Col 1:20 and Postmillennialism

[DanSSwing]

The extreme wickedness of these days — growing darker and more violent by the week — does make the solidity of the Law of God established across the world very attractive. When we pray, "Thy kingdom come", it is the eternal state and its holiness we are longing for. There His word and will reign without opposition.

Then why do we immediately follow this prayer with, "Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven," if this prayer is only concerned with the eternal state? This makes no sense to me. It seems to me as obviously strong a rebuttal to dualism as Romans 9 is a rebuttal to Arminianism.

For when the New Covenant Scripture explicitly declares that this present age before the eternal age is going to be evil, and that growing in intensity, we yield to His infallible word. Knowing that the furnace of affliction is for our purifying. Baseless dreams do not sustain us. Seeing such dreams evaporate will put many in shock.

It seems to me that you are placing too much of the weight of your eschatology on this weak link: a claim that there is only the human age and the eternal age. The age of the Jews began crumbling when the veil of the temple was torn in two and came to a complete end with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, at which time it was completely replaced with the body of Christ on the earth--the church being the temple of God. Jesus Himself predicted in Luke 21:24- "They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations. And Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." We are now in this time of the Gentles. All you say about a growing evil age is true, but those references were to the age of the Jews, which was the time of all NT writing. Some evil certainly remains, but look how far the kingdom of God has spread on earth since 70 AD! Look how much of Adam's dominion mandate has already been fulfilled!

 

[DanSSwing]

Hello Dan,

You are also right that some postmils see serious ups and downs before the world "gets better". If you do not see the global extent of great darkness — of a magnitude never seen before — and the technologies able to implement it to a maximum effectiveness of control, and what this portends for humanity, well, time will tell what the reality of things eschatological are.

The factor of increasing worldwide sorcery — the use of those agents used to enter the demonic realm and open the gateway for it to flood into the human collective consciousness — is not appreciated by many. Yet this demonic influence and presence is markedly present — and exponentially affecting the thinking of our time. We are being groomed for one to come whose desire is to be worshipped and to control.

I certainly see it. But I also saw it with Soviet communism. My grandparents saw it with Nazism. Past generations have seen it as well. I learned from all the failed Hal Lindsey predictions not to take my theology from the newspapers.

I agree with you that's what it looks like, but I see techno-humanism, dEmOcRaCy, or whatever you want to call it as just another enemy to be exposed and then crushed under Christ's feet. If He wants to return personally in order to do so, He'll get no argument from me.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The postmil golden age, where mosaic law is adhered to — and required of all — and the remainder of mankind apart from the genuine church is "Christianized", is nonetheless carnal, even though "religious".

asleep in the Jewish dreams of the postmils

As I believe I have pointed out to you in previous threads, no confessional postmil person that I know believes in "a golden age." Unless you can find such a person using that term, it is unhelpful and comes across (at least to me) as disingenuous. Certainly none of them believe the Mosaic law will be reintroduced and required of all. The moral law, which is contained in the Mosaic dispensation but existed before (and after) it is required of all in all ages (whether acknowledged or not). You seem to be conflating the confessional postmil position with the most extreme modern theonomists - while there are similarities, there are significant differences. Everyone on this board claims to be confessional, so I caution you against condemning those whose eschatological positions have long been acknowledged as such, especially by using the avenue of not accurately portraying their position.

For the writers of New Testament Scripture there were two ages (αἰών aiōn), this present evil age, and the coming eternal age. Both the pre-mil and the post-mil add a third age distinctly different, respectively, from this present age and the age to come. Two ages only? Matt 12:32; Mark 10:30; Luke 18:30; 20:34,35; Eph 1:21.

Does αἰών mean what we mean by "age" (a historical period) today? Or is there a reason early English translations used "world"? Is it different or the same as the references to "kingdom"? Is there both a "kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 3.2 etc) and a "kingdom of God" (Matthew 6:33 etc.)? Or are they the same thing?

When we pray, "Thy kingdom come", it is the eternal state and its holiness we are longing for.

We pray, "Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done even in earth as in heaven." A focus on longing for the eternal state and its holiness can lead to errors such as ascetism. As my father would often caution me, one can become so heavenly minded that one can become no earthly good.

after becoming Postmil, I became much more optimistic and better able to withstand persecution precisely BECAUSE I now believe God will win "down here."

This was/is my experience, too, coming out of dispensational premillennialism as a child.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The extreme wickedness of these days — growing darker and more violent by the week — does make the solidity of the Law of God established across the world very attractive. When we pray, "Thy kingdom come", it is the eternal state and its holiness we are longing for. There His word and will reign without opposition.

For when the New Covenant Scripture explicitly declares that this present age before the eternal age is going to be evil, and that growing in intensity, we yield to His infallible word. Knowing that the furnace of affliction is for our purifying. Baseless dreams do not sustain us. Seeing such dreams evaporate will put many in shock.

