately not to put my own view of the millennium under any doctrinal understanding. I won't let something unchangeable stand on something that is changeable. It would be too poor a foundation. What God has made certain to us must remain absolutely certain; and those things which we do not fully understand we should be humble enough to admit that we do not understand.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to explain your position! I admire your desire to walk humbly with your God, and pray that I may imitate it.
> 
> I think there are two issues: one is the specific issue of the millennium, and the other is the broader issue of eschatology. This is why the terms "pessimistic" and "optimistic" were used earlier, because not everyone who holds to a particular way of thinking identifies it with Rev. 20, and the "thousand years". The millennial language (in my opinion) has only become important/useful since the rise of the dispensational movement.
> 
> That said, I do not think that the Westminster Standards, or the puritans generally, are silent on the Scripture's teaching regarding eschatology in general. They may have wisely been reticent to identify with a particular view of the Rev 20 issue, but not with the progress of the gospel in general.
> 
> Thanks for the interaction, and for your thoughts.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


You're welcome. 

For what it's worth, escatology is doctrinal, millennial views are not. The WS and TFU are very clear on escatology. It is foundational teaching, as reflected in the fact that it is included in the Apostles' Creed. 

The Dispensationalists were not the first to have shifting sand (their own choices as to how to interpret the Bible) as a foundation for doctrine. The bottom line is that this is what is objectionable about Dispensationalism, not just their particular millennial view: you may not do that sort of thing to Biblical/doctrinal theology. 

Have a blessed Lord's Day. In church is where you hear God's Word with the blessing of the Holy Spirit Himself upon it.


----------



## MW

Roldan said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The *sight* of defeat, that is, when we do not *see* all things under Christ's feet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would beg the question of what does "all things" entail? I know what the postmil version of that is and I'm just not remotely convinced that scripture warrants that pressup.
Click to expand...


If the church's missionary focus is not the complete subjugation of all visible creation to Jesus Christ then it is not fulfilling its commission. This is not an issue of what will be accomplished, but of what we are obliged to strive to accomplish as the body of Christ in the world.


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> All things, entails all things: all of Christ's enemies must be made His footstool, and then the final enemy, death, will be conquered. All nations, all families, all high thoughts that exalt themselves against the knowledge of God. The power and kingdom of Satan, the unbelief of the Jews, the blindness of the nations of the earth, the unconverted soul. This is what Scripture describes as "all things" which must be subjected to Christ our Lord before the resurrection of the dead.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again it begs the question, where do you get this definition from? of course you would say scripture. Can you please provide these scriptures for me because it seems to me that your postmil presup is adding to the text to make it more that what it reads. To be honest, I'm on the fence right now so any answeres are very helpful.
> 
> Armourbearer says:
> 
> 
> 
> If the church's missionary focus is not the complete subjugation of all visible creation to Jesus Christ then it is not fulfilling its commission. This is not an issue of what will be accomplished, but of what we are obliged to strive to accomplish as the body of Christ in the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again same question as above, proof of your definition that ALL VISIBLE creation is what is intended.
> 
> ANd a follow question......
> 
> Why does "put all enemies under His feet" have to mean becoming christian via the gospel? Does "death" become subjected or is it destroyed, you see where I'm going with this?
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Roldan said:


> Why does "put all enemies under His feet" have to mean becoming christian via the gospel? Does "death" become subjected or is it destroyed, you see where I'm going with this?



I do see where you are going, and it is my firm belief that nothing but the personal appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ will bring perfect restoration and do away with the element of wickedness in creation. But in commissioning His servants to disciple all nations, King Jesus did not make any qualification with respect to His second coming, but promised that He would be with them to the end of the world. Hence, it should not be an issue as to what shall come to pass in the Father's good pleasure prior to the coming of Christ; the issue is, what ought the church to be striving towards with the gracious presence of Christ on her side.


----------



## Christusregnat

Roldan said:


> Again it begs the question, where do you get this definition from? of course you would say scripture. Can you please provide these scriptures for me because it seems to me that your postmil presup is adding to the text to make it more that what it reads. To be honest, I'm on the fence right now so any answeres are very helpful.



Roldan,

The wording I used was from the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer # 191:

Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,[1222]) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan,[1223] we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed,[1224] the gospel propagated throughout the world,[1225] the Jews called,[1226] the fullness of the Gentiles brought in;[1227] the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances,[1228] purged from corruption,[1229] countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:[1230] that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted:[1231] that Christ would rule in our hearts here,[1232] and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:[1233] and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.[1234]

You may find Scripture references here:

Westminster Larger Catechism

One of which is this:

Psalm 67. God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah. *That* thy way may be known *upon earth*, thy saving health *among all nations*. Let the people praise thee, O God; *let all the people praise thee. O let the nations be glad and sing for joy*: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and *govern the nations upon earth*. Selah. Let the people praise thee, O God; *let all the people praise thee*. Then shall the *earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us*. God shall bless us; and *all* the ends of the earth shall fear him.

That said, I have quoted previously in this thread from several passages in Isaiah and the other prophets which indicate as much. For instance:

Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and *he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked*. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 *The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them*. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: *for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea*. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; *to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious*. 

Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass *in the last days,* that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations shall flow unto it*. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and *let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths*: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall *judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more*. 

World peace, all nations following Messiah, and the earth yielding its increase. The curse brought about by Adam's fall is prophesied to be reversed in the last days of the Messiah. That would seem to encompass all of the created order: men and things.

Not sure that's a complete answer, but I think it's sound and I think it is confessional.

Cheers,


----------



## BlackCalvinist

DMcFadden said:


> Dan,
> 
> Premillennialism comes in two flavors: historic and dispensational.



Actually, three flavors.....four if you also count historicists.


----------



## BlackCalvinist

DMcFadden said:


> If you are an historic premillennarian, you have already accepted the standard hermeneutic seeing the Church as the extension (not replacement) of Israel. With such a position, there is really little logic for a millennium. And, it creates several problems. *You have resurrected saints mingling with natural-bodied tribulation saints who are marrying, giving in marriage, and procreating.*



Why is that last thing a problem ?


----------



## DMcFadden

Because Jesus said that in the age to come we would neither marry nor be given in marriage, but would be like the angels. Don't you think it is a little weird to have resurrected saints cavorting around with mortals who keep dying (albeit at substantially older ages than we do)? Imagine a game of touch football in the millennium where a resurrected saint (or Charger, or Ram, or Raider) comes on a little too hard with one of the mortals and knocks the heaven out of him.

Kim Riddlebarger won me over to the amil view this past month. Fewer loose ends and less awkward exegetical hair splitting.


----------



## Roldan

armourbearer said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does "put all enemies under His feet" have to mean becoming christian via the gospel? Does "death" become subjected or is it destroyed, you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do see where you are going, and it is my firm belief that nothing but the personal appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ will bring perfect restoration and do away with the element of wickedness in creation. But in commissioning His servants to disciple all nations, King Jesus did not make any qualification with respect to His second coming, but promised that He would be with them to the end of the world. Hence, it should not be an issue as to what shall come to pass in the Father's good pleasure prior to the coming of Christ; the issue is, what ought the church to be striving towards with the gracious presence of Christ on her side.
Click to expand...


----------



## BlackCalvinist

DMcFadden said:


> Because Jesus said that in the age to come we would neither marry nor be given in marriage, but would be like the angels.



Who says the age to come is brought in FULLY during the Millennium?

That's the mistake. 

The New Covenant is currently in play, but we still have to teach people 'know the Lord' - at least at this point. Jeremiah 31 says that when the New Covenant is instituted, we would no longer have to teach each other 'know the Lord'. 

Already..... not Yet.

So it's not hard to imagine a 1000 year-ish time period when we see the beginnings of the restoration of all things - with resurrected saints ruling and governing the earth while Isaiah 65 gets a context for literal, actual fulfillment among mortal folk.

I guess I've gotten used to God doing things in stages that make very little sense to me personally....(i.e. why go through 'all of this' in regard to creation, fall, redemption, incarnation, etc..... when all You had to do was say 'Let there be a race of people to worship me besides angels and they will be my children, not just my servants' and *blink* it would happen ?)... so a 1000 year time period to 'usher in' the beginnings of the age to come might look weird, but that's small compared to the question I just typed. 



> Kim Riddlebarger won me over to the amil view this past month. Fewer loose ends and less awkward exegetical hair splitting.



Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's correct.  In fact, knowing all we know of eschatology, I'd venture to say it's probably not correct. 

I'm going to pick up Riddlebarger's book. I keep hearing it highly recommended. Is he better than Strimple ?


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it begs the question, where do you get this definition from? of course you would say scripture. Can you please provide these scriptures for me because it seems to me that your postmil presup is adding to the text to make it more that what it reads. To be honest, I'm on the fence right now so any answeres are very helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan,
> 
> The wording I used was from the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer # 191:
> 
> Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,[1222]) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan,[1223] we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed,[1224] the gospel propagated throughout the world,[1225] the Jews called,[1226] the fullness of the Gentiles brought in;[1227] the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances,[1228] purged from corruption,[1229] countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:[1230] that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted:[1231] that Christ would rule in our hearts here,[1232] and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:[1233] and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.[1234]
> 
> You may find Scripture references here:
> 
> Westminster Larger Catechism
> 
> One of which is this:
> 
> Psalm 67. God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah. *That* thy way may be known *upon earth*, thy saving health *among all nations*. Let the people praise thee, O God; *let all the people praise thee. O let the nations be glad and sing for joy*: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and *govern the nations upon earth*. Selah. Let the people praise thee, O God; *let all the people praise thee*. Then shall the *earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us*. God shall bless us; and *all* the ends of the earth shall fear him.
> 
> That said, I have quoted previously in this thread from several passages in Isaiah and the other prophets which indicate as much. For instance:
> 
> Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and *he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked*. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 *The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them*. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: *for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea*. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; *to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious*.
> 
> Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass *in the last days,* that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations shall flow unto it*. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and *let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths*: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall *judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more*.
> 
> World peace, all nations following Messiah, and the earth yielding its increase. The curse brought about by Adam's fall is prophesied to be reversed in the last days of the Messiah. That would seem to encompass all of the created order: men and things.
> 
> Not sure that's a complete answer, but I think it's sound and I think it is confessional.
> 
> Cheers,
Click to expand...


I'm gonna post some points I made here once before some years ago and I'm curious as to what you guys thoughts are on it, so please by all means pick it apart and help a brotha out, no offense will be taken  

Its kinda long but obviously Reform folk like to read  so here ya go part 1


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: "Behold I create a new heavens and a new earth." 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 "promise" 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 golden-age. 

Amillennialist or Realized Millennialist are in agreement with the Postmillenialist that we expect the millennium to be an age of imperefection. In oposiition 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 "golden-age" 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 "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together" he was speaking of the SAME period that John calls the "thousand years"? There are indications in the passage itself that it is not to be treated literally like "dust" becoming the serpent's food can hardly be literal.

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


Bavinck was not too far off when he asserted that to interpret the prophecy of the Old Testament literally means that one "breaks with Christianity and lapses back into Judaism."



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


Sorry for all the grammatical errors, I was too lazy to edit 

These were some notes of class on eschatology I taught


----------



## Roldan

BlackCalvinist said:


> DMcFadden said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Jesus said that in the age to come we would neither marry nor be given in marriage, but would be like the angels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who says the age to come is brought in FULLY during the Millennium?
> 
> That's the mistake.
> 
> The New Covenant is currently in play, but we still have to teach people 'know the Lord' - at least at this point. Jeremiah 31 says that when the New Covenant is instituted, we would no longer have to teach each other 'know the Lord'.
> 
> Already..... not Yet.
> 
> So it's not hard to imagine a 1000 year-ish time period when we see the beginnings of the restoration of all things - with resurrected saints ruling and governing the earth while Isaiah 65 gets a context for literal, actual fulfillment among mortal folk.
> 
> I guess I've gotten used to God doing things in stages that make very little sense to me personally....(i.e. why go through 'all of this' in regard to creation, fall, redemption, incarnation, etc..... when all You had to do was say 'Let there be a race of people to worship me besides angels and they will be my children, not just my servants' and *blink* it would happen ?)... so a 1000 year time period to 'usher in' the beginnings of the age to come might look weird, but that's small compared to the question I just typed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kim Riddlebarger won me over to the amil view this past month. Fewer loose ends and less awkward exegetical hair splitting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's correct.  In fact, knowing all we know of eschatology, I'd venture to say it's probably not correct.
> 
> I'm going to pick up Riddlebarger's book. I keep hearing it highly recommended. Is he better than Strimple ?
Click to expand...


