Thinking about Millennial views
- Thread starter turmeric
- Start date
- Status
I do see where you are going, and it is my firm belief that nothing but the personal appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ will bring perfect restoration and do away with the element of wickedness in creation. But in commissioning His servants to disciple all nations, King Jesus did not make any qualification with respect to His second coming, but promised that He would be with them to the end of the world. Hence, it should not be an issue as to what shall come to pass in the Father's good pleasure prior to the coming of Christ; the issue is, what ought the church to be striving towards with the gracious presence of Christ on her side.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Roldan,
The wording I used was from the Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer # 191:
Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
A. In the second petition, (which is, Thy kingdom come,[1222]) acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan,[1223] we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed,[1224] the gospel propagated throughout the world,[1225] the Jews called,[1226] the fullness of the Gentiles brought in;[1227] the church furnished with all gospel-officers and ordinances,[1228] purged from corruption,[1229] countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate:[1230] that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted:[1231] that Christ would rule in our hearts here,[1232] and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:[1233] and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.[1234]
You may find Scripture references here:
Westminster Larger Catechism
One of which is this:
Psalm 67. God be merciful unto us, and bless us; and cause his face to shine upon us; Selah. That thy way may be known upon earth, thy saving health among all nations. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee. O let the nations be glad and sing for joy: for thou shalt judge the people righteously, and govern the nations upon earth. Selah. Let the people praise thee, O God; let all the people praise thee. Then shall the earth yield her increase; and God, even our own God, shall bless us. God shall bless us; and all the ends of the earth shall fear him.
That said, I have quoted previously in this thread from several passages in Isaiah and the other prophets which indicate as much. For instance:
Isaiah 11:1 And there shall come forth a rod out of the stem of Jesse, and a Branch shall grow out of his roots: 2 And the spirit of the LORD shall rest upon him, the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit of counsel and might, the spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the LORD; 3 And shall make him of quick understanding in the fear of the LORD: and he shall not judge after the sight of his eyes, neither reprove after the hearing of his ears: 4 But with righteousness shall he judge the poor, and reprove with equity for the meek of the earth: and he shall smite the earth: with the rod of his mouth, and with the breath of his lips shall he slay the wicked. 5 And righteousness shall be the girdle of his loins, and faithfulness the girdle of his reins. 6 The wolf also shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fatling together; and a little child shall lead them. 7 And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together: and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. 8 And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the cockatrice' den. 9 They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain: for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the LORD, as the waters cover the sea. 10 And in that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek: and his rest shall be glorious.
Isaiah 2:2 And it shall come to pass in the last days, that the mountain of the LORD's house shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, to the house of the God of Jacob; and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the LORD from Jerusalem. 4 And he shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruninghooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.
World peace, all nations following Messiah, and the earth yielding its increase. The curse brought about by Adam's fall is prophesied to be reversed in the last days of the Messiah. That would seem to encompass all of the created order: men and things.
Not sure that's a complete answer, but I think it's sound and I think it is confessional.
Cheers,
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Actually, three flavors.....four if you also count historicists.
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Why is that last thing a problem ?
DMcFadden
Puritanboard Commissioner
Because Jesus said that in the age to come we would neither marry nor be given in marriage, but would be like the angels. Don't you think it is a little weird to have resurrected saints cavorting around with mortals who keep dying (albeit at substantially older ages than we do)? Imagine a game of touch football in the millennium where a resurrected saint (or Charger, or Ram, or Raider) comes on a little too hard with one of the mortals and knocks the heaven out of him.
Kim Riddlebarger won me over to the amil view this past month. Fewer loose ends and less awkward exegetical hair splitting.
Kim Riddlebarger won me over to the amil view this past month. Fewer loose ends and less awkward exegetical hair splitting.
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
Who says the age to come is brought in FULLY during the Millennium?
That's the mistake.
The New Covenant is currently in play, but we still have to teach people 'know the Lord' - at least at this point. Jeremiah 31 says that when the New Covenant is instituted, we would no longer have to teach each other 'know the Lord'.
Already..... not Yet.
So it's not hard to imagine a 1000 year-ish time period when we see the beginnings of the restoration of all things - with resurrected saints ruling and governing the earth while Isaiah 65 gets a context for literal, actual fulfillment among mortal folk.
