# postmillennialism, premillennialism, amillennialism - your stance?



## panta dokimazete

I have tried to stay fairly clear of the controversy surrounding these issues as I believe it to be a "milk teaching" issue (see Heb 6:1-2) - that being said, I have recently been skimming articles, etc to get a better "feel" for the various positions.

On wiki I saw this graphic that I thought seemed to be a very good high-level summary of the stances.







I'd like to use these categories to get insight into the views on the PB.

I lean toward amillennial, so that is what I am choosing, but I am not 100% convinced.

As folks are willing, I'd also like to get a few links that help clarify the various positions.

I have made the poll public, because I am interested in who holds to the various positions.


----------



## Blue Tick

Tentatively amillennial. I would like to study more about postmillennialism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

1. Some hold its a golden-age within the NT, as is represented in the graphic.

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.


----------



## toddpedlar

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:
> 
> 1. Some hold its a golden-age within the NT, as is represented in the graphic.
> 
> 2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.
> 
> 3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".
> 
> The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.




What Daniel said.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Daniel Ritchie said:


> The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:





> 2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.



which would make them amills, right?



> 3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".



This is the x-preterist position? If so, what is x, please?



> The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.



can you expand a little more on this or give a link?


----------



## panta dokimazete

or - even better - can you take the graphic and modify it to reflect any additional stance(s)?

I am really interested in getting a good representative view.


----------



## Davidius

Blue Tick said:


> Tentatively amillennial. I would like to study more about postmillennialism.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

panta dokimazete said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> which would make them amills, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is the x-preterist position? If so, what is x, please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> can you expand a little more on this or give a link?
Click to expand...


2. No it would not make them amils as they believe in the world-wide advance of the gospel and in the Christianization of societies, which is not the traditional amil view. Moreover, postmillennialism literally means "after the millennium", so even if they share the same view as the amils on the duration of the millennium, they are still postmillennial as they believe Christ returns after the millennium.

3. Some partial preterists would hold this view, others would not.

Amillennialism has traditionally believed that there will not be any extensive conversion to Christ, or a world wide Christianization of culture and society. Some optimistic amils like Cornelius Venema would be closer to postmillennialits in this regard. While postmillennialists believe that, over the course of history, the majority of people will be converted, and the majority of nations will be Christian. In other words, they believe Christ has the victory in history.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

panta dokimazete said:


> or - even better - can you take the graphic and modify it to reflect any additional stance(s)?
> 
> I am really interested in getting a good representative view.



Sorry, that is beyond my capabilities.


----------



## KMK

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.



Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.


----------



## Stephen

Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillennial position.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Stephen said:


> Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillennial position.



Indeed, amillennialism is more of a 20th century teaching; although some would say that Augustine held it.


----------



## turmeric

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
Click to expand...

 
Uh-oh!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
Click to expand...


 (because I know this will be an interesting, yet irenic exchange of ideas... )


----------



## RamistThomist

historic premil.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
Click to expand...


Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition? 

Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.


----------



## Davidius

Spear Dane said:


> historic premil.



Why isn't there a "Boo" button to correspond to "Thanks"?  Just kidding.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Davidius said:


> Spear Dane said:
> 
> 
> 
> historic premil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why isn't there a "Boo" button to correspond to "Thanks"?  Just kidding.
Click to expand...


 That is a great idea!


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillennial position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, amillennialism is more of a 20th century teaching; although some would say that Augustine held it.
Click to expand...


Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation" by Anthony Hoekema


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillennial position.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, amillennialism is more of a 20th century teaching; although some would say that Augustine held it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> "Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation" by Anthony Hoekema
Click to expand...


Yes, sorry I forgot that Luther  et al was amillennial; thanks for the link. Though the views of the Reformed were overwhelmingly postmillennial prior to the 20th century.


----------



## wsw201

turmeric said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh-oh!
Click to expand...


There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.

But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.


----------



## AV1611

panta dokimazete said:


> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.



I can see how a Postmillennialist could interpret this in their own way but I would not say that it is inherently Postmillennial.


----------



## Bygracealone

wsw201 said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.
> 
> But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.
Click to expand...


I would agree that all of God's people can pray this petition of the Lord's Prayer. 

I don't think it's fair to say that Amil is the historic position of the Church nor THE teaching of our standards and I'm quite certain Edwards wasn't the first one to propagate the position of the nations coming under the Kingship of Christ (this has been something long held by the Covenanters--Read Symington's "Messiah the Prince"). Remember, one does not need to hold to a "Golden Age" to be Postmil and even if one does, it doesn't have to happen after the conversion of the Jews (Rom. 11). I believe the same thing about Rom. 11, but I'm not persuaded that such a conversion will usher in a Golden Age. Instead, I believe that will usher in Christ's Second Coming and Judgment. The overall emphasis (at least according to the flavor I hold to) has to do with the spread of the Gospel and its influence upon the world. 

Actually, the passages of Scripture that pushed me from Amil to Postmil were the parables of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven (along with a host of others).


----------



## Bygracealone

KMK said:


> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.



Ken, when you refer to the confession here, would that be the Baptist Confession? Just curious...


----------



## JBaldwin

I voted Amillennialism, because I lean in that direction. Having been drilled in the pre-trib view all through my childhood, teen years, and early adulthood, I still have trouble sorting through it all. As I read through Scripture and take it for what it says, amillennialism seems to make the most sense.


----------



## DMcFadden

Historic premil. If it was good enough for Jesus, the apostles, the early church . . . surely it must be good enough for me.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can see how a Postmillennialist could interpret this in their own way but I would not say that it is inherently Postmillennial.
Click to expand...


Read Iain Murray's book _The Puritan Hope_.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> Actually, the passages of Scripture that pushed me from Amil to Postmil were the parables of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven (along with a host of others).



Interesting. They pushed me to Amil


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

wsw201 said:


> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.
> 
> But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.
Click to expand...


Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered. How anyone can think that the Westminster Standards are amillennial is beyond me; read WLC 191, read the Puritans, read the Covenanters - postmilleniallism is the historic Reformed view. While I agree that the Westminster Standards do not necessarily require one to adhere to Edwards' golden-age postmillennialism - most modern postmills wouldn't fully go along with Edwards - the view that Christ's kingdom would have the victory in history, and that the majority of men and nations would be Christian, is the overwhelming Reformed position prior to the 20th century.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Read Iain Murray's book _The Puritan Hope_.



Already have done brother.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read Iain Murray's book _The Puritan Hope_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already have done brother.
Click to expand...


Read Ken Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion; the best amil book is Cornelis Venema's _The Promise of the Future_, though I would say this is not really amillennial as its too optimistic.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered.



Even if your assessment is correct; we are to pray for the conversion of all yet we know not all will be saved. We pray in the morning that we will live godly lives knowing that by the end of the day that we will have sinned manifold times.

I fail to see how your comments apply to me who as an "optimistic" amillennialist believes that all we pray for in Question & Answer 191 _will_ come to pass.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Read Ken Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion;



I aim to. The problem in my opinion with Gentry is his preterism. 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> the best amil book is Cornelis Venema's _The Promise of the Future_, though I would say this is not really amillennial as its too optimistic.



Then maybe I am not really amil


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if your assessment is correct; we are to pray for the conversion of all yet we know not all will be saved. We pray in the morning that we will live godly lives knowing that by the end of the day that we will have sinned manifold times.
> 
> I fail to see how your comments apply to me who as an "optimistic" amillennialist believes that all we pray for in Question & Answer 191 _will_ come to pass.
Click to expand...


Well I would say that Q 191 reflects promises in Scripture about what will come to pass, therefore, we pray in the expectation that they will be answered; however, as your an optimistic amil then there's not much difference between you and a post-mil


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Well I would say that Q 191 reflects promises in Scripture about what will come to pass, therefore, we pray in the expectation that they will be answered;



I agree completely. Have you read American Postmillennialism | The Reformed Reader ?


----------



## Bygracealone

Have any of you read Bahnsen's "Victory in Jesus" or Mathison's "Postmillenialism"? If so, what were your thoughts?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I would say that Q 191 reflects promises in Scripture about what will come to pass, therefore, we pray in the expectation that they will be answered;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree completely. Have you read American Postmillennialism | The Reformed Reader ?
Click to expand...


I haven't; its a lot for an internet article, is it in a book anywhere?

As for Ken Gentry's Preterism, as far as I am aware he has never fully been answered. To me its the best position, though I don't think we can be too dogmatic about the question as it involves the interpretation of some of the most difficult texts in Scripture.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Bygracealone said:


> Have any of you read Bahnsen's "Victory in Jesus" or Mathison's "Postmillenialism"? If so, what were your thoughts?



I have read the second one; its very good; an excellent introduction to postmillennialism and partial preterism. Though I think he holds the view that the millennium refers to the whole NT; I hold the position that it started at 70 AD and ends with the satanically inspired revolt against Christendom.


----------



## AV1611

Bygracealone said:


> Have any of you read Bahnsen's "Victory in Jesus" or Mathison's "Postmillenialism"? If so, what were your thoughts?



I have read the latter. It was an interesting read but I was not convinced overall. It has been a while since I read it though....


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I haven't; its a lot for an internet article, is it in a book anywhere?



Not to my knowledge, but well worth the effort in my opinion.



Daniel Ritchie said:


> As for Ken Gentry's Preterism, as far as I am aware he has never fully been answered. To me its the best position, though I don't think we can be too dogmatic about the question as it involves the interpretation of some of the most difficult texts in Scripture.



Without getting into his exegesis I am sceptical because; (1) it rests upon Revelation being of an early date; (2) it has no historical pedigree, to my (limited) knowledge; and, (3) I see no reason to believe that whilst the Olivet discourse was (partially) fulfilled in AD70 it cannot be (fully) fullfilled in the future. But I am open to persuasion.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

AV1611 said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't; its a lot for an internet article, is it in a book anywhere?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to my knowledge, but well worth the effort in my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Ken Gentry's Preterism, as far as I am aware he has never fully been answered. To me its the best position, though I don't think we can be too dogmatic about the question as it involves the interpretation of some of the most difficult texts in Scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Without getting into his exegesis I am sceptical because; (1) it rests upon Revelation being of an early date; (2) it has no historical pedigree, to my (limited) knowledge; and, (3) I see no reason to believe that whilst the Olivet discourse was (partially) fulfilled in AD70 it cannot be (fully) fullfilled in the future. But I am open to persuasion.
Click to expand...


I understand your objections; what would persuade me of it is my conviction that Revelation was written prior to 70 AD. I believe this for theological reasons, basically I think the canon of the NT had to be finished before the public destruction of the Temple and the Old Covenant system, which signified the end of the period of transition between the two dispensations. Point 2 is probably right with regard to the Reformers and Puritans, though Idealism has no real historical identity either. As for point 3, most partial preterists would argue that only Matthew 24:1-34 was fulfilled at 70 AD, verse 35 onwards refers to the end of the world.


----------



## bookslover

KMK said:


> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.



But is it what the Bible teaches?

A friend of mine likes to say that amillennialism is the eschatology for people who don't like eschatology.


----------



## panta dokimazete

bookslover said:


> A friend of mine likes to say that amillennialism is the eschatology for people who don't like eschatology.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

panta dokimazete said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> 
> A friend of mine likes to say that amillennialism is the eschatology for people who don't like eschatology.
Click to expand...


----------



## DMcFadden

bookslover said:


> A friend of mine likes to say that amillennialism is the eschatology for people who don't like eschatology.



A very insightful observation.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Optimistic Amil but not dogmatic on the subject.


----------



## VaughanRSmith

Davidius said:


> Blue Tick said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tentatively amillennial. I would like to study more about postmillennialism.
Click to expand...


----------



## Bladestunner316

Im undecided but Im interested in Historicism.


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Amill or Postmill is the way to go. The only problem is that I found Amills rather boring and unmotivated. Excitement for eschatology is only found with the Premills and the Postmills. From the rapture right prognosticators to the erudite work of the Postmills, these two groups have passion. But the amills.


----------



## Herald

I have no idea what I believe and haven't worried one iota about it. Having come out of dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture view I haven't the slightest inkling what to do with my eschatology other than to confess that Jesus Christ is coming again. That's the only sword I'm willing to fall on at this point. 