Waiting for the newly Amil's response....


----------



## BlackCalvinist

The cement hasn't hardened yet. We can get him back.


----------



## Roldan

BlackCalvinist said:


> The cement hasn't hardened yet. We can get him back.




....Roldan applies a huge fan to the cement while Kerry lurks round the corner......


----------



## Christusregnat

Roldan,

Lotsa info in the post; thanks for taking the time to share your lesson. I'll see if I can answer at least parts of it 

I would like you to answer my post, however, before I answer yours. Before we delve into too much detail, is what I've claimed the catechism to teach accurate? Once we establish that, then I'll respond.

Cheers,

Adam






Roldan said:


> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again it begs the question, where do you get this definition from? of course you would say scripture. Can you please provide these scriptures for me because it seems to me that your postmil presup is adding to the text to make it more that what it reads. To be honest, I'm on the fence right now so any answeres are very helpful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan,
> 
> The wording I used was from the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer # 191:
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## BlackCalvinist

Roldan said:


> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cement hasn't hardened yet. We can get him back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....Roldan applies a huge fan to the cement while Kerry lurks round the corner......
Click to expand...


.....Kerry sees big black cord on the ground and accidentally runs over it with a lawmower, chainsaw, edger, commercial shredder, Lear Jet, steam roller and Bumblebee from the Transformers movie.

What fan ?


----------



## Roldan

BlackCalvinist said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackCalvinist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The cement hasn't hardened yet. We can get him back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ....Roldan applies a huge fan to the cement while Kerry lurks round the corner......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> .....Kerry sees big black cord on the ground and accidentally runs over it with a lawmower, chainsaw, edger, commercial shredder, Lear Jet, steam roller and Bumblebee from the Transformers movie.
> 
> What fan ?
Click to expand...


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> Roldan,
> 
> Lotsa info in the post; thanks for taking the time to share your lesson. I'll see if I can answer at least parts of it
> 
> I would like you to answer my post, however, before I answer yours. Before we delve into too much detail, is what I've claimed the catechism to teach accurate? Once we establish that, then I'll respond.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christusregnat said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan,
> 
> The wording I used was from the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer # 191:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I haven't forgoten, I will be responding tomorrow


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Dennis,

in the OP you state, “Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils.” I don’t understand that. Would you please explain what you mean?


Adam (Christusregnat),

As an amil, I strongly hold to “the triumph of the gospel” whatever happens to the church in the world. The Gospel triumphed _*in*_ our King being crucified.

All the Gentile nations _will_ serve Christ, that is, the elect of those nations.

You said (post #22),

Notice, before Christ comes back again, the fullness of the Gentiles must be called, the magistrates of the earth Christianized, those yet in their sins may be converted by the ministry of the church, and Satan's kingdom destroyed. That succinctly describes gospel success.​
The fullness of the Gentiles is the full number of the elect among them. In your quote of A. 191 LC, “the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, *countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed*”, is this to be understood that the church in your scenario will be maintained by the civil judiciary, that is, supervised and governed, as having authority to involve itself with the internal governance of said church?

“The magistrates of the earth Christianized”? This is asserting what has not been proven from Scripture.

“Satan’s kingdom destroyed”? Is that not to happen in Rev 20:7 – 10? When the Lord shall return? You say it will happen when the church Christianizes the world? 

“All things” are under Christ’s feet now, in this realized millennial period (Eph 1:22).


JohnV,

You said,

“We don't know which millennial view is right. We can disagree with each other and still be within the doctrinal givens which the church has laid out. The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them.”​
This is too tolerant. The Scriptures do speak to this issue, and give clarity, although we may well not agree. Though I agree that the church has allowed for divergence of view.

I think this is a fair saying by Rev Winzer:

“If the church's missionary focus is not the complete subjugation of all visible creation to Jesus Christ then it is not fulfilling its commission. This is not an issue of *what will be accomplished*, but of what *we are obliged to strive to accomplish* as the body of Christ in the world.” [Emphases mine –SMR]​
-----------

In Matt 13’s parable of the good seed and the tares, where the Lord describes the Kingdom and the end of the world, no intermediate state (i.e. 1,000 year reign) is spoken of, the end comes, the wicked and the righteous go to their respective places. The same with the Olivet discourse in Matt 24. When all the earth sees Christ coming in clouds of glory, He sends His angels to gather His elect (verses 30, 31)

Question for the pre mils: where do the unregenerate who people your millennial reign come from, as when the Lord returns all the wicked are removed? Scripture, please.


----------



## JohnV

Jerusalem Blade said:


> JohnV,
> 
> You said,
> 
> “We don't know which millennial view is right. We can disagree with each other and still be within the doctrinal givens which the church has laid out. The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them.”​
> This is too tolerant. The Scriptures do speak to this issue, and give clarity, although we may well not agree. Though I agree that the church has allowed for divergence of view.
> 
> I think this is a fair saying by Rev Winzer:
> 
> “If the church's missionary focus is not the complete subjugation of all visible creation to Jesus Christ then it is not fulfilling its commission. This is not an issue of *what will be accomplished*, but of what *we are obliged to strive to accomplish* as the body of Christ in the world.” [Emphases mine –SMR]​



So is the church too tolerant too? Am I wrong to agree with the church? If you allow that we may not agree, though I assume that you are presuming we are both diligent in our Biblical obedience, is that not really the same thing? 

Is Rev. Winzer's statement assuming that I, as someone who tends towards the Amil position that is too often called pessimistic, do not strive to fulfill the Christ's commission? I for one see great victories already, having witnessed the power of the gospel and of the Spirit first-hand. That didn't change my millennial views, but instead strengthened them. 


As an aside, Steve, I am trying to keep my millennial view at arm's length, like I was told to do right from the start. I will not, if I can at all help it, allow my millennial views have any determining role in doctrinal matters. That is, I am determined to keep it at the end of doctrinal studies and never allow it to come before. So I'm saying I'm Amillennial, but what I mean is that I've been presented with Premillennial and Postmillennial views, and each time they were given a place or position in understanding things that I believe with all my heart are unwarranted. That is, first I have to believe one of those millennial views, and then after certain doctrinal truths follow. I won't allow that. That's my understanding of the Reformed faith, of Sola Scriptura: no mix of human or errant conclusion may have a foundational spot in holy doctrine.


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> If we say that the knowledge of the LORD will NOT fill the earth, and cause all the Gentiles to seek it, then we are not biblical about the success of the gospel.
> 
> If we say that not ALL FAMILIES of the earth will be blessed in stem of Jesse, then we do not believe that the success of the gospel, as presented in Scripture, will actually take place. If we do not agree that all nations will be made Christ's disciples, and that the great commission will be fulfilled, then we do not believe in the success of the gospel.



I believe that your reading your postmil supposition into the text imposing upon it that "all families" must mean every single family, and that "all gentiles" must mean everysingle gentile, this hermeneutic is remiscient of the arminians polemic agains calvinism, no offense.

Also I believe that the correct understanding of Christ's commission is that we are to make disciples OUT OF every nation not make every nation a disciple. Again I see a superimposing of the text in postmil terms.

If we allow, as we are supposed to, the New to interpret the Old then we will observe that "all families" and "all gentiles" must mean families and gentiles OUT OF every tongue, nation, and tribes(Revelation) the fullness of the Elect.





> Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass *in the last days*, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations shall flow unto it*. 3 And *many people shall go and say*, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and *he will teach us of his ways*, and we will walk in his paths: for *out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem*. 4 And *he shall judge among the nations*, and *shall rebuke many people*: and *they *shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: *nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more*.
> 
> "Peace on earth, good will toward men". This is what Christ told the disciples to do: "Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." Isaiah says that the nations will desire that Christ "teach them His ways." This is gospel success.



Correct, but its not necessary to view this in postmil terms.




> It is not ridiculous. Many more passages could be quoted about how all nations will submit to Christ after His Incarnation. Notice the passages above talk about the stem of Jesse, and the "last days". Those are words used to describe Christ's incarnation and the gospel age.



See points above




> In the words of the Westminster Larger Catechism:
> 
> "Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition.?
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), *acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan*, we pray, that the *kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed*, the *gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fulness of the Gentiles brought in*; the *church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate*: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and *made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins*, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and *hasten the time of his second coming*, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends."
> 
> 
> Notice, before Christ comes back again, the fullness of the Gentiles must be called, the magistrates of the earth Christianized, those yet in their sins may be converted by the ministry of the church, and Satan's kingdom destroyed. That succinctly describes gospel success.



I agree with what JB stated so I will quote him....



> “The magistrates of the earth Christianized”? This is asserting what has not been proven from Scripture.
> 
> “Satan’s kingdom destroyed”? Is that not to happen in Rev 20:7 – 10? When the Lord shall return? You say it will happen when the church Christianizes the world?
> 
> “All things” are under Christ’s feet now, in this realized millennial period (Eph 1:22).




I also take exception to the Puritan's understanding of certain things, not much but some like here about the "Jews called" I am the Jew called the inward Jew(Paul). But I do not read the "the magistrates of the earth christianized" in their answer to the question anyways.

I actually see the Amil position in their answer especially here...

*"..that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:"*

"Christ will rule in OUR HEARTS HERE....and OUR REIGNING WITH HIM FOREVER" consumated at His second coming, the spiritual kingdom in our hearts and the unification of the spiritual with physical kingdom at His appearence hence the city coming down from heaven(Rev.)

The postmil tendency is to read into everything that speaks with referrence to gospel succession, kindoms, families, nations their postmil supposition.


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> World peace, all nations following Messiah, and the earth yielding its increase. The curse brought about by Adam's fall is prophesied to be reversed in the last days of the Messiah. That would seem to encompass all of the created order: men and things.
> 
> Cheers,



AMen I believe this with all my heart but will be accomplished at His return, again reading your supposition into the text. Why does this actually have to happen before His return in order to be victorious? We believe the same thing about the gospel succession but you will put it before His coming and I will put it after, thats the issue. And I believe that there is NO biblical warrant to put these events before His coming, if the golden age was such an important event why is the NT not decisive on an era pre-dating Christ return?

Christ victorious return is the NT's hope for the Church militant not an intermediate era. I think the postmil gives a false hope and does not prepare the church for spiritual war, it will be like an ambush.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

JohnV,

What I thought was too tolerant was, “We don't know which millennial view is right....The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them.”

Perhaps tolerant is not a good word; is “sitting on the fence” better? I don’t think so, because you have said you are amil. Who then is the “we” you speak for? It sounds like you are being a spokesperson for the church.

I appreciate your holding the amil position at arm’s length, not allowing it to determine your other doctrinal views. For about 20+ years I bought hardly any commentaries, as I did not want to spend money on things I might throw away later as false. (I also just read your last post in the other thread, and understand a little better now.)

The amil position is one of the last things I came to. Before that I was pre-wrath premil (a la Marvin Rosenthal), and before that poorly-though-out simple premil. It was listening to some Messianic Jewish friends talk about the Temple sacrifices in the Millennium that woke me up. I said to them, haven’t you guys ever read the Epistle to the Hebrews? And I began reading amil books and held to that view. The amillennial view is of a piece with Reformed doctrine; no matter that Calvin and most of the early reformers (and the early confessions) held to the state (the magistrate) involving itself in the church’s governance, and punishing blasphemers, “heretics”, sabbath-breakers etc with its sword, convening councils, etc; we can see from Europe, England, and Massachusetts Bay Colony what happens when the church and state join: the persecuting spirit enforces the gospel, just as the Roman Catholic organization did.

Were ever the postmil theonomists to take over the world, or the U.S, or Scotland (in reality it won’t happen), enforcing their OT ordinances on the New Testament community, they can count me an outlaw heretic (you Baptists watch out too!), and hunt me down if that is their bent, for this world domination schema is the principle of the beast, and I will resist with all my strength.

I recommend this Englesma article in a recent post: "The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government". To my thinking the postmil view is a threat; it mangles the gospel of grace, attempts to marginalize those who follow Christ in His saying, “My kingdom is not of this world”, and distorts the Biblical teaching of God’s kingdom. 

It impacts much doctrine that does not pertain directly to eschatology; as I said, Biblical doctrine is all of a piece.

My quote re Rev Winzer was not directed at you but the postmils, the gist of which was, “This is not an issue of *what will be accomplished*, but of what *we are obliged to strive to accomplish*...” I though that was well balanced.

