Ah, I see. My apologies!
A Case For Postmillennialism
- Thread starter Ryan&Amber2013
- Start date
- Status
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
I take it that it didn't work?
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
You caught me! Speed of all sorts eludes me these days.Iain Murray ... or is your spelling not up to speed with these things?
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Well, seeing it’s an ongoing study, I’m not going to debate for or against postmillennialism. I’ll just lurk and sop up whatever gravy I can with my biscuit.
My clarification may have muddied the waters. So, to be even more clear: postmillennialism is within confessional boundaries. Advocating for it here is fine! Not everyone agrees with it, but that is what discussions are for.Well, seeing it’s an ongoing study, I’m not going to debate for or against postmillennialism. I’ll just lurk and sop up whatever gravy I can with my biscuit.
As long as it is done according to our usual forum rules, etc....
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
Sounds good to me.
Richard2YHWH
Puritan Board Freshman
Why in the world are you administrators telling me to study up on Reformed theology and confessions? I have. Why in the world can't I believe in the confessions and still believe in pre-tribulation rapture? How can a Pastor who has been at the same church for 50 years, and has studied the word of God even longer; who proclaims to be a reformer/Calvinist, and yet he believes in a pre-tribulation rapture John MacArthur)? These confessions; that I do agree with, happened shortly after the reformation. Where for more than 1100 years prior, wasn't talked about because they didn't even have a bible. The peoples interpretation of the Bible became what the institutional church spoon-fed them. Premillennialism largely disappeared after it was condemned as heretical by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD. It wasn't until the reform movement of the early seventeenth century that we see a rebound in the number of statements that reflect the pretribulation view. And when the reformation happened, it wasn't really about end times, but reforming the church; getting the church freed from what had become of the catholic church. I know it goes deeper that, but that was just my short version. Why do you tell me to stop promoting when I'm not. I am discussing my views; which are Biblical by the way, with others who have a different point of view; so that I may learn the difference of views. What good is a forum when all you want to discuss is one view? Pretribulationalist are much more closer to the reformed view than you think. We are brothers and sisters in Christ, and just because I happen to believe in pretib rapture don't mean I disagree with the confessions; or that I'm trying to convert people to my view. Let us reason with one another. What are you afraid of any way? And to say that you are not in some way a dispensationalist, is just not true. You believe the Old Testament is Not the New Testament right? Are they not different dispensations? Please!! I am not promoting unconfessional views, I'm just having a conversation about my views; which in my opinion don't go against the confessions. Why isn't pretrib mentioned in the confessions? Perhaps it's because the main focus was on the reformation of the church and not anything else. Confessions that were drawn up then were focused on salvational issues that would reform the church. So it makes since why escapology (End Times) wasn't mentioned much. I pray you don't find me disrespectful, because that is not my intention. And if I in some way offended you, please forgive me. God Bless and thank you
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
Given that probably the majority of the drafters of the Westminster Satandards would have been postmillennial, I'd say so. Although the Westminster Standards can be read in a way the allows for amillennialism, and perhaps even premillennialism, there is certainly an argument to be made that it sort of assumes postmillennialism. See WLC 191 for example.
In case it's causing confusion, and since it was mentioned in the thread, Theonomy (in the sense of conflating the Israelite civil law with the moral law), is unconfessional. That said, some of what people seem these days to label as Theonomy (e.g. the duty of the civil magistrate to uphold both tables of the moral law) is plainly confessional.
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
I thought the video was boring and lacking in information. The moderator was especially unhelpful as he meandered hither and yon in a stream of consciousness.
Everyone,
Please see my next post titled
Towards a Precising Definition of the Amill & Postmill Positions.
-OR-
Let’s Get on the Same Page
-OR-
Let’s Get on the Same Page
Last edited:
Ed Walsh
Puritan Board Graduate
Greetings to all,
I considered starting a new thread with this topic but decided to post it here since it might help us to understand each other better. I hope I am not being boring, and I hope this is helpful.
What do we imply by the terms: AMILLENNIALISM & POSTMILLENNIALISM?
Some Associated Terms:
Implication
: something that is suggested without being said directly: something that is implied.
Inference
: the act or process of reaching a conclusion about something from known facts or evidence
Conjecture
: an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence.
Precising definition (this is important)
A precising definition is a definition that contracts or reduces the scope of the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition.