Check back with me in five years if I'm still breathing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

I used to be die hard postmill. Dr Russell Moore convinced me of premillennialism. Wayne Grudem's Systematic Theology showed me how I could use the same verses postmills used as a premillennialist. The switch was quite easy, actually.


----------



## Coram Deo

I am curious on what you would call John Gill's Position which is the way I lean more toward...

Here is the Summary...

1. An unspecified term of Great Tribulation period.
2. Second Coming of Christ, Battle of Mediggo ending with the Great Day of Fire purging the World and Renewing the Heavens and the Earth.
3. A 1000 year period of festal Marriage Feasting with Resurrected Believers and Satan Bound.
4. End of 1000 years, Satan released with his minions ending with the Battle of Jehoshaphat with Satan and Minions thrown into Lake of Fire.
5. Unbelievers Resurrected.
6. Judgment Day


The Difference between this scene and Modern Historic Premill. is that Historic Premill puts the Great Day of Fire at the end of the 1000 years and a brand new Heaven and Earth compared to a renewed Heaven and Earth. I am unsure if Modern Historic Premill. hold to the Battle of Jehoshaphat or what terms of the tribulation period they hold to..

So what would you call this system?


----------



## RamistThomist

thunaer said:


> I am curious on what you would call John Gill's Position which is the way I lean more toward...
> 
> Here is the Summary...
> 
> 1. An unspecified term of Great Tribulation period.
> 2. Second Coming of Christ, Battle of Mediggo ending with the Great Day of Fire purging the World and Renewing the Heavens and the Earth.
> 3. A 1000 year period of festal Marriage Feasting with Resurrected Believers and Satan Bound.
> 4. End of 1000 years, Satan released with his minions ending with the Battle of Jehoshaphat with Satan and Minions thrown into Lake of Fire.
> 5. Unbelievers Resurrected.
> 6. Judgment Day
> 
> 
> The Difference between this scene and Modern Historic Premill. is that Historic Premill puts the Great Day of Fire at the end of the 1000 years and a brand new Heaven and Earth compared to a renewed Heaven and Earth. I am unsure if Modern Historic Premill. hold to the Battle of Jehoshaphat or what terms of the tribulation period they hold to..
> 
> So what would you call this system?



Whatever it is, sounds good. Very helpful post.


----------



## KMK

panta dokimazete said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, *and hasten the time of his second coming*, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
Click to expand...


How do you pray that Christ would 'hasten the time of his second coming' if you know for a fact that can't happen for at least 1000 years?


----------



## Ivan

Spear Dane said:


> historic premil.



Me too.


----------



## bookslover

BaptistInCrisis said:


> I have no idea what I believe and haven't worried one iota about it. Having come out of dispensationalism and the pre-trib rapture view I haven't the slightest inkling what to do with my eschatology other than to confess that Jesus Christ is coming again. That's the only sword I'm willing to fall on at this point.
> 
> Check back with me in five years if I'm still breathing.



Bill, you're a pan-millennialist: everything will pan out all right in the end!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Daniel Ritchie said:


> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> turmeric said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh-oh!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.
> 
> But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered. How anyone can think that the Westminster Standards are amillennial is beyond me; read WLC 191, read the Puritans, read the Covenanters - postmilleniallism is the historic Reformed view. While I agree that the Westminster Standards do not necessarily require one to adhere to Edwards' golden-age postmillennialism - most modern postmills wouldn't fully go along with Edwards - the view that Christ's kingdom would have the victory in history, and that the majority of men and nations would be Christian, is the overwhelming Reformed position prior to the 20th century.
Click to expand...


Amils do believe Christ gets the victory in history. The second coming, judgment, and resurrection are historical events along with the new heavens and earth, the revealing of the sons of God, the deliverance of creation from futility at the resurrection etc. All historical.


----------



## danmpem

Here is a "quick look at amillennialism". Scroll down for a list of amillennialists, although there may be a couple who are on the list and should not be.


----------



## RamistThomist

danmpem said:


> Here is a "quick look at amillennialism". Scroll down for a list of amillennialists, although there may be a couple who are on the list and should not be.



I really thought BH Carroll was postmillennial. John Frame is postmillennial (he said so in his _Salvation Belongs to the Lord_). Iain Murray is very postmillennial. John Murray is postmillennial. Warfield also. The list isn't entirely accurate.


----------



## cih1355

Doesn't the idea that there is a second coming of Christ for the church and a second coming of Christ with the church imply that there are really three comings of Christ?


----------



## RamistThomist

cih1355 said:


> Doesn't the idea that there is a second coming of Christ for the church and a second coming of Christ with the church imply that there are really three comings of Christ?



For a classic dispie, probably.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wsw201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.
> 
> But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered. How anyone can think that the Westminster Standards are amillennial is beyond me; read WLC 191, read the Puritans, read the Covenanters - postmilleniallism is the historic Reformed view. While I agree that the Westminster Standards do not necessarily require one to adhere to Edwards' golden-age postmillennialism - most modern postmills wouldn't fully go along with Edwards - the view that Christ's kingdom would have the victory in history, and that the majority of men and nations would be Christian, is the overwhelming Reformed position prior to the 20th century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amils do believe Christ gets the victory in history. The second coming, judgment, and resurrection are historical events along with the new heavens and earth, the revealing of the sons of God, the deliverance of creation from futility at the resurrection etc. All historical.
Click to expand...


But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over _the course_ of history, but at the end of history.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?
> 
> Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, *and hasten the time of his second coming*, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How do you pray that Christ would 'hasten the time of his second coming' if you know for a fact that can't happen for at least 1000 years?
Click to expand...


Because certain things must be fulfilled before His second coming, therefore, we pray that these things would take place so that He would hasten the time of His second coming. An amil can't do this as he must hope for Christ's second coming prior to the fulfillment of these aforementioned things.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Spear Dane said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a "quick look at amillennialism". Scroll down for a list of amillennialists, although there may be a couple who are on the list and should not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really thought BH Carroll was postmillennial. John Frame is postmillennial (he said so in his _Salvation Belongs to the Lord_). Iain Murray is very postmillennial. John Murray is postmillennial. Warfield also. The list isn't entirely accurate.
Click to expand...


The list says it is amil and 'a few postmil' as well.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered. How anyone can think that the Westminster Standards are amillennial is beyond me; read WLC 191, read the Puritans, read the Covenanters - postmilleniallism is the historic Reformed view. While I agree that the Westminster Standards do not necessarily require one to adhere to Edwards' golden-age postmillennialism - most modern postmills wouldn't fully go along with Edwards - the view that Christ's kingdom would have the victory in history, and that the majority of men and nations would be Christian, is the overwhelming Reformed position prior to the 20th century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amils do believe Christ gets the victory in history. The second coming, judgment, and resurrection are historical events along with the new heavens and earth, the revealing of the sons of God, the deliverance of creation from futility at the resurrection etc. All historical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over _the course_ of history, but at the end of history.
Click to expand...


The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amils do believe Christ gets the victory in history. The second coming, judgment, and resurrection are historical events along with the new heavens and earth, the revealing of the sons of God, the deliverance of creation from futility at the resurrection etc. All historical.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over _the course_ of history, but at the end of history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."
Click to expand...


If that is what constitutes victory, I would not like to see defeat. Saving a few souls in the course of history is not earthly victory, for eschatology to be truly optimistic it must believe that Christ saves cultures and societies. Traditional Amillennialism's denial of this, means that it is as socially impotent as Dispensationalism is. Ultimately, amillennialism means that the kingdom of darkness triumphs over the kingdom of Christ in history; whereas in postmillennialism the vast majority of men and nations will serve the ascended Christ. If the early Christians had been amillennialists I doubt that Rome would have persecuted them; instead they proclaimed the comprehensive kingship and earthly victory of Christ, hence, Rome was so fearful of the crown rights of Jesus Christ replacing the royal authority of Julius Caesar and his descendants.


----------



## Herald

Richard, that's probably what I am; a pan-miller. I just don't know what to believe. It's not that ignorance is bliss; it's just that I am so jaded from dispensationalism that I have avoided the subject.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Slippery said:


> Amill or Postmill is the way to go. The only problem is that I found Amills rather boring and unmotivated. Excitement for eschatology is only found with the Premills and the Postmills. From the rapture right prognosticators to the erudite work of the Postmills, these two groups have passion. But the amills.



There is not much to get excited about if Christ's kingdom is predestined to defeat in history, while humanists rule the world.


----------



## Coram Deo

But there is excitement when the Church is purified through Tribulation and is spotless and pure at the marriage feast when Christ returns with Christ being Victorious over all His foes, with the Church reigning Victorious with Christ, with Christ over the Church...

That is Historic Premill and it is not pessimistic but optimistic..

And That the church is only Victorious with Christ.




Daniel Ritchie said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amill or Postmill is the way to go. The only problem is that I found Amills rather boring and unmotivated. Excitement for eschatology is only found with the Premills and the Postmills. From the rapture right prognosticators to the erudite work of the Postmills, these two groups have passion. But the amills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not much to get excited about if Christ's kingdom is predestined to defeat in history, while humanists rule the world.
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

Bahnsen's _Victory in Jesus_ was organized and published posthumously. It should be read as four or so separate essays and not as a book.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But on an Amil basis he does not have the victory over _the course_ of history, but at the end of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If that is what constitutes victory, I would not like to see defeat. Saving a few souls in the course of history is not earthly victory, for eschatology to be truly optimistic it must believe that Christ saves cultures and societies. Traditional Amillennialism's denial of this, means that it is as socially impotent as Dispensationalism is. Ultimately, amillennialism means that the kingdom of darkness triumphs over the kingdom of Christ in history; whereas in postmillennialism the vast majority of men and nations will serve the ascended Christ. If the early Christians had been amillennialists I doubt that Rome would have persecuted them; instead they proclaimed the comprehensive kingship and earthly victory of Christ, hence, Rome was so fearful of the crown rights of Jesus Christ replacing the royal authority of Julius Caesar and his descendants.
Click to expand...


Amil believes more than a few souls will be saved, actually a multitude from every tribe and tongue. And the idea of "saving a culture" is quite ambiguous. How am I to save the Mona Lisa? How much culture did God save through Noah? Amils don't believe the kingdom of darkness triumphs at all. The elect are saved no matter how hard Satan opposes them. The wicked fail to conqeur the church and the gates of hell do not prevail. That's optimistic. Perhaps not by an earthly idea of victory. But we live by the wisdom of God not of men. Final earthly come with the return of the King and the hosts of heaven. You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

> And the idea of "saving a culture" is quite ambiguous



Being premil, this is not a defense of postmil. However, Revelationk 22 says "kings bring their wealth" into the New Jerusalem. That's cultural. 

But what I think postmils mean by this is that when peolpe get converted they change the way they live. If more and more people get converted, they will bring their values into the public sphere, becoming salt and light for that culture.

At least, when I was postmil that how I viweed it.


----------



## Poimen

Puritan Sailor said:


> You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.





God conquers all despite the appearance of the victory of Satan. For "We walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7 and "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." Acts 14:22


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> The successful gathering, sanctifying, and glorifying of the elect amidst the entire world system of opposition sounds victorious to me. It all depends on how you define "victory."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that is what constitutes victory, I would not like to see defeat. Saving a few souls in the course of history is not earthly victory, for eschatology to be truly optimistic it must believe that Christ saves cultures and societies. Traditional Amillennialism's denial of this, means that it is as socially impotent as Dispensationalism is. Ultimately, amillennialism means that the kingdom of darkness triumphs over the kingdom of Christ in history; whereas in postmillennialism the vast majority of men and nations will serve the ascended Christ. If the early Christians had been amillennialists I doubt that Rome would have persecuted them; instead they proclaimed the comprehensive kingship and earthly victory of Christ, hence, Rome was so fearful of the crown rights of Jesus Christ replacing the royal authority of Julius Caesar and his descendants.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amil believes more than a few souls will be saved, actually a multitude from every tribe and tongue. And the idea of "saving a culture" is quite ambiguous. How am I to save the Mona Lisa? How much culture did God save through Noah? Amils don't believe the kingdom of darkness triumphs at all. The elect are saved no matter how hard Satan opposes them. The wicked fail to conqeur the church and the gates of hell do not prevail. That's optimistic. Perhaps not by an earthly idea of victory. But we live by the wisdom of God not of men. Final earthly come with the return of the King and the hosts of heaven. You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.
Click to expand...


