Postmil Without Partial Preterism

[DanSSwing]

I lean that way. Most modern scholars hold the late date, but there is a pretty strong pre-70 tradition prior to modern times. Also, I tend to discount scholarship from those who do not profess faith - some of it is very good, but there is always the issue that, if the person doesn't believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, this allows them to arrive at conclusions they would not otherwise be able to hold. I find this especially true with dating prophesy. A good question to ask is how those scholars who arrive at a late date for Revelation treat other prophetical works (like Isaiah and Daniel, for example) though I find there is little expert crossover - most modern Greek/NT scholars aren't also Hebrew/OT scholars.

Yeah, I suspect most of the post-70 AD dating on Revelation is the same sort of question-begging that results in the late dating of Isaiah and Daniel. "Well we know that the writer couldn't have actually predicted that event so it must have been written after the fact." Though, to be fair, in the case of Revelation, it's less complete prophecy denial and more like, "Well we know the events of Revelation didn't happen in 70 AD, so John could not have written before 70 AD that those events were about to happen."

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

While I do not think preterism is the correct view of the book of Revelation, this is a terrible reason to reach that conclusion.

Do you mean my conclusion on the date? Isn't the preterist view dependent on it being pre 70?

 

[Sam Jer]

Do you mean my conclusion on the date? Isn't the preterist view dependent on it being pre 70?

The date is a bad reason to chose an interpetation of Revelation because the the bible does not tell us when it was written. I am a historicist and reject the earlier date but even if an earlier date was proven it wouldn't convince me of preterism.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

I am Amil. I believe there are two aspects to the kingship of Christ. The first is the whole sphere of Christ’s providential rule over all creation as God. Then there is His intimate kingship over His spiritual kingdom - His new creation.

Peter tells us in Acts 2:36: “let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Many miss the significance of this summing up by failing to grasp the importance of our Saviour’s titles. The title “Lord” here refers to His divine role as the “Son of God” whereas the title “Christ” relates to His Messianic office as “the son of man.” He carries a dual kingship as king of kings and Lord of lords.

I recently became a Presbyterian. My pastor explained to me how the Dispensational premil view isn't compatible with our covenant theology but historic premil was - so I switched my view to that because all I ever knew growing up was the premil view. As I have studied I've concluded that I am now postmil in the sense that I believe Christ returns post the millennium. But figuring out whether or not I fall into the postmil camp or optimistic amil has been quite the challenge! There are a lot of similarities between the two views so I'm curious, what differences would your view have with the postmil camp? There are so many sides to each camp that have me overwhelmed (Idealist, Pessimistic, Optimistic, Historcisit, and I'm sure there's more I haven't come across yet!). What I have seen so far as the main difference between optimistic amil and postmil is that postmils believe that the nations will eventually (not every individual person necessarily) recognize Christ as Lord. My pastor is more of an optimistic amil so he doesn't disagree with the idea that many people will come to Christ but he does believe that evil will remain (in a sense) as the majority influence throughout the millennium. What are your thoughts on the nature of Christ's reign over the earth? Sorry for the long response!

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

The date is a bad reason to chose an interpetation of Revelation because the the bible does not tell us when it was written. I am a historicist and reject the earlier date but even if an earlier date was proven it wouldn't convince me of preterism.

The reason I put an emphasis on the date is because recently I have become fond of the postmil views but I recognize that most postmils are also partial preterists and I am not sure if you can really separate the two. That was the purpose of starting this thread - can one be a postmil (I've been listening to Bahnsen so that's the angle I'm coming from) and hold to a later date? I don't have much knowledge of the Historicist view - other than they are postmil and hold to the interpretation that Revelation is being fulfilled throughout history (I like that) but I get caught up on the pope being the antichrist (out of my ignorance of the book of Revelation as well as the Historicist view) and I think most puritans believed Islam to be a major player as well. And I think many of the Historicists held to a future literal 1,000 millennium - would you fall into that?

 

[sovereigngrace]

I recently became a Presbyterian. My pastor explained to me how the Dispensational premil view isn't compatible with our covenant theology but historic premil was - so I switched my view to that because all I ever knew growing up was the premil view. As I have studied I've concluded that I am now postmil in the sense that I believe Christ returns post the millennium. But figuring out whether or not I fall into the postmil camp or optimistic amil has been quite the challenge! There are a lot of similarities between the two views so I'm curious, what differences would your view have with the postmil camp? There are so many sides to each camp that have me overwhelmed (Idealist, Pessimistic, Optimistic, Historcisit, and I'm sure there's more I haven't come across yet!). What I have seen so far as the main difference between optimistic amil and postmil is that postmils believe that the nations will eventually (not every individual person necessarily) recognize Christ as Lord. My pastor is more of an optimistic amil so he doesn't disagree with the idea that many people will come to Christ but he does believe that evil will remain (in a sense) as the majority influence throughout the millennium. What are your thoughts on the nature of Christ's reign over the earth? Sorry for the long response!

I agree with your pastor. I see 2 realities running parallel at the end: the growth of evil and rebellion, men waxing worse and worse, which will cause a persecution of the Church, which in turn, will see a refining of the Church, a dependence on the Holy Spirit, and the empowering of them to shine the light on the ungodly in the midst of darkness.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

I agree with your pastor. I see 2 realities running parallel at the end: the growth of evil and rebellion, men waxing worse and worse, which will cause a persecution of the Church, which in turn, will see a refining of the Church, a dependence on the Holy Spirit, and the empowering of them to shine the light on the ungodly in the midst of darkness.

How would you interpret 1 Corinthians 15:25 as well as the other passages that postmils go to for their view of Christ's kingdom on earth?

