# Optimistic Amil vs Postmil



## nwink (Oct 25, 2011)

I know that "Optimistic" Amils and Postmils are very similar in their eschatology, but what exactly is the difference?


----------



## caoclan (Oct 25, 2011)

For one, and this jumps out at me, optimistic amils believe in a millennium that is an indefinite period of time, and post mils would believe in a literal 1000-year millennium. I think.


----------



## Fly Caster (Oct 25, 2011)

I once heard an optimistic amil say that the difference between an optimistic amil and a postmil was that the postmil had the courage of his convictions.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Oct 25, 2011)

I recognize an "optimistic" amil position in the status of my own thoughts on the subject of eschatology.

I say this, as one who 25 years ago would have been best described as a "pessimistic" amil. I have since been to the postmil side of the aisle, even to having "courage" enough to call myself one for a time, although I've never accepted a definite 1000-(solar)-years or golden-age, as if Scripture so described the time. Since then, my continued studies, experience, listening and reflection have drawn me back away further from the strictly postmil position.

There is a clear difference, as I can see it, in my stance 25 years ago and my current conviction; although both minds are best-described as amil (actually, and unfortunate/inaccurate but necessary label). In the first case, the outlook is something of a "fortress" mentality, envisioning the church as a beleaguered band holding out grimly for the rescue. In the latter case, the church is the pilgrim nation in the wilderness, always on the move, always being rescued, and always victorious over its foes--*when it lives by faith*.


As a point of help in the discussion, C.Venema's book (_The Promise of the Future_ BoT pubs.) graphically illustrates two "basic" views of eschatology, either a pre- or post- millennium outlook. Both of these are subdivided into a wider spectrum: dispensational-premil and historic premil dividing the one one side; and amil and postmil dividing the other side. I think that most people can locate themselves (generally) somewhere on such a chart--either further towards dispensational-premil (and within that view, further toward pre-trib, etc.), or further towards high postmil expectations for a realized (earthly) eschatological kingdom. Perhaps these ends continue around to meet each other on the far side? Both far ends of this spectrum seem to start with an eschatological kingdom that is fundamentally earthy, to rise toward a centerpoint that would be radically ethereal/spiritual.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Oct 25, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Perhaps these ends continue around to meet each other on the far side?


Interesting thought. Does Venema explore this thesis (I have not read the book) or is that idea developed anywhere that you know of?


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 25, 2011)

kainos01 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps these ends continue around to meet each other on the far side?
> ...



Well the theonomists (postmil) and the dispensationalists (premil) meet in the sense that the theonomists are committed to the specific reapplication of the civil law of Moses, rather than its general moral equity, to modern nation states, while the dispensationalists don't seem to say anything about the civil law, but want the reinstitution of the Temple, the sacrifices and the ceremonial law by the Jews.

Neither side seems to realise that the ceremonial law of Moses and the civil law of Moses were contexually linked in the Levitical Economy, as typological of God's Kingdom. You can't have the one without the other.


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 25, 2011)

I've moved from a post-mil to an a-mil position. Now as I read scripture I'm rather dismayed to see how much materialism had crept into my thinking. It was as if the advance of Christ's kingdom in the spiritual realm was somehow less real than what is happening in the physical earth. Christ's kingdom has been inaugurated and we live right now in the reality of the world to come. So discussions regarding optimism seem a bit odd to me.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 25, 2011)

jwithnell said:


> I've moved from a post-mil to an a-mil position. Now as I read scripture I'm rather dismayed to see how much materialism had crept into my thinking. It was as if the advance of Christ's kingdom in the spiritual realm was somehow less real than what is happening in the physical earth. Christ's kingdom has been inaugurated and we live right now in the reality of the world to come. So discussions regarding optimism seem a bit odd to me.



The postmil position isn't materialistic. Materialism is the idolatry of things.

Christ rules and reigns over both the spiritual and physical realms. This is the basis for the success so far of the Gospel - over the last 2,000 years - and its continuing expansion and success.

Many Christians are already enjoying postmil conditions in measure, and may many more enjoy such conditions.



> And again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was *all* leavened.(Luke 13:20-21, ESV)


----------



## jwithnell (Oct 26, 2011)

Materialism is also a philosophy that the physical world is all that exists.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 26, 2011)

There have been some very spiritual postmils who lived enamoured by the prospect of Heaven and their soon greater fellowship with Christ in Heaven, and yet who believed in the postmil prospects for Christ's Kingdom on Earth.

I don't think that postmillennialism and an other worldly attitude are incompatible, nor that amillennialism and other worldliness necessarily go hand in hand.

I think otherworldliness and looking forward to being with Christ depends on levels of sanctification rather than whether you are premil, postmil or amil.

You can get very unsanctified Christians who hold to any of these positions.



