Or for that matter why not "a postmillenialist" or "allpostmillenialists"

For the record, I'm not sure what I am...still

__________________
Chris Rhoades -33
Good Shepherd Presbyterian Church (PCA) Nashville, TN-Under Care

Vera theologia non theoretica, sed practica est; Finis siquidem eius agere est hoc est vitam vivere deiformem. - Martin Bucer
""True theology is not theoretical, but practical. The end of it is living, that is to live a godly life."

Sounds like you are Postmill something.

I am actually Amil with some Post leanings, or leaning posts.

[Edited on 8-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Martin,

What do you suppose ARE those post leanings? (curious)

I think Chris is onto something.. I always thought THE one distinction that made postmill what it is, is a looking forward to a noticeable change in culture pro-Gospel/Christian "community" that, for all intents and purpose, finds Christ returning to a "saved" earth. His Second Advent is more of an arrival/return rather than a rescue (interrupting the horrors of the great apostasy.)



Robin

[Edited on 8-25-2005 by Robin]

__________________
Robin
URCNA
Heidelberg, Ursinus, Belgic Confessions; Canons of Dordt
Revelation 14:2

Although it might be a bit simplistic, I really don't have a problem defining myself this way. There are other factors, though: partial-preteristic readings of time-referents, etc. So while the statement will describe me as far as it goes, if someone asked for differences I could then make distinctions.

I might actually adopt that position when people start throwing out the age-old argument

"Theonomy has led to Federal Vision. Some Federal Visionists are postmillennial. Therefore, it is highly likely that postmillenniaism has aberrant views on soteriology."

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

We don't say "saved earth." That is universalism. Anyway, certain unnamed authors have rebutted that charge. Secondly, I don't like phrasing it that my millennial position is dependent upon a Christian communialisation of the earth. I don't argue for that. I argue that the Gospel will have power and save multitudes that no man can count. I have argued elsewhere that in the latter days men will come from all nations to the City of God and kiss the Son. I have argued that Christ's dominion will encompass the earth, as waters cover the sea.

Of course, I am just quoting Scripture when I say that.

My post leanings are the scriptures that seem to be unfulfilled about universal acknowledgement of the dominion of Christ in this world by princes.

Psalm 47:9 for example. In this verse the Princes of the earth are to acknowledge Christ.

So you're a partial preterist optimistic amillenialist? Or was that a partially optimistic postmillenial preterist...

I'm not sure if the newsletter says we must do that now, although it is clear that we will celebrate them. Either way, it is insane!

On another note, why do they prohibit alcohol at their celebration? (page one) If they want to be Jewish or OT, it seems they would imbibe a strong drink (Deuteronomy 14:26)

[Edited on 8-25-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 8-25-2005 by poimen]

__________________
Rev. Daniel Kok
Pastor of Grace Reformed Church (URCNA)
Leduc, Alberta CANADA
Church Blog

"there is no creature, either in heaven or on earth, who loves us more than Jesus Christ"
Belgic Confession, Article 26

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Not a full preterist at all. I think the first discription (partial preterist optimistic amillenialist) will discribe me the best. But I need much more education on the subject. I have read a lot, but that just confuses me. I truly appreciate the passage that says we are blessed in reading it aloud.

Rev 1:3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.

I have done that. I can't say that I truly understand all of the stuff in it. I am to simple for such a task. I actually have an I.Q. of 130 but fail to see it. Maybe it is in that I know that I don't know.

I love it! Great line. I'm gonna have to use that one if you don't mind.

__________________
Ron Grove
Glencullen Baptist Church (1689 LBC)
Portland, OR

The smarter you are, the more you realize how much you don't know.

__________________
The man who is disposed to think of his sin as a great calamity, rather than as a heinous crime, is not likely either to reverence God or to respect His law. - John Kennedy, 1873
Meg
Blog
Member, Intown Presbyterian Church,PCA, Portland, OR

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

As a commited amillenialist I am not sure if I agree with you. I would be much more comfortable with the Puritan postmillenialist than the postmillenialist of our day and age.

Reasons?

