# OK, convince me of Postmillenialism



## Curt

Convince me of Postmillenialism.

(Or was I predestined not to accept this view?)

Admin Note: Thread title changed per rules that titles should be descriptive.


----------



## steven-nemes

Would you not rather be convinced of the non-literal (wink) truth?


----------



## Curt

Now don't go confusing me!


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Curt said:


> ...of Postmillenialism.
> 
> (Or was I predestined not to accept this view?)



I spoke to God. He said you werent predestined to hold this view....


----------



## kalawine

I'm climbing around on the slippery wet bank of Optimistic Amil and one slippery step could send me slipping off the bank and into the Postmill stream, never to return.


----------



## Berean

XBlackWaterX said:


> I spoke to God. He said you werent predestined to hold this view....



Was this a word of knowledge? I think I saw that on the 700 Club this morning...or was it on 'the rosary with Mother Angelica' on EWTN?


----------



## Curt

kalawine said:


> I'm climbing around on the slippery wet bank of Optimistic Amil and one slippery step could send me slipping off the bank and into the Postmill stream, never to return.



Is one foot on a banana peel?


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace

Berean said:


> XBlackWaterX said:
> 
> 
> 
> I spoke to God. He said you werent predestined to hold this view....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was this a word of knowledge? I think I saw that on the 700 Club this morning...or was it on 'the rosary with Mother Angelica' on EWTN?
Click to expand...


All of them. And my personal faviorte. TBN. Trinity BroadCasting Network...ahhh..that's the best one out there. 

-----Added 6/10/2009 at 10:13:54 EST-----

Assuming you havent seen this tv station. I think youtube might have some videos. Charasmania at its finest.


----------



## larryjf

Consider that Christ will be at the right hand of the Father *until *His enemies are made His footstool.
[bible]Ps 110:1[/bible]

[bible]Isa 65:17,20[/bible]


[bible]Micah 4:1-5[/bible]
[bible]Isa 2:2-4[/bible]


----------



## Theognome

This book gives a simple read to the subject-

Amazon.com: Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope: Keith A. Mathison: Books

Theognome


----------



## Curt

Theognome said:


> This book gives a simple read to the subject-
> 
> Amazon.com: Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope: Keith A. Mathison: Books
> 
> Theognome



How does it compare with Jack Davis's _Christ's Victorious Kingdom_? I'm rereading that now.


----------



## Theognome

Curt said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> This book gives a simple read to the subject-
> 
> Amazon.com: Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope: Keith A. Mathison: Books
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How does it compare with Jack Davis's _Christ's Victorious Kingdom_? I'm rereading that now.
Click to expand...


I haven't read that one, so I can't give a comparison- only a recommendation for the Mathison book. It's a great starting place for someone wanting to learn the basics of the Postmillenial view.

Theognome


----------



## kalawine

Curt said:


> kalawine said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm climbing around on the slippery wet bank of Optimistic Amil and one slippery step could send me slipping off the bank and into the Postmill stream, never to return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is one foot on a banana peel?
Click to expand...


YEP!


----------



## CNJ

*Almost a Postmil Also*

Convince you 



Curt said:


> ...of Postmillenialism.
> 
> (Or was I predestined not to accept this view?)



We record our struggles on a blog. Millennial Dreams

There are lots of resources on that blog. But I stopped studying for a while. When I start again, it is with reading Gentry's new 3rd Edition of He Shall Have Dominion, fresh off the press. 

I am almost convinced of postmil. Certain things we are predestined to not accept, e.g., sin in our lives. However, there are wonderful people in postmil, amil, and historical premil that are all Reformed in their orientation.


----------



## Peairtach

Can Jesus fail? Can He be less successful in taking possession of the Earth than David and Solomon were in taking possession of the land that God gave them, from the Euphrates to the Great Sea (Medi)?

_He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. _(Psalm 72:8)

According to amillenialism history - including church history - is going nowhere.


----------



## Confessor

Christ said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church. Gates are defensive.


----------



## sastark

"Sit at my right hand *until* I make Your enemies Your footstool"

"...Your Kingdom come, *on earth*, as it is in heaven..."

"Go and make disciples of *all nations*..."

"And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to Him, and He went out *conquering and to conquer*."


----------



## Jon Peters

sastark said:


> "Sit at my right hand *until* I make Your enemies Your footstool"
> 
> "...Your Kingdom come, *on earth*, as it is in heaven..."
> 
> "Go and make disciples of *all nations*..."
> 
> "And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to Him, and He went out *conquering and to conquer*."



Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Confessor

Jon Peters said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Sit at my right hand *until* I make Your enemies Your footstool"
> 
> "...Your Kingdom come, *on earth*, as it is in heaven..."
> 
> "Go and make disciples of *all nations*..."
> 
> "And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to Him, and He went out *conquering and to conquer*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
Click to expand...


An unimpeded logical implication of this is that Christ's kingdom affects none of this earth, which is clearly false. If you suppose "my kingdom is not of this world" to mean that it is not manifested on Earth, then where do you draw the line to "cut off" this logical implication?


----------



## sastark

Jon Peters said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Sit at my right hand *until* I make Your enemies Your footstool"
> 
> "...Your Kingdom come, *on earth*, as it is in heaven..."
> 
> "Go and make disciples of *all nations*..."
> 
> "And I looked, and behold, a white horse. He who sat on it had a bow; and a crown was given to Him, and He went out *conquering and to conquer*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered over to the Jews. But my kingdom is not from the world.”
Click to expand...


But His kingdom is *in* the world, but not *of* this world. It rules this world, but this world is not its origin.

John 17:15-16
_I do not pray that You should take them out of the world, but that You should keep them from the evil one. They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world._


----------



## Sven

Richard Tallach said:


> Can Jesus fail? Can He be less successful in taking possession of the Earth than David and Solomon were in taking possession of the land that God gave them, from the Euphrates to the Great Sea (Medi)?
> 
> _He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. _(Psalm 72:8)
> 
> According to amillenialism history - including church history - is going nowhere.



Excuse me? Ummm...that is quite untrue. According to Ammillenialism history, especially church history, is marching forward to the final consumation when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead, and to openly acknowledge and acquit all those who believe on Him. We are awaiting the day when the kingdom of God will be fully realized, when there is no more mixture of wheat and chaff in the Church of Christ, but will be a pure and spotless bride. That, my friend, is where history is going. Just because we ammillenialists think of success differently than do the posties, doesn't mean we think history is going nowhere. Get the doctrines of those you disagree with straight.


----------



## Roldan

Richard Tallach said:


> Can Jesus fail? Can He be less successful in taking possession of the Earth than David and Solomon were in taking possession of the land that God gave them, from the Euphrates to the Great Sea (Medi)?
> 
> _He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. _(Psalm 72:8)
> 
> According to amillenialism history - including church history - is going nowhere.



Yup and all this will occur at the consummation of all things, at His coming but not before, to think so is to participate in "Jewish Dreams"......None of the verses offered by our Postmil brothers necessitate a postmil interpretation but rather seeing these fulfillments in Christ coming to once and for all destroy all His enemies hence the "until" and "til" key words, is to correctly exegete these passages. But I've gone through this here on these board exhaustively so not really interested in going back and forth, just thought I share some thoughts, carry on.

-----Added 6/11/2009 at 01:27:10 EST-----



Sven said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can Jesus fail? Can He be less successful in taking possession of the Earth than David and Solomon were in taking possession of the land that God gave them, from the Euphrates to the Great Sea (Medi)?
> 
> _He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. _(Psalm 72:8)
> 
> According to amillenialism history - including church history - is going nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me? Ummm...that is quite untrue. According to Ammillenialism history, especially church history, is marching forward to the final consumation when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead, and to openly acknowledge and acquit all those who believe on Him. We are awaiting the day when the kingdom of God will be fully realized, when there is no more mixture of wheat and chaff in the Church of Christ, but will be a pure and spotless bride. That, my friend, is where history is going. Just because we ammillenialists think of success differently than do the posties, doesn't mean we think history is going nowhere. Get the doctrines of those you disagree with straight.
Click to expand...


Thank you.....that is one of the weakest arguments that have duped individuals into postmil thinking while not even knowing what the other camps views are, anyone need a straw? this is very frustrating including the whole so called "optimistic amil" as if we believed in a defeated foe....


----------



## R Harris

Here you go with a few more passages:

Psalm 22:27

*ALL*the ends of the earth shall *REMEMBER*
and turn to the LORD,
and *ALL* the families of the nations
shall worship before you.

Psalm 86:9

*ALL* the nations you have made *SHALL COME*
and worship before you, O Lord,
and shall glorify your name.

Revelation 15:3,4

And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,

"Great and amazing are your deeds,
O Lord God the Almighty!
Just and true are your ways,
O King of the nations!
Who will not fear, O Lord,
and glorify your name?
For you alone are holy.
*All nations will come
and worship you*,
for your righteous acts have been revealed."


And to tag along with the comments above about Christ not returning until His enemies have been made a footstool for his feet, here is one more from Hebrews 10:12-13:

But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, *waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet*.

So Christ waits IN HEAVEN until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet. Have Christ enemies already been subjected to him? Hardly.

I have yet to see any serious rejoinder to these passages from premils or amils.

Premils claim the Psalm passages above and the other obvious optimistic passages throughout Scripture happen during the 1000 year reign; but obviously the debate has always been if (1) they can prove conclusively that the "1000 years" of Revelation 20 is a literal 1000 year period as opposed to a long aeon of time, and (2) they must explain why there is no mention of a literal 1000 year period of Christ visibly, bodily reigning in Jerusalem anywhere else in Scripture (The Micah 4 chapter says nothing of time duration, and the Revelation 20 passage mentions nothing of location. The premil scheme is simply a disjointed jigsaw puzzle of verses weaved together to give an appearance of the doctrine being valid).

Regarding the literalness of the 1000 number, Gentry does a good job of giving numerous examples where the number 1000 is not used in a literal sense (e.g. Psalm 50:10, the "thousand" hills; are there literally only a thousand hills on the earth? How do you define what a hill is?)


----------



## Roldan

R Harris said:


> Here you go with a few more passages:
> 
> Psalm 22:27
> 
> *ALL*the ends of the earth shall *REMEMBER*
> and turn to the LORD,
> and *ALL* the families of the nations
> shall worship before you.
> 
> Psalm 86:9
> 
> *ALL* the nations you have made *SHALL COME*
> and worship before you, O Lord,
> and shall glorify your name.
> 
> Revelation 15:3,4
> 
> And they sing the song of Moses, the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying,
> 
> "Great and amazing are your deeds,
> O Lord God the Almighty!
> Just and true are your ways,
> O King of the nations!
> Who will not fear, O Lord,
> and glorify your name?
> For you alone are holy.
> *All nations will come
> and worship you*,
> for your righteous acts have been revealed."
> 
> 
> And to tag along with the comments above about Christ not returning until His enemies have been made a footstool for his feet, here is one more from Hebrews 10:12-13:
> 
> But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, *waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet*.
> 
> So Christ waits IN HEAVEN until his enemies are made a footstool for his feet. Have Christ enemies already been subjected to him? Hardly.
> 
> I have yet to see any serious rejoinder to these passages from premils or amils.
> 
> Premils claim the Psalm passages above and the other obvious optimistic passages throughout Scripture happen during the 1000 year reign; but obviously the debate has always been if (1) they can prove conclusively that the "1000 years" of Revelation 20 is a literal 1000 year period as opposed to a long aeon of time, and (2) they must explain why there is no mention of a literal 1000 year period of Christ visibly, bodily reigning in Jerusalem anywhere else in Scripture (The Micah 4 chapter says nothing of time duration, and the Revelation 20 passage mentions nothing of location. The premil scheme is simply a disjointed jigsaw puzzle of verses weaved together to give an appearance of the doctrine being valid).
> 
> Regarding the literalness of the 1000 number, Gentry does a good job of giving numerous examples where the number 1000 is not used in a literal sense (e.g. Psalm 50:10, the "thousand" hills; are there literally only a thousand hills on the earth? How do you define what a hill is?)