I suppose what I meant by tolerant, reflecting on it now, was in relation to my _in_tolerance of what I conceive to be a doctrine dangerous to the wellbeing of the church. I do appreciate your irenic spirit, John.


----------



## JohnV

Steve:

I'm not sure what you mean by irenic spirit, but thanks, I think. 

When I refer to "we" I'm thinking that I stand in the shadow of my faithful teachers, not so much that I represent anyone. And these faithful teachers were faithful in representing their offices in the church, limiting themselves to what they were ordained for, not going beyond that as if the offices allowed that they were personally more worthy or of higher calibre. So I'm also trying to speak as a faithful member of my church. I hope that explains the "we". 

I'm not persuaded that the Postmil view itself is a threat. It's more that those who are a threat tend to take the Postmil or Premil views and use them to their advantage. I've also met Postmils and Premils who whole-heartedly agree with me that their view is personal, possibly errant, certainly fallible, and is not something to build anything solid upon.


----------



## KMK

Mr. Rafalsky, do you believe it is appropriate for a preacher to preach with authority about millenial views that go beyond where the Westminster divines were willing to go?

Edit: I addressed my question to Mr. Rafalsky but would like to hear everyone's opinion. (I already know John's answer)


----------



## JohnV

You know where I stand, Ken. To me its a point of orthodoxy.


----------



## Roldan

KMK said:


> Mr. Rafalsky, do you believe it is appropriate for a preacher to preach with authority about millenial views that go beyond where the Westminster divines were willing to go?
> 
> Edit: I addressed my question to Mr. Rafalsky but would like to hear everyone's opinion. (I already know John's answer)



Depends what your understanding is to how far they were willing to go but then again they were not infallible so it doesn't really matter to me how far THEY were willing to go, but how far scripture goes, and I know that sounds obvious and elementary but thats just me. Don't get me wrong I hold to the Assemblies Reformed exposition of Holy Writ but not every single thing.


----------



## Christusregnat

Roldan said:


> If we say that not ALL FAMILIES of the earth will be blessed in stem of Jesse, then we do not believe that the success of the gospel, as presented in Scripture, will actually take place. If we do not agree that all nations will be made Christ's disciples, and that the great commission will be fulfilled, then we do not believe in the success of the gospel.





> I believe that your reading your postmil supposition into the text imposing upon it that "all families" must mean every single family, and that "all gentiles" must mean everysingle gentile, this hermeneutic is remiscient of the arminians polemic agains calvinism, no offense.



Roldan,

The fact that you repeat again and again that I'm "imposing" certain ideas on the text is not an answer, it is a sidetrack. If you intend to answer my arguments from Scripture, then the burden is put on you to show why we are not to read the Scripture exactly as it is written. Were you to argue against an Arminian, I would hope that you would not merely say "oh, that's you reading the Arminian position into the text". I hope (and am confident) that you would show him the proper interpretation of the texts under consideration. I don't think you have done this. The literal interpretation is always the first choice, unless something else in Scripture demands that we interpret something figuratively. 



Roldan said:


> Also I believe that the correct understanding of Christ's commission is that we are to make disciples OUT OF every nation not make every nation a disciple. Again I see a superimposing of the text in postmil terms.



The language of the Great Commission that the "Nations" are the direct object of the sentence. "Make disciples" is the main verb. Grammatically, the Great Commission demands that the nations are made Christ's disciples. The nations are in the accusative case, meaning they are what are to be made disciples. If we want to say this means something else, then, again the burden rests on you. If you could cite a particular place elsewhere in Scripture, I would be willing to discuss.



Roldan said:


> If we allow, as we are supposed to, the New to interpret the Old then we will observe that "all families" and "all gentiles" must mean families and gentiles OUT OF every tongue, nation, and tribes(Revelation) the fullness of the Elect.



I don't think we "are supposed to" allow the Old to interpret the New as you are meaning it. For instance, there are many things in the NT which take the OT for granted. In such instances, are we to read something in the NT out of the entire context of Scripture? I don't believe that this is a proper method. When we read the NT directly addressing the discontinuity with the OT, then I agree with your principal. Otherwise, it would be very foolish to simply assume that the two testaments are at variance. Also, the Great Commission is in the NT, and therefore this principal doesn't apply to this case.



> Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass *in the last days*, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and *all nations shall flow unto it*. 3 And *many people shall go and say*, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and *he will teach us of his ways*, and we will walk in his paths: for *out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem*. 4 And *he shall judge among the nations*, and *shall rebuke many people*: and *they *shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: *nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more*.
> 
> "Peace on earth, good will toward men". This is what Christ told the disciples to do: "Make disciples of all nations, teaching them to observe whatsoever I have commanded you." Isaiah says that the nations will desire that Christ "teach them His ways." This is gospel success.





Roldan said:


> Correct, but its not necessary to view this in postmil terms.



Again, simply asserting that I'm reading something into this text doesn't mean you've answered my claim. What are the last days? When did they come to pass? Are we in the last days? When do they end? I'll even let you use the NT  I'm simply reading what Isaiah says, and if I'm misunderstanding this passage, then it behooves you to correct me, and tell me the proper understanding of this passage; not merely to assert that I'm performing eisegesis.



> I agree with what JB stated so I will quote him....
> 
> 
> 
> “The magistrates of the earth Christianized”? This is asserting what has not been proven from Scripture.
Click to expand...


I proved this from Isaiah and from the Catechism, and no one has yet to prove me wrong by providing a counter explanation for all of the earth's kings going up to Zion to hear the Law, or God's adoption extending to Syrian and Egypt, etc.




> "Satan’s kingdom destroyed”? Is that not to happen in Rev 20:7 – 10? When the Lord shall return? You say it will happen when the church Christianizes the world?
> “All things” are under Christ’s feet now, in this realized millennial period (Eph 1:22).



In 1 Cor 15, Paul tells us that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to the Father (I think we can all agree that this is His 2nd coming in judgment) as follows:



> 24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when *he shall have* put down *all rule and all authority and power*. 25 For he must reign, *till* he hath *put all enemies under his feet*. 26 The *last enemy that shall be destroyed is death*. 27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 28 And *when* all things *shall be subdued unto him*, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.



Same idea as the Great Commission: all things are put under Christ's feet, and the church's task is to bring all things into subjection by the power of God's Spirit. Christ is reigning NOW, but we do not see all things subjected to Him. Mind you, I think Paul takes Isaiah for granted here, as well as the Abrahamic covenant, etc. etc. Even if he didn't, it is still clear that all things must be subjected to Christ *before* the second coming. The amil position posits that all things have already been subjected to Christ. This is half right, but fails to take into account that having the rights to all things in heaven and up on the earth does not mean that God's will is being done on the earth as it is in heaven.



> I also take exception to the Puritan's understanding of certain things, not much but some like here about the "Jews called" I am the Jew called the inward Jew(Paul). But I do not read the "the magistrates of the earth christianized" in their answer to the question anyways.



Thanks for reminding me; so do you think that my view is the puritan view? In other words, that I'm not distorting the Catechism's teaching, and that your view is out of accord with the catechism?

Romans 11, by the way, is talking about the physical descendants of Abraham when Paul discusses the call of the Gentiles, and the re-call of the Jews. The context in v.1 is Paul being "an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Is he speaking allegorically? Also, consider the context of Jew vs. Gentile in vss. 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31 and so forth. Clearly, in Scripture, the re-call of the Jews is of literal, flesh and blood Jews. This is the context and plain meaning of Paul's language in Romans 11, and no amount of spiritualizing can justify reading it otherwise. 

It must be done to maintain a purely spiritual eschatology, but I don't think it can stand the plain meaning of Scripture.



> I actually see the Amil position in their answer especially here...
> *"..that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:"*



None of what I have said contradicts Christ's reign over our personal souls. Rather, as Scripture and the Confession do, it simply recognizes that Christ's reign does not end there. 



> The postmil tendency is to read into everything that speaks with referrence to gospel succession, kindoms, families, nations their postmil supposition.


 
Again, this is assertion. Please prove that I have done this by providing alternate explanations for the passages I've cited. Could it actually be that the postmil suppositions are *derived from* such passages? I think a common sense read of Scripture leads to such conclusion, and I think this is why the Westminster Assembly taught such in the Standards.

Lively and enjoyable discussion.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

Roldan said:


> I'm gonna post some points I made here once before some years ago and I'm curious as to what you guys thoughts are on it, so please by all means pick it apart and help a brotha out, no offense will be taken



I hope to get to this some time this evening, or tomorrow. God bless you Roldan!

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The amillennial view is of a piece with Reformed doctrine; no matter that Calvin and most of the early reformers (and the early confessions) held to the state (the magistrate) involving itself in the church’s governance, and punishing blasphemers, “heretics”, sabbath-breakers etc with its sword, convening councils, etc; we can see from Europe, England, and Massachusetts Bay Colony what happens when the church and state join: the persecuting spirit enforces the gospel, just as the Roman Catholic organization did.



I believe that this is not only slanderous of our Reformed forebears, but betrays a singular lack of historical research. These "reprobates" (that's what you're calling them by classing them with papists) you're talking about produced some of the finest Christian civilization that history can boast of, and just because of their adherence to Biblical Law. This is the Puritan board, mind you. To take up such a dreadful slander against the puritans is not only out of place here, but is laughable.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Were ever the postmil theonomists to take over the world, or the U.S, or Scotland (in reality it won’t happen), enforcing their OT ordinances on the New Testament community, they can count me an outlaw heretic (you Baptists watch out too!), and hunt me down if that is their bent, for this world domination schema is the principle of the beast, and I will resist with all my strength.



Again, laughable, but slanderous.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> To my thinking the postmil view is a threat; it mangles the gospel of grace, attempts to marginalize those who follow Christ in His saying, “My kingdom is not of this world”, and distorts the Biblical teaching of God’s kingdom.



Please define the "gospel of grace" as you mean it here. Also, please explain which particular points of the postmil view (whichever flavor of postmil you choose) contradict your definition. I would urge caution, however, as you may find out that the puritans end up teaching a "covenant of works" in your definition.

Also, if you could please provide direct quotations from postmil authors (of any stripe), or of participants here to prove your case, that would be excellent. Until then, my assumption is that you have slandered both the living and the dead in your statements.


----------



## turmeric

*a)* You mean *libel* not *slander.*
*b)* No one is accusing anyone of dirinking the Roman Koolaid, I think *you* Adam, are the first one to use the term "reprobate" in this thread, certainly Steve did not.
*Please don't start this on this thread!*


