OK, convince me of Postmillenialism

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't think one may confidently conclude there will be a final apostasy from Rev. 20. If the thousand years is indicative of a complete period of time from the first to the second coming of Christ then it is impossible for an apostasy to follow it; hence the apostasy must be nothing other than a view of the same period of time being considered from a different perspective.
 
And this is the continuous backtracking I get from postmil's. First they say there will be a Christianization of the nations then when the apostacy issue is brought up they say "well we don't mean everybody" but if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it.......In order for one to be an apostate one has to first claim to be in the Faith. So again the question is how victorious was the gospel if not ALL his enemies are subjected to the gospel and put under Christ feet? (according to the postmil of course)

Your argument ("if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it") can be put in the logical form

(1) If the world is not fully (100%) Christianized, then there is no final apostasy.

Seeing as you grant the antecedent of (1) because you're an amillennarian, and seeing as you posited (1) in the first place, it follows that, to be consistent, you must grant the consequent, that there is no final apostasy. But this would deny clear Scripture in Rev. 20. Therefore your attempted argument against postmil would, if true, be destructive of amil (and both forms of premil) as well.

-----

The fact of the matter is that Christianization and ubiquitous Gospel success does not entail 100% true conversions. Postmillers would never argue for 100% conversion based on the "all" prophecies; but they would claim that those prophecies do indicate more than a mere plucking of .05% of the people from every nation. When prophecies say that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord (I can't remember if that is one, but for argument's sake...), for instance, they mean not 100% conversion, but they do imply massive conversion.

I like your style....no really I do......but nice try, you totally missed my point, will try again in a minute
 
And this is the continuous backtracking I get from postmil's. First they say there will be a Christianization of the nations then when the apostacy issue is brought up they say "well we don't mean everybody" but if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it.......In order for one to be an apostate one has to first claim to be in the Faith. So again the question is how victorious was the gospel if not ALL his enemies are subjected to the gospel and put under Christ feet? (according to the postmil of course)

Your argument ("if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it") can be put in the logical form

(1) If the world is not fully (100%) Christianized, then there is no final apostasy.

Seeing as you grant the antecedent of (1) because you're an amillennarian, and seeing as you posited (1) in the first place, it follows that, to be consistent, you must grant the consequent, that there is no final apostasy. But this would deny clear Scripture in Rev. 20. Therefore your attempted argument against postmil would, if true, be destructive of amil (and both forms of premil) as well.

-----

The fact of the matter is that Christianization and ubiquitous Gospel success does not entail 100% true conversions. Postmillers would never argue for 100% conversion based on the "all" prophecies; but they would claim that those prophecies do indicate more than a mere plucking of .05% of the people from every nation. When prophecies say that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord (I can't remember if that is one, but for argument's sake...), for instance, they mean not 100% conversion, but they do imply massive conversion.

I like your style....no really I do......but nice try, you totally missed my point, will try again in a minute

What do you mean "will try again in a minute"? Do you mean you're going to restate your argument that I apparently missed, or do you mean you're going to check back in to see if I "got it right"?
 
All of them. And my personal faviorte. TBN. Trinity BroadCasting Network...ahhh..that's the best one out there. :smug:

Anyone else think it's absolutely gut-busting funny that the Trinity Broadcasting Network has Oneness Pentecostals like TD Jakes among their most popular programs?
 
I don't think one may confidently conclude there will be a final apostasy from Rev. 20. If the thousand years is indicative of a complete period of time from the first to the second coming of Christ then it is impossible for an apostasy to follow it; hence the apostasy must be nothing other than a view of the same period of time being considered from a different perspective.

Rev. Winzer:

Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?

If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.

Or do you believe the Postmil view that depends upon a literal apostasy?

???




J&R
 
Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?

If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.

Yes, the apostasy is taking place concurrently with the thousand years reign with Christ. In other words,, during the whole of the interadventual period we have two scenes. There is the view of the nations being undeceived and souls triumphing in the presence of Christ where thrones are being set for judgment, and there is the view of Satan stirring up the nations and preparing for a final battle in which it is hoped that the reign of Christ will be overthrown. Both scenes terminate in the final day of judgment before the great white throne.
 
Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?

If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.

Yes, the apostasy is taking place concurrently with the thousand years reign with Christ. In other words,, during the whole of the interadventual period we have two scenes. There is the view of the nations being undeceived and souls triumphing in the presence of Christ where thrones are being set for judgment, and there is the view of Satan stirring up the nations and preparing for a final battle in which it is hoped that the reign of Christ will be overthrown. Both scenes terminate in the final day of judgment before the great white throne.

Is that Warfield's view of the apostasy? I heard that he argued Scripturally against a final apostasy right before Christ's return.
 