Multitudes get saved but they have no lasting effect on society. Only postmils really believe that a great multitude are saved in comparison to the wicked. Amils do believe that the kingdom of darkness wins in the course of history, only some souls are rescued out of it. Societal salvation means that a society becomes Christian, as amils deny any widespread societal salvation. The Amil may believe that we are victorious in eternity, but they do not believe we have the victory over the course of history; thus it is optimistic in regard to eternity, but pessimistic in regard to history. The apostles viewed their suffering as victory, as it would lead to earthly victory as the gates (defensive weapons) of hell would not prevail against the advance of Christ's kingdom; thus our suffering is unto victory in history, not to defeat. Ultimately, the amil has to believe Christ's kingdom is the loser in history, as sin abounds over grace.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Christ is victorious at the right hand of God (1 Cor. 15); not from an earthly throne in Jerusalem. Christ is king over the church NOW, He rules over the nations NOW, He demands that the nations be discipled NOW, as Christ is with the church NOW (Matt. 28:18-20). We suffer tribulation in history in the hope of victory in history before Christ returns.

BTW my comments about it "not being very exciting" where directed at amils; I recognize that premils believe in victory, just not in the same way.





thunaer said:


> But there is excitement when the Church is purified through Tribulation and is spotless and pure at the marriage feast when Christ returns with Christ being Victorious over all His foes, with the Church reigning Victorious with Christ, with Christ over the Church...
> 
> That is Historic Premill and it is not pessimistic but optimistic..
> 
> And That the church is only Victorious with Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amill or Postmill is the way to go. The only problem is that I found Amills rather boring and unmotivated. Excitement for eschatology is only found with the Premills and the Postmills. From the rapture right prognosticators to the erudite work of the Postmills, these two groups have passion. But the amills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not much to get excited about if Christ's kingdom is predestined to defeat in history, while humanists rule the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Poimen said:


> Puritan Sailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may not agree with the definition of victory, but to characterize it as defeat is certainly misrepresenting the Amil position. The apostles clearly viewed their suffering as victory not defeat. This is the paradigm that the Amil position works from. Suffering now, the gospel goes forth saving all the elect without fail, then glory with the return of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God conquers all despite the appearance of the victory of Satan. For "We walk by faith, not by sight." 2 Corinthians 5:7 and "We must through many tribulations enter the kingdom of God." Acts 14:22
Click to expand...


Yes He conquers in history as He is sovereign over the course of history; postmillennialists walk by faith, though the kingdom of Christ appears small in the world, it shall crush all other kingdoms in history (Dan. 7). The apostles started off as a small group, yet, through their preaching, the ascended Christ eventually conquered pagan Rome.

It is this faith which inspired the early Covenanters (who were almost to a man postmillennial) to lay down their lives for Christ's royal prerogatives, knowing that the cause of Christ would be vindicated on the earth, as the nations would bow before Him before His return.


----------



## Poimen

Daniel:

As Patrick mentioned, amillenialists do believe in victory. To continue to assert otherwise only causes confusion. 

Personally I have a lot of respect for my postmillenial brethren though I find myself in disagreement.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Poimen said:


> Daniel:
> 
> As Patrick mentioned, amillenialists do believe in victory. To continue to assert otherwise only causes confusion.
> 
> Personally I have a lot of respect for my postmillenial brethren though I find myself in disagreement.



I agree that you believe in victory in _eternity_, but I do not believe that amillennialism can possibly do justice to the victory of Christ's kingdom over the course of history. As I see it, amillennialism means that the wicked triumph in history while the godly are defeated until Christ returns - this is not the perspective of Psalm 1.


----------



## Poimen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel:
> 
> As Patrick mentioned, amillenialists do believe in victory. To continue to assert otherwise only causes confusion.
> 
> Personally I have a lot of respect for my postmillenial brethren though I find myself in disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that you believe in victory in _eternity_, but I do not believe that amillennialism can possibly do justice to the victory of Christ's kingdom over the course of history. As I see it, amillennialism means that the wicked triumph in history while the godly are defeated until Christ returns - this is not the perspective of Psalm 1.
Click to expand...


Amillenialism teaches that the wicked do not triumph in history no matter how many or how little there are or conversely how many godly there are or how little. Christ reigns now and we participate in His victory by faith; end of story.


----------



## Poimen

BTW, amillenialism sees eternity _as part of_ history so all of history leads up to final judgment and new creation.


----------



## SoCalReformed

At this time, I lean toward Postmillennial eschatology.


----------



## SoCalReformed

KMK said:


> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.



It does?

Where?
The Second London Baptist Confession of 1689


----------



## bookslover

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Richard, that's probably what I am; a pan-miller. I just don't know what to believe. It's not that ignorance is bliss; it's just that I am so jaded from dispensationalism that I have avoided the subject.



As I like to say: the fact that, throughout church history, the church has teased out three basic eschatalogical positions from the same biblical material (pre-, post-, and a-) should be a hint that we don't know as much about the endtimes as we like to think we do. It also shows that, in the Bible, God has not given us enough information to be able to figure it all out in detail (Jesus Himself said so explicitly) but He has given us just enough information so that we need to live by faith that He knows what He's doing.

All of which should lead to humility on our part. Whichever position you hold, do so _sincerely_, but do so _lightly_. We could _all_ be wrong!


----------



## Pilgrim

Spear Dane said:


> danmpem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a "quick look at amillennialism". Scroll down for a list of amillennialists, although there may be a couple who are on the list and should not be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really thought BH Carroll was postmillennial. John Frame is postmillennial (he said so in his _Salvation Belongs to the Lord_). Iain Murray is very postmillennial. John Murray is postmillennial. Warfield also. The list isn't entirely accurate.
Click to expand...


I think that list was put together when the author was newly amil. If I recall correctly a few of the names were subject to question. I too thought Carroll was postmil (a common position in the late 19th century) and a SBC pastor friend of mine recently said he was too.


----------



## Pilgrim

I am tentatively amil but have a lot more reading to do on the subject.


----------



## Pilgrim

Spear Dane said:


> cih1355 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't the idea that there is a second coming of Christ for the church and a second coming of Christ with the church imply that there are really three comings of Christ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a classic dispie, probably.
Click to expand...


Yes, sounds like pre-trib.


----------



## Thomas2007

bookslover said:


> All of which should lead to humility on our part. Whichever position you hold, do so _sincerely_, but do so _lightly_. We could _all_ be wrong!



This is why I hold to all three positions simultaneously - "schizomillienialism"


----------



## KMK

The confession does not speak of a future millenial kingdom. Therefore, it teaches a 'realized' millennium by defalt! 

How's that?


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Because certain things must be fulfilled before His second coming, therefore, we pray that these things would take place so that He would hasten the time of His second coming.



A postmil, then, does not pray for the hastening of 'the time of His second coming', but for the hastening of the dawn of the millennium. 



Daniel Ritchie said:


> An amil can't do this as he must hope for Christ's second coming prior to the fulfillment of these aforementioned things.



What 'aforementioned' things? The destruction of Satan? What?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because certain things must be fulfilled before His second coming, therefore, we pray that these things would take place so that He would hasten the time of His second coming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A postmil, then, does not pray for the hastening of 'the time of His second coming', but for the hastening of the dawn of the millennium.
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> An amil can't do this as he must hope for Christ's second coming prior to the fulfillment of these aforementioned things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What 'aforementioned' things? The destruction of Satan? What?
Click to expand...


I believe that we are in the millennium now. It stretches from 70 AD to Satan's little season - which, I believe, is a revolt against Christendom.

The aforementioned things include the calling of the Jews and the fulness of the Gentiles being brought into Christ's kingdom - the Puritan interpretation of Romans 11 rules out an amillennial understanding of the WLC 191.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Poimen said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel:
> 
> As Patrick mentioned, amillenialists do believe in victory. To continue to assert otherwise only causes confusion.
> 
> Personally I have a lot of respect for my postmillenial brethren though I find myself in disagreement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that you believe in victory in _eternity_, but I do not believe that amillennialism can possibly do justice to the victory of Christ's kingdom over the course of history. As I see it, amillennialism means that the wicked triumph in history while the godly are defeated until Christ returns - this is not the perspective of Psalm 1.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Amillenialism teaches that the wicked do not triumph in history no matter how many or how little there are or conversely how many godly there are or how little. Christ reigns now and we participate in His victory by faith; end of story.
Click to expand...


But in amillennialism, the wicked, rather than the righteous, mostly have dominion in history, thus they are the earthly victors.

However, I think we better just agree to differ as we are walking round in circles.


----------



## Coram Deo

KMK,

How can you say that the 1689 Baptist Confession teaches a Amill Position?

Have you ever heard of Hansard Knollys, Pastor of Broken Wharf Church, London? His name is FIRST among the SIGNATORIES of the 1689 Baptist Confession and played a really large role in the Confession and if my memory serves me right the 1689 Confession and the General Assembly was convened at his church at Broken Wharf and the Confession signed there in 1689...

He was Clearly Historic (Covenantal) PreMillennial and NOT AMill...

Let me quote from him out of An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, 1688....

_4.	And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years _

By [thrones] here we are to understand the kingdom and dominion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of his suffering, conquering and overcoming saints, (Rev. 11:15; Dan. 7:27; Matthew 19:28; Rev. 3:21 and 12:11). [And judgment was given unto them.] That is, to the righteous, (Ezek. 23:45) to the saints, (1 Cor. 6:2–3) [And I saw the souls (animas, not the bodies) of them that were beheaded,] that is, suffered death [for the witness of Jesus,] (Rev. 6:9–11 and 11:7) and for the Word of God, the holy scripture; [And which had not worshipped the beast:] that is, had not taken the oath of supremacy to the beast; [neither to his image:] popish kings, as head of the church, are refused to swear away the headship of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Col. 1:18) [Neither had received his mark in their foreheads or in their hands.] See chapter 13 vv. 16,17 [And they lived and reigned with Christ these thousand years.] (Rom. 8:17–18, 2 Tim. 2:11–12). 

_5.	But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection. 

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. _

By [the rest of the dead,] here we may understand (per antithesin, and in contradistinction to them that had been killed, martyred, and slain; into whom the spirit of life from God had again entered) all those dead souls, who had worshipped the beast and his image, and had received his mark, whose names are not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, [until these thousand years were finished, (or ended.) This is the first resurrection.] That is, the raising of the slain witnesses, (Rev. 11:7–11). See the exposition thereof, (v. 6). Five things are here said of this first resurrection, viz. first, they are holy, that is, sanctified persons, who lived godly in Christ Jesus, in times of persecution, (2 Tim. 3:12). Secondly, they are blessed, (Matthew 5:8) with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things, in Christ Jesus, (Eph. 1:3). Thirdly, [The second death hath no power over them.] They have all escaped the damnation of Hell, (Rom. 8:1–2, vv. 14, 15 of this chapter).

_7.	And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, 

8.	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 numbers of whom is as the sand of the sea. 

9.	And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of Heaven, and devoured them. 

10.	And the devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. _

[These thousand years being expired, Satan shall be loosed,] and his instruments permitted, by his deceiving the nations, (v. 8 called Gog and Magog) to gather together, from east, west, north and south, [And to compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:] i.e., the new Jerusalem, and the general assembly and church of God, (Heb. 12:22–23 and Rev. 21:2–3) [And fire came down from God, out of Heaven, and devoured them.] (2 Thess. 1:5–6) as it did (Ezek. 39:6) verse 10 declares the final doom of the devil. [And the devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the false beast and the prophets are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.]

_11.	And I saw a great white Throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heavens fled away, and there was found no place for them. _

Here John had a vision and revelation, of the Day of judgment, (Jude v. 6 and Heb. 6:2) [I saw a great white throne;] which signifies the glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ at his second coming, (Heb. 9:28) which will be with power and great glory, (Matthew 24:30) then we shall all stand before the judgment Seat of Christ, (Rom. 14:10–12 and 2 Cor. 5:10) whom John saw sit upon the white Throne; [From whose face the earth and the heavens fled away.] That is, they were dissolved, (2 Pet. 3:4–13) [And there was found no place for them:] for they must give place unto the new heaven, and the new earth, (Rev. 21:1).