For example, a dictionary may define the term “student” as “1. anyone attending an educational institution of any type, or 2. anyone who studies something.” However, a movie theater may propose a precising definition for the word “student” of “any person under the age of 18 enrolled in a local school” in order to determine who is eligible to receive discounted tickets.
Precising definitions are generally used in contexts where vagueness is unacceptable; many legal definitions are precising definitions, as are company policies. This type of definition is useful in preventing disputes that arise from the involved parties using different definitions of the term in question.
A precising definition is intended to make a vague word more precise so that the word’s meaning is not left to the interpretation of the reader or listener.
What should be our implications of the terms: AMILLENNIALISM & POSTMILLENNIALISM?
For that, we need a Precising Definition.
We consider the definitions that follow as a good starting point. They are from the
Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Dr. Alan Cairns
AMILLENNIALISM
The theory that there will be no thousand-year period of great spiritual blessing before the Lord Jesus returns, and no thousand-year reign of Christ on earth after His return. Thus in Revelation 20, the multiple references to the thousand years are spiritualized to convey the idea of completeness or perfection: “It expresses no period of time” (W. W. Milligan). Amillennialists view the thousand years of Rev. 20 as a spiritual description of the entire period between Christ’s ascension and the end of the age. For example, John Wilmot has a chapter in his Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation entitled, “The Millennial Administration of the Ascended Christ”—his description of this inter-adventual period. With this view, amillennialists tend to idealize not only the events detailed in the book of Revelation but most other end-time prophecies, so that their prophetic content lies more in their elucidation of spiritual principles than in any reference to time. However, some amillennialists modify this position to allow a literal fulfilment of some prophetic events before the second coming of Christ.
POSTMILLENNIALISM
The belief that Christ’s second coming* will be preceded by the Millennium,* a golden age of gospel blessing upon the ministry of the church. At Christ’s coming there will be the general resurrection, the general judgment, followed by the creation of the new heavens and the new earth, and the eternal state.
About Dr. Carns
Dr. Alan G. Cairns (August 12, 1940 – November 5, 2020) was a pastor, author, and radio Bible teacher.
A native of Belfast, Northern Ireland, he joined the nascent Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster as a teenager. After being called to its ministry, he became a close associate of Ulster preacher-politician Ian Paisley.[1] Cairns served as pastor of Free Presbyterian churches in Dunmurry and then Ballymoney. In 1973 he began a radio ministry, “Let the Bible Speak,” which in 2020 was heard on stations in the UK, the Irish Republic, North America, India, Africa, Nepal, Iran and Afghanistan.
In 1980, Cairns accepted a call to pastor Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, South Carolina, the first church in the United States to associate itself with the Ulster denomination. In Greenville, Cairns founded Geneva Reformed Seminary, which today serves as the seminary for the Free Presbyterian Church of North America.
Cairns adapted and published many of his sermon series as books and wrote a Dictionary of Theological Terms from a Reformed perspective. In 2007, Cairns became pastor emeritus, and in 2009, he retired to Ballymoney, where he died of COVID-19 in 2020.
From Wikipedia
I corresponded with Dr. Carns and got his written permission to use his Definitions on my website freely.
I considered starting a new thread with this topic but decided to post it here since it might help us to understand each other better. I hope I am not being boring, and I hope this is helpful.
Towards a Precising Definition of the Amill & Postmill Positions
-OR-
Let’s Get on the Same Page
-OR-
Let’s Get on the Same Page
What do we imply by the terms: AMILLENNIALISM & POSTMILLENNIALISM?
Some Associated Terms:
Implication
: something that is suggested without being said directly: something that is implied.
Inference
: the act or process of reaching a conclusion about something from known facts or evidence
Conjecture
: an opinion or idea formed without proof or sufficient evidence.
Precising definition (this is important)
A precising definition is a definition that contracts or reduces the scope of the lexical definition of a term for a specific purpose by including additional criteria that narrow down the set of things meeting the definition.
For example, a dictionary may define the term “student” as “1. anyone attending an educational institution of any type, or 2. anyone who studies something.” However, a movie theater may propose a precising definition for the word “student” of “any person under the age of 18 enrolled in a local school” in order to determine who is eligible to receive discounted tickets.
Precising definitions are generally used in contexts where vagueness is unacceptable; many legal definitions are precising definitions, as are company policies. This type of definition is useful in preventing disputes that arise from the involved parties using different definitions of the term in question.