Again, these passages will be fulfilled at His coming, no need to force a postmil interpretation into the text.


----------



## Confessor

Roldan said:


> Again, these passages will be fulfilled at His coming, no need to force a postmil interpretation into the text.



The typical postmil rejoinder to this is that some passages, such as Isaiah 65:20, must be referring to the millennium, for they speak of death.

However, I am presently unaware of other passages that fit the same category (pointing to prosperity that cannot exist in the new heavens and new earth), due to limited study on my part.


----------



## Theognome

Let's not forget that regarding the millennium in Rev. 20, Amillennialism simply states that it is occuring now, while Postmillenialism professes that it doesn't begin until after Christ comes. The discussion as to what happens during said millennium is secondary to this issue.

Theognome


----------



## R Harris

Roldan said:


> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, these passages will be fulfilled at His coming, no need to force a postmil interpretation into the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where exactly does it state _explicitly_ in these passages that these things occur at his coming? I think you and the other amils are forcing the text here.
> 
> Look at I Corinthians 15:23-26:
> 
> But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he *must reign until *he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
> 
> Recall Hebrews 10:12-13, he is WAITING in HEAVEN, sitting at the right hand of the Father UNTIL his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.
> 
> So Christ SITS, He WAITS, and He REIGNS *until* his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.
Click to expand...


----------



## Confessor

Theognome said:


> Let's not forget that regarding the millennium in Rev. 20, Amillennialism simply states that it is occuring now, while Postmillenialism professes that it doesn't begin until after Christ comes. The discussion as to what happens during said millennium is secondary to this issue.
> 
> Theognome



Greg Bahnsen said in his _Victory in Jesus_ book on postmil that the majority of postmillennarians agree with amillennarians on the timing of the millennium but disagree only on the nature of it. He himself employed the same arguments for the timing of the millennium that amillennarians have used.


----------



## Theognome

Confessor said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget that regarding the millennium in Rev. 20, Amillennialism simply states that it is occuring now, while Postmillenialism professes that it doesn't begin until after Christ comes. The discussion as to what happens during said millennium is secondary to this issue.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg Bahnsen said in his _Victory in Jesus_ book on postmil that the majority of postmillennarians agree with amillennarians on the timing of the millennium but disagree only on the nature of it. He himself employed the same arguments for the timing of the millennium that amillennarians have used.
Click to expand...


I'm at work and without various resources, but I'm not in agrement with Greg Bahnsen on that. Even just a cursory look at the terms themselves ( post VS a) shows otherwise.

Theognome


----------



## Confessor

Theognome said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget that regarding the millennium in Rev. 20, Amillennialism simply states that it is occuring now, while Postmillenialism professes that it doesn't begin until after Christ comes. The discussion as to what happens during said millennium is secondary to this issue.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Greg Bahnsen said in his _Victory in Jesus_ book on postmil that the majority of postmillennarians agree with amillennarians on the timing of the millennium but disagree only on the nature of it. He himself employed the same arguments for the timing of the millennium that amillennarians have used.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm at work and without various resources, but I'm not in agrement with Greg Bahnsen on that. Even just a cursory look at the terms themselves ( post VS a) shows otherwise.
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


He also made the point that the terms describing the positions were poorly chosen.  Additionally, he made that point in one of the first three chapters of the book, which were transcribed lectures. Therefore it is doubtful that he cited anything on it.

Really though, "post-" and "a-" don't themselves seem to indicate a different timing of the millennium. The former indicates when Christ will return _in relation_ to the millennium, and the latter indicates that there will not be a millennium of earthly prosperity.


----------



## Roldan

R Harris said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, these passages will be fulfilled at His coming, no need to force a postmil interpretation into the text.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where exactly does it state _explicitly_ in these passages that these things occur at his coming? I think you and the other amils are forcing the text here.
> 
> Look at I Corinthians 15:23-26:
> 
> But each in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he *must reign until *he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
> 
> Recall Hebrews 10:12-13, he is WAITING in HEAVEN, sitting at the right hand of the Father UNTIL his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.
> 
> So Christ SITS, He WAITS, and He REIGNS *until* his enemies are made a footstool for his feet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm gonna post some points I made here once before some years ago and I'm curious as to what you guys thoughts are on it, so please by all means pick it apart and help a brotha out, no offense will be taken
> 
> Its kinda long but obviously Reform folk like to read so here ya go part 1
> 
> 
> There is NO evidence for referring the OT passages to the millennium of the New, there is an overwhelming army of evidence for indentifying it with the Perfect eternal state. Isaiah 65:17 sets the stage and time for the entire prophecy: "Behold I create a new heavens and a new earth." This prophecy, recapitulated in verse 22 of the next chapter, is chronologically applied by Peter, in 2 Peter 3, and John, Revelation 21, to a time FOLLOWING the coming of Christ. They interpret Isaiah as refering to the eternal state. In both these NT passages, the Isaiah prophecy is clearly linked with a time subsequent to the millennium. Peter interprets Isaiah's "promise" as one which will be PRECEEDED by the destruction of the wicked and the melting away of the present heavens and earth. Revelation 21 locates the fulfillment of the prophecy at exactly the same time, John perfectly places it AFTER the thousand years, the resurrection and the white throne judgment. Other passages of a parallel nature also must refer to the new earth, not the millennial earth.
> 
> The contents of Isaiah's POETIC prophecy are no more literal than the description of the eternal state in Rev. 21 and 22. Who can interpret all the details of those two chapters literally? In both, Isaiah and Rev., language is used,in terms of what was considered most pleasant and astonishing in that day, to get across what words with their present limitations are incapable of correctly expressing. How else can perfection be described in words which have imperfect objects and concepts as recipients? It is difficult to understand why this passage should be misinterpreted when it clearly is indentified with the eternal state by the New Testament. The millennial references is totally without evidence, but its identification with the eternal state is affirmed by an abundance of biblical evidence.
> 
> This one passage has been singled out to demonstrate the way in which OT passages which actually refer to restoration from captivity, the New Testament age, and the eternal state are erroniously applied to the assumed golden-age.
> 
> Amillennialist or Realized Millennialist are in agreement with the Postmillenialist that we expect the millennium to be an age of imperefection. In oposiition to them, we do not view it as the fulfillment of the golden-age prophecies. We believe the prophesies to be truly GOLDEN perfect not GOLD PLATED! This is not to say that no OT prophecies refer to the present age, quite the contrary. But in accord with both Old and New Testament teaching, they find fulfillment of the "golden-age" prophecies in the eternal state, only then can it be said that all that glitters is Gold.
> 
> It is also interesting that postmil have to resort to OT prophesies that speak nothing of a golden age but refer unanimously to the golden age of new heaven and new earth which is Heaven.
> 
> The New Testament knows absolutlely nothing of IMPERFECT golden-age preaching. While there is a consistent appeal to look for the PERFECT golden-age of heaven, nothing can be found about an imperfect interim. Everywhere the eternal state is held out as the future hope of the church militant. The millennium is never preached as such. The only satisfactory explanation is that the millennium is a present reality not a future hope.
> 
> Old Testament passages frequently cited to substantiate the reality of an unrealized millennium(either in its Pre- or Post- form) do not hold any weight.
> 
> Isaiah 65:17-25 in one clear example. We both would agree that the passage speaks of a golden-age. The Postmil(as well as the Premil)will argue that the passage mentions children dying at one hundred years old, and sinners accursed at the end of the same period time. Taking this TOO literally, they insist that it must refer to an imperfect golden-age. And since the one thousand years obviously pertain to a time in which sin and death remain, they feel it is perfectly natural to superimpose the one passage on another.
> 
> Careful examination, however,shows two faults with this presupposition.
> 
> First, there must be unquestionable evidence for indentifying the Isaiah prophecy with Revelation 20. This evidence is totally lacking. The two are brought together in an unatural union. Who can prove, scripturally, that when Isaiah wrote "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together" he was speaking of the SAME period that John calls the "thousand years"? There are indications in the passage itself that it is not to be treated literally like "dust" becoming the serpent's food can hardly be literal.
> 
> Ezekiel's new temple is not a physical building that will in the future be built on a mound of dirt in the earthly city of Jerusalem, but the spiritual body of Jesus the Christ (cp. Ezek. 40-48 with John 2:18-22 and I Pet. 2:1-10).
> 
> 
> Bavinck was not too far off when he asserted that to interpret the prophecy of the Old Testament literally means that one "breaks with Christianity and lapses back into Judaism."
> 
> 
> 
> To the praise of our Glorious King who now reigns forever, AMEN.
> 
> 
> Sorry for all the grammatical errors, I was too lazy to edit
> 
> also....
> 
> I believe that there is NO biblical warrant to put these events before His coming, if the golden age was such an important event why is the NT not decisive on an era pre-dating Christ return?
> 
> Christ victorious return is the NT's hope for the Church militant not an intermediate era. I think the postmil gives a false hope and does not prepare the church for spiritual war, it will be like an ambush.
> 
> But to add more to this discussion, I would also agree that to promote the expansion of the kingdom through the conquering of the gospel(the fullfilment of the great commission) in NO WAY implies some earthly golden age that at best is actually gold plated.
> 
> Yes, it is true that God has promised a time of universal worship, peace, and prosperity, but that will occur only, as the consistent witness of the NT declares, when the Lord Jesus Christ returns. Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. TRUE. But this it will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means &quot;completion&quot;, &quot;perfect&quot;:1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7).
> 
> In other words, God's elect and God's created cosmos enter into COMPLETE(to telos) and Perfect(to telos) deliverance from sin and its consequences (see Rom. 8:18-23). The present earth and heavens will replaced with a &quot;new heaven and a new earth, the HOME of righteousness&quot;(2 Peter 3:13).
> 
> God's creational purpose(creative covenant) will be fulfilled in the NEW creation.
> 
> Postmil assert that Christ will be with His people to oversee the task of successfully completing its commission and that this is the postmil hope, and also claim that ONLY the postmil view can account for this, is not true at all. The realized mil certainly believe that this age will not end until Christ's purposes are fulfilled.
> 
> The postmil view has failed to establish the making disciples of all nations, baptizing and teaching them requires that fulfillment be in Postmil terms.
> 
> 
> click on link for more.....
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/445280-post114.html
Click to expand...


----------



## sastark

Theognome said:


> Let's not forget that regarding the millennium in Rev. 20, Amillennialism simply states that it is occuring now, while Postmillenialism professes that it doesn't begin until after Christ comes. The discussion as to what happens during said millennium is secondary to this issue.
> 
> Theognome



I think you may have mistyped. Postmillenialists believe Christ returns *after* the millenial period. They do not believe that Christ comes and then the millennium begins. That is premillenialism.


----------



## Theognome

sastark said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's not forget that regarding the millennium in Rev. 20, Amillennialism simply states that it is occuring now, while Postmillenialism professes that it doesn't begin until after Christ comes. The discussion as to what happens during said millennium is secondary to this issue.
> 
> Theognome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you may have mistyped. Postmillenialists believe Christ returns *after* the millenial period. They do not believe that Christ comes and then the millennium begins. That is premillenialism.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are right. Thanks for the correction.

Theognome


----------



## Seb

Whew! You were messing with my head there Bill.


----------



## R Harris

Roldan,

There are numerous problems with your thesis and the passages that you quote, but unfortunately I do not have the time to address all of them at this very moment.

BTW - Gentry/DeMar/Mathison deal extensively with your arguments; have you not read any of their works?