Do you think the Shorter Catechism is expressing "the Jewish dreams of the postmils"? My youngest child is almost finished memorizing the Shorter Catechism, so I am reminded of these words:

Q. 102. What do we pray for in the second petition?

A. In the second petition, which is, Thy kingdom come, we pray, that Satan’s kingdom may be destroyed [a]; and that the kingdom of grace may be advanced , ourselves and others brought into it, and kept in it [c]; and that the kingdom of glory may be hastened [d].
[a]. Matt. 12:25-28; Rom. 16:20; 1 John 3:8
. Ps. 72:8-11; Matt. 24:14; 1 Cor. 15:24-25
[c]. Ps. 119:5; Luke 22:32; 2 Thess. 3:1-5
[d]. Rev. 22:20

Postmillennialism seems fully compatible with these statements. I don't see that yours are. For example, when you state that "this present age before the eternal age is going to be evil," where is there an allowance for the kingdom of grace advancing ("that the kingdom of grace may be advanced") and expanding ("ourselves and others brought into it") and flourishing ("and kept in it")?

Q. 103. What do we pray for in the third petition?

A. In the third petition, which is, Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven, we pray, that God, by his grace, would make us able and willing to know, obey, and submit to his will in all things [a], as the angels do in heaven .
[a]. Ps. 19:14; 119; 1 Thess. 5:23; Heb. 13:20-21
. Ps. 103:20-21; Heb. 1:14

Are you suggesting that we are praying for this ability, willingness, obedience, and submission to God's will in the eternal age? If not, when we are praying and working towards this on earth, and the "Gospel of the kingdom" (see Matthew 4.23, 9.35, 24.14, Mark 1.14) advances, expands, and flourishes, will not more and more people submit to Christ as King and follow His Law? How can that not lead to the reformation of the societies and cultures of nations? Granted, this does not preclude the apostasy and destruction of those very same nations, which Scripture warns of and history testifies to, but as the Gospel spreads, it cannot not have an effect on earth. We must not base eschatological conclusions on an overemphasis on the apparent decline in the modern "West" while perhaps overlooking the rise of the Gospel in many parts of the "East" (or South).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Andrew,

Over the years here on PuritanBoard, the term "golden age" has often been used by post-mil folks, if my memory serves me right. And the theonomists have been quoted here extensively and approvingly numerous times. Be that as it may, there is a distinct difference in the nature of the period of time — whatever you wish to call it — when the world gets much better, with globally widespread righteousness, and the absence of wars and evil rulers. The postmil "better world" is a distinctly different period than the present age we are in, a third period.

As to your question re "kingdom of heaven" and "kingdom of God, Jesus used them interchangeably: Matt 8:11, "And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven." Luke 13:28,29, "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God."

What that has to do with the use of αἰών aiōn I don't know. Is it to cast doubt on the differences of the old translations and the newer ones, using "world" or "age". The words are interchangeable and aptly translated in the Scriptures I have quoted, although in 1 John 5:19 John used the word κόσμος kosmos to represent world / the whole inhabited earth before the eschaton, "And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness."

Jesus also used κόσμος kosmos in John 17:9, "I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine", meaning the elect as distinguished from the unbelieving world of humankind.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Andrew, you asked, "Do you think the Shorter Catechism is expressing 'the Jewish dreams of the postmils'?" Of course not! The second petition is well known as a cry for mercy and aid in the missionary endeavors of God's children reaching the lost with the Good News. Re the third petition, I agree with you here: "...when we are praying and working towards this on earth, and the "Gospel of the kingdom" (see Matthew 4.23, 9.35, 24.14, Mark 1.14) advances, expands, and flourishes, will not more and more people submit to Christ as King and follow His Law? How can that not lead to the reformation of the societies and cultures of nations?"

This indeed is part of the outcome of submitting to His will, and asking it be done in earth as it is in heaven; another part being our own personal submitting to His will. We are not in disagreement here.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Dan, you said,

It seems to me that you are placing too much of the weight of your eschatology on this weak link: a claim that there is only the human age and the eternal age. The age of the Jews began crumbling when the veil of the temple was torn in two and came to a complete end with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, at which time it was completely replaced with the body of Christ on the earth--the church being the temple of God. Jesus Himself predicted in Luke 21:24- "They will fall by the edge of the sword and be led captive into all the nations. And Jerusalem will be trodden down by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled." We are now in this time of the Gentles. All you say about a growing evil age is true, but those references were to the age of the Jews, which was the time of all NT writing. Some evil certainly remains, but look how far the kingdom of God has spread on earth since 70 AD! Look how much of Adam's dominion mandate has already been fulfilled!

"A weak link," you say? "...a claim that there is only the human age and the eternal age"? I didn't say "only the human age", but what I say is that when Christ invaded the demon-besieged world — as a human and as God — and destroyed the works, the kingdom, and the power of the devil by His cross and resurrection, He raised up men and women who are also of God, and no longer of this world though in it to carry on after He returned to heaven. So it is not "a human age" but heaven-invading-earth age wherein we call Gods elect children to enter His kingdom.