A precising definition is intended to make a vague word more precise so that the word’s meaning is not left to the interpretation of the reader or listener.
What should be our implications of the terms: AMILLENNIALISM & POSTMILLENNIALISM?
For that, we need a Precising Definition.
We consider the definitions that follow as a good starting point. They are from the
Dictionary of Theological Terms, by Dr. Alan Cairns
AMILLENNIALISM
The theory that there will be no thousand-year period of great spiritual blessing before the Lord Jesus returns, and no thousand-year reign of Christ on earth after His return. Thus in Revelation 20, the multiple references to the thousand years are spiritualized to convey the idea of completeness or perfection: “It expresses no period of time” (W. W. Milligan). Amillennialists view the thousand years of Rev. 20 as a spiritual description of the entire period between Christ’s ascension and the end of the age. For example, John Wilmot has a chapter in his Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation entitled, “The Millennial Administration of the Ascended Christ”—his description of this inter-adventual period. With this view, amillennialists tend to idealize not only the events detailed in the book of Revelation but most other end-time prophecies, so that their prophetic content lies more in their elucidation of spiritual principles than in any reference to time. However, some amillennialists modify this position to allow a literal fulfilment of some prophetic events before the second coming of Christ.
POSTMILLENNIALISM
The belief that Christ’s second coming* will be preceded by the Millennium,* a golden age of gospel blessing upon the ministry of the church. At Christ’s coming there will be the general resurrection, the general judgment, followed by the creation of the new heavens and the new earth, and the eternal state.
About Dr. Carns
Dr. Alan G. Cairns (August 12, 1940 – November 5, 2020) was a pastor, author, and radio Bible teacher.
A native of Belfast, Northern Ireland, he joined the nascent Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster as a teenager. After being called to its ministry, he became a close associate of Ulster preacher-politician Ian Paisley.[1] Cairns served as pastor of Free Presbyterian churches in Dunmurry and then Ballymoney. In 1973 he began a radio ministry, “Let the Bible Speak,” which in 2020 was heard on stations in the UK, the Irish Republic, North America, India, Africa, Nepal, Iran and Afghanistan.
In 1980, Cairns accepted a call to pastor Faith Free Presbyterian Church, Greenville, South Carolina, the first church in the United States to associate itself with the Ulster denomination. In Greenville, Cairns founded Geneva Reformed Seminary, which today serves as the seminary for the Free Presbyterian Church of North America.
Cairns adapted and published many of his sermon series as books and wrote a Dictionary of Theological Terms from a Reformed perspective. In 2007, Cairns became pastor emeritus, and in 2009, he retired to Ballymoney, where he died of COVID-19 in 2020.
From Wikipedia
I corresponded with Dr. Carns and got his written permission to use his Definitions on my website freely.
I’m not sure I’m understanding what is being said here. What is "conflating the Israelite civil law with the moral law," and who is advocating it? Surely you’re not referring to upholding the general equity of the civil law, because that is clearly confessional, and numerous major Reformed theologians in the past have asserted that it is the magistrate's duty to uphold such.
Scottish Presbyterian
Puritan Board Sophomore
It's making the civil law just a part of the moral law, rather than distinguishing the two. As far as I'm aware, the folks at Apologia advocate this, and it seems to be a view which some (oddly) conflate with postmillennialism, which is why I mention it. As far as I know that is the distinguishing viewpoint of Theonomy, I could be wrong.
No I'm not referring to general equity. That is of course the confessional view, but that's different to Theonomy. I know some people erroneously use the label Theonomy for perfectly confessional views, which is why I took the time to point out that wasn't what I was getting at.
I don't think this is correct. I am a Theonomist, yet I do not conflate the moral and the civil law (although I still don't really know what that means). The civil law is most certainly grounded in and an exposition of the moral law, but that is hardly conflating the two. The distinguishing mark of Theonomy, in my opinion, is the insistence that the general equity of the Old Testament civil law, all the way down to the very punishments, is to be enforced in all societies today.
Greg Bahsen sums up Theonomy in ten statements here:
1. Since the Fall, it has always been unlawful to use the law of God in hopes of establishing one's own personal merit and justification, in contrast or complement to salvation by way of promise and faith; commitment to obedience is but the lifestyle of faith, a token of gratitude for God's redeeming grace.
2. The word of the Lord is the sole, supreme, and unchallengeable standard for the actions and attitudes of all men in all areas of life; this word naturally includes God's moral directives (law).
