# Postmillennialism and the Reformed Confessions



## wsw201

I was involved in a formal debate last night on eschatology and the question came up as to whether any of the major Reformed Confessions (Westminster Standards, 3 Forms of Unity, either of the Helvetic Confessions) explicitly, or even implicitly, endorsed the Postmillennial view. Especially the idea of the millennial period where virtually all the earth is Christianized prior to the return of Christ.

What do ye think?


----------



## fredtgreco

The answer is certainly not explicitly. There may be some sort of implicit endorsement in the non-Westminster Standards (I'm not as familiar with them), but I do not see an implicit reference in the WCF of catechisms.

It has long been the practice of even the closest subscribing churches to allow both amils and postmils without exception.


----------



## tcalbrecht

[quote:3615844a48][i:3615844a48]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:3615844a48]
I was involved in a formal debate last night on eschatology and the question came up as to whether any of the major Reformed Confessions (Westminster Standards, 3 Forms of Unity, either of the Helvetic Confessions) explicitly, or even implicitly, endorsed the Postmillennial view. Especially the idea of the millennial period where virtually all the earth is Christianized prior to the return of Christ.

What do ye think? [/quote:3615844a48]

I think it can be argued that WLC Q 191 has a postmil flavor:


[quote:3615844a48]
Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. 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 fullness 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: [b:3615844a48]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. [/b:3615844a48] 
[/quote:3615844a48] 

There certainly seems to be a sense of optimistic progress in the advancement of Christ's kingdom.

Also, the Savoy Declaration, a derivative of the Westminster Confession, adds this change to Chapter 26 on the Church (parallel of WCF 25)

[quote:3615844a48]
5. As the Lord in his care and love towards his Church, hath in his infinite wise providence exercised it with great variety in all ages, for the good of them that love him, and his own glory; so according to his promise, we expect that in the latter days, antichrist being destroyed, the Jews called, and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken, [b:3615844a48]the churches of Christ being enlarged, and edified through a free and plentiful communication of light and grace, shall enjoy in this world a more quiet, peaceable and glorious condition than they have enjoyed. [/b:3615844a48] [/quote:3615844a48]


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:30f78b78eb][i:30f78b78eb]Originally posted by tcalbrecht[/i:30f78b78eb]
[quote:30f78b78eb][i:30f78b78eb]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:30f78b78eb]
I was involved in a formal debate last night on eschatology and the question came up as to whether any of the major Reformed Confessions (Westminster Standards, 3 Forms of Unity, either of the Helvetic Confessions) explicitly, or even implicitly, endorsed the Postmillennial view. Especially the idea of the millennial period where virtually all the earth is Christianized prior to the return of Christ.

What do ye think? [/quote:30f78b78eb]

I think it can be argued that WLC Q 191 has a postmil flavor:


[quote:30f78b78eb]
Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. 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 fullness 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: [b:30f78b78eb]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. [/b:30f78b78eb] 
[/quote:30f78b78eb] 

There certainly seems to be a sense of optimistic progress in the advancement of Christ's kingdom.

Also, the Savoy Declaration, a derivative of the Westminster Confession, adds this change to Chapter 26 on the Church (parallel of WCF 25)

[quote:30f78b78eb]
5. As the Lord in his care and love towards his Church, hath in his infinite wise providence exercised it with great variety in all ages, for the good of them that love him, and his own glory; so according to his promise, we expect that in the latter days, antichrist being destroyed, the Jews called, and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken, [b:30f78b78eb]the churches of Christ being enlarged, and edified through a free and plentiful communication of light and grace, shall enjoy in this world a more quiet, peaceable and glorious condition than they have enjoyed. [/b:30f78b78eb] [/quote:30f78b78eb] [/quote:30f78b78eb]

Optimism, yes. But I don't think these sections imply (though they do not prohibit) the arrival of the millennium before Christ's return.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:6d13239244][i:6d13239244]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:6d13239244]
[quote:6d13239244]
Optimism, yes. But I don't think these sections imply (though they do not prohibit) the arrival of the millennium before Christ's return
[/quote:6d13239244]

what do you mean by this statement? [/quote:6d13239244]

The original question was whether the Standards [b:6d13239244]endorsed[/b:6d13239244] a postmillenial view. Tom pointed out some language that points to the progress of the gospel.

But there is nothing in those confessional statements that would not be completely consistent with an amillennial view. They do not &quot;endorse&quot; postmillenialism. It simply is not there.

There is a HUGE difference between saying something is an acceptable view within the Confession and that a view IS the Confession's view. Postmillennialism is certainly a legitimate Westminsterian view, but NO CASE can be made that it is the ONLY acceptable Westminsterian view.

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## JohnV

Since the Confessions are statements of the Church, they are meant to teach those doctrines that are sure and certain, and bind them upon the churches. It is the duty of the teaching elder or minister to teach according to as he has been commissioned by the church or denomination to do. If the church is a confessional church, the teaching elders or ministers are bound within the Confessions.

Since the millennium is not a certain doctrinal issue, the Confession quite properly avoid being dogmatic on it. Yet there are parts of each eschatological view that are certain, and require mention in the Confessions. It is my opinion that any leaning to one or the other of the accepted views is accidental, and unintentional. At least this much is certain: if the writers of the Confessions had meant for one of the eschatological views to be preferred over another, and thought it a binding doctrinal matter, it would have been explicitly stated. So a lack of expliciteness is very important. It is important that a Confession does not exceed it's bounds, or it can no longer bind conciences, even by agreement.

That's my take on it.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:eabb26513f][i:eabb26513f]Originally posted by JohnV[/i:eabb26513f]
Since the Confessions are statements of the Church, they are meant to teach those doctrines that are sure and certain, and bind them upon the churches. It is the duty of the teaching elder or minister to teach according to as he has been commissioned by the church or denomination to do. If the church is a confessional church, the teaching elders or ministers are bound within the Confessions.

Since the millennium is not a certain doctrinal issue, the Confession quite properly avoid being dogmatic on it. Yet there are parts of each eschatological view that are certain, and require mention in the Confessions. It is my opinion that any leaning to one or the other of the accepted views is accidental, and unintentional. At least this much is certain: if the writers of the Confessions had meant for one of the eschatological views to be preferred over another, and thought it a binding doctrinal matter, it would have been explicitly stated. So a lack of expliciteness is very important. It is important that a Confession does not exceed it's bounds, or it can no longer bind conciences, even by agreement.

