Differentiating Amillennialism and Postmillenialism

[cthorn14]

Greetings,

I am trying to understand the essential difference between the amillennial and postmillennial views.

As I understand it: both views teach that Christ will return after the millennium. Thus, in a broad sense, amillenarians are postmillenarian. Also, there are a number of reformed amillenarians who expect a future conversion of the Jewish people and expect the gospel to progress in the world far beyond what we currently see.

I have heard it said that the Westminster standards endorse postmillennialism, due to LC191. However, it seems that such optimism is fully compatible with amillennialism. I have heard it said that amillenarians teach an "imminent" return of the Christ and postmillenarians do not. However, some amillenarians expect a period of blessing.

It seems the main difference is that amillennialism teaches that the "millennium" is the entire inter-advental period, while postmillennialism teaches that the millennium is a subset of it. However, some who call themselves postmillennial do not accept that distinction.

So, can a sharp distinction be made? What is the essence of postmillennialism?

 

[RamistThomist]

So, can a sharp distinction be made? What is the essence of postmillennialism?

Gary North defines it as a progressive sanctification of society and nations through the whole gospel. The older postmils see it more as society becoming more Christian.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Cornelis Venema, in his systematic-theology book covering eschatology The Promise of the Future, diagrams four main views (from a church-history perspective) into two subsets: pre- and post-millennial which he sets up in a table format. A "spectrum" created from the table might look something like what I will attempt below this paragraph:

Dispensational pre-mil ----- Historic pre-mil --+--Amillennial------Postmillennial

If the only significant question is when in temporal terms to place the Second Coming, then the spectrum above seems serviceable if only for the placement of a period of time called "millennium" before or after. Yet a spectrum doesn't work so well because there is no single and overriding concept that governs eschatological issues and disagreements.

If the main idea is historical progress, leaving aside the question of defining progress, one could argue that toward the right end the expectation becomes "rosier" because of postmil expectations for growing godliness and peace over the world. However, the dispensational view also expects a vision of imposed peace and order for an eon only undone briefly and dramatically for a moment (relatively speaking) at the end of time.

So, is the real difference between the poles above the engine or power of the achievement? Amils are famously "anti-progressive" if contemplating world-transformation, and skeptical of divine intention to realize creation's potential prior to Final Judgment. What if the order of the four views was set based on "attitude toward national Israel?" Clearly then, any spectrum using the four views could be set up in various orders, and that's my point.

I doubt there is an "essence" to postmil, or to any view of eschatology waxing comprehensive (going beyond a timeline). Amils criticize all the others for prioritizing an earthly frame of reference. Postmils criticize all the others for being too pessimistic. Dispensationalists criticize all the others for not being literal. And what do the hist-premils criticize all the others for? You'll have to ask RamistThomist.

 

[cthorn14]

There is no single and overriding concept that governs eschatological issues and disagreements.

Thank you Rev. Buchanan. That is a good reminder.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Both modern Postmillennials and Amillennials view the millennium as the interadvent period.

cthorn14 said:
"So, can a sharp distinction be made?"
Amillennials place the millennial blessings in heaven (intermediate state) and/or eternity future.
Postmillennialists see the fulfillment of millennial blessings to gradually take hold here on earth over the course of the millennium.

cthorn14 said:
"What is the essence of postmillennialism?"
"Postmillennials assert that the kingdom is both a heavenly and an earthly reality, one that is both seen and unseen, one that is born from heaven yet is expanding in this world to be fully consummated when Christ returns. Postmillennials would look for God’s kingdom to come and will to be done on earth as in heaven, and would expect that these triumphs would be gradually realized until the time of Christ’s return. The postmillennial position anticipates the gospel to advance in tangible ways in this world, as the outworking of God redeeming men and women will progressively lead to redeemed culture, peoples, and world itself. Timing is not a concern for this task, as this progressive triumph will have a sort of ebb and flow (ups and downs), and its consummation may yet be far off in the future (though it need not be of necessity). This kingdom triumph is also wholly a work of God—the kingdom does not expand by virtue of human effort, yet the kingdom’s advance certainly includes both heaven and earth in its wake."