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> If we say that not ALL FAMILIES of the earth will be blessed in stem of Jesse, then we do not believe that the success of the gospel, as presented in Scripture, will actually take place. If we do not agree that all nations will be made Christ's disciples, and that the great commission will be fulfilled, then we do not believe in the success of the gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that your reading your postmil supposition into the text imposing upon it that "all families" must mean every single family, and that "all gentiles" must mean everysingle gentile, this hermeneutic is remiscient of the arminians polemic agains calvinism, no offense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Roldan,
> 
> The fact that you repeat again and again that I'm "imposing" certain ideas on the text is not an answer, it is a sidetrack. If you intend to answer my arguments from Scripture, then the burden is put on you to show why we are not to read the Scripture exactly as it is written. Were you to argue against an Arminian, I would hope that you would not merely say "oh, that's you reading the Arminian position into the text". I hope (and am confident) that you would show him the proper interpretation of the texts under consideration. I don't think you have done this. The literal interpretation is always the first choice, unless something else in Scripture demands that we interpret something figuratively.
> 
> 
> 
> The language of the Great Commission that the "Nations" are the direct object of the sentence. "Make disciples" is the main verb. Grammatically, the Great Commission demands that the nations are made Christ's disciples. The nations are in the accusative case, meaning they are what are to be made disciples. If we want to say this means something else, then, again the burden rests on you. If you could cite a particular place elsewhere in Scripture, I would be willing to discuss.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think we "are supposed to" allow the Old to interpret the New as you are meaning it. For instance, there are many things in the NT which take the OT for granted. In such instances, are we to read something in the NT out of the entire context of Scripture? I don't believe that this is a proper method. When we read the NT directly addressing the discontinuity with the OT, then I agree with your principal. Otherwise, it would be very foolish to simply assume that the two testaments are at variance. Also, the Great Commission is in the NT, and therefore this principal doesn't apply to this case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, simply asserting that I'm reading something into this text doesn't mean you've answered my claim. What are the last days? When did they come to pass? Are we in the last days? When do they end? I'll even let you use the NT  I'm simply reading what Isaiah says, and if I'm misunderstanding this passage, then it behooves you to correct me, and tell me the proper understanding of this passage; not merely to assert that I'm performing eisegesis.
> 
> 
> 
> I proved this from Isaiah and from the Catechism, and no one has yet to prove me wrong by providing a counter explanation for all of the earth's kings going up to Zion to hear the Law, or God's adoption extending to Syrian and Egypt, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1 Cor 15, Paul tells us that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to the Father (I think we can all agree that this is His 2nd coming in judgment) as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> Same idea as the Great Commission: all things are put under Christ's feet, and the church's task is to bring all things into subjection by the power of God's Spirit. Christ is reigning NOW, but we do not see all things subjected to Him. Mind you, I think Paul takes Isaiah for granted here, as well as the Abrahamic covenant, etc. etc. Even if he didn't, it is still clear that all things must be subjected to Christ *before* the second coming. The amil position posits that all things have already been subjected to Christ. This is half right, but fails to take into account that having the rights to all things in heaven and up on the earth does not mean that God's will is being done on the earth as it is in heaven.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for reminding me; so do you think that my view is the puritan view? In other words, that I'm not distorting the Catechism's teaching, and that your view is out of accord with the catechism?
> 
> Romans 11, by the way, is talking about the physical descendants of Abraham when Paul discusses the call of the Gentiles, and the re-call of the Jews. The context in v.1 is Paul being "an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Is he speaking allegorically? Also, consider the context of Jew vs. Gentile in vss. 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31 and so forth. Clearly, in Scripture, the re-call of the Jews is of literal, flesh and blood Jews. This is the context and plain meaning of Paul's language in Romans 11, and no amount of spiritualizing can justify reading it otherwise.
> 
> It must be done to maintain a purely spiritual eschatology, but I don't think it can stand the plain meaning of Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I actually see the Amil position in their answer especially here...
> *"..that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:"*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of what I have said contradicts Christ's reign over our personal souls. Rather, as Scripture and the Confession do, it simply recognizes that Christ's reign does not end there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The postmil tendency is to read into everything that speaks with referrence to gospel succession, kindoms, families, nations their postmil supposition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, this is assertion. Please prove that I have done this by providing alternate explanations for the passages I've cited. Could it actually be that the postmil suppositions are *derived from* such passages? I think a common sense read of Scripture leads to such conclusion, and I think this is why the Westminster Assembly taught such in the Standards.
> 
> Lively and enjoyable discussion.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Good stuff brother, I'll be responding soon, my kids want me to watch Lord of the Rings with them AGAIN lol


----------



## Christusregnat

turmeric said:


> *a)* You mean *libel* not *slander.*
> *b)* No one is accusing anyone of dirinking the Roman Koolaid, I think *you* Adam, are the first one to use the term "reprobate" in this thread, certainly Steve did not.
> *Please don't start this on this thread!*



Meg,

Yes, you are right, but the board rules refer to it as slander, and therefore I used that term. Technically, libel; thank you.



> The amillennial view is of a piece with Reformed doctrine; no matter that Calvin and most of the early reformers (and the early confessions) held to the state (the magistrate) involving itself in the church’s governance, and punishing blasphemers, “heretics”, sabbath-breakers etc with its sword, convening councils, etc; we can see from Europe, England, and Massachusetts Bay Colony what happens when the church and state join: the persecuting spirit enforces the gospel, *just as the Roman Catholic organization did.*





> Were ever the postmil theonomists to take over the world, or the U.S, or Scotland (in reality it won’t happen), enforcing their OT ordinances on the New Testament community, they can count me an outlaw heretic (you Baptists watch out too!), and hunt me down if that is their bent, for *this world domination schema is the principle of the beast*, and I will resist with all my strength.



Note, the Reformers were compared to the Antichristian system of the Pope, and postmil theonomists were said to operate by "the principle of the beast". I will not sit idly by while such libel takes place. If this requires a new thread, I would be happy to have it so. Be that as it may, I think Jerusalem Blade needs to explain his comments.

Thanks,

Adam


----------



## Christusregnat

Roldan said:


> Good stuff brother, I'll be responding soon, my kids want me to watch Lord of the Rings with them AGAIN lol



Ssssssweeet!!!! Gotta love em!

Adam


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

I agree with Christusregnut. I am a "theonomy-friendly" Post-Mill at this juncture in my studies and I find what JerusalemBlade said back in post #81 to be troublesome at best. To compare me and other Post-Mill theo's to Rome and implying that if us crazy Theonomists were to gain control that we would hunt down and do him and "Baptists" harm is ludicrous.


----------



## turmeric

Alright, Adam and Benjamin, I should have thrown a flag down at Steve as well, my apologies.

This si probably something we won't solve here, though we'll probably try. I think this is about establishmentarianism, and some of us think that, if carried to its logical conclusion by fallen human beings, the results would be what we've seen before in history; some who believe passionately in theonomy find comparisons to Rome and the assumption that persecution would result inflamatory. Let's keep trying not to call each other reprobates or antichrist or other such things. Sorry I wasn't more evenhanded in my comments.


----------



## Christusregnat

turmeric said:


> Alright, Adam and Benjamin, I should have thrown a flag down at Steve as well, my apologies.
> 
> This si probably something we won't solve here, though we'll probably try. I think this is about establishmentarianism, and some of us think that, if carried to its logical conclusion by fallen human beings, the results would be what we've seen before in history; some who believe passionately in theonomy find comparisons to Rome and the assumption that persecution would result inflamatory. Let's keep trying not to call each other reprobates or antichrist or other such things. Sorry I wasn't more evenhanded in my comments.




Meg, 

Thanks for the thoughtful response. For the record, I was stating that the Reformers were "reprobates" (tongue-in-cheek) because they were categorized with the Papists; which I consider to be part of an antichristian system.

Again, thanks for your thoughts!

Adam


----------



## KMK

Roldan said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr. Rafalsky, do you believe it is appropriate for a preacher to preach with authority about millenial views that go beyond where the Westminster divines were willing to go?
> 
> Edit: I addressed my question to Mr. Rafalsky but would like to hear everyone's opinion. (I already know John's answer)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depends what your understanding is to how far they were willing to go but then again they were not infallible so it doesn't really matter to me how far THEY were willing to go, but how far scripture goes, and I know that sounds obvious and elementary but thats just me. Don't get me wrong I hold to the Assemblies Reformed exposition of Holy Writ but not every single thing.
Click to expand...


Let me put it this way, do you believe it is appropriate for a preacher to preach with authority about millenial views of which the church herself has never come to agreement?


----------



## JohnV

Steve:

I’d like to respond to your comment about “too tolerant”, if I may. 

First, the fact that this phrase is in the same post as “irenic spirit” is confusing to me. I’m not sure how to understand that. But I take it in the best sense, since we’re both professing undying love and obedience to our Lord. 

The witness of the Spirit does not allow me any more than to respect that there are other views about the same thing, and about which we have no clear answers. I know this because the Spirit witnesses through the church, and the church has not been able to come to a definite conclusion. 

Some people like to make it out that one particular sort of Amillennial view is, to put it bluntly, betting on the bad guy to win. Its as if they were saying that some Amillennialists doubt that Christ is able to win the day when it comes to all out war between good and evil. Or, at least, its not a sure bet just yet that Christ will come out on top. When they say that these Amillennialists are “pessimistic” or “defeatist” they are actually charging these people with having a phoney faith, a pretend faith, not a real faith. 

But that’s not at all what I was taught. When I said that theology comes first, I’m referring to the certainty and assurance that comes with faith, the trust and belief that the victory over sin has already happened, and that my life, body and soul, belong to my faithful Saviour Jesus Christ. I have no doubt whatsoever of His sovereignty, His power, His success. Nor do I doubt God’s purpose in history. There is no despair in believing that the powers of hell will once again force itself upon men. 

It is not at all strange for me to believe that the advance of the gospel and the gradual growth in doctrinal understanding, is tied in with the struggles and trials of the church through the ages. History only tends to prove this to be the case. We came to several doctrinal necessities as outcomes of such struggles with heresies. It is not that hard to believe that the gospel will advance even more, but that it will come with struggle against errors and heresies. We do not despair in this, but give thanks to God through them. 

It is not God who makes things tough for us, because we do that ourselves with the sin that is still in us. Anyone who has struggled with sin knows that the more you succeed against sins the stronger the counter attacks you have to face. You always seem to be battling the same sins, and that each time they come on stronger, with more power, with deeper deceptions, stronger enticements. It seems to never end. But the fruit of all this is a more mature faith, a deeper love for Christ, a greater dependence upon His strength, and a firmer knowledge of the gospel of grace. If you look back you can see not only the struggles but also the growth in faith. 

So there is no selling out going on here just because some of us might believe that sin’s power will once again be felt. We’re not betting on the bad guy at all. In fact, you might say that we’re all the more optimistic because we can actually see Christ being victorious through it all. We see this dominion already now. 

Again, by “we” I do not mean to be representing anyone but myself. I’m only claiming that I believe that I am in line with those faithful men who taught me the doctrines of grace.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

JohnV,

I meant irenic sincerely, as in “Promoting or intending to promote peace”. And thanks for your latest response. I do not find anything in it to disagree with at all.


Dennis,

I think I now understand what you meant when you said, “Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils.” But I do not agree. Because what an amil means by _millennial_ and what a postmil means are radically different. Yes, I know we both accept Christ returns after “the millennium”, but as the word is used so differently in the respective camps there really is no parallel of agreement.



Meg,

Thanks for the word. I will tone it down.



Adam (Christusregnat),

I apologize for my inflammatory language. I certainly do not mean to slander anyone (make a false or malicious statement that damages someone’s reputation)! As I said to Meg, I will cool my jets.

When talking _*to*_ people I keep it low key, but when talking _*of*_ ideas I do not restrain the vigor of either my approval or disapproval. It was said of Spurgeon that in fellowship and personal discourse he was ever the gentleman, and gracious; but in the pulpit he took off his gloves and did not pull his punches when it came to doctrine and truth.

I suppose it would help if we said which version of the Westminster Confession we hold to, the original 1647, or the 1788 / 1936, which latter is currently used by the OPC and PCA. There is a significant difference between them as regards Chapter 23.3, concerning the civil magistrate (i.e., the state) and its relationship to the church. I hold to that used presently by the PCA / OPC.

Upon first becoming a ruling elder (functioning as a teaching elder) in this mission field church, I used to describe it as Presbyterian (noting so here on PB also), until I realized that we were not in fact Presbyterian, there being no presbytery we were under (none in the country), and the nearest, in Cairo, Egypt, was not involved with us, nor do I know their spiritual or doctrinal state. So I had to change the church designation to Reformed. I am willing to Reform in light of the truth, Scriptural truth.

While I acknowledge using dramatic and vivid language over the issue of Christian Reconstruction / Theonomic Postmillennialism (which, as I said, I will tone down), I admit I often find it useful to illustrate – literally, _picture_ – things somewhat abstract so they can be seen and understood. This is my style of writing and speech; I am a poet, functioning as a preacher / teacher. 

This is _The Westminster Confession of Faith_ of 1647, 23.3:

He [the civil magistrate] hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God​
It was the view of Calvin, Beza, and other of the Reformers that to the state belonged the right – ordained by God – to promote the Gospel with the state’s sword, and with that sword to forbid the public worship of false religions and false churches, as well to punish those who do not worship God rightly or at all. I don’t think this is contested, so I will not encumber the space with quotations.

Nor is it contested that it is the position of some leading Theonomic Postmillennialists that the Mosaic laws punishing adultery and homosexuality with death, in fact, _whatever_ civil laws were on the books of the old Theocratic state, should be on our present-day law-books.

Perhaps you will have read the quote of Engelsma I provided in the link in post #81 above:



> It is amusing, how Christian Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen shrewdly backed away in public debate from the stand of theonomic Christian Reconstruction, that the coming Christian, or “Christianized,” state must and will execute idolaters and heretics. The question to him was, “Should we execute idolaters?” Bahnsen answered: “The _prima facie_ understanding of the biblical texts would seem to support the justice of punishing idolatry, even today. But I have not done sufficient homework and reflection on this question” (_God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government_, ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989, p. 268). In fact, it is not difficult to imagine North, De Mar, Gentry, and the other disciples of Rushdoony stoning to death, among all the others, the few remaining uncompromising Reformed amillennialists as blasphemers. For Rousas J. Rushdoony’s charge that Reformed amillennialism is “blasphemy,” see his article “Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion” in the _Journal of Christian Reconstruction_ 3, no. 2 (Winter, 1976-77): 126, 127.