That's my take on it. [/quote:eabb26513f]

Excepting of course that Premillennialism is prohibited by the Larger Catechism's statements regarding one general resurrection.


----------



## wsw201

The conclusion at the debate was that neither the Westminster Standards or any of the major confessions endorsed a Postmill view, especially the Second Helvetic Confession:


[quote:a4c00f058d]
THE SECTS. We therefore condemn all who deny a real resurrection of the flesh (II Tim. 2:18), or who with John of Jerusalem, against whom Jerome wrote, do not have a correct view of the glorification of bodies. We also condemn those who thought that the devil and all the ungodly would at some time be saved, and that there would be an end to punishments. For the Lord has plainly declared: &quot;Their fire is not quenched, and their worm does not die&quot; (Mark 9:44). [b:a4c00f058d]We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.[/b:a4c00f058d]
[/quote:a4c00f058d]

Personally, I think it is a stretch regarding regarding WLC 191 since this concerns the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. An Amill or even a Premill would agree to this part of the answer and would pray earnestly for this.

Regarding the Savoy, it appears they are following 2 Thess Chapt 2 which concerns what will happen just prior to the Second Coming. 

Tom, do you know what they pointed to in Scripture regarding that last section?


----------



## wsw201

[quote:39e1dd25e1][i:39e1dd25e1]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:39e1dd25e1]
[quote:39e1dd25e1][i:39e1dd25e1]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:39e1dd25e1]
The conclusion at the debate was that neither the Westminster Standards or any of the major confessions endorsed a Postmill view, especially the Second Helvetic Confession:


[quote:39e1dd25e1]
THE SECTS. We therefore condemn all who deny a real resurrection of the flesh (II Tim. 2:18), or who with John of Jerusalem, against whom Jerome wrote, do not have a correct view of the glorification of bodies. We also condemn those who thought that the devil and all the ungodly would at some time be saved, and that there would be an end to punishments. For the Lord has plainly declared: &quot;Their fire is not quenched, and their worm does not die&quot; (Mark 9:44). [b:39e1dd25e1]We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.[/b:39e1dd25e1]
[/quote:39e1dd25e1]

Personally, I think it is a stretch regarding regarding WLC 191 since this concerns the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. An Amill or even a Premill would agree to this part of the answer and would pray earnestly for this.

Regarding the Savoy, it appears they are following 2 Thess Chapt 2 which concerns what will happen just prior to the Second Coming. 

Tom, do you know what they pointed to in Scripture regarding that last section? [/quote:39e1dd25e1]

Wayne, read my post.

Here is scripture from the confession

Thus, the Westminster divines looked forward to the overthrow of the Roman Antichrist, the expansion of the true church by the conversion of the Jews and fullness of the Gentiles, and an age of blessing upon the church through the rule of Christ. They believed in the visible prosperity of the gospel and the future accomplishment of the Great Commission. With reference to the Lord's Prayer, The Larger Catechism declares, "In the second petition, (which is, Thy Kingdome come,) . . . we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances, purged from corruption . . . and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, . . . and that he [Christ] would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends" (answer to question 191). The Scripture texts cited are again common to the early literature of postmillennialism (e.g., Ps. 67; 68:1, 18; Mal. 1:11; Rom. 10:1; 11:25-26; Rev. 12:10-11). The Reformed theology of the Westminster Standards looks ahead to the worldwide advance of the gospel, bringing conversion in large measure (indicated by the calling of the Jews and fullness of the Gentiles) in all the world, and prosperity for the true church of Christ. As De Jong says, " . . . in the context of the views current then, Westminster's formulation must be seen as a deliberate choice of mild, unsystematized, postmillennial expectations."[68] [/quote:39e1dd25e1]

Yes I read it and Bahnsen is WRONG!!! I know Bahnsen can read theonomy and Postmillenialism in just about anything but not this time. The Standards are not a Postmill document just as they are not a theonomic document. The Standards do not point to a world wide conversion and a golden age prior to Christ's return.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

The answer to your question is to read the MINUTES of the assembly.

I am finding, personally, that we (as a church) are a long way from really understanding what THEY meant on a whole host of issues because we do not bother to do two things: 1) actually read through the whole confession, which is about 400 pages, and 2) read the minutes of the Assembly which dictate why they said what they said and who said what, and who disagreed, etc. I am finding that study to be extremely helpful in understanding their position on lots of issues.


----------



## luvroftheWord

When I was at Liberty, my entire junior year was devoted to the subject of eschatology. At the time I was Postmill, but now I think I'm satisfied calling myself an Amill. But what my reading in the modern authors on the subject has shown me is that there is basically no difference between modern day Amill and Postmill except on the issue of optimism. Modern day Postmills are by and large preteristic in their understanding of things, so the Millennium for them spans the entire church age. Historically, though, it seems that Postmillennialists held more to an Historicist view of history and saw the Millennium as a period that has yet to begin, but once it does, it will be a golden age lasting a thousand years. Of course, this brand of Postmill is much different from Amill. I think if I lived about 200 years ago I would definitely be Amill just because of when I think the millennium is.

Honestly, I think the only position that the Confession would exclude is Premill because of the teaching on the general judgment. Also, I think today in our studies of eschatology we tend to ask different questions than they did during the time of the writing of the Confession, so it may not be wise for us to read a more modern understanding of eschatology into the Confession to say, &quot;THIS is the WCF's view&quot;. What should be clear enough, though, is that both Amill and Postmill can be consistent with what the WCF does affirm.

My :wr50: on that one.


----------



## sastark

[quote:27b87778eb][i:27b87778eb]Originally posted by luvroftheWord[/i:27b87778eb]
But what my reading in the modern authors on the subject has shown me is that there is basically no difference between modern day Amill and Postmill except on the issue of optimism. Modern day Postmills are by and large preteristic in their understanding of things, so the Millennium for them spans the entire church age. Historically, though, it seems that Postmillennialists held more to an Historicist view of history and saw the Millennium as a period that has yet to begin, but once it does, it will be a golden age lasting a thousand years. Of course, this brand of Postmill is much different from Amill. [/quote:27b87778eb]

I'm glad some one finally came out and said this! Really, it is very irritating for optimistic amilleniallists to call themselves &quot;postmillennialists&quot;. If you don't believe in a 1000-year reign of Christ and his Church, you are be default an [b:27b87778eb]A[/b:27b87778eb]-millenialist (&quot;a-&quot; meaning &quot;without&quot;!). Not only is it a deceitful term, it does injustice to the postmillenial authors of the past such as Johnathan Edwards, Ian Murray and Lorraine Boettner. If you want to be a preterist, fine! But don't call your self postmillenial! You aren't!