Also, Patrick Fairbairn's _The Interpretation of Prophecy_ deals with many of the things you said, and he, along with others, provide convincing arguments that Revelation 21 is NOT chronological to chapter 20, in the same manner that Revelation 12 is not chronological to chapter 11.


----------



## Roldan

R Harris said:


> Roldan,
> 
> There are numerous problems with your thesis and the passages that you quote, but unfortunately I do not have the time to address all of them at this very moment.
> 
> BTW - Gentry/DeMar/Mathison deal extensively with your arguments; have you not read any of their works?
> 
> Also, Patrick Fairbairn's _The Interpretation of Prophecy_ deals with many of the things you said, and he, along with others, provide convincing arguments that Revelation 21 is NOT chronological to chapter 20, in the same manner that Revelation 12 is not chronological to chapter 11.



Yes I have actually, when I almost became a postmil...but they do exactly as what I presented above so my point still stands...

Its all a matter of correct hermeneutic and staying consistent with it..


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Greetings:

The silver bullet that kills the "Golden Age" theory is found in the very verses that teach the Millennium:

*(20:3)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 .. (v.7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the eath, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.*

If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Confessor

CalvinandHodges said:


> If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?



That just means that a brief apostasy will follow the lengthy golden age.


----------



## Peairtach

Sven said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can Jesus fail? Can He be less successful in taking possession of the Earth than David and Solomon were in taking possession of the land that God gave them, from the Euphrates to the Great Sea (Medi)?
> 
> _He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth. _(Psalm 72:8)
> 
> According to amillenialism history - including church history - is going nowhere.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me? Ummm...that is quite untrue. According to Ammillenialism history, especially church history, is marching forward to the final consumation when Christ returns to judge the living and the dead, and to openly acknowledge and acquit all those who believe on Him. We are awaiting the day when the kingdom of God will be fully realized, when there is no more mixture of wheat and chaff in the Church of Christ, but will be a pure and spotless bride. That, my friend, is where history is going. Just because we ammillenialists think of success differently than do the posties, doesn't mean we think history is going nowhere. Get the doctrines of those you disagree with straight.
Click to expand...


Do you not believe that good and evil will grow together equally and that the good will not be able to overcome the evil? That there will then be a falling away before the good overcomes the evil and that the triumph of evil will only be stopped by Christ's return?

That is *in history* Christ will not triumph by His Word, by His Spirit, by His Church and by His Providence. He will only triumph by His final, visible Second Advent, and even then there will be many more unsaved than saved?

Can you have a real apostasy at the end of the millennium, without a Golden/Silver Age? There has to be something to fall away from?

Re Isaiah 65, the powers of the new heavens and the new earth are already here. The beginning of the New Creation was _in principle_ Christ's resurrection and the new birth is its beginning in us, which will eventually lead to a perfected and glorified soul, a glorified body and a creation that is incorruptible and undefiled and separated from sin. We celebrate the beginning of the new heavens and new earth every Lord's Day. 

Obviously postmils believe certain aspects of the new heavens and new earth are delayed until Christ's Second Advent.


----------



## Curt

So far, you guys are making a great case for me to remain in the historic pre-mil camp.


----------



## Confessor

Curt said:


> So far, you guys are making a great case for me to remain in the historic pre-mil camp.



It would have helped for you to point out that that is what you were. For whatever reason, I assumed you were amil and was trying to establish the "golden age" part on top.

There's essentially two divides regarding the millennium: when Christ will come in relation to the millennium, and what the nature of the millennium will be. Amillers agree with postmillers on the first divide but disagree on the second. So there's another "tier" which must be overcome to convince premillers of postmil.

And for that purpose, I point you to this.


----------



## R Harris

Curt said:


> So far, you guys are making a great case for me to remain in the historic pre-mil camp.



All right - convince ME that the 1000 in Revelation 20 is to be taken literally.

Think about it - Christ (supposedly in a state of glorification, which would blind the casual observer) sets up this kingdom, which is suppose to last _exactly_ 1000 years. Well, from that point forward, all one has to do is countdown to the final judgment and plan accordingly. How much sense does that make?

I have always found it interesting that no detail is provided - either from Scripture or the premils themselves - for what happens on a day to day basis in this 1000 year period.

The fact that something which would be so prominent - a literal 1000 period on the earth with all the saints - is only mentioned once in Scripture - not even addressed by Paul, Peter, or anyone else - makes it an impossible and indeed false teaching.


----------



## Confessor

R Harris said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you guys are making a great case for me to remain in the historic pre-mil camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All right - convince ME that the 1000 in Revelation 20 is to be taken literally.
> 
> Think about it - Christ (supposedly in a state of glorification, which would blind the casual observer) sets up this kingdom, which is suppose to last _exactly_ 1000 years. Well, from that point forward, all one has to do is countdown to the final judgment and plan accordingly. How much sense does that make?
> 
> I have always found it interesting that no detail is provided - either from Scripture or the premils themselves - for what happens on a day to day basis in this 1000 year period.
> 
> The fact that something which would be so prominent - a literal 1000 period on the earth with all the saints - is only mentioned once in Scripture - not even addressed by Paul, Peter, or anyone else - makes it an impossible and indeed false teaching.
Click to expand...


It is equally absurd that the glorified saints would be taken _from heaven_, from the glorious countenance of the Father, back to earth. Imagine how terrible of a decrease that would be!


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Confessor said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just means that a brief apostasy will follow the lengthy golden age.
Click to expand...


Hi:

That is very nice, but where is your Scripture for such an assertion?

Since the Scriptures say that Satan was bound at the beginning of the millennium, "that he should deceive the nations no more," then we can figure that this binding was done so that the Gospel could go out to all nations:

*And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, Lk 10:18.

And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Mt 28:18,19.

And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, Mk 16:15.

And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, Lk 24:47.*

Prior to the ministry of Jesus the Oracles (Gospel) of God was only for the Jews, and select individual Gentiles. Now that Satan has been bound through the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Oracles (Gospel) of God is for both Jew and Gentile.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Confessor

CalvinandHodges said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just means that a brief apostasy will follow the lengthy golden age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> That is very nice, but where is your Scripture for such an assertion?
> 
> Since the Scriptures say that Satan was bound at the beginning of the millennium, "that he should deceive the nations no more," then we can figure that this binding was done so that the Gospel could go out to all nations:
> 
> *And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, Lk 10:18.
> 
> And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Mt 28:18,19.
> 
> And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, Mk 16:15.
> 
> And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, Lk 24:47.*
> 
> Prior to the ministry of Jesus the Oracles (Gospel) of God was only for the Jews, and select individual Gentiles. Now that Satan has been bound through the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Oracles (Gospel) of God is for both Jew and Gentile.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


I agree with all that. How that does preclude the explanation I gave?

I mean, amillennarians agree that the millennium is coterminal with the Church Age (i.e. is occurring now). And Rev. 20 teaches that Satan will be let loose at the end of the millennium. I don't see where we disagree here.


----------



## Curt

R Harris said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you guys are making a great case for me to remain in the historic pre-mil camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All right - convince ME that the 1000 in Revelation 20 is to be taken literally.
> 
> Think about it - Christ (supposedly in a state of glorification, which would blind the casual observer) sets up this kingdom, which is suppose to last _exactly_ 1000 years. Well, from that point forward, all one has to do is countdown to the final judgment and plan accordingly. How much sense does that make?
> 
> I have always found it interesting that no detail is provided - either from Scripture or the premils themselves - for what happens on a day to day basis in this 1000 year period.
> 
> The fact that something which would be so prominent - a literal 1000 period on the earth with all the saints - is only mentioned once in Scripture - not even addressed by Paul, Peter, or anyone else - makes it an impossible and indeed false teaching.
Click to expand...


OK, poorly stated on my part. I simply meant that my head was spinning. I'm not confirmed in any of the reformed eschatological views (and certainly NOT in the other major view).

I do swing from A to Post and thought you folks might help with lighting up some of the dark corners.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Confessor said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means that a brief apostasy will follow the lengthy golden age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> That is very nice, but where is your Scripture for such an assertion?
> 
> Since the Scriptures say that Satan was bound at the beginning of the millennium, "that he should deceive the nations no more," then we can figure that this binding was done so that the Gospel could go out to all nations:
> 
> *And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, Lk 10:18.
> 
> And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Mt 28:18,19.
> 
> And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, Mk 16:15.
> 
> And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, Lk 24:47.*
> 
> Prior to the ministry of Jesus the Oracles (Gospel) of God was only for the Jews, and select individual Gentiles. Now that Satan has been bound through the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Oracles (Gospel) of God is for both Jew and Gentile.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree with all that. How that does preclude the explanation I gave?
> 
> I mean, amillennarians agree that the millennium is coterminal with the Church Age (i.e. is occurring now). And Rev. 20 teaches that Satan will be let loose at the end of the millennium. I don't see where we disagree here.
Click to expand...


Hi:

The Amillennialist is a Postmillennialist except that we deny that there will be a "Golden Age at the end of the millennium." Prior to Lorraine Boettner the Amill position was called "Postmillennial." Divines once referred to a certain offshoot of Postmillennialism that held to a "Golden Age" theory.

There is little difference between the Amill and Postmill positions as they are understood today - except for the particular view of the "Golden Age."

The classic response to the Revelation 20 citation above from the Postmill camp is that, "Things will get better and better - children will die at 100 years old - economic and political stability will be cemented in a worldwide preaching and acceptance of the Gospel - and then everything will collapse when Satan is loosed again..."

There is a worlldwide preaching of the Gospel - it has been happening for the last 2000 years or so. Starting from Jerusalem in the first century the Gospel is being diffused throughout the whole world during the Millennium - the Church Age.

After the Millennium Satan will be released, the Gentile nations (Gog and Magog) will be hardened against the Gospel, and the saints will be persecuted in a Great Tribulation that can only be halted by Jesus returning with fire in His Second Coming to destroy and cast Satan into Hell. The Judgment throne will be set up and all of mankind judged by their deeds out of the Book of Life. The Saints will enter the eternal state in Heaven, and the reprobate the eternal state in Hell.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Curt

CalvinandHodges said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> That is very nice, but where is your Scripture for such an assertion?
> 
> Since the Scriptures say that Satan was bound at the beginning of the millennium, "that he should deceive the nations no more," then we can figure that this binding was done so that the Gospel could go out to all nations:
> 
> *And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven, Lk 10:18.
> 
> And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, Mt 28:18,19.
> 
> And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature, Mk 16:15.
> 
> And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations, beginning at Jerusalem, Lk 24:47.*
> 
> Prior to the ministry of Jesus the Oracles (Gospel) of God was only for the Jews, and select individual Gentiles. Now that Satan has been bound through the ministry of Jesus Christ, the Oracles (Gospel) of God is for both Jew and Gentile.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all that. How that does preclude the explanation I gave?
> 
> I mean, amillennarians agree that the millennium is coterminal with the Church Age (i.e. is occurring now). And Rev. 20 teaches that Satan will be let loose at the end of the millennium. I don't see where we disagree here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi:
> 
> The Amillennialist is a Postmillennialist except that we deny that there will be a "Golden Age at the end of the millennium." Prior to Lorraine Boettner the Amill position was called "Postmillennial." Divines once referred to a certain offshoot of Postmillennialism that held to a "Golden Age" theory.
> 
> There is little difference between the Amill and Postmill positions as they are understood today - except for the particular view of the "Golden Age."
> 
> The classic response to the Revelation 20 citation above from the Postmill camp is that, "Things will get better and better - children will die at 100 years old - economic and political stability will be cemented in a worldwide preaching and acceptance of the Gospel - and then everything will collapse when Satan is loosed again..."
> 
> There is a worlldwide preaching of the Gospel - it has been happening for the last 2000 years or so. Starting from Jerusalem in the first century the Gospel is being diffused throughout the whole world during the Millennium - the Church Age.
> 
> After the Millennium Satan will be released, the Gentile nations (Gog and Magog) will be hardened against the Gospel, and the saints will be persecuted in a Great Tribulation that can only be halted by Jesus returning with fire in His Second Coming to destroy and cast Satan into Hell. The Judgment throne will be set up and all of mankind judged by their deeds out of the Book of Life. The Saints will enter the eternal state in Heaven, and the reprobate the eternal state in Hell.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


Thanks, this exactly the sort of response I was hoping for.


