Nick Muyres
Puritan Board Freshman
Is Joel Beeke a postmillennialist?
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 isNo. He has a wacky view. A conglomeration of views somewhere in the amil to postmil area.
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.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
Agreed on the doom and gloom, Scripture is rather clear that it’s not going to be a good time.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.
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.Agreed on the doom and gloom, Scripture is rather clear that it’s not going to be a good time.
Matthew 24:15-21What’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.
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.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.
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.
though not clear what the relevance is to views on the millennium). I thought you were referring to the millennium.
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.I have in mind passages like 2 Thess 2 and others. Of course, this will bring up the old historicist hermeneutical debates.
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.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.
Was this just a poorly-worded post? It comes off as quite combative.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.
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?Was this just a poorly-worded post? It comes off as quite combative.
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.
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.
No. He has a wacky view. A conglomeration of views somewhere in the amil to postmil area.
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
I'm just finishing up Bahnsen's ~60-hour Sunday School class on Revelation. Really good stuff.Matthew 24:15-21 happened in 70 AD when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple.
I didn't know till now that an optimistic amil "wacky view" existed outside of my own mind. Ty!Many optimistic amils will resemble post-mil in some areas (e.g. the prospects for Israel's conversion
I would say the prophecy came true in AD 70 with the destruction of the Second Temple. Depends on how you read it.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.
Is it cleaned-up audio or bad-quality audio available on The Bahsen Institute?I'm just finishing up Bahnsen's ~60-hour Sunday School class on Revelation. Really good stuff.