_12.	And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the Books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works. _

The throne being placed, and the judge being set on the throne, John [saw the dead, small and great stand before God]. That is, Jesus Christ, God-Man, (Acts 17:31) [And the books were opened] by these books we are to understand the bible, the holy scripture of truth, God’s statute book; that is, the books of the Old and New Testament, (Rom. 2:12–16) [And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.] that is, of election unto salvation, (Phil. 4:3) [And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.] (2 Cor. 5:10) whereby is revealed the just and righteous proceedings of Jesus Christ in judgment; for the wicked shall receive their reward, according to their evil deeds; and the righteous shall receive their reward of grace, as God hath promised them, according to their good deeds, (Matt. 25:34–40) but not for them.
_
13.	And the sea gave up the dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 

14.	And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death. 
By sea, death, and hell, here we are to understand the places where the bodies and souls of the dead were held and kept until this day of judgment: [And they were judged every man according to their works.] that is, according to their sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, (Jude vv. 6–15).
[Verse 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death.] this lake of fire is that Gehenna, into which the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, were cast. See v. 10 and Matthew 25:31–46.

15.	And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life, was cast into the lake of fire. _

By [the Book of Life,] we are to understand God’s election unto everlasting salvation, or eternal life and glory; there is a remnant according to the election of grace, (Rom. 11:5, Rom. 8:30, and Eph. 1:3–6). Those that were [not found written in the Book of Life,] are all the non-elect, viz. wicked and ungodly persons; the workers of iniquity, who have lived in the world without God and Christ, and died in their sins; viz. all impenitent unbelievers, that obey not the gospel, (2 Thess. 1:6–10).





KMK said:


> The confession does not speak of a future millenial kingdom. Therefore, it teaches a 'realized' millennium by defalt!
> 
> How's that?


----------



## KMK

Daniel Ritchie said:


> *I believe that we are in the millennium now*. It stretches from 70 AD to Satan's little season - which, I believe, is a revolt against Christendom.



According to the chart on the OP, what you believe is called 'amillenialism'.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Poimen said:


> BTW, amillenialism sees eternity _as part of_ history so all of history leads up to final judgment and new creation.



 

So long as Christ has a human body, history will continue forever. Every act of regeneration, and every work of sanctification in believers and the church, is a victory for King Jesus in the present course of history. Every time a sinner is snatched from the grasp of the devil, Christ wins. It all goes back to how you define "victory."


----------



## KMK

thunaer said:


> KMK,
> 
> How can you say that the 1689 Baptist Confession teaches a Amill Position?
> 
> Have you ever heard of Hansard Knollys, Pastor of Broken Wharf Church, London? His name is FIRST among the SIGNATORIES of the 1689 Baptist Confession and played a really large role in the Confession and if my memory serves me right the 1689 Confession and the General Assembly was convened at his church at Broken Wharf and the Confession signed there in 1689...
> 
> He was Clearly Historic (Covenantal) PreMillennial and NOT AMill...
> 
> Let me quote from him out of An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, 1688....
> 
> _4.	And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years _
> 
> By [thrones] here we are to understand the kingdom and dominion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of his suffering, conquering and overcoming saints, (Rev. 11:15; Dan. 7:27; Matthew 19:28; Rev. 3:21 and 12:11). [And judgment was given unto them.] That is, to the righteous, (Ezek. 23:45) to the saints, (1 Cor. 6:2–3) [And I saw the souls (animas, not the bodies) of them that were beheaded,] that is, suffered death [for the witness of Jesus,] (Rev. 6:9–11 and 11:7) and for the Word of God, the holy scripture; [And which had not worshipped the beast:] that is, had not taken the oath of supremacy to the beast; [neither to his image:] popish kings, as head of the church, are refused to swear away the headship of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Col. 1:18) [Neither had received his mark in their foreheads or in their hands.] See chapter 13 vv. 16,17 [And they lived and reigned with Christ these thousand years.] (Rom. 8:17–18, 2 Tim. 2:11–12).
> 
> _5.	But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
> 
> 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. _
> 
> By [the rest of the dead,] here we may understand (per antithesin, and in contradistinction to them that had been killed, martyred, and slain; into whom the spirit of life from God had again entered) all those dead souls, who had worshipped the beast and his image, and had received his mark, whose names are not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, [until these thousand years were finished, (or ended.) This is the first resurrection.] That is, the raising of the slain witnesses, (Rev. 11:7–11). See the exposition thereof, (v. 6). Five things are here said of this first resurrection, viz. first, they are holy, that is, sanctified persons, who lived godly in Christ Jesus, in times of persecution, (2 Tim. 3:12). Secondly, they are blessed, (Matthew 5:8) with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things, in Christ Jesus, (Eph. 1:3). Thirdly, [The second death hath no power over them.] They have all escaped the damnation of Hell, (Rom. 8:1–2, vv. 14, 15 of this chapter).
> 
> _7.	And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
> 
> 8.	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 numbers of whom is as the sand of the sea.
> 
> 9.	And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of Heaven, and devoured them.
> 
> 10.	And the devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. _
> 
> [These thousand years being expired, Satan shall be loosed,] and his instruments permitted, by his deceiving the nations, (v. 8 called Gog and Magog) to gather together, from east, west, north and south, [And to compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:] i.e., the new Jerusalem, and the general assembly and church of God, (Heb. 12:22–23 and Rev. 21:2–3) [And fire came down from God, out of Heaven, and devoured them.] (2 Thess. 1:5–6) as it did (Ezek. 39:6) verse 10 declares the final doom of the devil. [And the devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the false beast and the prophets are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.]
> 
> _11.	And I saw a great white Throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heavens fled away, and there was found no place for them. _
> 
> Here John had a vision and revelation, of the Day of judgment, (Jude v. 6 and Heb. 6:2) [I saw a great white throne;] which signifies the glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ at his second coming, (Heb. 9:28) which will be with power and great glory, (Matthew 24:30) then we shall all stand before the judgment Seat of Christ, (Rom. 14:10–12 and 2 Cor. 5:10) whom John saw sit upon the white Throne; [From whose face the earth and the heavens fled away.] That is, they were dissolved, (2 Pet. 3:4–13) [And there was found no place for them:] for they must give place unto the new heaven, and the new earth, (Rev. 21:1).
> 
> _12.	And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the Books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works. _
> 
> The throne being placed, and the judge being set on the throne, John [saw the dead, small and great stand before God]. That is, Jesus Christ, God-Man, (Acts 17:31) [And the books were opened] by these books we are to understand the bible, the holy scripture of truth, God’s statute book; that is, the books of the Old and New Testament, (Rom. 2:12–16) [And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.] that is, of election unto salvation, (Phil. 4:3) [And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.] (2 Cor. 5:10) whereby is revealed the just and righteous proceedings of Jesus Christ in judgment; for the wicked shall receive their reward, according to their evil deeds; and the righteous shall receive their reward of grace, as God hath promised them, according to their good deeds, (Matt. 25:34–40) but not for them.
> _
> 13.	And the sea gave up the dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
> 
> 14.	And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death.
> By sea, death, and hell, here we are to understand the places where the bodies and souls of the dead were held and kept until this day of judgment: [And they were judged every man according to their works.] that is, according to their sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, (Jude vv. 6–15).
> [Verse 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death.] this lake of fire is that Gehenna, into which the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, were cast. See v. 10 and Matthew 25:31–46.
> 
> 15.	And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life, was cast into the lake of fire. _
> 
> By [the Book of Life,] we are to understand God’s election unto everlasting salvation, or eternal life and glory; there is a remnant according to the election of grace, (Rom. 11:5, Rom. 8:30, and Eph. 1:3–6). Those that were [not found written in the Book of Life,] are all the non-elect, viz. wicked and ungodly persons; the workers of iniquity, who have lived in the world without God and Christ, and died in their sins; viz. all impenitent unbelievers, that obey not the gospel, (2 Thess. 1:6–10).



This may have been his belief but he did not write it into the confession.

And this brings up an important point. Obviously the reformers did not see a millenial position as 'confessional'. The confession does not 'explicitely' teach a view on the millennium. Because of that, if one were to read the confession without any presuppositions, I think one would conclude that it was amil.


----------



## Coram Deo

The Majority of the Baptist Signers were PreMillennial but some were Amillennial. They did not see the Millennial issue to be a Confessional Issue and so left out the Issue as a secondary matter. The Confession is not predisposed toward AMillennial or PreMillennial or Any other Millennial inbetween. Just because a Millennial period is not mentioned in the Confession does not make it bent toward Amillennial... And even though the Confession makes no refer to a Millennial, just by the fact that the Majority of the Pastor Signers were Premillennial does give a good defense against a AMillennial Bent in the Confession. At the very least the Writers of the Confession and Those Premillennial Brethren Signers were being gracious to the minority AMillennial Group who were present....

I might also add that in Addition to Knollys, William Kifflin, Ben Keach and many others were the Premillennial Side of the General Assembly...

Later 1689 Confessional Pastors that were(Correction: Covenantal) PreMillennial include John Gill, and Charles Spurgeon.




KMK said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> KMK,
> 
> How can you say that the 1689 Baptist Confession teaches a Amill Position?
> 
> Have you ever heard of Hansard Knollys, Pastor of Broken Wharf Church, London? His name is FIRST among the SIGNATORIES of the 1689 Baptist Confession and played a really large role in the Confession and if my memory serves me right the 1689 Confession and the General Assembly was convened at his church at Broken Wharf and the Confession signed there in 1689...
> 
> He was Clearly Historic (Covenantal) PreMillennial and NOT AMill...
> 
> Let me quote from him out of An Exposition of the Book of Revelation, 1688....
> 
> _4.	And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years _
> 
> By [thrones] here we are to understand the kingdom and dominion of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of his suffering, conquering and overcoming saints, (Rev. 11:15; Dan. 7:27; Matthew 19:28; Rev. 3:21 and 12:11). [And judgment was given unto them.] That is, to the righteous, (Ezek. 23:45) to the saints, (1 Cor. 6:2–3) [And I saw the souls (animas, not the bodies) of them that were beheaded,] that is, suffered death [for the witness of Jesus,] (Rev. 6:9–11 and 11:7) and for the Word of God, the holy scripture; [And which had not worshipped the beast:] that is, had not taken the oath of supremacy to the beast; [neither to his image:] popish kings, as head of the church, are refused to swear away the headship of our Lord Jesus Christ, (Col. 1:18) [Neither had received his mark in their foreheads or in their hands.] See chapter 13 vv. 16,17 [And they lived and reigned with Christ these thousand years.] (Rom. 8:17–18, 2 Tim. 2:11–12).
> 
> _5.	But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
> 
> 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. _
> 
> By [the rest of the dead,] here we may understand (per antithesin, and in contradistinction to them that had been killed, martyred, and slain; into whom the spirit of life from God had again entered) all those dead souls, who had worshipped the beast and his image, and had received his mark, whose names are not written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, [until these thousand years were finished, (or ended.) This is the first resurrection.] That is, the raising of the slain witnesses, (Rev. 11:7–11). See the exposition thereof, (v. 6). Five things are here said of this first resurrection, viz. first, they are holy, that is, sanctified persons, who lived godly in Christ Jesus, in times of persecution, (2 Tim. 3:12). Secondly, they are blessed, (Matthew 5:8) with all spiritual blessings in heavenly things, in Christ Jesus, (Eph. 1:3). Thirdly, [The second death hath no power over them.] They have all escaped the damnation of Hell, (Rom. 8:1–2, vv. 14, 15 of this chapter).
> 
> _7.	And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
> 
> 8.	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 numbers of whom is as the sand of the sea.
> 
> 9.	And they went up on the breadth of the earth, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of Heaven, and devoured them.
> 
> 10.	And the devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever. _
> 
> [These thousand years being expired, Satan shall be loosed,] and his instruments permitted, by his deceiving the nations, (v. 8 called Gog and Magog) to gather together, from east, west, north and south, [And to compass the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city:] i.e., the new Jerusalem, and the general assembly and church of God, (Heb. 12:22–23 and Rev. 21:2–3) [And fire came down from God, out of Heaven, and devoured them.] (2 Thess. 1:5–6) as it did (Ezek. 39:6) verse 10 declares the final doom of the devil. [And the devil that deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the false beast and the prophets are, and shall be tormented day and night forever and ever.]
> 
> _11.	And I saw a great white Throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heavens fled away, and there was found no place for them. _
> 
> Here John had a vision and revelation, of the Day of judgment, (Jude v. 6 and Heb. 6:2) [I saw a great white throne;] which signifies the glory and majesty of our Lord Jesus Christ at his second coming, (Heb. 9:28) which will be with power and great glory, (Matthew 24:30) then we shall all stand before the judgment Seat of Christ, (Rom. 14:10–12 and 2 Cor. 5:10) whom John saw sit upon the white Throne; [From whose face the earth and the heavens fled away.] That is, they were dissolved, (2 Pet. 3:4–13) [And there was found no place for them:] for they must give place unto the new heaven, and the new earth, (Rev. 21:1).
> 
> _12.	And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the Books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the Book of Life; and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books according to their works. _
> 
> The throne being placed, and the judge being set on the throne, John [saw the dead, small and great stand before God]. That is, Jesus Christ, God-Man, (Acts 17:31) [And the books were opened] by these books we are to understand the bible, the holy scripture of truth, God’s statute book; that is, the books of the Old and New Testament, (Rom. 2:12–16) [And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life.] that is, of election unto salvation, (Phil. 4:3) [And the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.] (2 Cor. 5:10) whereby is revealed the just and righteous proceedings of Jesus Christ in judgment; for the wicked shall receive their reward, according to their evil deeds; and the righteous shall receive their reward of grace, as God hath promised them, according to their good deeds, (Matt. 25:34–40) but not for them.
> _
> 13.	And the sea gave up the dead which were in it: and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
> 
> 14.	And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death.
> By sea, death, and hell, here we are to understand the places where the bodies and souls of the dead were held and kept until this day of judgment: [And they were judged every man according to their works.] that is, according to their sinful thoughts, words, and deeds, (Jude vv. 6–15).
> [Verse 14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire: this is the second death.] this lake of fire is that Gehenna, into which the dragon, the beast and the false prophet, were cast. See v. 10 and Matthew 25:31–46.
> 
> 15.	And whosoever was not found written in the Book of Life, was cast into the lake of fire. _
> 
> By [the Book of Life,] we are to understand God’s election unto everlasting salvation, or eternal life and glory; there is a remnant according to the election of grace, (Rom. 11:5, Rom. 8:30, and Eph. 1:3–6). Those that were [not found written in the Book of Life,] are all the non-elect, viz. wicked and ungodly persons; the workers of iniquity, who have lived in the world without God and Christ, and died in their sins; viz. all impenitent unbelievers, that obey not the gospel, (2 Thess. 1:6–10).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may have been his belief but he did not write it into the confession.
> 
> And this brings up an important point. Obviously the reformers did not see a millenial position as 'confessional'. The confession does not 'explicitely' teach a view on the millennium. Because of that, if one were to read the confession without any presuppositions, I think one would conclude that it was amil.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I believe that we are in the millennium now*. It stretches from 70 AD to Satan's little season - which, I believe, is a revolt against Christendom.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to the chart on the OP, what you believe is called 'amillenialism'.
Click to expand...