I guess I've gotten used to God doing things in stages that make very little sense to me personally....(i.e. why go through 'all of this' in regard to creation, fall, redemption, incarnation, etc..... when all You had to do was say 'Let there be a race of people to worship me besides angels and they will be my children, not just my servants' and *blink* it would happen ?)... so a 1000 year time period to 'usher in' the beginnings of the age to come might look weird, but that's small compared to the question I just typed.
Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's correct.
In fact, knowing all we know of eschatology, I'd venture to say it's probably not correct. I'm going to pick up Riddlebarger's book. I keep hearing it highly recommended. Is he better than Strimple ?
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
I'm gonna post some points I made here once before some years ago and I'm curious as to what you guys thoughts are on it, so please by all means pick it apart and help a brotha out, no offense will be taken
Its kinda long but obviously Reform folk like to read
so here ya go part 1There is NO evidence for referring the OT passages to the millennium of the New, there is an overwhelming army of evidence for indentifying it with the Perfect eternal state. Isaiah 65:17 sets the stage and time for the entire prophecy: "Behold I create a new heavens and a new earth." This prophecy, recapitulated in verse 22 of the next chapter, is chronologically applied by Peter, in 2 Peter 3, and John, Revelation 21, to a time FOLLOWING the coming of Christ. They interpret Isaiah as refering to the eternal state. In both these NT passages, the Isaiah prophecy is clearly linked with a time subsequent to the millennium. Peter interprets Isaiah's "promise" as one which will be PRECEEDED by the destruction of the wicked and the melting away of the present heavens and earth. Revelation 21 locates the fulfillment of the prophecy at exactly the same time, John perfectly places it AFTER the thousand years, the resurrection and the white throne judgment. Other passages of a parallel nature also must refer to the new earth, not the millennial earth.
The contents of Isaiah's POETIC prophecy are no more literal than the description of the eternal state in Rev. 21 and 22. Who can interpret all the details of those two chapters literally? In both, Isaiah and Rev., language is used,in terms of what was considered most pleasant and astonishing in that day, to get across what words with their present limitations are incapable of correctly expressing. How else can perfection be described in words which have imperfect objects and concepts as recipients? It is difficult to understand why this passage should be misinterpreted when it clearly is indentified with the eternal state by the New Testament. The millennial references is totally without evidence, but its identification with the eternal state is affirmed by an abundance of biblical evidence.
This one passage has been singled out to demonstrate the way in which OT passages which actually refer to restoration from captivity, the New Testament age, and the eternal state are erroniously applied to the assumed golden-age.
Amillennialist or Realized Millennialist are in agreement with the Postmillenialist that we expect the millennium to be an age of imperefection. In oposiition to them, we do not view it as the fulfillment of the golden-age prophecies. We believe the prophesies to be truly GOLDEN perfect not GOLD PLATED! This is not to say that no OT prophecies refer to the present age, quite the contrary. But in accord with both Old and New Testament teaching, they find fulfillment of the "golden-age" prophecies in the eternal state, only then can it be said that all that glitters is Gold.
It is also interesting that postmil have to resort to OT prophesies that speak nothing of a golden age but refer unanimously to the golden age of new heaven and new earth which is Heaven.
The New Testament knows absolutlely nothing of IMPERFECT golden-age preaching. While there is a consistent appeal to look for the PERFECT golden-age of heaven, nothing can be found about an imperfect interim. Everywhere the eternal state is held out as the future hope of the church militant. The millennium is never preached as such. The only satisfactory explanation is that the millennium is a present reality not a future hope.
Old Testament passages frequently cited to substantiate the reality of an unrealized millennium(either in its Pre- or Post- form) do not hold any weight.
Isaiah 65:17-25 in one clear example. We both would agree that the passage speaks of a golden-age. The Postmil(as well as the Premil)will argue that the passage mentions children dying at one hundred years old, and sinners accursed at the end of the same period time. Taking this TOO literally, they insist that it must refer to an imperfect golden-age. And since the one thousand years obviously pertain to a time in which sin and death remain, they feel it is perfectly natural to superimpose the one passage on another.
Careful examination, however,shows two faults with this presupposition.
First, there must be unquestionable evidence for indentifying the Isaiah prophecy with Revelation 20. This evidence is totally lacking. The two are brought together in an unatural union. Who can prove, scripturally, that when Isaiah wrote "the wolf and the lamb shall feed together" he was speaking of the SAME period that John calls the "thousand years"? There are indications in the passage itself that it is not to be treated literally like "dust" becoming the serpent's food can hardly be literal.