> Materialism is also a philosophy that the physical world is all that exists.



Postmillennialists worth their salt will recognise that the powers of the world to come have entered this world in a decisive way from the first century on, and that is why the world has been leavened with the Gospel over the past 2,000 years, and is ultimately going in the direction - against all sorts of opposition by Satan's minions - in which Christ wants it to go.

The Kingdom of God and the Millennium was realised in the first century, but it is also a process in history. If realised millennialism was just static, the Gospel wouldn't be now established in the four corners of the Globe.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 26, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> and its continuing expansion and success.
> 
> Many Christians are already enjoying postmil conditions in measure, and may many more enjoy such conditions.
> 
> And again he said, "To what shall I compare the kingdom of God? It is like leaven that a woman took and hid in three measures of flour, until it was all leavened.(Luke 13:20-21, ESV)



I wouldn't go as far as saying that "orthodox" Christianity is expanding and succeeding today, I would actually say that we have experienced a great decline in "orthodox" Christianity since the 19th century. What we see is an increase in pseudo-Christianity and more and more compromise.



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



This does not look like Christ coming to an earth which is primarily dominated by Christian principles


----------



## MW (Oct 26, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?



Did you notice that our Lord poses it as a question?

It should be observed that biblical prophecy, while certain in its ultimate outcome, is always presented as contingent upon the moral agents to whom it is addressed. E.g., Nineveh's destruction.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 26, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Peairtach said:
> 
> 
> > and its continuing expansion and success.
> ...



Well, as a postmil, I believe that there will be a final apostasy right at the end of time, anyway. See e.g. Revelation 20.

As regards present conditions: present conditions are just a snapshot of Church history. Although there has been massive declension in the "traditional heartlands" of Protestant Christianity since the nineteenth century, under the influence of Enlightenment thinking - e.g. in Europe and North America - the Devil has not been able to prevent Christianity from taking root in places where it was not known 200 years ago.

Also modernist faith in man's finite, fallible and fallen reason without the basis of _God's _Enlightenment of special and general revelation, is showing signs of strain.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 26, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> Well, as a postmil, I believe that there will be a final apostasy right at the end of time, anyway. See e.g. Revelation 20.



Would this not nullify the warning given in scripture to always watch for Christ's coming? If our interpretation is that the earth has to be almost completely converted to Christianity and then having a final apostasy, it means that Christ cannot come back anytime soon since the earth is not, and never was, dominated by the christian faith. 



Peairtach said:


> As regards present conditions: present conditions are just a snapshot of Church history. Although there has been massive declension in the "traditional heartlands" of Protestant Christianity since the nineteenth century, under the influence of Enlightenment thinking - e.g. in Europe and North America - the Devil has not been able to prevent Christianity from taking root in places where it was not known 200 years ago.



I do not deny this but this also fit's in the Amil position, all the earth will be evangelized and men from all tribes and nation will be converted but it does not necessarily means that christian principles will be dominating mens philosophy in general.

---------- Post added at 10:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 PM ----------




armourbearer said:


> Did you notice that our Lord poses it as a question?
> 
> It should be observed that biblical prophecy, while certain in its ultimate outcome, is always presented as contingent upon the moral agents to whom it is addressed. E.g., Nineveh's destruction.



That was my understanding, the context of Luke 18 is that Christ is telling his people to be in constant prayer (being faithful), but then he poses a questions that seems to be rhetorical in saying that at his coming faith will be scarce since he contrast it with his commandment to be in fervent prayer. He seems to be saying that at this coming the church will be in state of lukewarmness/faithlessness. My understanding is that Christ is coming back to judge the world because his church has become ineffective in doing his work (expanding his Kingdom).


----------



## turmeric (Oct 26, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> > Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?
> ...



Interesting!


----------



## MW (Oct 27, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> That was my understanding, the context of Luke 18 is that Christ is telling his people to be in constant prayer (being faithful), but then he poses a questions that seems to be rhetorical in saying that at his coming faith will be scarce since he contrast it with his commandment to be in fervent prayer. He seems to be saying that at this coming the church will be in state of lukewarmness/faithlessness. My understanding is that Christ is coming back to judge the world because his church has become ineffective in doing his work (expanding his Kingdom).



I think you might be making more of the text than it was intended to teach. This is a question, not a statement. At the most it serves to search and try us, not to predict the future. Christ is never said to return because the church has become ineffective. How can this be? He explicitly says that the gospel shall be preached to all nations as a testimony.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 27, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> I think you might be making more of the text than it was intended to teach. This is a question, not a statement. At the most it serves to search and try us, not to predict the future. Christ is never said to return because the church has become ineffective. How can this be? He explicitly says that the gospel shall be preached to all nations as a testimony.