Your argument ("if its not everybody then its NOT AN APOSTACY then is it") can be put in the logical form

(1) If the world is not fully (100%) Christianized, then there is no final apostasy.

Seeing as you grant the antecedent of (1) because you're an amillennarian, and seeing as you posited (1) in the first place, it follows that, to be consistent, you must grant the consequent, that there is no final apostasy. But this would deny clear Scripture in Rev. 20. Therefore your attempted argument against postmil would, if true, be destructive of amil (and both forms of premil) as well.

-----

The fact of the matter is that Christianization and ubiquitous Gospel success does not entail 100% true conversions. Postmillers would never argue for 100% conversion based on the "all" prophecies; but they would claim that those prophecies do indicate more than a mere plucking of .05% of the people from every nation. When prophecies say that all the ends of the earth will turn to the Lord (I can't remember if that is one, but for argument's sake...), for instance, they mean not 100% conversion, but they do imply massive conversion.

I like your style....no really I do......but nice try, you totally missed my point, will try again in a minute

What do you mean "will try again in a minute"? Do you mean you're going to restate your argument that I apparently missed, or do you mean you're going to check back in to see if I "got it right"?

Oh my bad..lol....I didn't mean to sound insulting...what I meant was I was going to restate the argument..:oops:
 
Do you agree with Amills about the "same period of time" being the "thousand years" between the two advents?

If so, we agree that the apostasy fits within that description.

Yes, the apostasy is taking place concurrently with the thousand years reign with Christ. In other words,, during the whole of the interadventual period we have two scenes. There is the view of the nations being undeceived and souls triumphing in the presence of Christ where thrones are being set for judgment, and there is the view of Satan stirring up the nations and preparing for a final battle in which it is hoped that the reign of Christ will be overthrown. Both scenes terminate in the final day of judgment before the great white throne.

:handshake: :agree:

J&R
 
Is that Warfield's view of the apostasy? I heard that he argued Scripturally against a final apostasy right before Christ's return.

Yes; in his article on the millennium he wrote:

It is a description in the form of a narrative: the element of time and chronological succession belongs to the symbol, not to the thing symbolized. The "binding of Satan" is, therefore, in reality, not for a season, but with reference to a sphere; and his "loosing" again is not after a period but in another sphere: it is not subsequence but exteriority that is suggested.

This view places Warfield amongst amillennial interpreters.
 
As my Dispensational homedog Johny Mac said ''What is a postmillenialist other than an optimistic amillenialist?''
 
Which view adds the most to Scripure?

That regardless of how you mark the time or order of events of the Revelation, the main point of the book should not be missed, and that is that Jesus be revealed to us. In it I see His majesty, His righteousness, His mercy, His glory, His triumph, His holiness, His beauty, His love, and an innumerable other facets of His glory - whether I have the timeline right or not. And seeing those things, I love Him more and more, and that love assures me that when He comes like a thief in the night, it will not come as a surprise to His own.

The study of Revelation and all of Scripture promises a blessing. In the midst of studying Revelation and all the speculation, I appreciate Senior PB member Brad's quote above. :applause: I am not even turned off by his LaHaye/Jenkins/Lindsey loaded phrase thief in the night,

because. . .

that phrase is in Scripture.

:think: My big consideration in deciding Post or Amil is which view is really adding to Scripture. For example, a rapture adds to Scripture in my opinion. Care to coment, Curt, R. Harris, Roldan or anyone?
 
Last edited:
I don't think one may confidently conclude there will be a final apostasy from Rev. 20. If the thousand years is indicative of a complete period of time from the first to the second coming of Christ then it is impossible for an apostasy to follow it; hence the apostasy must be nothing other than a view of the same period of time being considered from a different perspective.

Hello Pastor!

This will have to be one of the very few occasions where I find that I disagree with you on a matter. It seems very clear to me from the Scriptures that there will be a Great Tribulation of the Saints just prior to the Second Coming of Christ. The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.

The whole delineation of the Millennium can be found as occuring between the "binding" and "loosing" of Satan.

To those others who like to remain "Christ centered" in their approach to Revelation, and deny any eschatological discussion, then I think you are creating a false dichotomy between the two. One can be Christ centered and eschatological at the same time. Because, after all, the great summation of all of Biblical eschatology is the judgment that Christ will render on the Last Day.

Blessings,

Rob
 
ok so i have leaned towards postmill for a while, but the only thing i can not understand is how does Matthew 7 fit in the picture of the postmill view where we read that narrow is the road and few find it and wide is the road to hell and many people are on that. Not only this passage but it seems through scripture an ideology that many are called but few are chosen.
 
Neither amils nor premils believe the gospel will triumph in history, that good will overcome evil in history.
 
