The Millennium

Status
Not open for further replies.

Reformed Covenanter

Cancelled Commissioner
I am presently reading Ken Gentry's outstanding volume He Shall Have Dominion which, in my opinion is the book on postmillennialism.

Anyway, Dr Gentry takes the view that the Millennium in Rev. 20 began with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (signifying the defeat of the Neronic and Jewish attempts to destroy Christianity) and ends with the rebellion that Satan inspires before the Lord returns. This is a view I adopted before I read Dr Gentry's book, does anyone know of any on-line resources which also defend this view?

:cheers2:
 
I have a definite problem with Gentry trying to say that the Millennium started only after the fall of Jerusalem.

In the Book of Daniel, the stone that was cut without hands signaled the Messianic Kingdom. Jesus Himself said that the Kingdom will be like a mustard seed, and leaven in a loaf. It starts small then expands.

Because of this I believe that the Millennium actually started at the birth of Christ, but became official at the resurrection and ascension of Christ where He told His disciples to go preach the Gospel into all nations etc.

The destruction of Jerusalem wasn't the beginning of the Millennium but the officially dissipation and removal of the Old Covenant.

Other than that I fully agree with Gentry. Too bad he is not getting the airtime that the likes of Haggee and Lindsey gets.
 
is the only difference between amil and postmil the notion of the world getting better until Christ's return?

If so, how does optimistic amil differ from postmil?
 
4Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.

On such a reading, of whom does he say that the martyrs are?
 
is the only difference between amil and postmil the notion of the world getting better until Christ's return?

If so, how does optimistic amil differ from postmil?

On an optimistic amil scheme Christ *could* return at any moment. On a postmil scheme Christ will not return immanently (at least 1000 years).
 
On an optimistic amil scheme Christ *could* return at any moment. On a postmil scheme Christ will not return immanently (at least 1000 years).
it depends on how you define, "Triumph of the Gospel". If you define it in the carnal sense of having an ouvert Christocracy/Theocracy of all nations, then that might not happen for the next 1000 plus years.

But if you define, "Triumph of the Gospel", as the saving of the elect (those ordained unto salvation as referenced in the Gospel of Matthew, "Angels gathering the elect from the 4 corners of the earth"), then Christ can return at any moment,( imminently )and still be an optimistic PostMil since we do not know the total number of the elect and who the elect really arel. But that would really tick off you Christian Reconstructionist now wouldn't it :D

I think the Rushdoony's and the Gary North types tend to have a carnal definition of the "Triumph of the Gospel" and the Christianizing of all Nations. The Bible explicitly shows that not all will be saved. It also explicitly shows that only those that belong to Christ are part of the New Jerusalem. This necessitates that the Gospel's primary goal is to reach the elect and for the conversion of the elect and not necessarily bringing about a utopia. Christ is eager to judge His enemies as He is eager to show grace to His people. What better way than to catch liberals with their pants down when they are passing unjust and ungodly laws etc?
 
I have to say from the outset that I have no dog in the hunt concerning debates between amils and postmils.

it depends on how you define, "Triumph of the Gospel". If you define it in the carnal sense of having an ouvert Christocracy/Theocracy of all nations, then that might not happen for the next 1000 plus years.

Poisoning the well by identifying theocrats with carnality.
But if you define, "Triumph of the Gospel", as the saving of the elect (those ordained unto salvation as referenced in the Gospel of Matthew, "Angels gathering the elect from the 4 corners of the earth"), then Christ can return at any moment,( imminently )and still be an optimistic PostMil since we do not know the total number of the elect and who the elect really arel. But that would really tick off you Christian Reconstructionist now wouldn't it :D

I am not a Christian Reconstructionist nor a postmillennialist, so no, it really doesn't bother me.

I think the Rushdoony's and the Gary North types tend to have a carnal definition of the "Triumph of the Gospel" and the Christianizing of all Nations.

That's an interesting debate for another topic.
The Bible explicitly shows that not all will be saved. It also explicitly shows that only those that belong to Christ are part of the New Jerusalem. This necessitates that the Gospel's primary goal is to reach the elect and for the conversion of the elect and not necessarily bringing about a utopia.

Who disagrees with that? Btw, even though I am not CR, I know my sources cold. I have dozens of quotes by North/Demar/Bahnsen where they deny utopianism.
 
Who disagrees with that? Btw, even though I am not CR, I know my sources cold. I have dozens of quotes by North/Demar/Bahnsen where they deny utopianism.

I've read them well and implicit in their postmill outlook is utopianism. they can deny it explicitly how much they want but implicit in their writings it rears its head.

Not saying that utopianism is wrong or anything, since I profited greatly from these guys, but its a tad bit carnal and it constricts the Messianic reign to only one mode of operation. The Son exalted on His throne rules with a rod of iron. Some He saves, other He crushes, some nations He prospers other nations He impoverishes. We are living under a Theocracy whether we like it or not, but this Theocracy, the Kingdom of the Son does not fit many persons definition of a Theocracy.

