# Your Eschatalogical View (Poll)



## ConfederateTheocrat

What are you? Vote and explain your view specifically, and your interpretation of prophecy (Historicist, Preterist, Futurist, Idealist).

I just want to see what everyones views are. 

I am a Theonomic Postmillennialist, who is partial-preterist (but contemplating Historicism).


----------



## Puritan Sailor

What's Bimillenial?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> What's Bimillenial?



Honestly, I don't know a whole lot. I recommend a Google search on it. Some new eschatology like Pre-Wrath rapturism, and Progressive Dispensationalism.


----------



## Peter

Theonomic Postmillennialist who is a Historicist (but contemplating partial-preterism). Actually, I dont really have a developed system of interpretation, but I do firmly believe the papacy is the Antichrist, and the man of sin (See JA Wylie's book, "The Papacy is the Antichrist"). Matt 24 I tend to see mostly fulfilled within the literal generation of Christ.


----------



## Me Died Blue

I have yet to do a study on eschatology.


----------



## ReformedWretch

I love eschatology, but have only recenty switched from the crazy pretrib Dispensational beliefs!


----------



## cupotea

Traditional Reformed Amillennialist.

See Anthony Hoekema's "The Bible and the Future" for a full treatment.


----------



## RamistThomist

Theonomic/Classical Postmillennial


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> Theonomic/Classical Postmillennial



Can't you choose? 

They are very different.

Would Warfield and Bahnsen say they have the same view?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Reformed amil but leaning towards some theonomic principles.

[Edited on 10-31-2004 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> Theonomic/Classical Postmillennial
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't you choose?
> 
> They are very different.
> 
> Would Warfield and Bahnsen say they have the same view?
Click to expand...


No, probably not. I am still semi-undecided. If I had to go now I would say theonomic, but....I am willing to give amillennialism a chance. My first intro to amillennialism came from Riddlebarger and the White Horse Inn. They seemed pessimistic at times and I decided that wasn't from me. However, Van Til was amil and believed in the triumph of the gospel. I am still reading up on this...


----------



## openairboy

I lean in the "theonomic postmil" direction, but some days I'm not optimistic enough to believe it. Bahnsen's thesis needs to be modified a tad, but I support the general direction.

Full-pret and bimillenialism aren't options for folk on this board.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by openairboy_
> I lean in the "theonomic postmil" direction, but some days I'm not optimistic enough to believe it. Bahnsen's thesis needs to be modified a tad, but I support the general direction.
> 
> Full-pret and bimillenialism aren't options for folk on this board.



True, but I wanted to see if there were closet heretics.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mark,
You will soon see that the Puritan Board is staunchly orthodox in nature. Those whom resisted, i.e hid in the proverbial closet, were firmly and expediently ousted and burned or stoned accordingly.


----------



## inspector

I am probably Historic Premillennial according to this comparison: http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/eschtlgy.htm - but I believe the second coming is before the tribulation.

[Edited on 31-10-2004 by inspector]

[Edited on 31-10-2004 by inspector]


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Mark,
> You will soon see that the Puritan Board is staunchly orthodox in nature. Those whom resisted, i.e hid in the proverbial closet, were firmly and expediently ousted and burned or stoned accordingly.



Good, I just hope they were publically whipped first.


----------



## ReformedWretch

> Those whom resisted, i.e hid in the proverbial closet, were firmly and expediently ousted and burned or stoned accordingly.



Or lovingly showed what the truth was and brought into repentance.


----------



## VanVos

Bimillennial has got to be messed up because even the heretics (HP) reject it. 

VanVos

P.S. by the way I'm a closet amillennialist

[Edited on 2-11-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## Saiph

Postmil . . . because Amil is really postmil anyway . . . . .they just do not "realize" it yet . . no pun intended . .


----------



## JohnV

I'll wait to see.


----------



## crhoades

Christ is coming back. There will be a resurrection unto life and one unto judgment. I can't wait. Other than that, I've got a lot of reading to do.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

I hold to what I suppose is called "classic postmillennialism." I am optimistic about the long-term future, primarily because I believe that Christ is King and rules even now over men and nations, subduing them to Himself. 

I believe the section on final judgment/eschatology in the Westminster Confession is part of the beauty and genuis of the work of the Divines. Eschatology, by definition, involves the future, and Scripture clearly teaches that "no man knows the hour" of Christ's return. The Confession is precise when it needs to be and general when that is appropriate, as it is in the doctrine of end times. The statement they crafted should be sufficient to promote unity amongst the brethren without sacrificing the truth. There were divergent views within the Assembly but they all signed on to that statement. I appreciate that about the Divines. They set a good example for us.

[Edited on 3-11-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Me Died Blue




----------



## turmeric

I'm amillennial (at present) but believe we can see some progress in this life, some regress also. I think I'm an idealist as well.

[Edited on 5-18-2005 by turmeric]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I'm Amil because the Postmil will see the truth when things get worse. Just joking. Besides Satan was bound when Jesus Came. The Gospel goes forth and no one can stop it. We are in the Gospel age. Jesus is the King of Kings.
For Christ's Crown and Covenant


----------



## Irishcat922

I thought I had it figured out, but then I forgot what I was figuring out, so I guess when I get it figured out I'll let you know what my position is.


----------



## just_grace

What does it mean, and does it affect my becoming a Christian and if not why does it confuse me?

David


----------



## RickyReformed

Here's a link to an "Eschatology Wrestefest" held at the TheologyWeb forum. Five views were discussed: futurism, Dispensational futurism, historicism, partial preterism, and acts 9 futurism (whatever that is.)

http://makeashorterlink.com/?F2BC638B9

As for me, I grew up Dispensational premill, leaned classic postmill due to RC Sproul, but now lean amill while checking out Historicism (all the reformers and most of the puritans couldn't have been all wrong could they?) (Yes, I know it's fallacious - appeal to authority or is it an ad populum?)

So there you have it: I'm a dogmatic panmillenialist (everything pans out in the end.)

[Edited on 7-11-2004 by RickyReformed]


----------



## blhowes

I'm amil, kind of by default. I attended a Bible study for a while shortly after I was saved and the teacher taught from the amil perspective. This made much more sense than the dispensational stuff I was learning in the churches I attended. 

The amil position is the only one I've been taught and it seems now that there's not enough time to figure out if its the best one compared to some of the other views that others believe. Trying to understand and 'wrestle with' CT seems to be higher on my priority list now.

For now, I'll label myself an amillenialist and just rest on Matthew 6:34:

Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. 

...besides, by the time I figure out where I stand with CT, Jesus will have returned and we'll all know which view was the most accurate.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> I'm amil, kind of by default. I attended a Bible study for a while shortly after I was saved and the teacher taught from the amil perspective. This made much more sense than the dispensational stuff I was learning in the churches I attended.
> 
> The amil position is the only one I've been taught and it seems now that there's not enough time to figure out if its the best one compared to some of the other views that others believe. Trying to understand and 'wrestle with' CT seems to be higher on my priority list now.
> 
> For now, I'll label myself an amillenialist and just rest on Matthew 6:34:
> 
> Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
> 
> ...besides, by the time I figure out where I stand with CT, Jesus will have returned and we'll all know which view was the most accurate.



Or most bizzare..........


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Or most bizzare..........



Yes, or most bizzare. Maybe we'll all look back and have a good laugh.


----------



## just_grace

> I am a Theonomic Postmillennialist, who is partial-preterist (but contemplating Historicism).



...its all I have ever heard...just no down to earth Christian fellowship.

David

{EDIT: Please do NOT use *minced** oaths

* A minced oath is a mild variation of a curse word}

[Edited on 11/7/2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## just_grace

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> I'm amil, kind of by default. I attended a Bible study for a while shortly after I was saved and the teacher taught from the amil perspective. This made much more sense than the dispensational stuff I was learning in the churches I attended.
> 
> The amil position is the only one I've been taught and it seems now that there's not enough time to figure out if its the best one compared to some of the other views that others believe. Trying to understand and 'wrestle with' CT seems to be higher on my priority list now.
> 
> For now, I'll label myself an amillenialist and just rest on Matthew 6:34:
> 
> Sorry if this is in the wrong area....but this board is need of direction, stop arguing about pointless things that do not tell the person next to you about Christ.
> 
> I have much to say.
> 
> David
> 
> Mat 6:34 Take therefore no thought for the morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.
> 
> ...besides, by the time I figure out where I stand with CT, Jesus will have returned and we'll all know which view was the most accurate.