And we do this rescuing work in the midst of the demon occupation of earth, often giving up our lives in the process. We do this in the midst of an evil age, or evil world, whatever translation or Scriptures you prefer.

You said, "The age of the Jews began crumbling when the veil of the temple was torn in two and came to a complete end with the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, at which time it was completely replaced with the body of Christ on the earth--the church being the temple of God."

The age of the Jews was shattered — ended — when the temple veil was rent, and the worship of God by the Levitical priestly system was removed and replaced, by a new and living way: "Having therefore, brethren, boldness to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus, By a new and living way, which he hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, his flesh" (Heb 10:19,20).

Jesus told the Jewish establishment it was coming: "Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof" (Matt 21:43).

Yes, there was a transition period, so as to give the newly-birthed spiritual kingdom time to grow, learn, and gather both souls and strength; the transition was closed in AD 70 with the destruction of the temple.

You said, "All you say about a growing evil age is true, but those references were to the age of the Jews, which was the time of all NT writing." That preterist view is false.

John wrote his epistles and Revelation in the 90s AD, and possibly his gospel as well — though this may be contested; we have discussed this here on PB.

John wrote of Babylon and the beasts being active and persecuting the saints in his day toward the end of the 1st century; he says of harlot Babylon, "And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth" (Rev 17:18). Jerusalem / the Jews never had reign over the kings of the earth in the NT era.

As you rightly say, Dan, the kingdom of God has spread throughout the earth, gathering in millions of souls, the power of satan having been broken through the preaching of the gospel in the power of Christ's resurrection. The evil one's power was broken over the nations of the earth, and his captives released, yet he is filled with wrath, knowing that his time is short (Rev 12:11,12).

He had been chained so as to restrict his power to deceive entire nations, but his "little season" of being loosed once again so he may deceive all the nations into destroying the saints globally appears to be commencing even while we write (Rev 20:3,7,8,9).

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Dan, it sounds like Yerevan is a very interesting place to be in. Are you involved in a church plant there? I gather you are fluent in Russian, which would be a great aid in that work.

 

[Grant Van Leuven]

I concur with Steve Rafalsky's answers (and highly recommend Riddlebarger's works on eschatology as well, including his addressing the "optimistic amil" term in his book, A Case for Amillenialism).

While I don't find it compelling at all to read into Colossians 1:20 (even with verse 16 preceding it) a Postmil eschatology for a number of other reasons, it occurred to me that this verse may be relevant to consider in relation to it (similar to John 3:16 with "the world") in terms of what it's really about more generally and completely at Christ's consummation of His Kingdom on the Last Great Day (when there will no doubt be one world government under Christ with a willing people serving Him forever--Revelation 11:15, and the cosmos will "sigh a breath of relief" to no longer be darkened under the hold of the prince of this world and his minions in their various "reigns" over parts of the earth):

Rom. 8:19-23: For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

While Calvin allows for this with a passing acknowledgment and goes into a long discussion of it relating to angels and men, the IVP-NB Commentary notes in part:
The climax of the paragraph comes with the references to reconciliation and peacemaking through Christ’s death. The opening words of the paragraph had stated that all things had been created in, through and for Christ. He is their Lord in creation. What is not spelled out, however, is what has happened to all things since creation: the unity and harmony of the cosmos have suffered a serious breach, needing reconciliation (cf. Gn. 3). It was God’s good pleasure to reconcile all things through Christ (2 Cor. 5:19). Heaven and earth have been brought back to the order for which God made them. The universe is under its Lord, and cosmic peace has been restored. Reconciliation and making peace (which includes the idea of pacification, i.e. overthrowing evil) are used synonymously to describe the mighty work which Christ achieved in history through his death on the cross as a sacrifice (Rom. 3:25; 1 Cor. 11:25; Eph. 1:7).

The commentary later also notes (I think relevant to the question and context as the impetus of this post):

Further, it cannot be assumed from this verse that all sinful men and women have freely accepted the peace achieved through Christ’s death. Although all things will finally unite to bow in the name of Jesus and to acknowledge him as Lord (Phil. 2:10-11), it is not to be supposed that this will be done gladly by all, and to suggest that v 20 points to a universal reconciliation in which every person will finally enjoy the blessings of salvation is unwarranted.

Lastly, I gotta give a nod to your user name, Colin!

 

[CGS]

I concur with Steve Rafalsky's answers (and highly recommend Riddlebarger's works on eschatology as well, including his addressing the "optimistic amil" term in his book, A Case for Amillenialism).