How Amillennialism Just Might Convince You of Postmillennialism - Eschatology Matters

Eschatology is a fascinating business, and maybe particularly so for those eschatologies that are generally more covenantal in their approach. Within these covenantal eschatologies, there is an intriguing intersection of the closely-related perspectives of amillennialism and postmillennialism...

www.eschatologymatters.org

 

[cthorn14]

Both modern Postmillennials and Amillennials view the millennium as the interadvent period.

cthorn14 said:
"So, can a sharp distinction be made?"
Amillennials place the millennial blessings in heaven (intermediate state) and/or eternity future.
Postmillennialists see the fulfillment of millennial blessings to gradually take hold here on earth over the course of the millennium.

Thanks for the reply Calvin. It seems that if the timeline is the same, the difference between these two views is bound to be one of emphasis, assuming one expects the future conversion of the Jews.

Taking the millennium to be the inter-advent period, the amillennial would place the blessings of the inter-advent period only in heaven and eternity future? That doesn't sound quite right. I understand the amillennial view to be "inaugurated eschatology", asserting that many blessings have begun to be fulfilled in the New Testament Church.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is meant by "millennial blessings".

 

[Alexander Suarez]

It seems the main difference is that amillennialism teaches that the "millennium" is the entire inter-advental period, while postmillennialism teaches that the millennium is a subset of it. However, some who call themselves postmillennial do not accept that distinction.

So, can a sharp distinction be made? What is the essence of postmillennialism?

If I may complicate matters further:

Many historic postmillenialist believed the millennium had past. For some examples, see here: https://reformedbooksonline.com/topics/topics-by-subject/eschatology/#pastmillennialism

Additionally, even modern amillennial proponents (at least those that I've read, heard, and interacted with) admit the millennium must be succeeded by Satan's "little season" (Rev. 20:3) before Christ's return. In other words, the millennium, even in the amillennial scheme is not the entire inter-advent age, but perhaps the larger portion of it . . . unless one finds a way to propose that the millennium continues simultaneous to Satan being let loose.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Greetings,

I am trying to understand the essential difference between the amillennial and postmillennial views.

As I understand it: both views teach that Christ will return after the millennium. Thus, in a broad sense, amillenarians are postmillenarian. Also, there are a number of reformed amillenarians who expect a future conversion of the Jewish people and expect the gospel to progress in the world far beyond what we currently see.

I have heard it said that the Westminster standards endorse postmillennialism, due to LC191. However, it seems that such optimism is fully compatible with amillennialism. I have heard it said that amillenarians teach an "imminent" return of the Christ and postmillenarians do not. However, some amillenarians expect a period of blessing.

It seems the main difference is that amillennialism teaches that the "millennium" is the entire inter-advental period, while postmillennialism teaches that the millennium is a subset of it. However, some who call themselves postmillennial do not accept that distinction.

So, can a sharp distinction be made? What is the essence of postmillennialism?

Taking the millennium to be the inter-advent period, the amillennial would place the blessings of the inter-advent period only in heaven and eternity future? That doesn't sound quite right. I understand the amillennial view to be "inaugurated eschatology", asserting that many blessings have begun to be fulfilled in the New Testament Church.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding what is meant by "millennial blessings".

By millennial blessings I am referring to the prophecies of predominant righteousness, worship, and peace that will reach fulfillment before Jesus returns.
Here is a small sample of millennial blessings:
Psalm 22:27
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you.

Postmillennials see this as being fulfilled before the second coming. Amillennials typically see this fulfilled at or after the second coming.

Psalm 72:9
May desert tribes bow down before him, and his enemies lick the dust!

Postmillennials see this as being fulfilled before the second coming. Amillennials typically see this fulfilled at or after the second coming.

