Post-mil, optimistic; amil, pessimistic?

[David Shedlock]

"Postmillennialism is that view of the last things which holds the kingdom of God is now being extended in the world through the preaching of the gospel and saving work of the Holy Spirit, that the world eventually will be Christianized, and that the return of Christ will occur at the close of a long period of righteousness and peace, commonly called the millennium." (L. Boettner)

It is often said by those who are postmil, that amils fall short in the belief in the power of the gospel. We are often taunted with "Can't God show his Glory by winning the vast majority of the people on earth, during the golden age?", "Don't you believe the various promises", etc. In particular, the Great commission is held up as the promise that most will become saved at the end. bu Gentry, et al.

This line of questioning is also directed at Dispensationalists, who say that Christ must be present to rule and reign.

Postmils mock them for this, but how does God overcome this final apostasy or rebellion? With the breath of His coming.

My two main objections are these:

1. "Can't God show his Glory by winning every single person on earth, during the golden age?" and so on. You claim we amils don't have faith because we don't believe the gospel promises will be fulfilled, but they don't believe them either.

2. If the golden age shows God's powerful gospel, why doesn't Satan's little season show his great persuasive power? If the golden age demonstrates God's ability to convert, how can there be a great apostasy, since the elect can't become apostates? Or did these golden saints fail to communicate the gospel to their children

I know some postmils don't believe in Satan's little season is after the golden age. But some do, including Jonathan Edwards.

 

[Romans922]

So was there a question in what you posted. I'm confused since the title has a question mark.

If I go off the title, I would actually call myself an optimistic amil.

I believe based in the Scriptures that things will get progressively worse until Christ's coming and yet the Gospel in all its power will go out calling people from all nations (General Call) and will call all of God's elect to Himself (Effectual Call). God's promises are fulfilled and it is wonderful and glorious! In that, I do not think there will be some kind of golden age.

 

[David Shedlock]

Yes, the question is whether or not you believe Post-mil is optimistic and amil, pessimistic. The word "optimistic" is added by some to fend off the accusation that we are pessimistic. For some, though it is added to those who hold that the world will largely be saved, but hold to a amil view of Revelation.

I am with you on this, Mr. Barnes.

 

[JimmyH]

Reverend D.Martyn Lloyd-Jones has a bit to say on this topic in these two sermons. There are quite a few more on the MLJTrust.Org in the sermon topic section under "Great Biblical Doctrines."

The Premillennial View | Sermons | MLJ Trust

Post-millennialism and the Spiritual View | Sermons | MLJ Trust

Far from seeing a 'golden age, the Doctor points out that the 20th century demonstrates the futility of the post mil viewpoint. The 21st century, going in the same direction, would bolster the Doctor's point of view In my humble opinion.

 

[David Shedlock]

It seems that the postmils see any "success" of the gospel as some far off time in the future.

 

[MW]

Satan's season is certainly a problem for the postmillenial historicist view. It undoes everything which has been done. It is equally problematic for the pessimistic amillennial view which is feeling the after-affects of premillennial eschatology. If Satan was bound by the first coming of Christ, his loosing before the second coming of Christ would effectively undo what Christ has done, and redo what has been undone, which is an appalling view of history. Warfield's view, following Milligan and the recapitulation scheme, is that the loosing of Satan is concurrent with the binding of Satan. They represent two different spheres of activity. It is usual for apocalyptic to present antithetic extremes in successive visions. In the parallel of Rev. 12, Satan was cast out of heaven, loosed on earth, yet bound in relation to the saints. There is no need to suppose that anything Christ has done will be undone in the future.

 

[Hamalas]

Satan's season is certainly a problem for the postmillenial historicist view. It undoes everything which has been done. It is equally problematic for the pessimistic amillennial view which is feeling the after-affects of premillennial eschatology. If Satan was bound by the first coming of Christ, his loosing before the second coming of Christ would effectively undo what Christ has done, and redo what has been undone, which is an appalling view of history. Warfield's view, following Milligan and the recapitulation scheme, is that the loosing of Satan is concurrent with the binding of Satan. They represent two different spheres of activity. It is usual for apocalyptic to present antithetic extremes in successive visions. In the parallel of Rev. 12, Satan was cast out of heaven, loosed on earth, yet bound in relation to the saints. There is no need to suppose that anything Christ has done will be undone in the future.

