Postmillennialism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Unless I’m mistaken, he has not gone to be with the Lord yet. The OP speaks of him in the past tense.
 
Romans922 said:
No. He has a wacky view. A conglomeration of views somewhere in the amil to postmil area.
Click to expand...
Could you be a bit more specific about what makes his view "wacky"? I'm not familiar with his millennial views, but I'm not accustomed to seeing "Dr Beeke" and "wacky view" in the same sentence (even though I wouldn't agree with him on everything). Many optimistic amils will resemble post-mil in some areas (e.g. the prospects for Israel's conversion), so I presume you have something more specific in mind? It would be helpful to know what it is
 
I fall in to the amil camp but our marching orders are clear; be ready for Him every moment and do not be deceived.
 
iainduguid said:
Could you be a bit more specific about what makes his view "wacky"? I'm not familiar with his millennial views, but I'm not accustomed to seeing "Dr Beeke" and "wacky view" in the same sentence (even though I wouldn't agree with him on everything). Many optimistic amils will resemble post-mil in some areas (e.g. the prospects for Israel's conversion), so I presume you have something more specific in mind? It would be helpful to know what it is
Click to expand...
I defined wacky as being a conglomeration of a- and postmil. Essentially, it isn't any view that you can say "historic premil" or "optimistic amil" or anything like that. His view from my hearing/reading doesn't fit into such a box, which I suppose on eschatology isn't a big deal. It's been awhile since hearing/reading him on this subject but that's what I remember.
 
He holds to an eclectic-idealist reading of Revelation. He would probably say "amil" in structure but leave the door open for "optimism" in the future. I, on the other hand, am a specifically doom and gloom amil.
 
RamistThomist said:
He holds to an eclectic-idealist reading of Revelation. He would probably say "amil" in structure but leave the door open for "optimism" in the future. I, on the other hand, am a specifically doom and gloom amil.
Click to expand...
Agreed on the doom and gloom, Scripture is rather clear that it’s not going to be a good time.
 
beloved7 said:
Agreed on the doom and gloom, Scripture is rather clear that it’s not going to be a good time.
Click to expand...
What’s not going to be a good time? The millennium? You’ll need to be more specific on what parts of scripture you mean, I thought the scripture was fairly clear that it will be a good time.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
What’s not going to be a good time? The millennium? You’ll need to be more specific on what parts of scripture you mean, I thought the scripture was fairly clear that it will be a good time.
Click to expand...
Matthew 24:15-21

Please, explain to all of us how this will be a good time. But please do so without contorting yourself into a pretzel with theological mental gymnastics.
 
beloved7 said:
Matthew 24:15-21

Please, explain to all of us how this will be a good time. But please do so without contorting yourself into a pretzel with theological mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
I agree Matthew 24:15-21 is not describing a good time, if that’s what you mean by the doom and gloom then fair enough (though not clear what the relevance is to views on the millennium). I thought you were referring to the millennium.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
What’s not going to be a good time? The millennium? You’ll need to be more specific on what parts of scripture you mean, I thought the scripture was fairly clear that it will be a good time.
Click to expand...

I have in mind passages like 2 Thess 2 and others. Of course, this will bring up the old historicist hermeneutical debates.
 
RamistThomist said:
I have in mind passages like 2 Thess 2 and others. Of course, this will bring up the old historicist hermeneutical debates.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine a reasonable interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 which does not involve it identifying the papacy, so again, not seeing the relevance.

Yes, it is differences in interpretative schemes that causes a lot of the disparity in views, which is why we should maybe qualify when we say scripture is clear in discussions about this.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
I agree Matthew 24:15-21 is not describing a good time, if that’s what you mean by the doom and gloom then fair enough (though not clear what the relevance is to views on the millennium). I thought you were referring to the millennium.
Click to expand...
I’m no expert on eschatology but I think the 1000 years is figurative and is happening right now. I don’t think right now is a good time, and I believe Scripture teaches that it’s only going to get worse. We’re just waiting for the last of the elect to come to saving faith, then He returns. Then the New Heaven and New Earth. Now that will be a good time.

This is one of those things that I don’t think has much logistical relevance to churchmanship, such as ecclesiology or covenant theology. Again, I think the major command from Christ is to be ready for Him at all times and not be deceived.

I can be brethren on the local level with a postmil, but not a paedobaptist. Reason being is eschatology is largely intellectual in nature whereas covenant theology has direct and immediate implications. In other words, I don’t think eschatology is something to divide over. So long as it’s not dispensational.
 
beloved7 said:
Please, explain to all of us how this will be a good time. But please do so without contorting yourself into a pretzel with theological mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
Was this just a poorly-worded post? It comes off as quite combative.
 