Does it matter?

No-one disputes the sheep and the goats teaching of the Lord Christ...just make sure your saved....cause if your not covered by the blood of Christ when you die you 'suffer the wrath of God'..ah that ain't so bad you might say....FOOL....weeping and gnashing of teeth you will expierience FOR EVER.

Jonathan Edwards onced preached on Hell ( seperation from God, Justice, RIghteousness, Holiness..

I do not want to be there.

David


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Does it matter?


Yes, I think it does, that is, as you say, after a person is sure of their salvation. 



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> No-one disputes the sheep and the goats teaching of the Lord Christ...


Are you talking here about people on the puritanboard or churches in general? If its churches in general, you'd be surprised. Some churches I've attended (dispensational) think of the sheep and goats as nations. Nations are judged by how they treat the nation of Israel. "I will bless them that bless you, and curse them that curse you".



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> just make sure your saved....cause if your not covered by the blood of Christ when you die you 'suffer the wrath of God'..ah that ain't so bad you might say....FOOL....weeping and gnashing of teeth you will expierience FOR EVER.


Thanks for the admonition and the warning. 



> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> Jonathan Edwards onced preached on Hell ( seperation from God, Justice, RIghteousness, Holiness..
> I do not want to be there.


Nor do I. Seems nowadays there's not much preaching on Hell. Thanks for bringing it up and reminding me at the same time of God's grace and the price Jesus paid.


----------



## RamistThomist

On one hand is does matter what you believe. For instance, if I hold to a defeatist eschatology, why should I try to press for the Crown Rights of King Jesus? Maybe one here and another there willl get saved, but we can just expect it to be hopeless, the promises of God notwithstanding.

Or we can see that the whole Bible from the very beginning is eschatological. God promises to send One to crush the serpent's head. He is promising the Redemption of his people and the destruction of the evil one. Christ promises his disciples that ALL authority is given him and to go make disciples of ALL NATIONS. Evidently, Christ expects some progress for the gospel. Now, we can argue that he expected a lot or a little another day.

It would be an interesting study (no doubt it is already been done) to see the promises of God in an eschatological framework.


----------



## luvroftheWord

I like to call myself a Theonomic Amillennialist because of the reaction I always get. 

My thing is just that I really don't like the distinction between Amill and Postmill, at least when considering contemporary Postmill. The only difference between Amill and Postmill these days is the degree of impact the gospel will have on society and culture. In my mind, this doesn't seem to be enough to qualify for a categorical distinction between the two schools of thought. But hey, that's just me. I won't go to war over semantics.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by luvroftheWord_
> I like to call myself a Theonomic Amillennialist because of the reaction I always get.
> 
> My thing is just that I really don't like the distinction between Amill and Postmill, at least when considering contemporary Postmill. The only difference between Amill and Postmill these days is the degree of impact the gospel will have on society and culture. In my mind, this doesn't seem to be enough to qualify for a categorical distinction between the two schools of thought. But hey, that's just me. I won't go to war over semantics.



There is essentially no difference between the classic amil and classic postmil positions. They WERE only one position for centuries until Whitby. On the other hand, pessimistic amils like William Cox, or theonomic postmils like Gary North are entirely different (from both each other and the amil/postmil historical position).


----------



## RamistThomist

*Reformed Confessions on the Hope of the Church*

_Heidelberg Catechism_: Which is the second petition? 
Answer. "Thy kingdom come"; that is, rule us so by thy word and Spirit, that we may submit ourselves more and more to thee; *preserve and increase* thy church; *destroy* the works of the devil, and all violence which would exalt itself against thee; and also, all wicked counsels devised against thy holy word; till the* full perfection of thy kingdom* take place, wherein thou shalt be all in all.

_WCF Shorter Catechism_
Q. 102. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, which is, Thy kingdom come, we pray that *Satan´s kingdom may be destroyed*; and that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it; and that the *kingdom of glory may be hastened.*

Is this the language of Defeat or Triumph?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> *Reformed Confessions on the Hope of the Church*
> 
> _Heidelberg Catechism_: Which is the second petition?
> Answer. "Thy kingdom come"; that is, rule us so by thy word and Spirit, that we may submit ourselves more and more to thee; *preserve and increase* thy church; *destroy* the works of the devil, and all violence which would exalt itself against thee; and also, all wicked counsels devised against thy holy word; till the* full perfection of thy kingdom* take place, wherein thou shalt be all in all.
> 
> _WCF Shorter Catechism_
> Q. 102. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> A. In the second petition, which is, Thy kingdom come, we pray that *Satan´s kingdom may be destroyed*; and that the kingdom of grace may be advanced, ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it; and that the *kingdom of glory may be hastened.*
> 
> Is this the language of Defeat or Triumph?



Not sure what you are getting at here - as an amil I am perfectly comfortable with the expressions of optimism and hope expressed here.


----------



## RamistThomist

That was more aimed at any defeatist eschatology (ie, dispensationalism). I know many amills who believe in the triumph of the gospel. BTW, are you going to be preaching at Pineville Presbyteriani Church in a few weeks?


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> That was more aimed at any defeatist eschatology (ie, dispensationalism). I know many amills who believe in the triumph of the gospel. BTW, are you going to be preaching at Pineville Presbyteriani Church in a few weeks?



All amils believe in the triumph of the gospel. But I understand your intention.

Yes, as a matter of fact, I am. On Nov. 28th. In fact, I may be preaching on Psalm 2. (Haven't firmly decided yet)


----------



## RamistThomist

I understand; I read a marvelous quote from Van Til's Defense of the Faith on the triumph of the gospel (don't have it with me at the moment).


----------



## RamistThomist

Fred, this is the Van Til quote that I was looking for; here is the proof that one can be optimistic amil:



> "He came forth "To destroy the works of the evil one." He came to bring peace, to be sure, *but the peace he came to bring must be built upon the complete destruction of the power of darkness*. "I came not to bring peace upon the earth but to bring a sword." Such was the message of the Prince of Peace. To herald this message he sent prophets before him and apostles after him. When most enveloped in this message, when most enthusiastic about this peace, the Psalmist cries out, "Shall I not hate those who hate thee? I hate them with a perfect hatred."
> 
> *When he was on earth Christ entered the arena* with Satan singlehanded and *triumphed*. He is seen by John the Apostle, riding upon his white horse, *conquering and to conquer*. When he sees his armies languish, weary of the fight, his clarion voice bids them put on the whole armour of God. They may not waver, it is the church militant, this people of God. Only those who fight to the end receive the crown. And then there is peace indeed. In the "regeneration of all things" he that sits upon the throne is surrounded by the 24 elders and the four living creatures. The whole creation is there; the whole creation is redeemed. No discordant voice is heard. All sing the great song of the redeemed creation. Through redemption creation's purpose is accomplished. Where are the enemies? They are sealed in a soundproof exclusion chamber. *Satan has lost the struggle; God is God*.



This is in his _Defense of the Faith_ pp.28-29.


----------



## twogunfighter

Amil because the other systems seem to have more faults according to Kim Riddlebarger. Not especially disposed to concern or debate over ensuring that my view is absolutely correct. Am with Blhowes on this issue; much bigger fish to fry.


----------



## Presbyrino

I lean towards Theonomic Postmillennial, and partial preterism. Haven't got all of if worked out though. I heard someone refer to it as "Opti-Millienial" and historic-premil/Dispensational-premil as "Pessi-Millenial"

I'm currently working through Bahnsen's "Vicory In Jesus" and "Theonomy in Christian Ethics', and Mathison's "Postmillenialism: Eschatology of Hope".


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Optimistic Amil here


----------



## RamistThomist

The most heart-warming book on eschatology (probably my favorite book at the moment) is Iain Murray's _Puritan Hope_. It is warm and doctrine-centered. Even if you do not accept postmillennialism, do your soul a favor and read of the triumphs of the Church of God in the Post-Reformation era, especially in Scotland.


----------



## Me Died Blue

While I already said in this thread that I have yet to do a study on eschatology, I just saw your mood of "Puritanical," Jacob, and I couldn't help but comment. I've never heard that one before - pretty cool!


