A Case For Postmillennialism

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this video. It's 12 minutes long and I have to say the philosophy of the doctrine is very appealing. Of course we want to believe what's most biblical, but the teaching seems very invigorating and motivational, so I need to discern it well. I've never examined postmil much because of the theonomy tendencies, but apart from that they might be onto something.

 

[Taylor]

I've never examined postmil much because of the theonomy tendencies…

Although many Theonomists happen to be postmillennial, Theonomy actually has nothing to do with eschatology, or vice versa.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Although many Theonomists happen to be postmillennial, Theonomy actually has nothing to do with eschatology, or vice versa.

This is good to know. What view do you hold to?

 

[Joshua]

How ‘bout a six pack for it?

 

[Sovereign Grace]

I would love to hear anyone's thoughts on this video. It's 12 minutes long and I have to say the philosophy of the doctrine is very appealing. Of course we want to believe what's most biblical, but the teaching seems very invigorating and motivational, so I need to discern it well. I've never examined postmil much because of the theonomy tendencies, but apart from that they might be onto something.

I’m leaning post mill but there’s much more to learn. Dr. MacArthur stated we lose down here. I have a lot of trouble digesting that. We have been given the Spirit and the word, the two most powerful weapons to ever use. I see lots to agree with, but I need to study this a lot more before committing to it.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

Although many Theonomists happen to be postmillennial, Theonomy actually has nothing to do with eschatology, or vice versa.

Hmm... Sorry brother, but the suggestion that any doctrinal system could even possibly be divorced from eschatological considerations is at least naive, if not worse.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I am an Amillennialist. There was a fair amount in this video that I could agree with. I too believe Christians should be salt and light in the broader society by bringing the gospel to bear in every area of their lives. I think that is something all true Christians desire. But the things said in this video would lead one to believe that if one is NOT a postmillennialist, one is "so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good". It's an unfair characterization; and one I am afraid demonstrates a basic ignorance of what they criticize.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

It is not the things said in this video that I find problematic, as much as the things that are left unsaid. We all agree that 1) Christ has been given all authority in heaven and in earth (Matt. 28:18), and 2) that Christ's "kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). The real question lies in reconciling these seemingly opposite truths. I suspect, it is more difficult than the men in this video let on.

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Hmm... Sorry brother, but the suggestion that any doctrinal system could even possibly be divorced from eschatological considerations is at least naive, if not worse.

I'm post-millennial, but not a theonomist. Tying postmillennialism to theonomy is the same error as tying premillennialism to dispensationalism (except perhaps that likely a larger percentage of premils are dispensational than the percentage of postmils who are theonomists - so perhaps an even more egregious error).

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

I've not watched this video, I will try to get round to it, but I've heard Durbin before on his brand of postmillennialism. One issue I take with his approach, which is seemingly the common one in the theonomy camp, is that it seems to suggest that Christians bring about the millennium by "redeeming the culture". This is generally code for Christians getting in about all the ways and activities of the world and "Christianising" them. One of the issues with this is that it largely divorces the salvation of multitudes from the work of the Holy Spirit. (Durbin says and does a lot of good by the way, mixed in with some more concerning aspects, I'm certainly not criticising for the sake of it).

I believe that the preaching of the gospel and the outpouring of the blessing of the Holy Spirit will be the way in which "all the ends of the world shall remember, and turn to the Lord", and "the whole earth shall be filled with his glory", and "men shall worship him, each one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen", and "from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same his name shall be great among the Gentiles", and, well, one could go on.

@Ed Walsh - you mentioned some time ago (I seem to remember) that you intended to gather quotes from scripture regarding the promises of God for the glory of his church. Hope I'm not misremembering, but if you've made progress on that I would be interested in seeing.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I believe that the preaching of the gospel and the outpouring of the blessing of the Holy Spirit will be the way in which "all the ends of the world shall remember, and turn to the Lord", and "the whole earth shall be filled with his glory", and "men shall worship him, each one from his place, even all the isles of the heathen", and "from the rising of the sun to the going down of the same his name shall be great among the Gentiles", and, well, one could go on.

Sounds very similar to Jonathan Edward's Postmillennialism. He believed there would be increasing revivals of true religion and - as you put it - the isles of the heathen will turn to the Lord in great numbers etc (it is fascinating how he ties in his biblical theology, covenant theology, and Postmill view of revival in his classic work "History of the Work of Redemption". )

 

[Scottish Presbyterian]

Sounds very similar to Jonathan Edward's Postmillennialism. He believed there would be increasing revivals of true religion and - as you put it - the isles of the heathen will turn to the Lord in great numbers etc (it is fascinating how he ties in his biblical theology, covenant theology, and Postmill view of revival in his classic work "History of the Work of Redemption". )

It's a long time since I've read that, but yes I think it's good. I think Edwards got into a bit of date setting, which is never a good idea, but his general eschatological thesis was good.