I second the work of Riddlebarger. This is a very helpul article about why the “optimism” vs.“pessimism” paradigm doesn’t work, and why "realistic" ammilenialism is probably a better term than "optimistic" amillenialism:

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f7f81cd67b88d47b94051ed/t/5fe270d342eab01570ad4a98/1608675540106/Riddlebarger-Sept-Oct-2011-1.pdf

Also, a series of lectures based on his books (or vice versa?) and essays can be found here:

Amillennialism (Audio, Links, Charts) — The Riddleblog

www.kimriddlebarger.com

 

[DanSSwing]

Dan, it sounds like Yerevan is a very interesting place to be in. Are you involved in a church plant there? I gather you are fluent in Russian, which would be a great aid in that work.

Yes. The only English-speaking church here when I arrived was heavily NAR-influenced, so I and a few others (all WCF) started our own. While I do speak Russian, last week we had simultaneous translation into Armenian, Farsi, and Arabic! It's a very strategic mission field, and we're seeing a significant move of the Spirit in Iran and Turkey.

We're actually in need of a full-time missionary (i.e. self-funded) pastor here if anyone is interested.

 

[DanSSwing]

Steve,
So it seems like we actually agree then about the different ages--we just disagree about the nature of the current age. I think we're just at an impasse on the preterism issue and the related dates. It certainly seems like all hell is breaking loose, but I'm going to have to be convinced by Scripture rather than by current events.

Ironically, when I read Riddlebarger 7-8 years ago as a Premiller, I found most of his argument strong, but my main sticking point with him was his belief that Satan had been bound, something that I now believe as Postmil. At the time, I had pretty much rejected Postmil out of hand, thinking it was "something that Catholics believe." I've still got "A Case for Amillennialism" on Kindle if someone wants to point me to a section or two to revisit.

 

[Northern Crofter]

For the writers of New Testament Scripture there were two ages (αἰών aiōn), this present evil age, and the coming eternal age.

When Christ taught His disciples to pray (Matthew 6 version), "Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done even in earth as it is in heaven..." your eschatology/two-age paradigm would seem to require Him to be speaking of the Father's kingdom as "the coming eternal age" and His will on earth must mean enduring suffering and persecution on earth ("this present evil age"). The post-mil perspective sees a kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven, to bring in the fulness of the elect through the spread of the Gospel, before a final apostacy, ingathering of the sheep, and final judgment. Part of the reason for apostacy is because many will profess to be Christians because they see the earthly benefits - have we not already seen many glimpses of this in history (the Roman Empire being the first)? Otherwise, how do you interpret Christ's declaration of what the parable of the tares means in Matthew 13.41-43? "The Son of man shall send forth his Angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire. There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Then shall the just men shine as the sun in the kingdom of their father. He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." The passage speaks of a kingdom where the good seed is flourishing and bringing forth fruit (v.26) but where the enemy has also sowed tares (so this cannot be the heavenly kingdom). Both continue until the harvest/judgment, and then the eternal kingdom is established. This seems to fit the post-mil understanding of what we were taught to pray for - yes there will be opposition, persecutions, and apostacy, but the good seed will grow and flourish and mature until it is ready.

Yes, all the ages are evil (Galatians 1.4), compared to the age of eternal glory (v.5) which is what I think Paul is trying to say here, not that there are now only 2 ages, with one being this present evil age and the other being "the coming eternal age" (I do not think of eternity as an "age"). Similarly, when Christ was condemning the Jews of His day for their unbelief and called them "an evil and adulterous generation" (Matthew 12.39) and a "wicked generation" (v.45), I do not think He was saying that this was the only wicked, evil, and adulterous generation. So I do not agree that the writers of New Testament Scripture only spoke of two ages/worlds/times/generations. They use these words interchangeably (which is often reflected in our translations), with some writers favoring one term while another uses another, to speak of many "ages": an age before Christ was born ("in the days of Herod the king" - Matthew 2.2), the age of John before Christ began His ministry (compare Matthew 3.11-12 with the Matthew 13 passage above, see also Matthew 11.12: "And from the time of John Baptist hitherto, the kingdom of God suffereth violence..."), the current wicked generation of Jews who rejected Jesus as the Christ ("this generation" - all throughout the Gospels), an age of judgment for that rejection (Matthew 24), "the time of the Gentiles" (Luke 21.24), and so on.

There is much in Scripture that is partially fulfilled, being fulfilled, and yet to be fulfilled - all at once! This is why, perhaps, you sense a "grogginess of some amils" - trying to put the various layers of fulfillment into two ages requires a certain vagueness at times (blurring some of the prophesies directed separately to Jews and Gentiles, for example, while other prophesies apply to both). When you try to make the amil position more precise, you then must (erroneously in my view) force Scripture into 2 remaining ages. But accepting that there are many ages after Christ comports with many "writers of New Testament Scripture" - Paul, for example speaks of how God has "quickened us together in Christ, by whose grace ye are saved, And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that he might show in the ages [plural of αἰών] to come the exceeding riches of his grace through his kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." (Ephesians 2.5-7) And in the next chapter, he states "If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God, which is given me to youward.... Which in other ages [here he uses the Greek word we now usually translate "generations" - i.e. the time or "age" ordinarily occupied by each successive generation) was not opened unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy Apostles and Prophets by the Spirit, that the Gentiles should be inheritors also, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the Gospel...." Which brings up back to Colossians 1 (but verses 25-27): "I am a minister, according to the dispensation of God, which is given me unto youward, to fulfill the word of God, the mystery hid since the world began, and from all ages [again the plural of αἰών], but now is made manifest to his Saints, to whom God would make known what is the riches of his glorious mystery among the Gentiles...."