----------



## RamistThomist

Chris,
It just came to me all of a sudden. ALso, I am taking an English History Class and we got to the part where the Puritans enforced their rigid morality on merry ole England

PS: I also saw Acts 3:20-21 as a triumphant verse: _20 that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord, and that he may send the Christ appointed for you, Jesus, 21 whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long ago._

And my view may veer away from the theonomic postmillennialism, but I am willing to consider GI Williamson's view: if you are amillennial then you are postmillennial to a degree. After all, even with a spiritual millennium Christ still returns after it. I am willing to set up a vague definition to the millennium, at least


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

Finn,

How can u veer away from theonomic postmill slightly? Are you theonomic? 

Just curious


----------



## RamistThomist

I guess what I meant by "veering away" was that I enjoy reading non-theonomic postmillennial authors like Iain Murray, Warfield, and other Puritans (the scholarship and information they give, while I would not agree with some details, is indispensable). Furthermore, in an interview with Mark Dever at www.9marks.com Murray noted that after the publication of The Puritan Hope, many theonomists were encouraged by the eloquent articualtion of gospel victory. To Murray's chagrin they began to emphazie more on politics than evangelism. There is probably some truth in his charge but I think it can be addressed at another time. Also, Banner of Truth has not been too sympathetic to theonomy. But that's okay, we don't always agree and each of us have different strengths. But at the end of the day I will come down on the theonomic side.


----------



## just_grace

Been away for a while, sorry....and I think I apologised for wrong words, James talked about how difficult it is to be perfect in the things that we say.

When my God called me to Glory He knew everything about me. Jesus died for all my sin. God disciplines thoses whom He loves.

At the end of the day, those who's names are in the Book of Life are saved and it's all becaues God loved us from the foundation of the world.

God does not make a mistake.

David


----------



## Authorised

I have no idea what ANY of these terms mean any more. 


I thought it was just pre-mil, post-mil. Don't I have a lot to learn. 

I'm almost ashamed to say I'm pre-mil (minus the rapture garbage). I suppose that's historic premillenialism? It would be quite easy to convince me otherwise though, as that's somewhat a product of being from a Dispensational church. 

Is eschatology really that important? Frankly, I wince at the thought of studying it...


----------



## Ianterrell

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> I'm Amil because the Postmil will see the truth when things get worse. Just joking. Besides Satan was bound when Jesus Came. The Gospel goes forth and no one can stop it. We are in the Gospel age. Jesus is the King of Kings.
> For Christ's Crown and Covenant



Whoohoo! I'm theonomic postmil partial preteristic expialladocious.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I am post-mil and partial preterist (Nero was the beast in Rev., most of Christ's prophecies are fulfilled in AD 70, etc.), believing of course that Christ will VISIBLY return someday to gather his elect and punish the living and the dead.


----------



## RamistThomist

Welcome back, Gabriel.

Nice avatar, where on earth did you get it?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Welcome back, Gabriel.
> 
> Nice avatar, where on earth did you get it?




Thanks! I made it in Photoshop.


----------



## just_grace

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> David,
> 
> All of us here know this. Our purpose here is to sharpen each other and discuss ALL of god's revelation. Since it is God's message to us we want to talk about it so we may be more in line with Him. I have read alot of your posts and you are just telling everyone that we are saved by grace and, basically, we shouldn't't be discussing these things because all that matters is whether your name is in the book of life. Well, this is not the pattern of the Bible. When Paul opposed Peter to his face Paul rebuked him. Paul didn't say, 'hey, all that matters is if your name is written in the book of life.' the *purpose* of this board is for us to debate and discuss the bible as well as other areas pertaining to the Christian life and our personal lives.



Ok, guess I am a bit worked up...Peter lapsed and Paul rebuked him. The Truth did not change..Peter lapsed.

Sorry.

David


----------



## SolaScriptura

I am a pessimistic amillenialist.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I am a pessimistic amillenialist.



Cheer up, lad.


----------



## SolaScriptura

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> I am a pessimistic amillenialist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheer up, lad.
Click to expand...


Yeah... that's what my wife keeps telling me.


----------



## RamistThomist

that was harsh


----------



## RamistThomist

I took it in jest


----------



## SolaScriptura

What was harsh? What was in jest? Argh! I wanna laugh so that I can be cheered up!


----------



## DeafPosttrib

I am Amill, posttrib & Idealist


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by DeafPosttrib_
> I am Amill, posttrib & Idealist



How can you be an Amillennial Idealist, and be "PostTrib"? Do you believe in a future tribulation?


----------



## DeafPosttrib

You have to be aware, that there are LOT of amills are posttrib, I am not the only person is amill & posttrib. I already read so many amills at forums, that they are clearly posttrib. Also, there is so overwhelming that there are so many amills do believe Christ's coming(literal & physical) is a future event. 

I am an Idealist, means to be balance with spiritual and literal by interpreting scrptures. Also, these scriptures giving us the pictures of what the spiritual meanings talking about. 

Disp/pretrib always stress by interpreting scriptures into literal too much, and of course they are all futurists. But, thier interpreting show there are so many errors, and they easy misunderstanding what the xritpures actual talking about. 

Of course, I believe 'great tribulation' is still yet to come is a future event. Also, we are now in tribulations since early Church to today according John 16:33; Acts 14:22; Romans 4:3-4; 1 Thess. 3:3-4; & 2 Thess. 1:3-7. Church have been in tribulations thoughout all centuries, even, today Church still suffering tribulations. Some tribulations were light, heavy, small, great, etc. all tribulations are varities. But all tribulations are same defintion. Why we have tribulations? Because Christ suffered on the corss, so, therefore, we ought follow Christ's example of 1 Peter 2:21. 

I believe Matt. 24:15-21 of 'great tribulation' is a future event, not 70 A.D., because Zionism Movement draws Jews 'return' to their home land -Israel, for the purpose to draw ALL Jews from nations of the world, to be repopulated in Israel, to be prepare to persecute against Jews - the coming of another Holocaust, there will be much worst than Holocaust of World War II. 

Also, 'great tribulation' is not yet occur, Satan is being holding back in the bottom pit, and he shall be loosed out of the way (2 Thess. 2:6-8; Rev. 17:8; & Rev. 20:3,7). Once, Satan loosed out of the way, and to be revealed, then Satan shall persecute against Jews & Christians really terrible and more bloody ever than before in the humankind history.


----------



## Dan....

Paul,

If the "hour of temptation" which is to come upon "all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth" is refering to the destruction of Jerusalem of A.D. 70, then in what way would this church in Asia Minor have been effected by it had they not persevered? If the trial is on "all the earth" then how were the Anglos, Saxons and Jutes (which were a part of the known world of the time) tested thereby?

[Edited on 2-12-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## DeafPosttrib

Paul,

I understand Revelation chapter 2 and 3 speak of the seven churches in Asia, were all literal and exist during John's time during 1st Century. These were given instructions with warnings to them. The Church of Philadelphia was actual did keep God's Commandment, while they faced the times of temptaitons in their lifetime. But, Rev. 3:7-11 is not always limited to the Church of Philadelphia only, also, it apply to us as all individuals throughout all centuries, that it commands us, that we must keep God's commandment, while face temptations. We do not have to wait for the coming 'hour of temptation' - seven year of tribulation period(according pretrib's teaching). Early Church already face temptations in their lifetime. Even, today, we all are facing temptations throughout in our lifetime. In other word, what *IF* we do not keep God's Commandment, then we might face more serious problems and fall into sins. 

Also, I do not agree with pretribulation doctrine on the seven churches, they called it, "Church Age", there are seven ages of the Church age. There is no hint find anywhere in chapter 2 and 3 telling us, which one of the church, we are right now. All of these churches were exist during John's time. Now they are not exist, but these are still apply to us of every individual that we must take heed and listen Christ's instruction with warning. Because Christ's coming shall be like as thief in the night, that we must always be watch and read all the times according to Rev. 3:2-3.


----------



## DeafPosttrib

Paul,

'tribulation' does not always equal with 'temptation'. Many pretribbers teaching on 'hour of temptation' speak of seven year of tribulation. 

Rev. 3:10 is same with James 1:12 and Rev. 2:10 talking about the promise to us, if we keep His commandment, we shall be protect from being fall into sins while facing temptations. Also, Rev. 3:10 is much same with John 17:15. 