Taylor said:
Was this just a poorly-worded post? It comes off as quite combative.
Click to expand...
Combative? It’s rather unclear to me as to what is and what is not proper etiquette on this board as I’ve seen worse and it go unchecked. Or perhaps it depends on who the poster is?

Either way, it was not my intention to be combative, rather I was voicing my frustration from being challenged on something that was rather self evident. If my actions caused offense to anyone then I do sincerely apologize.
 
Scottish Presbyterian said:
I can’t imagine a reasonable interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2 which does not involve it identifying the papacy, so again, not seeing the relevance.

Yes, it is differences in interpretative schemes that causes a lot of the disparity in views, which is why we should maybe qualify when we say scripture is clear in discussions about this.
Click to expand...

I can imagine a reasonable interpretation that doesn't involve the papacy. If it is future, then the future isn't optimistic in that regard.
 
Romans922 said:
No. He has a wacky view. A conglomeration of views somewhere in the amil to postmil area.
Click to expand...

No one has a monopoly on eschatological views. Unless I missed the memo, the Church has not yet uniformly confessed the one true interpretation of eschatology. We are on solid ground when we speak of Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and the Perseverance of the Saints. I could mention the interpretation of Romans chapters 1-8 as part of the Faith once delivered to the Saints. But when you get to Romans 11, you are back to as yet unconfessed territory.

Is this not clear to everyone?

Sure, one of the current views of eschatology can be correct, but that doesn't give them the right to a claim of exclusivity. We are still waiting for that day.

Does anyone disagree? Isn't what I say obvious?

Even my optimistic view of the future is based on a 65-Book-of-the-Bible view of the future.

Ed
 
I have Rev. Beeke's commentary on Revelation, and have not yet finished it. From what I have read he seems more optimistic than Leon Morris, Herman Hoeksema, David Engelsma, or William Hendriksen
An Anglican Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Paul Slish, recently brought to my attention how the Savoy Declaration of Faith differs from, and strikes a more optimistic tone than the Westminster

Savoy Declaration of Faith — Chapter XXVI: Of the Church
"4. There is no other Head of the Church but the Lord Jesus Christ; nor can the Pope of Rome in any sense be head thereof; but is that antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalteth himself in the Church against Christ, and all that is called God, whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming.​

5. As the Lord in his care and love towards his Church, hath in his infinite wise providence exercised it with great variety in all ages, for the good of them that love him, and his own glory; so according to his promise, we expect that in the latter days, antichrist being destroyed, the Jews called, and the adversaries of the kingdom of his dear Son broken, the churches of Christ being enlarged, and edified through a free and plentiful communication of light and grace, shall enjoy in this world a more quiet, peaceable and glorious condition than they have enjoyed."
We don't have to agree with it, but it comes across as an optimistic view of the church and the kingdom of the Son.
 
I'm just looking forward, I trust with a hope based on a sure foundation, to Christ's return (which I pray will be soon!) and the eternal kingdom with Him. I'll leave the details as to what does and doesn't happen before that to others.
 
yeutter said:
An Anglican Bishop, the Rt. Rev. Paul Slish, recently brought to my attention how the Savoy Declaration of Faith differs from, and strikes a more optimistic tone than the Westminster
Click to expand...

The Westminster standards at least hints at a similar view as the Savoy. It encourages us to pray for the conversion of the Jews, indicating that that is a fulfillment of a prophecy that usually goes along with a positive view of the future.

Note: Some of you may not be aware that the Westminster Assembly took up their deliberations on the directory for the public worship of God as their first order of business.

from
The Directory for the Public Worship of God
section on
Of Public Prayer before the Sermon​

“To pray for the propagation of the gospel and kingdom of Christ to all nations; for the conversion of the Jews, the fulness of the Gentiles, the fall of Antichrist, and the hastening of the second coming of our Lord; for the deliverance of the distressed churches abroad from the tyranny of the antichristian faction, and from the cruel oppressions and blasphemies of the Turk; for the blessing of God upon the reformed churches, especially upon the churches and kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland, now more strictly and religiously united in the Solemn National League and Covenant; and for our plantations in the remote parts of the world: more particularly for that church and kingdom whereof we are members, that therein God would establish peace and truth, the purity of all his ordinances, and the power of godliness; prevent and remove heresy, schism, profaneness, superstition, security, and unfruitfulness under the means of grace; heal all our rents and divisions, and preserve us from breach of our Solemn Covenant."
 
beloved7 said:
Matthew 24:15-21

Please, explain to all of us how this will be a good time. But please do so without contorting yourself into a pretzel with theological mental gymnastics.
Click to expand...
I would say the prophecy came true in AD 70 with the destruction of the Second Temple. Depends on how you read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top