(I will know put on my bullet proof vest, as I can hear several preterist pistols cocking.)

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by sastark]


----------



## sastark

[quote:11b99b502b][i:11b99b502b]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:11b99b502b]
Ah, another FINE argument by the amill crowd! I think I am seeing it. If I don't hold to evry kot ant tittle of the postmills from old then I cannot call myself a postmill. Very good reasoning. 

Now, should I mention everything Calvin taught and say if you don't hold to ALL of this you have no right to call yourself Calvinist.

Another thing, I find &quot;optamistic amillennialism&quot; to be a recent school. but as I said in the other thread, &quot;if you want to believe that Christians will cover the earth and that Christ's enemies will be subdued and while the majority of the earth comes back to God's law etc etc etc&quot; then go-ahead and call yourself an amillennialist. Since those names where not developed till later, and are not found in the Bible, no one has a right to say one name is better than the other.&quot; So, I'm glad we're all postmillenialist amills.

-Paul [/quote:11b99b502b]

Paul,

Just to make it clear: I am a postmillennialist. I am not a preterist. Here's why I have a problem with preterists calling themselves postmillennial: They redefine terms. First, they redefine what a millennium is. Common sense, as well as reformed authors of the past, define a millennium as 1000 years. If one does not hold to a literal 1000-year reign of Christ and His church at the end of which Christ will return, then one is something other than postmillenial.

I would hope, as a reformed christian you would at least appreciate my alarm at the redefinition of theological terms, even if you do not agree with me.

Second, if you believe the &quot;millennium&quot; streches from the resurrection of Christ to His second coming (or from 70AD to the 2nd Advent, or some other variation of that), there is already a term for you to use: amillenialism. Why do you not want to use this term? What is so offense to you about using this term, when your eschatology much more closely fits amillenialism than it does historic postmillenialism? (I am genuinely curious, but also trying to make a point.)


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:c2383e4dca][i:c2383e4dca]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:c2383e4dca]
[quote:c2383e4dca]
If you want to be a preterist, fine! But don't call your self postmillenial! You aren't! 
[/quote:c2383e4dca]

Ah, another FINE argument by the amill crowd! I think I am seeing it. If I don't hold to evry kot ant tittle of the postmills from old then I cannot call myself a postmill. Very good reasoning. 

Now, should I mention everything Calvin taught and say if you don't hold to ALL of this you have no right to call yourself Calvinist.

Another thing, I find &quot;optamistic amillennialism&quot; to be a recent school. but as I said in the other thread, &quot;if you want to believe that Christians will cover the earth and that Christ's enemies will be subdued and while the majority of the earth comes back to God's law etc etc etc&quot; then go-ahead and call yourself an amillennialist. Since those names where not developed till later, and are not found in the Bible, no one has a right to say one name is better than the other.&quot; So, I'm glad we're all postmillenialist amills.

-Paul [/quote:c2383e4dca]

Paul,

Postmillennialists to me believe in the literal millennial kingdom BEFORE the return of Christ. That is what makes them differ from Premils. Postmillennialism is not just about optimism. Amils do come in two stripes, but the pessimistic William Cox variety is a recent variety. In fact, many scholars have criticized Iain Murray's book on The Puritan Hope for reading pessimistic amillennialism into theb 17th century. If you want to get technical, postmillennialism did not even really start formally until Whitby. Before then amils and postmils were the same.

Secondly, since no church court or denomination of any sort of form that has held to the Confession (including the Free Church of Scotland continuing) has ever declared amillennialism an exception or denied an amil ordination (based on that) or ever stated that the Confression is postmil, any claims to that are simply unconfessional, a denial of the reality and authority of the Church and, frankly, a bit anabaptistic. To say that something is true of the Confession because you say so, contrary to the unanimous expression of Westminsterian churches is wrong.

No person needs to prove the negative. The burden to show that Westminster is postmil (as with any position that is contrary to the Church's historic profession) is on the one seeking to prove the case. Saying Bahnsen has good arguments, is frankly, worthless. Show me one court that has made a declaration that the Standards are postmil. Show me one discipline case or ordination case that declares amillennialism is an exception. I can show you plenty re: dispensationalism, and covenantal premillenialism. Until you can show me that the Church has stated that, please don't give me any &quot;good&quot; arguments from Bahnsen. They have no authority over the Confession.


----------



## wsw201

[quote:6276c5b3cb]
wow.... good refutation. 

btw, would you mind showing me the analysis of the paper??? Also, why do so many amillenialists say that the reformers and puritans were post millennial??? Guess they read postmillenial into everything. 
[/quote:6276c5b3cb]

Sorry about the refutation. I'm just simple country folk that God has not blessed with the wondrous experience of attending BTS. So I don't no how to refute very well.

BTW, regarding my analysis... I have been reading Calvin's work for over 14 years, including his commentaries, the Institutes, letters, etc. etc. I know people can take his work and make it say almost anything you want it to, and they do, but Calvin was not a Post mill, period. 

One of the problems I have found with most Post Mills is that they are clueless about Amillennialism. The pejorative terms used by them are a big tip off. Since they don't understand it or base there conclusions on a caricature set up by other Posties, they never take the time to actually read source material. If they did they would learn that Amills were never &quot;pessimistic&quot; or &quot;defeatist&quot;. The real difference between the two views is the idea of the &quot;golden age&quot;.


----------



## VanVos

I think partial preteristic optomistic amillennialism is the best position, although I did toy with non-theonomic postmillennialism. But I couldn't reconcile that with scripture which talk about the suffering church (2 Tim 3:12-13, Phil 3:10, 2 Cor 4:7-9) and how we are saved in hope of Glory. In other words no Glory yet, hence no golden age, I would see that as eschatological intrusion we are not promised. Also, seeing how the New Testament handled optomistic apocalyptic writing of Old Testament Heb 12:22, Gal 4:27, by giving it spiritual fulfillment to the church in this present evil age (Gal 1:4). Would anyone say that this closers to what the reformers believed?