Rev. 3:10 does not limited to the Church of Philadelphia during John's time, it also apply to us as individual. Yes, Christ already know that they did kept His commandment, while they were facing temptations. We should be like as Church of Philadelphia's testimony, that we should keep His commandment while we are facing temptations in our lifetime.


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> last time I ask:
> 
> I asked why he told a real first century Church that he would keep them from the tribulation (testing) that was over 2,000 years away. Pointless, anyone? Why tell them to hold on to what they had? Are the first century Philadelphians still holding onto what they had? Christ said He was comming quickly. Over 2,000 years later seems a bit slow, especially when real christians are being persecuted and need judment immediately.



The same reason that Paul tells them to await the coming of the Lord, and the same reason that Jesus tells the disciples in Matthew 24 that he will come before this generation passes away. It is a partial and typical fulfillment of the tribulation (which is not a future event like premils think, but the state of the Church), just as the coming of Christ in judgment in 70 AD was a partial and typical fulfillment of the Second Coming to come.

OK?


----------



## Dan....

If I agree with Fred, what does that make me?


Paul, you may have missed my question due to the page turn (it appears at the bottm of page 3), but can you address how the whole known world was tried in A.D. 70?


----------



## Dan....

> The judgment, though, is done to Jerusalem. At whose hands the majority of the persecution happened.



But that is not what the text says. The text says that the trial "shall come upon the whole world". Jerusalem is not the whole world. 

True, the Christians were scattered throughout the known world, and I'll let you get away with saying that they were being avenged in the judgment against Jerusalem. However, only Jerusalem was ramsacked in A.D. 70; why weren't the remainder of the persecutors judged? That doesn't sound like a trial that "shall come upon the whole world" to me.


----------



## Dan....

So the "whole world" is the Jews?


----------



## Dan....

Just so we're on the same page, the verse that I thought we were discussing is Revelation 3:10:



> Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.


----------



## Dan....

Sorry Paul. I misunderstood you. 

In your estimation, when did/does/will this tribulation occur? Is it ongoing (over the centuries), or was it completed at a specific point in history?

As for me, I don't know whether this verse is to be interpreted Preteristically, futuristically or as a continual ongoing trial through the ages.

[Edited on 2-12-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## DeafPosttrib

Paul,

You seem admit that tribulations have been continuing throughout many Centuries post-70 A.D. 

'Great tribulation' does not actually end in 70 A.D. Millions of Christians have been continue persecuting and killed throughout many Centuries to today. I do believe there shall be great tribulaiton yet to come is future. Because Zionism Movement established modern nation - Israel in year 1948. For their purpose, to draw all Jews 'return' back to their land again. Jews shall be replopulate in Israel. So, there shall be coming of another Holocaust against Jews in Jerusalem, and Israel, it will be much worst than 70 A.D. & Holocaust of World War II. 

I believe great tribulation shall be begin with in Jerusalem, then it will spread over the world to persecute against Christians - Rev. 13:7, 10, by follow the revealed of false Messiah after Satan being loosed out of the bottomless pit (2 Thess. 2:6-8; Rev. 17:8; Rev. 20:3,7). 

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by DeafPosttrib_
> Paul,
> 
> You seem admit that tribulations have been continuing throughout many Centuries post-70 A.D.
> 
> 'Great tribulation' does not actually end in 70 A.D. Millions of Christians have been continue persecuting and killed throughout many Centuries to today. I do believe there shall be great tribulaiton yet to come is future. Because Zionism Movement established modern nation - Israel in year 1948. For their purpose, to draw all Jews 'return' back to their land again. Jews shall be replopulate in Israel. So, there shall be coming of another Holocaust against Jews in Jerusalem, and Israel, it will be much worst than 70 A.D. & Holocaust of World War II.
> 
> I believe great tribulation shall be begin with in Jerusalem, then it will spread over the world to persecute against Christians - Rev. 13:7, 10, by follow the revealed of false Messiah after Satan being loosed out of the bottomless pit (2 Thess. 2:6-8; Rev. 17:8; Rev. 20:3,7).
> 
> In Christ
> Rev. 22:20 -Amen!



I don't doubt that Christians will suffer throughout the ages, but the way you describe it, the promises of God in that the gospel will be going to all the earth _with visible effect_ will not ever happen.


----------



## bigheavyq

theonomic postmill, partial preterist. 
by the way the full preterist millenial position is called transmillenial.

You really should categorize by millenial views
amillennial
postmillenial
premillennial
transmillenial 
bimillenial

then catergorize interpretation of Revelation
historical
future
idealist
allegorical
preterist- partial
preterist- full

what do you mean by classic postmillenial? If you mean hodge, edwards, etc., then that is historical postmillenial.


----------



## Robin

I'm traditional, Reformed, Amill. Please be careful to compare with Hendrickson; Vos; Kline; Riddlebarger; GK Beale.

This includes the idea of "already" and "not yet" applications to prophecy - the "inauguration" and "future consummation" of the Kingdom. Paul's "two age" language. Scripture interprets Scripture in this grid.

God's mighty acts in the history of Redemption in the past are necessarily connected to what He will do in the future.

There is no reliable way to discuss what God will do in the future without firm standing on what He has done in the past.

Rather, the eschatalogical language of the "two ages" : the "present evil age" and "the age to come" defines the eschatalogical nature of the whole of Scripture. The Coming of the Kingdom "overlaps" in human history. Christ is already reigning. (See, Amills DO believe in a "millennium" - it just depends on the proper sense of that word in the Text!)


----------



## cornelius vantil

theonomic postmill!!!!!!!!


herminio


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> theonomic postmill, partial preterist.
> by the way the full preterist millenial position is called transmillenial.
> 
> You really should categorize by millenial views
> amillennial
> postmillenial
> premillennial
> transmillenial
> bimillenial
> 
> then catergorize interpretation of Revelation
> historical
> future
> idealist
> allegorical
> preterist- partial
> preterist- full
> 
> what do you mean by classic postmillenial? If you mean hodge, edwards, etc., then that is historical postmillenial.



My bad. I'll make a thread on interpretation.


----------



## Puritanhead

Ahh-- none of those full preterist, realized eschatology kooks thus far in your little poll... Philetus and Hymaneus were of that sort, and Apostle Paul rebuked.. . Old heresies die hard. Arianism revisits us in Watchtower Society and Mormonism.


----------



## Puritanhead

Hey can we invoke the 6th point of Calvinism if anyone admits to being a full preterist on this poll?


----------



## bigheavyq

excuse my ignorance puritanhead, but what is the 6th point of calvinism?


----------



## RamistThomist

either sovereignty of God or reprobation


----------



## panta dokimazete

Hebrews 5-6

11We have much to say about this, but it is hard to explain because you are slow to learn. 12In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food! 13*Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness.* 14But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil. 
..................

1Therefore let us leave the elementary teachings about Christ and go on to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death,[a] and of faith in God, 2instruction about baptisms, the laying on of hands, the resurrection of the dead, and *eternal judgment*. 3And God permitting, we will do so. 


Isn't eschatology a "milk" teaching? I certainly think so...


----------



## Answerman

Theonomic/Postmill.

Reasons:

1. There is a period of great earthly blessing predicted in the OT where death still occurs, such as Isaiah 65:17-25.

Although I admit that this passage is speaking poetically, I can't go as far as the a-mil that would say that the reference to dying at 100 in this passage is just a poetic way to say that no one will die. (at least this is how I have heard most a-mil's interpret this passage, please correct me if I am wrong).

2. The Gospels clearly indicate only one kingdom as seen in how the phrases kingdom of God/Heaven are used interchangably,

3. and that this kingdom was to begin before some of Christ's contemporaries died (Matt 16:28).

4. This kingdom was to be taken from the Jewish leaders and given to another nation (Matt 21:43).

5. The [Davidic] kingdom began with the ascension of Christ as Peter clearly indicates in Acts 2:30,31.

6. The kingdom is not going to come with observation (Luke 17:20,21),

[although point 6 seems to contradict point 5, point 5 should be viewed as the inaguration of Christ's kingdom and point 6 viewed as the predicted expansion of His kingdom]

7. because Christ tells us that the kingdom is within His people and will progress slowly through the earth as leaven through bread or as a mustard seed grows into a big tree.

8. Christ is to reign until all of His enemies are made a footstool for his feet (Psalm 110:1), which by the way is the most quoted verse in the NT.