The kingdom of God is here (see passages such as Luke 9.27), and it is coming (Luke 13.29) - it was, in Christ's day, a mustard seed and a pinch of yeast (Matthew 13/Luke 13). But in your two-age amil paradigm, where is this growing kingdom of the God if we are still living in a "present evil age." How can one hope tp see "the fullness of the Gentiles" which the Apostles speak about (Romans 11.25, cf. Luke 21.24) happen during a "present evil age"?

 

[RamistThomist]

When Christ taught His disciples to pray (Matthew 6 version), "Our father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done even in earth as it is in heaven..." your eschatology/two-age paradigm would seem to require Him to be speaking of the Father's kingdom as "the coming eternal age" and His will on earth must mean enduring suffering and persecution on earth ("this present evil age"). The post-mil perspective sees a kingdom coming on earth as it is in heaven, to bring in the fulness of the elect through the spread of the Gospel, before a final apostacy, ingathering of the sheep, and final judgment. Part of the reason for apostacy is because many will profess to be Christians because they see the earthly benefits - have we not already seen many glimpses of this in history (the Roman Empire being the first)? O

1) Depends on what one means by "kingdom." If kingdom necessarily includes socio-political structures, then that's a problem for amillennialism. Historically, though, the church hasn't read Kingdom that way.

2) Even if the full realization happens in the New Earth, that isn't a problem for amils and still meets the criteria of the passage.

How can one hope tp see "the fullness of the Gentiles" which the Apostles speak about (Romans 11.25, cf. Luke 21.24) happen during a "present evil age"?

The Jews get converted relatively late in the game. If by fullness you mean the majority of the population, then that is a problem for how the Bible speaks of present evil age. If by fullness one means the full number of those to be converted, then it isn't a problem.

This is an example of postmils confusing necessary conditions for sufficient conditions.

 

[Northern Crofter]

1) Depends on what one means by "kingdom." If kingdom necessarily includes socio-political structures, then that's a problem for amillennialism. Historically, though, the church hasn't read Kingdom that way.

2) Even if the full realization happens in the New Earth, that isn't a problem for amils and still meets the criteria of the passage.


The Jews get converted relatively late in the game. If by fullness you mean the majority of the population, then that is a problem for how the Bible speaks of present evil age. If by fullness one means the full number of those to be converted, then it isn't a problem.

This is an example of postmils confusing necessary conditions for sufficient conditions.

Again, when the Gospel of the kingdom advances, expands, and flourishes, it follows that more and more people will submit to Christ as King and follow His Law. How does that not lead to the reformation of the societies and cultures of nations?

 

[RamistThomist]

Again, when the Gospel of the kingdom advances, expands, and flourishes, it follows that more and more people will submit to Christ as King and follow His Law. How does that not lead to the reformation of the societies and cultures of nations?

There are many factors involved.
1) Countries do not always stay Reformed (or even Christian). See Scotland and Netherlands, the two greatest Reformed countries of all time.
2) Depends on *when* this happens. Most of the world could be converted tomorrow and Jesus return the day after, and while the world would technically be Christian, it would also be the case that most of the world for most of history was hostile to God.

 

[CGS]

Again, when the Gospel of the kingdom advances, expands, and flourishes, it follows that more and more people will submit to Christ as King and follow His Law.

Not necessarily...what if the kingdom of darkness is simultaneously expanding at the same rate or a greater rate than the kingdom of light? Amillenialism holds that the spiritual kingdom of God is expanding in the midst of and in spite of the rise of evil in opposition to Christ and His kingdom. The gates of hell will not prevail against the church as it expands. But this may or may not be reflected in the transformation of the society, culture or nation. This is one of the problems with postmillenialism...it views the success of the kingdom only in temporal/visible/external results (i.e. the transformation of societies, nations and culture).

 

[Northern Crofter]

it views the success of the kingdom only in temporal/visible/external results

That is not an accurate portrayal of confessional postmil thinking. Postmillenialism also holds that the spiritual kingdom of God is expanding in the midst of and in spite of the rise of evil in opposition to Christ and His kingdom. "Success" will always be defined spiritually. But how can spiritual growth not lead to outward growth, first at a personal, and then at a corporate level? There is too much in the whole counsel of Scripture showing how the spread of the acceptance of the Gospel leads to natural restoration of man's relationship to man in addition to his restoration to God. Otherwise we are left with dualism and/or gnosticism - let the world go to hell physically as long as we keep on truckin' spiritually. When James speaks of faith and works, he is not just using a physically needy brother merely as an analogy (2.14-17) - he is also saying in the beginning of that chapter that, if we truly have "the faith of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ," then we need to literally not despise the poor in favor of the rich. If the majority of people in a nation follow Christ, their land cannot help but be transformed.

