Politics, Violence, and Post-Millenialism

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Here is a good quote from Greg Bahnsen that dispels one of the myths of the Post-Millenial position. I would recommend reading the whole article at the link to learn about other similar critiques of the Post-Millenial hope that are misguided.

‎"According to evangelical, Bible-believing postmillennialism, fallen man is utterly incapable of entering or advancing the kingdom of God in his own effort, wisdom, or accomplishment. God's kingdom comes not by human work, but by the redemptive mission of Jesus Christ (cf. Colossians 1:13-14) and according to the gracious power of the Holy Spirit. As Jesus said to Nicodemus: "Unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God" (John 3:3).

Postmillennialists believe that Jesus established the kingdom of God on earth during His first advent. Mark summarizes what Jesus preached: "The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand" (Mark 1:14). From His exorcism of demons Jesus authoritatively concluded: "the kingdom of God has come upon you" (Matthew 12:28). Jesus is now despoiling Satan's house (v. 29), as the kingdom slowly grows in the earth (Matthew 13:31-32), and every enemy is brought in submission under His feet (Hebrews 1:13; 10:13). He must reign until all opposition is defeated, and then He will deliver up the kingdom to the Father -- at His second coming, which is "the end" of history (1 Corinthians 15:24-25).

Postmillennialists believe that the victorious advance of Christ's kingdom comes about by means of the preaching of the gospel and the powerful work of God's Spirit in regeneration and sanctification. That is, it is the pursuit of the Great Commission, rather than the use of violence or military confrontation, which peacefully secures the widespread conversion of the world and brings it to obey all that Jesus has commanded (cf. Matthew 28:18-20).

However, the process through which the kingdom grows involves an intense spiritual battle, with its ensuing afflictions, persecutions, hardships and suffering for God's people. The ultimate victory which shall come through the struggle does not cancel the pain and sorrow which attends that struggle. The Apostle John spoke of himself as a "companion in the suffering and kingdom... that are ours in Jesus" (Revelation 1:9). Paul called on Timothy to "be a partaker of the afflictions of the gospel" (2 Timothy 1:8), realizing that "if we suffer [with Him], we shall also reign with Him" (2:12)...

...Postmillennialists do not advocate political compulsion or violence as the means by which Christ works through us to establish His dominion or kingdom throughout the world. As Paul says, "the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh" -- and for that reason are "mighty before God" for casting down strongholds (2 Corinthians 10:4). Christ's kingdom does not originate from this world, which is the explanation for the fact that His servants do not fight (John 18:36). Postmillennialists look to the Great Commission, not political revolution, for the victory of Christ's cause. To say the opposite is to malign them and the truth." -- Greg Bahnsen

"Cross-Examination: Objections to Postmillenialism"(part 1)
By Dr. Greg Bahnsen

 

[Douglas P.]

This might be a little off topic, but I have a few quick questions about Post-Millennialism of the Bahnsen variety.

Did Bahnsen (or other Post-Mills from the same vein) believe or teach:

1. That there will be a future literal 1000 year Golden Age?

2. That there will be a future, however not currently present, Golden Age that is not necessarily 1000 years?

3. That the eschatological situation for either the Church or the believer would/will change (either get better or worse) throughout the New Covenant Church Age?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

1) No. The Millennium began ca. 70 A.D. Modern Post-Mills and A-Mills agree on this point.

2) No. While there will be "dips" in the eschatological line graph the Church will be in a better place at the end than it was at the beginning. Technically speaking the "Golden Age" is the whole of the Millennium.

3) The eschatological position will improve from the beginning to the end for the whole Church, through the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the Nations by the right preaching of the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit (i.e.- what Bahnsen notes above in his quote). However there will be a short-time of Apostasy at the end right before Jesus returns for the Final Judgment.

 

[Douglas P.]

1) No. The Millennium began ca. 70 A.D. Modern Post-Mills and A-Mills agree on this point.

2) No. While there will be "dips" in the eschatological line graph the Church will be in a better place at the end than it was at the beginning. Technically speaking the "Golden Age" is the whole of the Millennium.

3) The eschatological position will improve from the beginning to the end for the whole Church, through the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the Nations by the right preaching of the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit (i.e.- what Bahnsen notes above in his quote). However there will be a short-time of Apostasy at the end right before Jesus returns for the Final Judgment.

Thank you.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

You are welcome.

 

[Pergamum]

Why did the millennium begin in 70AD and not immediately after the resurrection of Christ?

 

[Unoriginalname]

1) No. The Millennium began ca. 70 A.D. Modern Post-Mills and A-Mills agree on this point.

2) No. While there will be "dips" in the eschatological line graph the Church will be in a better place at the end than it was at the beginning. Technically speaking the "Golden Age" is the whole of the Millennium.

3) The eschatological position will improve from the beginning to the end for the whole Church, through the preaching of the Gospel and the conversion of the Nations by the right preaching of the Word and the work of the Holy Spirit (i.e.- what Bahnsen notes above in his quote). However there will be a short-time of Apostasy at the end right before Jesus returns for the Final Judgment.

If the in Bahnsenian view the millennium began in or around the 70s where does his view significantly differ from amillenialism.

 

[sastark]

1) No. The Millennium began ca. 70 A.D. Modern Post-Mills and A-Mills agree on this point.