----------



## Confessor

CalvinandHodges said:


> The classic response to the Revelation 20 citation above from the Postmill camp is that, "Things will get better and better - children will die at 100 years old - economic and political stability will be cemented in a worldwide preaching and acceptance of the Gospel - and then everything will collapse when Satan is loosed again..."



Yes. That is the "classic response" of postmillers. How does it follow, then, that the final apostasy is a silver-bullet argument against postmil?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Confessor said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The classic response to the Revelation 20 citation above from the Postmill camp is that, "Things will get better and better - children will die at 100 years old - economic and political stability will be cemented in a worldwide preaching and acceptance of the Gospel - and then everything will collapse when Satan is loosed again..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is the "classic response" of postmillers. How does it follow, then, that the final apostasy is a silver-bullet argument against postmil?
Click to expand...


There is no passage in Scripture that treats the Millennium as a "Golden Age." Nor is there any indication that "at the end of the Millennium there will be a Golden Age."

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Archlute

Confessor said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far, you guys are making a great case for me to remain in the historic pre-mil camp.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have helped for you to point out that that is what you were. For whatever reason, I assumed you were amil and was trying to establish the "golden age" part on top.
> 
> There's essentially two divides regarding the millennium: when Christ will come in relation to the millennium, and what the nature of the millennium will be. Amillers agree with postmillers on the first divide but disagree on the second. So there's another "tier" which must be overcome to convince premillers of postmil.
> 
> And for that purpose, I point you to this.
Click to expand...


Interesting that you should mention that, Curt. I was reading Chuck Hill's work _Regnum Caelorum_, regarding the chiliasm of some of the theologians of the early church, and was struck by the similarity between the earthly-oriented literalness of the millennium in both pre and post-mill views.


----------



## Confessor

CalvinandHodges said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The classic response to the Revelation 20 citation above from the Postmill camp is that, "Things will get better and better - children will die at 100 years old - economic and political stability will be cemented in a worldwide preaching and acceptance of the Gospel - and then everything will collapse when Satan is loosed again..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is the "classic response" of postmillers. How does it follow, then, that the final apostasy is a silver-bullet argument against postmil?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no passage in Scripture that treats the Millennium as a "Golden Age." Nor is there any indication that "at the end of the Millennium there will be a Golden Age."
Click to expand...


While I'd disagree with that, I assert that the proposition "Scripture does not anywhere treat the millennium as a golden age" does not entail the proposition "the final apostasy disproves postmillennialism," which is what you originally mentioned. My response was only to the latter proposition; you originally said the final apostasy was a silver bullet against a golden age.

Otherwise, I am not personally prepared to positively argue for a golden age at the moment.


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just means that a brief apostasy will follow the lengthy golden age.
Click to expand...


The problem is my brotha is that these apostates weren't really Christian in the first place to have a Christianized world now was it....if the supposed emphasis is on the postmil definition of gospel succession to make christians then this apostacy just defeated this purpose and there goes the victorious view of the postmil.....


----------



## Confessor

Roldan said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That just means that a brief apostasy will follow the lengthy golden age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem is my brotha is that these apostates weren't really Christian in the first place to have a Christianized world now was it....if the supposed emphasis is on the postmil definition of gospel succession to make christians then this apostacy just defeated this purpose and there goes the victorious view of the postmil.....
Click to expand...


Postmil does not necessitate a 100% conversion of the world. Furthermore, it can easily make sense how there would be tons of prosperity then an apostasy, unless you presuppose some "percentage level of regenerated people" which cannot decrease at any point.


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> That just means that a brief apostasy will follow the lengthy golden age.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is my brotha is that these apostates weren't really Christian in the first place to have a Christianized world now was it....if the supposed emphasis is on the postmil definition of gospel succession to make christians then this apostacy just defeated this purpose and there goes the victorious view of the postmil.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Postmil does not necessitate a 100% conversion of the world. Furthermore, it can easily make sense how there would be tons of prosperity then an apostasy, unless you presuppose some "percentage level of regenerated people" which cannot decrease at any point.
Click to expand...


And this is the continuous backtracking I get from postmil's. First they say there will be a Christianization of the nations then when the apostacy issue is brought up they say "well we don't mean everybody" but if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it.......In order for one to be an apostate one has to first claim to be in the Faith. So again the question is how victorious was the gospel if not ALL his enemies are subjected to the gospel and put under Christ feet? (according to the postmil of course)

This is extremely problematic for the Postmil position. Sure we Amil's believe in an Apostacy in the end but then again we don't go around claiming a Christianized world.


----------



## Mushroom

My limited intellect has mulled these various interpretations over and over, while remembering that even the Apostles had interpreted OT prophesy wrong until the Lord set them straight on the matter Himself. I get dizzy from jumping to one side or the other based on how convincing the latest argument I've read was. So I've come to this conclusion:

That regardless of how you mark the time or order of events of the Revelation, the main point of the book should not be missed, and that is that Jesus be revealed to us. In it I see His majesty, His righteousness, His mercy, His glory, His triumph, His holiness, His beauty, His love, and an innumerable other facets of His glory - whether I have the timeline right or not. And seeing those things, I love Him more and more, and that love assures me that when He comes like a thief in the night, it will not come as a surprise to His own.

Now if your gonna start saying He's already come... then we have a problem.


----------



## Confessor

Roldan said:


> And this is the continuous backtracking I get from postmil's. First they say there will be a Christianization of the nations then when the apostacy issue is brought up they say "well we don't mean everybody" but if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it.......In order for one to be an apostate one has to first claim to be in the Faith. So again the question is how victorious was the gospel if not ALL his enemies are subjected to the gospel and put under Christ feet? (according to the postmil of course)



Your argument ("if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it") can be put in the logical form

(1) If the world is not fully (100%) Christianized, then there is no final apostasy.

Seeing as you grant the antecedent of (1) because you're an amillennarian, and seeing as you posited (1) in the first place, it follows that, to be consistent, you must grant the consequent, that there is no final apostasy. But this would deny clear Scripture in Rev. 20. Therefore your attempted argument against postmil would, if true, be destructive of amil (and both forms of premil) as well.

-----

The fact of the matter is that Christianization and ubiquitous Gospel success does not entail 100% true conversions. Postmillers would never argue for 100% conversion based on the "all" prophecies; but they would claim that those prophecies do indicate more than a mere plucking of .05% of the people from every nation. When prophecies say that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord (I can't remember if that is one, but for argument's sake...), for instance, they mean not 100% conversion, but they do imply massive conversion.


----------



## Archlute

Yes, Brad. I was about to append to my above post that I am an "apathetic amillenialist" regarding most of these discussions. 

While I am convinced by the amil summation of the Scriptures, and while I think that I have seen some silliness (maybe even potentially harmful silliness?) coming from some postmil folk whom I have known, it is still my belief that our main task of proclaiming the Gospel of sins forgiven in Christ and maintaining the obedience of the church to the commands of Christ and His apostles regarding the work of the kingdom can still be accomplished effectively regardless of one's holding of any of the recognizably orthodox eschatological positions.

It's somewhat like a having two guys on a team arguing between themselves about the theory and benefits of future hide site emplacements when the spotter is telling them that they need to pull the trigger right now. First things first!


----------



## Reformed Rush

Brad said:


> My limited intellect has mulled these various interpretations over and over, while remembering that even the Apostles had interpreted OT prophesy wrong until the Lord set them straight on the matter Himself. I get dizzy from jumping to one side or the other based on how convincing the latest argument I've read was. So I've come to this conclusion:
> 
> That regardless of how you mark the time or order of events of the Revelation, the main point of the book should not be missed, and that is that Jesus be revealed to us. In it I see His majesty, His righteousness, His mercy, His glory, His triumph, His holiness, His beauty, His love, and an innumerable other facets of His glory - whether I have the timeline right or not. And seeing those things, I love Him more and more, and that love assures me that when He comes like a thief in the night, it will not come as a surprise to His own.
> 
> Now if your gonna start saying He's already come... then we have a problem.





Brad,

Good post. 

Good thinking.

Good theology.

Good spirit.

Good exhortation.


When one stays properly (biblically) focused on Jesus Christ, and His accomplishments, and His revealed purposes . . . the distracting notions of a supposed "millennium" or "golden age" ("chiliasm") fades into oblivion.

J&R
(Amils, of course)


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Confessor said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. That is the "classic response" of postmillers. How does it follow, then, that the final apostasy is a silver-bullet argument against postmil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no passage in Scripture that treats the Millennium as a "Golden Age." Nor is there any indication that "at the end of the Millennium there will be a Golden Age."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> While I'd disagree with that, I assert that the proposition "Scripture does not anywhere treat the millennium as a golden age" does not entail the proposition "the final apostasy disproves postmillennialism," which is what you originally mentioned. My response was only to the latter proposition; you originally said the final apostasy was a silver bullet against a golden age.
> 
> Otherwise, I am not personally prepared to positively argue for a golden age at the moment.
Click to expand...


Greetings:

You made a fair and good point. Check out these statements by noted Postmills:

Ken Gentry:



> Postmillennialism expects the proclaiming of the Spirit-blessed gospel of Jesus Christ to win the vast majority of human beings to salvation in the present age. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of people and of nations. After an extensive era of such conditions the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and in great glory, ending history with the general resurrection and the great judgment of all humankind


Keith Mathison:



> According to postmillennialism, in the present age the Holy Spirit will draw unprecedented multitudes to Christ through the faithful preaching of the gospel. Among the multitudes who will be converted are the ethnic Israelites who have thus far rejected the Messiah. At the end of the present age, Christ will return, there will be the general resurrection of the just and the unjust, and the final judgment will take place


I would also bring to your attention the "postive" nature of Postmillennialism - which is something that P-mills boast about greatly. To make the "positive" claims that P-mills like to make concerning the end of the world, and then to read about a Great Tribulation prior to the Second Coming is antithetical to what most P-mills teach.

Only when they are pushed concerning the "loosing of Satan" will they admit that there will be a tribulation before Judgment day. So, their "positivism" turns into "negativism" and they become just like the "Pessi-Millennialists" that they ridicule so much.

Grace and Peace,

Rob


----------



## MW

I don't think one may confidently conclude there will be a final apostasy from Rev. 20. If the thousand years is indicative of a complete period of time from the first to the second coming of Christ then it is impossible for an apostasy to follow it; hence the apostasy must be nothing other than a view of the same period of time being considered from a different perspective.


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the continuous backtracking I get from postmil's. First they say there will be a Christianization of the nations then when the apostacy issue is brought up they say "well we don't mean everybody" but if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it.......In order for one to be an apostate one has to first claim to be in the Faith. So again the question is how victorious was the gospel if not ALL his enemies are subjected to the gospel and put under Christ feet? (according to the postmil of course)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument ("if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it") can be put in the logical form
> 
> (1) If the world is not fully (100%) Christianized, then there is no final apostasy.
> 
> Seeing as you grant the antecedent of (1) because you're an amillennarian, and seeing as you posited (1) in the first place, it follows that, to be consistent, you must grant the consequent, that there is no final apostasy. But this would deny clear Scripture in Rev. 20. Therefore your attempted argument against postmil would, if true, be destructive of amil (and both forms of premil) as well.
> 
> -----
> 
> The fact of the matter is that Christianization and ubiquitous Gospel success does not entail 100% true conversions. Postmillers would never argue for 100% conversion based on the "all" prophecies; but they would claim that those prophecies do indicate more than a mere plucking of .05% of the people from every nation. When prophecies say that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord (I can't remember if that is one, but for argument's sake...), for instance, they mean not 100% conversion, but they do imply massive conversion.
Click to expand...