VanVos

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by VanVos]


----------



## JonathonHunt

[quote:6d1c762d9c][i:6d1c762d9c]Originally posted by sastark[/i:6d1c762d9c]
postmillenial authors of the past such as Johnathan Edwards, Ian Murray and Lorraine Boettner.

[Edited on 5-27-2004 by sastark] [/quote:6d1c762d9c]

Of the past? Iain Murray is very much alive Seth!


----------



## Irishcat922

Thanks Paul,
I thought that was very good, very encouraging.:thumbup:


----------



## tcalbrecht

[quote:515be1085a][i:515be1085a]Originally posted by sastark[/i:515be1085a]
Common sense, as well as reformed authors of the past, define a millennium as 1000 years. [/quote:515be1085a]

Does this mean that amillennialists don't have any common sense? :bs2:


----------



## Saiph

The millennium is the reign of Christ.

He is reigning now, and will return when all things are consummated.

[quote:27e7dced33]
Mat 28:18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, [b:27e7dced33]All authority is given to Me in Heaven and in earth. [/b:27e7dced33]
Mat 28:19 Therefore go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 
Mat 28:20 teaching them to observe all things, whatever I commanded you.[b:27e7dced33] And, behold, I am with you all the days until the end of the world.[/b:27e7dced33] Amen. 
[/quote:27e7dced33]

Notice also the wording here is past tense:


[quote:27e7dced33]
Rev 1:5 even from Jesus Christ the faithful Witness, the First-born from the dead and the [b:27e7dced33]Ruler[/b:27e7dced33] of the kings of the earth. To Him who loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood, 
Rev 1:6 and made us [b:27e7dced33]kings and priests[/b:27e7dced33] to God and His Father, to Him be glory and [b:27e7dced33]dominion[/b:27e7dced33] forever and ever. Amen. 

[/quote:27e7dced33]


----------



## sastark

Ok, I'm gonna reply to everybody else but Paul, and start a new thread for me and Paul and anyone else to talk about postmillennialism (if that works for you, Paul)

First: 


[quote:0ac8c1ec28]
Of the past? Iain Murray is very much alive Seth!
[/quote:0ac8c1ec28]

The Iain Murray who wrote the Puritan Hope? Well then, I stand corrected and my apologies to Mr. Murray!


Second:


[quote:0ac8c1ec28]
Does this mean that amillennialists don't have any common sense?
[/quote:0ac8c1ec28]

No, it means that amillennialists simply do not hold to a literal 1,000 year reign of Christ and his saints (hence the term [b:0ac8c1ec28]a-[/b:0ac8c1ec28]millennial, or &quot;without millennium&quot;.

But, I also see the humor in your post. :bs2:

Third:

[quote:0ac8c1ec28]
The millennium is the reign of Christ. 

He is reigning now, and will return when all things are consummated.
[/quote:0ac8c1ec28]

Ok, so you are either an amillennialist, or a preterist. 

In all seriousnes, Mark, maybe we could discuss your views (along with Pauls and my own) on the new thread I'll start as soon as I hit the &quot;Post Reply&quot; button.


----------



## wsw201

[quote:434eaf70b6]
Enter Wayne: 

I had a serious question about what he thought of my post. I didn't take the time to put it together for &amp;*%^ and giggles. I asked you a question and immediately I get a response... 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

By the fact that you wrote this post at 2:54AM means that you are taking this way more seriously than I do. First off as I noted, I did read your post (that you twice asked me if I had read) and I commend you for responding in such a timely fashion. Personally, I couldn't even type a post that long in 33 minutes much less do all the research necessary to come up with that post (FYI: I am not being sarcastic and this is not an "ad hom", I am being sincere, "YOU DA MAN!!"). 


[quote:434eaf70b6]



[quote:434eaf70b6]
Yes I read it and Bahnsen is WRONG!!! I know Bahnsen can read theonomy and Postmillenialism in just about anything but not this time. The Standards are not a Postmill document just as they are not a theonomic document. The Standards do not point to a world wide conversion and a golden age prior to Christ's return 
[/quote:434eaf70b6] 


Seemed a bit hostile. Also, the ad-homs and psychologizing of Dr. Bahnsen are not helpful. (Like you know that he was &quot;reading things into it!&quot Also, I never said that they were a postmil document. I was offering a contribution to the board on the question of whether the implicitly or explicitly endorsed a view. Are you saying dogmatically that they didn't? Based on what? We don't know that much from what they had written and with my post we cannot say that I am offering some theory from outer space! 

I was surprised by the above response and thought we were rationally trying to discuss this. When I mentioned that the above was not a good refutation of what I was *rationally* trying to argue for I got this response: 
quote: 



[quote:434eaf70b6]
Sorry about the refutation. I'm just simple country folk that God has not blessed with the wondrous experience of attending BTS. So I don't no how to refute very well. 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]



This seems a little uncalled for. Why the personal attack? Moreover, this is disingenuous. Anyone who knows Wayne knows that he argues for positions and *refutes* heresy like A4 (for example). So how should I take this. I know Wayne has &quot;refuted&quot; others before, but now he says he &quot;don't know how to refute to well.&quot; Why this response? Frankly, I was taken back. I spent time posting something that had pretty good documentation to support my implicit position that the reformers did endorse (implicitly, and maybe not consistantly) a postmill position. I posted a rather long post and when I asked if he read it the reply was. &quot;Bahnsen was WRONG!!!&quot; Would wayne like this if I was arguing for Norman Shepherd and wayne posted a long post arguing for his position an I said, &quot;Wayne, your WRONG!!!&quot; I think he would say, &quot;prove it.&quot; 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

Paul,

My response was not meant as an Ad Hom attack on you. Since you have taken it that way, I sincerely apologize. I thought you were being sarcastic with your comment "Good refutation". I was being sarcastic in kind and simply cutting to the chase in that, and I am sure you are aware of this, a number of folks have taken Calvin and Owen out of context to make there points. For instance a number of theologians such as Alister McGrath, have categorically stated that the later Reformers had left Calvin behind and ventured off in to the weeds, creating a Reformed Theology that Calvin and the other Reformers would not recognize. But anyone who has done any real study of the later Reformers would know that they did not leave Calvin at all. They revered Calvin and his thought and it can be clearly seen in the Standards. The later Reformers were only attempting to answer different questions that Calvin and the other Reformers did not. For instance, limited atonement. There have been a number of modern theologians who have said Calvin did not address this issue and probably would not agree with the idea of limited atonement. But as Carl Peterson notes in his book that defends Calvin and the later Reformers, Calvin did believe in limited atonement. 