Countries do not always stay Reformed (or even Christian).

I have already agreed with this several times:

The passage speaks of a kingdom where the good seed is flourishing and bringing forth fruit (v.26) but where the enemy has also sowed tares (so this cannot be the heavenly kingdom). Both continue until the harvest/judgment, and then the eternal kingdom is established. This seems to fit the post-mil understanding of what we were taught to pray for - yes there will be opposition, persecutions, and apostacy, but the good seed will grow and flourish and mature until it is ready.

Granted, this does not preclude the apostasy and destruction of those very same nations, which Scripture warns of and history testifies to, but as the Gospel spreads, it cannot not have an effect on earth.

 

[CGS]

If the majority of people in a nation follow Christ, their land cannot help but be transformed.

This may be true, but just because the kingdom of Christ can and does expand in a nation doesn't necessarily mean that the majority of the people in that nation are following Christ. Again...what if the kingdom of darkness is simultaneously expanding at the same rate or a greater rate than the kingdom of light within that nation? For example, isn't the kingdom of Christ expanding in the US and China? - people are being saved and becoming new members of churches every week in both nations - but do we see this reflected in the nation/culture/society? Are Christians a majority in either if these nations? You seem to be equating growth of the kingdom with: 1) Christians becoming a majority and 2) visible transformation of the culture, society and nation. But the growth of the kingdom can and does occur with or without 1 and 2 as necessary results.

And for the record, I affirm that both amillenialism and postmillenialism are compatible with the Westminster standards. I'm not as familar with all the other Reformed confessions. I have no beef with postmillenialists. I just think there can be an overemphasis on the need for transforming society, culture and nations...and this "transformationalist" tendency is also common among many amillenialists.

 

[DanSSwing]

Not necessarily...what if the kingdom of darkness is simultaneously expanding at the same rate or a greater rate than the kingdom of light? Amillenialism holds that the spiritual kingdom of God is expanding in the midst of and in spite of the rise of evil in opposition to Christ and His kingdom. The gates of hell will not prevail against the church as it expands. But this may or may not be reflected in the transformation of the society, culture or nation. This is one of the problems with postmillenialism...it views the success of the kingdom only in temporal/visible/external results (i.e. the transformation of societies, nations and culture).

How then are Christ's enemies being placed under His feet? Postmil has a very clear answer to this. In addition, the gates of hell not prevailing against the church sounds to me like a zero-sum game where the church is gaining at the expense of hell, not that they both expand at the same rate--and certainly not evil expanding at a greater rate.

 

[CGS]

How then are Christ's enemies being placed under His feet?

Since you stated above that you have Riddlebarger's book, I'll refer you to a couple of places where he discusses an amillennial understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:25...see pages 112 -113, and page 263. Do you equate Christ's enemies being placed under His feet as a reference to cultural/national transformation?

I also like the way Riddlebarger summarizes the two positions in the article that I linked to above:
It has been correctly said that the difference between the postmillennial Warfield and the amillennial Geerhardus Vos was that Warfield believed that Jesus Christ returned to a “saved” world, while Vos argued Christ returned to “save” the world. This difference of opinion between postmillenarians like Warfield and amillenarians like Vos remains to this day, and is thought by many to be a clear indication of postmillennial “optimism” vs. amillennial “pessimism.” It is one thing to be optimistic about the eventual evangelism of the world through the spread of the gospel. It is quite another to see the goal of evangelism as the rise of nations governing themselves by the theocratic elements of the Law of Moses.

Christ wondered if there would be any faith on earth when he returns (Luke 18:8) and stated that it would be like the days of Noah (Luke 17:26). That doesn't sound to me like Christ returning to the "saved"/Christianized world of Warfield's postmillenialism.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Just as the kingdom of God was present when Jesus walked the earth — the King Himself among us! — even so it is now in His house, both in local settings and worldwide. Our church is a part of His kingdom here on earth.

 

[DanSSwing]

Since you stated above that you have Riddlebarger's book, I'll refer you to a couple of places where he discusses an amillennial understanding of 1 Corinthians 15:25...see pages 112 -113, and page 263. Do you equate Christ's enemies being placed under His feet as a reference to cultural/national transformation?

No. In fact, I think it usually entails His enemies achieving a certain level of power and then being exposed as frauds.