That is why I said the chart was not entirely accurate.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> Poimen said:
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, amillenialism sees eternity _as part of_ history so all of history leads up to final judgment and new creation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So long as Christ has a human body, history will continue forever. Every act of regeneration, and every work of sanctification in believers and the church, is a victory for King Jesus in the present course of history. Every time a sinner is snatched from the grasp of the devil, Christ wins. It all goes back to how you define "victory."
Click to expand...


When I am speaking of history, I am talking about what takes place before the consummation. Anyway, as we are not going to agree its best to leave it there for now.


----------



## wsw201

For an historical perspective on the various uses of the terms such as Postmillennialism, the following is a good paper prepared by Kim Riddlebarger on the view of Princeton and and the development of various millinial positions especially in the US. Princeton and the Millennium


----------



## Thomas2007

KMK said:


> According to the chart on the OP, what you believe is called 'amillenialism'.



That's because he is a schizomillienarian too. Seriously, though, years ago I repented of dispensational premillienialism and then began searching for the position I was going to take, I arrived first at historic premillienialism, and now lean most heavily to postmillienialism.

John Eliot's Christian Commonwealth had a big impact upon my thinking in these regards.

But I really don't know what the correct interpretation is. I came to the conclusion that many other good men held to different views and I was certainly no more godly nor sincere than they. But then I started thinking about the hold dispensationalism held on my conscience and how it governed my behavior in a very negative way robbing me of much good works caused me to approach it from a different perspective. 

The reason is that one's view of the prophetic future extrapolated from God's proclamation does affect your behavior in the present, so since postmillienialism tended to motivate me to action and carrying out my faith in a positive reforming way, that is the view I lean toward. I don't want to be found like the Jews of old and stuck to a particular interpretation of the future whereby you can't interpret the present and govern your behavior consistent with the word of God that we can all agree on.

God predestinates the future and the preacher declares that He requires what is past, so in some way we all have a part in this, it's just that if the Lord should come in my lifetime I want to be found working for Him, and if not, I want to have a legacy of good works left behind me. I just want to do something positive whereby God can use me in whatever small way to advance His Kingdom.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

I actually was going to start a thread on this myself, but panta beat me to it. My options were going to be:

Amillennial?

Premillennial?

Postmillennial?

A pre-posterous question (Corrie Ten Boom)?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

I think its interesting how the postmils here become "amils" in the Politics Forum. They seem to have lost their optimism there....


----------



## Poimen

Daniel Ritchie said:


> But in amillennialism, the wicked, rather than the righteous, mostly have dominion in history, thus they are the earthly victors.
> 
> However, I think we better just agree to differ as we are walking round in circles.



Daniel:

Perhaps it is my ego that must keep this conversation going but I think it might be helpful for people to know that amillenialism has little or nothing to do with who might have dominion at one time or through the whole thrust of history. 

For the wicked do prosper (Psalm 73:3; James 5:7-8). And so for a time (a short time in the context of eternity) we must be patient and await the return of the Lord to right all wrongs. 

Meanwhile I will simply be keeping busy "aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands" (1 Thessalonians 4:11) and await the return of Christ. He is sovereign; His will is done.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Poimen said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> But in amillennialism, the wicked, rather than the righteous, mostly have dominion in history, thus they are the earthly victors.
> 
> However, I think we better just agree to differ as we are walking round in circles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel:
> 
> Perhaps it is my ego that must keep this conversation going but I think it might be helpful for people to know that amillenialism has little or nothing to do with who might have dominion at one time or through the whole thrust of history.
> 
> For the wicked do prosper (Psalm 73:3; James 5:7-8). And so for a time (a short time in the context of eternity) we must be patient and await the return of the Lord to right all wrongs.
> 
> Meanwhile I will simply be keeping busy "aspire to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business, and to work with your own hands" (1 Thessalonians 4:11) and await the return of Christ. He is sovereign; His will is done.
Click to expand...


Psalm 73 teaches that the wicked will be defeated, and Psalm 1 teaches that it is the righteous that prosper in history. Christ is sovereign, and so His will is to be done in heaven as it is on earth. Postmillennialist are patient (or at least they should be) hence they work for long term societal reformation knowing that, over-the-course of history, their labour's will not be in vain - despite present appearances to the contrary.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think its interesting how the postmils here become "amils" in the Politics Forum. They seem to have lost their optimism there....



 Yeah, but that's only in the short-term, give us 40,000 years or so, then get back to me.


----------



## danmpem

When you all speak of amills (or others?) as being "historic idealists", what exactly do you mean? Does this have to do with the already/not yet questions?


----------



## RamistThomist

danmpem said:


> When you all speak of amills (or others?) as being "historic idealists", what exactly do you mean? Does this have to do with the already/not yet questions?



Technically, they shouldn't label "historic idealists," since idealism downplays "particular incidents" ala Hamstra. 

If you assume that amillennialism is that of the traditional reformation, then the amills then would be historicists (prophecy still unfolding, papacy = antichrist, etc).

If speak of the new amillennialist (see how there is no such thing as an unbroken millennial position) like Riddlebarger or Poythress, then they are an idealist (Revelation is not about history, but pictures).

And all millennial positions utilize the "already/not yet" paradigm. The amillennialist simply uses it to answer every question.


----------



## KMK

thunaer said:


> The Majority of the Baptist Signers were PreMillennial but some were Amillennial. They did not see the Millennial issue to be a Confessional Issue and so left out the Issue as a secondary matter.



And I agree with their decision! 



thunaer said:


> The Confession is not predisposed toward AMillennial or PreMillennial or Any other Millennial inbetween. Just because a Millennial period is not mentioned in the Confession does not make it bent toward Amillennial...



I disagree. Whether they intended to or not, the absence of any declaration concerning a future, literal millennium, leaves the confession with a 'bent' toward a realized millennium.

But, that said, after discovering Mr. Ritchie's strange view which he calls 'postmil' I am persuaded that I do not understand the labels that are being used in this thread any longer. It is probably reckless of me to continue in the discussion.


----------



## Coram Deo

The Confession can not be understood apart from the authors who wrote the confession and who endorsed it regardless if they absenced the any declaration of a millennial period. 

Reading the Confession with presupposition does not work here just like reading the Constitution with presupposition. They both must be read with the original intent of the authors and the matter remains that the majority of 1689 Signers were Premillennial but left out any reference to a millennial period including a realized millennialism (A Millennialism) because it is not a major dividing issue.. It does not in any way predisposed the confession toward AMillennial.

It is like reading the Constitution without the original intent of the authors which is what is happening right now with the Supreme Court and the rest of the country.... 



KMK said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confession is not predisposed toward AMillennial or PreMillennial or Any other Millennial inbetween. Just because a Millennial period is not mentioned in the Confession does not make it bent toward Amillennial...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. Whether they intended to or not, the absence of any declaration concerning a future, literal millennium, leaves the confession with a 'bent' toward a realized millennium.
> 
> But, that said, after discovering Mr. Ritchie's strange view which he calls 'postmil' I am persuaded that I do not understand the labels that are being used in this thread any longer. It is probably reckless of me to continue in the discussion.
Click to expand...


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

KMK said:


> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Majority of the Baptist Signers were PreMillennial but some were Amillennial. They did not see the Millennial issue to be a Confessional Issue and so left out the Issue as a secondary matter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I agree with their decision!
> 
> 
> 
> thunaer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Confession is not predisposed toward AMillennial or PreMillennial or Any other Millennial inbetween. Just because a Millennial period is not mentioned in the Confession does not make it bent toward Amillennial...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree. Whether they intended to or not, the absence of any declaration concerning a future, literal millennium, leaves the confession with a 'bent' toward a realized millennium.
> 
> But, that said, after discovering Mr. Ritchie's strange view which he calls 'postmil' I am persuaded that I do not understand the labels that are being used in this thread any longer. It is probably reckless of me to continue in the discussion.
Click to expand...


I would just add that post-millennialism refers to the view that Christ will return after the millennium rather than before it, so although I do not agree with "golden age" postmillennialism, I am still a post-millennialist.


----------



## KMK

thunaer said:


> The Confession can not be understood apart from the authors who wrote the confession and who endorsed it regardless if they absenced the any declaration of a millennial period.



I agree.



thunaer said:


> Reading the Confession with presupposition does not work here just like reading the Constitution with presupposition. They both must be read with the original intent of the authors and the matter remains that the majority of 1689 Signers were Premillennial but left out any reference to a millennial period including a realized millennialism (A Millennialism) because it is not a major dividing issue..



I agree.



thunaer said:


> It does not in any way predisposed the confession toward AMillennial.



I disagree for the reasons I have stated in previous posts.

Here is my point. All three Millenial views agree in the already/not yet kingdom which will consumate with a future return of the Lord in judgment. By leaving out the things they disagree on (a literal earthly millennium) the confession is left with an already/not yet kingdom which shall be consummated by a future return of the Lord in judgment, which is basically Amillenialism.

I agree that the divines were not in agreement, but by leaving out those things of which they disagree, they have, by default, a document which smacks of amillenialism.

But as I have stated before, my understanding of these labels may be too sophomoric.


----------



## Coram Deo

I disagree for reasons already stated.. 