On the "isles of the heathen" quote, it wasn't me who put it like that, it was Zephaniah.

 

[B.L.]

I've never examined postmil much because of the theonomy tendencies, but apart from that they might be onto something.

Although many Theonomists happen to be postmillennial, Theonomy actually has nothing to do with eschatology, or vice versa.

I'm post-millennial, but not a theonomist. Tying postmillennialism to theonomy is the same error as tying premillennialism to dispensationalism (except perhaps that likely a larger percentage of premils are dispensational than the percentage of postmils who are theonomists - so perhaps an even more egregious error).

One issue I take with his approach, which is seemingly the common one in the theonomy camp, is that it seems to suggest that Christians bring about the millennium by "redeeming the culture". This is generally code for Christians getting in about all the ways and activities of the world and "Christianising" them.

Specific to Durbin...he is in fact a theonomist, no? Apologia Studios started "Bahnsen University" recently and he seems to be quite close to a number of folks influenced by Rushdoony, Demar, and North. I don't bring this up to discount his postmill position, but just point of fact.

I've noticed a number of Baptists that are seemingly swimming in this direction today. I suspect Jared Longshore's departure from Founders/SBC and subsequent move to Moscow, Idaho is related.

Perhaps it is fair to say not every postmillenialist is a theonomist, but every theonomist is a postmillenialist. Would you agree?

 

[RamistThomist]

I'll listen to it later. I hope he gets into making specific exegetical case instead of using phrases like "all authority," earth full of the knowledge, etc. That's the lexical fallacy. James White did something like that when he became postmil.

 

[Taylor]

Perhaps it is fair to say not every postmillenialist is a theonomist, but every theonomist is a postmillenialist. Would you agree?

No. There is nothing about Theonomy that logically necessitates or requires postmillennialism. See the quote from Gentry below.

 

[Taylor]

Hmm... Sorry brother, but the suggestion that any doctrinal system could even possibly be divorced from eschatological considerations is at least naive, if not worse.

I never said the position could be divorced, since all theology is interrelated. Rather, I am saying that one's eschatology logically has no bearing on whether or not one is a Theonomist.

A common error of some theonomy opponents is to assume that theonomy entails postmillennialism. The two theological constructs, however, are distinct; in no way do they stand or fall together. Postmillennialism is concerned with "what will be"; theonomy focuses on "what should be.” Many theonomists are amillennialists; few postmillennialists are theonomists.​

​

—Kenneth L. Gentry, "Preface to the Third Edition" in Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 3rd ed. (Nacogdoches, TX: Covenant Media Foundation, 2002), xv; italics original.​

 

[Ed Walsh]

you mentioned some time ago (I seem to remember) that you intended to gather quotes from scripture regarding the promises of God for the glory of his church. Hope I'm not misremembering, but if you've made progress on that I would be interested in seeing.

I have begun. But it is not a stand-alone project. I read eight to ten chapters a day serially through the whole Bible. As I do so, I note the instances and categorize them in a notebook. There are three sub-categories. Words of the Prophets, yearnings of the Saints, and the Words of God Himself. The first and third I give more weight to than the Saints. However, I do include the Psalms of David with the Prophets. Acts 2:29-31; Acts 1:16; Matthew 22:42-44.

I just finished Deuteronomy, which is in my book, right up there with the likes of Isaiah and Jeremiah. The Lord's repetitious stating of His promise to give the Israelites the land (I didn't count them) must be repeated over 50 times from Abraham to Joshuah. I call this The Great Commission of the Old Testament. And still, the people did not believe (obey) the commission. (See Numbers 13 & 14) So clear was the command and promise that God condemned 6,00,000 of the fighting men to die in the wilderness for their murmuring. Only Joshuah and Caleb believed the "Great Commission." But the ten spies who discouraged the people God killed on the spot.

This brings me to my favorite promise that the whole world will be filled with the glory of God. Nothing can stop it. Amid the turmoil caused by the spies' unbelief and the people's rebellion, Moses prays that God's anger will not go so far as to destroy all the people. Here's the Lord's answer to Moses.