9. This is accomplished by the sword that protrudes from Christ's mouth, which is the the word of God and the message of the Gospel (Rev. 19:15) in which we as Christ's ambassadors play an active role in proclaiming.

10. And after Christ has put all His enemies under His feet (and the last enemy to be destroyed is death), He will come and end His mediatorial role in the kingdom (1 Corinthians 15:22-26).

In Christ,
David

[Edited on 14-2-2005 by Answerman]


----------



## Poimen

Amillenialist; iterist


----------



## Answerman

poimen, what is an iterist?


----------



## brymaes

Preterist amillennial -- somewhat pessimistic


----------



## rgrove

classic postmill, but with _a lot_ of influence by theonomic postmills (Bahnsen and Gentry in particular)

Yours In Christ,
Ron


----------



## sastark

Welcome to the board, Ron!


----------



## rgrove

Thanks for the welcome!


----------



## Authorised

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> excuse my ignorance puritanhead, but what is the 6th point of calvinism?


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat

Wow, this thread is still alive!


----------



## bigheavyq

well i believe in executing heretics, homosexuals, adulterers, rapists, murderers, witches, traitors(democrats), and any other capital crimes of God's law. so that would definitely make me a six point calvinist. personally burning is too cruel, bring back the guillotine. for homos and rapist impail them.


----------



## Authorised




----------



## nonconformist

> _Originally posted by bigheavyq_
> well i believe in executing heretics, homosexuals, adulterers, rapists, murderers, witches, traitors(democrats), and any other capital crimes of God's law. so that would definitely make me a six point calvinist. personally burning is too cruel, bring back the guillotine. for homos and rapist impail them.


I like the way this guy thinksI do believe that might make me a theonomic postmill,optimistic with trials,but eventually victorious through Christ


----------



## Authorised

Hmm...yeah.

I assume you meant "impale." Did you prefer for the pole to only go through the heart? Or did you mean the kind that goes through the arsehole and out the mouth? 

I certainly think that we should have more rigid application of laws, as we live in a society that is conducive to crime, but I totally object to taking such grotesque pleasure (as you do) in bloody punishments like that.

I, for one, am not willing to return to the judicial Old Testament laws.

Why don't we stone people that work on the Sabbath? Is that included under this wonderful program? How many people on this board would be alive today if these sins were also capital crimes? I'm willing to say, not many.

Oh yeah, and learn how to correctly capitalize and spell.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> Hmm...yeah.
> 
> I assume you meant "impale." Did you prefer for the pole to only go through the heart? Or did you mean the kind that goes through the arsehole and out the mouth?
> 
> I certainly think that we should have more rigid application of laws, as we live in a society that is conducive to crime, but I totally object to taking such grotesque pleasure (as you do) in bloody punishments like that.
> 
> I, for one, am not willing to return to the judicial Old Testament laws.
> 
> Why don't we stone people that work on the Sabbath? Is that included under this wonderful program? How many people on this board would be alive today if these sins were also capital crimes? I'm willing to say, not many.
> 
> Oh yeah, and learn how to correctly capitalize and spell.



Somebody touched a nerve. Oh well, this horse has been killed over and over again. I refuse to enter this debate at the moment, nor to detract from the present discusssion. Look for Paul's response to Roldan's thread on theonomy and church discipline. I am not going to repeat it here because these threads are easily hijacked. Quick answer: not all sins are are political crimes and definitely not all crimes are sins.


----------



## Authorised

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Somebody touched a nerve.




Not really.

Just admit it, that post was ridiculous.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> Somebody touched a nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not really.
> 
> Just admit it, that post was ridiculous.
Click to expand...


um....no. I am all for the death-penalty with respect to rapists and muderers, for one.


----------



## LadyFlynt

okay, I put historical premil....that's what I was raised and know. Might be convinced to switch to postmil though. ANYTHING BUT amil...gag.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> okay, I put historical premil....that's what I was raised and know. Might be convinced to switch to postmil though. ANYTHING BUT amil...gag.



Doug Phillips is postmill


----------



## Authorised

umm yeah...But if you really want to be consistent the death penalty should also be administered to unbelievers and heretics. 

Like Jews. Do you want a lot of Jews and Roman Catholics to be killed too?


I know an organization that can help you out.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> umm yeah...But if you really want to be consistent the death penalty should also be administered to unbelievers and heretics.
> 
> Like Jews. Do you want a lot of Jews and Roman Catholics to be killed too?
> 
> 
> I know an organization that can help you out.



relevance to issue at hand? The church doesn't wield the power of the sword, nor does the state hold the keys of the kingdom. Anyway, stick to the issue at hand: what is your eschatological view?


----------



## Authorised

Why do postmillennialists hate amillennialism so much? Especially when amillennialism is so congruent with scripture and experience.


----------



## RamistThomist

I don't hate amills. I love them. I think the people that hate amillers are Dispensationalists! it is one of our fun, intramural debates between post and a- that needs to end very quickly (I say this to my own people, primarily).


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> okay, I put historical premil....that's what I was raised and know. Might be convinced to switch to postmil though. ANYTHING BUT amil...gag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Doug Phillips is postmill
Click to expand...


Cool ...just another reason to like and respect the man!


----------



## LadyFlynt

there is no hope in amillinianism as I understand it.


----------



## Authorised

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I don't hate amills. I love them. I think the people that hate amillers are Dispensationalists! it is one of our fun, intramural debates between post and a- that needs to end very quickly (I say this to my own people, primarily).



I said "amillennialism" as opposed to "amillenialists," as I believe that distinction ought to be made.

Somehow, I find that postmillennialists are more zealous in eschatology than amillennialists.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> there is no hope in amillinianism as I understand it.



Depends on the amiller. Don Bloesch and GI Williamson maintain a relative optimism. There are others--Bruce Waltke--who put as much emphasis on the suffering of the church as many hyper-postmills do on the victory of the Church; perhaps both are unbalanced.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> I don't hate amills. I love them. I think the people that hate amillers are Dispensationalists! it is one of our fun, intramural debates between post and a- that needs to end very quickly (I say this to my own people, primarily).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said "amillennialism" as opposed to "amillenialists," as I believe that distinction ought to be made.
> 
> Somehow, I find that postmillennialists are more zealous in eschatology than amillennialists.
Click to expand...


Perhaps. Sorry, didn't catch the distinction at first. Even then, I don't hate* the system. Technically I can make the argument that ALL amillennialists are postmillennialists and SOME postmillennialists are amillennialists.

[Edited on 5--29-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## nonconformist

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> okay, Might be convinced to switch to postmil though.


That is good news


----------



## nonconformist

authorised


> Somehow, I find that postmillennialists are more zealous in eschatology than amillennialists


You would be correct.At least with me


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> 
> 
> Somehow, I find that postmillennialists are more zealous in eschatology than amillennialists.



Are you suggesting that Kim Riddlebarger and our friend on PB, Robin, are less than zealous for eschatology? Anyway, zeal is a good thing. The argument cuts both ways. I can insert my own terms and come up with a perfectly valid argument similar to yours.


----------



## Authorised

I think it's more an observation, but it also makes sense if you consider what each view entails. 

Even without knowing a postmiller or amiller, one could probably guess an average postmiller would be more zealous than an amiller (concerning eschatology).

I know I don't really pay much attention to it...

Shame on me?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> I know I don't really pay much attention to it...



 ...for the moment, anyway.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> I think it's more an observation, but it also makes sense if you consider what each view entails.
> 
> Even without knowing a postmiller or amiller, one could probably guess an average postmiller would be more zealous than an amiller (concerning eschatology).
> 
> I know I don't really pay much attention to it...
> 
> Shame on me?



Well, its your existential experience versus mine; who wins? The reason I voiced disagreement is that if you take the Klinean/Riddlebarger/Vosian view of amillennialism, and the premise that eschatology permeates everything (a premise I wholeheartedly agree with), then one must by definition be zealous for eschatology.


----------



## Authorised

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> The reason I voiced disagreement is that if you take the Klinean/Riddlebarger/Vosian view of amillennialism, and the premise that eschatology permeates everything (a premise I wholeheartedly agree with), then one must by definition be zealous for eschatology.