KMK said:


> I disagree for the reasons I have stated in previous posts.
> 
> Here is my point. All three Millenial views agree in the already/not yet kingdom which will consumate with a future return of the Lord in judgment. By leaving out the things they disagree on (a literal earthly millennium) the confession is left with an already/not yet kingdom which shall be consummated by a future return of the Lord in judgment, which is basically Amillenialism.
> 
> I agree that the divines were not in agreement, but by leaving out those things of which they disagree, they have, by default, a document which smacks of amillenialism.


----------



## LadyCalvinist

All I can say is: I've peaked at the end and I know who wins.

Seriously, I'm amillennialist who would be overjoyed if the postmils were right.


----------



## KMK

LadyCalvinist said:


> All I can say is: I've peaked at the end and I know who wins.
> 
> Seriously, I'm amillennialist who would be overjoyed if the postmils were right.



I could say the same thing and include the pretribbers! I wouldn't mind a rapture. (as long as I got to keep my clothes on)


----------



## Puritan Sailor

KMK said:


> But, that said, after discovering Mr. Ritchie's strange view which he calls 'postmil' I am persuaded that I do not understand the labels that are being used in this thread any longer. It is probably reckless of me to continue in the discussion.



The Golden Age view you are thinking of started to die out around 1900. It was hijacked by the liberals to fuel their socialism. Warfield articulated something similar to what Daniel has argued for. It is essentailly the same as Amil (as promoted by Vos) as far as the timing of the millennium, but puts the ideals of the old golden age view more into a gradual transformation concept in the milllenium. So the only difference between the Warfeild- type Postmil and the Amil is what constitutes "progress" and "victory" during the millennium. 

So by definition it is still Postmil because Christ returns after the millennium. But that also makes Amil a "postmil" view too. The only difference again is how "victory" is defined. So in reality there are only two types of eschatology, Postmil and Premil, with all their variations.


----------



## caddy

This may or may not have been posted already, but even if it has it is worth Reposting. 

A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism

This piece by Prof. David J. Engelsma is wonderful.


----------



## RamistThomist

caddy said:


> This may or may not have been posted already, but even if it has it is worth Reposting.
> 
> A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism
> 
> This piece by Prof. David J. Engelsma is wonderful.



I hope it is better than his book on the Spiritual Kingdom.


----------



## KMK

Puritan Sailor said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, that said, after discovering Mr. Ritchie's strange view which he calls 'postmil' I am persuaded that I do not understand the labels that are being used in this thread any longer. It is probably reckless of me to continue in the discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Golden Age view you are thinking of started to die out around 1900. It was hijacked by the liberals to fuel their socialism. Warfield articulated something similar to what Daniel has argued for. It is essentailly the same as Amil (as promoted by Vos) as far as the timing of the millennium, but puts the ideals of the old golden age view more into a gradual transformation concept in the milllenium. So the only difference between the Warfeild- type Postmil and the Amil is what constitutes "progress" and "victory" during the millennium.
> 
> So by definition it is still Postmil because Christ returns after the millennium. But that also makes Amil a "postmil" view too. The only difference again is how "victory" is defined. So in reality there are only two types of eschatology, Postmil and Premil, with all their variations.
Click to expand...


If that is the case, then I may be more posttrib than I thought! Praise God! I always wanted to be a posttribber! Now I can be both.


----------



## caddy

Ivanhoe said:


> caddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may or may not have been posted already, but even if it has it is worth Reposting.
> 
> A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism
> 
> This piece by Prof. David J. Engelsma is wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope it is better than his book on the Spiritual Kingdom.
Click to expand...

 
Did not read it. Want to elaborate?


----------



## RamistThomist

caddy said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> caddy said:
> 
> 
> 
> This may or may not have been posted already, but even if it has it is worth Reposting.
> 
> A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism
> 
> This piece by Prof. David J. Engelsma is wonderful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hope it is better than his book on the Spiritual Kingdom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did not read it. Want to elaborate?
Click to expand...


http://beretta-online.com/articles/theology/engelsma1.pdf

First of all, I am not postmil so of much of the book, I don't care (it being a critique of postmil). However, at best Engelsma comes close to libeling Christian teachers. At worse he has some heterodox views which seems to contradict his own doctrinal statndards.

First of all Engelsma has a weird view: resurrection of the soul. His interpretation of Rev 20 demands such an odd construct. 

And then there is just the sheer name calling in the book:


> Throughout the book Prof. Engelsma frequently misrepresents the views of the postmillennial theologians he disagrees with. For example, in a chapter entitled “Jewish dreams,” he calls the postmillennial vision a “carnal” kingdom, “exactly the kind of Messianic kingdom dreamed and desired by the Jews n the days of Christ’s kingdom” [emphasis added], and he adds that postmillennialists want “Christ as the king of an earthly kingdom and … political power and earthly glory” (p 8). He goes so far as to begin slinging mud by saying that for any postmillennial brother in Christ, “Christ’s coming is not his hope, the carnal kingdom is” (p 11). It is, in fact, difficult to count the number of times Engelsma uses the term “carnal kingdom” in his book to describe the postmillennial view of the kingdom of God.



On Englesma's grounds, Ezekiel 36 and Revelation 21-22 are earthly and carnal since they portray realities that cannot seriously be spiritualized away.


----------



## Robert Truelove

I have never been convinced that Q. 191 of the Larger Catechsim is 'clearly' Post-mil. As one who holds to an Amil. position, I can affirm the answer to question 191 without hesitation.

One of the problems with the Post/Amil argument is these terms were not used as antithetical positions in history. I know the term amillenialmsm is fairly new; not sure how far the term postmillennialism goes back. 

From my understanding of history, you had the pre-mil view(s) and then you had the post-mil view(s) that also incorporated what has now been segregated out as a separate position called amillenialmsm.

I believe in the victory of Christ and the gospel. The thing is, Christ has won in every century past, he is winning today, and he will win tomorrow. That has not meant and does not necessarily mean all the nations will be converted to Christ. The victory of Christ is seen as much in the martyrdom of hundreds of thousands like the the case of the Waldenses in the Piedmont; virtually wiping Christianity out of the region. This is every bit a victory as entire nation coming to Christ. According to my understanding of Revelation, Christ is not waiting for Christianized nations, but for the last martyr who will die for him (Rev 6:9-11).

As far as being active in kingdom growth, I believe that every Christian should be involved in working that out; it is our commission. What irks me the most about the dogmatic branch of reconstructionist postmillers, is that I have experienced, as a pastor, division over this issue when for me I have in times past been happy to make it a matter of liberty. That's not been good enough for those who are dogmatic reconstructionists. I've experienced it in the church, in other relationships, and on the Internet. I'm honestly at the place when someone comes to our church and is dogmatic on things like theonomy, postmillennialism, and reconstructionism, that I'm up front in telling them that we may not be the church they are looking for. I wish this were not the case because I honestly see these positions as a matter of liberty, but experience has shown that those that tend to strongly hold these views can be very divisive. This is sad because we are probably the most practically post-mil/reconstructionistic (I hope that's a word  church that I know of for our size. Sadly, we don't have a marble bust of Rushdoony in the foyer so for all else that can be said about it, it just isn't enough for some. 

Finally, its not just the actions of some that I find distasteful, but their lack of action. In the recent march in Atlanta against abortion for instance, I did not see one of the many aggressive post-millers I know in attendance. One individual I know who works for a well known reconstructionist ministry could not attend the march because they would not let him off work!!!

Boil it all down...in my ministry I want to be engaged in influencing the culture with the gospel, see sinners come to Christ, and raise godly children. I want to do what I can to see that godly laws are legislated and ungodly ones are struck down, etc. If this makes me a confused amillennialist than so be it. 

As a pastor, I am much more interested in a demonstration of power; what you are doing to bring the gospel to all spheres of life, than I am in your talk; whatever 'ism' is your fancy. What I want to see is are you consistent in giving both of your time and money to the work of the ministry, making contributions to our food drives for the poor, going out of your way to get off work and march (yes even in the freezing rain) in the streets of our city against the evils of our day, sharing the gospel with the lost, being active in looking or opportunities to advance the gospel for Christ versus always being 'out of the know', etc. I have no interest in talk. As you can see from the length of my postm I am 'talked out' on this subject 




Daniel Ritchie said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Ivanhoe said:


> First of all Engelsma has a weird view: resurrection of the soul. His interpretation of Rev 20 demands such an odd construct.



The application to the intermediate state is basic amil teaching. Non-historicist postmils also accept it -- e.g., Warfield: "It, too, embraces the whole inter-adventual period, but that period as passed in the security and glory of the intermediate state." (Biblical Doctrines, p. 658.) My personal opinion is that the Apocalypse has suffered from gross misunderstanding because it has not been interpreted according to its own thematic statement, which is the comparison of the here with the hereafter.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Please elaborate, brother 

And did you vote?


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> Please elaborate, brother
> 
> And did you vote?



I didn't vote becase you can't fit a square peg in a round hole.  I hold the "Puritan hope" within the amil framework of exegesis.

The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.


----------



## panta dokimazete

armourbearer said:


> The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.





(don't faint, now! )


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (don't faint, now! )
Click to expand...


----------



## KMK

armourbearer said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please elaborate, brother
> 
> And did you vote?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't vote becase you can't fit a square peg in a round hole.  I hold the "Puritan hope" within the amil framework of exegesis.
> 
> The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.
Click to expand...


Could you write a book for us? Perhaps a commentary on Revelation? Nothing fancy. Maybe in your spare time...


----------



## MW

KMK said:


> Could you write a book for us? Perhaps a commentary on Revelation? Nothing fancy. Maybe in your spare time...



That's just not possible. But I would suggest anyone who reads the book should try to do so from beginning to end in one sitting, and keep in mind the suffering condition of Christ's servants (the things which are) in comparison with the key statement of chap. 1:7, that He cometh with clouds (the things which shall be hereafter).


----------



## holyfool33

Dispensational Pre-Mil


----------



## dwayne

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amill or Postmill is the way to go. The only problem is that I found Amills rather boring and unmotivated. Excitement for eschatology is only found with the Premills and the Postmills. From the rapture right prognosticators to the erudite work of the Postmills, these two groups have passion. But the amills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not much to get excited about if Christ's kingdom is predestined to defeat in history, while humanists rule the world.
Click to expand...


Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world so don't look for it,his kingdom ultimate place is the new heavens and the new earth. Kim Riddlebarger in "A Study of American Postmillenialism" says,"Another critical factor which must be kept in view is that the term postmillenial is usually understood today as an eschatological position quite distinct from "amillennialism." in fact, it is generally understood that one who adopts a postmillennial eschatology self-consciously rejects the amilllennial understanding of the millennial age and nature of the reign of Christ. However, the term amillennialism, as we will see, was not used in the ninteenth century, and the origin of the term is shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, Gaffin asks the poignant questionin this regard, "Who coined the term amillennial?" The problem is that apparently there is not a clear-cut defining moment when the term amillennial comes into standard usage and the position is recognized as something quite distinct from postmillennialism. This problem is illustrated by the treatment given this subject by Louis Berkgof, Berkhof, himself a Princeton graduate, and astudent of B.B.Warfield, pointed out in 1938 that "the name [amillennialism]is new indeed, but the view to which it has applied is as old as Christianity. And yet, virtuallyall historians of doctrine agree that what is now known as amillennialist is generally the eschatology of historic Christianity. Even B.B.Warfield, usually portrayed as postmillennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend SamuelG. Craig, that amillennialism of the type held by his esteemed Dutch colleagues Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper "is the historic Protestant view, as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period including the Westminster StandardS."What then are the differences between "amillennialism" and "postmillennialism," and how do these terms develop unique distinctives".


----------



## dwayne

I have question for the postmillennialist on this site such as DanielRitchie that said that amillennialist was pessimistic about their end times belief's.How long will it take for this victory to take place? I see the world around us is not getting better and better,but is getting worse,for instance the slaughter of million's of babies avery year just for starters.