Isaiah 2:2-3
It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
3 and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,[a]
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Postmillennials see this as being fulfilled before the second coming. Amillennials typically see this fulfilled at or after the second coming.

Isaiah 2:4
He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore.

Postmillennials see this as being fulfilled before the second coming. Amillennials typically see this fulfilled at or after the second coming.

Isaiah 65:20
No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.

Postmillennials see this as being fulfilled before the second coming. Amillennials typically see this fulfilled at or after the second coming.

 

[cthorn14]

Here is a small sample of millennial blessing:
Psalm 22:27
All the ends of the earth shall remember and turn to the LORD, and all the families of the nations shall worship before you.

Postmillennials see this as being fulfilled before the second coming. Amillennials typically see this fulfilled at or after the second coming.

As I understand it, many amillenarians would see these prophecies as having been partially fulfilled with the inauguration of the New Testament, partially fulfilled in the progress of the great commission, and finally fulfilled in the eternal state.

 

[cthorn14]

Additionally, even modern amillennial proponents (at least those that I've read, heard, and interacted with) admit the millennium must be succeeded by Satan's "little season" (Rev. 20:3) before Christ's return. In other words, the millennium, even in the amillennial scheme is not the entire inter-advent age, but perhaps the larger portion of it . . . unless one finds a way to propose that the millennium continues simultaneous to Satan being let loose.

Indeed, this difference seems to have been a major point of discussion on previous threads about amillennialism on this board. The "optimistic" amillennial must see "Satan's season" and the millennium in tandem, which other amillenarians dissent from.

 

[Calvin Codger]

As I understand it, many amillenarians would see these prophecies as having been partially fulfilled with the inauguration of the New Testament, partially fulfilled in the progress of the great commission, and finally fulfilled in the eternal state.

Really? Who?

A few quotes from Amillenialists that do NOT see an earthly, millennial fulfillment of these prophecies.

Anthony Hoekama
“This millennial reign is not something to be looked for in the future;” writes Hoekema, “it is going on now, and will be until Christ returns. Hence the term realized millennialismis an apt description of the view here defended--if it is remembered that the millennium in question is not an earthly but a heavenly reign,” (The Bible and the Future, p. 235).

Sam Storms
"There will be no visible earthly expression of Christ’s reign over the world as a whole; the church will not make disciples of all (i.e., the vast majority) nations, nor will it gain a dominant or widespread influence throughout the world. Thus it is here, and for all practical purposes only here, that AM differs from Postmillennialism."

Jeremy Sexton
"Modern postmillennialism agrees with amillennialism that the thousand years extend from the first advent of Christ to the second, covering the entire interadvental era.14 It (postmillennialism) agrees with premillennialism that the prophecies of universal righteousness, worship, and shalom (e.g., Pss 22:27; 86:9; 102:15; 138:4–5; Isa 2:2–4; 9:7; 11:5–16; 25:8–9; 26:1–4; 65:17–25; Joel 3:16–21; Mic 4:1–4; Hab 2:14; Zeph 3:9–10) will find fulfillment during the millennium.15 Postmillennialism is unique in affirming that the prophecies of universal righteousness, worship, and shalom will reach fulfillment before Jesus returns."

 

[Polanus1561]

Within the Dutch Reformed, there are some who hold to an optimistic Amill with a Jewish conversion per Rom.11 . For example, some of the Puritan Reformed Seminary faculty.
There is also the Berkohf/Hoekema-influenced Amillenialism. "The Bible and the Future" was very influential it seems.

 

[cthorn14]

Really? Who?

A few quotes from Amillenialists that do NOT see an earthly, millennial fulfillment of these prophecies.

Benjamin B Warfield and Cornelius Venema have advanced more optimistic amillennial positions. Geerhardus Vos has written on inaugurated eschatology.

I am not convinced that the amillennial view is quite so uniform.

 

[Calvin Codger]

Benjamin B Warfield and Cornelius Venema have advanced more optimistic amillennial positions. Geerhardus Vos has written on inaugurated eschatology.