Ezekiel's new temple is not a physical building that will in the future be built on a mound of dirt in the earthly city of Jerusalem, but the spiritual body of Jesus the Christ (cp. Ezek. 40-48 with John 2:18-22 and I Pet. 2:1-10).
Bavinck was not too far off when he asserted that to interpret the prophecy of the Old Testament literally means that one "breaks with Christianity and lapses back into Judaism."
To the praise of our Glorious King who now reigns forever, AMEN.
Sorry for all the grammatical errors, I was too lazy to edit
These were some notes of class on eschatology I taught
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
Who says the age to come is brought in FULLY during the Millennium?
That's the mistake.
The New Covenant is currently in play, but we still have to teach people 'know the Lord' - at least at this point. Jeremiah 31 says that when the New Covenant is instituted, we would no longer have to teach each other 'know the Lord'.
Already..... not Yet.
So it's not hard to imagine a 1000 year-ish time period when we see the beginnings of the restoration of all things - with resurrected saints ruling and governing the earth while Isaiah 65 gets a context for literal, actual fulfillment among mortal folk.
I guess I've gotten used to God doing things in stages that make very little sense to me personally....(i.e. why go through 'all of this' in regard to creation, fall, redemption, incarnation, etc..... when all You had to do was say 'Let there be a race of people to worship me besides angels and they will be my children, not just my servants' and *blink* it would happen ?)... so a 1000 year time period to 'usher in' the beginnings of the age to come might look weird, but that's small compared to the question I just typed.
Just because it's easier doesn't mean it's correct.
I'm going to pick up Riddlebarger's book. I keep hearing it highly recommended. Is he better than Strimple ?
Waiting for the newly Amil's response....
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
The cement hasn't hardened yet. We can get him back.
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
....Roldan applies a huge fan to the cement while Kerry lurks round the corner......
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Roldan,
Lotsa info in the post; thanks for taking the time to share your lesson. I'll see if I can answer at least parts of it
I would like you to answer my post, however, before I answer yours. Before we delve into too much detail, is what I've claimed the catechism to teach accurate? Once we establish that, then I'll respond.
Cheers,
Adam
Lotsa info in the post; thanks for taking the time to share your lesson. I'll see if I can answer at least parts of it
I would like you to answer my post, however, before I answer yours. Before we delve into too much detail, is what I've claimed the catechism to teach accurate? Once we establish that, then I'll respond.
Cheers,
Adam
BlackCalvinist
Puritan Board Senior
....Roldan applies a huge fan to the cement while Kerry lurks round the corner......
.....Kerry sees big black cord on the ground and accidentally runs over it with a lawmower, chainsaw, edger, commercial shredder, Lear Jet, steam roller and Bumblebee from the Transformers movie.
What fan ?
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
....Roldan applies a huge fan to the cement while Kerry lurks round the corner......
.....Kerry sees big black cord on the ground and accidentally runs over it with a lawmower, chainsaw, edger, commercial shredder, Lear Jet, steam roller and Bumblebee from the Transformers movie.
What fan ?
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
Roldan,
Lotsa info in the post; thanks for taking the time to share your lesson. I'll see if I can answer at least parts of it
I would like you to answer my post, however, before I answer yours. Before we delve into too much detail, is what I've claimed the catechism to teach accurate? Once we establish that, then I'll respond.
Cheers,
Adam
I haven't forgoten, I will be responding tomorrow
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
Dennis,
in the OP you state, “Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils.” I don’t understand that. Would you please explain what you mean?
Adam (Christusregnat),
As an amil, I strongly hold to “the triumph of the gospel” whatever happens to the church in the world. The Gospel triumphed in our King being crucified.
All the Gentile nations will serve Christ, that is, the elect of those nations.
You said (post #22),
The fullness of the Gentiles is the full number of the elect among them. In your quote of A. 191 LC, “the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed”, is this to be understood that the church in your scenario will be maintained by the civil judiciary, that is, supervised and governed, as having authority to involve itself with the internal governance of said church?
“The magistrates of the earth Christianized”? This is asserting what has not been proven from Scripture.
“Satan’s kingdom destroyed”? Is that not to happen in Rev 20:7 – 10? When the Lord shall return? You say it will happen when the church Christianizes the world?
“All things” are under Christ’s feet now, in this realized millennial period (Eph 1:22).