Maybe I should have used another verse to demonstrate my view. (Nevertheless Matthew Henry seem to have the same conclusion in his commentary of Luke 18:8)



Maybe I should have specified "visible" church, ineffective was maybe a strong word, fewer in number maybe would have been better. God will certainly always have a remnant on the earth, how big this remnant will be at his coming I don't know but I believe other part of scriptures also teach us similar conclusion, Matt 24:37 seem to say that Jesus' coming will be comparable to the days of Noah, only Noah and his family were saved. The same could be said about Sodom when only Lot and his family were spared, Abraham pleaded with God but apparently less than 10 people were "righteous" in Sodom. I agree that with this verse alone it might be hard to come to this conclusion but along with other portion of scripture I thought it made sense. 



If you look at Genesis 6 and take the position that "The sons of God" in verse 2 actually refer to the descendant of Seth (which would have represented the covenanted people) and they mingled with the descendant of Cain and the result is apostasy then judgment. The same thing can be seen many times with the people of Israel. Christ is coming back to judge the world, and when judgment happens in scripture apostasy seem to be a recurring theme. 



Now this being said I'm not saying God cannot change the tide, he delayed his judgment for Hezekiah's sake, same thing for Nineveh as you mentionned earlier, but from what I can see in scriptures the last days do not seem to be glorious days for the church.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 27, 2011)

> Would this not nullify the warning given in scripture to always watch for Christ's coming? If our interpretation is that the earth has to be almost completely converted to Christianity and then having a final apostasy, it means that Christ cannot come back anytime soon since the earth is not, and never was, dominated by the christian faith.



All watching for Christ's coming involves is a moral watching. If you are converted and not in a state of backsliding, you are ready for Christ when He comes for you. For most, that will be at death.

The Apostle Paul told his Thessalonian readers that the Second Advent wouldn't be any time soon - but would be after the advent of Antichrist - so how were they supposed to "watch" for Christ's coming, according to your principles.

He also indicated to his Roman readers in chapter 11, that the Second Advent wouldn't be before the conversion of the Jews.

Our Lord indicated in Matthew 25 that He would be away for a long time.



> He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." And when he had said these things, as they were looking on, he was lifted up, and a cloud took him out of their sight. And while they were gazing into heaven as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white robes, and said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you saw him go into heaven." (Acts 1:7-11, ESV)



Were the disciples, a few minutes after our Lord's ascension, meant to believe in the possible any moment return of Christ (could be soon), or even in the definitely imminent (it will be soon) return of Christ. Nothing could be more ridiculous. 

This belief in the any moment Second Advent, which often turns into a belief in the imminent Second Advent, is not taught in Scripture, and is in fact denied by the Apostle.



> Now concerning the times and the seasons, brothers, you have no need to have anything written to you. For you yourselves are fully aware that the day of the Lord will come like a thief in the night. While people are saying, "There is peace and security," then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape. *But you are not in darkness, brothers, for that day to surprise you like a thief. *For you are all children of light, children of the day. We are not of the night or of the darkness. So then let us not sleep, as others do, but let us keep awake and be sober.(I Thess 5:1-6)



Unbelievers will always be surprised by Christ's coming, whether in death or at the end of time, because they do not believe. He comes for them unexpectedly, to deprive them and as a threat i.e. like a thief in the night.

But Christ's coming for believers is not a threat, nor to deprive them, nor unexpected, they are ready- whether He comes in death or at the end of the world. Therefore the two cases, of believers and unbelievers, with respect to this, are quite different.

If the Lord has given indications in His Word, that the Eschaton will not happen before certain things have happened we should head them, instead of holding to a fantasy view of the possible any moment Parousia, a shibboleth of Dispensational Premillennialism.

E.g.


> Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. *For that day will not come,* unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction.



The Apostle in the above passage doesn't teach that it is the Christian position to believe that Christ could possibly return today. He explicitly tells the Thessalonians not to expect Christ's Second Advent until certain events intervene. Neither does he tell them when Christ is going to return in His glory; _but he tells them when He is not going to return in His glory._

We still have to be ready because apparently we don't know when Christ comes for us in the providence of death; and that is when the tree falls for most people who will ever live, apart from the last generation, for whom it falls when Christ comes in His glory with His holy angels.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 27, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> Were the disciples, a few minutes after our Lord's ascenscion, meant to believe in the possible any moment return of Christ, or even in the definitely imminent return of Christ. Nothing could be more ridiculous.
> 
> This belief in the any moment Second Advent, which often turns into a belief in the imminent Second Advent, is not taught in Scripture, and is in fact denied by the Apostle.
> 
> ...



I never said that the Apostles believed Christ could have returned within minutes of his assention, but this does nothing to prove a Golden Age of Christian domination throughout the world, I believe most of the world has been evangelized already (not to confuse with mostly converted), there are believers in pretty much all corners of the world today. I'm not trying to determine when Christ will be coming back or to determine if it will be soon or not, but we should be careful not to be to quick to dismiss the possibilty of his coming any time soon. It all depend how you interpret eschatological passages.