As usual Rev. Winzer your post is blowing my mind. Could you elaborate on this fascinating paragraph please?

 

[David Shedlock]

The amil position does not undo anything. The release of Satan perhaps mean's that God's time of reaching the world's lost comes to a close. Or perhaps it means that any common grace that restrains the wicked is removed giving impetus to massive persecution. But nothing is taken away from the believers or the promises given to them. This is not pessimistic.

 

[MW]

The amil position does not undo anything. The release of Satan perhaps mean's that God's time of reaching the world's lost comes to a close. Or perhaps it means that any common grace that restrains the wicked is removed giving impetus to massive persecution. But nothing is taken away from the believers or the promises given to them. This is not pessimistic.

It is worse than pessimistic because it seeks to add a divine sanction to men's worst fears. To believe there will come a time before "the end" when God will no longer offer salvation to sinners of mankind is to plainly deny the work of Christ. To say God will break His promise made to Noah at some future period before the consummation is ridiculous. This is the extreme to which this unbiblical view takes people's imaginations.

 

[MW]

Could you elaborate on this fascinating paragraph please?

According to the progressive parallel view of Rev. 20, Satan was bound by Christ, namely, by the accomplishment of redemption at His first advent. If Satan is to be released before the second coming of Christ it would mean that the redemptive work of Christ in relation to Satan was undone. This is not possible. Consistently following the parallel view of Revelation, the interpreter should be able to see other visions relating to this theme do not require successive events, but merely an antithetical view of history in which Satan is active in relation to the unbelieving world but bound in relation to the saints.

 

[Hamalas]

Is this the view of progressive parallelism advocated by William Hendriksen in his book, "More than Conquerors"? I remember picking up the book when I was sixteen and while I didn't finish it (it was way over my head at the time) I do remember something like this there.

 

[MW]

Is this the view of progressive parallelism advocated by William Hendriksen in his book, "More than Conquerors"? I remember picking up the book when I was sixteen and while I didn't finish it (it was way over my head at the time) I do remember something like this there.

Hendriksen sets forth the progressive parallel view but he also allows for an end time loosing of Satan, which in my opinion is inconsistent with his propositions for interpreting the book. Warfield and Milligan provide a consistent approach.

 

[Hamalas]

Are there specific works that should be read of Warfield and Milligan to get their approach?

 

[Cymro]

I would hold that the Post position is pessimistic, because the belief in a protracted era
of a golden age robs the believer of the eagerly anticipated coming of our Lord. Why
look for that momentous event when we have to wait for perhaps a thousand year
period for the great second advent? The second coming is rarely preached upon, which
is different to the longed for appearance by the New Testament writers. Even so come Lord
Jesus. Whilst my a milleninialist position may be reckoned pessimistic by those who differ,
the fact that things will wax worse and worse really is the ushering in of the glorious appearing
of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ. To whom be glory for ever and ever.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

I believe based in the Scriptures that things will get progressively worse until Christ's coming and yet the Gospel in all its power will go out calling people from all nations (General Call) and will call all of God's elect to Himself (Effectual Call). God's promises are fulfilled and it is wonderful and glorious! In that, I do not think there will be some kind of golden age.

This is interesting, this is not what I understood of "optimistic" amils, this seems more balanced.

Consistently following the parallel view of Revelation, the interpreter should be able to see other visions relating to this theme do not require successive events, but merely an antithetical view of history in which Satan is active in relation to the unbelieving world but bound in relation to the saints.

As I was re-reading Revelation 20 there's few thing that have me confused. I know you explained this in the past so pardon my lack of understanding, but this is what is throwing me off,:

3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.

7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,

I understand that this is apocalyptic language but why are terms like "till", "after that", "when" and "expired" being used if it's not chronological. What is throwing me off is that this all seem to be part of the same vision, in other portions of Revelation it will say thing like "then I saw" which make sense that it could be another parallel vision.