So when folks start saying the Calvin was a Post Mill, anyone who has read Calvin in toto would not come away with that impression. Considering all that Calvin and men like Owen wrote, it is not too hard to cobble together a series of statements that can prove just about any point you want to make. In fact, that is what the A4 have done to Calvin to support their position.


[quote:434eaf70b6]
But Wayne continues with his mischaracterizations: 
quote: 



[quote:434eaf70b6]
BTW, regarding my analysis... I have been reading Calvin's work for over 14 years, including his commentaries, the Institutes, letters, etc. etc. I know people can take his work and make it say almost anything you want it to, and they do, but Calvin was not a Post mill, period. 
[/quote:434eaf70b6] 


Now does it follow that Wayne is correct about Calvin since he has been reading him for 14 yrs? If so then Bahnsen's analysis was more correct because he had been reading Calvin for longer. If not then what of his analysis? 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

Come on Paul, you can do better than this. And BTW, Bahnsen is still wrong!! 


[quote:434eaf70b6]
...continuing: 
quote: 


(1) One of the problems I have found with most Post Mills is that they are clueless about Amillennialism. (2)The pejorative terms used by them are a big tip off. (3) Since they don't understand it or base there conclusions on a caricature set up by other Posties, they never take the time to actually read source material. (4) If they did they would learn that Amills were never &quot;pessimistic&quot; or &quot;defeatist&quot;. (5) The real difference between the two views is the idea of the &quot;golden age&quot;. 



Wayne makes 5 claims above. I have numbered them in his post so you can follow below: 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

This is awfully thoughtful of you (and I mean that sincerely).


[quote:434eaf70b6]
(1) And ths is supported by what? Tell you what, we can start another debate on the theology thread. We will debate whether or not postmill or amill is true. The point of the debate is *NOT* to see which side is true. The point will be to see which side misrepresents the other side more. We can keep a running tally and the looser flys to the others state to buy him a beer! Deal? Frankly, (1) is silly. Postmills have not &quot;a clue(!)&quot; about amills?? Wayne, do you really believe this rehtoric? 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

I suggest you re-read the comment I made "One of the problems I have found with most Post Mills is that they are clueless about Amillennialism". Note the "I have found". This means personal observation and communications with Posties. Your comments below regarding "optimism" is a case in point, but I will deal with that in due time.


[quote:434eaf70b6]
(2) Wayne, that knife cuts both ways and you know it! Are you implying that amills don't use pejoratives? (2) Has been seen to be based on biased predjudice. 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

Oh really! Besides my rather cute (if I say so myself) comment about "Polyanna Postmills", I have heard nothing on the Amill side that compares to the pejoratives thrown by Posties such as "defeatist" and "pessimistic".


[quote:434eaf70b6]
(3) Who? I have. Wayne, this is a serious charge. When men like Bahnsen and Gentry and Matthison and Sproul and Rushdoony and Boettner et al, have footnoted amillennialists are you saying that NONE of them have taken the time to read the source material?! This calls for documentation since you accuse brothers of lying. Also, I will show you below that it is you who are guilty of not reading your own source material (see, 4). 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]


I am glad you have, but it appears you don't understand Amills at all, again referring to your "optimism" comment. Regarding the other men you have quoted, I was not attempting to use a "universal" argument and you know that.


[quote:434eaf70b6]
(4) Note that Wayne has said that amills were NEVER pessamistic. Ok, since that is a universal negative all I need is ONE example of a pessamistic amill to refute it. Here goes. 

&quot;We amillennialists proclaim a gospel that declares the little flock of Christ, that will always have tribulation in the world and whose members are killed all the day long, to be not merely conquerors but `more than conquerors' (Luke 12:32; John 16:33; Rom. 8:36,37). See, this is not pessimism. This is optimism. This is the hugest optimism. This is optimism without any hint of pessimism.&quot; (Engelsma--Christ's Spiritual Kingdom, A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennial-ism) 

If this is &quot;optimism&quot; I'd hate to see pessimism!!! 

&quot;The majority will ever be on the side of the evil one.&quot; (Hendrickson, More Than Conquerors, pg. 228) 

Walvoord, &quot;Readily agrees that the biblical point of view is pessimistic...(Walvoords review of Guthrie, 251). 

Hendrikus Berkof states, &quot;The average Christian does not expect to see any positive signs of Christ's reign on earth. He beleives that the wolrd becomes worse and worse and races in the direction of the antichrist.&quot; (Berkof, meaning of Christian history, pg. 174) 

Shall I continue??? I could offer many, many, many, more just like the above. 

You see, even though you think I am &quot;clueless about amillenialism&quot; and &quot;don't bother to check the source material&quot; I know why you guys say that your optamistic. Vern Poythress is representative. He states in his book, &quot;The Return Of The King,&quot; that he is an optimist because Christ will win at the end. You see, when you say you are an optamist you mean *spiritually.* As you even say on point 5 &quot;There will be no golden age.&quot; You should have made this distinction since you must know our position and have read so many postmill books and have checked all the source material. Why didn't you make the distinction? Maybe you don't agree, but I will give you quote after quote that talks about a *spiritual* growth as opposed to a physical one. 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

Now for a quick lesson in Amillennialism. First: amill is neither defeatist or pessimistic. I wouldn't even classify it as optimistic. What it is is Biblical and Reformed. Regarding the "spiritual charge that is continually made, Amill is not "spiritualistic". Christ will return physically not spiritually (Acts 1). The new heavens and new earth are actual not spiritual (compare Isa 65:17 with 2 Peter 3, Rev 21, Matt 19:28, Rom 8:19-22). The Church will continue to be persecuted until Christ comes again (2 Thess 1:4,5, 2 Tim 3:12, Phil 1:29, John 16:33). There will be a falling away, the man of lawlessness will be revealed then Christ will return (2 Thess 2:1-12, 2 Tim 2:1-9) and for those who say "peace and safety" consider 1 Thess 5:1-5.

Concerning Christ and his Dominion, the Amill sees Christ and His Church's victory now. Right Now. We do not have to wait for some uncertain time in the future. Consider Colossians 1:13-18 " He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love, 14 in whom we have redemption through His blood, F3 the forgiveness of sins. 15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18 And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence." Christ has always had dominion over the earth and always will. The Church has victory now. As Christ had said to His apostles about His Church "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it". The Gospel will continue to spread throughout the earth as God calls in His elect into the Church up to the time of His Return.