Numbers 14:20-21​

And the LORD said, "I have pardoned according to thy word: but as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD."​

I am well aware that similar unbelief (disobedience) in Christ's "Greater" Commission is rampant amount this generation of the Reformed. That curious prying into the still partly sealed book of the Revelation while ignoring the Confessions rule of interpreting the less clear by the more clear. (see below)

Chapter I. Of the Holy Scripture, section IX. states:

"The infallible rule of interpretation of scripture is the scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture, (which is not manifold, but one,) it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly."​

The Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment? - Include the following forbidden sin:

"...curious prying into, and misapplying of God's decrees and providences;y misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it,..."​

I truly despise that very negative form of Ammillenialism that thinks this is as good as it gets, and it's all downhill from here. And just as the 10 spies were killed and the 600,000 men, 20 and over, died over the next 40 years, this generation may also have to die off until a new generation comes of age who will again believe in the Greatness of the Great Commission. A generation that sees the implications of Christ as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. The One to who possesses All power in heaven and in earth. You know, The Savior of the World.

I know I speak roughly, but someone has to see the king isn't wearing any clothes.

Ed

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I am an Amillennialist. There was a fair amount in this video that I could agree with. I too believe Christians should be salt and light in the broader society by bringing the gospel to bear in every area of their lives. I think that is something all true Christians desire. But the things said in this video would lead one to believe that if one is NOT a postmillennialist, one is "so heavenly minded that they are of no earthly good". It's an unfair characterization; and one I am afraid demonstrates a basic ignorance of what they criticize.

That's a fair point, brother. Since I have been a Christian I have been in churches that are premil and amil. In these circles there was never really a regard for Christianity to permeate all Spears of life and flourish. It was more of a mentality that at least we are saved, we want others to be saved, but this whole world is going to be destroyed and the system of it is going to be wicked, so it doesn't really matter what happens to the world either spiritually or physically. We're just kind of here to share the gospel and be good Christians and tell Jesus destroys and recreates.

The postmil stance seems to take a completely different approach. They want to see Christianity permeate and flourish in every regard and sphere of life, to wear the whole world is becoming obedient to the authority and Kingdom of God. So we are now establishing a heaven on Earth. So this philosophy really does have practical implications on how a Christian lives in this world and even plans for the future generations to come.

But I am glad to hear that you do believe some aspects of this teaching, even if you don't align yourself with the doctrine. Maybe it's something that all of us Christians can learn good lessons from.

 

[Taylor]

I have been a Christian I have been in churches that are premil and amil. In these circles there was never really a regard for Christianity to permeate all Spears of life and flourish. It was more of a mentality that at least we are saved, we want others to be saved, but this whole world is going to be destroyed and the system of it is going to be wicked, so it doesn't really matter what happens to the world either spiritually or physically. We're just kind of here to share the gospel and be good Christians and tell Jesus destroys and recreates.

Frankly, that's disturbing. I would argue that such a view of the world, regardless of millennial position, is something less than biblical (to put it mildly). This was certainly not the view of the Reformers or the Puritans.

 

[RamistThomist]

Frankly, that's disturbing. I would argue that such a view of the world, regardless of millennial position, is something less than biblical (to put it mildly). This was certainly not the view of the Reformers or the Puritans.

Depends on what we mean by "permeating all spheres" of society. Even monks in the early church ended up influencing people. St Anthony the Hermit nearly converted all of Egypt.

"Permeating all spheres" usually ends up in practice meaning getting a Christian elected to office or in charge of a university dept.

 

[Taylor]

Depends on what we mean by "permeating all spheres" of society. Even monks in the early church ended up influencing people. St Anthony the Hermit nearly converted all of Egypt.

"Permeating all spheres" usually ends up in practice meaning getting a Christian elected to office or in charge of a university dept.

Speaking for myself, what it means is that there is no sector of life—religious or otherwise—that is outside the scope of Christ's authority and Word. What that looks like is, of course, dependent upon the person and circumstances.

 

[RamistThomist]

Speaking for myself, what it means is that there is no sector of life—religious or otherwise—that is outside the scope of Christ's authority and Word. What that looks like is, of course, dependent upon the person and circumstances.

True, but most historic premils and progressive Dispensationalists would say that Christ is Lord over all areas, so that's not unique to postmillennialism. The more astute would bring in discussions of whether he is mediatorially Lord over these areas.

 

[MountainPilgrim]

The resurgence of this Dominionist-Transformationalist-Reconstructionist ethic is yet another demonstration of the Church's temptation to react to culture rather than simply "be the Church" and live up to its Marks as given by Christ (Belgic Article 29). These things are not unique to Postmillenialism, nor are all Postmillenialists such, but I think it's quite clear which brand is attractive and growing in the West. I for one am not at all surprised that the popularity of Dominionism and its proponents such as Durbin, etc. coincides with a time in which many in the Church are recognizing that we no longer influence society like we think we should, and in which Christians are becoming marginalized by the larger culture.

