Optimistic Amil vs Postmil
- Thread starter nwink
- Start date
- Status
Fly Caster
Puritan Board Sophomore
I once heard an optimistic amil say that the difference between an optimistic amil and a postmil was that the postmil had the courage of his convictions.
I recognize an "optimistic" amil position in the status of my own thoughts on the subject of eschatology.
I say this, as one who 25 years ago would have been best described as a "pessimistic" amil. I have since been to the postmil side of the aisle, even to having "courage" enough to call myself one for a time, although I've never accepted a definite 1000-(solar)-years or golden-age, as if Scripture so described the time. Since then, my continued studies, experience, listening and reflection have drawn me back away further from the strictly postmil position.
There is a clear difference, as I can see it, in my stance 25 years ago and my current conviction; although both minds are best-described as amil (actually, and unfortunate/inaccurate but necessary label). In the first case, the outlook is something of a "fortress" mentality, envisioning the church as a beleaguered band holding out grimly for the rescue. In the latter case, the church is the pilgrim nation in the wilderness, always on the move, always being rescued, and always victorious over its foes--when it lives by faith.
As a point of help in the discussion, C.Venema's book (The Promise of the Future BoT pubs.) graphically illustrates two "basic" views of eschatology, either a pre- or post- millennium outlook. Both of these are subdivided into a wider spectrum: dispensational-premil and historic premil dividing the one one side; and amil and postmil dividing the other side. I think that most people can locate themselves (generally) somewhere on such a chart--either further towards dispensational-premil (and within that view, further toward pre-trib, etc.), or further towards high postmil expectations for a realized (earthly) eschatological kingdom. Perhaps these ends continue around to meet each other on the far side? Both far ends of this spectrum seem to start with an eschatological kingdom that is fundamentally earthy, to rise toward a centerpoint that would be radically ethereal/spiritual.
I say this, as one who 25 years ago would have been best described as a "pessimistic" amil. I have since been to the postmil side of the aisle, even to having "courage" enough to call myself one for a time, although I've never accepted a definite 1000-(solar)-years or golden-age, as if Scripture so described the time. Since then, my continued studies, experience, listening and reflection have drawn me back away further from the strictly postmil position.
There is a clear difference, as I can see it, in my stance 25 years ago and my current conviction; although both minds are best-described as amil (actually, and unfortunate/inaccurate but necessary label). In the first case, the outlook is something of a "fortress" mentality, envisioning the church as a beleaguered band holding out grimly for the rescue. In the latter case, the church is the pilgrim nation in the wilderness, always on the move, always being rescued, and always victorious over its foes--when it lives by faith.
As a point of help in the discussion, C.Venema's book (The Promise of the Future BoT pubs.) graphically illustrates two "basic" views of eschatology, either a pre- or post- millennium outlook. Both of these are subdivided into a wider spectrum: dispensational-premil and historic premil dividing the one one side; and amil and postmil dividing the other side. I think that most people can locate themselves (generally) somewhere on such a chart--either further towards dispensational-premil (and within that view, further toward pre-trib, etc.), or further towards high postmil expectations for a realized (earthly) eschatological kingdom. Perhaps these ends continue around to meet each other on the far side? Both far ends of this spectrum seem to start with an eschatological kingdom that is fundamentally earthy, to rise toward a centerpoint that would be radically ethereal/spiritual.
Steve Curtis
Puritan Board Senior
Interesting thought. Does Venema explore this thesis (I have not read the book) or is that idea developed anywhere that you know of?
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Well the theonomists (postmil) and the dispensationalists (premil) meet in the sense that the theonomists are committed to the specific reapplication of the civil law of Moses, rather than its general moral equity, to modern nation states, while the dispensationalists don't seem to say anything about the civil law, but want the reinstitution of the Temple, the sacrifices and the ceremonial law by the Jews.
Neither side seems to realise that the ceremonial law of Moses and the civil law of Moses were contexually linked in the Levitical Economy, as typological of God's Kingdom. You can't have the one without the other.