But on the other hand I see passage like this:

4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

We know that it's impossible for Christ to "stop" reigning therefore it would seem to say that the "1000 year" will only expire at his coming and not prior. Unless this is solely a reference to the saints' reign but even there it would almost be saying that the saints will loose their status for a season which doesn't make sense.

How do we explain the type of language that seem to to portray visions chronologically dependent on others?

 

[JimmyH]

Are there specific works that should be read of Warfield and Milligan to get their approach?

I'm supposing this will answer the question ....... ? Dug this up in an advanced search of some of Reverend Winzer's posts on the topic in general ;

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/i-might-become-premillennial-22859/#post283813

FNL's good for historicism (Francis Nigel Lee). For recapitulation the standard works are Hendriksen's More than Conqueror's, Warfield's 'Millennium and the Apocalypse' in "Biblical Doctrines," and Milligan's Commentary on Revelation. Hendriksen is somewhat pessimistic as an amillennialist. Warfield is generally considered postmillennial or optimistic amillennial.

 

[MW]

Are there specific works that should be read of Warfield and Milligan to get their approach?

I'm supposing this will answer the question ....... ? Dug this up in an advanced search of some of Reverend Winzer's posts on the topic in general ;

http://www.puritanboard.com/f46/i-might-become-premillennial-22859/#post283813

FNL's good for historicism (Francis Nigel Lee). For recapitulation the standard works are Hendriksen's More than Conqueror's, Warfield's 'Millennium and the Apocalypse' in "Biblical Doctrines," and Milligan's Commentary on Revelation. Hendriksen is somewhat pessimistic as an amillennialist. Warfield is generally considered postmillennial or optimistic amillennial.

Thankyou, Jimmy.

 

[MW]

How do we explain the type of language that seem to to portray visions chronologically dependent on others?

Visions, like parables , require the interpreter to see the big picture first, and then understand the details as filling out the bigger picture rather than adding new concepts of their own. If we follow the idealist approach, and acknowledge recapitulation and progressive parallelism, we already accept that time and sequence are qualitative rather than quantitative. E.g., the seven seals/trumpets/vials do not refer to seven sequential events in each series. They each contain a complete picture of a redemptive-historical reality.

Idealists do not interpret the thousand years as a period of time. It is understood to be qualitative, and indicates that the reign of the saints is so full and complete in itself that nothing more can be added to it or taken from it so far as the present age is concerned. Where the thousand years is understood as qualitative, the expiry of the thousand years must be qualitative also. The expiration cannot refer to a period of time after the thousand years, but must point to a sphere of life in which the millennial reign is not realised.

As you have noted, the millennium refers to the blessed condition in which the saints reign with Christ. The idea of another state of affairs following this one is simply not possible without destroying the idealism of the thousand years. This must particularly be the case where it is acknowledged that the intermediate state is a part of the millennial description.

 

[David Shedlock]

The amil position does not undo anything. The release of Satan perhaps mean's that God's time of reaching the world's lost comes to a close. Or perhaps it means that any common grace that restrains the wicked is removed giving impetus to massive persecution. But nothing is taken away from the believers or the promises given to them. This is not pessimistic.

It is worse than pessimistic because it seeks to add a divine sanction to men's worst fears. To believe there will come a time before "the end" when God will no longer offer salvation to sinners of mankind is to plainly deny the work of Christ. To say God will break His promise made to Noah at some future period before the consummation is ridiculous. This is the extreme to which this unbiblical view takes people's imaginations.

And what promise was made to Noah, if this view of Satans 'release were true? I'm not sure adding a "divine sanction to men's fears" even means?

 

[David Shedlock]

How do we explain the type of language that seem to to portray visions chronologically dependent on others?

As you have noted, the millennium refers to the blessed condition in which the saints reign with Christ. The idea of another state of affairs following this one is simply not possible without destroying the idealism of the thousand years. This must particularly be the case where it is acknowledged that the intermediate state is a part of the millennial description.

That blessed condition of reigning with Christ is now. It is the reign of the saved over the lost, the martyrs over the persecutors. Nothing will be destroyed should the whole world come against the remnant church. They will reign in death as sin life. Since apparently this is the end of time that immediately follows, the new heaven and earth will provide the victory of the age to come.