3. Our obligation to keep the law of God cannot be judged by any extrascriptural standard, such as whether its specific requirements (when properly interpreted) are congenial to past traditions or modern feelings and practices.
4. We should presume that Old Testament standing laws· continue to be morally binding in the New Testament, unless they are rescinded or modified by further revelation.
5. In regard to the Old Testament law, the New Covenant surpasses the Old Covenant in glory, power, and finality (thus reinforcing former duties). The New Covenant also supercedes the Old Covenant shadows, thereby changing the application of sacrificial, purity, and "separation" principles, redefining the people of God, and altering the significance of the promised land.
6. God's revealed standing laws are a reflection of His immutable moral character and, as such, ,are absolute in the sense of being nonarbitrary, objective, universal, and established in advance of particular circumstances (thus applicable to general types of moral situations).
7. Christian involvement in politics calls for recognition of God's transcendent, absolute, revealed law as a standard by which to judge all social codes.
8. Civil magistrates in all ages and places are obligated to conduct their offices as ministers of God, avenging divine wrath against criminals and giving an account on the Final Day of their service before the King of kings, their Creator and Judge.
9. The general continuity which we presume with respect to the moral standards of the Old Testament applies just as legitimately to matters of socio-political ethics as it does to personal, family, or ecclesiastical ethics.
10. The civil precepts of the Old Testament (standing "judicial" laws) are a model of perfect sociaI justice for all cultures, even in the punishment of criminals.
—Greg L. Bahnsen, By This Standard: The Authority of God's Law Today (Tyler, TX: Institute for Christian Economics, 1985), 345-347.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
”Premillennialism largely disappeared after it was condemned as heretical by the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD.”
If I’m wrong here, someone PLEASE correct me…premillennialism during that time was not the dispensationial premillennialism that popped up in the 1830’s when a teenage MacDonald girl told Thomas Nelson Darby about a dream she had that Christ returned twice. He then took the ball and ran with it. I read there were a couple men at different times had tried to start this teaching, but this was never accepted as truth by the historical church until the 1830’s at the earliest. Why did the historical church miss this for ~ 1800 years? That should be “Clifford the Big Red Flag” right there.
If I’m wrong here, someone PLEASE correct me…premillennialism during that time was not the dispensationial premillennialism that popped up in the 1830’s when a teenage MacDonald girl told Thomas Nelson Darby about a dream she had that Christ returned twice. He then took the ball and ran with it. I read there were a couple men at different times had tried to start this teaching, but this was never accepted as truth by the historical church until the 1830’s at the earliest. Why did the historical church miss this for ~ 1800 years? That should be “Clifford the Big Red Flag” right there.
Richard, we don't usually engage in discussions over moderation. But for the benefit of others, here is a brief explanation:
We are a confessional board. That means we voluntarily gather to discuss things relating to the historic confessions. It helps keep things in focus.
Dispensationalism has so many elements that are outside of the historic confessions that they become big distractions to our discussions here. Even in this thread a discussion on postmillenialism is being pulled in different directions and missing the point.
It is like a group of cartographers gathering to discuss the best ways to map a spherical earth onto a flat page. If someone comes along and says, "wait a minute, the earth is flat. What's the problem?", it is an unhelpful distraction.
We not saying you must believe in such and such. We are not afraid of others having different views. But for the purposes of this board, we are trying to keep distractions from derailing discussions. That is the main reason we do not allow promotion of unconfessional views.
I'm with you, I watched it thinking it would explain something. The only impression I left with is that I dress and present myself really conservatively compared to most today.
Richard2YHWH
Puritan Board Freshman
Richard2YHWH
Puritan Board Freshman
I honestly Love you and everyone here, but I just cannot figure out why these confessions are the soul catalyst. They are a declaration of faith, not the written word of God. Yes they are important; that we understand how others believe, but why are only those confessions recognized? Because they were the first to be written? Do other confessions made by the church at large today hold no weight? Clearly there are churches today (or over the last 100 years) whose confessions of faith hold true to the word of God, and yet discuses disminsationalism, or pre-trib rapture; and because they do, you would believe they are not holding true to God's word; because your confessions don't speak of these things? There for yours is the only one that holds true and there is no other discussion. This whole line of reasoning just don't make much since. I will leave the Puritan Board for the sake of not causing you anymore distress. God Bless you; and see you in the clouds
Regi Addictissimus
Completely sold out to the King
This isn't the place for you, brother. It's probably best to move on now.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
I’m hoping he takes the info given to him and prayerfully studies them.
