Durbin Explains Postmil

Status
Not open for further replies.
Everyone is so concerned with the cigar
I see it as friendly feedback to be more effective. Not that Durbin's content is null and void because of it.

If the later were the case, then I would point people to Spurgeon's John Ploughmen chapter on "Religious Grumblers"
 
Everyone is so concerned with the cigar

To continue the metaphor, it might be because the #datpostmil phenomenon is more foam than beer. That's why I keep asking to see exegetical (or at least theological) articles proving the position.
 
I see it as friendly feedback to be more effective. Not that Durbin's content is null and void because of it.

If the later were the case, then I would point people to Spurgeon's John Ploughmen chapter on "Religious Grumblers"
Dare I admit...I'm not a fan of Spurgeon? I don't see why people love him so much but have tried to read his works.
 
To continue the metaphor, it might be because the #datpostmil phenomenon is more foam than beer. That's why I keep asking to see exegetical (or at least theological) articles proving the position.
I have a few titles from the Postmil perspective and have seen the exegetical work done and applied. Still fence sitting. I would like it to be accurate because it gives me hope for now not just the future. It's like rock climbing, a lot of zigging and zagging, sometimes we move back so we can position for a better grip, but ultimately we are moving toward the goal.

I just started Mission of God by Boot which seems to be comprehensive and I'm really looking forward to it.
 
Everyone is so concerned with the cigar

People are allowed to be concerned about anything that's concerning.

I love Jeff, and I've met him in person, but this is very much a "look at me, I'm cool" kind of tactic that is common in certain circles and I am also not a fan.
 
Dare I admit...I'm not a fan of Spurgeon? I don't see why people love him so much but have tried to read his works.
See something new each day. A reformed baptist that does not like Spurgeon. That's fair, we all have our favorites and those we don't care for.
 
Everyone is so concerned with the cigar
Well can you blame them? It stands out and is a distraction. He lets it go out and takes 3 matches to re-light. Seemed unnatural.

Word of advise from a fellow pipe and cigar guy: You don’t light a pipe or cigar before you are about to give a 1-hour monologue on a serious topic. Why? Because you risk ruining a good speech and you WILL ruin a perfectly good cigar!:D
 
Last edited:
The theological content of the video is largely ignored.

Feel free to close the thread or keep talking about the cigar lol up to the mods.

Yours in the Lord,

j
 
The theological content of the video is largely ignored.

Feel free to close the thread or keep talking about the cigar lol up to the mods.

Yours in the Lord,

j

I am curious myself at the contents but don't have time to watch.

But maybe it's be good to nail something specific for consideration.

What and where in the video is there a prominent idea that sticks out to you that has you thinking?
 
That's a very shaky ground upon which to build an eschatology. Our eschatology is not determined by applications of Old Testament narratives, but to what the Bible, particularly key aspects of the NT, teaches about the end. The only way postmillennialism can dodge is by adopting some form of preterism, and that has its own problems.

In the thread posted by @Grant called:

Postmillennialism - Majority Converted?

I posted the following. I guess it was so boring it ended the discussion. I uploaded the paper called:

ARE THEY FEW
THAT BE SAVED?
BY
BENJAMIN B. WARFIELD, D. D., LL. D., LITT. D.
Professor in Princeton Theological Seminary​

As far as I know, no one downloaded it. See my introduction to Warfield's paper. You must have read it and discounted it.
The trouble with exegetical proof is that, except for three negative verses in the New Testament, the whole tenor of the Bible, Old, and New Testaments, are one orchestrated witness to Christ being the Savior of the World.

 
How can something never decreed by any council and not the subject of a consensus in any era of the church be called "the historic position of the Catholic church"? I'm tired of seeing Amills twist the history. Is Augustine historic and catholic? His sermon 259 expresses a historic postmillennialism. Are the Reformers historic and catholic? They were unanimous that the pope is the Antichrist and followed historicist interpretative schemes.
Charles,

Sincere question here, is the pope = antichrist (per Westminster) view exclusive to postmil? Is it inconsistent to hold and confess pope=antichrist and be amill?
 
the whole tenor of the Bible, Old, and New Testaments, are one orchestrated witness to Christ being the Savior of the World.

No one disputes that Christ is the savior of the world. Every progressive dispensationalist I know will affirm that he is currently reigning at God's right hand. It's the mode of his being savior of the world that is the issue under discussion.
 
No. There is no logical inconsistency, nor is their a logical entailment that Pope = Antichrist --> Postmil.
That was my thought. Regarding the Durban video ( i watched about 20 minutes), it just seemed like several passages were vaguely discussed that could be given a hardy AMEN by postmil and amil stances. As you’ve noted even a Dispensational view could agree with what I heard. I did not finish the video because I did not see anything getting more specific and I could not help but focus on “will the cigar go out again”????

P.S. In my opinion, Grudem does an excellent contemporary job laying out each position in his systematic.
 
Charles,

Sincere question here, is the pope = antichrist (per Westminster) view exclusive to postmil? Is it inconsistent to hold and confess pope=antichrist and be amill?
The pope being the seen as the Antichrist is indicative of historicist framework which is absent from the current amillennial milieu. It is not necessarily connected to postmillennialism. I said that to point out that many of the major points of today's amillennialism were unpopular in the past.
 
Last edited:
Charles,

Sincere question here, is the pope = antichrist (per Westminster) view exclusive to postmil? Is it inconsistent to hold and confess pope=antichrist and be amill?

Pope = antichrist is an historicist interpretation. You can be premil, postmil, or amil and affirm it. (See JC Ryle’s “Are You Ready for the End of Time” for a premil example.)

It IS incompatible with dispensationalism (or any type of futurism, I guess) and with any form of preterism, which is what I would assume Durbin & co affirm. That’s what almost all more recent Reformed postmils affirm, as opposed to historicism. Idealists like Kim Riddlebarger (and Wm Hendriksen?) also reject it. These are the “pessimistic” amils. Partial preterist postmils are really more like “optimistic” amils, especially when compared with postmils of the past like Warfield, some of whom have even been Zionists. (That position is rare today, to be sure. I’m thinking it may have always been a minority among the older postmils.)

Right or wrong, historicism is basically the traditional Protestant teaching. I think pope = antichrist may even be in some Lutheran confessions, and as I understand it amil is the only acceptable position for them. I seem to recall a little controversy a few years ago over a Lutheran political candidate who belonged to one of the more conservative Lutheran churches once it was discovered that the confession included that “unfortunate” and “outdated” language.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Historicism is tricky. In the early church you could find premillennialists who also held to a historicist understanding of Revelation. It just means that history is unfolding. In classic Protestantism, it means Western history is unfolding and the papacy is the Antichrist. It's not an exegetical argument.

On some historicist models, one can easily affirm the pope is the Antichrist and whatever millennial system you want. If one thinks Revelation is simply unfolding Western European history (which again is neither an exegetical or logical argument), which includes the papacy, then you probably can't affirm historicism and amillennialism.
 
Affirming that the Pope is the antichrist ought to be distinguished from adhering to historicism as a system of interpretation. It is possible to hold that the Pope is the man of sin from 2 Thessalonians 2 and other passages without slavishly tying ourselves to historicism. John Calvin, for example, never wrote a commentary on Revelation but was still able to affirm that the Pope was the antichrist.
 
Affirming that the Pope is the antichrist ought to be distinguished from adhering to historicism as a system of interpretation. It is possible to hold that the Pope is the man of sin from 2 Thessalonians 2 and other passages without slavishly tying ourselves to historicism. John Calvin, for example, never wrote a commentary on Revelation but was still able to affirm that the Pope was the antichrist.

Exactly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top