Boettner's view of the Millennium

Status
Not open for further replies.

Covenant Joel

Puritan Board Sophomore
If I'm not mistaken, there are two "strains" in postmillennialism. One sees a yet future "golden age" which will literally be a thousand years of peace on earth. That future period will be the millennium. This was the Puritan postmillennial view, if I am not mistaken.

The other view is that we are currently in the millennium (as amils say), and say that things will continue to "improve" (whether in a gospel-extension sense, a socio-political, etc. sense, or both) until Christ returns. The thousand years is not literal in this schema.

Two questions: Am I right in saying the above? And which view did Loraine Boettner take?

Thanks,
Joel
 

Anton Bruckner

Puritan Board Professor
Loraine is a guy? :bigsmile: I always had the impression that he was a woman. Man, why did his parents give him that name. whew.
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Covenant Joel
If I'm not mistaken, there are two "strains" in postmillennialism. One sees a yet future "golden age" which will literally be a thousand years of peace on earth. That future period will be the millennium. This was the Puritan postmillennial view, if I am not mistaken.

The other view is that we are currently in the millennium (as amils say), and say that things will continue to "improve" (whether in a gospel-extension sense, a socio-political, etc. sense, or both) until Christ returns. The thousand years is not literal in this schema.

Two questions: Am I right in saying the above? And which view did Loraine Boettner take?

Thanks,
Joel

Boettner was a postmillenial in the strain of the first explanation. So were virtually every postmil (the Puritans, Edwards, Warfield, etc) before Liberal Postmils and Reconstructionists. That is why classic amillenialism and classical postmillenialism are so close. Both see the spread of the gospel and optimism of the Kingdom. The only real difference is whether there will be an earthly golden age after the return of Christ.

Classic postmils actually have more in common with classic amils than they do with Reconstructionist postmils.
 

Covenant Joel

Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks for all the replies.

Which view did David Chilton take before he went to full preterism? I have his commentary, just not with me at school, so I can't look it up.

Thanks,
Joel
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
On the contrary Fred, classic amills have more in common with reconstructionists then classic postmills. Classic postmills believe the millennium is a future period identified with the golden age, whereas reconstructionists AND classic amills believe the millennium is the entire gospel age. The reconstructionists believe additionally that the gospel age will culminate in a 'golden age'.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by Covenant Joel
Thanks for all the replies.

Which view did David Chilton take before he went to full preterism? I have his commentary, just not with me at school, so I can't look it up.

Thanks,
Joel

Partial-pret, although Bahnsen took him to task on hermeneutical methodology. This will be one of the few places I depart with my beloved mentor. Chilton rightly (and Bahnsen agrees with this) places the book with the destruction of Jerusalem. He is postmil as well.

On the contrary Fred, classic amills have more in common with reconstructionists then classic postmills. Classic postmills believe the millennium is a future period identified with the golden age, whereas reconstructionists AND classic amills believe the millennium is the entire gospel age. The reconstructionists believe additionally that the gospel age will culminate in a 'golden age'.

That is my understanding of it as well. Most all eschatological commentators of every stripe make that distinction (Erickson, Venema, Riddlebarger to the extant that he actually deals with the newer postmillennialism).
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Originally posted by Peter
On the contrary Fred, classic amills have more in common with reconstructionists then classic postmills. Classic postmills believe the millennium is a future period identified with the golden age, whereas reconstructionists AND classic amills believe the millennium is the entire gospel age. The reconstructionists believe additionally that the gospel age will culminate in a 'golden age'.

Peter,

I had not thought about it that way, but I think you may be correct in that sense. I'll need to think more about it.

But what I meant was in the sense of how the eschatology manifests itself and the emphasis of one's teaching. Both classic amils and postmils are (to use a generality) focused upon the growth of the gospel and the achievement of the golden age by the intervention of God.

For the Reconstructionist, the focus is upon the golden age, not the gospel age.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Fred, I believe you are correct if you mean reconstructionists tend to spend greater time and effort defending the belief in a future golden age then Postmillennialists of old, who, in what I've read, basically took it for granted. Most of the postmill statements prior to the 2oth century I've seen are appended to the last testimony of some martyr. I dont know how many polemical works on postmillennialism there were.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by Peter
Fred, I believe you are correct if you mean reconstructionists tend to spend greater time and effort defending the belief in a future golden age then Postmillennialists of old, who, in what I've read, basically took it for granted. Most of the postmill statements prior to the 2oth century I've seen are appended to the last testimony of some martyr. I dont know how many polemical works on postmillennialism there were.