Sovereign Grace
Puritan Board Sophomore
You may or may not see this, but I’ll type this anyway. Confessions are the best way to state your beliefs, both in a local church, and also on an Internet forum. No one needs to adhere to every belief, but they have to agree with the majority of that confession to be given membership of that church or forum. It’s like you having someone who wants to join a reformed church. If they reject certain points of that church’s confession, they shouldn’t be given membership, seeing this could lead to problems down the road.
I tend to not involve myself in eschatology debates, but I (obviously) do at times. I wish you the best and pray for you as you study His word.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Hello Ryan – you said (going back to the OP) :
A few things stood out for me in the two men's presentations, Joel Webbon and Jeff Durbin, and these were "the world is winning... the church is losing...with its 'pie in the sky' theology", and we – the church – need to be winning the world, not just souls, but the entire world and its systems. Webbon says we are to inherit the land (the earth), and "I want to win this world" (emphasis his), and Durbin says, "Jesus said, 'The meek shall inherit the earth'... 'and the gospel is to win the nations to Christ'" – that is, not the elect among the nations, but the nations literally, en mass. As though our great commission mandate is to "Christianize" (as many postmils say) the people of the earth. Durbin says that it is "gnostic" to consider the world as evil, a two-layer view of life, the good spiritual and the evil physical, ignoring Paul in Gal 1:4 and John in 1 John 5:19. There is no room in the proper interpretation of Scripture – in view of the two Scriptures just mentioned – to deny this present age is evil, and will grow moreso as the eschaton nears.
And I note especially your saying "the philosophy of [this] doctrine is very appealing". I realize it may seem appealing in light of the madness and lawlessness of our times, but how can something that departs from clear Biblical teaching really appeal to the man or woman of God?
These two godly and well-meaning men view the OT promises – fulfilled after the Lord's return – of the saved nations inheriting the earth and the entirety of them worshipping God in the eternal state where His glory fills the earth.
In the meanwhile, the church is not "losing", but being purified and winnowed to be the radiant bride of the King. According to the postmil teaching here, are we to think of Jesus "losing" as He was beaten, ridiculed, suffered, and killed in His last evening in this life? Of course not – but why is the church seen to be losing when she suffers, loses members who do not want to pay the price of loyalty to the King and His people?
The postmil teaching is dangerous to the doctrine of the church in the world, and how we are to labor for its good, and God's glory. It sounds like the old Jewish dreams of world domination under the conquering Messiah. But this is not our way. After the resurrection and judgment, the King shall order His kingdom on the New Earth in glory.
A few things stood out for me in the two men's presentations, Joel Webbon and Jeff Durbin, and these were "the world is winning... the church is losing...with its 'pie in the sky' theology", and we – the church – need to be winning the world, not just souls, but the entire world and its systems. Webbon says we are to inherit the land (the earth), and "I want to win this world" (emphasis his), and Durbin says, "Jesus said, 'The meek shall inherit the earth'... 'and the gospel is to win the nations to Christ'" – that is, not the elect among the nations, but the nations literally, en mass. As though our great commission mandate is to "Christianize" (as many postmils say) the people of the earth. Durbin says that it is "gnostic" to consider the world as evil, a two-layer view of life, the good spiritual and the evil physical, ignoring Paul in Gal 1:4 and John in 1 John 5:19. There is no room in the proper interpretation of Scripture – in view of the two Scriptures just mentioned – to deny this present age is evil, and will grow moreso as the eschaton nears.
And I note especially your saying "the philosophy of [this] doctrine is very appealing". I realize it may seem appealing in light of the madness and lawlessness of our times, but how can something that departs from clear Biblical teaching really appeal to the man or woman of God?
These two godly and well-meaning men view the OT promises – fulfilled after the Lord's return – of the saved nations inheriting the earth and the entirety of them worshipping God in the eternal state where His glory fills the earth.
In the meanwhile, the church is not "losing", but being purified and winnowed to be the radiant bride of the King. According to the postmil teaching here, are we to think of Jesus "losing" as He was beaten, ridiculed, suffered, and killed in His last evening in this life? Of course not – but why is the church seen to be losing when she suffers, loses members who do not want to pay the price of loyalty to the King and His people?