Blasphemy? Impotent Religion? The justice of punishing idolatry, even today? And you say, Adam, _my_ words are too strong?! 

Blasphemy? And this by one of the leading thinkers of the movement? Now listen, were such folks to have their way with the government and its laws, by the very act of writing against them I would seal my own death warrant. And this is laughable to you? 

Slanderous, you said? I tell you this, if we proceed according to the manner of our Puritan / Presbyterian forebears, some of them, we are heading for trouble.

Perhaps you think it was alright, even by contemporary standards, Calvin’s handing Servetus over to the magistrates to be burned – I do not know what you think about that; but some Presbyterians today approve of it. Do I slander the honorable Calvin by denouncing this act? (I know, those were different times, with different laws and customs – but still, the Kingdom of God has _its_ laws, which supercede man’s laws.) I do not; but sin is sin, whoever commits it. And if the sin is held up as righteousness, it must be brought down, publicly.

I believe it was with Augustine that the persecuting spirit entered the church, primarily the Roman Catholic, but also the later Protestant. In the _extermination_ of the Donatists, which he inspired the Imperial government to undertake (see _A History of Christianity_, Paul Johnson, pp. 116, 117), his thinking was, if the state used such methods for its own miserable purposes, was not the church entitled to do the same, and more for its own far greater ones?

In our own country, we can see the persecuting spirit imported into the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where multitudes of Quakers were punished, imprisoned, flogged, and three of them hanged. It was a bloodthirsty crowd of Puritans, particularly the ministers! (See _Saints and Strangers_, by George F. Willison, pp. 377, 380)

Do I slander in recounting history? I know we remain sinners, having to struggle against remaining corruption, yet redeemed by the blood of the Son of God; I do not condemn these men and women who sinned greatly in their harrowing and even killing other children of God because they differed in doctrine and practice. I myself have done wickedly since being saved, and the Lord has not dealt with me according to my iniquities. But the _*wicked ideas*_ that seized upon these brethren and led them into cruelties unworthy brothers and sisters of Christ, _*these*_ I may pounce upon and trample into the dust – may I not?

Baptists have not fared better than the Quakers at the hands of the Presbyterian and Reformed.

In 1526, Zwingli and the Council of Zurich, previously failing to dissuade the Baptists from re-baptizing anyone, declared that henceforth any rebaptizer would be drowned. For this crime they would be “immersed permanently”, as their Christian tormenters would say.

Women were not exempt. “Three days after the Baptist leader, Balthazar Hübmaier was burned at the stake, his beard having been caked with sulphur and gunpowder, his loving wife was thrown from a bridge into the Danube with a stone tied to her neck.” (See, _What hath God Wrought!_, by William P. Grady, pp. 85, 86)

But enough of this. Impartial readers will get my point that for the church to envision union with the state, and having the state undertake to punish those not in compliance with this “true church”, will _*again*_ bring disaster and ignominy upon the people of God, the previous examples of which our reputations still suffer from.

Suffice it to say, it is _*not*_ slander to decry sin in our own house. If we drank, through Augustine, an evil spirit of persecution, along with Rome, it does not mean we are papists, but rather have a common evil. The reason some Baptists are (rightly) wary of the P&R is just because of the well-documented history of all this. I am not making these things up. I am not ignorant of our history.

And it is not slander to say that world domination through psychic intimidation and physical force – which is all the state has going for it in terms of “persuasion” – is the modus operandi of the world government of the beast. It is, remember, an _*evil idea*_ I am casting down (2 Cor 10:4, 5) – _*imaginations*_ – and not people’s reputations or characters. But if I in fact show an idea to be evil, then do not embrace it, rather flee from it, that you not partake of its spirit.

Meg, if you think this is still too inflammatory, I have indeed toned it down; a powerful evil must be met with powerful good, a vigorous error with vigorous truth. My postmil / theonomic brethren may well be better-hearted and more godly than I – I do not malign their characters at all – but we are talking of ideas, and what happens when godly people are taken by bad ideas.

-------

Concerning Isaiah 2:1 – 4, and 11:1 – 10; E.J. Young, in his commentary, _The Book of Isaiah_, vol. 1, holds precisely the same exegesis as Roldan does in his posts above. With regard to the first of the prophecies, he writes,

This passage is difficult to interpret. It teaches that the blessings described will take place within the latter days, and it is this fact which supports the postmillennial interpretation of Boettner and others. Cf. Roderick Campbell, _Israel and the New Covenant_ (Philadelphia, 1954). At the same time other passages speak of wars continuing until the end. Some, therefore, like Boettner (whose book is admirable) believe that the world will become relatively better, merely a foretaste of heaven. But the present passage does not speak of relative improvement but of an absolute change.

It is necessary then to maintain that the prophecy will be absolutely fulfilled in principle during the last days. When at the second advent sin is removed, we shall realize all of the blessings which are promised. This interpretation has its difficulties, but it is all that one can do if he would be faithful to the language of the Bible. The postmillennial interpretation does not do adequate justice to those passages which emphasize the evil character of this present world (e.g., Joel 3:9ff.), an evil that continues to the end. [pp. 108, 109]​
Calvin says of it (in his commentary on Isaiah 2:5),

...the good [among men –SMR] are always mixed with the bad; and not only so, but the good have not yet reached the goal, and are widely distant from that perfection which is required of them. The fulfillment of this prophecy, therefore, in its full extent, must not be looked for on earth. It is enough if we experience the beginning... (p. 102).​
Concerning Isaiah 11:1 – 10, Young says, talking of the animals at peace with one another,

When, however is this change to appear? In answer it should be noted that Isaiah has emphasized the fact that Messiah is the Prince of Peace. When the Messiah has completed His Messianic work, peace in introduced into the hearts of men, and insofar as men are true to the principles of peace which they have received from the Messiah, so far do the blessings herein depicted obtain. In its fullness, however, this condition will not be realized until the earth is covered with the knowledge of the Lord, and that condition will only obtain in the new earth wherein dwelleth righteousness. “Wherever there is sin,” says Bracker, “there is lack of peace. Only where righteousness reigns, is there peace.” For this reason the condition herein described cannot apply to a supposed millennium. Advocates of a millennial theory maintain that even during the millennium there is sin, for after the millennium the nations will gather again for battle. The picture before us, however, is one where there is no sin, but in which the fullest manifestation of peace is to be seen. (p. 391)​
So it appears Roldan is in good company in his exegesis.



Ken, if Edward J. Young, pastor in the OPC, and professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, could preach and teach concerning the amillennial doctrine, so may I.

*Note*, please, my strong objections are not to postmillennialism per se, but to Theonomic Christian Reconstruction, with its imposition of old Israel civil law on society and on the New Testament community.


----------



## Scott1

> Jerusalem Blade
> 
> I tell you this, if we proceed according to the manner of our Puritan / Presbyterian forebears, some of them, we are heading for trouble.



You make a passionate defense, well thought out, and that is always appreciated. 

I am learning these topics, and am thankful we have a forum such as Puritan Board to do so.

It seems to me the Puritans, in context of what God did through them in history, was somewhat the opposite of what you fear. They gave impetus to a system that established equal protection of the law, a separation of church from state, and yet based much law on divine ordinance. They also gave us a heritage of a religion that was not new, but a reformation back to the biblical, apostolic Christianity of Scripture from which are benefitting now, right now.


----------



## Roldan

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Adam (Christusregnat),
> 
> I apologize for my inflammatory language. I certainly do not mean to slander anyone (make a false or malicious statement that damages someone’s reputation)! As I said to Meg, I will cool my jets.
> 
> When talking _*to*_ people I keep it low key, but when talking _*of*_ ideas I do not restrain the vigor of either my approval or disapproval. It was said of Spurgeon that in fellowship and personal discourse he was ever the gentleman, and gracious; but in the pulpit he took off his gloves and did not pull his punches when it came to doctrine and truth.
> 
> I suppose it would help if we said which version of the Westminster Confession we hold to, the original 1647, or the 1788 / 1936, which latter is currently used by the OPC and PCA. There is a significant difference between them as regards Chapter 23.3, concerning the civil magistrate (i.e., the state) and its relationship to the church. I hold to that used presently by the PCA / OPC.
> 
> Upon first becoming a ruling elder (functioning as a teaching elder) in this mission field church, I used to describe it as Presbyterian (noting so here on PB also), until I realized that we were not in fact Presbyterian, there being no presbytery we were under (none in the country), and the nearest, in Cairo, Egypt, was not involved with us, nor do I know their spiritual or doctrinal state. So I had to change the church designation to Reformed. I am willing to Reform in light of the truth, Scriptural truth.
> 
> While I acknowledge using dramatic and vivid language over the issue of Christian Reconstruction / Theonomic Postmillennialism (which, as I said, I will tone down), I admit I often find it useful to illustrate – literally, _picture_ – things somewhat abstract so they can be seen and understood. This is my style of writing and speech; I am a poet, functioning as a preacher / teacher.
> 
> This is _The Westminster Confession of Faith_ of 1647, 23.3:
> 
> He [the civil magistrate] hath authority, and it is his duty to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed. For the better effecting whereof he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God​
> It was the view of Calvin, Beza, and other of the Reformers that to the state belonged the right – ordained by God – to promote the Gospel with the state’s sword, and with that sword to forbid the public worship of false religions and false churches, as well to punish those who do not worship God rightly or at all. I don’t think this is contested, so I will not encumber the space with quotations.
> 
> Nor is it contested that it is the position of some leading Theonomic Postmillennialists that the Mosaic laws punishing adultery and homosexuality with death, in fact, _whatever_ civil laws were on the books of the old Theocratic state, should be on our present-day law-books.
> 
> Perhaps you will have read the quote of Engelsma I provided in the link in post #81 above:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is amusing, how Christian Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen shrewdly backed away in public debate from the stand of theonomic Christian Reconstruction, that the coming Christian, or “Christianized,” state must and will execute idolaters and heretics. The question to him was, “Should we execute idolaters?” Bahnsen answered: “The _prima facie_ understanding of the biblical texts would seem to support the justice of punishing idolatry, even today. But I have not done sufficient homework and reflection on this question” (_God and Politics: Four Views on the Reformation of Civil Government_, ed. Gary Scott Smith, Phillipsburg, New Jersey: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1989, p. 268). In fact, it is not difficult to imagine North, De Mar, Gentry, and the other disciples of Rushdoony stoning to death, among all the others, the few remaining uncompromising Reformed amillennialists as blasphemers. For Rousas J. Rushdoony’s charge that Reformed amillennialism is “blasphemy,” see his article “Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion” in the _Journal of Christian Reconstruction_ 3, no. 2 (Winter, 1976-77): 126, 127.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blasphemy? Impotent Religion? The justice of punishing idolatry, even today? And you say, Adam, _my_ words are too strong?!
> 
> Blasphemy? And this by one of the leading thinkers of the movement? Now listen, were such folks to have their way with the government and its laws, by the very act of writing against them I would seal my own death warrant. And this is laughable to you?
> 
> Slanderous, you said? I tell you this, if we proceed according to the manner of our Puritan / Presbyterian forebears, some of them, we are heading for trouble.
> 
> Perhaps you think it was alright, even by contemporary standards, Calvin’s handing Servetus over to the magistrates to be burned – I do not know what you think about that; but some Presbyterians today approve of it. Do I slander the honorable Calvin by denouncing this act? (I know, those were different times, with different laws and customs – but still, the Kingdom of God has _its_ laws, which supercede man’s laws.) I do not; but sin is sin, whoever commits it. And if the sin is held up as righteousness, it must be brought down, publicly.
> 
> I believe it was with Augustine that the persecuting spirit entered the church, primarily the Roman Catholic, but also the later Protestant. In the _extermination_ of the Donatists, which he inspired the Imperial government to undertake (see _A History of Christianity_, Paul Johnson, pp. 116, 117), his thinking was, if the state used such methods for its own miserable purposes, was not the church entitled to do the same, and more for its own far greater ones?
> 
> In our own country, we can see the persecuting spirit imported into the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where multitudes of Quakers were punished, imprisoned, flogged, and three of them hanged. It was a bloodthirsty crowd of Puritans, particularly the ministers! (See _Saints and Strangers_, by George F. Willison, pp. 377, 380)
> 
> Do I slander in recounting history? I know we remain sinners, having to struggle against remaining corruption, yet redeemed by the blood of the Son of God; I do not condemn these men and women who sinned greatly in their harrowing and even killing other children of God because they differed in doctrine and practice. I myself have done wickedly since being saved, and the Lord has not dealt with me according to my iniquities. But the _*wicked ideas*_ that seized upon these brethren and led them into cruelties unworthy brothers and sisters of Christ, _*these*_ I may pounce upon and trample into the dust – may I not?
> 
> Baptists have not fared better than the Quakers at the hands of the Presbyterian and Reformed.
> 
> In 1526, Zwingli and the Council of Zurich, previously failing to dissuade the Baptists from re-baptizing anyone, declared that henceforth any rebaptizer would be drowned. For this crime they would be “immersed permanently”, as their Christian tormenters would say.
> 
> Women were not exempt. “Three days after the Baptist leader, Balthazar Hübmaier was burned at the stake, his beard having been caked with sulphur and gunpowder, his loving wife was thrown from a bridge into the Danube with a stone tied to her neck.” (See, _What hath God Wrought!_, by William P. Grady, pp. 85, 86)
> 
> But enough of this. Impartial readers will get my point that for the church to envision union with the state, and having the state undertake to punish those not in compliance with this “true church”, will _*again*_ bring disaster and ignominy upon the people of God, the previous examples of which our reputations still suffer from.
> 
> Suffice it to say, it is _*not*_ slander to decry sin in our own house. If we drank, through Augustine, an evil spirit of persecution, along with Rome, it does not mean we are papists, but rather have a common evil. The reason some Baptists are (rightly) wary of the P&R is just because of the well-documented history of all this. I am not making these things up. I am not ignorant of our history.
> 
> And it is not slander to say that world domination through psychic intimidation and physical force – which is all the state has going for it in terms of “persuasion” – is the modus operandi of the world government of the beast. It is, remember, an _*evil idea*_ I am casting down (2 Cor 10:4, 5) – _*imaginations*_ – and not people’s reputations or characters. But if I in fact show an idea to be evil, then do not embrace it, rather flee from it, that you not partake of its spirit.
> 
> Meg, if you think this is still too inflammatory, I have indeed toned it down; a powerful evil must be met with powerful good, a vigorous error with vigorous truth. My postmil / theonomic brethren may well be better-hearted and more godly than I – I do not malign their characters at all – but we are talking of ideas, and what happens when godly people are taken by bad ideas.
Click to expand...