I am not convinced that the amillennial view is quite so uniform.

I was not asking about inaugurated eschatology (or optimistic amillennialism). Hoekema espouses inaugurated eschatology as do most PostMills and
Amils in some form or another. Do Warfield and Venema really believe "these prophecies as having been partially fulfilled with the inauguration of the New Testament..."?

Warfield was Postmillennial.

Venema is an Amillennial and critic of Postmillennialism. Using Venema to blur the distinction of the two systems is not in accord with what he taught.
"Many contemporary postmillennialists grant that the “millennium” refers to the entire inter-advent period, but that at some point (perhaps gradually) before Christ’s return the Church will see unprecedented blessing, usually including the approval of the world’s governments. Venema sees this as a major concession, eliminating an exegetical difficulty at the expense of dropping a major justification."

Review – The Promise of the Future by Cornelis Venema

The Promise of the Future, written by Mid-America Reformed Seminary’s Cornelis Venema, is a single-volume comprehensive work on eschatology. Venema draws inspiration from his mentor Anthony H…

sacredpage.wordpress.com

With your continued insistence on blurring the distinction between the two systems, my engagement in this conversation is futile. The answers to this question are readily available on the internet. I affirm the Amil/Postmil distinctions made by respected, reformed theologians. These distinctions cannot and should not be dismissed.

I'm out. God bless you cthorn14.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Greetings,

I am trying to understand the essential difference between the amillennial and postmillennial views.

I believe there is a difference (whether "essential" or not, I'm not sure) in the practical outworking of each position with regard to certain aspects of the WCF. I suspect those who hold to the original WCF tend to be post-mil, or those who tend to be post-mil tend to prefer the original WCF (I'm not sure which leads to the other, though my guess is largely the former) which perhaps fits better with the original's identifying "the pope of Rome" as "that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition," and especially with regard to the role of the civil magistrate, especially in the end of Ch.20, the end of 22.3, 23.3, and Ch.31 - there is little need for placing a duty upon the civil magistrate to possibly call a synod to preserve order, purity, unity and peace in the Church, or for expecting magistrates to suppress unnatural and anti-Christian practices and principles if the millennial reign of Christ is "not of this world" or, as it has been phrased above in this representative amil quote:

Sam Storms
"There will be no visible earthly expression of Christ’s reign over the world as a whole; the church will not make disciples of all (i.e., the vast majority) nations, nor will it gain a dominant or widespread influence throughout the world."

Since most P&R denominations in the US hold to the American Revision of the WCF, it seems amillennial views predominate there. I sense the opposite is/was true in the UK but that there has perhaps been a growing acceptance/adoption of amil positions. These are largely anecdotal observations - I would be happy to see them confirmed or corrected.

As I understand it: both views teach that Christ will return after the millennium. Thus, in a broad sense, amillenarians are postmillenarian. Also, there are a number of reformed amillenarians who expect a future conversion of the Jewish people and expect the gospel to progress in the world far beyond what we currently see.

An essential difference is what effect the progress of the gospel will bring - will it simply expand the spiritual kingdom by harvesting elect souls (amil), or will the fruit of such spiritual expansionism also lead to earthly/temporal improvements in society, in or through the nations submitting to Christ's Kingship "on earth as it is in heaven" and establishing His Church throughout the world (post-mil).

 

[Polanus1561]

The date of authorship for Revelation is also key.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Charles @cthorn14 ,

Calvin C. is right that Warfield was basically postmil. And Andrew (posting just above) is right in his last paragraph about the essential difference between the amil and postmil.

I don't think the dividing of contemporary amils into optimistic and pessimistic is valid. That the Jews in great numbers may / or will be called to repentance before the end I don't think is "optimistic" for an amil – I'm an amil Jew and hope and labor that it will be so, but don't see it written as a promise. A great multitude of Jews have already been converted to their Messiah.

I'm certainly not pessimistic in my eschatology, though a great darkness will take hold of the world – is now in the process of doing so – as I see the glory of the Lord building up His faithful bride withstanding the storms to come by His Spirit in her.