Enter the Dominionists, who provide an admittedly attractive ecclesiology in which we get to be the conquerors, fighting for righteousness' cause in the culture wars, rather than the meek and lowly persecuted church found elsewhere in time and place. I certainly understand the attraction, but I have seen for myself some of the dangers this conviction can present. Rather than waste everyone's time by writing an essay on the matter, I'll simply list a few of them here:

- As others have mentioned already, there is a temptation to "immanentize the eschaton" by thinking that we are actually ushering in the Kingdom of Christ by doing "Kingdom work" and that Christ's rule actually depends on the Church conquering for Him, rather than proclaiming Him as Conqueror.

- There is a willingness to partner with other voices with whom we have absolutely no business joining under the same banner. Of course, we can partner with Mormons or RC's in the fight against abortion, but we would never do so under the claim that we are all of the same Faith and Church. Yet there are teachers of highly questionable (at best) status with whom churches are partnering in order to react against the world. Abhorrent behavior and theology are tolerated or ignored simply because they are "on our side" in the so-called culture wars. Likewise, demonstrably reliable, godly teachers are being cast aside not for errant doctrine or behavior, but because they disagree with our cultural activism. I think this speaks volumes as to where our priorities truly lie.

- There seems to be no room for true Christian Liberty. The way these folks talk, it is as though you agree and join them in their activism, or you are denying God's true purpose for the Church, which is to say, you are in sin. I have heard Dominionists call those who disagree - Brothers and Sisters, some of whom fellowship in the same local assembly - "sheep," "cowards," "weak," "effeminate," and on and on. (To be sure, I affirm the liberty of individual Christians to pursue worthy goals of political activism, etc., just don't do it in the name of the institutional Church, and don't accuse your Brother of sin for not joining you).

- Dominionism commits the same error as the Liberal churches, though in the opposite direction, by adding some sort of social agenda to its purpose rather than being content with the Gospel we were once given. The Church has struggled immensely throughout its history to live up to the aforementioned Marks given by Christ. If the majority of local churches were faithfully preaching the pure Gospel, properly administering the Sacraments, and rightly exercising Discipline, I may be more open to the admonition that we ought to be fighting in the culture wars. Yet I am convinced that a major cause for doctrinal and practical heterodoxy is the local institutional church adding to its agenda things which it were never called to add, and as a consequence forgetting the Church's true calling and purpose.

There is more I could say, but I am too long-winded already, so I will leave it at this: There is legitimacy to the Postmillenial position, as demonstrated by some great Believers past and present, but that is not the same as the Dominionist ecclesiology and ethic that is being peddled here. I urge caution against any conviction that answers our concerns about the direction of culture in any way other than exhorting the institutional Church to continue in its timeless mission to simply preach the Gospel.

 

[MountainPilgrim]

On another note, I was reading a bit about the Anabaptists with whom Luther dealt (Carlstadt, Müntzer, etc.) and couldn't help but recognize a striking similarity in speech and goal between the militant Anabaptists (Müntzer in particular) and modern day Dominionists, et al. Does anyone here have any awareness of the history of the positions and how - if at all - they are related?

(Hopefully this question is relevant enough to the current thread)

 

[Taylor]

@MountainPilgrim, I am curious. Do you distinguish between Reconstructionism and Theonomy?

 

[MountainPilgrim]

@MountainPilgrim, I am curious. Do you distinguish between Reconstructionism and Theonomy?

It is certainly possible that an individual could be one without being the other, but it seems these days they are very often found together.

 

[RamistThomist]

Theonomy is a specific subset of Christian ethics. Reconstructionism is a broader social platform. My former OPC pastor studied under Bahnsen and wrote his thesis on theonomy. He was an amillennial and did not consider himself a reconstructionist.

 

[RamistThomist]

On another note, I was reading a bit about the Anabaptists with whom Luther dealt (Carlstadt, Müntzer, etc.) and couldn't help but recognize a striking similarity in speech and goal between the militant Anabaptists (Müntzer in particular) and modern day Dominionists, et al. Does anyone here have any awareness of the history of the positions and how - if at all - they are related?

(Hopefully this question is relevant enough to the current thread)

Yes. Both tend to see grace as destroying or removing nature.

 

[C. M. Sheffield]

I'm post-millennial, but not a theonomist. Tying postmillennialism to theonomy is the same error as tying premillennialism to dispensationalism (except perhaps that likely a larger percentage of premils are dispensational than the percentage of postmils who are theonomists - so perhaps an even more egregious error).

I'm sorry, are there any theonomists that are not postmellinnialists?

 

[Eyedoc84]

Theonomy is a specific subset of Christian ethics. Reconstructionism is a broader social platform. My former OPC pastor studied under Bahnsen and wrote his thesis on theonomy. He was an amillennial and did not consider himself a reconstructionist.

I probably fall into a similar camp.