I also like the way Riddlebarger summarizes the two positions in the article that I linked to above:
It has been correctly said that the difference between the postmillennial Warfield and the amillennial Geerhardus Vos was that Warfield believed that Jesus Christ returned to a “saved” world, while Vos argued Christ returned to “save” the world. This difference of opinion between postmillenarians like Warfield and amillenarians like Vos remains to this day, and is thought by many to be a clear indication of postmillennial “optimism” vs. amillennial “pessimism.” It is one thing to be optimistic about the eventual evangelism of the world through the spread of the gospel. It is quite another to see the goal of evangelism as the rise of nations governing themselves by the theocratic elements of the Law of Moses.

I agree with the quote. I believe the goal of evangelism is the spread of the gospel. Nations governing themselves in a godly manner is a result of this but not the goal. But if you're evangelizing, and a ruler asks you how he should govern, what are you going to tell him?

Christ wondered if there would be any faith on earth when he returns (Luke 18:8) and stated that it would be like the days of Noah (Luke 17:26). That doesn't sound to me like Christ returning to the "saved"/Christianized world of Warfield's postmillenialism.

Christ is talking about His imminent coming in judgment of Israel ~70 AD. "When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." - Matt 10:23. How anyone can claim He wasn't really talking to His disciples in Matt 10 is beyond me. Some people may not like partial preterism, but you can't accuse it of being inconsistent with Warfield's claim. I'd also like to know the name of the town in Israel that has never heard the Gospel, which is what denial of preterism in this passage requires.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

I'm going to attach a portion from an appendix of Dean Davis' book, High King of Heaven, dealing with Full Preterism and Partial Preterism, as it bears on this discussion. Scroll down a ways to get to Partial. (Sam Storms said of Davis' book, “The most sweeping and comprehensive book on eschatology that I’ve ever encountered. The scope of this book is simply breathtaking.”)

 

[DanSSwing]

I'm going to attach a portion from an appendix of Dean Davis' book, High King of Heaven, dealing with Full Preterism and Partial Preterism, as it bears on this discussion. Scroll down a ways to get to Partial. (Sam Storms said of Davis' book, “The most sweeping and comprehensive book on eschatology that I’ve ever encountered. The scope of this book is simply breathtaking.”)

Thanks for posting this. But does Davis deal anywhere with the time indicators? He appears to ignore the strongest argument. Bahnsen's imminence argument is what persuaded me of partial preterism and that all of my attempts to explain them away were weak eisegesis, begging the question that the prophecies could NOT have already taken place simply because they did not look like what I expected. I am much less confident of precisely what was fulfilled in 70 AD vs. what is yet to be fulfilled. But Bahnsen forced me to concede that Jesus, Paul (especially to the Thessalonians) and John were, for the most part, predicting something that would happen in the lifetime of their immediate audience, and the events ~70 AD line of incredibly well with much of it. I am more willing to admit ignorance on the specific prophetic meanings because, looking back at the Old Testament prophecies of the Messiah, even many of them we understand only in hindsight. I suspect that after Christ's consummate return, it will be clear that nobody got everything right.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Dan,

Jesus did indeed come in their lifetime — in judgment. He speaks of this sort of coming in the letters of Revelation 2 and 3. But the coming of Jesus — the "blessed hope" (Tit. 2:13) of the believer — is His parousia, the second coming in glory where all the earth shall see Him.

The imminence of His return applies to all of us — believer and unbeliever — as He holds the life and death of each in His hand. That does not negate things to come in the future! But if your interpretive grid is locked into the preterist mold you will be blinded to what is clear in Scripture, such as 2 Thess 2:1,2,3 ff., which specifically speaks to a premature view of Christ's already having returned.

If you don't have access to books where you are, you could look into Kim Riddlebarger's, The Man of Sin: Uncovering the Truth about the Antichrist, in Kindle format, which is what I'm using now as my hardcopy library is still in storage while our new flat is undergoing renovation. (I'm reduced to getting important works I already have in hardcopy digitally as I need them for the ministry!)

Riddlebarger does an excellent job of examining the OT, and the New, and discerning a composite picture using Daniel (and elsewhere in the OT), Matthew 24, 2 Thess 2, 1 and 2 John, and Revelation, and seeing the antichrist, the man of sin, and the beasts of Revelation coalesce into one person who shall appear at the end of time.

 

[CGS]

But if you're evangelizing, and a ruler asks you how he should govern, what are you going to tell him?

I would refer him to Romans 13 and chapter 19 of the WCF for starters.

Christ is talking about His imminent coming in judgment of Israel ~70 AD.

There is nothing in the passage/context of Luke 17 or 18 that suggests - much less requires - a partial preterist interpretation. You stated above that once you came to see/believe in preterism, that you find it impossibe to unsee it. Perhaps you are also seeing it where it isn't, and interpreting everything through that preterist grid.

"When they persecute you in one town, flee to the next, for truly, I say to you, you will not have gone through all the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." - Matt 10:23. How anyone can claim He wasn't really talking to His disciples in Matt 10 is beyond me. Some people may not like partial preterism, but you can't accuse it of being inconsistent with Warfield's claim. I'd also like to know the name of the town in Israel that has never heard the Gospel, which is what denial of preterism in this passage requires.