How things look – appearances – does not reflect what is real and true. It appeared to be the darkest ever when our Sacrificial Lamb was slaughtered on Calvary – the triumph of Satan it seemed – but it was the glory of God's love toward His children that our High Priest endured the wrath due us for love of us. The Lord's Supper says just that: remember Me when you eat the bread and drink the wine, these are emblems of My stedfast love for you, even to being broken and bleeding. My eschatology is an eschatology of a great and terrible love.

Despite our differences I do appreciate the graciousness the postmils here demonstrate toward the amils; we shall be fast friends in the eternal kingdom.

 

[cthorn14]

With your continued insistence on blurring the distinction between the two systems, my engagement in this conversation is futile. The answers to this question are readily available on the internet. I affirm the Amil/Postmil distinctions made by respected, reformed theologians. These distinctions cannot and should not be dismissed.

I'm out. God bless you cthorn14.

Calvin, thank you for your patience with my probing. I am merely interested in knowing the best argument for separating the two. I am sure there is much written about eschatology on the internet, but am interested in hearing the perspectives of the members here.

 

[cthorn14]

I believe there is a difference (whether "essential" or not, I'm not sure) in the practical outworking of each position with regard to certain aspects of the WCF. I suspect those who hold to the original WCF tend to be post-mil, or those who tend to be post-mil tend to prefer the original WCF (I'm not sure which leads to the other, though my guess is largely the former) which perhaps fits better with the original's identifying "the pope of Rome" as "that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition," and especially with regard to the role of the civil magistrate, especially in the end of Ch.20, the end of 22.3, 23.3, and Ch.31 - there is little need for placing a duty upon the civil magistrate to possibly call a synod to preserve order, purity, unity and peace in the Church, or for expecting magistrates to suppress unnatural and anti-Christian practices and principles if the millennial reign of Christ is "not of this world" or, as it has been phrased above in this representative amil quote:


Since most P&R denominations in the US hold to the American Revision of the WCF, it seems amillennial views predominate there. I sense the opposite is/was true in the UK but that there has perhaps been a growing acceptance/adoption of amil positions. These are largely anecdotal observations - I would be happy to see them confirmed or corrected.


An essential difference is what effect the progress of the gospel will bring - will it simply expand the spiritual kingdom by harvesting elect souls (amil), or will the fruit of such spiritual expansionism also lead to earthly/temporal improvements in society, in or through the nations submitting to Christ's Kingship "on earth as it is in heaven" and establishing His Church throughout the world (post-mil).

Hi Andrew,

This is a very helpful response, thank you. It does seem that the original WCF is more likely to lead to the postmil position. Your description of the difference is the most appealing I've seen so far. Based on that metric, I would lean post-mil.

Hello Charles @cthorn14 ,

Calvin C. is right that Warfield was basically postmil. And Andrew (posting just above) is right in his last paragraph about the essential difference between the amil and postmil.

I don't think the dividing of contemporary amils into optimistic and pessimistic is valid. That the Jews in great numbers may / or will be called to repentance before the end I don't think is "optimistic" for an amil – I'm an amil Jew and hope and labor that it will be so, but don't see it written as a promise. A great multitude of Jews have already been converted to their Messiah.

I'm certainly not pessimistic in my eschatology, though a great darkness will take hold of the world – is now in the process of doing so – as I see the glory of the Lord building up His faithful bride withstanding the storms to come by His Spirit in her.

How things look – appearances – does not reflect what is real and true. It appeared to be the darkest ever when our Sacrificial Lamb was slaughtered on Calvary – the triumph of Satan it seemed – but it was the glory of God's love toward His children that our High Priest endured the wrath due us for love of us. The Lord's Supper says just that: remember Me when you eat the bread and drink the wine, these are emblems of My stedfast love for you, even to being broken and bleeding. My eschatology is an eschatology of a great and terrible love.