Peairtach said:


> Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers, not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come. Let no one deceive you in any way. For that day will not come, *unless the rebellion comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction*.



If your interpretation is that no rebellion happened yet and the man of lawlessness has not been revealed yet, then maybe this passage could be applicable for your view, but on the other hand if you believe the man of lawlessnes has already been revealed it changes things.



> 1 John 2:18 (KJV)
> 
> Little children, it is the last time: and as *ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time*.






Peairtach said:


> Unbelievers will always be surprised by Christ's coming, whether in death or at the end of time, because they do not believe. He comes for them unexpectedly, to deprive them and as a threat i.e. like a thief in the night.
> 
> But Christ's coming for believers in not a threat, nor to deprive them, nor unexpecte- whether He comes in death or at the end of the world. Therefore the two cases are quite different.
> 
> If the Lord has given indications in His Word, that the Eschaton will not happen before certain things have happened we should head them, instead of holding to a fantasy view of the possible any moment Parousia, a shibboleth of Dispensational Premillennialism.



I agree that Christ second coming is not a threat for true believers, but if your interpretation is wrong you could be mislead in waiting for something that might not come. Actually I would say that Dispensational thinking has the same problem, things cannot unfold until certain thing happens (Temple being rebuilt, revelation of Antichrist etc). Only the Amil position does not limit Christ's coming to specific events since most prophecies are viewed as symbolic instead of literal.

Anyway I realize this is probably the wrong thread since I'm off topic from the original question and my views wouldn't apply to Optimistic Amil or Postmill.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 27, 2011)

*Etienne*


> If your interpretation is that no rebellion happened yet and the man of lawlessness has not been revealed yet, then maybe this passage could be applicable for your view, but on the other hand if you believe the man of lawlessnes has already been revealed it changes things.



I tend to believe it refers to the Papacy.

But you said,


> Would this not nullify the warning given in scripture to always watch for Christ's coming? If our interpretation is that the earth has to be almost completely converted to Christianity and then having a final apostasy, it means that Christ cannot come back anytime soon since the earth is not, and never was, dominated by the christian faith.



Presumably the Christians at Thessalonika were obliged to "watch". If they could do so while not believing in the possibility of an any moment Parousia, then belief in the possibility of an any moment Parousia isn't of the essence of watching as you said it was.

*Etienne*


> I agree that Christ second coming is not a threat for true believers, but if your interpretation is wrong you could be mislead in waiting for something that might not come.



But if the postmil interpretation is right and a person held to that he wouldn't be misled. So your point just begs the question. But it is true that the debate between the amils and postmils is of less moment than that between the amils/postmils and premils.

Anyway, I'm not waiting for it, but to go to be with my Lord, which is far better than the events which I believe will occur. Postmillennial conditions are here in measure and will make progress over the centuries. I doubt big events like the mass conversion of the Jews, the fall of the Papacy and the Christianising of all nations will happen in my lifetime, so I'm not holding my breath.

*On the OP*, most postmils today are amil in the sense that they do not believe that there is a point in the future when the millennium starts, but that it is coextensive with the interadventual age and that progress is realised gradually, like individual sanctification.

Amils are postmil in the sense that they believe that the return of Christ will close the millennial age in which we live.

Some of the older postmil works sometimes talked as if the millennium _started_ when the Jews were converted, or when the Papacy fell, or when all nations became Christian.


----------



## MW (Oct 27, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Maybe I should have specified "visible" church, ineffective was maybe a strong word, fewer in number maybe would have been better. God will certainly always have a remnant on the earth, how big this remnant will be at his coming I don't know but I believe other part of scriptures also teach us similar conclusion, Matt 24:37 seem to say that Jesus' coming will be comparable to the days of Noah, only Noah and his family were saved. The same could be said about Sodom when only Lot and his family were spared, Abraham pleaded with God but apparently less than 10 people were "righteous" in Sodom. I agree that with this verse alone it might be hard to come to this conclusion but along with other portion of scripture I thought it made sense.



It seems to me that you are drawing a comparison with Noah and Lot that was not intended. There is nothing in the biblical comparison which requires the conclusion that there will be a very small number of believers at the second coming of Christ.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 27, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> It seems to me that you are drawing a comparison with Noah and Lot that was not intended. There is nothing in the biblical comparison which requires the conclusion that there will be a very small number of believers at the second coming of Christ.



So do you believe there will be more believers than unbelievers at the second coming of Christ? I guess we need to define a small number of believers, I do believe there will be less believers then unbelievers it`s all proportional, there are over 6 billions people on the planet at the moment, a remnant could still be a large amount of people.