I've moved from a post-mil to an a-mil position. Now as I read scripture I'm rather dismayed to see how much materialism had crept into my thinking. It was as if the advance of Christ's kingdom in the spiritual realm was somehow less real than what is happening in the physical earth. Christ's kingdom has been inaugurated and we live right now in the reality of the world to come. So discussions regarding optimism seem a bit odd to me.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
The postmil position isn't materialistic. Materialism is the idolatry of things.
Christ rules and reigns over both the spiritual and physical realms. This is the basis for the success so far of the Gospel - over the last 2,000 years - and its continuing expansion and success.
Many Christians are already enjoying postmil conditions in measure, and may many more enjoy such conditions.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
There have been some very spiritual postmils who lived enamoured by the prospect of Heaven and their soon greater fellowship with Christ in Heaven, and yet who believed in the postmil prospects for Christ's Kingdom on Earth.
I don't think that postmillennialism and an other worldly attitude are incompatible, nor that amillennialism and other worldliness necessarily go hand in hand.
I think otherworldliness and looking forward to being with Christ depends on levels of sanctification rather than whether you are premil, postmil or amil.
You can get very unsanctified Christians who hold to any of these positions.
Postmillennialists worth their salt will recognise that the powers of the world to come have entered this world in a decisive way from the first century on, and that is why the world has been leavened with the Gospel over the past 2,000 years, and is ultimately going in the direction - against all sorts of opposition by Satan's minions - in which Christ wants it to go.
The Kingdom of God and the Millennium was realised in the first century, but it is also a process in history. If realised millennialism was just static, the Gospel wouldn't be now established in the four corners of the Globe.
I don't think that postmillennialism and an other worldly attitude are incompatible, nor that amillennialism and other worldliness necessarily go hand in hand.
I think otherworldliness and looking forward to being with Christ depends on levels of sanctification rather than whether you are premil, postmil or amil.
You can get very unsanctified Christians who hold to any of these positions.
Postmillennialists worth their salt will recognise that the powers of the world to come have entered this world in a decisive way from the first century on, and that is why the world has been leavened with the Gospel over the past 2,000 years, and is ultimately going in the direction - against all sorts of opposition by Satan's minions - in which Christ wants it to go.
The Kingdom of God and the Millennium was realised in the first century, but it is also a process in history. If realised millennialism was just static, the Gospel wouldn't be now established in the four corners of the Globe.
Last edited:
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
I wouldn't go as far as saying that "orthodox" Christianity is expanding and succeeding today, I would actually say that we have experienced a great decline in "orthodox" Christianity since the 19th century. What we see is an increase in pseudo-Christianity and more and more compromise.
This does not look like Christ coming to an earth which is primarily dominated by Christian principles
Last edited:
Did you notice that our Lord poses it as a question?
It should be observed that biblical prophecy, while certain in its ultimate outcome, is always presented as contingent upon the moral agents to whom it is addressed. E.g., Nineveh's destruction.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Well, as a postmil, I believe that there will be a final apostasy right at the end of time, anyway. See e.g. Revelation 20.
As regards present conditions: present conditions are just a snapshot of Church history. Although there has been massive declension in the "traditional heartlands" of Protestant Christianity since the nineteenth century, under the influence of Enlightenment thinking - e.g. in Europe and North America - the Devil has not been able to prevent Christianity from taking root in places where it was not known 200 years ago.
Also modernist faith in man's finite, fallible and fallen reason without the basis of God's Enlightenment of special and general revelation, is showing signs of strain.
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
Would this not nullify the warning given in scripture to always watch for Christ's coming? If our interpretation is that the earth has to be almost completely converted to Christianity and then having a final apostasy, it means that Christ cannot come back anytime soon since the earth is not, and never was, dominated by the christian faith.
I do not deny this but this also fit's in the Amil position, all the earth will be evangelized and men from all tribes and nation will be converted but it does not necessarily means that christian principles will be dominating mens philosophy in general.
---------- Post added at 10:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 PM ----------
That was my understanding, the context of Luke 18 is that Christ is telling his people to be in constant prayer (being faithful), but then he poses a questions that seems to be rhetorical in saying that at his coming faith will be scarce since he contrast it with his commandment to be in fervent prayer. He seems to be saying that at this coming the church will be in state of lukewarmness/faithlessness. My understanding is that Christ is coming back to judge the world because his church has become ineffective in doing his work (expanding his Kingdom).
turmeric
Megerator
Interesting!