[quote:434eaf70b6]
(5) O.K..... so? 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

You don't think this is important?

Regarding the issue of Postmill and the Reformed Confessions, consider this from Englsma:


[quote:434eaf70b6]
Reformed doctrine is established by the Reformed creeds. These creeds teach the last days as the time of apostasy and persecution. The Second Helvetic Confession (1566), expressing the conviction of all the leading Reformers, stated: 

And from heaven the same Christ will return in judgment, when wickedness will then be at its greatest in the world and when the Antichrist, having corrupted true religion, will fill up all things with superstition and impiety and will cruelly lay waste the Church with bloodshed and flames (Dan., ch. 11). But Christ will come again to claim his own, and by his coming to destroy the Antichrist.... We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different (Reformed Confessions of the 16th Century, ed. Arthur C. Cochrane, Westminster Press, 1966, chap. 11).

The two main sections on eschatology in the &quot;Three Forms of Unity&quot; are Question 52 of the Heidelberg Catechism and Article 37 of the Belgic Confession. Question 52 of the Catechism locates every believer, and by implication the true church, in circumstances of persecution throughout the present age: 

Q. What comfort is it to thee that Christ shall come again to judge the quick and the dead&quot;? 

A. That in all my sorrows and persecutions, with uplifted head I look for the very same person, who before offered himself for my sake,... to come as judge from heaven: who shall cast all his and my enemies into everlasting condemnation, but shall translate me with all his chosen ones to himself, into heavenly joys and glory. 

Article 37 of the Belgic Confession does the same. It declares that the final judgment is 
most desirable and comfortable to the righteous and elect: because then their full deliverance shall be perfected, and there they shall receive the fruits of their labor and trouble which they have borne. Their innocence shall be known to all, and they shall see the terrible vengeance which God shall execute on the wicked, who most cruelly persecuted, oppressed and tormented them in this world. 

The article continues that it is only then, at Christ's return, that the faithful and elect wilt be crowned with glory and honor, all tears will be wiped from their eyes, and &quot;their cause which is now condemned by many judges and magistrates, as heretical and impious, will then be known to be the cause of the Son of God.&quot; 

Not only is there nothing in these articles about any hope of a &quot;golden age,&quot; but also the articles plainly rule out the notion of an earthly kingdom of Christ in history. 

The ungodly always dominate. The world's rulers always condemn the cause of the true church. The wicked always oppress the saints. The only hope of the church in the world, and their full deliverance, is the second coming of Christ and the final judgment. 
[/quote:434eaf70b6]

The Westminster Confession of Faith also speaks to this issue in Section 3:

As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin; and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity:[6] so will He have that day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come; and may be ever prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly, Amen.[7]

Note that in the Second Helvetic Confession Chiliasm is condemned by the Church, which your post referred to as Postmillennialism. It is interesting that Chiliasm is considered Postmill. Most historians that I have read consider Chiliasm as Historic Premill. But if the shoe fits....

Exit Wayne


----------



## JohnV

I'm with you on this Wayne. Good job.

I would like to insist on something, though. I stated it in my earlier post, but it seems to have gone by the board. So I'd like to repeat it, but maybe say it a bit differently.

If the framers of the WCF, say, were Post-mils, and thought it important to have that view, don't you think that they would have included a confession clearly stating so? Don't you think that they would not have presupposed that everyone would be of the Post-mil camp if they read the rest of the Confessions? They don't presuppose anything about any other tenet, but make sure they state the doctrines clearly. At no point do they ask of us to look into their preferred views on any mattter to come to a conclusion about what it was they were trying to get across. As a matter of fact it could be said that they rather tried to avoid any such thing, for their emphasis was clearly to point to Scripture alone. It is against their wishes for us to rely on any man for the perspicuity of Scripture, for that would undermine it instead. 

So, in my view, the more it is proven beyond any shadow of doubt that the Westminster Assembly was Post-mil, the more I wonder that there is nothing specific (read: [i:c00b9dcd38]explicit[/i:c00b9dcd38] )in the Confessions about it. They would not have missed it if they thought it important to state that their view was what Scripture taught. So the question of implicitness is quite telling to me: if there is an implicit reference, then it is accidental, and unintentional. 

The question is to be whether there is an explicit reference to Post-Millennialism. And that is negative. 

Again, there are things that impinge on eschatology in the Confessions, including the catechisms. So there are things within the field that are explicit, and that rule out certain ideas that are part of one eschatological view or another. The OPC has ruled that a limited view of Pre-Mil is within the Confessional Standard, along with Post-Mil and A-Mil. But it is recognized that the Westiminster Assembly had no warrant from Scripture to instill one view over another. They adhered to that strictly. And that is important to us as well. 

I agree with Wayne that the word, 'pessimistic', as applied to the A-Millennial view is not a correct assessment of it. In an earlier thread, of about a year ago now, it was made clear that the term referred specifically to one aspect of eschatology, and only one; and that was in regard to the future outlook. [i:c00b9dcd38]Optimism[/i:c00b9dcd38] referred to things getting better all around, from a worldly point of view, while [i:c00b9dcd38]pessimism[/i:c00b9dcd38] referred to things getting worse from that same point of view. But it was agreed that there was nothing 'pessimistic' in A-millennialism from the Christian point of view. At least, that is what I got out of it, and that is why I agreed with it. 

I am what has been called, by some people, a pessimistic A-Mil. I have never thought of it as pessimistic myself, and still do not, though from a categorical point of view, to distinguish it from other views, I guess that's the name that has fallen to us. It's not one I would have picked. I would have chosen a name that reflects the acknowledgement of Christ's present reign, and that it is recognizable even now.


----------



## wsw201

John,

Your comment did not go by the board. You make a very good point.

And as Fred noted, and this was brought up at our debate:


[quote:16596c038f]
If you want to get technical, postmillennialism did not even really start formally until Whitby. Before then amils and postmils were the same. 
[/quote:16596c038f]

I don't think you can make an argument that what is considered Postmill today, would be on the radar screen for the Reformers.

Regarding the tag &quot;pessimistic&quot;, I totally reject it. It is a tag that Posties have hung on Amills despite what Walvoord says.  I prefer Reformed Amillennialism, because that is what it is.