> Matthew 24:37 (KJV)
> 
> But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be



You do not believe this verse is drawing a comparison between Christ second coming and the time of Noah?

You do not believe that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a picture of God's judgment? 



> Jude 1:7 (KJV)
> 
> Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, *are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire*.





> Revelation 11:1-15
> 
> And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.
> 
> ...



In verse 3 we see the 2 witness of God (which references the fact that the law says that at the mouth of 2 witness truth would be established) then verse 4 tells us that these witness are olive tree and candlesticks (symbol for the church) 
Then verse 7 says the beast will overcome them when they have finished their testimony, the beat represents Satan’s kingdom.
Then verse 8 compares those who have killed the 2 witness (the church) to Sodom and Egypt. (Sodom God destroyed with fire and brimstones and Egypt was destroyed by the 10 plagues) 
Then we see the coming of the lord in verse 15.
I would say Sodom being destroyed by fire and brimstone was a picture of God’s last judgment 



> Genesis 19:24 (KJV)
> Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah *brimstone and fire* from the LORD out of heaven;





> Revelation 14:10 (KJV)
> The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be *tormented with fire and brimstone *in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:





> Revelation 20:10 (KJV)
> And the devil that deceived them was cast into the* lake of fire and brimstone*, where the beast and the false prophet are, and *shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. *





> Revelation 21:8 (KJV)
> 8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth *with fire and brimstone*: which is the second death.



Why would the destruction part be of Noah flood and burning of Sodom and Gomorrah be pictures of God`s judgements but not the remnant part. Again these are pictures I`m not saying only a few families will be saved but a smaller remnant compared to unbelievers.


----------



## MW (Oct 27, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> So do you believe there will be more believers than unbelievers at the second coming of Christ? I guess we need to define a small number of believers, I do believe there will be less believers then unbelievers it`s all proportional, there are over 6 billions people on the planet at the moment, a remnant could still be a large amount of people.



I am content to say the Scriptures do not speak to the question, and where Scripture is silent we do well to be be silent also.



Fogetaboutit said:


> > Matthew 24:37 (KJV)
> >
> > But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be
> 
> ...



I accept there is a comparison. As noted in my previous reply, there is a biblical comparison, but it does not extend to the number of believers. There is nothing in the text which warrants such a conclusion.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 28, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> I accept there is a comparison. As noted in my previous reply, there is a biblical comparison, but it does not extend to the number of believers. There is nothing in the text which warrants such a conclusion.



When Christ compare his coming to the days of Noah, does it not assume that the earth is mostly wicked? The days of Noah are known for this fact.



> Genesis 6:5-6 (KJV)
> 
> And God saw that *the wickedness of man was great in the earth*, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
> 
> And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart



I didn't thought I was reading into the text by assuming that when Christ mentionned the "Days of Noah" he was refereing to wickedness on the earth. Would God have said that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth" if the majority of people would have been faithful believers?

When you look at Revelation 11 (assuming that you accept that the two witness/olive trees/candlesticks represent the church) does it not say that the beast will overcome them when they have finished their testimony? How would you interpret that other than the church is silenced someway. It can't refer to a past event, if that would be the case it would mean the church have already finished her testimony.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> There have been some very spiritual postmils who lived enamoured by the prospect of Heaven and their soon greater fellowship with Christ in Heaven, and yet who believed in the postmil prospects for Christ's Kingdom on Earth.
> 
> I don't think that postmillennialism and an other worldly attitude are incompatible, nor that amillennialism and other worldliness necessarily go hand in hand.
> 
> ...



Why cannot Amils also believe this? The field of the world will be full of wheat...but also tares as the Gospel spreads forth.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 28, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Why cannot Amils also believe this? The field of the world will be full of wheat...but also tares as the Gospel spreads forth.



I do not speak for all Amils, but I would say the field represent Christ entire reign and not only at the time of his coming, I have no problem saying there will be wheat at the coming of the Lord but I'm not convinced there will be more wheat than tares. My understanding is that wheats and tares will always grow next to each other but I also accept that Satan will prevail (be loosed) for a season at the end.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2011)

Etienne:

Those sounds like my beliefs, too. That the Gospel will go to all the earth, and have general success, even among the Jews. But then, right towards the end, there will be a season in which evils prevail and a personal Antichrist emerges, who Christ will destroy with His Coming.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 28, 2011)

Some amils believe the Gospel success spoken of by postmils is possible, but not clearly taught in Scripture, so they won't say that it will happen. Others deny that it will occur.

Postmils believe that the mountain of Daniel will _progressively_ grow, in history, to fill the whole Earth.



> Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, all together were broken in pieces, and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the image became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.(Dan 2:35)



There will also be a falling away at the end, which will remind us of Satan's incorrigibility when released, and Man's incorrigibility without God's grace.