JohnV,
You said,
This is too tolerant. The Scriptures do speak to this issue, and give clarity, although we may well not agree. Though I agree that the church has allowed for divergence of view.
I think this is a fair saying by Rev Winzer:
-----------
In Matt 13’s parable of the good seed and the tares, where the Lord describes the Kingdom and the end of the world, no intermediate state (i.e. 1,000 year reign) is spoken of, the end comes, the wicked and the righteous go to their respective places. The same with the Olivet discourse in Matt 24. When all the earth sees Christ coming in clouds of glory, He sends His angels to gather His elect (verses 30, 31)
Question for the pre mils: where do the unregenerate who people your millennial reign come from, as when the Lord returns all the wicked are removed? Scripture, please.
in the OP you state, “Amillennialism is a subset of Postmillennialism. In other words, all amils are postmils but not all postmils are amils.” I don’t understand that. Would you please explain what you mean?
Adam (Christusregnat),
As an amil, I strongly hold to “the triumph of the gospel” whatever happens to the church in the world. The Gospel triumphed in our King being crucified.
All the Gentile nations will serve Christ, that is, the elect of those nations.
You said (post #22),
Notice, before Christ comes back again, the fullness of the Gentiles must be called, the magistrates of the earth Christianized, those yet in their sins may be converted by the ministry of the church, and Satan's kingdom destroyed. That succinctly describes gospel success.
The fullness of the Gentiles is the full number of the elect among them. In your quote of A. 191 LC, “the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate: that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed”, is this to be understood that the church in your scenario will be maintained by the civil judiciary, that is, supervised and governed, as having authority to involve itself with the internal governance of said church?
“The magistrates of the earth Christianized”? This is asserting what has not been proven from Scripture.
“Satan’s kingdom destroyed”? Is that not to happen in Rev 20:7 – 10? When the Lord shall return? You say it will happen when the church Christianizes the world?
“All things” are under Christ’s feet now, in this realized millennial period (Eph 1:22).
JohnV,
You said,
“We don't know which millennial view is right. We can disagree with each other and still be within the doctrinal givens which the church has laid out. The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them.”
This is too tolerant. The Scriptures do speak to this issue, and give clarity, although we may well not agree. Though I agree that the church has allowed for divergence of view.
I think this is a fair saying by Rev Winzer:
“If the church's missionary focus is not the complete subjugation of all visible creation to Jesus Christ then it is not fulfilling its commission. This is not an issue of what will be accomplished, but of what we are obliged to strive to accomplish as the body of Christ in the world.” [Emphases mine –SMR]
-----------
In Matt 13’s parable of the good seed and the tares, where the Lord describes the Kingdom and the end of the world, no intermediate state (i.e. 1,000 year reign) is spoken of, the end comes, the wicked and the righteous go to their respective places. The same with the Olivet discourse in Matt 24. When all the earth sees Christ coming in clouds of glory, He sends His angels to gather His elect (verses 30, 31)
Question for the pre mils: where do the unregenerate who people your millennial reign come from, as when the Lord returns all the wicked are removed? Scripture, please.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
So is the church too tolerant too? Am I wrong to agree with the church? If you allow that we may not agree, though I assume that you are presuming we are both diligent in our Biblical obedience, is that not really the same thing?
Is Rev. Winzer's statement assuming that I, as someone who tends towards the Amil position that is too often called pessimistic, do not strive to fulfill the Christ's commission? I for one see great victories already, having witnessed the power of the gospel and of the Spirit first-hand. That didn't change my millennial views, but instead strengthened them.
As an aside, Steve, I am trying to keep my millennial view at arm's length, like I was told to do right from the start. I will not, if I can at all help it, allow my millennial views have any determining role in doctrinal matters. That is, I am determined to keep it at the end of doctrinal studies and never allow it to come before. So I'm saying I'm Amillennial, but what I mean is that I've been presented with Premillennial and Postmillennial views, and each time they were given a place or position in understanding things that I believe with all my heart are unwarranted. That is, first I have to believe one of those millennial views, and then after certain doctrinal truths follow. I won't allow that. That's my understanding of the Reformed faith, of Sola Scriptura: no mix of human or errant conclusion may have a foundational spot in holy doctrine.
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
I believe that your reading your postmil supposition into the text imposing upon it that "all families" must mean every single family, and that "all gentiles" must mean everysingle gentile, this hermeneutic is remiscient of the arminians polemic agains calvinism, no offense.