Hmm. Perhaps you could elaborate on what they mean by "eschatology permeates everything." That's an interesting thought that has never occured to me.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Authorised_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> The reason I voiced disagreement is that if you take the Klinean/Riddlebarger/Vosian view of amillennialism, and the premise that eschatology permeates everything (a premise I wholeheartedly agree with), then one must by definition be zealous for eschatology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm. Perhaps you could elaborate on what they mean by "eschatology permeates everything." That's an interesting thought that has never occured to me.
Click to expand...


I know Robin will be thrilled upon seeing that question. For that reason I will defer the question.


----------



## RamistThomist

I will assume what Robin has said in the past to be a valid expression of that type of amillennialism,



> This includes the idea of "already" and "not yet" applications to prophecy - the "inauguration" and "future consummation" of the Kingdom. Paul's "two age" language. Scripture interprets Scripture in this grid.
> 
> God's mighty acts in the history of Redemption in the past are necessarily connected to what He will do in the future.
> 
> There is no reliable way to discuss what God will do in the future without firm standing on what He has done in the past.
> 
> Rather, the eschatalogical language of the "two ages" : the "present evil age" and "the age to come" *defines the eschatalogical nature of the whole of Scripture*. The Coming of the Kingdom "overlaps" in human history. Christ is already reigning. (See, Amills DO believe in a "millennium" - it just depends on the proper sense of that word in the Text!)


 taken from this thread on 12-8-04

Robin wrote in the thread "Question for Amils," dated 4-5-05


> The entire Bible is eschatalogical in nature....Paul's eschatology never speaks of a millenial, btw.
> 
> No way can any of us DO anything about expediting God's sovreign will....so the Peter verse must be indicative. The best thing to do is read the entire book/chapter, and sketch a list of terms used: "Day of the Lord; Great Day, Etc., Age; this present evil age; the age to come." Remember these phrases and words? They are peppered throughout the Epistles. Paul views eschatology in "two ages." So does Jesus. These ages are characterized by certain traits. One is temporal; passing away; evil - the other is: eternal; all things are restored; no death. Scripture (Paul) never teaches of a "golden Christian age" before the 2nd Advent, Btw. Paul says things get way worse.
> 
> Basically, when Christ returns (2nd Advent) it will be public; visible; loud; he will judge the wicked; raise the dead; make all things new. (If I recall, Christ IS our great Reward.)
> 
> It might get everyone further to inquire what is Paul's eschatology? Hmmmm.....



The only reason I point those out, not that I agree fully with everything said, but that this is a good example of how scripture is eschatological and of utmost importance. Agreed, Robin?

[Edited on 5--30-05 by Draught Horse]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> Well, its your existential experience versus mine; who wins? The reason I voiced disagreement is that if you take the Klinean/Riddlebarger/Vosian view of amillennialism, and the premise that eschatology permeates everything (a premise I wholeheartedly agree with), then one must by definition be zealous for eschatology.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> there is no hope in amillinianism as I understand it.


I think as you interact with more Amils here on the Board you will find that your understanding of Amil as described here is completely unfounded.


----------



## nonconformist

Authorised


> Hmm. Perhaps you could elaborate on what they mean by "eschatology permeates everything." That's an interesting thought that has never occured to me.


When I went from premill to postmill,it was like I threw nitrous oxide in my car,INSTANT OVERNIGHT ZEALOT.I do not spend much time in front of the TV anymore


----------



## turmeric

> _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> I do not spend much time in front of the TV anymore



You done been sanctified!


----------



## kevin.carroll

Once again, I am left without a vote. I am currently awash in a sea of eschatalogical agnosticism, having some years ago cut myself loose from the moorings of Dispensationalism.

I'm leaning towards amillennialism but I will admit I've not studied it. The only thing I know for sure is that Christ will return as He said, which definitely would NOT make me a hyper-preterist!


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by inspector_
> I am probably Historic Premillennial according to this comparison: http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/eschtlgy.htm - but I believe the second coming is before the tribulation.
> 
> [Edited on 31-10-2004 by inspector]
> 
> [Edited on 31-10-2004 by inspector]



The Second Coming is the before the Tribulation? That kind of sounds like a confused dispensantional wannabe position.


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by RickyReformed_(Yes, I know it's fallacious - appeal to authority or is it an ad populum?)
> 
> So there you have it: I'm a dogmatic panmillenialist (everything pans out in the end.)



Yes, it's fallacious...but it happens all the time on the board! :::running away:::


----------



## kevin.carroll

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Why did Jesus promise to keep the Church at Philadelphia from the tribulation if it wasn't supposed to come for over 2 thousand years. Seems kind of pointless. Why did he tell them to hold fast to what they have because He was comming quickly to reward them? Is the church in Philadelphia STILL HOLDING to what they have???? Note well: this is a real first century Church.
> 
> 7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:
> 8 I know thy works (behold, I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut), that thou hast a little power, and didst keep my word, and didst not deny my name.
> 9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
> 10 Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
> 11 I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.



It is difficult to see what relation Philadelphia had to the events of AD 70 in Jerusalem, if that's what you are driving at.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by kevin.carroll_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Why did Jesus promise to keep the Church at Philadelphia from the tribulation if it wasn't supposed to come for over 2 thousand years. Seems kind of pointless. Why did he tell them to hold fast to what they have because He was comming quickly to reward them? Is the church in Philadelphia STILL HOLDING to what they have???? Note well: this is a real first century Church.
> 
> 7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:
> 8 I know thy works (behold, I have set before thee a door opened, which none can shut), that thou hast a little power, and didst keep my word, and didst not deny my name.
> 9 Behold, I give of the synagogue of Satan, of them that say they are Jews, and they are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
> 10 Because thou didst keep the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of trial, that hour which is to come upon the whole world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
> 11 I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no one take thy crown.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is difficult to see what relation Philadelphia had to the events of AD 70 in Jerusalem, if that's what you are driving at.
Click to expand...


70 AD is not the point in this passage, per se as it relates to Jerusalem. What Paul is getting at is why would Christ give a church specific details for events that will soon happen if they don't happen for the next 2000 years (or 3000 0r 4000, etec.)?


----------



## Myshkin

Jacob and Robin-

1) How is the amillenialism of Kline, Vos, and Riddlebarger different from other amillenialists? And who are examples that hold to these different amillennial views? I was under the (apparently false) impression that amillenialists had few if any differences between them on this issue. The only exposure I have to amillenialism is Riddlebarger, Hoekema, and Berkhof. This is an issue I have yet to really dive deeply into, but would like to be more aware of so that I do not devote myself to just one example within each different view.

and, 2) what one overarching reason for your view, or problem with the other view, leads you to hold your view. Is it a broader idea? Is it one verse that exegetically needs to be answered? Is it something that doesn't fit with christian experience? Something else? What was the final/main argument that sealed the deal for you in your respective views? (I ask all the above in relation to the views themselves as much as possible without getting into the ideas of historicism, preterism, futurism, etc.)

I may delve into these issues this summer, but at the moment I am ignorantly swaying between amill and postmill. 

Thanks,
Allan


----------



## RamistThomist

First,
I agree with amillers on the timing of the millennium. Amillers quickly point out that there is no "golden-age" of Christianity promised. I don't like to use that kind of language to begin with because everybody means something different than the other guy. I get flustered when people point out that there is no "christianization" of America promised. 

What I would rather do is this:
Take the "golden" verses (Psalm 72, Isaiah 2, 7, 9, 60ff; there are other verses as well) and look at them.

Psalm 72: Many see the king here (Solomon) to be a type of Christ (The Trinity Hymnal, for one). It says he will rule from Sea to Sea, from the rive to the ends of the earth. Fair enough, the amiller says, and will usually say this is in the heavenly reign after history has been consummated. And here is my thesis for this psalm and for the other passages listed: There are actions, conditions, states, and entities that exist in this psalm that cannot by definition exist in the final state. This would include in Psalm 72 "the poor" and "oppression" (v.4), the "sun and the moon" which we know will not be in the new Jerusalem, his "enemies" etc.

People quickly point out that we can expect no "christianization" of the nations in the New Covenant. I will leave that to the side for the moment. Let's look at how we can expect the nature of Christ's kingdom to be in Isaiah 9,
in vvs 1-6 we see the coming of the Christ and what do we notice of his ministry? We see Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.

Now some could say that this is only spiritual and not earthly. Well, why not both? Why must they be mutually exclusive? What would a reader of this text see when he sees it? 