Was this intended for me? I have not made any reference to Matthew 10? It seems you immediately jumped from Luke 17-18 (without interacting with it) to Matthew 10 in an attempt to argue that the Luke passages require a preterist interpretation. But even if Matthew 10 does suggest/require a preterist interpretation (which I do not neccesarily deny), how does that apply to Luke 17-18? I never claimed that Christ wasn't talking to His disciples in Matthew 10, or that partial preterism is inconsistent with postmillenialism, or that there is a town in Israel that has never heard the gospel?

Matthew Henry's take on Luke 18:8:
(4.) It is foretold that, when Christ comes to plead his people's cause, he will find but little faith in comparison with what one might expect. That is, [1.] In general, he will find but few good people, few that are really and truly good. Many that have the form and fashion of godliness, but few that have faith, that are sincere and honest: nay, he will find little fidelity among men; the faithful fail, Ps 12 1, 2. Even to the end of time there will still be occasion for the same complaint. The world will grow no better, no, not when it is drawing towards its period. Bad it is, and bad it will be, and worst of all just before Christ's coming; the last times will be the most perilous. [2.] In particular, he will find few that have faith concerning his coming. When he comes to avenge his own elect he looks if there be any faith to help and to uphold, and wonders that there is none, Isa 59 16; 63 5. It intimates that Christ, both in his particular comings for the relief of his people, and in his general coming at the end of time, may, and will, delay his coming so long as that, First, Wicked people will begin to defy it, and to say, Where is the promise of his coming? 2 Pet 3 4. They will challenge him to come (Isa 5 10; Amos 5 19); and his delay will harden them in their wickedness, Matt 24 48. Secondly, Even his own people will begin to despair of it, and to conclude he will never come, because he has passed their reckoning. God's time to appear for his people is when things are brought to the last extremity, and when Zion begins to say, The Lord has forsaken me. See Isa 49 14; 40 27. But this is our comfort, that, when the time appointed comes, it will appear that the unbelief of man has not made the promise of God of no effect.

(emphasis is mine)

Again, this doesn't sound to me like Christ will return to a "saved"/Christianized world. Don't get me wrong...I like the idea of a Christianized world, and I understand the appeal of postmillenialism (I was once postmil myself), but I find that amillenialism aligns better with all of the Scriptural data.

And as a side note...I would caution you to read Kayser with much discernment. His views on Revelation 20 - specifically his view that there was a literal resurrection of the dead in 70 AD (and therefore that there are two resurrections, not one) - would seem to contradict the Reformed understanding of there being only one, general resurrection in the last day.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

But I had Dan's reference to Matt 10:23 in mind, and his reference to "Bahnsen's imminence argument" when I said,

Jesus did indeed come in their lifetime — in judgment. He speaks of this sort of coming in the letters of Revelation 2 and 3. But the coming of Jesus — the "blessed hope" (Tit. 2:13) of the believer — is His parousia, the second coming in glory where all the earth shall see Him.​

​

The imminence of His return applies to all of us — believer and unbeliever — as He holds the life and death of each in His hand. That does not negate things to come in the future! But if your interpretive grid is locked into the preterist mold you will be blinded to what is clear in Scripture, such as 2 Thess 2:1,2,3 ff., which specifically speaks to a premature view of Christ's already having returned.​

In light of this the imminence argument fails.

 

[DanSSwing]

But if your interpretive grid is locked into the preterist mold you will be blinded to what is clear in Scripture, such as 2 Thess 2:1,2,3 ff., which specifically speaks to a premature view of Christ's already having returned.

In light of this the imminence argument fails.

Are you suggesting that 2 Thess was written after 70 AD? That's the only way this argument would be relevant. Paul is only warning against people who say that Christ already returned BEFORE He returned. As much as I disagree with hyper-preterism, this argument isn't even valid against them. It's a vicious circle, assuming that Christ did not return even after 2 Thess was written in order to prove that Christ did not return after 2 Thess was written.

 

[DanSSwing]

Was this intended for me? I have not made any reference to Matthew 10? It seems you immediately jumped from Luke 17-18 (without interacting with it) to Matthew 10 in an attempt to argue that the Luke passages require a preterist interpretation. But even if Matthew 10 does suggest/require a preterist interpretation (which I do not neccesarily deny), how does that apply to Luke 17-18? I never claimed that Christ wasn't talking to His disciples in Matthew 10, or that partial preterism is inconsistent with postmillenialism, or that there is a town in Israel that has never heard the gospel?

Simple. Matthew 10 makes the stronger case for a preterist interpretation. I am only a partial preterist, so I agree that SOME passages refer to His final coming. Luke 17-18 depends much more heavily on what presuppositions you're bringing with you to the text.