I'm sure there are posties that spend more time on the golden age but I for one am quite concerned with *now*. First we get accused of not paying attention to the "not yet" now we are accused of not paying attention to the "already". I can't win for losing.
 

rgrove

Puritan Board Freshman
Of course "postmillennialists of old" took it for granted. When they wrote polemics is was against Premillennialism. David Brown's book on the topic is a classic example. He also takes the Postmillennial position for granted the entire way through. That being said, most commentaries from the era are explicitly Postmillennial. The Systematics are Postmillennial. Countless sermons can be easily found that are Postmillennial. Many hymns are best understood in light of their Postmillennial backdrop. The birth of the missionary movement was driven by Calvinist Postmillennialists who were confident in God's plan to subdue and reconcile this world to Himself through the conquering power to the Holy Spirit.

And like Jacob said, if we go forward with this same confidence today in God's plan for the future in this present age we're balled out for it. Whatever...
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
The main difference between classic and neo Postmil is in regards to just how long the millennium is. I believe it COULD be one thousand years, but I'm not sold on the idea that it has to be a literal one thousand years.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Classical postmills didn't believe the millennium was necessarily a literal 1000yrs either. I read somewhere Boettner believed it was 360,000 years, which view I am somewhat partial to.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by Peter
Classical postmills didn't believe the millennium was necessarily a literal 1000yrs either. I read somewhere Boettner believed it was 360,000 years, which view I am somewhat partial to.

Yeah, I guess the difference would be ... is it a gradual growth towards a golden age and then Christ returns.. or is it a long golden age and then Christ returns..
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
True, well, classical postmills could believe, as I do, the growth towards the golden age is gradual. The distinguishing characteristic though is that they identify the millennium with that golden age while neo-postmills (reconstructionists) believe the millennium is the entire NT age. Also worth noting, some modern classicalists such as Parnell McCarter, believe the millennium will be less than a literal 1000yrs.
 

WrittenFromUtopia

Puritan Board Graduate
Originally posted by puritansailor
And yet postmils also hold to the final apostacy right? And the destruction of the present earth and age?

Some do. Some do. I believe the latter has already begun, in an already/not yet fashion. I see the former as a probability.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
Yes. Infact I think the apostacy in rev 20 is a great argument against amillennialism. If the binding of Satan refers to his defeat on the cross then his unloosing would mean the reversal of the accomplished work of Christ. Utter blasphemy!
 

Puritan Sailor

Puritan Board Doctor
Originally posted by Peter
Yes. Infact I think the apostacy in rev 20 is a great argument against amillennialism. If the binding of Satan refers to his defeat on the cross then his unloosing would mean the reversal of the accomplished work of Christ. Utter blasphemy!

What Amil argues that the apostacy refers to the elect? All I know of say it refers to the visible church. Just like Postmil.
 

Peter

Puritan Board Junior
No I dont think so, but here's the thing:

According to many amill/neo-postmill schemes Satan's binding equals the victory on the cross, the redemption accomplished. Yet Satan's binding is only temporary, he will yet have a "little season". This can't be. The victory of the cross cannot be reversed. Paleo-postmill says the binding of Satan equals the application of the redemption, ie, the spreading and acceptance of the gospel. The success of this fluxuates and can be undone.

[Edited on 10-8-2005 by Peter]
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by puritansailor
And yet postmils also hold to the final apostacy right? And the destruction of the present earth and age?

Two months ago I would have said yes in regard to my position, but I am rethinking a few things on New Heavens and new Earth with regard to eschatological time referents.

To answer your questions--that is what classical postmils (and Bahnsen) believed.
 

rgrove

Puritan Board Freshman
Thist postmill expects a final apostacy. I suspect it will start because times are good. When times are good, we turn away from the Lord.

Postmills are hardly united in their views on then new heavens and the new earth in my estimation. Too many people look at it as a monolithic position. Kind of like Dispensationalism, where there's only a little variation. There's quite a bit of variation with Potmills on many things and I really feel that's important to keep in mind when approaching the position. It's an extremely flexible position. I believe it to be the most flexible of the three eschatalogical positions.

[Edited on 10-8-2005 by rgrove]
 

non dignus

Puritan Board Sophomore
I\'m looking for a book recommended by Boettner

Where can I find "The Seed of Abraham" by Albertus Pieters?

It is hard to find but maybe someone could recommend a better book that is easier to obtain. ?
 

bigheavyq

Puritan Board Freshman
boettner was historical post mill, not all recon agree and there are those who are not recons who are partial preterist postmil. rushdoony and sandlin were idealist postmil. bahnsen, chilton, gentry were partial pret postmill until chilton suffered from some mental hiccup when he swerved to full pret. what makes the reconstructionist different is their view of the law in society before christs return.

btw I happen to be in the recon part pret post camp

ps i have a copy of Boettner's millennium signed by the author.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top