I could do the same with the rest of Isaiah. Quite frequently when you read "the glorious" passages that were long thought to be descriptive of "heaven," we see states of existence there that in no way can be limited to "heaven." In other passsages we see the poor oppressed, infants dying, heavenly bodies still in orbit, none of which can exist in "heaven." Therefore, I will sum up my argument.

1) By nature of the unity of the eschatological complex (ie, whenever it speaks of a resurrection, it does so of the just and the unjust simultaneously resurrected. Rev. 20 appears to be an exception, although there is much reason to see it as a spiritual resurrection). Amillennials should agree with me on this one. It is more of an attack on premillennialism than anything else. 

2) I agree with amills on the timing of the millennium.

3) therefore the question remains to the nature of hte millennium.

4) We have seen that the "glorious" passages long thought to be descriptive of heaven, contain elements which by definition cannot be heavenly.

5) Therefore, we must relegate them to the earthly aspects of earth. 

6)therefore, I see much to hope in in the coming future.


----------



## biblelighthouse




----------



## LadyFlynt

Okay...so without reading the book per se (my hubby is studying it)...what DOES postmillinianism believe...precisely and simply?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay...so without reading the book per se (my hubby is studying it)...what DOES postmillinianism believe...precisely and simply?



We kidnap baptist babies; sprinkle them, and then teach them to exercise dominion.

Seriously,
We usually agree with amills on the timing of the millennium (now; most, myself included, would take this approach). While never reaching the perfect, dare we say, golden age in this lifetime, we have good hope that we will see an earth whereing righteousness truly dwells.

Note a few very important omissions:
1) Notice how I did not mention hijacking the government. I get accused of that ad nauseum but as you can see, there is no logical connector.

2) Aside from my humorous preface, we do not believe in sociological arm-twisting.

3) We do not believe in a fully saved world. There will be tares in the wheat but it is important to realize that it is a wheat field, not a tare field.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 3) We do not believe in a fully saved world. There will be tares in the wheat but it is important to realize that it is a wheat field, not a tare field.



It's also important to remember this present age is just a feild with a temporal purpose


----------



## heartoflesh

I actually have a copy of "He Shall Have Dominion" by Kenneth Gentry, but have never read it. The Amillennialists had captivated me with their arguments and I never gave Postmillennialism another chance. 

Is this book a good representation of Postmill?


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by Rick Larson_
> I actually have a copy of "He Shall Have Dominion" by Kenneth Gentry, but have never read it. The Amillennialists had captivated me with their arguments and I never gave Postmillennialism another chance.
> 
> Is this book a good representation of Postmill?



Its beefier than say, Mathison's book, but from what I have heard it is pretty good.

Mathison's is probably the best intro. Oddly, he is a little weak on dispensationalism, but I think he didn't want to spend too much time on it because he had already written a book on it.

I actually was an amiller first, having read Riddlebarger. Even then I though his dismissals of postmillennialism were surface level, but he did lower the hammer on premillennialism of all sorts!


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> We kidnap baptist babies; sprinkle them, and then teach them to exercise dominion.



As a former baptist, still gotta love it!


----------



## bigheavyq

hey, i'm back been gone for a while. but I need to take issue with jacob and the amillenialists who say eschatology permeates everything.
as my friend richard pratt says "theology is a web of multiple reciprocities".
in other words, if you mess with one idea chances are you are going to be wrong on several others. frankly, I see the doctrines of grace permeating our lives and covenant permeating every portion of scripture and theology. 
frankly eschatology is the fruit of covenant, both positive and negative. on the negative side, apostate israel was warned constantly by the prophets from Isaiah to Jesus himself of their broken covenant and impending doom, which we see its fruition in the great tribulation of 70 ad. on the positive side, the church, the true israel, are now conitunally recieving the blessings of the new covenant. And the nations of the this world are becoming the nations of our God. 
To make eschatology the everything of the christian life and world view, is to fall into the same sensationalism of the left behind crowd who go around like chicken little "the sky is falling"


----------



## RamistThomist

I did not say we ought to make eschatology everything; I said that--or I say now, rather--that our eschatology will permeate everything. Eschatology is tied to *redemption* (genesis 3:15); the *faithfulness of God* (Genesis 15 and 17--God promising to be a God unto Abram(ham) by making his descendants as sands on the seashore, eventually through conversion--Romans 4:16-25), *the destruction of God's enemies and the vindication of the saints* (the Book of Revelation--sorry fellas; I am taking a partial-pret view here).

Eschatology is inescapable. I am not like the left-behind crew. They see God unable to help his creation and so gets the pesky church out of there via rapture and get back to the focal point of history--the nation-state of secular Israel. My eschatology (and Robin's as well) attempts to trace a glorious patter of God's faithfulness to his people throughout history.


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay...so without reading the book per se (my hubby is studying it)...what DOES postmillinianism believe...precisely and simply?



We need to get two things clear:

Dominion and Domestics.

Dominion, I trust, needs no explanation.
Domestics means having lots of babies (or rather, having concentrated groups of people having a goodly number; this would take pressure of those who cannot have that many) while watching society commit suicide via birth control and abortion and euthanasia. In a generation we will take over; launch our counter-attack, if you will.


----------



## Peter

_Originally posted by Draught Horse_
"1) By nature of the unity of the eschatological complex (ie, whenever it speaks of a resurrection, it does so of the just and the unjust simultaneously resurrected. Rev. 20 appears to be an exception, although there is much reason to see it as a spiritual resurrection). Amillennials should agree with me on this one. It is more of an attack on premillennialism than anything else. "

Definiately. Chiliasm is entirely refuted by passages such as 1 Cor 15 and is explicitly anti-confessional. Rev is a highly figurative book . anyone trying to read literal meaning into its symbols is making a grave mistake. There is some disagreement between postmills and Amills (including neo-postmills) on the meaning of the resurrections in rev 20 though. As I understand it, amills see the 1st resurrection as figurative, and the 2nd resurrection v5 as the literal bodily resurrection, whereas postmills see the 2nd res alluded to in v5 as the unloosing of Satan v7 and the end of the 'golden age'. 

"2) I agree with amills on the timing of the millennium."

Actually, historically, postmills and amills have been at odds over the timing of the millennium. It would probably be more accurate to call you an optimistic amillennialist. http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=7479#pid110860 The 1000 year reign of the martyrs is only ever mentioned in such words in Revelation but I find it most natural and most convenient to see this as the same time as when judgment is given to the saints Dan 7 and the church triumphantly fills the earth Dan 2, ps 22, Is 11:9.

"3) therefore the question remains to the nature of the millennium."

'Satan shall not have it in his power to disturb the repose of the saints; to practice his temptation among the churches; or to influence as the god of this world, the councils of civil rulers. The benevolent principles of Christianity shall then be universally known and received; and the world shall be made to acknowledge their happy influence over society. _Blessed is he that waiteth and cometh to the 1335 days Dan xii:12_' - Mcleod, Lectures upon the principle prophecies of the Revelation p379.

"Rev 11:15 And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever

The existing sovereignties of nations constitute the th subject og this prediction the kingdoms of this world are the political constitutions which are on earthm and which have derived their form and character from the earth and particularly the several kingdoms which are w/in the precints of the old roman empire. The reformation which they undergo changes effectually their character. They become the kingdoms of the Lord. They were, heretofore, the kingdoms of the world, of the earth, earthly: but now they are the Lord. They were always infact though unknowingly and unwillingly, under the power of Jehovah and made subservient to Jesus Christ: but they are now professedly and with understanding subject to the Law of God, and the revelation of Jesus Christ. True religion now comes to be formally avowed by them in their political capacity. There were Xians residing in these nations before this time the nations were actually called Christian nations: some really supposed that they were Xian states: many pretended that they were so: but during all this time, they have been in the estimation of our Lord Jesus Christ only "Kingdoms of this world". Now however they understand, they profess, and they support, not a state religion, nor a worldly sanctuary, but the pure religion of the bible in a consistent manner.
The system of revealed trueth for the 1st time influences their whole social relations, and directs their polity and they publicly proclaim their submission to Messiah. They are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ. They acknowledge him as their governor; and he shall reign over them continually. Wonderful, and unto many unexpected, change! But the power of our Redeemer over the nations shall never afterwards be called in question by his disciples. He shall reign forever and ever." 156-157

"4) We have seen that the "glorious" passages long thought to be descriptive of heaven, contain elements which by definition cannot be heavenly.