----------



## MW (Oct 28, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> When Christ compare his coming to the days of Noah, does it not assume that the earth is mostly wicked? The days of Noah are known for this fact.



I don't believe that is assumed in the comparison. What does our Lord say? Verse 39, "And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." The point of comparison is the way people were living in a state of ignorance as to the flood. This is substantiated by the lesson which is drawn from the comparison. Verse 42, "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." The lesson also makes it clear that the comparison was made for the disciples' sake.

We should be on our guard against putting words in the Lord's mouth. He Himself says, verse 36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Mark 13:32 adds, "neither the Son." If the Son, as man, knew not the day and hour, He has undoubtedly acted in the wisest possible way by refraining from conjecture as to the specific marks which will characterise the day and hour in which His return will occur. 



Fogetaboutit said:


> When you look at Revelation 11 (assuming that you accept that the two witness/olive trees/candlesticks represent the church) does it not say that the beast will overcome them when they have finished their testimony? How would you interpret that other than the church is silenced someway. It can't refer to a past event, if that would be the case it would mean the church have already finished her testimony.



If one adopts the idealist approach one is bound to acknowledge that the silence doesn't refer to a past, present, or future event, but to a specific perspective with which to view the witness.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 28, 2011)

Peairtach said:


> Some amils believe the Gospel success spoken of by postmils is possible, but not clearly taught in Scripture, so they won't say that it will happen. Others deny that it will occur.
> 
> Postmils believe that the mountain of Daniel will _progressively_ grow, in history, to fill the whole Earth.
> 
> ...



I believe the Gospel will be taken to the whole world. And that it will have its own predestined measure of success among every people. But, "to fill the whole earth" seems to mean that the vast majority of people will be Christian or under Christian powers it seems. 

The mountain of Daniel WILL fill the whole earth, but will this occur entirely before Christ returns or will the Gospel go forth, Christ return and then finish the work so that this mountain of Daniel fills the whole earth, not just for a mere millennium, but forever, at Jesus' Second Coming?


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 29, 2011)

*Pergy*


> I believe the Gospel will be taken to the whole world. And that it will have its own predestined measure of success among every people. But, "to fill the whole earth" seems to mean that the vast majority of people will be Christian or under Christian powers it seems.
> 
> The mountain of Daniel WILL fill the whole earth, but will this occur entirely before Christ returns or will the Gospel go forth, Christ return and then finish the work so that this mountain of Daniel fills the whole earth, not just for a mere millennium, but forever, at Jesus' Second Coming?



Obviously the eternal state will be far superior to any Gospel victory/victories in history, which is why I would prefer to call the eternal state "the Golden Age". Maybe it's better to call times of great conquest by the Gospel in history "Silver Ages".

But Christ can only triumph _through the Gospel_ in history, because the Gospel message/command/offer is only for history. After history ends, evangelism ends, and no more people _can be converted_ through the Gospel which Christ has wrought.

Postmils would see in Daniel's stone and mountain and the Parables of the Leaven and the Mustard Seed, and other parts of Scripture, the promise of a filling of the earth by the gradualist means of the Gospel in history, as there is no mention of a cataclysmic intervention in the process e.g. the growth of the mountain filling the earth, clearly happens gradually on this present earth and in history, just as the Roman Empire was historical.

The Gospel is the means by which Christ is gloriously victorious over the hearts of men, whether one man or a whole earthly population. 

Christ's Second Advent is of a different sort of victory altogether, but without it the work is not complete. 

It is true that the kingdom can't be completed until Jesus returns, because in history there will always be sin, illness and death. But the conversion of souls by a gradual filling of the earth in history can well be accomplished if it is God's will, just as the Israelites were eventually able, by God's grace, to conquer the Land God had given to them.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2011)

Richard, 

Christ will conquer Antichrist at the End of the Age and I don't take this to mean evangelize until Antichrist is converted. It appears Christ will kill him at his appearing after Antichrist's short period of seeming success.

Christ is putting all things under his feet, and His Kingdom Comes.....and all will submit, either through conversion now or judgment at the end of the age.


I call myself Amil, and I believe the Gospel will go to all nations and every people will have their Elect called out from them. This will be gradualist as the wheat fills the field of the world, even as tares also grow. This is the story of the history of the growth of the Church.

And then, following some small season of trial and apostasy and the emergence of Antichrist, Christ will suddenly appear and finish the work, kill Antichrist and his angels will help to bring in the Harvest.

This all will still happen "in" history - at its end - as Christ suddenly appears and wraps up the work.

I agree with your view largely and see no reason why I need to be postmil to believe it. The Gospel IS filling the world, even if many tares exist. I expect maybe even to see Christianity to be the largest segment of the world's population before the end, even if false believers will exist among the wheat.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 29, 2011)

I probably see things slightly differently. E.g. I tend to see the Papacy as fulfilling Antichrist and being defeated long before the end.

