# Does one have to be a Preterist in order to hold a consistent Postmill position?



## Doulos McKenzie (May 2, 2017)

I have been convinced in an optimistic view of eschatology for some time now and have identified as an optimistic Amill. I have always thought that Postmill = Preterism, but is this the case or am I just misinformed?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 2, 2017)

You are misinformed. Most Postmills today seem to be Preterists of sorts with regard to the book of revelation since they see it as interpreted in a straightforward manner rather than a series of symbolic recapitulations like most amills.
Most Puritans were Postmill historicists.


----------



## TylerRay (May 2, 2017)

The labels can be tricky, and are often applied in sort of a sloppy way. 

Take me for an example. I hold to an idealist reading of revelation, and an optimistic eschatology (more optimistic than most postmillennialists, as I don't hold to the view that there will be a final apostasy). I don't really know what the most accurate name for my position would be, but I am happy to be called a postmillennialist or an optimistic amillennialist. I really like Warfield's name for the same view, _eschatological universalism_, but that could easily be misunderstood! Alternatively, I wouldn't mind calling myself an optimistic idealist, but that just makes me sound like a happy-clappy-pollyanna type.


----------



## Dachaser (May 3, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> You are misinformed. Most Postmills today seem to be Preterists of sorts with regard to the book of revelation since they see it as interpreted in a straightforward manner rather than a series of symbolic recapitulations like most amills.
> Most Puritans were Postmill historicists.


PostMills would tend to see Revelation as being fulfilled through history by the Church?


----------



## arapahoepark (May 3, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> PostMills would tend to see Revelation as being fulfilled through history by the Church?


Some yes.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 4, 2017)

The classic Reformed or puritan view is historicism. Hence the reason that the "antichrist" or "that man of sin" or "the son of perdition" is the papacy.

"the Pope of Rome.. is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." (WCF 25.6)

For classic commentaries:

James Durham's commentary on Revelation

Thomas Goodwin, Works, Volume 3

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


----------



## Dachaser (May 4, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> The classic Reformed or puritan view is historicism. Hence the reason that the "antichrist" or "that man of sin" or "the son of perdition" is the papacy.
> 
> "the Pope of Rome.. is that Antichrist, that man of sin and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God." (WCF 25.6)
> 
> ...


Is that the only acceptable way to view the issue of the Antichrist, as there are various understandings on that topic...


----------



## arapahoepark (May 4, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is that the only acceptable way to view the issue of the Antichrist, as there are various understandings on that topic...


A lot of Reformed believe that. As has already been pointed out, no, it is not the only understanding. Preterists believe it to be Nero for the most part. Idealists tend to be all over the place yet, not defining a single Antichrist or beast in history.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 4, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> A lot of Reformed believe that. As has already been pointed out, no, it is not the only understanding. Preterists believe it to be Nero for the most part. Idealists tend to be all over the place yet, not defining a single Antichrist or beast in history.



But does Anti-Christ by necessity equal the Beast? I have held the view that the AntiChrist is the Pope while the beast represents all governments that set themselves up against God.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 5, 2017)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> But does Anti-Christ by necessity equal the Beast?



Yes.

"We conclude it therefore, as most safe and consistent with this prophesie, to expound this first beast of Antichrists, who acteth these horns, and to whom the Kings of the earth willingly gave their power, and so to be applied to the Pope and his Kingdom, supposing him to be Antichrist."

James Durham, Commentary on Revelation, pg. 468


----------



## Dachaser (May 5, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> A lot of Reformed believe that. As has already been pointed out, no, it is not the only understanding. Preterists believe it to be Nero for the most part. Idealists tend to be all over the place yet, not defining a single Antichrist or beast in history.


Futurists like myself would tend to see that there have been many Antichrists throughout History, but that there will be a final One who will set himself up as the real messiah...