"5) Therefore, we must relegate them to the earthly aspects of earth. 

"6)therefore, I see much to hope in in the coming future."


----------



## nonconformist

> _Originally posted by turmeric_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> I do not spend much time in front of the TV anymore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You done been sanctified!
Click to expand...

 When i get married and raise kids,I am seriously considering making a t.v illegal in my house-since it rots your brain and destroys your christianity


----------



## nonconformist

Jacob


> Domestics means having lots of babies (or rather, having concentrated groups of people having a goodly number; this would take pressure of those who cannot have that many) while watching society commit suicide via birth control and abortion and euthanasia. In a generation we will take over; launch our counter-attack, if you will


Now that is a plan


----------



## turmeric

I think this is why the Dems lost the election - their voting bloc has been aborted!


----------



## Authorised

Taking a bite out of crime...




[Edited on 6-2-2005 by Authorised]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay...so without reading the book per se (my hubby is studying it)...what DOES postmillinianism believe...precisely and simply?



"Postmillennialism is that view of the last things which holds that the Kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of of the Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit, that the world eventually will be Christianized, and the return of Christ will occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the Millennium.

"Thus Postmillennialism holds that Christianity is to become the controlling and transforming influence not only in the moral and spiritual life of some individuals, but also in the entire social, economic and cultural life of the nations. There is no reason why this change should not take place over the entire earth, with pagan religions and false philosophies giving place to the true, and the earth being restored in considerable measure to that high purpose of righteousness and holiness for which it was created."

-- Loraine Boettner, _The Millennium_, pp. 4, 53

Additional definitions/comments:



> Gentry contends that postmillennialism is amillennialism extended to its logical conclusion [3] and certainly they have much in common. Gentry defines the basic idea of postmillennialism as:
> 
> Postmillennialism expects the proclaiming of the Spirit-blessed gospel of Jesus Christ to win the vast majority of human beings to salvation in the present age. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of people and of nations. After an extensive era of such conditions the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and in great glory, ending history with the general resurrection and the great judgment of all humankind. [4]
> 
> Mathison also gives a definition of postmillennialism:
> 
> 'Like amillennialism, postmillennialism teaches that the "thousand years" of Revelation 20 occurs prior to the Second Coming. Some postmillennialists teach that the millennial age is the entire period of the time between Christ's first and second advents, while others teach that it is the last one thousand years of the present age. According to postmillennialism, in the present age the Holy Spirit will draw unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel. Among the multitudes who will be converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected the Messiah. At the end of the present age, Christ will return, there will be the general resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment will take place.' [5]
> 
> Charles Hodge (1797-1878) explains his optimistic theology thus.
> 
> As therefore the Scriptures teach that the kingdom of Christ is to extend over all the earth; that all nations are to serve Him; and that all people shall call Him blessed; it is to be inferred that these predictions refer to a state of things which is to exist before the second coming of Christ. This state is described as one of spiritual prosperity; God will pour out His Spirit upon all flesh; knowledge shall everywhere abound; wars shall cease to the ends of the earth, and there shall be nothing to hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain, saith the Lord. This does not imply that there is to be neither sin nor sorrow in the world during this long period, or that all men are to be true Christians. The tares are to grow together with the wheat until the harvest. The means of grace will still be needed; conversion and sanctification will be then what they ever have been. It is only a higher measure of the good which the church has experienced in the past that we are taught to anticipate in the future. This however is not the end, After this and after the great apostasy which is to follow, comes the consummation. [6]
> 
> Source: The Biblical basis of Postmillennialism



"...and the stone that smote the image became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth." (Daniel 2.35)

"His name shall endure for ever: his name shall be continued as long as the sun: and men shall be blessed in him: all nations shall call him blessed. Blessed be the LORD God, the God of Israel, who only doeth wondrous things. And blessed be his glorious name for ever: and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen." (Ps. 72.17-19)

"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. 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. 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." (Isa. 2.2-4) 

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." (Isa. 9.6-7)

"Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is like to a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and sowed in his field: Which indeed is the least of all seeds: but when it is grown, it is the greatest among herbs, and becometh a tree, so that the birds of the air come and lodge in the branches thereof." (Matt. 13.31-32)

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen." (Matt. 28.18-20)

"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. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 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. 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." (I Cor. 15.24-28)

"Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him." (Heb. 2.8) 

Westminster Larger Catechism:



> Question 45: How does Christ execute the office of a king?
> Answer: Christ executes the office of a king, in calling out of the world a people to himself, and giving them officers, laws, and censures, by which he visibly governs them; in bestowing saving grace upon his elect, rewarding their obedience, and correcting them for their sins, preserving and supporting them under all their temptations and sufferings, restraining and overcoming all their enemies, and powerfully ordering all things for his own glory, and their good; and also in taking vengeance on the rest, who know not God, and obey not the gospel.
> 
> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition [of the Lord's Prayer].?
> 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.



Messiah the Prince

Christ the King of All

See also _The Puritan Hope_ by Iain Murray


----------



## D Battjes

Where is the option for Bahmillenialist?


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay...so without reading the book per se (my hubby is studying it)...what DOES postmillinianism believe...precisely and simply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to get two things clear:
> 
> Dominion and Domestics.
> 
> Dominion, I trust, needs no explanation.
> Domestics means having lots of babies (or rather, having concentrated groups of people having a goodly number; this would take pressure of those who cannot have that many) while watching society commit suicide via birth control and abortion and euthanasia. In a generation we will take over; launch our counter-attack, if you will.
Click to expand...


Well, I must be filling my end of the domestics seeing as I am expecting #6...but can I quit now???


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

More on postmillennialism from Jonathan Edwards:



> "The visible kingdom of Satan shall be overthrown, and the kingdom of Christ set up on the ruins of it, everywhere throughout the whole inhabitable globe. Now shall the promise made to Abraham be fulfilled, that 'in him and in his seed all the families of the earth shall be blessed'; and Christ now shall become the desire of all nations, agreeable to Hagai 2:7. Now the kingdom of Christ shall in the most strict and literal sense be extended to all nations, and the whole earth. There are many passages of Scripture that can be understood in no other sense. What can be more universal than that in Isaiah 1l:9, 'For the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea.' As much as to say, as there is no part of the channel or cavity of the sea anywhere, but what is covered with water; so there shall be no part of the world of mankind but what shall be covered with the knowledge of God. It is foretold in Isaiah 45:22, that all the ends of the earth shall look to Christ, and be saved. And to show that the words are to be understood in the most universal sense, it is said in the next verse,'I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.' So the most universal expression is used (Dan. 7:27), 'And the kingdom and dominion, and the greatness of the kingdom under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people of the saints of the Most High God.' You see the expression includes all under the whole heaven."



Source: Postmillennialism


----------



## nonconformist

> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay...so without reading the book per se (my hubby is studying it)...what DOES postmillinianism believe...precisely and simply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to get two things clear:
> 
> Dominion and Domestics.
> 
> Dominion, I trust, needs no explanation.
> Domestics means having lots of babies (or rather, having concentrated groups of people having a goodly number; this would take pressure of those who cannot have that many) while watching society commit suicide via birth control and abortion and euthanasia. In a generation we will take over; launch our counter-attack, if you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I must be filling my end of the domestics seeing as I am expecting #6...but can I quit now???
Click to expand...

God bless you for that.10 more then you can quit


----------



## CalsFarmer

Pan Mil. 

God is in control. Its all going to pan out in the end...just the way he wants it to. :bigsmile:


----------



## LadyFlynt

> _Originally posted by nonconformist_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by LadyFlynt_
> Okay...so without reading the book per se (my hubby is studying it)...what DOES postmillinianism believe...precisely and simply?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to get two things clear:
> 
> Dominion and Domestics.
> 
> Dominion, I trust, needs no explanation.
> Domestics means having lots of babies (or rather, having concentrated groups of people having a goodly number; this would take pressure of those who cannot have that many) while watching society commit suicide via birth control and abortion and euthanasia. In a generation we will take over; launch our counter-attack, if you will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I must be filling my end of the domestics seeing as I am expecting #6...but can I quit now???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> God bless you for that.10 more then you can quit
Click to expand...


give me a couple of years..and I'll start working on the next bunch...Lord willing.


----------



## cornelius vantil

andrew


----------