This was not slanderous at all and didn't think so in your other post, I've actually said similar things to Theonomist in my urban hip hop culture I have had face to face encounters with where they would find out I was Amil and proceed to persecute me verbally with the whole "pessemism" or "you lack faith" or "your version of Christ is a sucka and soft" or "your no better than the Dispensational's" or my ultimate favorite "if we were in a theocratic rule right now I would have you excommunicated and put to death" crazy huh? Its very similar to my run-ins with the 5% Nation of Islam when a muslim put a tech9 to my head and told me he should do Allah a favor and rid the world of my law breaking behind(he used the other word).

Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying all theonomist are like this but these that I mentioned interpret their theonomic worldview in that way, and I think even though JB was being a little sarcastic he wasn't too far off. 

Not only that I appreciate this post as a church history lesson to reflect on.


Humbly,

Roldan


----------



## Christusregnat

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Adam (Christusregnat),
> I apologize for my inflammatory language. I certainly do not mean to slander anyone (make a false or malicious statement that damages someone’s reputation)! As I said to Meg, I will cool my jets.



Steve,

Thank you for taking the time to explain more fully your position. I forgive you for using inflammatory language; I myself have been known to use such, so I'm not in a good place to hold it against you 




Jerusalem Blade said:


> I suppose it would help if we said which version of the Westminster Confession we hold to, the original 1647, or the 1788 / 1936, which latter is currently used by the OPC and PCA. There is a significant difference between them as regards Chapter 23.3, concerning the civil magistrate (i.e., the state) and its relationship to the church. I hold to that used presently by the PCA / OPC.



I take the later revisions to be inconsistencies with the original Westminster Standards. In my estimation, the original Standards contain a system of doctrine, one part of which can't be removed without affecting the rest negatively. Be that as it may, you are right to point out that the later revisions were less theonomic than the original edition, although it could be argued that the 1788 merely wanted to prevent/disagree with Erastianism which was perceive to be in the original docs (I think this perception was incorrect).



Jerusalem Blade said:


> This is my style of writing and speech; I am a poet, functioning as a preacher / teacher.



Excellent, we need more bards in the world!



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It was the view of Calvin, Beza, and other of the Reformers that to the state belonged the right – ordained by God – to promote the Gospel with the state’s sword, and with that sword to forbid the public worship of false religions and false churches, as well to punish those who do not worship God rightly or at all.



The question then comes, why did all of these reformers and divines think this way? Misguided zeal? You must admit that the Reformed world-view necessarily includes an acceptance of the OT Scriptures as normative (unless specifically done away with), vs. the Anabaptist general denial of their applicability. 

As a Reformed theologian, do you think that the OT teaches, in substance, what the original Confession said? If so, then where does the NT abrogate this? If not, then perhaps you could provide another explanation of the various scriptures the divines cited. Here are the passages the divines cite: Isaiah 49:23, Psalm 129:9, Ezra 7:23-28, Leviticus 24:16, Deuteronomy 13:5-6 & 12, 2 Kings 18:4, 2 Chronicles 15:12-13, 19:8-11, chapters 29 – 39, & 34:33, and Matthew 2:4-5. 

Also, you may want to note that the “general equity” of the civil law is what these verses cited have reference to. Thus, as anti-theonomic as the newer versions of the Confession might seem to be, they are still theonomic; the Confession presents a system of thought, and (as I said earlier) you can’t remove one part without affecting the rest negatively.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Nor is it contested that it is the position of some leading Theonomic Postmillennialists that the Mosaic laws punishing adultery and homosexuality with death, in fact, _whatever_ civil laws were on the books of the old Theocratic state, should be on our present-day law-books.



Why would anyone want to contest the best laws ever given to man? Fallen man can never come up with good laws, since his heart is evil and desperately wicked. Thank God He hasn’t left us in the dark about what “good and evil” are, so that the sword can be used to put workers of evil into terror (Romans 13:3). 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> It is amusing, how Christian Reconstructionist Greg Bahnsen shrewdly backed away in public debate from the stand of theonomic Christian Reconstruction, that the coming Christian, or “Christianized,” state must and will execute idolaters and heretics.



Perhaps Mr. Engelsma can read hearts, and knows all about Bahnsen’s personal study and intentions. My guess is that he doesn’t.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> In fact, it is not difficult to imagine North, De Mar, Gentry, and the other disciples of Rushdoony stoning to death, among all the others, the few remaining uncompromising Reformed amillennialists as blasphemers. For Rousas J. Rushdoony’s charge that Reformed amillennialism is “blasphemy,” see his article “Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion” in the _Journal of Christian Reconstruction_ 3, no. 2 (Winter, 1976-77): 126, 127.




Stephen, if I may ask, have you ever read Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law? If you have, you will note that Rushdoony argues for a very very VERY limited civil government. You will also note that he is a disestablishmentarianist. He argues again and again that the modest role of civil govt is to punish those offenses clearly spelled out in the judicial laws. If my memory serves, amillenialism didn’t come up in his treatment of the Third Commandment (see Institutes of Biblical Law, pages 101 – 127). If you haven’t, then you might want to be careful about taking a guy’s word for it, who impugns the motives of other theologians. Also, the whole Institues tome doesn’t even discuss Amillennialism.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Blasphemy? Impotent Religion? The justice of punishing idolatry, even today? And you say, Adam, _my_ words are too strong?!



You are right Steven; I don’t think that Rushdoony was always right, or that he was always charitable. I don’t think Amil people are blasphemers, I just think they interpreted the bible incorrectly. As to the justice of punishing idolatry even today, of course it’s just. Why would it be more important to enforce the law to protect man, than to protect the sacredness of God’s Name among men? This makes little sense to me. 



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Blasphemy? And this by one of the leading thinkers of the movement? Now listen, were such folks to have their way with the government and its laws, by the very act of writing against them I would seal my own death warrant. And this is laughable to you?



I’ve read Rushdoony’s major works, and the connection made by Engelsma is laughable. Rush doesn’t advocate a “Spanish Inquisition” to ferret out all of the closet amils to stone them to death. This is silly. He advocates a very small civil government, which limits its role to enforcing the sins clearly spelled out in the judicial laws. Furthermore, he specifically disagrees that the magistrate should have an “established” church to support, or that every little infraction should be punished. If you take the time to read his writings, I think you will find him more close to a Libertarian than anything. Laughable, yes.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Slanderous, you said? I tell you this, if we proceed according to the manner of our Puritan / Presbyterian forebears, some of them, we are heading for trouble.



Trouble such as a prosperous and free people, where religion flourishes and God brings the blessings of Deuteronomy 28 upon us? I wouldn’t call that trouble.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Perhaps you think it was alright, even by contemporary standards, Calvin’s handing Servetus over to the magistrates to be burned – I do not know what you think about that; but some Presbyterians today approve of it. Do I slander the honorable Calvin by denouncing this act?



Worse than slander a man, you are a judge over the Law of God. I don’t think this is your intention (in fact, I take it to be the farthest thing from your intention), but I believe this is the effect. When we say that the Law of God is not applicable anymore, and yet there is nothing in Scripture to indicate as much, we speak against God. 

The law against blasphemy in Scripture is meant to cause men to speak, live and act reverently toward the Name of God. When magistrates do nothing to maintain the sacredness of God’s Name, they are then more concerned with man than with God. Servetus was a blasphemer, a mocker of God’s ministers, a heretic, a fool, and many other things. Scripture condemns such people to “surely be put to death”. It matters little what the contemporary standards were; “the law of the LORD is perfect, enduring forever.” If this was an act by the Geneva city council that was in obedience to Scripture, then to call it sin is (at best) a very unwise thing to do. However, the burden of proof rests upon you, since they acted with clear warrant from Scripture. You have to show why the “general equity” of the Scripture passages I cited above no longer applies. Even the revised Confession still says that the general equity of such laws applies to civil bodies politic.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> I believe it was with Augustine that the persecuting spirit entered the church, primarily the Roman Catholic, but also the later Protestant. In the _extermination_ of the Donatists, which he inspired the Imperial government to undertake (see _A History of Christianity_, Paul Johnson, pp. 116, 117), his thinking was, if the state used such methods for its own miserable purposes, was not the church entitled to do the same, and more for its own far greater ones?



Men who have an axe to grind with Augustine would do better to argue against Moses. This is where Augustine, Calvin, Gillespie, Knox, Bradford, Beza, Winthrop, Rutherford, Cranmer, and a host of other actually reformed thinkers got their inspiration. Better to start there, so we know who the real enemy is.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> In our own country, we can see the persecuting spirit imported into the Massachusetts Bay Colony, where multitudes of Quakers were punished, imprisoned, flogged, and three of them hanged. It was a bloodthirsty crowd of Puritans, particularly the ministers! (See _Saints and Strangers_, by George F. Willison, pp. 377, 380)



Bloodthirsty Puritans? Again, if this man has an axe to grind, it would be best to start with Moses.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Do I slander in recounting history?



No, your error is more fundamental. It sounds to me like you are distorting the motives of God’s people, and speaking against the Law of Moses.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> Baptists have not fared better than the Quakers at the hands of the Presbyterian and Reformed.
> 
> In 1526, Zwingli and the Council of Zurich, previously failing to dissuade the Baptists from re-baptizing anyone, declared that henceforth any rebaptizer would be drowned. For this crime they would be “immersed permanently”, as their Christian tormenters would say.
> 
> Women were not exempt. “Three days after the Baptist leader, Balthazar Hübmaier was burned at the stake, his beard having been caked with sulphur and gunpowder, his loving wife was thrown from a bridge into the Danube with a stone tied to her neck.” (See, _What hath God Wrought!_, by William P. Grady, pp. 85, 86)



You do a disservice to compare modern baptists with the Anabaptists of the Reformation period. Without knowing all of the details of the Zwingli case, I would want to know 1. What the legal accusation was against the Anabaptists, 2. What extant writings are there from these supposed martyrs, and 3. What kind of axe does William P. Grady have to grind? Clearly he’s not impartial, as he lumps these Anabaptists together with the “baptists” of our day. Quite an anachronism. If you want apples to apples, you may do better to consider Cromwell’s treatment of the Calvinistic baptists in his day.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> But enough of this. Impartial readers will get my point that for the church to envision union with the state, and having the state undertake to punish those not in compliance with this “true church”, will _*again*_ bring disaster and ignominy upon the people of God, the previous examples of which our reputations still suffer from.



