Hello Andrew,
You said, "But no post-millennialist uses this terminology [ 'Golden age']." And when I disputed that you said, "I was referring to classic post-mil Puritans...", and I would respond, "Sure, why not bypass a few centuries, and ignore all theological thought and development since?!"
And you continued, "...not what I would consider the modern reconstruction/theonomy types."
Loraine Boettner is certainly not of the reconstruction/theonomy school, and he is a stalwart postmil scholar and propounder. He writes on this wise:
“We have defined Postmillennialism as that view of the last things which holds that the Kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the Gospel and the saving work of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of individuals, that the world eventually is to be Christianized, and that the return of Christ is to occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace commonly called the ‘Millennium.’ It should be added that on postmillennial principles the second coming of Christ will be followed immediately by the general resurrection, the general judgment, and the introduction of heaven and hell in their fullness. The Millennium to which the Postmillennialist looks forward is thus a golden age of spiritual prosperity during this present dispensation, that is, during the Church age, and is to be brought about through forces now active in the world. It is an indefinitely long period of time, perhaps much longer than a literal one thousand years. The changed character of individuals will be reflected in an uplifted social, economic, political and cultural life of mankind. The world at large will then enjoy a state of righteousness such as at the present time has been seen only in relatively small and isolated groups, as for example in some family circles, some local church groups and kindred organizations. This does not mean that there ever will be a time on this earth when every person will be a Christian, or that all sin will be abolished. But it does mean that evil in all its many forms eventually will be reduced to negligible proportions, that Christian principles will be the rule, not the exception, and that Christ will return to a truly Christianized world,” (The Millennium, New Jersey, P&R Pub, 1986, p. 14)
I said, of postmil doctrine, when it states: "the gospel triumphs across the world, but things will get better, and there will eventually be an age of spiritual prosperity when the world is 'Christianized'" ..."It is plainly unbiblical, i.e., without Biblical warrant."
And you responded, "It is not so plain or without warrant to many of us...who disagree with you and yet [hold these as] fully valid confessional beliefs."
(I'll get to your "main issue [of] the nature and tenor of [my] charges" in a moment.)
I had said earlier (in my
post # 17),
"One of the things about eschatology is that it is still in flux – one of the very few doctrines that is – and thus the confessions are wise to leave some vagueness intact. It is for us, of this present time, to search the Word and discern what it says, as well discerning the times."
One may clearly see (for I am writing to all those looking upon this conversation, Andrew, not just you) that I stated the confessions we highly value were wise to leave some vagueness as regards eschatology, as understanding will not be given re the very end times until they come. As was told Daniel, "And he [the angel] said, Go thy way, Daniel: for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end" (Dan 12:9).
Stuart Olyott in his,
Dare to Stand Alone: Daniel Simply Explained, comments on this:
“We must realize that some of the Bible’s teachings relating to the very last days will not be understood until we are in those days. That is why it is both unwise and dangerous to draw up detailed timetables of future events. Some parts of the Word of God will not become obvious in their meaning until the days of which they speak have dawned.” (p 166)
I note that you did not really answer my assertion regarding postmillennialism: "
It is plainly unbiblical, i.e., without Biblical warrant". Instead you glossed over that and say instead, what you hold "are fully valid confessional beliefs." I grant you they are
acceptable confessionally. I admit this due to the
wise vagueness of the confessions in this matter. I said
Biblical warrant. I myself do not equivocate when I speak. Please do not do this yourself. And when I say Biblical warrant, I would like you to present New Testament warrant for your position.
Finally, as to "the nature and tenor of [my] charges":
I have made no charges! We are not in a judicial situation where I charge someone with wrongdoing, i.e., level an accusation that is actionable in an ecclesial court! Are you not used to spirited debate / discussion over spiritual / Biblical topics? I freely grant that your view is
acceptable on Puritanboard, due to the wise vagueness of the divines who framed the confessions. It is given to us to "duke it out" as it were – friendly sparring among brothers (have you never sparred in boxing, or martial arts with a friend?) – seeking to ascertain what is the sound doctrine on a topic in light of the Scriptural, and any other evidences, in a controversy?
As for the "
tenor" of my speech (its spirit or character), I have dealt with you rather gently and brotherly, and not as I would an enemy and attacker, say, a demon, or an antichrist. I would be more severe, as the Lord led.