----------



## Dachaser (May 5, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Yes.
> 
> "We conclude it therefore, as most safe and consistent with this prophesie, to expound this first beast of Antichrists, who acteth these horns, and to whom the Kings of the earth willingly gave their power, and so to be applied to the Pope and his Kingdom, supposing him to be Antichrist."
> 
> James Durham, Commentary on Revelation, pg. 468


Can one be Reformed and yet not view the papacy as Antichrist, as I have tended to see the final Antichrist more as a political leader, while Church of Rome fitting more the religious false prophet aspect, uniting all religions under their banner!


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (May 5, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> Yes.
> 
> "We conclude it therefore, as most safe and consistent with this prophesie, to expound this first beast of Antichrists, who acteth these horns, and to whom the Kings of the earth willingly gave their power, and so to be applied to the Pope and his Kingdom, supposing him to be Antichrist."
> 
> James Durham, Commentary on Revelation, pg. 468



But what evidence do you give the Anti-Christ equals Beast?


----------



## TylerRay (May 5, 2017)

Again, the labels are slippery. _Idealist_, _Historicist_, _Preterist_, and _Futurist_ refer to readings of Revelation. Revelation never uses the term _Antichrist_. Contra what has been presented above, there are many of us who hold to an idealist reading of Revelation, but are convinced that the Antichrist, Man of Sin, etc. is the Pope of Rome, specifically. We don't get that from Revelaltion--we get it from Paul's epistles, John's epistles and (some of us) from Daniel.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 5, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> Again, the labels are slippery. _Idealist_, _Historicist_, _Preterist_, and _Futurist_ refer to readings of Revelation. Revelation never uses the term _Antichrist_. Contra what has been presented above, there are many of us who hold to an idealist reading of Revelation, but are convinced that the Antichrist, Man of Sin, etc. is the Pope of Rome, specifically. We don't get that from Revaltion--we get it from Paul's epistles, John's epistles and (some of us) from Daniel.


The Church of Rome seems to also though be a fit for the Whore of Babylon, as the false Prophet...


----------



## TylerRay (May 5, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Church of Rome seems to also though be a fit for the Whore of Babylon, as the false Prophet...


No doubt! Howbeit, according to an idealist hermeunutic, the symbols in Revelation are representative of principles, not of particular persons and events.


----------



## Dachaser (May 6, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> No doubt! Howbeit, according to an idealist hermeunutic, the symbols in Revelation are representative of principles, not of particular persons and events.


So you would see it as the papacy being the one theme throughout church history to fulfill being antichrist, but not as an individual pope being the Antichrist then?


----------



## TylerRay (May 6, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So you would see it as the papacy being the one theme throughout church history to fulfill being antichrist, but not as an individual pope being the Antichrist then?


That's certainly a possibility, although I'm somewhat undecided.

My view is that the symbols in Revelation are designed to represent principles of spiritual warfare for the encouragement of the Church in every age. Because of the prominence of Antichrist, and of the apostasy which is typified in his office, it may be that some of those symbols represent him and his doctrine. However, that is not necessarily the case--they may represent antichrists in general (the papacy, Ellen G. White, etc.), and false doctrine in general.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (May 7, 2017)

Just out of interest, my minister is preaching a series of sermons on Revelation in our evening services. Generally speaking, they are from an idealist point of view. The sermons (up to chapter 17) are available here, though more will be added to the website in due course (dv).


----------



## Dachaser (May 15, 2017)

TylerRay said:


> That's certainly a possibility, although I'm somewhat undecided.
> 
> My view is that the symbols in Revelation are designed to represent principles of spiritual warfare for the encouragement of the Church in every age. Because of the prominence of Antichrist, and of the apostasy which is typified in his office, it may be that some of those symbols represent him and his doctrine. However, that is not necessarily the case--they may represent antichrists in general (the papacy, Ellen G. White, etc.), and false doctrine in general.


I think that the scriptures could support that there are several antichrists throughout church history, and leading up to a specific one right before the Second Coming event, but the Revelation can and does support other options on this also!


----------