I’m calling your bluff: I didn’t call for a “church to envision union with the state”. Nor did Calvin, nor did Zwingli, nor did Augustine, nor did the Westminster Assembly of divines. We call for Scripture, and Scripture informs us that the magistrate is God’s servant, and is armed to punish all who do evil. Evil is defined (basically) in the two great commandments, in the Ten Commandments, and in the judicial fleshing out of the Ten Commandments. The magistrate is custodian of both tables of the law. This is all the Assembly called for, and this is a fundamental component of Reformed theology.



Jerusalem Blade said:


> And it is not slander to say that world domination through psychic intimidation and physical force – which is all the state has going for it in terms of “persuasion” – is the modus operandi of the world government of the beast.



This is a straw man. None of the aforementioned parties (Calvin, Westminster etc.) ever called for “world domination through psychic intimidation”. They (and I) only call for the magistrate to punish the crimes that God’s word clearly spells out. No reign of terror; no Islamic “evangelism explosion”, merely recognizing and enforcing the Ten Words in their particular jurisdiction. As you rightly point out, the church has the means of grace, and of the conversion of the nations. The state has the sword of God, which he is to use as a nursing father to the church.

Excellent dialogue! Thanks for interacting Steve! I’ll probably save the eschatology stuff for a response to Roldan (if I ever get to it).

Cheers,


----------



## Christusregnat

Roldan said:


> This was not slanderous at all and didn't think so in your other post, I've actually said similar things to Theonomist in my urban hip hop culture I have had face to face encounters with where they would find out I was Amil and proceed to persecute me verbally with the whole "pessemism" or "you lack faith" or "your version of Christ is a sucka and soft" or "your no better than the Dispensational's" or my ultimate favorite "if we were in a theocratic rule right now I would have you excommunicated and put to death" crazy huh? Its very similar to my run-ins with the 5% Nation of Islam when a muslim put a tech9 to my head and told me he should do Allah a favor and rid the world of my law breaking behind(he used the other word).
> 
> Now don't get me wrong I'm not saying all theonomist are like this but these that I mentioned interpret their theonomic worldview in that way, and I think even though JB was being a little sarcastic he wasn't too far off.
> 
> Not only that I appreciate this post as a church history lesson to reflect on.
> 
> Humbly,
> 
> Roldan



Roldan,

May I apologize on behalf of your friends, and pray that God grants them grace to outgrow such uncharitable and jejune conduct.

That said, one man's case always sounds right until his neighbor comes along to cross examine. I'd be interested in their side of the discussion as well.

Cheers,


----------



## JohnV

Steve:

I took your reference to past governments in just the sense that you have now explained. It was a way of illustrating a point, of creating a picture in order to capture the meaning of what you were saying about Theonomy/Reconstructionism; not as proofs, but as metaphors. 

I could give you all the proofs that you need, if proofs is what we're looking for. But that's not what this discussion is for. 

What I said about those who call my millennial view "pessimistic" or "defeatist", making it refer to the hope of the gospel and the sovereignty and success of Christ the King, I said in order to show that such arguments are utterly forgettable, not worth reading. They simply do not know enough about my millennial view to qualify as someone who may criticize it. I don't have to defend my millennial view to such people, and I've rarely had to do so. I'll discuss millennial views with someone who knows how to keep it in its place, but not with someone who does not understand Reformed theology enough as shown when he places his millennial view in front of some of the doctrines he advocates. 

So obviously Reconstructionism, Theonomy, and some forms of other teachings, have no sway with me whatsoever. I do not view Reformed theology being a result of Calvin's teachings, but rather I see Calvin's teachings as a result of Reformed theology. So even Calvin is subject to it. What we today call Reformed theology has been around ever since the Apostles. And it is always, always, subject to only the Word's authority. There is no mix of human reasoning in it. Infant baptism, covenant theology, etc., are results of eliminating human reasoning, not of adding it. It is not just another perspective on how to read the Bible. You do not first make your own presuppositions and then read Bible in light of those; you must understand what God and God alone is saying in the Bible. That's why you need the illumination of the Spirit, not the illumination of your own thinking. That's why arguments for Reconstructionism, Theonomy, and some other teachings, do not touch me or persuade me. And I've stood nose to nose with them.


----------



## Christusregnat

JohnV said:


> I do not view Reformed theology being a result of Calvin's teachings, but rather I see Calvin's teachings as a result of Reformed theology. So even Calvin is subject to it. What we today call Reformed theology has been around ever since the Apostles



Amen!

One question John: which version of the Westminster Standards do you subscribe to? I think I recall that you were Three forms of Unity and WS? Is that right?

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## JohnV

Christusregnat said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not view Reformed theology being a result of Calvin's teachings, but rather I see Calvin's teachings as a result of Reformed theology. So even Calvin is subject to it. What we today call Reformed theology has been around ever since the Apostles
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amen!
> 
> One question John: which version of the Westminster Standards do you subscribe to? I think I recall that you were Three forms of Unity and WS? Is that right?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Adam
Click to expand...


Adam:

Well, yes and no. What I said was that I have taken oaths of faith under both. I've read the WS, and I was happy to submit to them. But I have to review that again. 

The ones I studied was all of them. That is, I took oath under the same one Steve refers to, but took it to be the same in spirit and meaning as the original. I can't remember where I got it, but I was able compare the various changes that had been made over time. But my oath of faithfulness was under the OPC version because that was the one they had.

I made a point, however, of telling my Presbyterian, WS, elders that I did my profession of faith under the 3FU, and that I was not going to withdraw that in any way; and I was informed that they did not support the notion that I should.


----------



## JohnV

By the way, what I said about Calvin's teachings also being subject to Reformed theology I also say about the Confessional Standards. We evaluate them in light of the objective Word of God. But they are the official witness of the church through the ages. That is, they represent the Spirit bearing witness of the truth of God's Word through the church. It is highly important that these doctrines are come to via special meetings by ordained and selected men of the church, carefully following the strictures of such meetings. 

I was witness one time when an entire procedure was thrown out because one little item was forgotten, namely a prayer of thanksgiving. Because that was not part of the process the entire procedure was negated, and they had to start all over again. That's how important it is to be sure that all things are done in subjection to the Word and the leading of the Spirit.


----------



## Christusregnat

JohnV said:


> Adam:
> Well, yes and no. What I said was that I have taken oaths of faith under both. I've read the WS, and I was happy to submit to them. But I have to review that again.
> The ones I studied was all of them. That is, I took oath under the same one Steve refers to, but took it to be the same in spirit and meaning as the original. I can't remember where I got it, but I was able compare the various changes that had been made over time. But my oath of faithfulness was under the OPC version because that was the one they had.
> I made a point, however, of telling my Presbyterian, WS, elders that I did my profession of faith under the 3FU, and that I was not going to withdraw that in any way; and I was informed that they did not support the notion that I should.



John,

Thank you for satisfying my curiosity!


----------



## Christusregnat

Jerusalem Blade said:


> In fact, *it is not difficult to imagine North*, De Mar, Gentry, and the other disciples of Rushdoony stoning to death, among all the others, *the few remaining uncompromising Reformed amillennialists as blasphemers*. For Rousas J. Rushdoony’s charge that Reformed amillennialism is “blasphemy,” see his article “Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religion” in the _Journal of Christian Reconstruction_ 3, no. 2 (Winter, 1976-77): 126, 127.
> 
> Blasphemy? Impotent Religion? The justice of punishing idolatry, even today? And you say, Adam, _my_ words are too strong?!
> 
> Blasphemy? And this by one of the leading thinkers of the movement? Now listen, were such folks to have their way with the government and its laws, by the very act of writing against them I would seal my own death warrant. And this is laughable to you?



Steve, I would also be negligent not to mention that Gary North chides and corrects Rushdoony in his commentary on Leviticus in the following passage:



> This was an illegitimate application of the biblical blasphemy law, for blasphemy is a verbal assault on God’s ethical character, *not an intellectual proposition about His nature*. It is a public curse, *not an intel- lectual error*. To charge someone with blasphemy when he is only theologically incorrect is a form of slander.(9)
> 
> (9) Rushdoony is *categorically wrong *to invoke the charge of blasphemy against all amillenniatists and premillennialist: “Arnillenniatism and premillennialism are in retreat from the world and blasphemously surrender it to the devil.” R. J. Rush- doony, “Postmillennialism versus Impotent Religiom” Journal of Christtan Reconstruction, 111 (Winter 1976-77), p. 126. On dispensationaIists: “I have had some of these escapists tell me that if the Lord will not rapture them out of the ‘tribulation,’ they see no point in being a Christian! This is not ftith: it is blasphemy” Chalcedon Repoti (June 17, 1968); reprinted in Rushdoony The Roots of [email protected] (Vallecito, Cfllfornia Ross House, 1991), p. 640. More generally “If, for example, we refime to work, and then pray to God for food for our family, we are doubly guilty before God, guilty of improvidence and blasphemy” Chalcedon [email protected] (Jan. 1, 1966); ibid., p. 547.



As I mentioned, I think Rush was wrong to call amils blasphemers, and Gary North (a prominent theonomic postmil) agrees. In light of this, I would be very wary of Mr. Engelsma's treatment of this particular subject, and (perhaps?) of his scholarship in general.

Cheers,

Adam


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Adam,

Thanks for your gracious, if pointed, reply.

Bedtime for me now, in this part of the world.


----------



## Christusregnat

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Adam,
> 
> Thanks for your gracious, if pointed, reply.
> 
> Bedtime for me now, in this part of the world.



Steve,

You are welcome, and thank you for the gracious, albeit manly, reply. We all serve one Christ, and are under one Standard: God's Word, with one Spirit within us. May God continue to bless us in our growth in Him!

Sleep well,

Adam


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Scott1,

You said, 

It seems to me the Puritans, in context of what God did through them in history, was somewhat the opposite of what you fear. They gave impetus to a system that established equal protection of the law, a separation of church from state, and yet based much law on divine ordinance. They also gave us a heritage of a religion that was not new, but a reformation back to the biblical, apostolic Christianity of Scripture from which [we] are benefiting now, right now.​
With this I certainly agree, and that whole-heartedly (save that the separation of church and state was far from complete). What I have sought to point out are anomalies, *exceptions* to the general excellence of Puritan life and thought, brought about by erroneous thinking – and which definitely did *not* characterize them in the main. Thank you for bringing this point out clearly! If I see this anomalous attitude emerging again in our Reformed circles, and rebuke it, it is to maintain that righteousness and honor we are heirs to.

And from what I am learning, as I study this matter more, is that where the Reformers transgressed slightly in this matter, the theonomists go whole hog, and I think I had more properly attributed an affinity to the beast system to these latter than to the former. So Adam may well be correct that in this particular, that I did slander the Reformers by attributing to them what really belongs to the theonomists. (Forgive me, Reformers, please.) I did it in ignorance. For the untrue claim of the theonomists that _they_ are aligned with the Reformers in these things led me astray. Careless of me!


Adam,

I think it should be pointed out, that although the early Reformers allowed the state should protect and discipline the church, as well as protect it with the sword, and the amil view disagrees with this allowance to the secular authorities (as part of their Scripturally-defined role), there is a far great disparity between the Theonomic Christian Reconstructionists and the early Reformers than amils have with them.

I am puzzled at your assertion of Theonomic Christian Reconstructionist (henceforth TCR) agreement with and adherence to the Westminster Standards (WS), even the 1647 version. It is my understanding that the TCR lights take strong exception to the WS doctrine of the Law of God, and apply a different hermeneutic to the Biblical data.

I would encourage all interested in this topic to consider Sherman Isbell’s fairly brief paper on this very disparity: The Divine Law of Political Israel Expired: General Equity: Part I.

This is the first paragraph:

GENERAL EQUITY  

About 1970 claims began to be published that a perpetual obligation remains in many Old Testament ordinances which classical Reformed theologians had regarded as expired under the New Testament. The "Christian Reconstruction" movement seeks to conform modern society to this reassertion of certain laws given to Old Testament Israel. One of the tenets of Christian Reconstruction is theonomy, the belief that the Old Testament civil law is morally binding today. This essay will examine the diversity between theonomy and the classical Reformed tradition. Particular attention will be given to the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms as representative of classical Reformed theology; our reference will be to the original text of the Confession (1646), without the eighteenth-century American revisions respecting the civil magistrate.​
In part II (see link at bottom of Part I) of this paper I was very pleased to find the definition of “general equity” in the light of its use by the Reformers themselves.