I like your style....no really I do......but nice try, you totally missed my point, will try again in a minute


----------



## Confessor

Roldan said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is the continuous backtracking I get from postmil's. First they say there will be a Christianization of the nations then when the apostacy issue is brought up they say "well we don't mean everybody" but if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it.......In order for one to be an apostate one has to first claim to be in the Faith. So again the question is how victorious was the gospel if not ALL his enemies are subjected to the gospel and put under Christ feet? (according to the postmil of course)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument ("if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it") can be put in the logical form
> 
> (1) If the world is not fully (100%) Christianized, then there is no final apostasy.
> 
> Seeing as you grant the antecedent of (1) because you're an amillennarian, and seeing as you posited (1) in the first place, it follows that, to be consistent, you must grant the consequent, that there is no final apostasy. But this would deny clear Scripture in Rev. 20. Therefore your attempted argument against postmil would, if true, be destructive of amil (and both forms of premil) as well.
> 
> -----
> 
> The fact of the matter is that Christianization and ubiquitous Gospel success does not entail 100% true conversions. Postmillers would never argue for 100% conversion based on the "all" prophecies; but they would claim that those prophecies do indicate more than a mere plucking of .05% of the people from every nation. When prophecies say that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord (I can't remember if that is one, but for argument's sake...), for instance, they mean not 100% conversion, but they do imply massive conversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like your style....no really I do......but nice try, you totally missed my point, will try again in a minute
Click to expand...


What do you mean "will try again in a minute"? Do you mean you're going to restate your argument that I apparently missed, or do you mean you're going to check back in to see if I "got it right"?


----------



## toddpedlar

XBlackWaterX said:


> All of them. And my personal faviorte. TBN. Trinity BroadCasting Network...ahhh..that's the best one out there.



Anyone else think it's absolutely gut-busting funny that the *Trinity* Broadcasting Network has Oneness Pentecostals like TD Jakes among their most popular programs?


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> I don't think one may confidently conclude there will be a final apostasy from Rev. 20. If the thousand years is indicative of a complete period of time from the first to the second coming of Christ then it is impossible for an apostasy to follow it; hence the apostasy must be nothing other than a view of the same period of time being considered from a different perspective.



Rev. Winzer:

Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?

If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.

Or do you believe the Postmil view that depends upon a literal apostasy?

???




J&R


----------



## MW

Reformed Rushs said:


> Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?
> 
> If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.



Yes, the apostasy is taking place concurrently with the thousand years reign with Christ. In other words,, during the whole of the interadventual period we have two scenes. There is the view of the nations being undeceived and souls triumphing in the presence of Christ where thrones are being set for judgment, and there is the view of Satan stirring up the nations and preparing for a final battle in which it is hoped that the reign of Christ will be overthrown. Both scenes terminate in the final day of judgment before the great white throne.


----------



## Confessor

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?
> 
> If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the apostasy is taking place concurrently with the thousand years reign with Christ. In other words,, during the whole of the interadventual period we have two scenes. There is the view of the nations being undeceived and souls triumphing in the presence of Christ where thrones are being set for judgment, and there is the view of Satan stirring up the nations and preparing for a final battle in which it is hoped that the reign of Christ will be overthrown. Both scenes terminate in the final day of judgment before the great white throne.
Click to expand...


Is that Warfield's view of the apostasy? I heard that he argued Scripturally against a final apostasy right before Christ's return.


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument ("if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it") can be put in the logical form
> 
> (1) If the world is not fully (100%) Christianized, then there is no final apostasy.
> 
> Seeing as you grant the antecedent of (1) because you're an amillennarian, and seeing as you posited (1) in the first place, it follows that, to be consistent, you must grant the consequent, that there is no final apostasy. But this would deny clear Scripture in Rev. 20. Therefore your attempted argument against postmil would, if true, be destructive of amil (and both forms of premil) as well.
> 
> -----
> 
> The fact of the matter is that Christianization and ubiquitous Gospel success does not entail 100% true conversions. Postmillers would never argue for 100% conversion based on the "all" prophecies; but they would claim that those prophecies do indicate more than a mere plucking of .05% of the people from every nation. When prophecies say that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord (I can't remember if that is one, but for argument's sake...), for instance, they mean not 100% conversion, but they do imply massive conversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like your style....no really I do......but nice try, you totally missed my point, will try again in a minute
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean "will try again in a minute"? Do you mean you're going to restate your argument that I apparently missed, or do you mean you're going to check back in to see if I "got it right"?
Click to expand...


Oh my bad..lol....I didn't mean to sound insulting...what I meant was I was going to restate the argument..


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?
> 
> If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the apostasy is taking place concurrently with the thousand years reign with Christ. In other words,, during the whole of the interadventual period we have two scenes. There is the view of the nations being undeceived and souls triumphing in the presence of Christ where thrones are being set for judgment, and there is the view of Satan stirring up the nations and preparing for a final battle in which it is hoped that the reign of Christ will be overthrown. Both scenes terminate in the final day of judgment before the great white throne.
Click to expand...


 

J&R


----------



## MW

Confessor said:


> Is that Warfield's view of the apostasy? I heard that he argued Scripturally against a final apostasy right before Christ's return.



Yes; in his article on the millennium he wrote:



> It is a description in the form of a narrative: the element of time and chronological succession belongs to the symbol, not to the thing symbolized. The "binding of Satan" is, therefore, in reality, not for a season, but with reference to a sphere; and his "loosing" again is not after a period but in another sphere: it is not subsequence but exteriority that is suggested.



This view places Warfield amongst amillennial interpreters.


----------



## jogri17

As my Dispensational homedog Johny Mac said ''What is a postmillenialist other than an optimistic amillenialist?''


----------



## CNJ

*Which view adds the most to Scripure?*



Brad said:


> That regardless of how you mark the time or order of events of the Revelation, the main point of the book should not be missed, and that is that Jesus be revealed to us. In it I see His majesty, His righteousness, His mercy, His glory, His triumph, His holiness, His beauty, His love, and an innumerable other facets of His glory - whether I have the timeline right or not. And seeing those things, I love Him more and more, and that love assures me that when He comes like a thief in the night, it will not come as a surprise to His own.



The study of Revelation and all of Scripture promises a blessing. In the midst of studying Revelation and all the speculation, I appreciate Senior PB member Brad's quote above.  I am not even turned off by his LaHaye/Jenkins/Lindsey loaded phrase _*thief in the night*_, 

because. . .

that phrase is in Scripture. 

 My big consideration in deciding Post or Amil is which view is really adding to Scripture. For example, a _*rapture*_ adds to Scripture in my opinion. Care to coment, Curt, R. Harris, Roldan or anyone?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

armourbearer said:


> I don't think one may confidently conclude there will be a final apostasy from Rev. 20. If the thousand years is indicative of a complete period of time from the first to the second coming of Christ then it is impossible for an apostasy to follow it; hence the apostasy must be nothing other than a view of the same period of time being considered from a different perspective.



Hello Pastor!

This will have to be one of the very few occasions where I find that I disagree with you on a matter. It seems very clear to me from the Scriptures that there will be a Great Tribulation of the Saints just prior to the Second Coming of Christ. The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.

The whole delineation of the Millennium can be found as occuring between the "binding" and "loosing" of Satan.

To those others who like to remain "Christ centered" in their approach to Revelation, and deny any eschatological discussion, then I think you are creating a false dichotomy between the two. One can be Christ centered *and* eschatological at the same time. Because, after all, the great summation of all of Biblical eschatology is the judgment that Christ will render on the Last Day.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## T.U.L.I.P. TYLER

ok so i have leaned towards postmill for a while, but the only thing i can not understand is how does Matthew 7 fit in the picture of the postmill view where we read that narrow is the road and few find it and wide is the road to hell and many people are on that. Not only this passage but it seems through scripture an ideology that many are called but few are chosen.


----------



## Peairtach

Neither amils nor premils believe the gospel will triumph in history, that good will overcome evil in history.


----------



## Confessor

Richard Tallach said:


> Neither amils nor premils believe the gospel will triumph in history, that good will overcome evil in history.



In their defense, they will say that the God will save everyone He wants to save and therefore good will be victorious, but that sense of victory is nearly tautological.

Non-postmil in my opinion tends to downplay the importance of reform in culture, law, ethics, art, etc. -- rather than just winning souls.

Remember that the doctrine of predestination -- and thereby God's guarantee of success -- is what prompted fervent evangelism at the time of the Reformation. Likewise, postmil, God's guarantee of success in non-evangelism, is what prompts people to fervently take every aspect of the world under Christ's dominion.


----------



## Peairtach

Iain Murray's "The Puritan Hope" argues that postmil thinking was also involved in kick-starting world missions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The amils believe that good and evil will grow equally together and then there wil be a stand-off and evil will take-over from good. What will stop this ascendency of evil will not be the Gospel but the Second Advent of Christ.

Premils seem to believe that things are going to get worse and worse until the Second Advent.

Only postmils believe that what Christ put in place at His First Advent will overcome evil and triumph in this world. That is, Christ coming by His Spirit, God's Word, the Church and Christ's providential mediatorial reign. The postmils believe that Christ will defeat evil by these means and then defeat it again by His Second Advent when it breaks out again after the Golden/Silver Age. This final outbreak will prove once again the incorrigibility of Satan and his angelic and human minions and the necessity of divine grace.

Premils and amils have no triumph for the Gospel on a worldwide scale but only on an individual scale.

At an individual eschatalogical level we do not find that evil and good are meant to grow alongside each other in the saint's heart, but that there is meant to be progressive but imperfect victory over evil until the individual is more and more sanctified. Sanctification is uneven and there can be set backs, but the overall trend is upwards and onwards. 

This I believe is also the pattern in the collective realms of Church history and the progress of the Kingdom and Millennium until all the world is leavened by the Gospel.


----------



## Mushroom

> I am not even turned off by his LaHaye/Jenkins/Lindsey loaded phrase thief in the night,
> 
> because. . .
> 
> that phrase is in Scripture.


No LaHaye/Jenkins/Lindsey influence in my thinking, sis, just scripture. In fact, my leaning is to post-mil esch., although I do have some trouble spots.

But regarding dichotomies, I see none, my point was that no matter how precise we think we are, we still do not know *some* things, and I'm sure we'll all find a *few* things didn't happen exactly as we thought they would. But we can see nothing of value in any of it if we don't see Christ first. Once I get past all the wonders I see in Him in that book, then I'll get to work on a timeline... Oops... Oh wait!..*That'll* never happen! So I guess I get to leave these very important debates to those so inclined to engage in them, and say with David - Psa 27:4 One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple. 

I jus' ain't sharp enuff to go beyond all that.


----------



## OPC'n

Curt said:


> ...of Postmillenialism.
> 
> (Or was I predestined not to accept this view?)



Not me! Amill is the only way to go!


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

TranZ4MR said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...of Postmillenialism.
> 
> (Or was I predestined not to accept this view?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me! Amill is the only way to go!
Click to expand...



Well, you haven't studied it with me yet, so don't be so set in your ways.


----------



## OPC'n

Beth Ellen Nagle said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...of Postmillenialism.
> 
> (Or was I predestined not to accept this view?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me! Amill is the only way to go!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you haven't studied it with me yet, so don't be so set in your ways.
Click to expand...