I think you might be making more of the text than it was intended to teach. This is a question, not a statement. At the most it serves to search and try us, not to predict the future. Christ is never said to return because the church has become ineffective. How can this be? He explicitly says that the gospel shall be preached to all nations as a testimony.
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
Maybe I should have used another verse to demonstrate my view. (Nevertheless Matthew Henry seem to have the same conclusion in his commentary of Luke 18:8)
Maybe I should have specified "visible" church, ineffective was maybe a strong word, fewer in number maybe would have been better. God will certainly always have a remnant on the earth, how big this remnant will be at his coming I don't know but I believe other part of scriptures also teach us similar conclusion, Matt 24:37 seem to say that Jesus' coming will be comparable to the days of Noah, only Noah and his family were saved. The same could be said about Sodom when only Lot and his family were spared, Abraham pleaded with God but apparently less than 10 people were "righteous" in Sodom. I agree that with this verse alone it might be hard to come to this conclusion but along with other portion of scripture I thought it made sense.
If you look at Genesis 6 and take the position that "The sons of God" in verse 2 actually refer to the descendant of Seth (which would have represented the covenanted people) and they mingled with the descendant of Cain and the result is apostasy then judgment. The same thing can be seen many times with the people of Israel. Christ is coming back to judge the world, and when judgment happens in scripture apostasy seem to be a recurring theme.
Now this being said I'm not saying God cannot change the tide, he delayed his judgment for Hezekiah's sake, same thing for Nineveh as you mentionned earlier, but from what I can see in scriptures the last days do not seem to be glorious days for the church.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
All watching for Christ's coming involves is a moral watching. If you are converted and not in a state of backsliding, you are ready for Christ when He comes for you. For most, that will be at death.
The Apostle Paul told his Thessalonian readers that the Second Advent wouldn't be any time soon - but would be after the advent of Antichrist - so how were they supposed to "watch" for Christ's coming, according to your principles.
He also indicated to his Roman readers in chapter 11, that the Second Advent wouldn't be before the conversion of the Jews.
Our Lord indicated in Matthew 25 that He would be away for a long time.
Were the disciples, a few minutes after our Lord's ascension, meant to believe in the possible any moment return of Christ (could be soon), or even in the definitely imminent (it will be soon) return of Christ. Nothing could be more ridiculous.
This belief in the any moment Second Advent, which often turns into a belief in the imminent Second Advent, is not taught in Scripture, and is in fact denied by the Apostle.
Unbelievers will always be surprised by Christ's coming, whether in death or at the end of time, because they do not believe. He comes for them unexpectedly, to deprive them and as a threat i.e. like a thief in the night.
But Christ's coming for believers is not a threat, nor to deprive them, nor unexpected, they are ready- whether He comes in death or at the end of the world. Therefore the two cases, of believers and unbelievers, with respect to this, are quite different.
If the Lord has given indications in His Word, that the Eschaton will not happen before certain things have happened we should head them, instead of holding to a fantasy view of the possible any moment Parousia, a shibboleth of Dispensational Premillennialism.
E.g.
The Apostle in the above passage doesn't teach that it is the Christian position to believe that Christ could possibly return today. He explicitly tells the Thessalonians not to expect Christ's Second Advent until certain events intervene. Neither does he tell them when Christ is going to return in His glory; but he tells them when He is not going to return in His glory.
We still have to be ready because apparently we don't know when Christ comes for us in the providence of death; and that is when the tree falls for most people who will ever live, apart from the last generation, for whom it falls when Christ comes in His glory with His holy angels.
Last edited:
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
I never said that the Apostles believed Christ could have returned within minutes of his assention, but this does nothing to prove a Golden Age of Christian domination throughout the world, I believe most of the world has been evangelized already (not to confuse with mostly converted), there are believers in pretty much all corners of the world today. I'm not trying to determine when Christ will be coming back or to determine if it will be soon or not, but we should be careful not to be to quick to dismiss the possibilty of his coming any time soon. It all depend how you interpret eschatological passages.