Also I believe that the correct understanding of Christ's commission is that we are to make disciples OUT OF every nation not make every nation a disciple. Again I see a superimposing of the text in postmil terms.
If we allow, as we are supposed to, the New to interpret the Old then we will observe that "all families" and "all gentiles" must mean families and gentiles OUT OF every tongue, nation, and tribes(Revelation) the fullness of the Elect.
Correct, but its not necessary to view this in postmil terms.
See points above
I agree with what JB stated so I will quote him....
I also take exception to the Puritan's understanding of certain things, not much but some like here about the "Jews called" I am the Jew called the inward Jew(Paul). But I do not read the "the magistrates of the earth christianized" in their answer to the question anyways.
I actually see the Amil position in their answer especially here...
"..that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever:"
"Christ will rule in OUR HEARTS HERE....and OUR REIGNING WITH HIM FOREVER" consumated at His second coming, the spiritual kingdom in our hearts and the unification of the spiritual with physical kingdom at His appearence hence the city coming down from heaven(Rev.)
The postmil tendency is to read into everything that speaks with referrence to gospel succession, kindoms, families, nations their postmil supposition.
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
AMen I believe this with all my heart but will be accomplished at His return, again reading your supposition into the text. Why does this actually have to happen before His return in order to be victorious? We believe the same thing about the gospel succession but you will put it before His coming and I will put it after, thats the issue. And I believe that there is NO biblical warrant to put these events before His coming, if the golden age was such an important event why is the NT not decisive on an era pre-dating Christ return?
Christ victorious return is the NT's hope for the Church militant not an intermediate era. I think the postmil gives a false hope and does not prepare the church for spiritual war, it will be like an ambush.
Jerusalem Blade
Puritan Board Doctor
JohnV,
What I thought was too tolerant was, “We don't know which millennial view is right....The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them.”
Perhaps tolerant is not a good word; is “sitting on the fence” better? I don’t think so, because you have said you are amil. Who then is the “we” you speak for? It sounds like you are being a spokesperson for the church.
I appreciate your holding the amil position at arm’s length, not allowing it to determine your other doctrinal views. For about 20+ years I bought hardly any commentaries, as I did not want to spend money on things I might throw away later as false. (I also just read your last post in the other thread, and understand a little better now.)
The amil position is one of the last things I came to. Before that I was pre-wrath premil (a la Marvin Rosenthal), and before that poorly-though-out simple premil. It was listening to some Messianic Jewish friends talk about the Temple sacrifices in the Millennium that woke me up. I said to them, haven’t you guys ever read the Epistle to the Hebrews? And I began reading amil books and held to that view. The amillennial view is of a piece with Reformed doctrine; no matter that Calvin and most of the early reformers (and the early confessions) held to the state (the magistrate) involving itself in the church’s governance, and punishing blasphemers, “heretics”, sabbath-breakers etc with its sword, convening councils, etc; we can see from Europe, England, and Massachusetts Bay Colony what happens when the church and state join: the persecuting spirit enforces the gospel, just as the Roman Catholic organization did.
Were ever the postmil theonomists to take over the world, or the U.S, or Scotland (in reality it won’t happen), enforcing their OT ordinances on the New Testament community, they can count me an outlaw heretic (you Baptists watch out too!), and hunt me down if that is their bent, for this world domination schema is the principle of the beast, and I will resist with all my strength.
I recommend this Englesma article in a recent post: "The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government". To my thinking the postmil view is a threat; it mangles the gospel of grace, attempts to marginalize those who follow Christ in His saying, “My kingdom is not of this world”, and distorts the Biblical teaching of God’s kingdom.
It impacts much doctrine that does not pertain directly to eschatology; as I said, Biblical doctrine is all of a piece.
My quote re Rev Winzer was not directed at you but the postmils, the gist of which was, “This is not an issue of what will be accomplished, but of what we are obliged to strive to accomplish...” I though that was well balanced.
I suppose what I meant by tolerant, reflecting on it now, was in relation to my intolerance of what I conceive to be a doctrine dangerous to the wellbeing of the church. I do appreciate your irenic spirit, John.
What I thought was too tolerant was, “We don't know which millennial view is right....The millennial views are a matter of personal conscience, and we are not to bind each other by them.”
Perhaps tolerant is not a good word; is “sitting on the fence” better? I don’t think so, because you have said you are amil. Who then is the “we” you speak for? It sounds like you are being a spokesperson for the church.