1) They were historicists (like Andrew) and not preterists. As an amillenialist, I am more comfortable with historicism than preterism. And even though some a-mils are preterism I think it incompatible with (historic) amillenialism.

2) They were not as fanatical and militaristic about it. 'Hope' describes their approach; 'heat' describes the postmillenialism of most today.

I realize that this could these statements could be inflammatory, especially towards those brothers on this board who are postmillenialists, but you see what I state above is extrapolated from my reading of posties and my personal interaction with them. On this board I have seen this heat from both post and amils and I think we need to tone it down.

But I would have to say that most of the friction comes from those who hold to (preteristic) postmillenialism, especially those who imbibe some form of Reconstructionism. In that I challenge my brothers: prove me wrong!

"Both views have National Israel experiencing Revival in Christ at some point."

I don't think this is true. I think amils who even consider "National Israel" in a way different than any other country are in the minority.

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

I had always interpreted it as religious Judaism (however you may define it) in general, not necessarily National Israel.

The so-called "heat" you experience is when certain amillennials do not bother to study my position and then straw-man my beliefs (see the atrociosly defined thread on Presupp/postmil distinctions). Sure, I have teased a few but I do not try to throw the "pessimism" bomb around (unless of course, the other person has already agreed to the label).

I am trying to balance the quasi-withdrawalism that occasionally appears in the thoughts of some postmillennial interpreters (men whom I dearly love and so for that will not mention their names) with the occasional (though often exaggerated by the other side) "militarism" (although Berkhof uses that terminology) of some Neo-Postmillennialism (yeah, some don't like the term, but I do and have found it helpful) of many Reconstructionists.

This is where the study of Kuyperian Neo-Calvinistic thought will be valuable.

Preterist views on non-Revelation passages (such as Matt 24) have a very long history as well. "Historic" Amillennialism? The term is very, very new and it's 20th century formulations were new combinations as well. So how old does a position need to be to make this claim of "Historic"? Preterist Amills such as Adams were around at the same time that Preterist Postmills such as Clark were around during the fleshing out of what became the 20th century designations for different positions. Aspects of preterism were present in the Puritans, but not in their reading of the book of Revelation for example. Preterist interpretations of non-Revelation passages were also common in the early church. In some areas it was common enough that people seem to express surprise that others thought Matt 24 had future fulfillment (Maximus Confessor for example). I have no problems with the historic claims of Idealist, Historicist, Preterist or Futurist viewpoints myself. I only see the preterist reading of Revelation to have very recent followings en masse, but I don't feel that excludes it as a perfectly viable interpretation of Revelation.

Well, I'm not a reconstructionist postmill so perhaps I just haven't been on the wrong end of their fire. I do read them a lot and will admit they can be pretty rough and tumble at times... (ducking out of the way of flying objects now). In my admittedly short time on this board my impression is that a couple amills have displayed what I would recognize as a "militant" attitude towards postmills. I haven't seen any postmills starting arguments at all actually. At least two threads recently have contained sharp attacks on the position that I can think of. Perhaps this is some history that goes back before I got here, though...

If we get down with the historical arguments I can show that St Athanasius said some pretty preteristic things in De Incarnatione. But all this aside, do the time referents referring to this generation mean this generation? When John says that the time is near, is it? When the antichrist is already at hand, is he?

That and the reason Theon-Postmils are rough and rowdy is because we find it HIGHLY IRRITATING when people suggest our thought is "almost heresy."

Words of wisdom...

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

The small booklet Early Church and the "End of the World" is also very good at dispelling the idea that Preterist interpretation is something radically new. I have a review of it on my blog here:

http://rongrove.blogspot.com/2005/06...-of-world.html

Daniel,

This newsletter is current! Plus, they are revving the congregation to embrace "Jewish roots" like "paul did"....which (to make a long story short) is a scary connection to NPP; in turn a strand connecting FV leanings. (There is a lot to this...but simply follow the trail: FV hails from a misunderstanding of covenants and Jewish Law, as does NPP; as does the evangelical embracing of "Jewish roots.") Take a moment and ponder it all...... At the core, the misunderstanding of Moses/Cov. works, et al.



r.