Adam, when you equate the TCR beliefs with those of the Reformers, and with the Westminster Confession – and aver that my amillennial beliefs contradict you both, you – no doubt inadvertently – mislead us, for though I differ with the Reformers slightly, you depart from both them and me significantly – in a major way; in fact, if I can believe the above article by Isbell (which I do), the TCR hermeneutic seeks to overthrow the hermeneutic of the Westminster divines and their Confession!

But perhaps I am ignorant. And if this is the case, please enlighten me, and explain the above noted discrepancies which present themselves to my understanding.

There is a difference, which I must make clear here – and I am just becoming clear on this myself – between the Reformers with their Confessions, stating that the magistrate has the commission from God to maintain the church, and punish blasphemers, etc, and what the TCR are asserting, which is that 1) the entire judicial law of Israel is still binding on the church and nations, and 2) the Westminster Confession (along with Calvin, Turretin, and others) is antinomian in its refusal to acknowledge and accept #1). The study of Isbell, with its documentation, does seem to substantiate this position of the TCR.

In this light I can understand why you make such statements as you have:

“Men who have an axe to grind with Augustine would do better to argue against Moses.....Bloodthirsty Puritans? Again, if this man has an axe to grind, it would be best to start with Moses.”​
Adam, I do appreciate the study I am having to undertake to comprehend the issues here in our discussion. It is an education for me.

Let me leave it at this for now.

Steve


----------



## NaphtaliPress

*Gentlemen, start a new thread if you are going to discuss theonomy itself rather than millennial views.*


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Ok, Chris!

Let's continue this discussion here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/general-equity-etc-35792/#post445018, on the Theological Forum > The Law of God

Steve


----------



## Roldan

Christusregnat said:


> Roldan,
> 
> The fact that you repeat again and again that I'm "imposing" certain ideas on the text is not an answer, it is a sidetrack. If you intend to answer my arguments from Scripture, then the burden is put on you to show why we are not to read the Scripture exactly as it is written. Were you to argue against an Arminian, I would hope that you would not merely say "oh, that's you reading the Arminian position into the text". I hope (and am confident) that you would show him the proper interpretation of the texts under consideration. I don't think you have done this. The literal interpretation is always the first choice, unless something else in Scripture demands that we interpret something figuratively.



Well actually I did convey how I would interpret the texts you referenced as opposed to how a postmil would interpret hence my charge of "imposing". Allow me to re-iterate....

*"Also I believe that the correct understanding of Christ's commission is that we are to make disciples OUT OF every nation not make every nation a disciple. Again I see a superimposing of the text in postmil terms.

If we allow, as we are supposed to, the New to interpret the Old then we will observe that "all families" and "all gentiles" must mean families and gentiles OUT OF every tongue, nation, and tribes(Revelation) the fullness of the Elect."*

I also went into detail in my earlier post in regards to Isaiah 65 one of the most popular postmil texts. You said you would deal with it after I answered your questions, I did so...your turn 

And whats interesting is that I would argue the same point against an arminian charge of "all" meaning every single individual type reasoning. 




> The language of the Great Commission that the "Nations" are the direct object of the sentence. "Make disciples" is the main verb. Grammatically, the Great Commission demands that the nations are made Christ's disciples. The nations are in the accusative case, meaning they are what are to be made disciples. If we want to say this means something else, then, again the burden rests on you. If you could cite a particular place elsewhere in Scripture, I would be willing to discuss.



Sure no problem..Btw I use the ESV and NKJV but preferably the ESV


Rev. 5:9

*9 And they sang a new song, saying,

“Worthy are you to take the scroll
and to open its seals,
for you were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God
from every tribe and language and people and nation,....*

The NKJV says *"out of"*


*Rev. 7:9

"9 After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands,"*


And IMOH this is a key passage to understanding the whole of what is meant by "making disciples of Nations" in Matt.

*Rev. 21:24

"24 By its light will the nations walk, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it,"*

Now if we were read this text in isolation we could easily assume a postmil interpretation of it, after all it says that the NATIONS walk by that light. This is what I mean by imposing a postmil meaning into the text.

But if taken in context with the rest of Revelation we see that the Nations spoken of here make up the full number of elect from or out of every tongue, tribe and nation. How? because Rev. 21 is refering to the New Heavens and Earth or the Eternal State and depicts or describes or refers to the people of God as NATIONS and if we are to understand this correctly I can only interpret this in accord with the rest of Rev. ,in the passages I provided, as the full number of elect from every nation, tribe, and tongue as making up thier specific nation, do you see what I'm saying?

Therefore I can agree with you that the great commission speaks to making the nation a disciple and deny the postmils pressup and keep my Amil pressup so that making disciples of all Nations as interpreted by Revelation as a whole is still the full number of elect from that Nation making up a Nation and I am persuaded that this is the proper exegesis.




> I don't think we "are supposed to" allow the Old to interpret the New as you are meaning it.



You mean the New interpret the Old, just thought I point that out to make sure.



> For instance, there are many things in the NT which take the OT for granted.



hmmm, like what?




> In such instances, are we to read something in the NT out of the entire context of Scripture?



Absolutely not. But then again I don't accept your assertion that the NT takes many things for granted from the OT.




> I don't believe that this is a proper method.



Whats not the proper method? The New interpreting the Old or reading the NT outside the entire context of scripture as a whole?




> When we read the NT directly addressing the discontinuity with the OT, then I agree with your principal.



But is the Covenantal Reformed Hermeneutic without which you couldn't even be a Postmil. Obviously you affirm that the church is Israel, right? So how do you come up with that conclusion if your not seeing the NT writers applying OT prophecy to the church? It goes far beyond just the dicontinuity of certain OT aspects.




> Otherwise, it would be very foolish to simply assume that the two testaments are at variance.



Well that doesn't apply to me because I or any Amil don't believe that the OT and NT are at variance but unified into one Covenant of Grace.




> Again, simply asserting that I'm reading something into this text doesn't mean you've answered my claim. What are the last days? When did they come to pass? Are we in the last days? When do they end? I'll even let you use the NT I'm simply reading what Isaiah says, and if I'm misunderstanding this passage, then it behooves you to correct me, and tell me the proper understanding of this passage; not merely to assert that I'm performing eisegesis.



You right I should have explained in detail. Since JB provided a commentary that agrees with me and/or I with it on interpreting OT prophecy using the same hermeneutics I will just repost it, thanks a million Steve!!





> *Concerning Isaiah 2:1 – 4, and 11:1 – 10; E.J. Young, in his commentary, The Book of Isaiah, vol. 1, holds precisely the same exegesis as Roldan does in his posts above. With regard to the first of the prophecies, he writes,
> 
> This passage is difficult to interpret. It teaches that the blessings described will take place within the latter days, and it is this fact which supports the postmillennial interpretation of Boettner and others. Cf. Roderick Campbell, Israel and the New Covenant (Philadelphia, 1954). At the same time other passages speak of wars continuing until the end. Some, therefore, like Boettner (whose book is admirable) believe that the world will become relatively better, merely a foretaste of heaven. But the present passage does not speak of relative improvement but of an absolute change.
> 
> It is necessary then to maintain that the prophecy will be absolutely fulfilled in principle during the last days. When at the second advent sin is removed, we shall realize all of the blessings which are promised. This interpretation has its difficulties, but it is all that one can do if he would be faithful to the language of the Bible. The postmillennial interpretation does not do adequate justice to those passages which emphasize the evil character of this present world (e.g., Joel 3:9ff.), an evil that continues to the end. [pp. 108, 109]
> 
> Calvin says of it (in his commentary on Isaiah 2:5),
> 
> ...the good [among men –SMR] are always mixed with the bad; and not only so, but the good have not yet reached the goal, and are widely distant from that perfection which is required of them. The fulfillment of this prophecy, therefore, in its full extent, must not be looked for on earth. It is enough if we experience the beginning... (p. 102).*



emphasis mine..




> Same idea as the Great Commission: all things are put under Christ's feet, and the church's task is to bring all things into subjection by the power of God's Spirit. Christ is reigning NOW, but we do not see all things subjected to Him.



What are the "all things"? Armbearer shed some light on it but can you further explain please cause we need to define this and come to an agreement or not.



> Mind you, I think Paul takes Isaiah for granted here, as well as the Abrahamic covenant, etc. etc.



This really bothers me. Can you elaborate on this because it seems to me that you are asserting that Paul being inspired by the Holy Spirit did not understand the OT prophets or most importantly the Abrahamic Covenant 



> The amil position posits that all things have already been subjected to Christ. This is half right, but fails to take into account that having the rights to all things in heaven and up on the earth does not mean that God's will is being done on the earth as it is in heaven.



Not sure what you meant here.




> Thanks for reminding me; so do you think that my view is the puritan view? In other words, that I'm not distorting the Catechism's teaching, and that your view is out of accord with the catechism?



No sir, I think that you are distorting it as a matter of fact In my humble opinion 



> Romans 11, by the way, is talking about the physical descendants of Abraham when Paul discusses the call of the Gentiles, and the re-call of the Jews. The context in v.1 is Paul being "an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Is he speaking allegorically? Also, consider the context of Jew vs. Gentile in vss. 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31 and so forth. Clearly, in Scripture, the re-call of the Jews is of literal, flesh and blood Jews. This is the context and plain meaning of Paul's language in Romans 11, and no amount of spiritualizing can justify reading it otherwise.
> 
> It must be done to maintain a purely spiritual eschatology, but I don't think it can stand the plain meaning of Scripture.



Well that another thread so I'll leave that one alone and get to it later, if you don't mind of course.




> I think a common sense read of Scripture leads to such conclusion, and I think this is why the Westminster Assembly taught such in the Standards.



My thoughts exactley but in favor of the Amil position.






> Lively and enjoyable discussion.



Ditto


----------



## Roldan

Waiting on you Chris, maybe you can share some insight from Demar 

But I would like for you or ANY posty to respond


----------



## Roldan

WOW!! Didn't know the arguments I presented were that strong, hopefully all those views on this thread has people re-evaluating thier views


----------



## Roldan

anytakers??


----------



## turmeric

Buehler?


----------



## Roldan

no confident postys out there? jk


----------



## Athaleyah

I wish I was confident about my eschatological views. I've read Riddlebarger's book on Amil and am listening to Bahnsen on Postmil. Amil has always made the most sense to me, but I want to be as faithful to the Bible as I can. So far Bahnsen has made some good points like Christ's expectations for his kingdom. Christ expects his enemies to be made his footstool and the nations to be brought to him. While I'm still withholding judgment, that does sound like more than a few converts here and there. Though however I end up, I still believe that the gospel will do what it is meant to do throughout the world. I would like postmil to be true as it would make for a better world to live in. But I also know that the church thrives under persecution. So I'm still on the fence. Sorry no great postmil insights to shock and amaze.


----------



## Roldan

bumped


----------



## Catechist

armourbearer said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why does "put all enemies under His feet" have to mean becoming christian via the gospel? Does "death" become subjected or is it destroyed, you see where I'm going with this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do see where you are going, and it is my firm belief that nothing but the personal appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ will bring perfect restoration and do away with the element of wickedness in creation. But in commissioning His servants to disciple all nations, King Jesus did not make any qualification with respect to His second coming, but promised that He would be with them to the end of the world. Hence, it should not be an issue as to what shall come to pass in the Father's good pleasure prior to the coming of Christ; the issue is, what ought the church to be striving towards with the gracious presence of Christ on her side.
Click to expand...


Under much more than usual uncertainty during our present global decline, especially in the USA, I notice more and more preaching becoming more pessimistic amongst the amill's. I hope the above message is not becoming lost as we gaze into the clouds.


----------



## Scott1

Athaleyah said:


> I wish I was confident about my eschatological views. I've read Riddlebarger's book on Amil and am listening to Bahnsen on Postmil. Amil has always made the most sense to me, but I want to be as faithful to the Bible as I can. So far Bahnsen has made some good points like Christ's expectations for his kingdom. Christ expects his enemies to be made his footstool and the nations to be brought to him. While I'm still withholding judgment, that does sound like more than a few converts here and there. Though however I end up, I still believe that the gospel will do what it is meant to do throughout the world. I would like postmil to be true as it would make for a better world to live in. But I also know that the church thrives under persecution. So I'm still on the fence. Sorry no great postmil insights to shock and amaze.



I read recently Dr GI Williamson, who authored _The Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes_ said he would call himself either "an optimistic amillenialist or a non-utopian postmillinalist."


----------



## Notthemama1984

That reminds me of Piper calling himself a positive premillennialist.


----------