I think we need to start looking at the Millennium with spiritual eyes first before carnal eyes.
 
I guess you would need to show then the guilty quotations that suggest a carnal theocracy. The only person who held to every one being saved in the "latter days of the millennium" was BB Warfield. Bahnsen denied it. Rush denied it. Morecraft explicitly denied it.

And you would also need to define theocracy. Bahnsen really didn't like the term.

I am a premil so I really don't have a dog in the hunt, but I do feel like I have some thoughts on this matter.
 
I guess you would need to show then the guilty quotations that suggest a carnal theocracy. The only person who held to every one being saved in the "latter days of the millennium" was BB Warfield. Bahnsen denied it. Rush denied it. Morecraft explicitly denied it.

And you would also need to define theocracy. Bahnsen really didn't like the term.

I am a premil so I really don't have a dog in the hunt, but I do feel like I have some thoughts on this matter.

So in the last two weeks, you have become premil? What sent you over the edge?

CT
 
Larry

Postmillennialists would deny that the world is evolving into a better place, but that it will improve as Christians exercise dominion.

Keon

Ken Gentry - on the basis of Is. 19 - asserts that there will always be unsaved people/non-Christian nations.

Moreover, he sees AD70 as the victory of Christ over apostate Israel and the defeat of Nero's persecution - thus the beginning of the millennium.

Bradford

The martyrs are those that died during the early persecutions (particularly under Nero), the term 'beheaded for the witness of Jesus' specifically refers to the Roman method of execution.

:pilgrim:
 
Last edited:
Russell Moore and George Ladd. My political ethic is the same, though.
It will change. Worldview for the christian is a single organic unit that perfectly meshes all aspects of their theology. Once a significant aspect of their theology changes they will have to readjust their politics likewise.

I was a Premill once, and as soon as I understood covenant theology and the postmill position everything made sense and fell into place.
 
It will change. Worldview for the christian is a single organic unit that perfectly meshes all aspects of their theology. Once a significant aspect of their theology changes they will have to readjust their politics likewise.

I was a Premill once, and as soon as I understood covenant theology and the postmill position everything made sense and fell into place.

Bahnsen explicitly disagreed with that. And here I quote from memory his lecture contra WTS on theonomy:

A man could be a committed premillennialist and still believe and vote that God's moral standards be brought to bear in the political arena.

I can give you the link to the mp3 if you want it.
 
Daniel Ritchie;

The martyrs are those that died during the early persecutions (particularly under Nero), the term 'beheaded for the witness of Jesus' specifically refers to the Roman method of execution.

And what of those that are being killed around the world today because of their faith in Christ? Are they not also martyrs? What of those young Christian girls who were beheaded for their faith, are they not martyrs?

http://www.christianmonitor.org/

http://www.persecution.org/suffering/index.php
 
Bobbi

They are martyrs, just not the ones mentioned in Revelation 20.

I do not deny that there will always be persecution, sadly some postmillennialists have not clearly asserted this.

BTW, thanks for the links.

:handshake:
 
Last edited:
I am presently reading Ken Gentry's outstanding volume He Shall Have Dominion which, in my opinion is the book on postmillennialism.

Anyway, Dr Gentry takes the view that the Millennium in Rev. 20 began with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD (signifying the defeat of the Neronic and Jewish attempts to destroy Christianity) and ends with the rebellion that Satan inspires before the Lord returns. This is a view I adopted before I read Dr Gentry's book, does anyone know of any on-line resources which also defend this view?

:cheers2:

Check I Murray's book which is online
 
Thanks; I have Iain Murray's book, but I don't think he agrees with Ken Gentry.

He does'nt agree with Gentry, although almost every postmillennialist praises Murray's work (I am not post, but I think Murray's work is outstanding).

And while Murray is not a theonomist, and has criticised theonomists, is lecture on John Knox sounds...well...theo-something!
 
He does'nt agree with Gentry, although almost every postmillennialist praises Murray's work (I am not post, but I think Murray's work is outstanding).

And while Murray is not a theonomist, and has criticised theonomists, is lecture on John Knox sounds...well...theo-something!

Did I hear you say John Knox? Here is more
 
Check I Murray's book which is online

Thanks for this link. I have been wanting to buy this book (which I still might do). I am currently pre-mill in the Ladd sense. This might just be because I have abandoned dispensationalism, but haven't studied post-mill or a-mill enough to know how to deal with certain texts.
 
Thanks for this link. I have been wanting to buy this book (which I still might do). I am currently pre-mill in the Ladd sense. This might just be because I have abandoned dispensationalism, but haven't studied post-mill or a-mill enough to know how to deal with certain texts.

I have read that book several times and even as a premil, I warmly encourage it. Murray's writing is very pastoral and experiential.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top