I appreciate your holding the amil position at arm’s length, not allowing it to determine your other doctrinal views. For about 20+ years I bought hardly any commentaries, as I did not want to spend money on things I might throw away later as false. (I also just read your last post in the other thread, and understand a little better now.)
The amil position is one of the last things I came to. Before that I was pre-wrath premil (a la Marvin Rosenthal), and before that poorly-though-out simple premil. It was listening to some Messianic Jewish friends talk about the Temple sacrifices in the Millennium that woke me up. I said to them, haven’t you guys ever read the Epistle to the Hebrews? And I began reading amil books and held to that view. The amillennial view is of a piece with Reformed doctrine; no matter that Calvin and most of the early reformers (and the early confessions) held to the state (the magistrate) involving itself in the church’s governance, and punishing blasphemers, “heretics”, sabbath-breakers etc with its sword, convening councils, etc; we can see from Europe, England, and Massachusetts Bay Colony what happens when the church and state join: the persecuting spirit enforces the gospel, just as the Roman Catholic organization did.
Were ever the postmil theonomists to take over the world, or the U.S, or Scotland (in reality it won’t happen), enforcing their OT ordinances on the New Testament community, they can count me an outlaw heretic (you Baptists watch out too!), and hunt me down if that is their bent, for this world domination schema is the principle of the beast, and I will resist with all my strength.
I recommend this Englesma article in a recent post: "The Messianic Kingdom and Civil Government". To my thinking the postmil view is a threat; it mangles the gospel of grace, attempts to marginalize those who follow Christ in His saying, “My kingdom is not of this world”, and distorts the Biblical teaching of God’s kingdom.
It impacts much doctrine that does not pertain directly to eschatology; as I said, Biblical doctrine is all of a piece.
My quote re Rev Winzer was not directed at you but the postmils, the gist of which was, “This is not an issue of what will be accomplished, but of what we are obliged to strive to accomplish...” I though that was well balanced.
I suppose what I meant by tolerant, reflecting on it now, was in relation to my intolerance of what I conceive to be a doctrine dangerous to the wellbeing of the church. I do appreciate your irenic spirit, John.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Steve:
I'm not sure what you mean by irenic spirit, but thanks, I think.
When I refer to "we" I'm thinking that I stand in the shadow of my faithful teachers, not so much that I represent anyone. And these faithful teachers were faithful in representing their offices in the church, limiting themselves to what they were ordained for, not going beyond that as if the offices allowed that they were personally more worthy or of higher calibre. So I'm also trying to speak as a faithful member of my church. I hope that explains the "we".
I'm not persuaded that the Postmil view itself is a threat. It's more that those who are a threat tend to take the Postmil or Premil views and use them to their advantage. I've also met Postmils and Premils who whole-heartedly agree with me that their view is personal, possibly errant, certainly fallible, and is not something to build anything solid upon.
I'm not sure what you mean by irenic spirit, but thanks, I think.
When I refer to "we" I'm thinking that I stand in the shadow of my faithful teachers, not so much that I represent anyone. And these faithful teachers were faithful in representing their offices in the church, limiting themselves to what they were ordained for, not going beyond that as if the offices allowed that they were personally more worthy or of higher calibre. So I'm also trying to speak as a faithful member of my church. I hope that explains the "we".
I'm not persuaded that the Postmil view itself is a threat. It's more that those who are a threat tend to take the Postmil or Premil views and use them to their advantage. I've also met Postmils and Premils who whole-heartedly agree with me that their view is personal, possibly errant, certainly fallible, and is not something to build anything solid upon.
Mr. Rafalsky, do you believe it is appropriate for a preacher to preach with authority about millenial views that go beyond where the Westminster divines were willing to go?
Edit: I addressed my question to Mr. Rafalsky but would like to hear everyone's opinion. (I already know John's answer)
Edit: I addressed my question to Mr. Rafalsky but would like to hear everyone's opinion. (I already know John's answer)
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
Depends what your understanding is to how far they were willing to go but then again they were not infallible so it doesn't really matter to me how far THEY were willing to go, but how far scripture goes, and I know that sounds obvious and elementary but thats just me. Don't get me wrong I hold to the Assemblies Reformed exposition of Holy Writ but not every single thing.