 I'm old so I'm just naturally set in my ways...thankfully it happened that I got set in my ways in the right doctrine! . Maybe our book will be the one I start to read next. It's been soooooooo long since I've studied doctrine and it's about time I get back to it!


----------



## Beth Ellen Nagle

TranZ4MR said:


> Beth Ellen Nagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not me! Amill is the only way to go!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you haven't studied it with me yet, so don't be so set in your ways.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm old so I'm just naturally set in my ways...thankfully it happened that I got set in my ways in the right doctrine! . Maybe our book will be the one I start to read next. It's been soooooooo long since I've studied doctrine and it's about time I get back to it!
Click to expand...



Heh heh...no, you are not old..just stubborn.  Don't put that book first as I am sure there might be more profitable things to read for you right now. xo


----------



## Roldan

Richard Tallach said:


> Neither amils nor premils believe the gospel will triumph in history, that good will overcome evil in history.





-----Added 6/12/2009 at 07:00:15 EST-----



Confessor said:


> Non-postmil in my opinion tends to downplay the importance of reform in culture, law, ethics, art, etc. -- rather than just winning souls.
> 
> Remember that the doctrine of predestination -- and thereby God's guarantee of success -- is what prompted fervent evangelism at the time of the Reformation. Likewise, postmil, God's guarantee of success in non-evangelism, is what prompts people to fervently take every aspect of the world under Christ's dominion.



Not really brother...I am Amil and so is most of my friends and we are all involved in culture, arts, ethics, and very active in evangelism....this is a forced assumption on the postmil part, or your opinion anyways.


----------



## MW

CalvinandHodges said:


> The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.



"6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison."

It is clear as crystal that the intermediate state is the point of reference of the thousand year reign with Christ. A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Richard Tallach said:


> Premils and amils have no triumph for the Gospel on a worldwide scale but only on an individual scale.



So individual salvation does not bring glory to God?

This statement is an attempt to present an erroneous misrepresentation of both the PreMil view as well as the Amill view.

Premils assume a gospel triumph for individual Gentiles, but ultimately and also for the nation of Israel as a whole, which supposed national salvation is an incorrect view. 

Amills teach the triumph of elect individuals, resurrected from death to life, by the workings of grace and power in and through the Savior, Jesus Christ, alone.

In other words,'s, you are incorrect in thinking that God ever intended or decreed or provided a salvation that would be "worldwide" or "national" or "universal" in any way, shape, or form.

There is NO biblical precedent for teaching that God has ever chosen to save an entire nation; an entire religious organisation, or even an entire family.

NONE.

God has always chosen to save_ a remnant_ of souls; _gathered out of all _nations, churches, and families. This cannot be denied or rebutted or argued, by employing the Word of God, at all.



> At an individual eschatalogical level we do not find that evil and good are meant to grow alongside each other in the saint's heart,



Of course not. This is a strawman fallacy, proposed to denigrate the Amillennial view. 

Amills distinguish between the regenerated hearts of the elect sons of God, and the unregenerate wickedness of the world at large.  It is the Amill view that best provides teachings (and Creeds) that establish an anti-thesis between the Church of Jesus Christ and the world systems.





> but that there is meant to be progressive but imperfect victory over evil until the individual is more and more sanctified. Sanctification is uneven and there can be set backs, but the overall trend is upwards and onwards.



Victory over sin is not found in any kind of "progressive sanctification," but only through genuine faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ. 



> This I believe is also the pattern in the collective realms of Church history and the progress of the Kingdom and Millennium until all the world is leavened by the Gospel.



Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel."

That is not the purpose of the gospel message.

The gospel is not political or worldly, meant to save or even improve all of mankind. The gospel is strictly the calling of God, of His Elect, to come out of the world.

The "leavening" thereby achieved, is worked within individual hearts . . . not society at large . . . even though society is preserved like a meat that will go sour, if not exposed and sprinkled by the spiritual presence and "salt" of God's particular people. (Matthew 5:13)


----------



## Spinningplates2

Roldan said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> his is very frustrating including the whole so called "optimistic amil" as if we believed in a defeated foe....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in a defeated foe? I'm not sure what you are saying. Sorry, I have read the whole post a few times but this last part does not fit in to me.
Click to expand...


----------



## Theognome

Curt said:


> OK, convince me...
> 
> ...of Postmillenialism.



No one has asked the obvious question- Why do you need to be convinced? Eschatology is an effect of other doctrines, not a cause of them. If someone finds themselves at odds with other folk on an eschatalogical issue, the real question is- where does one differ on more basic and thus more important doctrines?

Theognome


----------



## Reformed Rush

Theognome said:


> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, convince me...
> 
> ...of Postmillenialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has asked the obvious question- Why do you need to be convinced? Eschatology is an effect of other doctrines, not a cause of them. If someone finds themselves at odds with other folk on an eschatalogical issue, the real question is- where does one differ on more basic and thus more important doctrines?
> 
> Theognome
Click to expand...


Indeed. Good point.

Eschatology is differentiated from soteriology, but to hold to a sound and correct eschatology, one must hold to a sound and correct soteriology, for only from sound soteriology is sound eschatolgy developed and understood.

In our opinion, the two cannot be divided or separated.


----------



## Theognome

Reformed Rushs said:


> Theognome said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Curt said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, convince me...
> 
> ...of Postmillenialism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one has asked the obvious question- Why do you need to be convinced? Eschatology is an effect of other doctrines, not a cause of them. If someone finds themselves at odds with other folk on an eschatalogical issue, the real question is- where does one differ on more basic and thus more important doctrines?
> 
> Theognome
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Indeed. Good point.
> 
> Eschatology is differentiated from soteriology, but to hold to a sound and correct eschatology, one must hold to a sound and correct soteriology, for only from sound soteriology is sound eschatolgy developed and understood.
> 
> In our opinion, the two cannot be divided or separated.
Click to expand...


They cannot be separated, and indeed one is the derivative of the other. A sound Soteriology will breed a sound eschatology regardless of form. A flawed view of salvation will reveal aberrant end times positions.

Theognome


----------



## R Harris

Reformed Rushs said:


> Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel."
> 
> That is not the purpose of the gospel message.
> 
> The gospel is not political or worldly, meant to save or even improve all of mankind. The gospel is strictly the calling of God, of His Elect, to come out of the world.
> 
> The "leavening" thereby achieved, is worked within individual hearts . . . not society at large . . . even though society is preserved like a meat that will go sour, if not exposed and sprinkled by the spiritual presence and "salt" of God's particular people. (Matthew 5:13)



Have you ever heard of the term "worldview"?

The Christian is to look at everything - politics, education, the arts, sciences, business, finance - through a biblical lense. Why? Because Jesus is Lord over _everything_ - not just private, personal lives and small group Bible studies. Kings and judges of the earth are clearly commanded to publicly acknowledge the Lordship of Christ in not only their personal lives but also in their public professions. The Scripture is crystal clear on this point.

Numerous threads have been created with many posts demonstrating the above statement, there is no time to recite all of them. It would do you well to research them.


----------



## Peairtach

Reformed Rushs said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> Premils and amils have no triumph for the Gospel on a worldwide scale but only on an individual scale.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So individual salvation does not bring glory to God?
> 
> This statement is an attempt to present an erroneous misrepresentation of both the PreMil view as well as the Amill view.
> 
> Premils assume a gospel triumph for individual Gentiles, but ultimately and also for the nation of Israel as a whole, which supposed national salvation is an incorrect view.
> 
> Amills teach the triumph of elect individuals, resurrected from death to life, by the workings of grace and power in and through the Savior, Jesus Christ, alone.
> 
> In other words,'s, you are incorrect in thinking that God ever intended or decreed or provided a salvation that would be "worldwide" or "national" or "universal" in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> There is NO biblical precedent for teaching that God has ever chosen to save an entire nation; an entire religious organisation, or even an entire family.
> 
> NONE.
> 
> God has always chosen to save_ a remnant_ of souls; _gathered out of all _nations, churches, and families. This cannot be denied or rebutted or argued, by employing the Word of God, at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At an individual eschatalogical level we do not find that evil and good are meant to grow alongside each other in the saint's heart,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not. This is a strawman fallacy, proposed to denigrate the Amillennial view.
> 
> Amills distinguish between the regenerated hearts of the elect sons of God, and the unregenerate wickedness of the world at large.  It is the Amill view that best provides teachings (and Creeds) that establish an anti-thesis between the Church of Jesus Christ and the world systems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but that there is meant to be progressive but imperfect victory over evil until the individual is more and more sanctified. Sanctification is uneven and there can be set backs, but the overall trend is upwards and onwards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Victory over sin is not found in any kind of "progressive sanctification," but only through genuine faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This I believe is also the pattern in the collective realms of Church history and the progress of the Kingdom and Millennium until all the world is leavened by the Gospel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel."
> 
> That is not the purpose of the gospel message.
> 
> The gospel is not political or worldly, meant to save or even improve all of mankind. The gospel is strictly the calling of God, of His Elect, to come out of the world.
> 
> The "leavening" thereby achieved, is worked within individual hearts . . . not society at large . . . even though society is preserved like a meat that will go sour, if not exposed and sprinkled by the spiritual presence and "salt" of God's particular people. (Matthew 5:13)
Click to expand...


Of course each soul is saved individually, but surely if more souls are saved and put into practice God's Word there will be greater salt and light in the world thus helping to transform society. Surely the more people that are saved, the more the beneficial effects on the world at large, as well as the fact that it will be beneficial for the saved individuals concerned in the life to come. Unless you believe that it is not beneficial or even detrimental for this world if large(r) numbers of individuals get saved?

*Quote from Reformed Rush*
_Victory over sin is not found in any kind of "progressive sanctification," but only through genuine faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ._

I don't know what you mean by this. We are justified by faith alone in Christ's righteousness and death. But are we not also to make (imperfect) progress in sanctification from the moment of regeneration until perfection/glorification in Heaven? 

*Quote from Reformed Rush*
_Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel._

The created world is good; the world that lieth in the wicked one (i.e. unbelievers) needs to be converted. The more unbelievers that are converted and put into practice God's Word, the more the leaven of the Gospel has its beneficial effect, the more Christ's kngdom comes _de facto_, although the whole earth is already Christ's _de iure_; and the less of the world will be under the control of those who lie in the wicked one.

God in Christ is able to do it by the Holy Spirit. The only Q is, Are there any indications in Scripture that He has promised to do it?


----------



## Roldan

Spinningplates2 said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> his is very frustrating including the whole so called "optimistic amil" as if we believed in a defeated foe....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in a defeated foe? I'm not sure what you are saying. Sorry, I have read the whole post a few times but this last part does not fit in to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In reference to the Church being a defeated foe.....forced into our system by Postmil assumptions.
Click to expand...


----------



## Spinningplates2

Roldan said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you believe in a defeated foe? I'm not sure what you are saying. Sorry, I have read the whole post a few times but this last part does not fit in to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to the Church being a defeated foe.....forced into our system by Postmil assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PLEASE clear this up. Do you think, are you saying, the Church is defeated? What system is being forced? Give me a few sentences here please, because I can't believe that anyone can read scripture and think that the Bride of Christ has been Blessed and the greatest force for good in the world. The Bride/Church is never portrayed as failing. If so please give me some verses.
Click to expand...


----------



## Confessor

I think his general defense is that God will save everyone He wants to save and therefore the Gospel will indeed conquer the enemy perfectly. In other words, he doesn't believe saving more people entails greater Gospel success.