It's interesting to discuss sincerely held differences between amil and postmil, but I suppose we shouldn't get too heated about it, and should hold our opinions with a pinch of salt, since it is quite a difficult area, but this also makes it interesting to discuss.


----------



## Pergamum (Oct 29, 2011)

Richard, 

No heat here, I like hearing about your views. I am trying to figure out my own.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 29, 2011)

Fine, brother.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 29, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> If one adopts the idealist approach one is bound to acknowledge that the silence doesn't refer to a past, present, or future event, but to a specific perspective with which to view the witness.



Maybe I'm confused, in the idealist approach is there no chronology at all? when it says that the beast will overcome the witnesses after they have finish their testimony does it not assume some type of chronology since one event needs to precede the other? Would this mean that in Revelation 20 the releasing of Satan does not happen just before the second coming? Will there be no apostasy near the end?


----------



## MW (Oct 30, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> Maybe I'm confused, in the idealist approach is there no chronology at all? when it says that the beast will overcome the witnesses after they have finish their testimony does it not assume some type of chronology since one event needs to precede the other? Would this mean that in Revelation 20 the releasing of Satan does not happen just before the second coming? Will there be no apostasy near the end?



Idealism refers to the approach that the visions represent an "ideal;" technically, the visions draw on theological imagery in order to convey the message that Jesus Christ is the ultimate and complete revelation of God. Time references are not literal but ideal. As the ideal is a transcending state of affairs which exists in the present age, the time references indicate that the state of affairs is either complete or less than complete. 7, 10, 1000, are complete numbers. 3.5 is an incomplete number. In the case of the 1000 years it is impossible to conceive of a more complete number. It is an ultimate state of affairs. What happens after it cannot be chronological but must be a co-existing state of affairs which is less than ultimate.

The two candlesticks are the two faithful witnesses. The golden candlestick was the glorious image of the church which John saw in his initial vision. When he wrote to the seven churches in Asia, they were less than perfect. Two of them were faithful -- Smyrna and Philadelphia. Both of them witnessed against the synagogue of Satan. To one, Christ was dead and is alive; to the other, Christ openeth and no man shutteth. One would have tribulation ten days while the other would be kept from the hour of temptation which shall come upon the world. In chap. 11 the two witnesses are dead and then brought to life again; then they ascended up to heaven in a cloud. It is teaching a transcendent state of affairs which prevails throughout the present age, not a series of events which take place in chronological order.


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 31, 2011)

Pergamum said:


> Richard,
> 
> No heat here, I like hearing about your views. I am trying to figure out my own.



Although I'm largely a convinced amillennial postmillennialist, I suppose one or two texts among others should give one pause for thought and make one open to expect some surprises:



> So when they had come together, they asked him, "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" He said to them, "It is not for you to know times or seasons that the Father has fixed by his own authority. But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth." (Acts 1:6-8)



This passage would be compatible with a general scheme of eschatology like amil or postmil, or a combination thereof, but we should be careful not to be too dogmatic, or too dogmatic on (some) of the details.



> Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully, inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. It was revealed to them that they were serving not themselves but you, in the things that have now been announced to you through those who preached the good news to you by the Holy Spirit sent from heaven, things into which angels long to look. Therefore, preparing your minds for action, and being sober-minded, set your hope fully on the grace that will be brought to you at the revelation of Jesus Christ.(I Peter 1:10-13, ESV)



These godly brothers - who had the gift of prophecy, unlike us - were doing a similar thing respecting the Messiah's first advent, to what we do when we discuss and debate amil/postmil, etc. Or is that an appropriate comparison? Yet the event was very different to what many of the interpreters of the Tanakh would have forseen.

Interestingly, the ESV says, "inquiring _what person_ or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating." 

I suppose we should have other threads on this translation by the ESV, and how dogmatic we should be about these aspects of eschatology i.e. amil/postmil/premil and combinations thereof.


----------



## Trish Collins Hicks (Oct 31, 2011)

*post milleniumist and amilleniumist*

from what my husband has taught me and he is pretty much grounded more than me in the word of God,and he right now is leaning more towards amill he also has the book the one world conquerers or something don't remember the entire title.
and scriptures the way we understand the book of revelations tells us that Christ is reigning now with a rod of iron.the 1000 years is going on now.Because as you read chapter 11 the rapture happens from what we can gather.And what would be left,who would be left for the 1000 year reign on the earth.for the lost souls will be killed by the brightness of his comming.Then i think it's either 19 or 20 tells the wrath of God which the saints will not endure.I mean if there is a 1000 year millenial reign litterally who will Jesus and the saints be reigning over?