If your interpretation is that no rebellion happened yet and the man of lawlessness has not been revealed yet, then maybe this passage could be applicable for your view, but on the other hand if you believe the man of lawlessnes has already been revealed it changes things.
I agree that Christ second coming is not a threat for true believers, but if your interpretation is wrong you could be mislead in waiting for something that might not come. Actually I would say that Dispensational thinking has the same problem, things cannot unfold until certain thing happens (Temple being rebuilt, revelation of Antichrist etc). Only the Amil position does not limit Christ's coming to specific events since most prophecies are viewed as symbolic instead of literal.
Anyway I realize this is probably the wrong thread since I'm off topic from the original question and my views wouldn't apply to Optimistic Amil or Postmill.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Etienne
I tend to believe it refers to the Papacy.
But you said,
Presumably the Christians at Thessalonika were obliged to "watch". If they could do so while not believing in the possibility of an any moment Parousia, then belief in the possibility of an any moment Parousia isn't of the essence of watching as you said it was.
Etienne
But if the postmil interpretation is right and a person held to that he wouldn't be misled. So your point just begs the question. But it is true that the debate between the amils and postmils is of less moment than that between the amils/postmils and premils.
Anyway, I'm not waiting for it, but to go to be with my Lord, which is far better than the events which I believe will occur. Postmillennial conditions are here in measure and will make progress over the centuries. I doubt big events like the mass conversion of the Jews, the fall of the Papacy and the Christianising of all nations will happen in my lifetime, so I'm not holding my breath.
On the OP, most postmils today are amil in the sense that they do not believe that there is a point in the future when the millennium starts, but that it is coextensive with the interadventual age and that progress is realised gradually, like individual sanctification.
Amils are postmil in the sense that they believe that the return of Christ will close the millennial age in which we live.
Some of the older postmil works sometimes talked as if the millennium started when the Jews were converted, or when the Papacy fell, or when all nations became Christian.
I tend to believe it refers to the Papacy.
But you said,
Presumably the Christians at Thessalonika were obliged to "watch". If they could do so while not believing in the possibility of an any moment Parousia, then belief in the possibility of an any moment Parousia isn't of the essence of watching as you said it was.
Etienne
But if the postmil interpretation is right and a person held to that he wouldn't be misled. So your point just begs the question. But it is true that the debate between the amils and postmils is of less moment than that between the amils/postmils and premils.
Anyway, I'm not waiting for it, but to go to be with my Lord, which is far better than the events which I believe will occur. Postmillennial conditions are here in measure and will make progress over the centuries. I doubt big events like the mass conversion of the Jews, the fall of the Papacy and the Christianising of all nations will happen in my lifetime, so I'm not holding my breath.
On the OP, most postmils today are amil in the sense that they do not believe that there is a point in the future when the millennium starts, but that it is coextensive with the interadventual age and that progress is realised gradually, like individual sanctification.
Amils are postmil in the sense that they believe that the return of Christ will close the millennial age in which we live.
Some of the older postmil works sometimes talked as if the millennium started when the Jews were converted, or when the Papacy fell, or when all nations became Christian.
It seems to me that you are drawing a comparison with Noah and Lot that was not intended. There is nothing in the biblical comparison which requires the conclusion that there will be a very small number of believers at the second coming of Christ.
Last edited:
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
So do you believe there will be more believers than unbelievers at the second coming of Christ? I guess we need to define a small number of believers, I do believe there will be less believers then unbelievers it`s all proportional, there are over 6 billions people on the planet at the moment, a remnant could still be a large amount of people.
You do not believe this verse is drawing a comparison between Christ second coming and the time of Noah?
You do not believe that the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was a picture of God's judgment?
In verse 3 we see the 2 witness of God (which references the fact that the law says that at the mouth of 2 witness truth would be established) then verse 4 tells us that these witness are olive tree and candlesticks (symbol for the church)
Then verse 7 says the beast will overcome them when they have finished their testimony, the beat represents Satan’s kingdom.