Despite our differences I do appreciate the graciousness the postmils here demonstrate toward the amils; we shall be fast friends in the eternal kingdom.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the irenic reply. I can understand why you reject the optimistic/pessimistic language. Maybe these are not the best terms to use.

 

[DanSSwing]

The date of authorship for Revelation is also key.

But there are both Amil and Postmil who agree on the pre-70 AD date.

Hi Steve,

Thanks for the irenic reply. I can understand why you reject the optimistic/pessimistic language. Maybe these are not the best terms to use.

The dividing question is whether the physical world will get better over the millennia or will it not. People keep complaining about this language, but I still haven't heard a better alternative.

 

[Calvin Codger]

The date of authorship for Revelation is also key.

Hello Polanus.

This is key for partial preterists (like myself). Most modern postmills are partial preterists. Some Amils are also partial preterists. Most of the "old school" puritan postmillennialists were not partial preterists (they were historicists) so for them the date of authorship of Revelation would not have the same significance.
Interestingly (to me anyway), John Owen took a partial preterist view of 2 Peter 3.

A pre 70 AD date is essential to partial preterism. It is not essential for postmillennialism.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Concerning the earlier or later writing of Revelation, see here and here.

It is important to remember that regarding the primary standard – God's word – and the secondary – our confessions and catechisms – it is crucial to always consult the primary to see if the secondary supports it. Men may err, God does not.

 

[Alexander Suarez]

Indeed, this difference seems to have been a major point of discussion on previous threads about amillennialism on this board. The "optimistic" amillennial must see "Satan's season" and the millennium in tandem, which other amillenarians dissent from.

I am of the opinion that much of the confusion arises as a result of (a) inserting "amillennialism' alongside the positions of "premillennialism" and "postmillennialsm" and (b) using these categories in order to tell us what a person's entire eschatological understanding of the future is.

The basic meaning of pre-mil and post-mil, to my understanding, indicates whether the Second Coming of Christ occurs before or after the 1000 year reign of Revelation 20. Being postmillennial in this sense did not historically determine one's view on the nature of that millennium nor the exact timing of it (whether it was understood as something that had past, or was in the present, or in the future). Nor did holding to the historic postmillennial position automatically determine your take on Matthew 24 or the likes of Romans 11, etc.

 

[cthorn14]

It is important to remember that regarding the primary standard – God's word – and the secondary – our confessions and catechisms – it is crucial to always consult the primary to see if the secondary supports it. Men may err, God does not.

Certainly, the Church should only confess that which is scriptural. However, the confessions are intended to solidify basic points of agreement. I think it is more likely that agreement on the particulars of eschatology will flow from agreement on these "foundational" points, rather than the converse.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Charles,

There are a couple of problems with that. The confessions are deliberately vague so as to allow for differences in the area of eschatology, within our mutual adherence to covenantal truths. Also, here on PB we allow for variance between the original WCF and the American revision, both being acceptable standards.

It is precisely in the particulars of eschatology that the foundational points of the secondary confessions and catechisms do not conduce to agreement! We agree to disagree agreeably.

But that largesse of tolerance, excellent as it is for peace amongst us, does not solve the contention between the essential differences of amil and postmil: the former holds to an increasingly evil world right up to the second coming of our Lord, and the latter to a world that is eventually so leavened by the Gospel that righteousness and peace increasingly prevail prior to the Lord's return. They can't both be right.

And so we engage in "sword-play" among friends, wielding the sword of the Spirit, seeking to settle the matter, at least in the eyes of some.

 

[cthorn14]

Hello Charles,

There are a couple of problems with that. The confessions are deliberately vague so as to allow for differences in the area of eschatology, within our mutual adherence to covenantal truths. Also, here on PB we allow for variance between the original WCF and the American revision, both being acceptable standards.

It is precisely in the particulars of eschatology that the foundational points of the secondary confessions and catechisms do not conduce to agreement! We agree to disagree agreeably.

