postmil/amil

[PastorOB]

I am interested in hearing from people who have wrestled with the difference between the postmil and amil views. If you were amil, and changed your view to postmil, what made the difference for you? Or, if you were leaning postmil, but decided to adopt or stick with the amil view, what made the difference for you? Thanks

 

[Beoga]

I am optimistic you will get some good responses here.
Though I am a bit pessimistic that anyone will change their views as a result of the discussion.
I guess it will all work out the way it is supposed to.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Postmils tend to think that Amills left behind their optimism

 

[PastorOB]

I am optimistic you will get some good responses here.
Though I am a bit pessimistic that anyone will change their views as a result of the discussion.
I guess it will all work out the way it is supposed to.

Yeah but will they be raptured before, after or during the time they make their decision?

 

[SolaScriptura]

The biggest thing for me is that "optimism" in every case refers to an outlook toward the moral state of the unbelieving world, and the effect of the Kingdom on that which nonetheless remains not-the-Kingdom. In no case does "optimism" refer to Christians' outlook toward their own future. Heck, the pre-millennialists I know all laugh at us and say that their view is the most optimistic of all since they believe they'll be raptured away and won't even be here for the tribulation.

The very idea that unbelievers flourishing as unbelievers (as they benefit from the wise beneficence of God's moral law imposed on them) would be deemed a source of optimism about the mission of Christ and his Kingdom is I think odious to the teaching of Scripture.

I share the basic perspective that (1) the kingdoms of this world may be induced one way or another to conform to certain Kingdom values, but (2) only those that are born again can see or enter the kingdom, thus (3) until the eschaton only the Church is the kingdom, (4) between now and the eschaton the church may exude more cultural influence in some times and location and less in others - the waxing and waning of influence, and (5) the NT - Jesus hisself - clearly teaches a dismal moral/spiritual situation in the world, marked by general apostasy, at His return.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Briefly, I grew up with a basic amil-outlook. I recall asking someone why I'd never heard stuff like I was reading in this book I picked up by HalLinsey, when I was about 10yrs old. Answer: if it was really in the Bible, I would have, right?

I flirted with postmil and recon ideas when I was in college; after which I decided I was "optimistic amil." I kept that stance until I was mostly through my seminary days. By the time I was ordained, I was clear, stating: "I am not a theonomist," to a session I'm pretty sure wanted me to say I was one.

My "earthly pessimism" has grown more convinced with age. I have great optimism about the kingdom of God, and the plundering of Satan's kingdom; I just do no longer retain specific expectations for history in the inter-advent. And if not for history, then also no "program" for improving the kingdoms of this world. One place may improve, another do even better on account of attendance on immovable truth; but man in his fallen condition is a thoroughgoing rebel to all law and restraint--even the law of gravity, or the law of non-contradiction.

I also doubt that, apart from special Providence, more-true-faith will yield more public benefits because of the presence of the church and true religion. I've come to doubt such a cause-effect relationship simply follows. Those who reap earthly benefits may intend to use the church and believers like Laban used Jacob & Co. for a season. The church's earthly increase is incidental; and it might please God to ordain earthly suffering by the church for its spiritual increase.

We quite reasonably pray for social stability, peace and security, and freedom for believers in time/place; as it generally seems better for us and our neighbors regardless of their religious profession. Our faith is perfectly compatible with divinely created nature. Yet, difficulty and contention with the world tends to reveal the actual troubled condition of men more readily than soothing comfort and convenience.

If there is "glory" for a church of the future: if in this world, that glory will be of the fading variety. As an amil I say there will be no seamless merging of the present into the eschaton. I have hope only for a visible glory for the church revealed in the age to come.

 

[Beoga]

Yeah but will they be raptured before, after or during the time they make their decision?

I am sure there will some that will leave the discussion leaving some left behind in the thread question where they went, but trying to establish their position.

 

[DanSSwing]

I am interested in hearing from people who have wrestled with the difference between the postmil and amil views. If you were amil, and changed your view to postmil, what made the difference for you? Or, if you were leaning postmil, but decided to adopt or stick with the amil view, what made the difference for you? Thanks

“The zeal of the LORD will accomplish this.” It’s quite easy to believe that Christ will redeem His elect while the rest of creation gets worse and worse, but this verse seems to suggest that God’s redemptive plan is much more ostentatious and involves a more general reversing of the curse through the power of the Holy Spirit in His church. To the point, it is something unbelievable that God will nevertheless accomplish. Also understanding that the “pessimistic” prophecies were fulfilled in 70 AD makes way for the more optimistic understanding of the lead up to Christ’s consummative return.

I basically went straight from pre-mil to what is technically optimistic amil but is more commonly called modern post-mil, not insisting on a golden age of precisely 1,000 years.