Neither amils nor premils believe the gospel will triumph in history, that good will overcome evil in history.

In their defense, they will say that the God will save everyone He wants to save and therefore good will be victorious, but that sense of victory is nearly tautological.

Non-postmil in my opinion tends to downplay the importance of reform in culture, law, ethics, art, etc. -- rather than just winning souls.

Remember that the doctrine of predestination -- and thereby God's guarantee of success -- is what prompted fervent evangelism at the time of the Reformation. Likewise, postmil, God's guarantee of success in non-evangelism, is what prompts people to fervently take every aspect of the world under Christ's dominion.
:2cents:
 
Iain Murray's "The Puritan Hope" argues that postmil thinking was also involved in kick-starting world missions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.

The amils believe that good and evil will grow equally together and then there wil be a stand-off and evil will take-over from good. What will stop this ascendency of evil will not be the Gospel but the Second Advent of Christ.

Premils seem to believe that things are going to get worse and worse until the Second Advent.

Only postmils believe that what Christ put in place at His First Advent will overcome evil and triumph in this world. That is, Christ coming by His Spirit, God's Word, the Church and Christ's providential mediatorial reign. The postmils believe that Christ will defeat evil by these means and then defeat it again by His Second Advent when it breaks out again after the Golden/Silver Age. This final outbreak will prove once again the incorrigibility of Satan and his angelic and human minions and the necessity of divine grace.

Premils and amils have no triumph for the Gospel on a worldwide scale but only on an individual scale.

At an individual eschatalogical level we do not find that evil and good are meant to grow alongside each other in the saint's heart, but that there is meant to be progressive but imperfect victory over evil until the individual is more and more sanctified. Sanctification is uneven and there can be set backs, but the overall trend is upwards and onwards.

This I believe is also the pattern in the collective realms of Church history and the progress of the Kingdom and Millennium until all the world is leavened by the Gospel.
 
I am not even turned off by his LaHaye/Jenkins/Lindsey loaded phrase thief in the night,

because. . .

that phrase is in Scripture.
No LaHaye/Jenkins/Lindsey influence in my thinking, sis, just scripture. In fact, my leaning is to post-mil esch., although I do have some trouble spots.

But regarding dichotomies, I see none, my point was that no matter how precise we think we are, we still do not know some things, and I'm sure we'll all find a few things didn't happen exactly as we thought they would. But we can see nothing of value in any of it if we don't see Christ first. Once I get past all the wonders I see in Him in that book, then I'll get to work on a timeline... Oops... Oh wait!..That'll never happen! So I guess I get to leave these very important debates to those so inclined to engage in them, and say with David - Psa 27:4 One thing have I asked of the LORD, that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the LORD all the days of my life, to gaze upon the beauty of the LORD and to inquire in his temple.

I jus' ain't sharp enuff to go beyond all that.
 
...of Postmillenialism.

(Or was I predestined not to accept this view?)

Not me! Amill is the only way to go! :lol:


Well, you haven't studied it with me yet, so don't be so set in your ways. ;)

:lol: I'm old so I'm just naturally set in my ways...thankfully it happened that I got set in my ways in the right doctrine! :lol:. Maybe our book will be the one I start to read next. It's been soooooooo long since I've studied doctrine and it's about time I get back to it!
 
Not me! Amill is the only way to go! :lol:


Well, you haven't studied it with me yet, so don't be so set in your ways. ;)

:lol: I'm old so I'm just naturally set in my ways...thankfully it happened that I got set in my ways in the right doctrine! :lol:. Maybe our book will be the one I start to read next. It's been soooooooo long since I've studied doctrine and it's about time I get back to it!


Heh heh...no, you are not old..just stubborn. ;) Don't put that book first as I am sure there might be more profitable things to read for you right now. xo
 
Neither amils nor premils believe the gospel will triumph in history, that good will overcome evil in history.

:banghead:

-----Added 6/12/2009 at 07:00:15 EST-----

Non-postmil in my opinion tends to downplay the importance of reform in culture, law, ethics, art, etc. -- rather than just winning souls.

Remember that the doctrine of predestination -- and thereby God's guarantee of success -- is what prompted fervent evangelism at the time of the Reformation. Likewise, postmil, God's guarantee of success in non-evangelism, is what prompts people to fervently take every aspect of the world under Christ's dominion.
:2cents:

Not really brother...I am Amil and so is most of my friends and we are all involved in culture, arts, ethics, and very active in evangelism....this is a forced assumption on the postmil part, or your opinion anyways.
 
The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.

"6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison."

It is clear as crystal that the intermediate state is the point of reference of the thousand year reign with Christ. A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible.
 
