I Think I am Becoming Post-Millenial - Page 2

Backwoods Presbyterian · #41 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 11:32 PM

Ok, It is official I am in the Post-Mill camp now. Put me down on their roster...

KMK · #42 (**permalink**) 06-04-2008, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

By the traditional manner.

There are myriads of different forms of both a- and post-mill views. Some post mills see the millennium as having already happened, some see it as still future, some see it as having already started. Some amills are pessimistic, some are optimistic etc. Hence my question

Traditionally, amillennialism has been pessimistic about the future. I often say that optimistic amillennialists are not really amillennialists.

And I would say that postmills who don't believe in a literal 1000 years preceded by a 'golden age' are not really postmills.

Honestly, here on PB be prepared to cast away all of the ordinary definitions when it comes to eschatology.

AV1611 · #43 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 04:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Ok, It is official I am in the Post-Mill camp now. Put me down on their roster...

In what way are your views different now from what they were?

Daniel Ritchie · #44 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 05:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

There are myriads of different forms of both a- and post-mill views. Some post mills see the millennium as having already happened, some see it as still future, some see it as having already started. Some amills are pessimistic, some are optimistic etc. Hence my question

Traditionally, amillennialism has been pessimistic about the future. I often say that optimistic amillennialists are not really amillennialists.

And I would say that postmills who don't believe in a literal 1000 years preceded by a 'golden age' are not really postmills.

Honestly, here on PB be prepared to cast away all of the ordinary definitions when it comes to eschatology.

Aye, but who among post-millers ever did believe in a literal 1000 years? The only one I know of is FN Lee.

I think you have highlighted the essential difference between modern postmillennialism and older postmillennialism. The former has been influenced by the exegetical insights of amillennialism, but just not its pessimism.

AV1611 · #45 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Aye, but who among post-millers ever did believe in a literal 1000 years? The only one I know of is FN Lee.

I thought Jonathan Edwards did also.

Daniel Ritchie · #46 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 05:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Aye, but who among post-millers ever did believe in a literal 1000 years? The only one I know of is FN Lee.

I thought Jonathan Edwards did also.

While it's a long time since I read The History of Redemption, I thought he only believed in a future golden-age, not a literal 1000 years.

Stephen · #47 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Traditionally, amillennialism has been pessimistic about the future. I often say that optimistic amillennialists are not really amillennialists.

And I would say that postmills who don't believe in a literal 1000 years preceded by a 'golden age' are not really postmills.

Honestly, here on PB be prepared to cast away all of the ordinary definitions when it comes to eschatology.

Aye, but who among post-millers ever did believe in a literal 1000 years? The only one I know of is FN Lee.

I think you have highlighted the essential difference between modern postmillennialism and older postmillennialism. The former has been influenced by the exegetical insights of amillennialism, but just not its pessimism.

No postmillenialist I have read believes in a 1000 year reign. This is only characteristic of the premillenial position.

Stephen · #48 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Aye, but who among post-millers ever did believe in a literal 1000 years? The only one I know of is FN Lee.

I thought Jonathan Edwards did also.

While it's a long time since I read The History of Redemption, I thought he only believed in a future golden-age, not a literal 1000 years.

No, he did not believe in a literal 1000 year reign.

caddy · #49 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

All that came to mind as I read the thread title was a song... "I think I'm turning post-millenial, I think I'm turning post-millenial, I really think so!..."

...and all I am hearing are your words set to Roberta Flack......!

Daniel Ritchie · #50 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by joshua

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Count me as historic ...

I'll confess, Dennis, I have often thought of you as historic.

You cheeky monkey!

DMcFadden · #51 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

I thought Jonathan Edwards did also.

While it's a long time since I read The History of Redemption, I thought he only believed in a future golden-age, not a literal 1000 years.

No, he did not believe in a literal 1000 year reign.

Marsden speaks of him as having a very literalistic approach to the millennium. He says that Edwards estimated that the world would last 6 1,000 years days (employing Ussher's chronology), and then would come the golden millennial age/sabbath in about the year 2,000 a.d.

Daniel Ritchie · #52 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

While it's a long time since I read The History of Redemption, I thought he only believed in a future golden-age, not a literal 1000 years.

No, he did not believe in a literal 1000 year reign.

Marsden speaks of him as having a very literalistic approach to the millennium. He says that Edwards estimated that the world would last 6 1,000 years days (employing Ussher's chronology), and then would come the golden millennial age/sabbath in about the year 2,000 a.d.

Marsden says that, but does Edwards say that?

DMcFadden · #53 (**permalink**) 06-05-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

No, he did not believe in a literal 1000 year reign.

Marsden speaks of him as having a very literalistic approach to the millennium. He says that Edwards estimated that the world would last 6 1,000 years days (employing Ussher's chronology), and then would come the golden millennial age/sabbath in about the year 2,000 a.d.

Marsden says that, but does Edwards say that?

I have no idea. But since I heard Marsden reference it a few days ago, and was tied up at work with a messy termination issue, searching Edwards did not seem possible.

Stephen · #54 (**permalink**) 06-06-2008, 09:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Quote:

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

No, he did not believe in a literal 1000 year reign.

Marsden speaks of him as having a very literalistic approach to the millennium. He says that Edwards estimated that the world would last 6 1,000 years days (employing Ussher's chronology), and then would come the golden millennial age/sabbath in about the year 2,000 a.d.

Marsden says that, but does Edwards say that?

I have never come across that idea in Edward's writing. What would you do with Jesus' own words, "No man knows the day or the hour."

holyfool33 · #55 (**permalink**) 06-07-2008, 05:27 PM

If I mat throw my two cents

in there might I recommend

Things To Come by J. Dwight Pentecost it's a good explanation of Dispensational Eschatology.

AV1611 · #56 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 04:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33

If I mat throw my two cents

in there might I recommend

Things To Come by J. Dwight Pentecost it's a good explanation of Dispensational Eschatology.

It is a good explanation of revised dispensationalism

HaigLaw · #57 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Any good ideas for more reading (either way)?

Yeah, when I first started studying millennial views, around 1989, I couldn't spell it either.

I'd recommend Lorraine Boettner's book, I think it's called The Millennium.

He is so fair and balanced, you cannot tell which view he prefers. The only one he denigrates is of course Dispensationalism.

HaigLaw · #58 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AV1611

It is a good explanation of revised dispensationalism

Yeah, or new & improved, revised revision; or you could use "flavor of the week."

holyfool33 · #59 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HaigLaw

Quote:

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Any good ideas for more reading (either way)?

Yeah, when I first started studying millennial views, around 1989, I couldn't spell it either.

I'd recommend Lorraine Boettner's book, I think it's called The Millennium.

He is so fair and balanced, you cannot tell which view he prefers. The only one he denigrates is of course Dispensationalism.

I read Boettner's book his criticisms of Dispensationalism are very outdated.
Also I said Pentecost's book was fair and balanced because he at least addressed criticisms brought against Dispensationalism. When other authors would simply dismiss them out of hand and not give them a seconds thought.

AV1611 · #60 (**permalink**) 06-08-2008, 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by holyfool33