I have tried to stay fairly clear of the controversy surrounding these issues as I believe it to be a "milk teaching" issue (see Heb 6:1-2) - that being said, I have recently been skimming articles, etc to get a better "feel" for the various positions.

On wiki I saw this graphic that I thought seemed to be a very good high-level summary of the stances.



I'd like to use these categories to get insight into the views on the PB.

I lean toward amillennial, so that is what I am choosing, but I am not 100% convinced.

As folks are willing, I'd also like to get a few links that help clarify the various positions.

I have made the poll public, because I am interested in who holds to the various positions.

Tentatively amillennial. I would like to study more about postmillennialism.

The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

1. Some hold its a golden-age within the NT, as is represented in the graphic.

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

1. Some hold its a golden-age within the NT, as is represented in the graphic.

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.

What Daniel said.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

which would make them amills, right?

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

This is the x-preterist position? If so, what is x, please?

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.

can you expand a little more on this or give a link?

or - even better - can you take the graphic and modify it to reflect any additional stance(s)?

I am really interested in getting a good representative view.

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

Tentatively amillennial. I would like to study more about postmillennialism.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

The postmillenial bit on the picture is not 100% accurate; there are different views among postmils about what the millennium is:

2. Some hold its the whole NT age, as with Amils.

which would make them amills, right?

3. Some hold its from 70 AD until a rebellion against Christendom "Satan's little season".

This is the x-preterist position? If so, what is x, please?

The main difference between amillennial and postmillennials is the latter believes that the gospel will advance much more in the NT age.

can you expand a little more on this or give a link?

2. No it would not make them amils as they believe in the world-wide advance of the gospel and in the Christianization of societies, which is not the traditional amil view. Moreover, postmillennialism literally means "after the millennium", so even if they share the same view as the amils on the duration of the millennium, they are still postmillennial as they believe Christ returns after the millennium.

3. Some partial preterists would hold this view, others would not.

Amillennialism has traditionally believed that there will not be any extensive conversion to Christ, or a world wide Christianization of culture and society. Some optimistic amils like Cornelius Venema would be closer to postmillennialits in this regard. While postmillennialists believe that, over the course of history, the majority of people will be converted, and the majority of nations will be Christian. In other words, they believe Christ has the victory in history.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

or - even better - can you take the graphic and modify it to reflect any additional stance(s)?

I am really interested in getting a good representative view.

Sorry, that is beyond my capabilities.

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Originally Posted by KMK

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillenial position.

Originally Posted by Stephen

Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillenial position.

Indeed, amillennialism is more of a 20th century teaching; although some would say that Augustine held it.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Uh-oh!

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

(because I know this will be an interesting, yet irenic exchange of ideas... )

historic premil.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; 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, 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: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: 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.

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

historic premil.

Why isn't there a "Boo" button to correspond to "Thanks"? Just kidding.

Originally Posted by Davidius

Originally Posted by Spear Dane

historic premil.

Why isn't there a "Boo" button to correspond to "Thanks"? Just kidding.

That is a great idea!

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Stephen

Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillenial position.

Indeed, amillennialism is more of a 20th century teaching; although some would say that Augustine held it.

Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation" by Anthony Hoekema

Originally Posted by Blueridge Baptist

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by Stephen

Yes, Daniel is right the WCoF does not teach an amillenial position.

Indeed, amillennialism is more of a 20th century teaching; although some would say that Augustine held it.

Amillennialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation" by Anthony Hoekema

Yes, sorry I forgot that Luther et al was amillennial; thanks for the link. Though the views of the Reformed were overwhelmingly postmillennial prior to the 20th century.

Originally Posted by turmeric

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Originally Posted by KMK

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Uh-oh!

There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.

But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; 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, 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: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: 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.

I can see how a Postmillennialist could interpret this in their own way but I would not say that it is inherently Postmillennial.

Originally Posted by wsw201

Originally Posted by turmeric

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Uh-oh!

There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.

But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.

I would agree that all of God's people can pray this petition of the Lord's Prayer.

I don't think it's fair to say that Amil is the historic position of the Church nor THE teaching of our standards and I'm quite certain Edwards wasn't the first one to propagate the position of the nations coming under the Kingship of Christ (this has been something long held by the Covenanters--Read Symington's "Messiah the Prince"). Remember, one does not need to hold to a "Golden Age" to be Postmil and even if one does, it doesn't have to happen after the conversion of the Jews (Rom. 11). I believe the same thing about Rom. 11, but I'm not persuaded that such a conversion will usher in a Golden Age. Instead, I believe that will usher in Christ's Second Coming and Judgment. The overall emphasis (at least according to the flavor I hold to) has to do with the spread of the Gospel and its influence upon the world.

Actually, the passages of Scripture that pushed me from Amil to Postmil were the parables of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven (along with a host of others).

Originally Posted by KMK

I voted amil because that is what the confession teaches.

Ken, when you refer to the confession here, would that be the Baptist Confession? Just curious...

