I have never been convinced that Q. 191 of the Larger Catechsim is 'clearly' Post-mil. As one who holds to an Amil. position, I can affirm the answer to question 191 without hesitation.
One of the problems with the Post/Amil argument is these terms were not used as antithetical positions in history. I know the term amillenialmsm is fairly new; not sure how far the term postmillennialism goes back.
From my understanding of history, you had the pre-mil view(s) and then you had the post-mil view(s) that also incorporated what has now been segregated out as a separate position called amillenialmsm.
I believe in the victory of Christ and the gospel. The thing is, Christ has won in every century past, he is winning today, and he will win tomorrow. That has not meant and does not necessarily mean all the nations will be converted to Christ. The victory of Christ is seen as much in the martyrdom of hundreds of thousands like the the case of the Waldenses in the Piedmont; virtually wiping Christianity out of the region. This is every bit a victory as entire nation coming to Christ. According to my understanding of Revelation, Christ is not waiting for Christianized nations, but for the last martyr who will die for him (Rev 6:9-11).
As far as being active in kingdom growth, I believe that every Christian should be involved in working that out; it is our commission. What irks me the most about the dogmatic branch of reconstructionist postmillers, is that I have experienced, as a pastor, division over this issue when for me I have in times past been happy to make it a matter of liberty. That's not been good enough for those who are dogmatic reconstructionists. I've experienced it in the church, in other relationships, and on the Internet. I'm honestly at the place when someone comes to our church and is dogmatic on things like theonomy, postmillennialism, and reconstructionism, that I'm up front in telling them that we may not be the church they are looking for. I wish this were not the case because I honestly see these positions as a matter of liberty, but experience has shown that those that tend to strongly hold these views can be very divisive. This is sad because we are probably the most practically post-mil/reconstructionistic (I hope that's a word
church that I know of for our size. Sadly, we don't have a marble bust of Rushdoony in the foyer so for all else that can be said about it, it just isn't enough for some.
Finally, its not just the actions of some that I find distasteful, but their lack of action. In the recent march in Atlanta against abortion for instance, I did not see one of the many aggressive post-millers I know in attendance. One individual I know who works for a well known reconstructionist ministry could not attend the march because they would not let him off work!!!
Boil it all down...in my ministry I want to be engaged in influencing the culture with the gospel, see sinners come to Christ, and raise godly children. I want to do what I can to see that godly laws are legislated and ungodly ones are struck down, etc. If this makes me a confused amillennialist than so be it.
As a pastor, I am much more interested in a demonstration of power; what you are doing to bring the gospel to all spheres of life, than I am in your talk; whatever 'ism' is your fancy. What I want to see is are you consistent in giving both of your time and money to the work of the ministry, making contributions to our food drives for the poor, going out of your way to get off work and march (yes even in the freezing rain) in the streets of our city against the evils of our day, sharing the gospel with the lost, being active in looking or opportunities to advance the gospel for Christ versus always being 'out of the know', etc. I have no interest in talk. As you can see from the length of my postm I am 'talked out' on this subject
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie  Quote:
Originally Posted by KMK I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches. | Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191. |