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
Roldan,
The fact that you repeat again and again that I'm "imposing" certain ideas on the text is not an answer, it is a sidetrack. If you intend to answer my arguments from Scripture, then the burden is put on you to show why we are not to read the Scripture exactly as it is written. Were you to argue against an Arminian, I would hope that you would not merely say "oh, that's you reading the Arminian position into the text". I hope (and am confident) that you would show him the proper interpretation of the texts under consideration. I don't think you have done this. The literal interpretation is always the first choice, unless something else in Scripture demands that we interpret something figuratively.
The language of the Great Commission that the "Nations" are the direct object of the sentence. "Make disciples" is the main verb. Grammatically, the Great Commission demands that the nations are made Christ's disciples. The nations are in the accusative case, meaning they are what are to be made disciples. If we want to say this means something else, then, again the burden rests on you. If you could cite a particular place elsewhere in Scripture, I would be willing to discuss.
I don't think we "are supposed to" allow the Old to interpret the New as you are meaning it. For instance, there are many things in the NT which take the OT for granted. In such instances, are we to read something in the NT out of the entire context of Scripture? I don't believe that this is a proper method. When we read the NT directly addressing the discontinuity with the OT, then I agree with your principal. Otherwise, it would be very foolish to simply assume that the two testaments are at variance. Also, the Great Commission is in the NT, and therefore this principal doesn't apply to this case.
Again, simply asserting that I'm reading something into this text doesn't mean you've answered my claim. What are the last days? When did they come to pass? Are we in the last days? When do they end? I'll even let you use the NT
I'm simply reading what Isaiah says, and if I'm misunderstanding this passage, then it behooves you to correct me, and tell me the proper understanding of this passage; not merely to assert that I'm performing eisegesis.I proved this from Isaiah and from the Catechism, and no one has yet to prove me wrong by providing a counter explanation for all of the earth's kings going up to Zion to hear the Law, or God's adoption extending to Syrian and Egypt, etc.
In 1 Cor 15, Paul tells us that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to the Father (I think we can all agree that this is His 2nd coming in judgment) as follows:
Same idea as the Great Commission: all things are put under Christ's feet, and the church's task is to bring all things into subjection by the power of God's Spirit. Christ is reigning NOW, but we do not see all things subjected to Him. Mind you, I think Paul takes Isaiah for granted here, as well as the Abrahamic covenant, etc. etc. Even if he didn't, it is still clear that all things must be subjected to Christ before the second coming. The amil position posits that all things have already been subjected to Christ. This is half right, but fails to take into account that having the rights to all things in heaven and up on the earth does not mean that God's will is being done on the earth as it is in heaven.
Thanks for reminding me; so do you think that my view is the puritan view? In other words, that I'm not distorting the Catechism's teaching, and that your view is out of accord with the catechism?
Romans 11, by the way, is talking about the physical descendants of Abraham when Paul discusses the call of the Gentiles, and the re-call of the Jews. The context in v.1 is Paul being "an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Is he speaking allegorically? Also, consider the context of Jew vs. Gentile in vss. 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31 and so forth. Clearly, in Scripture, the re-call of the Jews is of literal, flesh and blood Jews. This is the context and plain meaning of Paul's language in Romans 11, and no amount of spiritualizing can justify reading it otherwise.
It must be done to maintain a purely spiritual eschatology, but I don't think it can stand the plain meaning of Scripture.
None of what I have said contradicts Christ's reign over our personal souls. Rather, as Scripture and the Confession do, it simply recognizes that Christ's reign does not end there.
Again, this is assertion. Please prove that I have done this by providing alternate explanations for the passages I've cited. Could it actually be that the postmil suppositions are derived from such passages? I think a common sense read of Scripture leads to such conclusion, and I think this is why the Westminster Assembly taught such in the Standards.
Lively and enjoyable discussion.
Cheers,
Adam
Last edited:
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
I'm gonna post some points I made here once before some years ago and I'm curious as to what you guys thoughts are on it, so please by all means pick it apart and help a brotha out, no offense will be taken
I hope to get to this some time this evening, or tomorrow. God bless you Roldan!
Adam
Christusregnat
Puritan Board Professor
I believe that this is not only slanderous of our Reformed forebears, but betrays a singular lack of historical research. These "reprobates" (that's what you're calling them by classing them with papists) you're talking about produced some of the finest Christian civilization that history can boast of, and just because of their adherence to Biblical Law. This is the Puritan board, mind you. To take up such a dreadful slander against the puritans is not only out of place here, but is laughable.