----------



## dwayne

Robert Truelove said:


> I have never been convinced that Q. 191 of the Larger Catechsim is 'clearly' Post-mil. As one who holds to an Amil. position, I can affirm the answer to question 191 without hesitation.
> 
> One of the problems with the Post/Amil argument is these terms were not used as antithetical positions in history. I know the term amillenialmsm is fairly new; not sure how far the term postmillennialism goes back.
> 
> From my understanding of history, you had the pre-mil view(s) and then you had the post-mil view(s) that also incorporated what has now been segregated out as a separate position called amillenialmsm.
> 
> I believe in the victory of Christ and the gospel. The thing is, Christ has won in every century past, he is winning today, and he will win tomorrow. That has not meant and does not necessarily mean all the nations will be converted to Christ. The victory of Christ is seen as much in the martyrdom of hundreds of thousands like the the case of the Waldenses in the Piedmont; virtually wiping Christianity out of the region. This is every bit a victory as entire nation coming to Christ. According to my understanding of Revelation, Christ is not waiting for Christianized nations, but for the last martyr who will die for him (Rev 6:9-11).
> 
> As far as being active in kingdom growth, I believe that every Christian should be involved in working that out; it is our commission. What irks me the most about the dogmatic branch of reconstructionist postmillers, is that I have experienced, as a pastor, division over this issue when for me I have in times past been happy to make it a matter of liberty. That's not been good enough for those who are dogmatic reconstructionists. I've experienced it in the church, in other relationships, and on the Internet. I'm honestly at the place when someone comes to our church and is dogmatic on things like theonomy, postmillennialism, and reconstructionism, that I'm up front in telling them that we may not be the church they are looking for. I wish this were not the case because I honestly see these positions as a matter of liberty, but experience has shown that those that tend to strongly hold these views can be very divisive. This is sad because we are probably the most practically post-mil/reconstructionistic (I hope that's a word  church that I know of for our size. Sadly, we don't have a marble bust of Rushdoony in the foyer so for all else that can be said about it, it just isn't enough for some.
> 
> Finally, its not just the actions of some that I find distasteful, but their lack of action. In the recent march in Atlanta against abortion for instance, I did not see one of the many aggressive post-millers I know in attendance. One individual I know who works for a well known reconstructionist ministry could not attend the march because they would not let him off work!!!
> 
> Boil it all down...in my ministry I want to be engaged in influencing the culture with the gospel, see sinners come to Christ, and raise godly children. I want to do what I can to see that godly laws are legislated and ungodly ones are struck down, etc. If this makes me a confused amillennialist than so be it.
> 
> As a pastor, I am much more interested in a demonstration of power; what you are doing to bring the gospel to all spheres of life, than I am in your talk; whatever 'ism' is your fancy. What I want to see is are you consistent in giving both of your time and money to the work of the ministry, making contributions to our food drives for the poor, going out of your way to get off work and march (yes even in the freezing rain) in the streets of our city against the evils of our day, sharing the gospel with the lost, being active in looking or opportunities to advance the gospel for Christ versus always being 'out of the know', etc. I have no interest in talk. As you can see from the length of my postm I am 'talked out' on this subject
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Very well said


----------



## GoYouBlues

Postmillenial position here.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

amillennial, thanks to Kim Riddlebarger's books _A Man of Sin_ and _A Case for Amillenialism_.


----------



## RamistThomist

I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.


----------



## KMK

Ivanhoe said:


> I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.



Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?


----------



## BertMulder

Has any of you read Hoeksema's

Table of Contents for Behold he Cometh


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?
Click to expand...


As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist? 

Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment). 

I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century. 

I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. *Given my ontology*, this makes perfect sense).


----------



## KMK

Ivanhoe said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist?
> 
> Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment).
> 
> I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century.
> 
> I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. *Given my ontology*, this makes perfect sense).
Click to expand...


I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist?
> 
> Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment).
> 
> I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century.
> 
> I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. *Given my ontology*, this makes perfect sense).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?
Click to expand...


No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).

But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the *bodily* sense.


----------



## KMK

Ivanhoe said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> As in how I hold to both historic premil AND partial preterist?
> 
> Long story short, I think our neat and tidy ____millennial categories are Enlightenment constructs that obscure biblical systems (sorry, I had to sound postmodern for a moment).
> 
> I see lots of time-texts actually making more hermeneutical sense when applied to the 1st (or 4th BC) century.
> 
> I also believe, at least for now, in a millennial kingdom. Otherwise we are left with a flattened ontology (e.g., spiritualizing aspects of Ezekiel 33-36; such a move is actually homage to the Enlightenment views of reality. People--on PB--have called me silly and absurd for actually believing that a wolf can lie with the lamb, or that mountains will actually drip sweet wine. I do not Marcionize the text by saying those are just spiritual realities. *Given my ontology*, this makes perfect sense).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).
> 
> But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the *bodily* sense.
Click to expand...


I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe you have stated in other threads that you believe that in some aspects the Kingdom has already come. (Maybe I am wrong) As a preterist, you believe that the Kingdom (at least in some aspects) dawned in AD 70, correct? If so, then it was the Lord's coming in judgment upon Jerusalem that counts as His Premil second coming?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).
> 
> But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the *bodily* sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.
Click to expand...


True, in post 139 I expressed my dissatisfaction with millennial schemata. I think they reflect a modernity-complex that wants to reduce everything into tidy categories. 

However, to be fair to the premillennialist, when he says "second coming" he means by "second coming" the "second *bodily* coming. Thus he can unequivocally affirm that the Kingdom has come in Christ, that Christ has come in judgment on Jerusalem, and that the Kingdom spreads across the globe.


----------



## KMK

Ivanhoe said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, for neither premil nor preterist count that as a bodily coming--which is the locus classicus for premil. Actually, premillennialist Ladd (along with most NT scholarship) believes the kingdom came in Jesus' ministry and was expanded in the book of Acts (how people can read Acts and get a pessimistic eschatology is beyond me).
> 
> But I understand your question and perhaps premils need to rewrite a few things. In any case, AD 70 does not count for what you would call the second coming in the *bodily* sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True, in post 139 I expressed my dissatisfaction with millennial schemata. I think they reflect a modernity-complex that wants to reduce everything into tidy categories.
> 
> However, to be fair to the premillennialist, when he says "second coming" he means by "second coming" the "second *bodily* coming. Thus he can unequivocally affirm that the Kingdom has come in Christ, that Christ has come in judgment on Jerusalem, and that the Kingdom spreads across the globe.
Click to expand...


I share your concern about using labels. They are useful to a point but they can often cause confusion (like Daniel Ritchie labeling himself a 'postmil') 

But, just to clarify...

You are Premil in that you believe in a future literal Kingdom inaugurated by a second bodily coming of Christ but, the book of Revelation does not describe that second coming nor is there any future for ethnic Israel.

Am I on the right track?


----------



## RamistThomist

KMK said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am reading Ladd right now and enjoying it immensely. I still do not understand how the Premil can say that in some aspects the Kingdom has come yet Christ has not yet made His second bodily appearance. Perhaps you should change the name to 'midmil'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, in post 139 I expressed my dissatisfaction with millennial schemata. I think they reflect a modernity-complex that wants to reduce everything into tidy categories.
> 
> However, to be fair to the premillennialist, when he says "second coming" he means by "second coming" the "second *bodily* coming. Thus he can unequivocally affirm that the Kingdom has come in Christ, that Christ has come in judgment on Jerusalem, and that the Kingdom spreads across the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I share your concern about using labels. They are useful to a point but they can often cause confusion (like Daniel Ritchie labeling himself a 'postmil')
> 
> But, just to clarify...
> 
> You are Premil in that you believe in a future literal Kingdom inaugurated by a second bodily coming of Christ but, the book of Revelation does not describe that second coming nor is there any future for ethnic Israel.
> 
> Am I on the right track?
Click to expand...


Close. I look for a millennial kingdom that takes place in the created-order (not some Kantian "spiritual" kingdom).

the book of Revelation does describe it (chapter 20), but it is hinted at all over the Old Testament prophets.

Revelation might or might not hint at a future Israel. That is necessary to progressive dispensationalism but not to me. Dispensationalists hold that the nation of Israel mediates blessings to the world from Jerusalem during the millennial kingdom. I hold that Jesus mediates blessings to the world during the millennial kingdom. Israel is lagniappe. 

So if a future Israelic conversion is proved false, that doesn't do much for my position.


----------



## MW

Ivanhoe said:


> Close. I look for a millennial kingdom that takes place in the created-order (not some Kantian "spiritual" kingdom).



I cannot see how this is possible when your premil scheme binds you in to the expectation that only the personal and visible appearing of Jesus Christ can usher in the millennial kingdom. This effectively reduces all "kingdom" hope to a future period, and thereby nullifies any anticipation of the reigning King renewing the face of the earth prior to His triumphal advent by means of Word and Spirit. 

I also think you mistakenly describe the amil position when you call it a Kantian "spiritual" kingdom. I agree the kingdom is spiritual -- righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; but that does not mean it takes place outside the created order. Amils regard God's kingdom as present in the Christian influence which brings light to the world.


----------



## panta dokimazete

Rev. Winzer, I did not see your name on the poll, but I take it you are amil?


----------



## MW

panta dokimazete said:


> Rev. Winzer, I did not see your name on the poll, but I take it you are amil?



Amil in exegesis, postmil in application. That's why I didn't vote.


----------



## panta dokimazete

gotcha - was wondering and appreciate the clarification


----------



## Gesetveemet

armourbearer said:


> panta dokimazete said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer, I did not see your name on the poll, but I take it you are amil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amil in exegesis, postmil in application. That's why I didn't vote.
Click to expand...


Sir, are you saying that you believe sin will be minimized before the return of our Lord? 



William


----------



## MW

Gesetveemet said:


> Sir, are you saying that you believe sin will be minimized before the return of our Lord?



No, nor is it implied.


----------



## RamistThomist

armourbearer said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Close. I look for a millennial kingdom that takes place in the created-order (not some Kantian "spiritual" kingdom).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I cannot see how this is possible when your premil scheme binds you in to the expectation that only the personal and visible appearing of Jesus Christ can usher in the millennial kingdom. This effectively reduces all "kingdom" hope to a future period, and thereby nullifies any anticipation of the reigning King renewing the face of the earth prior to His triumphal advent by means of Word and Spirit.
Click to expand...


That's partly why I am torn between some forms of postmillennialism and some forms of premil. Jury is out on this one.



> I also think you mistakenly describe the amil position when you call it a Kantian "spiritual" kingdom. I agree the kingdom is spiritual -- righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost; but that does not mean it takes place outside the created order. Amils regard God's kingdom as present in the Christian influence which brings light to the world.



Many amil theologian/professors I know are very Kantian in their application of eschatology and kingdom ethics. I rejoice that you are not.


----------



## MOSES

Interesting twist.

If we take the following simple definitions:
Post-mill - Christ will return after the millennial reign
Pre-mill - Christ will return before the millennial reign

What if one is post-mill in his eschatolgy as far as having an eschatology of hope and victory. That Christ is ruling and reigning in his kingdom now and will do so until he has subdued all nations and peoples and put all enemies under his feet. (he is a post-mill)

Now, what if this same person holds to preterism. A form of preterism that see's the parousia spoken of in scritpure as only referring to 70ad. That Jesus coming in 70ad was to end the old age and establish the new. His millennial reign was in full force after 70ad.
(This would make one say that Jesus came back before the millennial reign...That makes him a pre-mill!)

The whole box of millennial schemas is not sufficient.


----------



## tcalbrecht

I'm postmil, but I haven't voted. 

I studied amillennialism years ago on my transition out of dispensationalism. I had a good friend at the time who was amil (he even wrote an entry-level commentary on Revelation from and idealist amil position), but I was not very convinced.

Recently, on the advice of an amil, I went out and bought Anthony Hoekema's _The Bible and the Future_, and I’m working through it. Assuming I’m desperate to be counted among the enlightened, what other authors or materials would work to convince an epistemologically self-conscious postmillennialist of the error of his ways?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

dwayne said:


> I have question for the postmillennialist on this site such as DanielRitchie that said that amillennialist was pessimistic about their end times belief's.How long will it take for this victory to take place? I see the world around us is not getting better and better,but is getting worse,for instance the slaughter of million's of babies avery year just for starters.