Then verse 8 compares those who have killed the 2 witness (the church) to Sodom and Egypt. (Sodom God destroyed with fire and brimstones and Egypt was destroyed by the 10 plagues)
Then we see the coming of the lord in verse 15.
I would say Sodom being destroyed by fire and brimstone was a picture of God’s last judgment
Why would the destruction part be of Noah flood and burning of Sodom and Gomorrah be pictures of God`s judgements but not the remnant part. Again these are pictures I`m not saying only a few families will be saved but a smaller remnant compared to unbelievers.
Last edited:
I am content to say the Scriptures do not speak to the question, and where Scripture is silent we do well to be be silent also.
I accept there is a comparison. As noted in my previous reply, there is a biblical comparison, but it does not extend to the number of believers. There is nothing in the text which warrants such a conclusion.
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
When Christ compare his coming to the days of Noah, does it not assume that the earth is mostly wicked? The days of Noah are known for this fact.
I didn't thought I was reading into the text by assuming that when Christ mentionned the "Days of Noah" he was refereing to wickedness on the earth. Would God have said that "the wickedness of man was great in the earth" if the majority of people would have been faithful believers?
When you look at Revelation 11 (assuming that you accept that the two witness/olive trees/candlesticks represent the church) does it not say that the beast will overcome them when they have finished their testimony? How would you interpret that other than the church is silenced someway. It can't refer to a past event, if that would be the case it would mean the church have already finished her testimony.
Why cannot Amils also believe this? The field of the world will be full of wheat...but also tares as the Gospel spreads forth.
Fogetaboutit
Puritan Board Freshman
I do not speak for all Amils, but I would say the field represent Christ entire reign and not only at the time of his coming, I have no problem saying there will be wheat at the coming of the Lord but I'm not convinced there will be more wheat than tares. My understanding is that wheats and tares will always grow next to each other but I also accept that Satan will prevail (be loosed) for a season at the end.
Etienne:
Those sounds like my beliefs, too. That the Gospel will go to all the earth, and have general success, even among the Jews. But then, right towards the end, there will be a season in which evils prevail and a personal Antichrist emerges, who Christ will destroy with His Coming.
Those sounds like my beliefs, too. That the Gospel will go to all the earth, and have general success, even among the Jews. But then, right towards the end, there will be a season in which evils prevail and a personal Antichrist emerges, who Christ will destroy with His Coming.
Peairtach
Puritan Board Doctor
Some amils believe the Gospel success spoken of by postmils is possible, but not clearly taught in Scripture, so they won't say that it will happen. Others deny that it will occur.
Postmils believe that the mountain of Daniel will progressively grow, in history, to fill the whole Earth.
There will also be a falling away at the end, which will remind us of Satan's incorrigibility when released, and Man's incorrigibility without God's grace.
Postmils believe that the mountain of Daniel will progressively grow, in history, to fill the whole Earth.
There will also be a falling away at the end, which will remind us of Satan's incorrigibility when released, and Man's incorrigibility without God's grace.
I don't believe that is assumed in the comparison. What does our Lord say? Verse 39, "And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." The point of comparison is the way people were living in a state of ignorance as to the flood. This is substantiated by the lesson which is drawn from the comparison. Verse 42, "Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come." The lesson also makes it clear that the comparison was made for the disciples' sake.
We should be on our guard against putting words in the Lord's mouth. He Himself says, verse 36, "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Mark 13:32 adds, "neither the Son." If the Son, as man, knew not the day and hour, He has undoubtedly acted in the wisest possible way by refraining from conjecture as to the specific marks which will characterise the day and hour in which His return will occur.
If one adopts the idealist approach one is bound to acknowledge that the silence doesn't refer to a past, present, or future event, but to a specific perspective with which to view the witness.
I believe the Gospel will be taken to the whole world. And that it will have its own predestined measure of success among every people. But, "to fill the whole earth" seems to mean that the vast majority of people will be Christian or under Christian powers it seems.
The mountain of Daniel WILL fill the whole earth, but will this occur entirely before Christ returns or will the Gospel go forth, Christ return and then finish the work so that this mountain of Daniel fills the whole earth, not just for a mere millennium, but forever, at Jesus' Second Coming?
- Status
Similar threads