----------



## Roldan

Spinningplates2 said:


> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In reference to the Church being a defeated foe.....forced into our system by Postmil assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PLEASE clear this up. Do you think, are you saying, the Church is defeated? What system is being forced? Give me a few sentences here please, because I can't believe that anyone can read scripture and think that the Bride of Christ has been Blessed and the greatest force for good in the world. The Bride/Church is never portrayed as failing. If so please give me some verses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly...AMEN
> 
> My point is that the Church is and always be victorious in the Amil view despite the assumptions forced into our position by the postmil.
> 
> Some thoughts from one of my older posts.....
> 
> I think we must define what in da world does "gospel success" means. I hear that thrown around alot as if any reformed would actually believe that the gospel will not do its job as intended by our God, it just seems so weird to me.
> 
> But the problem as far as I see it is that the postmil would say that gospel succession can only mean a christianization of all nations ushering in the golden age but the amil will say that gospel succession means that it will save God's elect who are in all nations but not that it will christianize entire nations or most of the nation so then the postmil will accuse the amil of pessimism because they don't have a million kabillion trillion or watever people getting saved hence God loses cause there are more people in hell than heaven, thats silly to be quite frank. If being optimistic means to believe that the gospel will do its job, then for heavens sake we are all optimistic, don't you think.
> 
> Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. TRUE. But this will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means "completion;perfect" 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7).
> 
> And again....Understanding Gospel succession does not necessitate a postmil definition
> 
> And please refer to post #31 on this thread for more of my arguments..
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/634123-post31.html
Click to expand...


----------



## CalvinandHodges

armourbearer said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
> 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison."
> 
> It is clear as crystal that the intermediate state is the point of reference of the thousand year reign with Christ. A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible.
Click to expand...


Greetings Brother!

Interesting take, but I fail to see why "A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible" since the very next passage you quote says that the thousand years will be expired.

I would suggest that either the thosand years does not represent the intermediate state, or, the intermediate state does expire prior to Judgment Day.

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## Confessor

CalvinandHodges said:


> I would suggest that either the thosand years does not represent the intermediate state, or, the intermediate state does expire prior to Judgment Day.



The second option is impossible by definition.


----------



## Mushroom

> 2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
> 2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.


How does this fit into a post-mil paradigm? How will these things happen in the 1000 year reign?


----------



## Confessor

The fact that there will be suffering and loss does not imply that Christ will not be victorious on Earth. There were many casualties in World War II, but the Allies won out.


----------



## Reformed Rush

What is the "victory" men seek?

Political, religious, or spiritual?

Victory is described in Scripture, as:

"'. . .Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O, death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?'

The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law, but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." I Corinthians 15:54-55

It is our opinion that those in the Pre-Mil and Post-Mil camps are primarily looking for a societal and religious, political victory, rather than the ultimate spiritual victory over sin and death, already achieved by the Lord Jesus Christ and presently enjoyed by the citizens of His kingdom. (Philippians 3:20)


----------



## Confessor

Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Confessor said:


> Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.



Is "saving society" then your definition of a total victory?

Is the choice to attempt to save society, even really our choice? . . .Who exactly is sovereign over the nations, after all?

And for what purpose did Jesus Christ usher in His kingdom?


----------



## Confessor

Reformed Rushs said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is "saving society" then your definition of a total victory?
> 
> Is the choice to attempt to save society, even really our choice? . . .Who exactly is sovereign over the nations, after all?
> 
> And for what purpose did Jesus Christ usher in His kingdom?
Click to expand...


No, but it would be part of it. I would want to leave nothing to the kingdom of darkness.

Is the choice to attempt to save souls even really our choice? Who is sovereign over souls? 

Jesus Christ ushered in His kingdom to save His elect and have every one of His enemies be a footstool.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Confessor said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is "saving society" then your definition of a total victory?
> 
> Is the choice to attempt to save society, even really our choice? . . .Who exactly is sovereign over the nations, after all?
> 
> And for what purpose did Jesus Christ usher in His kingdom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, but it would be part of it. I would want to leave nothing to the kingdom of darkness.
Click to expand...


With all due respect, it is at points like this that one sees how eschatology reflects one's soteriology.

Who has destroyed the powers of the devil, and who will eliminate all wickedness, sorrow, and darkness?

The earthly churches? The believers?

How? By what power?





> Jesus Christ ushered in His kingdom to save His elect and have every one of His enemies be a footstool.



Amen.

The victory is HIS, and His alone.

Solus Christus!


----------



## Confessor

Reformed Rushs said:


> With all due respect, it is at points like this that one sees how eschatology reflects one's soteriology.
> 
> Who has destroyed the powers of the devil, and who will eliminate all wickedness, sorrow, and darkness?
> 
> The earthly churches? The believers?
> 
> How? By what power?



I am not arguing for a humanistic utopia, but for a Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit. I wasn't implying that *I* was the one doing the Christianizing.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Confessor said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, it is at points like this that one sees how eschatology reflects one's soteriology.
> 
> Who has destroyed the powers of the devil, and who will eliminate all wickedness, sorrow, and darkness?
> 
> The earthly churches? The believers?
> 
> How? By what power?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not arguing for a humanistic utopia, but for a Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit. I wasn't implying that *I* was the one doing the Christianizing.
Click to expand...



"A Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit."

Where is such a thing taught in Scriptures? Where is the kingdom of heaven ever described as such?

Is not the commission of the Holy Spirit to convince and convict the sons of God to turn away from the things of this world? (John 8:8-11; I John 2:15-17)


----------



## Confessor

Reformed Rushs said:


> "A Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit."
> 
> Where is such a thing taught in Scriptures? Where is the kingdom of heaven ever described as such?
> 
> Is not the commission of the Holy Spirit to convince and convict the sons of God to turn away from the things of this world? (John 8:8-11; I John 2:15-17)





You brought up a critique of postmil essentially saying that postmillers are choosing politics over saving souls, and I argued that it's a false dichotomy. I answered the point you initially brought up.

At this point, therefore, to argue for postmil exhaustively would be a red herring, so I'll defer to someone else who is willing.


----------



## Turtle

armourbearer said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
> 7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison."
> 
> It is clear as crystal that the intermediate state is the point of reference of the thousand year reign with Christ. A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible.
Click to expand...


Paul spoke of reigning as kings and judging in 1 Corinthians. In the first six chapters he is addressing the ones who have become puffed up against each other, judging him against Apollos, Cephas, and Chirst. Paul says it is a "very small thing that I should be judged of you" (and doesn't even judge himself) but takes defense in that it is the Lord who judges him. He cautions his readers, "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come..". 

Paul continues his caution to them with some satire saying, "Now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us.." (which of course is not the present truth, though he wishes they did reign) "I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." His readers are supposed to know what manner of judging they should participate in now, in view of the judging they will do once Christ comes. "Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world?"... and "that we shall judge angels?" 

The anticipated reigning and judging of which Paul speaks does not seem to occur in the intermediate state. Is this a distinct explanation of reigning and judging apart from the intermediate state?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.


----------



## Confessor

I was under the impression that we "ruled over angels" etc. when we received our resurrection bodies.


----------



## YXU

CalvinandHodges said:


> Greetings:
> 
> The silver bullet that kills the "Golden Age" theory is found in the very verses that teach the Millennium:
> 
> *(20:3)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 .. (v.7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the eath, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.*
> 
> If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob



The 1000 years reign is the golden age, and it is prior to Christ' return. The rebel after it is just but a little season.


----------



## Reformed Rush

Confessor said:


> I was under the impression that we "ruled over angels" etc. when we received our resurrection bodies.



So? . . . 

When is that?

What is your theological point?

How does this statement fit the subject of this thread?


----------



## Spinningplates2

Roldan said:


> Spinningplates2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Roldan said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. *TRUE. But this will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means "completion;perfect" 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7).
> 
> And again....Understanding Gospel succession does not necessitate a postmil definition
> 
> And please refer to post #31 on this thread for more of my arguments..
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/634123-post31.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Postmillennialism does not accept a struggle between Christ and Satan. Neither do the Amil's that I know; if Christ wished He could kill Satan with a word this very second. We Postmil's only see the Words and parables of Christ teaching the victory of the gospel.
> 
> CONFESSOR, if you want to be convinced of the Bible teaching of the Postmil view simply read your Bible in a new way. Do you remember or have you ever heard someone talk about the first time the read the Bible after they had been taught about Calvinism and Grace? Then they re-read the Bible and see God's Election in every chapter. It is the same for the Victory of Christ we believe in; we see it in the Bible everywhere, Old and New testaments, nothing can stop Christ Kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Confessor

Reformed Rushs said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was under the impression that we "ruled over angels" etc. when we received our resurrection bodies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So? . . .
> 
> When is that?
> 
> What is your theological point?
> 
> How does this statement fit the subject of this thread?
Click to expand...


I was answering a question immediately before my post.

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 12:04:51 EST-----



Spinningplates2 said:


> CONFESSOR, if you want to be convinced of the Bible teaching of the Postmil view simply read your Bible in a new way. Do you remember or have you ever heard someone talk about the first time the read the Bible after they had been taught about Calvinism and Grace? Then they re-read the Bible and see God's Election in every chapter. It is the same for the Victory of Christ we believe in; we see it in the Bible everywhere, Old and New testaments, nothing can stop Christ Kingdom.



I already am postmil.  But thank you for that advice nonetheless. I enjoyed reading over the parable of the mustard seed with postmil in mind today.


----------



## Roldan

Spinningplates2 said:


> CONFESSOR, if you want to be convinced of the Bible teaching of the Postmil view simply read your Bible in a new way. Do you remember or have you ever heard someone talk about the first time the read the Bible after they had been taught about Calvinism and Grace? Then they re-read the Bible and see God's Election in every chapter. It is the same for the Victory of Christ we believe in; we see it in the Bible everywhere, Old and New testaments, nothing can stop Christ Kingdom.



Exactly what I have been saying, reading victory passages with postmil lenses and forcing a postmil interpretation into the text......again I refer you to my previous posts. Any refutes are welcomed


----------



## Confessor

If you saw what other "lens" he compared the postmil lens to, there's _no way_ that's "exactly what you were saying."


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> If you saw what other "lens" he compared the postmil lens to, there's _no way_ that's "exactly what you were saying."



?


----------



## Confessor

He wasn't talking about eisegesis, but about understanding the framework of Scripture. Just as we can very easily see God's unconditional election in tons of passages when reading it through that lens (though not imposing that on the text), so also we can see plenary earthly victory for Christ when we read with that lens.


----------



## Peairtach

To throw something in at this point from the Book of Revelation itself.

The binding of Satan in Revelation 20 seems to have a distinct progressive flavour to it which would tie in well with the postmil position but not the amil, and would explain why the world is still not as it should be even though Satan's binding by the Gospel started in the first century (Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11: 21-22).

The angel from heaven with the great chain - often identified with Christ with the Gospel

laid hold on Satan

bound him one thousand years

cast him into the bottomless pit

shut him up

set a seal on him

Does this process of dealing with Satan correspond to the mystical three and a half years of conflict - expressed in different ways, e.g. 1,260 days - with the two Beasts and Babylon, before the final conquest of the nations (Armageddon) by the Gospel in Revelation 19.

If so, as Patrick Fairbairn points out, the period in which we may still be living while Satan is in the process of being shut up is relatively short - half a week of years - compared to the period of Christ's millennial reign over the earth, 1,000 years.

What are the various preterist, historicist and idealist interpretations of the mystical three and a half years in Revelation, which seems to tie in with the final half week of years of Daniel 9? When does it start and end, should it be taken literally or symbolically? I would have thought symbolically to be consistent with taking the 1,000 years symbolically. 

I'll make this a separate thread.


----------



## Turtle

Confessor said:


> I was under the impression that we "ruled over angels" etc. when we received our resurrection bodies.



Your statement sorta touches on the question but stops short of a yes or no answer or explanation to the question. Perhaps the genesis of my question was not apparent. 