Premils and amils have no triumph for the Gospel on a worldwide scale but only on an individual scale.

So individual salvation does not bring glory to God?

This statement is an attempt to present an erroneous misrepresentation of both the PreMil view as well as the Amill view.

Premils assume a gospel triumph for individual Gentiles, but ultimately and also for the nation of Israel as a whole, which supposed national salvation is an incorrect view.

Amills teach the triumph of elect individuals, resurrected from death to life, by the workings of grace and power in and through the Savior, Jesus Christ, alone.

In other words,'s, you are incorrect in thinking that God ever intended or decreed or provided a salvation that would be "worldwide" or "national" or "universal" in any way, shape, or form.

There is NO biblical precedent for teaching that God has ever chosen to save an entire nation; an entire religious organisation, or even an entire family.

NONE.

God has always chosen to save a remnant of souls; gathered out of all nations, churches, and families. This cannot be denied or rebutted or argued, by employing the Word of God, at all.

At an individual eschatalogical level we do not find that evil and good are meant to grow alongside each other in the saint's heart,

Of course not. This is a strawman fallacy, proposed to denigrate the Amillennial view.

Amills distinguish between the regenerated hearts of the elect sons of God, and the unregenerate wickedness of the world at large. It is the Amill view that best provides teachings (and Creeds) that establish an anti-thesis between the Church of Jesus Christ and the world systems.



but that there is meant to be progressive but imperfect victory over evil until the individual is more and more sanctified. Sanctification is uneven and there can be set backs, but the overall trend is upwards and onwards.

Victory over sin is not found in any kind of "progressive sanctification," but only through genuine faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

This I believe is also the pattern in the collective realms of Church history and the progress of the Kingdom and Millennium until all the world is leavened by the Gospel.

Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel."

That is not the purpose of the gospel message.

The gospel is not political or worldly, meant to save or even improve all of mankind. The gospel is strictly the calling of God, of His Elect, to come out of the world.

The "leavening" thereby achieved, is worked within individual hearts . . . not society at large . . . even though society is preserved like a meat that will go sour, if not exposed and sprinkled by the spiritual presence and "salt" of God's particular people. (Matthew 5:13)
 
OK, convince me...

...of Postmillenialism.

No one has asked the obvious question- Why do you need to be convinced? Eschatology is an effect of other doctrines, not a cause of them. If someone finds themselves at odds with other folk on an eschatalogical issue, the real question is- where does one differ on more basic and thus more important doctrines?

Theognome
 
OK, convince me...

...of Postmillenialism.

No one has asked the obvious question- Why do you need to be convinced? Eschatology is an effect of other doctrines, not a cause of them. If someone finds themselves at odds with other folk on an eschatalogical issue, the real question is- where does one differ on more basic and thus more important doctrines?

Theognome

Indeed. Good point.

Eschatology is differentiated from soteriology, but to hold to a sound and correct eschatology, one must hold to a sound and correct soteriology, for only from sound soteriology is sound eschatolgy developed and understood.

In our opinion, the two cannot be divided or separated.
 
OK, convince me...

...of Postmillenialism.

No one has asked the obvious question- Why do you need to be convinced? Eschatology is an effect of other doctrines, not a cause of them. If someone finds themselves at odds with other folk on an eschatalogical issue, the real question is- where does one differ on more basic and thus more important doctrines?

Theognome

Indeed. Good point.

Eschatology is differentiated from soteriology, but to hold to a sound and correct eschatology, one must hold to a sound and correct soteriology, for only from sound soteriology is sound eschatolgy developed and understood.

In our opinion, the two cannot be divided or separated.

They cannot be separated, and indeed one is the derivative of the other. A sound Soteriology will breed a sound eschatology regardless of form. A flawed view of salvation will reveal aberrant end times positions.

Theognome
 
Last edited:
Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel."

That is not the purpose of the gospel message.

The gospel is not political or worldly, meant to save or even improve all of mankind. The gospel is strictly the calling of God, of His Elect, to come out of the world.

The "leavening" thereby achieved, is worked within individual hearts . . . not society at large . . . even though society is preserved like a meat that will go sour, if not exposed and sprinkled by the spiritual presence and "salt" of God's particular people. (Matthew 5:13)

Have you ever heard of the term "worldview"?

The Christian is to look at everything - politics, education, the arts, sciences, business, finance - through a biblical lense. Why? Because Jesus is Lord over everything - not just private, personal lives and small group Bible studies. Kings and judges of the earth are clearly commanded to publicly acknowledge the Lordship of Christ in not only their personal lives but also in their public professions. The Scripture is crystal clear on this point.

Numerous threads have been created with many posts demonstrating the above statement, there is no time to recite all of them. It would do you well to research them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top