----------



## JohnV

For a time, it seems to me, the Post-mil view was in decline. As I recall, someone noted that it coincided with the World Wars I and II. But since then it has come around again. If I recall, Bahnsen said that. So it seems to fall into place that the modern Post-Mil is not the same as the old Post-Mil that declined.


----------



## JohnV

[quote:d8b50b94e7]Now, does any member of the PB want to seriously claim that this isn't pessimistic??? [/quote:d8b50b94e7]
Yup. Me!

I am not familiar with the writings that you cite. I will assume that the references refer to the narrow aspect of the Millennium that respects the worldly state of things. Nothing wider than that. 

The A-Mils (at least this A-Mil anyways) believe that Christ reigns even now, in a real physical sense as well as spiritual. And this is visible even now. There is nothing pessimistic about our view (at least not mine. ) Though opposition may appear to increase, it can do no more than show the glory of our God, the sovereign reign of our Saviour, and the working of the Spirit in grace. 

In this sense, the so-called 'pessimistic' A-mils are really the optimists, for there can be no negation of Christ's present reign, no matter the assaults perpetrated by man. We do not see the present or the past in this church age to be under any pessimistic direction at all, even if the view includes an increase in ungodly opposition to the gospel. The armies must meet for the war to progress. &quot;Night is the promise of morning.&quot;

However, just as I refuse the term 'pessimistic', so I do not in any way disparage the other views for that same optimism that I see in the A-mil view. &quot;Night is the promise of morning&quot; applies to all the views, even the ones we disagree with. They must all hope in it for them to believe in their views, so it follows that they too see an optmistic future, whatever the view they hold, and what it may entail. If they are Christian, they cannot accept any concept of God losing His sovereignty, or even of it being in danger at all. So I see this discussion of 'pessimism' as being of very little importance, and even of possibly being misleading.


----------



## wsw201

Paul,


[quote:65a3b264d8]
That's fine wayne. I would let you know that I posted it at 1:10 a.m. not 2:54. 
[/quote:65a3b264d8]

2:54AM is what shows up on my computer. The time is set for Central Time zone and you are in CA. But anyway, that's past my bed time for a school night.


[quote:65a3b264d8]
You missed my intention. By physical I meant a physical here and now growth. I know you believe in the physical NH and E, advent, eccetera. It is interesting to note that those things you mention take place AFTER the thousand yrs and so do not qualify for a &quot;physical&quot; position reguarding the *millennieum.* But anyway, I get your drift. 
[/quote:65a3b264d8]

Actually I do believe in a "physical here and now growth". Consider the parable of the Wheat and Tares. They both "grow physically" together. The Amill position regarding the millennium is that it refers to the time between Christ's first and second advent. You are correct regarding the physical position regarding the millennium.


[quote:65a3b264d8]
I know we have victory *now.* But not in the postmill physical sense. The earth has not submitted to Christ and &quot;the ends of the earth&quot; have not &quot;turned to Jehovah.&quot; 
[/quote:65a3b264d8]

Not exactly in the postmill physical sense but as I previously noted, the Kingdom does continue to grow in a physical sense as God continues to call the elect into the visible church.


[quote:65a3b264d8]
Basically, you said that your view is not pessimism. You said that NO amill ever held to pessimism. I at least want you to take that back 
quote: 



[quote:65a3b264d8]
Walvoord, &quot;Readily agrees that the biblical point of view is pessimistic...&quot;(Walvoords review of Guthrie, 251). 
[/quote:65a3b264d8] 
[/quote:65a3b264d8]

I have reviewed my posts and though I may have missed it but it does not appear that I said that "NO amill ever held to pessimism." If you could point this out to me I would appreciate it. I have said that Amill is not pessimistic. Regarding your quote, are you quoting John Walvoord, the Dispensational Premill from DTS? It appears to be his opinion based on his review of someone else's work.


----------



## Ianterrell

Well its certainly a different kind of optimism.


----------



## JohnV

[quote:604ebdb5db][i:604ebdb5db]Originally posted by Ianterrell[/i:604ebdb5db]
Well its certainly a different kind of optimism. [/quote:604ebdb5db]
I don't think so Ian. I think the point is that the word &quot;pessimism&quot; bears connotations that are often resorted to. It becomes a pejorative term, sometimes without intention. It is wrong to think of someone beng &quot;pessimistic&quot; in eschatology just because he is classified as a &quot;pessimistic&quot; A-Mil. That is a contradiction. The word itself does not apply to eschatology itself, since eschatology is the doctrine of the hope of the future, and the certainty of God's sovereignty and will and purposes. The word refers only, and I repeat, ONLY to a strictly historical conception of future events, that things will get worse and not better; it does not refer to whether or not a person is pessimistic because he believes it will get worse. 

But even that is pejorative, in that the increase in godless opposition is not a &quot;getting worse&quot;, but a culminating of events. I never thought of it as a &quot;getting worse&quot; until some preterists accused me of that view. Then they accused me of falsely repeating the Lord's Prayer if I was not a Post-Mil. But you can see how this springs out of an extention of the idea of &quot;pessimism&quot;. 

It's not a different use of the term at all.


----------



## sastark

Only a dutchman could take those quotes Paul posted and say they aren't pessemistic.



(No offense meant, John and other Dutchmen)

[Edited on 5-28-2004 by sastark]


----------



## wsw201

With all due respect the word optimism is not a word that can exclusively be defined by Post mills. You can put whatever spin you want to on it but any optimism for any and all Christians is Christ's return and the establishment of the regeneration of the heavens and earth and even now the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ regardless of the trial and tribulation that may befall her. As the Book of James clearly states, we are to count all trials and tribulations as JOY. But I guess Posties skipped that verse. 


As a matter of fact, I don't really care if you call Amill pessamistic, optimistic or anything else. All I know is that it is Biblical and thus Reformed 

BTW, Thanks for posting the Englesma article. Good stuff.


----------



## fredtgreco

Paul,

I have one very sincere and important (to me) question.

Why is it that so many postmils (you can include yourself or not, it doesn't matter to me) insist on labelling amils as pessimistic and highlighting the (in my opinion) minute differences between amils and postmils.

First, please ignore Englesma, I know he is Mr. I have an Axe to grind.

We are talking about views of eschatology that are so close that only those who are incredibly schooled in the Reformed faith and major on this issue can even tell the difference. And yet it seems to be issue Numero Uno with so many postmils (not all - I served with an elder who used to castegate me whenever I pointed out differences, stating that in our church culture today pointing out differences with Dispensationalists was much more important).