There seems to be a textual conflict with regard to the saints reigning and ruling. It was proposed that John's observation of saints reigning and judging (in Rev 20) is to be understood as occurring during the intermediate state (or in view of the whole thread, perhaps during the interadvental period). In either case, a comparison to the reigning and judging spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians seems at odds with that proposition. Paul directs the Corinthians, "judge nothing before the time, before the Lord come" (4:5) and satirically rebukes them for acting as if they were already kings before the time (4:8). In view of the fact that they should know they will judge the world, and even angles (6:2,3) at an anticipated time, then they should now be more than capable to settle petty disputes among believers (6:1).

Since it appears that Paul admonishes the Corinthians for judging or acting as kings before the Lord comes, then how do we resolve the text in Rev 20 if it speaks of saints reigning and judging in the intermediate state or interadvental period?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.


----------



## MW

Turtle said:


> The anticipated reigning and judging of which Paul speaks does not seem to occur in the intermediate state. Is this a distinct explanation of reigning and judging apart from the intermediate state?



The saints reign with Christ now (Eph. 2:6), and yet what they shall be is not yet visible (1 John 3:2). At death the souls of believers immediately pass into glory and hence reign with Christ in a personal sense, but it will not be until the resurrection that this reign assumes a visible form for all the world to see.


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> Turtle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The anticipated reigning and judging of which Paul speaks does not seem to occur in the intermediate state. Is this a distinct explanation of reigning and judging apart from the intermediate state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The saints reign with Christ now (Eph. 2:6), and yet what they shall be is not yet visible (1 John 3:2). At death the souls of believers immediately pass into glory and hence reign with Christ in a personal sense, but it will not be until the resurrection that this reign assumes a visible form for all the world to see.
Click to expand...


We believe the reign of the church (intermediate state) was established in the event recorded in Matthew 16:19; when the "keys of the kingdom" (gospel authority) were given to Peter; representing a general commission to all believers in Christ; whose preachings of Scriptures until the return of Christ, will act as a two-edged sword of judgment to all who hear.

(As we all know, the RCC has perverted this Scripture badly.)

Would our understanding be correct in your view?


----------



## CalvinandHodges

Confessor said:


> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that either the thosand years does not represent the intermediate state, or, the intermediate state does expire prior to Judgment Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second option is impossible by definition.
Click to expand...


Greetings:

Only on how you define the "intermediate state."

Blessings,

Rob


----------



## MW

Reformed Rushs said:


> We believe the reign of the church (intermediate state) was established in the event recorded in Matthew 16:19;



The intermediate state usually refers to the condition of the individual after death but before the resurrection. Shorter Catechism answer 37 provides a clear statement as to the believer's intermediate state. Matt. 16 certainly indicates that the NT church was established on the confession of the true Christ. There the promise is made that the gates of hell (the grave) should not prevail against the church. Hence one might safely affirm that the promise takes in the intermediate state, but I would not go as far as saying that the reign of the church is to be equated with it. The keys of the kingdom are utilised in this present life; but in the intermediate state each one goes to their own place.


----------



## Reformed Rush

armourbearer said:


> Reformed Rushs said:
> 
> 
> 
> We believe the reign of the church (intermediate state) was established in the event recorded in Matthew 16:19;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The intermediate state usually refers to the condition of the individual after death but before the resurrection. Shorter Catechism answer 37 provides a clear statement as to the believer's intermediate state.
Click to expand...


Understood.



> Matt. 16 certainly indicates that the NT church was established on the confession of the true Christ. There the promise is made that the gates of hell (the grave) should not prevail against the church.



Agreed.




> Hence one might safely affirm that the promise takes in the intermediate state, but I would not go as far as saying that the reign of the church is to be equated with it. The keys of the kingdom are utilised in this present life; but in the intermediate state each one goes to their own place.



Agreed.

In heaven, intermediately before the final Day, "each one goes to their own place."

We guess, what what we desire to clarify, is *if* or whether the preaching of the church performs and accomplishes God's decrees, as to who will be eternally loosed or bound, and if this is not part of believers being given a shared reign to bring about the purposes of God? 

If the church is God's means of saving men as well as judging men, through the proclamation of the gospel, would this not qualify as a reign here on earth, reflecting the heavenly reign?

A reign, not contingent upon the church, but according to divine commission given to the church?

We don't want to take this too far, if we are indeed off track. Please be honest with us!


----------



## Roldan

Confessor said:


> He wasn't talking about eisegesis, but about understanding the framework of Scripture. Just as we can very easily see God's unconditional election in tons of passages when reading it through that lens (though not imposing that on the text), so also we can see plenary earthly victory for Christ when we read with that lens.




Oh ok, yeah I know what he meant but that still doesn't negate what I said. I believe that the added interpretation of a Golden Age prior to Christ return is indeed eisegesis and a wrong starting framework to begin with.


----------



## MW

Reformed Rushs said:


> We guess, what what we desire to clarify, is *if* or whether the preaching of the church performs and accomplishes God's decrees, as to who will be eternally loosed or bound, and if this is not part of believers being given a shared reign to bring about the purposes of God?
> 
> If the church is God's means of saving men as well as judging men, through the proclamation of the gospel, would this not qualify as a reign here on earth, reflecting the heavenly reign?
> 
> A reign, not contingent upon the church, but according to divine commission given to the church?



That all sounds perfectly reasonable, as long as the usual qualifiers are applied to the church's role -- ministerial and fallible. The church only seeks to bind and loose by following God's will, and this power is always understood to be liable to err.


----------



## Confessor

CalvinandHodges said:


> Confessor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CalvinandHodges said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would suggest that either the thosand years does not represent the intermediate state, or, the intermediate state does expire prior to Judgment Day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The second option is impossible by definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Greetings:
> 
> Only on how you define the "intermediate state."
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> Rob
Click to expand...


What are the different options for defining it?


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

*Yo,

Post Mill starts with the Genesis account. If Satan seed (Him and his children) is going to have his head crushed by the womans seed (Christ and his children) then how is that going to happen if Satan seed out number that of Christ???...LOL.... Amill/Premill/Dispensational's people crack me up. Gotta love em.

I think there has been plenty of scripture laid out on here for the ample text that show a Post Mill understanding of Christ Kingdom expansion while the devil's kingdom shrinks (not grow at the same pace or more) but there was an assertion made that the scripture posted was having post mill read into it. I think it was Ricky Ro. However, the assertion he has there is a false pretense as if he isn't reading amill into the same text. Where does it say in those text that Christ has to come again to set up his rule throughout the nations. He's already come to set up his Kingdom. He has already ascended and waits for all things and we do mean all things to be placed under his feet. Christ was given all power in both Heaven and Earth. Not just this spiritual debo or Big Man on Campus as if the physical realm can remain affected and his reign still be made known.

So there has to be continuity between the promise of Abraham and the reign of Christ.

Romans 4:16-18
16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”

How many nations do you see Abraham being the father of???....LOL... I mean I can count on 1 hand right now I think. Unless you want to count Islam too...

Thus Post Mill (Not Optimistic Amill you have nothing to be optimistic about) offers this continuity and accounts for the Fall, Abrahams Promise, and Christ victory on the Cross.

Just some thoughts off the top of the dome.*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## Mushroom

> Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
> Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.





> Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.





> Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.


I have not come to a conclusion as to my millenial view, and have leaned toward post-mil, but these verses seem to refute the idea that the woman's Seed's children will outnumber the serpent's seed's. Numbers don't equate with victory. I don't see how this holds water or supports post-mil.


----------



## Reformed Rush

sealdaSupralapsarian said:


> *Romans 4:16-18
> 16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”*
> 
> How many nations do you see Abraham being the father of???....LOL... I mean I can count on 1 hand right now I think. Unless you want to count Islam too...




I believe Abraham's children (all forgiven souls imputed with Christ's righteousness) will be _gathered out_ from all the nations, according to Rev. 5:9: 

*" . . . For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." * 

And that the invisible church of God (saints of all nationalities) is a "holy nation" unto themselves:

*"You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God . . ." I Peter 2:9-10*

Ronda
(Amillinnialist)


----------



## Peairtach

Brad said:


> Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
> Mat 7:14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 20:16 So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have not come to a conclusion as to my millenial view, and have leaned toward post-mil, but these verses seem to refute the idea that the woman's Seed's children will outnumber the serpent's seed's. Numbers don't equate with victory. I don't see how this holds water or supports post-mil.
Click to expand...


Is this referring to _a relative few_? I.e. is our Lord indicating that of those who hear the Gospel only a subset believe? Therefore our Lord is encouraging us to make sure we are of those who enter. When the final tally comes in every indication is that it is going to be a big number, "as the stars in the sky", "as the sand on the seashore", etc., and we are never given the indication that the number of the lost is going to be big in relation to the number of the saved. Does the Bible mention the number of the lost at all?

Re passages such as II Timothy 3:1-9, which speak of the evils of the interadventual period in which we are living, you may notice from verse 9 that such evils willl have an end. The postmillenialist knows that things might often get worse before they get better.

Revelation 12:12 says that "the devil [has] great wrath because he knows that he has a short time." (NKJV) 

If the Devil has only a symbolical 3 1/2 years of the symbolical 1,000 year reign of Christ and the saints until he is shut up and sealed, it's no wonder if he is getting madder and more desperate as the last circa 2,000 years has unfolded.


----------



## sealdaSupralapsarian

Reformed Rushs said:


> sealdaSupralapsarian said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Romans 4:16-18
> 16 Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all 17 (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed—God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; 18 who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”*
> 
> How many nations do you see Abraham being the father of???....LOL... I mean I can count on 1 hand right now I think. Unless you want to count Islam too...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Abraham's children (all forgiven souls imputed with Christ's righteousness) will be _gathered out_ from all the nations, according to Rev. 5:9:
> 
> *" . . . For You were slain, and have redeemed us to God by Your blood out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation." *
> 
> And that the invisible church of God (saints of all nationalities) is a "holy nation" unto themselves:
> 
> *"You are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God . . ." I Peter 2:9-10*
> 
> Ronda
> (Amillinnialist)
Click to expand...



*Sister of the Beloved Ronda,

What you speak of is Soteriology. We being chosen and apart of the invisible church is completely salvic in its sphere of rhetoric. Yet what does that look like in our realm. When you look at Revelation 5:9 please look also at vs 10. For it says that the priest will reign on Earth. That's the visible aspect of Abraham descendants. David was a priest who reigned on Earth. Solomon was a priest who reigned on Earth. Abraham was a priest who reigned on Earth.

So, I see tremendous discontinuity in the view that reigning or Christ ruling is only linked to the invisible salvation of the church. That ruling will be visible and glorious when many of us all die off and God brings in those remnants who will chase and pursue the nations to obey the commands of the LORD Jesus.

Thus the Abrahamic promise is that of dominion. Israel didn't Spiritual have dominion they had physical over the Earth Dominion as well.*

Grace and Peace,
seal


----------



## BoldBeliever

Let's take a different tack here and start at the back of the book. 

Rev. 20 clearly states that AFTER the thousand* years Satan would be released from the bottomless pit and bring Magog to battle against the holy city (obviously a Church metaphor). The end of this battle results in:

1. Judgment Day (fire from heaven destroying the wicked)
2. The Last Day (which Jesus said was the day of resurrection)
3. A new heaven and new earth

No mention of any of the things which pre-mils associate with their version of the Second Coming (or should I say Second and Third Coming). 

*Brother Charlie has given me some insight and correction on the use of chilioi/chilias. Apparently the thousand years is not a literal and exact time period, but the word chilioi has little to do with that.

Pre-mils have simply made hash of history with their teaching. It's confusing, and most of all UNBIBLICAL.


----------