But that largesse of tolerance, excellent as it is for peace amongst us, does not solve the contention between the essential differences of amil and postmil: the former holds to an increasingly evil world right up to the second coming of our Lord, and the latter to a world that is eventually so leavened by the Gospel that righteousness and peace increasingly prevail prior to the Lord's return. They can't both be right.

And so we engage in "sword-play" among friends, wielding the sword of the Spirit, seeking to settle the matter, at least in the eyes of some.

Steve, I think I understand what you're getting at. However, by engaging on this discussion board, we are effectively working "forward" from some common confessional truths, rather than backwards from the eschatology camps towards the basics. Yes, various confessional standards are allowed here, but it affords us a good starting point. I am glad that we have not had to discuss the dispensational pre-mil view on this thread!

With regards to the original WCF, I think Andrew's point is simply that it includes some statements that provide a different starting point for working out eschatology than the American edition.

As an aside, my denomination holds to a version of WCF 23.3 that is somewhat between the original and American revision. Perhaps this is contributing to my eschatological indecision!

 

[cthorn14]

For example, from the ARP's Confession, 23.3:

Hence, magistrates, as such, in a Christian country, are bound to promote the Christian religion, as the most valuable interest of their subjects, by all such means as are not inconsistent with civil rights; and do not imply an interference with the policy of the church, which is the free and independent kingdom of the Redeemer; nor an assumption of dominion over conscience

Since this confession acknowledges such an entity as a "Christian country", I believe consistent adherence to it is likely to have some impact on the working out of eschatological particulars.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Charles,

I don't know if you deeply ponder the times we are in, and the growing consensus among secular observers of the faithful and fervent Christian community, but terms like "Christian country" and "Christian nationalism" strike alarm in them and increase their already hostile hearts and minds to enact legal safeguards so as to deprive us of free speech if the full Gospel is part of that speech. You are likely aware of a fervent hatred growing among such – and their number increases. Their thinking goes along these lines:

Why do the heathen rage,
and the people imagine a vain thing?
The kings of the earth set themselves,
and the rulers take counsel together,
against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying,
Let us break their bands asunder,
and cast away their cords from us.​

The present administration does not hide its hostility, nor its machinations to delegitimize and then criminalize us. Yes, the LORD responds and says,

He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh:
the Lord shall have them in derision.
Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath,
and vex them in his sore displeasure.​

It will get to the point where the magistrates will not come to Him, but will take counsel among themselves against the LORD and His Christ, only to have Him decree (speaking to His Son),

I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.
Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron;
thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.​

We hear the echo of this decree in John in Revelation 11:18,

And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged...​

Which is not at all to say it is wrong to affirm the sovereignty of God and His Christ, and the mandate to observe His holy commandments by the magistracies, but this is the time of the great apostasy and the vicious rebellion of the unregenerate, and we the children of the Most High who stand firm in the evil day.
______

If, perchance, Mr. Trump gains the presidency, as many Christians hope for ("better him than the other" they say), I have this sense this will backfire terribly. There seems to be an almost "messianic" quality to the man, thinking he is appointed of God to rid the country of evil, and "make America great again" among the nations by who knows what disastrous courses of action – and will set in motion calamitous consequences for, not only our nation, but the world.

We are privileged to have and speak the word of God in times such as these!

 

[cthorn14]

Charles,

I don't know if you deeply ponder the times we are in, and the growing consensus among secular observers of the faithful and fervent Christian community, but terms like "Christian country" and "Christian nationalism" strike alarm in them and increase their already hostile hearts and minds to enact legal safeguards so as to deprive us of free speech if the full Gospel is part of that speech. You are likely aware of a fervent hatred growing among such – and their number increases.

Steve, I do ponder the present times, but probably not as keenly as you. I am quite "young" in the Lord, having come to faith in the past few years.

I am likewise grateful for the word of God in these and in all times! Thanks for the engagement.

Isaiah 49:13-16 KJV.

 

[Sovereign Grace]

The date of authorship for Revelation is also key.

^^^^^This!!!!^^^^^