And yet at the same time, guys like Gary North, who will just about take a pick axe to amils, is willing to chuck 600 years of unanimous consensus on the 2nd commandment, for example - where we don't have SOME quotes from Calvin, but we have very strong language from Calvin, Knox, the Westminster divines, etc, etc. He'll say, we should not &quot;pick fights&quot; over the 2nd commandment - about which the Standards are crystal; they may be wrong, but there is nit the SMALLEST area to debate them as not being anti-images of Christ (unless you cannot read WLC 109) - and yet he will all but call amils not Christians when the Church has emphatically, repeatedly, confessionally and judicially never drawn a distinction between amils and postmils.

To be honest, I don't really feel any compulsion to move you to amil. I don't think it is a big deal, and the Reformers (who were a lot smarter than us) did not think it was a big deal.

Why is this the case? I'm really not trying to be insulting or pejoritive. I'm only using North as an example because I've read him on the amil/posmil controversy and read his comments on the 2nd commandment. I'm trying to understand why this insistence that postmillennialism is the ONLY correct position when the church obviously disagrees.


----------



## fredtgreco

Paul,

I know that the issue was not initially brought up by you. And I know that there are amils that go after postmils with a vengence. I guess my point is that I can't recall ever reading a postmil in print who ever had ANYTHING good to say about an amil. Usually we're pessimistic, or (my favorite from Wilson and his band) &quot;gnostic.&quot;

I'm happy to get along on this issue, and I trust from your post you are as well. I'm not asking you to defend North, or to tar you by association - I'm just asking because you read, listen to and run with more in postmil circles than I do. I'm really just looking for information.

I'm not trying to start the 2nd commandment again, and I'm willing to acknowledge that it is possible (although wrong  ) to read the Bible to allow for pictrures of Christ. But as I recall, I don't think that a single Reformed theologian from the 16th - 17th century was ever cited as saying that pictures of Christ were allowable. And as I recall, every Reformed confession specifically forbids it. Again they could be wrong, but history is history.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:bacea30d16][i:bacea30d16]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:bacea30d16]
[quote:bacea30d16][i:bacea30d16]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:bacea30d16]
Paul,

I know that the issue was not initially brought up by you. And I know that there are amils that go after postmils with a vengence. I guess my point is that I can't recall ever reading a postmil in print who ever had ANYTHING good to say about an amil. Usually we're pessimistic, or (my favorite from Wilson and his band) &quot;gnostic.&quot;

I'm happy to get along on this issue, and I trust from your post you are as well. I'm not asking you to defend North, or to tar you by association - I'm just asking because you read, listen to and run with more in postmil circles than I do. I'm really just looking for information.

I'm not trying to start the 2nd commandment again, and I'm willing to acknowledge that it is possible (although wrong  ) to read the Bible to allow for pictrures of Christ. But as I recall, I don't think that a single Reformed theologian from the 16th - 17th century was ever cited as saying that pictures of Christ were allowable. And as I recall, every Reformed confession specifically forbids it. Again they could be wrong, but history is history. [/quote:bacea30d16]

Yes, Amills are correct about the timming of the millennium. They have good arguemnts against pre-mills. I have learned alot form amillers Poyrthress and Adams (specifically). Etc. It's just that in polemics, sometimes you need to go for the throat (figuratively, of course).[/quote:bacea30d16]

Glad to hear it.

[quote:bacea30d16]I agree with the reformers. I think they were talking about **worship.** You naughty Ben-Hur peeper [/quote:bacea30d16]

Sigh... words don't mean anything do they...


----------



## tcalbrecht

[quote:d1b945be66][i:d1b945be66]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:d1b945be66]
Paul,

I have one very sincere and important (to me) question.

Why is it that so many postmils (you can include yourself or not, it doesn't matter to me) insist on labelling amils as pessimistic and highlighting the (in my opinion) minute differences between amils and postmils.

[/quote:d1b945be66]

Fred,

If the differences are that minute, why the designation amillennial? Is there not a real distinction in continental v. puritan theology on this matter?


----------



## fredtgreco

Tom,

I think the distiction between amil and post is warranted, because the differences are real, although minor in the scope of things. I don't think that either camp would be happy to be &quot;merged&quot; into the other.

I am talking more about emphasis. Discussions on eschatology tended to get heated very quickly (on both sides) and very dogmatic (on both sides). I just find it unfathomable that a matter on which the creeds and confessons of the church deliberately left unexpressed that men are willing to be so dogmatic about it.

North is the example that I use from the postmil camp. he is VERY dogmatic about it, and then gives an &quot;aw shucks, can't we all just play nice&quot; when men try and point out that every major confession is anti-images of Christ and that Calvin, Knox and others are crystal clear about it. (And Paul, there is not a word limiting it to worship in Calvin and the others - you may disagree, but don't change what Calvin though. He wrote more on this than on many other subjects and he is clear as to what he believes)

I am also sure that someone could provide a similar citation about an amil who is dogmatic and yet chucks hundreds of years of orthodoxy on another subject.

if ever there was a doctrine where &quot;can't we all just get along&quot; applies, this has got to be it - and yet it is (in my view at least) probably one of the most violent of fights in the Reformed world today.


----------



## fredtgreco

[quote:8cbfc4ff24][i:8cbfc4ff24]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8cbfc4ff24]
[quote:8cbfc4ff24]
North is the example that I use from the postmil camp. he is VERY dogmatic about it, and then gives an &quot;aw shucks, can't we all just play nice&quot; when men try and point out that every major confession is anti-images of Christ and that Calvin, Knox and others are crystal clear about it. (And Paul, there is not a word limiting it to worship in Calvin and the others - you may disagree, but don't change what Calvin though. He wrote more on this than on many other subjects and he is clear as to what he believes) 
[/quote:8cbfc4ff24]

At least be honest Fred. I'm no Northian but I'll defend him here. North actually accuses YOUR TYPE of heresy. Of either monophysite or docetism. That doesn't sound like an &quot;aww shucks&quot; attitude now does it?

-Paul [/quote:8cbfc4ff24]

Actually, you're right. I'd forgotten and was trying to be charitable. Now you've reminded me why I will never listen to a word North says again, since he wants to throw the historic reformed church into that lot.

Thanks for helping to make my point.


----------