The postmil teaching is dangerous to the doctrine of the church in the world, and how we are to labor for its good, and God's glory. It sounds like the old Jewish dreams of world domination under the conquering Messiah. But this is not our way. After the resurrection and judgment, the King shall order His kingdom on the New Earth in glory.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Robert, I think that's a premature judgment. We should be patient, and teach sound doctrine.
@Richard2YHWH,
As VictorBravo pointed out, this is a confessional board; and as I mentioned to you elsewhere, although confessions are secondary standards, we hold that ours do point – as a theological shorthand of sorts – to that understanding of the Scripture (our primary standard) we have, so as to distinguish us from other church's views.
I think this focusing on the confessions here, instead of the Scripture, is a big mistake. We should not use the confessions to convince those who differ with us! They are to distinguish us!
Rather, a robust defense – from my perspective – of eschatology is to show how the Amillennial school easily – hands down – betters both the premil and the postmil schools. The confessions ought to have no place in this. And Richard, it would be wise of you to back off from contesting our confessions, which are the foundation – reflecting our stand on Scripture – of this entire PuritanBoard. I do not participate on other internet boards as I want to interact with likeminded men and women, and not argue in the midst of the confusion and error of evangelicalism broadly speaking.
Richard, please stick with Scripture – avoid contesting our confessions – and from there seek to grow in knowledge, if our views have interest to you. But the confessions are sacrosanct – meaning hands off! – as they mark off how we understand God's word. We meet here on PB on the basis of our common foundation of God's word.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Robert, I now think you were right when you said,
Coming here to seek to convert us to aberrant views just isn't going to work!
pilgrimmum
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi,
Thanks for your interesting comment. As an Ammillenial Historicist I believe we are in the millennial reign of Christ now (Rev 20:1-9 ) The tares grow up with the wheat until the end of this present age. Rev 20:6 is the Born Again Conversion experience of every Christian and after the loosing of Satan for a short season, the Camp of the Saints being surrounded by Gods enemies and the destruction of those enemies with fire from heaven by God we see the one and only general Resurrection (Rev 20:10-15), the Day of judgment and the beginning of the eternal Kingdom in Rev 21 and Rev 22 on the new earth wherein will only dwell the resurrected immortal believers in Christ. No sin, death or sickness will exist and we shall be as the Angels in heaven as Jesus said neither marrying or giving in marriage.
Calvin Codger
Puritan Board Freshman
Hi Christopher. Thank you for bringing this up.
John 18:36 "My kingdom is not of this world."
Indicates that origin and nature of His kingdom is not from here. The Lord has been anointed as King by God the Father (not by popular vote, military coup etc). His "authority is not derived from, nor dependent upon, political agency."(JFB) The origin and nature of His kingdom is not from here. This is a fairly common perhaps consensus understanding of the verse amongst theologians of all eschatological positions.
A such, it is not a problem for postmillennialism.
From NT Wright: "
".. Jesus, after all, taught his disciples to pray that God’s kingdom would come ‘on earth as in heaven.’ ...the point is that Jesus’ kingdom does not come from ‘this world’. Of course it doesn’t. ‘The world’, as we’ve seen again and again, is in John the source of evil and rebellion against God. Jesus is denying that his kingdom has a this-worldly origin or quality. He is not denying that it has a this-worldly destination. That’s why he has come into the world himself (v. 37), and why he has sent, and will send, his followers into the world (17.18; 20.21). His kingdom doesn’t come from this world, but it is for this world. That is the crucial distinction.”
Last edited:
Calvin Codger
Puritan Board Freshman
Matthew 6:10 Your kingdom come, your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.
Hi Ryan. This is a key point.
I appreciate your opinion but I think its unfair to call this a "philosophy". Postmillennialism is grounded in scripture.
Last edited:
Moderating: This is an old thread (last post before new ones, Nov 1, 2021), and I'm not sure how is got reopened but several of the participants are no longer active and cannot/will not respond.
Hey, Chris - question about this. Just curious...are threads automatically closed after a certain amount of time/inactivity, or do moderators have to go in and manually close a thread? The reason I ask is that I have been looking at a lot of old threads lately and I came across at least one, and maybe two (I can't remember for sure), that was very old but still open. I was wondering when I saw it if there was a bug in the software (if they are supposed to be automatically closed), or if a moderator just failed to close it (if done manually)?
- Status
