RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Well, all of that depends on the premillennial framework, which I find untenable.
Postmillennialism and the Law
- Thread starter pslagle2012
- Start date
- Status
Well, all of that depends on the premillennial framework, which I find untenable.
I once held to the Dispensational version of it, no longer, but still find support for a premil view within the scriptures, as someone like Spurgeon did also.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The same difficulties apply: multiple resurrections. Unsaved and unglorified bodies coexisting with saved and glorified bodies with the risen Christ on Earth from Jerusalem.
I understand those objections, but still see this as being the view that most explains how this earth will have the Kingdom existing over all the earth, and how all worship Him as their Lord and King, as OT prophets foretold of His Messianic Age.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Have you read amill or postmill authors? Christ clearly reigns now from heaven and nothing escapes him. All is decreed! How is that not reigning? It seems you have a lingering dispensational mindset and no matter how many Calvinists ' may hold to it, it wreaks of Arminianism. I am not saying you espouse it but, just check you presuppositions in this area.
Jesus is the Lord, but is he not permitting things to go on in this world that is contrary to what he would be putting down once His Kingdom comes in full?
The Kingdom is here, but not yet in full, as that awaits His second coming event.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Again, postmillennials wouldn't necessarily disagree with the substance of that statement. We are asking you which postmil authors you have read, what was their specific theses, and what about those theses you find unpersuasive.
zsmcd
Puritan Board Freshman
As I mentioned earlier, how do you come to this conclusion - especially as a Calvinist?
If you believe that God can raise a dead man to life, and give life and joy to a dead heart that hates him and his Law, than why can't you see God doing this on a mass scale so as to expand his Kingdom and Church upon the whole earth?
Why does it seem to you that Jesus has to come and reign with a literal rod of iron in order to bring his Kingdom upon the whole earth and uphold his Law? Psalm 110 is, after all the most quoted OT Scripture in the NT.
Again, the Great Commission is clear: disciple the nations, baptize and teach them. Likewise, the very purpose of the New Covenant is clear: the Law written on man's heart so that, eventually, no one will have need to say to their neighbor "know the Lord." None of this, in the context of the Scriptures that we find them, are merely looking forward to Jesus' second advent. Rather, they are seen as being definitively fulfilled in Christ and progressively fulfilled in his Church now.
Of course, there is a sense in which the mission of God will not be completed until the second advent. No one is denying this. But, not to question your piety and love for God, you seem to be working on an entirely pessimistic basis and you seem to revert to the idea that this does not seem plausible - as if God cannot do these things.
Again, I must ask you, do you believe that God can raise dead people? Do you believe he has done so in Jesus Christ and has given us that same very Spirit that raised him from the dead? Do you believe that he takes his enemies who hate him, gives them new hearts, and adopts them as sons? If he can do these things which seem impossible, why does it not seem to make sense that he could accomplish the seemingly impossible task of using redeemed sinners to expand his Kingdom upon the whole earth until the day when he defeats death itself?
"And he said, The things which are impossible with men are possible with God"
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Will Jesus use bazookas?
zsmcd
Puritan Board Freshman
In all seriousness, this is a good question. How does the premil position deal with their notion of the future Kingdom in light of Jesus' words to Pilate when he says that his Kingdom does not come from this world, otherwise his "servants would fight"?
I have read gary North, some holding to Theonomy, and those in Dominion Kingdom Now views.
I see the OT prophets foretelling a Messianic Age that would be here on earth, as the King directly rules over all, with no more wars/disease/famines/natural disasters etc.
Post Mil views seem to be on the right track, but still need the King actually here in order to have that Kingdom fully here, and Jesus over all nations and kingdoms, as Daniel foresaw.
The Lord can anything that he so chooses to, and I think that some Calvinist and Reformed have held to a PreMil viewpoint, as this is not a radical and novel new ideal.
No, but will use His Iron Rod, as in Psalms.
Jesus kingdom right now is a spiritual one, as he is saving sinners, but when he returns, His physical Kingdom shall be over the whole earth.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Which Gary North books?
The Reduction of Christianity
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Not a bad start, but not really a defense of postmil, either. Start with Dominion and Common grace and Millennialism and Social Theory.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
David, I'm going to let you in on a secret: @BayouHuguenot was a convinced premillennialist for a long time, and he may know that system better than anyone else on the board.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
It's true. I was actually writing a monograph on it.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
By the way, your profile still says that you hold that view. I just checked.
Thanks
Good to know, as premil has been the minority view among Calvinists/reformed , but has been held as a viable option.
What made you rethink and change your viewpoint?
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
The premillennial reading of Revelation demands a specific literal reading of a single key point in the midst of a high symbolic book, a book that even admits it is symbolic.
And some key partial preterist books: Chilton, North, and others.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
THanks. I'll update it.
zsmcd
Puritan Board Freshman
How did you come to this conclusion?
Why pit the spiritual against the physical? Does not the spiritual have an effect on the physical, and vice versa?
Addressing the issue of Christ ruling with a rod of iron, I don't remember who initially said this, but of course God destroys his enemies two ways: by pouring out his wrath on them and by making his enemies his friends. So yes, Christ will destroy his enemies with his rod of iron in a vengeful sense. But is this the primary means he uses to expand his Kingdom?
I am not familiar enough with the premil position, which is why I am asking these questions. But, in your understanding, when Jesus comes back for his millennial rule, will he establish and expand his Kingdom by means of the sword? If so, again, how do you understand that in light of Christ's words to Pilate, as well as the other Scriptures that clearly teach that Christ's Kingdom expands by means of regeneration, discipleship, teaching, baptism, etc.?
Again, I am not saying that Jesus does not use the sword. He does and will. I just don't see the sword as the means by which Jesus establishes and especially expands his Kingdom. In my understanding, it was established in his first advent and expands to the outer parts of the earth by means of baptizing and teaching.
The preMil position would be that the messianic Age will be a lietral and physical state established here upon the earth by Jesus at the time of His second coming, and at that time, there shall be no more wars/famines/diseases etc, and that there shall be only Him being worshiped as the real and true Lord.
I tend to see this as the pre mil viewpoint best establishes the Messianic Age as foretold by the OT Prophets.
arapahoepark
Puritan Board Professor
Could it be that many of those prophecies relate either to the end of the exile and/or Christ's first coming?
I am not claiming these prophecies are allegorical or symbolic either, as amills are routinely charged with. I just do not think such colorful language is absolutely woodenly literal that seems to ignore word plays and things like metaphors.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