Although Ben is correct in stating that modern post-mills (or at least, most of them) believe the millennium began in 70AD, this was not the view of the Puritans and other Reformers, who believed in a future "Golden Age" for the church that would be marked by the 1) the fullness of the Gentiles being called, 2) Downfall of Antichrist, 3) Conversion of the Jews. This is also what we pray for when we pray "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven" according to WLC 191.

I do acknowledge that this older (and in my opinion, better) interpretation of postmillennialism is not the predominant view today. But, being post-mil, I believe it will be again!

 

[Fogetaboutit]

1) No. The Millennium began ca. 70 A.D. Modern Post-Mills and A-Mills agree on this point.

I'm A-Mill and I do not believe the "millennium" began in 70 A.D. I believe the "millennium" is symbolic of the entire time of the New Testament Church testimony on earth which began at the resurection of Christ. From my knowlege the 70 A.D. interpretation is strictly praeterist.

 

[Peairtach]

1) No. The Millennium began ca. 70 A.D. Modern Post-Mills and A-Mills agree on this point.

Although Ben is correct in stating that modern post-mills (or at least, most of them) believe the millennium began in 70AD, this was not the view of the Puritans and other Reformers, who believed in a future "Golden Age" for the church that would be marked by the 1) the fullness of the Gentiles being called, 2) Downfall of Antichrist, 3) Conversion of the Jews. This is also what we pray for when we pray "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven" according to WLC 191.

I do acknowledge that this older (and in my opinion, better) interpretation of postmillennialism is not the predominant view today. But, being post-mil, I believe it will be again!

1) the fullness of the Gentiles being called, 2) Downfall of Antichrist, 3) Conversion of the Jews. This is also what we pray for when we pray "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven" according to WLC 191.

Bahnsen believed, and other modern postmils believe, in this also. It's just that for them the above three items and some others are a later outworking of the Millennial period in which we live i.e. the Millennium extends from the first century to the Eschaton.

Older postmils (often?) tended to point to things like the conversion of the Jews, the downfall of the Papacy, the end of war, the conversion of the nations, etc, as the beginning of the Millennium.

I prefer to call the flowering of the Millennum and the kingdom of God in history, a Silver Age, as although state persecution and war will be defeated, medicine will be much improved and more widely available, etc, etc, etc, there will still be sin, illness, pain and death.

The Silver Age of the Millennium won't be Paradise. It will mean e.g. that more and more Christians will enjoy the postmil blessings which we already enjoy in the West.

The Golden Age is the Heavenly Eschatalogical Kingdom i.e. Heaven and the New Heavens and New Earth.

 

[jwithnell]

I found G. Vos description of post-mil in his work The Eschatology of the Psalms to be quite illuminating regarding the arguments against the position. At that time (the 1910s?) the emphasis was on a physical establishment of the kingdom. For years I had been puzzled by how those in the mainstream of reformed thought came up with the arguments against a post-mil position as answered by Mr. Bahnsen above.

Both in the post-mil camp and now in the a-mil camp, I firmly believe that the kingdom was established when Christ ascended into heaven to sit at the right hand of his father. "The kingdom of the world is become the kingdom of Christ." That was how it was taught to me in a church that, at that time, had close ties to Chalcedon in Atlanta.

 

[Peairtach]

Pergy

Why did the millennium begin in 70AD and not immediately after the resurrection of Christ?

Interesting point.

The binding of Satan process started during Christ's ministry:

Or how can someone enter a strong man's house and plunder his goods, unless he first binds the strong man? Then indeed he may plunder his house. (Matthew 12:29, ESV)

Then I saw an angel coming down from heaven, holding in his hand the key to the bottomless pit and a great chain. And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years, and threw him into the pit, and shut it and sealed it over him, so that he might not deceive the nations any longer, until the thousand years were ended. After that he must be released for a little while. (Rev 20:1-3)

The complex of events which led to Christ's glorification and exaltation (Christ's Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension) happened in A.D.33, when our Lord was about 37 or 38 years of age as to His humanity.

The sign to the Church that Christ was at His Father's right hand also happened in A.D.33 i.e. Pentecost.

Thus both the saints in Heaven and the saints on Earth were reigning with Christ from A.D. 33, and Satan was being bound.

But both the Olivet Discourse and the Book of Revelation seem to indicate some importance to the destruction of the Temple as a public sign to Jews and Gentiles that Christ was at His Father's right hand and had commenced reigning over His Kingdom.

With the destruction of the Temple it was made clear that God's Kingdom was not limited to a particular geographical area, but had expanded to include the whole Earth; that the mid wall of partition between full Jewish believers and Gentile believers was dispensed with forever; and that God's Temple in Heaven was open to all who would call on the name of the Lord.

Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign forever and ever." (Rev 11:15)

Then God's temple in heaven was opened, and the ark of his covenant was seen within his temple. There were flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder, an earthquake, and heavy hail. (Rev 11:19)

Christ is the Ark of the Covenant seen in God's Heavenly Temple because of the providential events of A.D. 70.

Of course this depends - as regards the Book of Revelation, anyway - on an early date for the writing of Revelation, and a degree of preterist interpretation being appropriate. These eschatalogical Qs are always difficult and complex and should be therefore somewhat tentatively held, but there seems to be strong evidence for an early date for Revelation and that a degree of preterist interpretation is correct regarding the book.