Again, laughable, but slanderous.
Please define the "gospel of grace" as you mean it here. Also, please explain which particular points of the postmil view (whichever flavor of postmil you choose) contradict your definition. I would urge caution, however, as you may find out that the puritans end up teaching a "covenant of works" in your definition.
Also, if you could please provide direct quotations from postmil authors (of any stripe), or of participants here to prove your case, that would be excellent. Until then, my assumption is that you have slandered both the living and the dead in your statements.
Roldan
Puritan Board Junior
Roldan,
The fact that you repeat again and again that I'm "imposing" certain ideas on the text is not an answer, it is a sidetrack. If you intend to answer my arguments from Scripture, then the burden is put on you to show why we are not to read the Scripture exactly as it is written. Were you to argue against an Arminian, I would hope that you would not merely say "oh, that's you reading the Arminian position into the text". I hope (and am confident) that you would show him the proper interpretation of the texts under consideration. I don't think you have done this. The literal interpretation is always the first choice, unless something else in Scripture demands that we interpret something figuratively.
The language of the Great Commission that the "Nations" are the direct object of the sentence. "Make disciples" is the main verb. Grammatically, the Great Commission demands that the nations are made Christ's disciples. The nations are in the accusative case, meaning they are what are to be made disciples. If we want to say this means something else, then, again the burden rests on you. If you could cite a particular place elsewhere in Scripture, I would be willing to discuss.
I don't think we "are supposed to" allow the Old to interpret the New as you are meaning it. For instance, there are many things in the NT which take the OT for granted. In such instances, are we to read something in the NT out of the entire context of Scripture? I don't believe that this is a proper method. When we read the NT directly addressing the discontinuity with the OT, then I agree with your principal. Otherwise, it would be very foolish to simply assume that the two testaments are at variance. Also, the Great Commission is in the NT, and therefore this principal doesn't apply to this case.
Again, simply asserting that I'm reading something into this text doesn't mean you've answered my claim. What are the last days? When did they come to pass? Are we in the last days? When do they end? I'll even let you use the NT
I proved this from Isaiah and from the Catechism, and no one has yet to prove me wrong by providing a counter explanation for all of the earth's kings going up to Zion to hear the Law, or God's adoption extending to Syrian and Egypt, etc.
In 1 Cor 15, Paul tells us that Christ will deliver up the kingdom to the Father (I think we can all agree that this is His 2nd coming in judgment) as follows:
Same idea as the Great Commission: all things are put under Christ's feet, and the church's task is to bring all things into subjection by the power of God's Spirit. Christ is reigning NOW, but we do not see all things subjected to Him. Mind you, I think Paul takes Isaiah for granted here, as well as the Abrahamic covenant, etc. etc. Even if he didn't, it is still clear that all things must be subjected to Christ before the second coming. The amil position posits that all things have already been subjected to Christ. This is half right, but fails to take into account that having the rights to all things in heaven and up on the earth does not mean that God's will is being done on the earth as it is in heaven.
Thanks for reminding me; so do you think that my view is the puritan view? In other words, that I'm not distorting the Catechism's teaching, and that your view is out of accord with the catechism?
Romans 11, by the way, is talking about the physical descendants of Abraham when Paul discusses the call of the Gentiles, and the re-call of the Jews. The context in v.1 is Paul being "an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin." Is he speaking allegorically? Also, consider the context of Jew vs. Gentile in vss. 11, 12, 13, 15, 17, 21, 24, 25, 28, 31 and so forth. Clearly, in Scripture, the re-call of the Jews is of literal, flesh and blood Jews. This is the context and plain meaning of Paul's language in Romans 11, and no amount of spiritualizing can justify reading it otherwise.
It must be done to maintain a purely spiritual eschatology, but I don't think it can stand the plain meaning of Scripture.
None of what I have said contradicts Christ's reign over our personal souls. Rather, as Scripture and the Confession do, it simply recognizes that Christ's reign does not end there.
Again, this is assertion. Please prove that I have done this by providing alternate explanations for the passages I've cited. Could it actually be that the postmil suppositions are derived from such passages? I think a common sense read of Scripture leads to such conclusion, and I think this is why the Westminster Assembly taught such in the Standards.
Lively and enjoyable discussion.
Cheers,
Adam
Good stuff bro, I'll be responding soon, my kids want me to watch Lord of the Rings with them AGAIN lol
- Status
Similar threads