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Oct 31, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> Idealism refers to the approach that the visions represent an "ideal;" technically, the visions draw on theological imagery in order to convey the message that Jesus Christ is the ultimate and complete revelation of God. Time references are not literal but ideal. As the ideal is a transcending state of affairs which exists in the present age, the time references indicate that the state of affairs is either complete or less than complete. 7, 10, 1000, are complete numbers. 3.5 is an incomplete number. In the case of the 1000 years it is impossible to conceive of a more complete number. It is an ultimate state of affairs. What happens after it cannot be chronological but must be a co-existing state of affairs which is less than ultimate.
> 
> The two candlesticks are the two faithful witnesses. The golden candlestick was the glorious image of the church which John saw in his initial vision. When he wrote to the seven churches in Asia, they were less than perfect. Two of them were faithful -- Smyrna and Philadelphia. Both of them witnessed against the synagogue of Satan. To one, Christ was dead and is alive; to the other, Christ openeth and no man shutteth. One would have tribulation ten days while the other would be kept from the hour of temptation which shall come upon the world. In chap. 11 the two witnesses are dead and then brought to life again; then they ascended up to heaven in a cloud. It is teaching a transcendent state of affairs which prevails throughout the present age, not a series of events which take place in chronological order.



I would agree with the symbology of the numbers you mentionned, but I wouldn't go as far as having no chronology at all, from my understanding the 1000 year of Revelation 20 represent the "fullness" of the time the church will witness on earth and not nessarilty the "fullness" of the time from Christ ascension into heaven until his return. The text specfically says "after" the thousand years is fullfilled the dragon will be released, Satan will not be released after Christ's coming



> Revelation 20:3 (KJV)
> 
> And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: *and after that *he must be loosed a little season





> Revelation 20:7 (KJV)
> 
> And *when the thousand years are expired*, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison




On the other hand in Revelation 11 we have a picture of the 2 witnesses (Church) testifying for 1260 days (3 1/2 years) which represent half a week, this week represent then entire new testament era (7 days, 7 represent completeness as you mentioned). Therefore my understanding was that the church would finish her testimony sometime before the end (Christ 2nd coming) then would be overcome by the beast and be killed (silenced). We see similar analogy in Revelation 12 with the Woman (Chruch) in the wilderness from 1260 days. This seem to coincide with other portion of scripture which speak of apostasy near the end (2 Thes 2, Matt 24:22-24, etc).


----------



## Peairtach (Oct 31, 2011)

Trish Collins Hicks said:


> from what my husband has taught me and he is pretty much grounded more than me in the word of God,and he right now is leaning more towards amill he also has the book the one world conquerers or something don't remember the entire title.
> and scriptures the way we understand the book of revelations tells us that Christ is reigning now with a rod of iron.the 1000 years is going on now.Because as you read chapter 11 the rapture happens from what we can gather.And what would be left,who would be left for the 1000 year reign on the earth.for the lost souls will be killed by the brightness of his comming.Then i think it's either 19 or 20 tells the wrath of God which the saints will not endure.I mean if there is a 1000 year millenial reign litterally who will Jesus and the saints be reigning over?



Well when you go into it more deeply and interpret the difficult book of Revelation in the light of more straightforward passages like the Upper Room Discourse (John 13-17),you'll realise that Jesus has all power in Heaven and Earth, being both gorified and exalted to the highest position beside His Father.

Any premil scheme which returns Him to dusty Jerusalem, would not increase His power or authority, which He has all He needs to achieve His glorious purposes in history, but would reduce Him from His state of hyper-exaltation.

A consideration of Christ's states of humiliation and exaltation, alone, explodes the whole premil scheme.


----------



## MW (Oct 31, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I would agree with the symbology of the numbers you mentionned, but I wouldn't go as far as having no chronology at all



You can't eat your idealism and have it too.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Nov 1, 2011)

armourbearer said:


> You can't eat your idealism and have it too.



So do all idealists have the same interpretations (no chronology or order in Revalation what so ever)? I've read exposition of Revelation that uses same symbology but also have order in the events, I don't know if they would be considered idealist but they seems to have similar interpretations (symbology and recapitulation). I guess I have more reading to do before I associate myself with a certain camp.


----------



## MW (Nov 1, 2011)

Fogetaboutit said:


> So do all idealists have the same interpretations (no chronology or order in Revalation what so ever)? I've read exposition of Revelation that uses same symbology but also have order in the events, I don't know if they would be considered idealist but they seems to have similar interpretations (symbology and recapitulation). I guess I have more reading to do before I associate myself with a certain camp.



Good question. Not all idealism is created equally. The early 20th century version was fairly consistent. As the century wore on there was a tendency to utilise it in answer to premillennialism, which meant that an event-focussed interpretation predominated and was mixed with idealism.


----------