 

[sovereigngrace]

The reason I put an emphasis on the date is because recently I have become fond of the postmil views but I recognize that most postmils are also partial preterists and I am not sure if you can really separate the two. That was the purpose of starting this thread - can one be a postmil (I've been listening to Bahnsen so that's the angle I'm coming from) and hold to a later date? I don't have much knowledge of the Historicist view - other than they are postmil and hold to the interpretation that Revelation is being fulfilled throughout history (I like that) but I get caught up on the pope being the antichrist (out of my ignorance of the book of Revelation as well as the Historicist view) and I think most puritans believed Islam to be a major player as well. And I think many of the Historicists held to a future literal 1,000 millennium - would you fall into that?

What about the Idealist view? It is very popular today in Amil circles. To me it makes the most sense.

 

[Sam Jer]

The reason I put an emphasis on the date is because recently I have become fond of the postmil views but I recognize that most postmils are also partial preterists and I am not sure if you can really separate the two.

yes you can - by being a historicist.

I don't have much knowledge of the Historicist view - other than they are postmil and hold to the interpretation that Revelation is being fulfilled throughout history (I like that) but I get caught up on the pope being the antichrist (out of my ignorance of the book of Revelation as well as the Historicist view) and I think most puritans believed Islam to be a major player as well.

It is hard to argue Daniel 7, Revelation 17 or 2 Thessalonians 2 speak of anything else. 1 Timothy 4:3 should really also be on the list. Once that was pointed out to me I struggled to reconsile these passages with any other view, though it took me a while to actually be a historicist. I'd recommend Gavin Beers' sermon as a starting point:

And I think many of the Historicists held to a future literal 1,000 millennium - would you fall into that?

I do believe the millennium is future. If it is 1,000 years exactly or a symbolic number... I don't know for certain. I am not comfertable giving too much of a defence or explenation of Historicism here, I'll probably be heading out of the conversation quite soon. There is a lot that I am yet to learn.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

yes you can - by being a historicist.


It is hard to argue Daniel 7, Revelation 17 or 2 Thessalonians 2 speak of anything else. 1 Timothy 4:3 should really also be on the list. Once that was pointed out to me I struggled to reconsile these passages with any other view, though it took me a while to actually be a historicist. I'd recommend Gavin Beers' sermon as a starting point:

I do believe the millennium is future. If it is 1,000 years exactly or a symbolic number... I don't know for certain. I am not comfertable giving too much of a defence or explenation of Historicism here, I'll probably be heading out of the conversation quite soon. There is a lot that I am yet to learn.

I appreciate your responses and will definitely check out that video!

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

What about the Idealist view? It is very popular today in Amil circles. To me it makes the most sense.

I have come across that view. Although I do not know enough about it to really explain it. That view interprets revelation as completely symbolic (holding that it is relevant to all people at all times but not tied to any historical events) as well as the recapitulation view correct?

 

[cthorn14]

That view interprets revelation as completely symbolic (holding that it is relevant to all people at all times but not tied to any historical events) as well as the recapitulation view correct?

Yes, but many modern interpreters adopt a 'modified' or 'eclectic' idealism, which identifies some references to specific historical events. An example is G.K Beale.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

Yes, but many modern interpreters adopt a 'modified' or 'eclectic' idealism, which identifies some references to specific historical events. An example is G.K Beale.

After doing some (brief) digging, I think it is possible to be an idealist postmil. So that puts me back to whether or not I view Christ's kingdom from the postmil lens (the gospel will triumph over the nations) or if His kingdom is mainly spiritual (with some positive effects due to the spread of the gospel).

 

[DanSSwing]

I recently became a Presbyterian. My pastor explained to me how the Dispensational premil view isn't compatible with our covenant theology but historic premil was - so I switched my view to that because all I ever knew growing up was the premil view. As I have studied I've concluded that I am now postmil in the sense that I believe Christ returns post the millennium. But figuring out whether or not I fall into the postmil camp or optimistic amil has been quite the challenge! There are a lot of similarities between the two views so I'm curious, what differences would your view have with the postmil camp?

I'm happy to be called either postmil or optimistic amil. I usually go for postmil because it's shorter, but optimistic amil is probably more accurate because I believe we are in the millennial reign, which is identical to the kingdom of God, NOW as it gradually expands until it fills the earth, rather than waiting for an exactly 1,000-year-period in the future.

As for postmil compatibility with non-preterism, I think the biggest problem would be explaining the new heavens and new earth. If they have NOT been inaugurated, then what does the new earth look like after Jesus' millennial reign on earth is consummated and He has destroyed the last enemy, death? I view the eternal state as being in heaven, not on earth, so what's going on here exactly? I think you'd have to say that we are all resurrected HERE, living eternally on earth in our glorified bodies. It has a certain cosmological appeal, but I don't see that it is taught in Scripture.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yeah, I suspect most of the post-70 AD dating on Revelation is the same sort of question-begging that results in the late dating of Isaiah and Daniel. "Well we know that the writer couldn't have actually predicted that event so it must have been written after the fact."

I hold to a Domitianic date and I have never used that argument. Neither does Beale.

 

[sovereigngrace]

How would you interpret 1 Corinthians 15:25 as well as the other passages that postmils go to for their view of Christ's kingdom on earth?

Christ is sovereignly ruling over His enemies, subjugation them as Lord, by opening and no one closes and closing and no one is opening. He possesses all power in heaven and on earth since the resurrection.

I have come across that view. Although I do not know enough about it to really explain it. That view interprets revelation as completely symbolic (holding that it is relevant to all people at all times but not tied to any historical events) as well as the recapitulation view correct?

Yes. But it is broad enough to embrace historic events. The ultimate event being being Christ's climactic appearing.