The world will get better whenever the gospel advances. Let's face it, is the world really much worse now than in the days of the Roman Empire? Those who claim that postmillennialists believe the world is somehow evolving into a better place are setting up a straw-man; we believe that over the course of history Christ's kingdom will be victorious over the kingdom of man, but not that the world is presently getting better and better.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

dwayne said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slippery said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amill or Postmill is the way to go. The only problem is that I found Amills rather boring and unmotivated. Excitement for eschatology is only found with the Premills and the Postmills. From the rapture right prognosticators to the erudite work of the Postmills, these two groups have passion. But the amills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not much to get excited about if Christ's kingdom is predestined to defeat in history, while humanists rule the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world so don't look for it,his kingdom ultimate place is the new heavens and the new earth. Kim Riddlebarger in "A Study of American Postmillenialism" says,"Another critical factor which must be kept in view is that the term postmillenial is usually understood today as an eschatological position quite distinct from "amillennialism." in fact, it is generally understood that one who adopts a postmillennial eschatology self-consciously rejects the amilllennial understanding of the millennial age and nature of the reign of Christ. However, the term amillennialism, as we will see, was not used in the ninteenth century, and the origin of the term is shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, Gaffin asks the poignant questionin this regard, "Who coined the term amillennial?" The problem is that apparently there is not a clear-cut defining moment when the term amillennial comes into standard usage and the position is recognized as something quite distinct from postmillennialism. This problem is illustrated by the treatment given this subject by Louis Berkgof, Berkhof, himself a Princeton graduate, and astudent of B.B.Warfield, pointed out in 1938 that "the name [amillennialism]is new indeed, but the view to which it has applied is as old as Christianity. And yet, virtuallyall historians of doctrine agree that what is now known as amillennialist is generally the eschatology of historic Christianity. Even B.B.Warfield, usually portrayed as postmillennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend SamuelG. Craig, that amillennialism of the type held by his esteemed Dutch colleagues Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper "is the historic Protestant view, as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period including the Westminster StandardS."What then are the differences between "amillennialism" and "postmillennialism," and how do these terms develop unique distinctives".
Click to expand...


There is a difference between saying Christ's kingdom is not _of _this world (meaning that it does not derive its authority from an earthly source) and saying that it is victorious in this world.


----------



## MOSES

I find it interesting that 2000 years ago, Christ was forsaken even by his disciples when he was arrested.

Now...2000 years later I am dwelling in a large country that has a Church on every corner (which only 500 years ago was a vast wilderness), and I'm interacting with disciples all over the world.

Seems like the kingdom is making some progress.


----------



## etexas

I voted unsure when the poll began since then I cove become pretty convinced of an Amill position.


----------



## larryjf

I have been studying this topic lately, and first let me say that Daniel's book is very good.

I started wondering...
Churches started disconnecting government with the Church.
The Westminster Standards underwent revision to which statements regarding the civil authorities role under Christ was softened.
Now, some newer Bibles soften the call to make disciples "of all nations"

Is this how it normally funnels down? The Church starts thinking differently, so they change their confessions, and eventually the Scripture themselves are changed?

Mat 28:19 from some of those "newer" versions i mentioned...

The Message: (vv18-20)
Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: "God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and *train everyone you meet*, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I'll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age."

Contemporary English Version:
Go to the *people of all nations* and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,

Worldwide English (instead of "of" they use "in"):
So go and make disciples *in* all countries. Baptise them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## larryjf

Daniel Ritchie said:


> dwayne said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not much to get excited about if Christ's kingdom is predestined to defeat in history, while humanists rule the world.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world so don't look for it,his kingdom ultimate place is the new heavens and the new earth. Kim Riddlebarger in "A Study of American Postmillenialism" says,"Another critical factor which must be kept in view is that the term postmillenial is usually understood today as an eschatological position quite distinct from "amillennialism." in fact, it is generally understood that one who adopts a postmillennial eschatology self-consciously rejects the amilllennial understanding of the millennial age and nature of the reign of Christ. However, the term amillennialism, as we will see, was not used in the ninteenth century, and the origin of the term is shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, Gaffin asks the poignant questionin this regard, "Who coined the term amillennial?" The problem is that apparently there is not a clear-cut defining moment when the term amillennial comes into standard usage and the position is recognized as something quite distinct from postmillennialism. This problem is illustrated by the treatment given this subject by Louis Berkgof, Berkhof, himself a Princeton graduate, and astudent of B.B.Warfield, pointed out in 1938 that "the name [amillennialism]is new indeed, but the view to which it has applied is as old as Christianity. And yet, virtuallyall historians of doctrine agree that what is now known as amillennialist is generally the eschatology of historic Christianity. Even B.B.Warfield, usually portrayed as postmillennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend SamuelG. Craig, that amillennialism of the type held by his esteemed Dutch colleagues Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper "is the historic Protestant view, as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period including the Westminster StandardS."What then are the differences between "amillennialism" and "postmillennialism," and how do these terms develop unique distinctives".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a difference between saying Christ's kingdom is not _of _this world (meaning that it does not derive its authority from an earthly source) and saying that it is victorious in this world.
Click to expand...


I agree with Daniel here. Christ's kingdom knows no bounds as far as where it is, though it derives its power from Heaven. Otherwise, how could He say...

...All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. (Mat 28:18)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

larryjf said:


> I have been studying this topic lately, and first let me say that Daniel's book is very good.
> 
> I started wondering...
> Churches started disconnecting government with the Church.
> The Westminster Standards underwent revision to which statements regarding the civil authorities role under Christ was softened.
> Now, some newer Bibles soften the call to make disciples "of all nations"
> 
> Is this how it normally funnels down? The Church starts thinking differently, so they change their confessions, and eventually the Scripture themselves are changed?
> 
> Mat 28:19 from some of those "newer" versions i mentioned...
> 
> The Message: (vv18-20)
> Jesus, undeterred, went right ahead and gave his charge: "God authorized and commanded me to commission you: Go out and *train everyone you meet*, far and near, in this way of life, marking them by baptism in the threefold name: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then instruct them in the practice of all I have commanded you. I'll be with you as you do this, day after day after day, right up to the end of the age."
> 
> Contemporary English Version:
> Go to the *people of all nations* and make them my disciples. Baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
> 
> Worldwide English (instead of "of" they use "in"):
> So go and make disciples *in* all countries. Baptise them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.



Thanks for the compliment Larry; though I am not sure I would even describe those versions as translations, more like travesty's. Those are truly appalling renderings.


----------



## Obie

*Postmillennialism and the Reformed Faith*

Postmillennialism and the Reformed Faith



[The following is a synopsis of the evangelical postmillennial position by the late Dr. Greg L. Bahnsen.]



There is enough misunderstanding of evangelical, Bible-believing postmillennialism abroad today that it would be worthwhile to make note of the kind of constituative doctrinal convictions which have been set forth by its representatives.



1. Evangelical postmillennialists {referred to as EPs from here on} champion the inspiration, infallibility, and sole doctrinal authority of the Bible.



2. EPs believe that fallen man is totally unable to do any saving good, cannot atone for his sins, and can become a member of the kingdom of God only through the redemptive work of the Savior and the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit.



3. EPs teach the glorious, personal return of Jesus Christ at the end of history to judge the world.



4. EPs insist that at his first advent Jesus, the Son of God, came as the Messianic or Mediatorial King and established His saving Kingdom among men on earth. Citing Philippians 2, Acts 2, Ephesians 1, Hebrews 1, and a host of other Biblical texts, William Symington wrote these Words in his study, Messiah the Prince, or, The Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ: "Christ's appointment [to the kingly office] was still farther intimated by his actual investiture with regal power at and after his resurrection . . . . Christ's appointment gives him rightful claim to the implicit and conscientious obedience of every moral creature . . . . This appointment affords ample security for the overthrow of all Christ's enemies, and the ultimate establishment of his kingdom in the world." David Brown could hardly be clearer: "Christ's proper kingdom is already in being; commencing formally on His ascension to the right hand of God, and continuing unchanged, both in character and form, till the final judgment."



5. EPs are painfully aware that those who belong to Christ -- the church -- are appointed to suffering in this world, and will inevitably undergo persecution and affliction, in following their Savior and King. Listen again to Symington: "The members of the church have many enemies. The devil, the world, and the flesh, are in league against them. They wrestle not only against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of darkness of this world, against spiritual wickednesses in high places. They are required to assume the character, equipments, and attitude of soldiers..... Satan, the chief and leader of these enemies, exasperated at his overthrow, makes a desperate effort to regain his lost dominion over them; and although he cannot succeed, he does much to annoy such as have been rescued from his grasp." Charles Hodge commented upon 2 Corinthians 4 that Paul there "compares himself to a combatant, first hardly pressed, then hemmed in, then pursued, then actually cast down. This was not an occasional experience, but his life was like that of Christ, an uninterrupted succession of indignities and suffering.... We constantly illustrate in our person the sufferings of Christ. We are treated as he was treated; neglected, defamed, despised, maltreated...."



6. EPs believe that the gospel is to be preached to all nations by the church prior to the second advent of Christ, eventually bringing worldwide conversion, and that this is the church's calling from God. Charles Hodge taught: "The first great event which is to precede the second coming of Christ, is the universal proclamation of the Gospel.... The conversion of the Gentile world is the work assigned the Church under the present dispensation." B. B. Warfield argued that "precisely what the risen Lord, who has been made head over all things for his church, is doing through these years that stretch between his first and second comings, is conquering the world to himself; and the world is to be nothing less than a converted world.... All conflict, then, will be over, the conquest of the world will be complete, before Jesus returns to earth."



7. EPism maintains that the victorious advance of Christ's kingdom in the world will take place in terms of the present, peaceful and Spiritual power of the gospel rather than through a radically different principle of operation, namely Christ's physical presence on earth using violence to subdue opposition. A. A. Hodge put it this way: "The Scriptures, both Old and New Testament, clearly reveal that the gospel is to exercise an influence over all branches of the human family, immeasurably more extensive and more thoroughly transforming than any it has ever realized in time past. This end is to be gradually attained through the spiritual presence of Christ in the ordinary dispensation of Providence, and ministrations of the church." Charles Hodge insisted that "There is no intimation in the New Testament that the work of converting the world is to be effected by any other means than those now in use.... It is to dishounour [sic, sl] the Gospel, and the power of the Holy Spirit, to suppose that they are inadequate to the accomplishment of this work."



8. EPism believes that with the power of the Holy Spirit working through the church's preaching of the gospel, in gradual stages of growth, the preponderance of men and nations will submit to Christ at some time in the future. B. B. Warfield drew this generalization: "the nature of the whole dispensation in which we are living, and which stretches from the First to the Second Advent, [is] a period of advancing conquest on the part of Christ.... The prophecy [of Romans 11] promises the universal Christianization of the world." Elsewhere he wrote: "If you wish, as you lift your eyes to the far horizon of the future, to see looming on the edge of time the glory of a saved world, you can find warrant for so great a vision only in the high principles that it is God and God alone who saves men, that all their salvation is from him, and that in his own good time and way he will bring the world in its entirety to the feet of him whom he has not hesitated to present to our adoring love not merely as Savior of our souls, but as the Savior of the world.... The redemption of the world is similarly a process. It, too, has stages; it, too, advances only gradually to its completion...."



9. EPists do not hold that each and every individual on earth will someday be saved, but that at some future time the vast majority will; in Christ's wheat field there will always be found some tares, up until the final harvest in judgment. Charles Hodge taught that "it is not to be inferred from this [Biblical promise of Gentile and Jewish conversion] that either all the heathen or all the Jews are to become true Christians. In many cases the conversion may be merely nominal. There will probably enough remain unchanged in heart to be the germ of that persecuting power which shall bring about those days of tribulation which the Bible seems to teach are to immediately precede the coming of the Lord."



10. EPism teaches that there will be a final apostasy or falling away just prior to the return of Christ in judgment on the world. Interpreting Revelation 20, A. A. Hodge wrote: "Christ has in reserve for his church a period of universal expansion and of pre-eminent spiritual prosperity, when the spirit and character of the "nobel army of martyrs" shall be reproduced again in the great body of God's people in an unprecedented triumph of their cause, and in the overthrow of that of their enemies, receive judgment over their foes and reign in the earth; while the party of Satan, 'the rest of the dead,' shall not flourish again until the thousand years be ended, when it shall prevail again for a little season." Charles Hodge held that "The great truth set forth in these prophesies is, that there was future ... a great apostasy in the Church; that this apostasy would be Anti-christian (or Antichrist), ally itself with the world and become a great persecuting power... [which will] be over taken with a final destruction when the Lord comes."


----------

