Postmillennialism and the Reformed Confessions

[wsw201]

With all due respect the word optimism is not a word that can exclusively be defined by Post mills. You can put whatever spin you want to on it but any optimism for any and all Christians is Christ's return and the establishment of the regeneration of the heavens and earth and even now the advancement of the Kingdom of Christ regardless of the trial and tribulation that may befall her. As the Book of James clearly states, we are to count all trials and tribulations as JOY. But I guess Posties skipped that verse.


As a matter of fact, I don't really care if you call Amill pessamistic, optimistic or anything else. All I know is that it is Biblical and thus Reformed

BTW, Thanks for posting the Englesma article. Good stuff.

 

[fredtgreco]

Paul,

I have one very sincere and important (to me) question.

Why is it that so many postmils (you can include yourself or not, it doesn't matter to me) insist on labelling amils as pessimistic and highlighting the (in my opinion) minute differences between amils and postmils.

First, please ignore Englesma, I know he is Mr. I have an Axe to grind.

We are talking about views of eschatology that are so close that only those who are incredibly schooled in the Reformed faith and major on this issue can even tell the difference. And yet it seems to be issue Numero Uno with so many postmils (not all - I served with an elder who used to castegate me whenever I pointed out differences, stating that in our church culture today pointing out differences with Dispensationalists was much more important).

And yet at the same time, guys like Gary North, who will just about take a pick axe to amils, is willing to chuck 600 years of unanimous consensus on the 2nd commandment, for example - where we don't have SOME quotes from Calvin, but we have very strong language from Calvin, Knox, the Westminster divines, etc, etc. He'll say, we should not "pick fights" over the 2nd commandment - about which the Standards are crystal; they may be wrong, but there is nit the SMALLEST area to debate them as not being anti-images of Christ (unless you cannot read WLC 109) - and yet he will all but call amils not Christians when the Church has emphatically, repeatedly, confessionally and judicially never drawn a distinction between amils and postmils.

To be honest, I don't really feel any compulsion to move you to amil. I don't think it is a big deal, and the Reformers (who were a lot smarter than us) did not think it was a big deal.

Why is this the case? I'm really not trying to be insulting or pejoritive. I'm only using North as an example because I've read him on the amil/posmil controversy and read his comments on the 2nd commandment. I'm trying to understand why this insistence that postmillennialism is the ONLY correct position when the church obviously disagrees.

 

[fredtgreco]

Paul,

I know that the issue was not initially brought up by you. And I know that there are amils that go after postmils with a vengence. I guess my point is that I can't recall ever reading a postmil in print who ever had ANYTHING good to say about an amil. Usually we're pessimistic, or (my favorite from Wilson and his band) "gnostic."

I'm happy to get along on this issue, and I trust from your post you are as well. I'm not asking you to defend North, or to tar you by association - I'm just asking because you read, listen to and run with more in postmil circles than I do. I'm really just looking for information.

I'm not trying to start the 2nd commandment again, and I'm willing to acknowledge that it is possible (although wrong ) to read the Bible to allow for pictrures of Christ. But as I recall, I don't think that a single Reformed theologian from the 16th - 17th century was ever cited as saying that pictures of Christ were allowable. And as I recall, every Reformed confession specifically forbids it. Again they could be wrong, but history is history.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:bacea30d16][i:bacea30d16]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:bacea30d16]
[quote:bacea30d16][i:bacea30d16]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:bacea30d16]
Paul,

I know that the issue was not initially brought up by you. And I know that there are amils that go after postmils with a vengence. I guess my point is that I can't recall ever reading a postmil in print who ever had ANYTHING good to say about an amil. Usually we're pessimistic, or (my favorite from Wilson and his band) "gnostic."

I'm happy to get along on this issue, and I trust from your post you are as well. I'm not asking you to defend North, or to tar you by association - I'm just asking because you read, listen to and run with more in postmil circles than I do. I'm really just looking for information.

I'm not trying to start the 2nd commandment again, and I'm willing to acknowledge that it is possible (although wrong ) to read the Bible to allow for pictrures of Christ. But as I recall, I don't think that a single Reformed theologian from the 16th - 17th century was ever cited as saying that pictures of Christ were allowable. And as I recall, every Reformed confession specifically forbids it. Again they could be wrong, but history is history. [/quote:bacea30d16]

Yes, Amills are correct about the timming of the millennium. They have good arguemnts against pre-mills. I have learned alot form amillers Poyrthress and Adams (specifically). Etc. It's just that in polemics, sometimes you need to go for the throat (figuratively, of course).[/quote:bacea30d16]

Glad to hear it.

[quote:bacea30d16]I agree with the reformers. I think they were talking about **worship.** You naughty Ben-Hur peeper [/quote:bacea30d16]

Sigh... words don't mean anything do they...

 

[tcalbrecht]

[quote:d1b945be66][i:d1b945be66]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:d1b945be66]
Paul,

I have one very sincere and important (to me) question.

Why is it that so many postmils (you can include yourself or not, it doesn't matter to me) insist on labelling amils as pessimistic and highlighting the (in my opinion) minute differences between amils and postmils.

[/quote:d1b945be66]

Fred,

If the differences are that minute, why the designation amillennial? Is there not a real distinction in continental v. puritan theology on this matter?

 

[fredtgreco]

Tom,

I think the distiction between amil and post is warranted, because the differences are real, although minor in the scope of things. I don't think that either camp would be happy to be "merged" into the other.

I am talking more about emphasis. Discussions on eschatology tended to get heated very quickly (on both sides) and very dogmatic (on both sides). I just find it unfathomable that a matter on which the creeds and confessons of the church deliberately left unexpressed that men are willing to be so dogmatic about it.

North is the example that I use from the postmil camp. he is VERY dogmatic about it, and then gives an "aw shucks, can't we all just play nice" when men try and point out that every major confession is anti-images of Christ and that Calvin, Knox and others are crystal clear about it. (And Paul, there is not a word limiting it to worship in Calvin and the others - you may disagree, but don't change what Calvin though. He wrote more on this than on many other subjects and he is clear as to what he believes)

I am also sure that someone could provide a similar citation about an amil who is dogmatic and yet chucks hundreds of years of orthodoxy on another subject.

if ever there was a doctrine where "can't we all just get along" applies, this has got to be it - and yet it is (in my view at least) probably one of the most violent of fights in the Reformed world today.

 

[fredtgreco]

[quote:8cbfc4ff24][i:8cbfc4ff24]Originally posted by Paul manata[/i:8cbfc4ff24]
[quote:8cbfc4ff24]
North is the example that I use from the postmil camp. he is VERY dogmatic about it, and then gives an "aw shucks, can't we all just play nice" when men try and point out that every major confession is anti-images of Christ and that Calvin, Knox and others are crystal clear about it. (And Paul, there is not a word limiting it to worship in Calvin and the others - you may disagree, but don't change what Calvin though. He wrote more on this than on many other subjects and he is clear as to what he believes)
[/quote:8cbfc4ff24]

At least be honest Fred. I'm no Northian but I'll defend him here. North actually accuses YOUR TYPE of heresy. Of either monophysite or docetism. That doesn't sound like an "aww shucks" attitude now does it?

-Paul [/quote:8cbfc4ff24]

Actually, you're right. I'd forgotten and was trying to be charitable. Now you've reminded me why I will never listen to a word North says again, since he wants to throw the historic reformed church into that lot.

Thanks for helping to make my point.