I voted Amillennialism, because I lean in that direction. Having been drilled in the pre-trib view all through my childhood, teen years, and early adulthood, I still have trouble sorting through it all. As I read through Scripture and take it for what it says, amillennialism seems to make the most sense.

Historic premil. If it was good enough for Jesus, the apostles, the early church . . . surely it must be good enough for me.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by panta dokimazete

Question 191: What do we pray for in the second petition?

Answer: In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; 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, 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: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: 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.

I can see how a Postmillennialist could interpret this in their own way but I would not say that it is inherently Postmillennial.

Read Iain Murray's book The Puritan Hope.

Actually, the passages of Scripture that pushed me from Amil to Postmil were the parables of the mustard seed and the parable of the leaven (along with a host of others).

Interesting. They pushed me to Amil

Originally Posted by wsw201

Originally Posted by turmeric

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Not the Westminster Standards, read WLC Q&A 191.

Uh-oh!

There is no need to say "Uh-oh". Q&A 191 is the second petition of the Lord's Prayer. Amils can agree with and pray this petition as well as posties. Therefore, when the confession is taken as a whole (as it should since it relates a system of doctrine) the Standards do teach amil as it is the historic position of the church.

But there is nowhere in the Standards that teach that there will be a "Golden Age" or a Christianizing of all the nations. These concepts were mostly popularized in the US with Jonathan Edwards (he was a Golden Ager) who also believed that the Jews would be converted (Rom 11) to usher in the Golden Age. It became even more popular when Princeton caught on to it. Prior to Edwards, the idea of modern day postmillinialism was foriegn to the church.

Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered. How anyone can think that the Westminster Standards are amillennial is beyond me; read WLC 191, read the Puritans, read the Covenanters - postmilleniallism is the historic Reformed view. While I agree that the Westminster Standards do not necessarily require one to adhere to Edwards' golden-age postmillennialism - most modern postmills wouldn't fully go along with Edwards - the view that Christ's kingdom would have the victory in history, and that the majority of men and nations would be Christian, is the overwhelming Reformed position prior to the 20th century.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Read Iain Murray's book The Puritan Hope.

Already have done brother.

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Read Iain Murray's book The Puritan Hope.

Already have done brother.

Read Ken Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion; the best amil book is Cornelis Venema's The Promise of the Future, though I would say this is not really amillennial as its too optimistic.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered.

Even if your assessment is correct; we are to pray for the conversion of all yet we know not all will be saved. We pray in the morning that we will live godly lives knowing that by the end of the day that we will have sinned manifold times.

I fail to see how your comments apply to me who as an "optimistic" amillennialist believes that all we pray for in Question & Answer 191 will come to pass.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Read Ken Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion;

I aim to. The problem IMO with Gentry is his preterism.

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

the best amil book is Cornelis Venema's The Promise of the Future, though I would say this is not really amillennial as its too optimistic.

Then maybe I am not really amil

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Amils can pray for it in the expectation that their prayers will never be answered.

Even if your assessment is correct; we are to pray for the conversion of all yet we know not all will be saved. We pray in the morning that we will live godly lives knowing that by the end of the day that we will have sinned manifold times.

I fail to see how your comments apply to me who as an "optimistic" amillennialist believes that all we pray for in Question & Answer 191 will come to pass.

Well I would say that Q 191 reflects promises in Scripture about what will come to pass, therefore, we pray in the expectation that they will be answered; however, as your an optimistic amil then there's not much difference between you and a post-mil

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Well I would say that Q 191 reflects promises in Scripture about what will come to pass, therefore, we pray in the expectation that they will be answered;

I agree completely. Have you read American Postmillennialism | The Reformed Reader ?

Have any of you read Bahnsen's "Victory in Jesus" or Mathison's "Postmillenialism"? If so, what were your thoughts?

Originally Posted by AV1611

Originally Posted by Daniel Ritchie

Well I would say that Q 191 reflects promises in Scripture about what will come to pass, therefore, we pray in the expectation that they will be answered;

I agree completely. Have you read American Postmillennialism | The Reformed Reader ?

I haven't; its a lot for an internet article, is it in a book anywhere?

As for Ken Gentry's Preterism, as far as I am aware he has never fully been answered. To me its the best position, though I don't think we can be too dogmatic about the question as it involves the interpretation of some of the most difficult texts in Scripture.

Originally Posted by Bygracealone

Have any of you read Bahnsen's "Victory in Jesus" or Mathison's "Postmillenialism"? If so, what were your thoughts?

I have read the second one; its very good; an excellent introduction to postmillennialism and partial preterism. Though I think he holds the view that the millennium refers to the whole NT; I hold the position that it started at 70 AD and ends with the satanically inspired revolt against Christendom.

Originally Posted by Bygracealone

Have any of you read Bahnsen's "Victory in Jesus" or Mathison's "Postmillenialism"? If so, what were your thoughts?

I have read the latter. It was an interesting read but I was not convinced overall. It has been a while since I read it though....