Solo Christo
Puritan Board Freshman
I'd love to hear some thoughts....
Future role of Reformed Tradition in Postmillenialism
- Thread starter Solo Christo
- Start date
- Status
Solo Christo
Puritan Board Freshman
You all do know, of course, that we are considered the dying breed of Christians--by both the world and the rest of the "Christian Community".
Remember Psalm 47.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Actually,
Postmillennialism is making an interesting comeback. Historically,the debates between postmils and amils focused on debating so-called eschatological passages. the exegetical strength of postmillennialism is beginning to become evident from all the rebuttals that are beginning to take place. And it's not just the rebuttals, but the nature of the rebuttals. It used to be that amils would try to refute postmils on the basis of classic, eschatological texts. Now, they've shifted their strategy and are focusing (oddly enough) on certain kinds of soteriological implications that are presumed to be damaging to the postmil scheme. This makes postmillennial studies quite exciting and should energize the church for successful gospel work.
I guess what Gentry is trying to say is that among many people if one wants to discredit a position, they just compare it to the FV or NPP, whether or not it has any connection what soever.
Postmillennialism is making an interesting comeback. Historically,the debates between postmils and amils focused on debating so-called eschatological passages. the exegetical strength of postmillennialism is beginning to become evident from all the rebuttals that are beginning to take place. And it's not just the rebuttals, but the nature of the rebuttals. It used to be that amils would try to refute postmils on the basis of classic, eschatological texts. Now, they've shifted their strategy and are focusing (oddly enough) on certain kinds of soteriological implications that are presumed to be damaging to the postmil scheme. This makes postmillennial studies quite exciting and should energize the church for successful gospel work.
I guess what Gentry is trying to say is that among many people if one wants to discredit a position, they just compare it to the FV or NPP, whether or not it has any connection what soever.
Solo Christo
Puritan Board Freshman
I agree that the postmil-amil debate has taken an interesting turn, at least in print. What I am pondering, however, is the providential security of the Reformed Tradition as the body of Christ grows. It is interesting that you mentioned the FV, which is part of the reason this all crossed my mind. If you are postmil (as I am), there are many promises to claim and much hope to breathe, but do any of these promises ensure that our errors in Christian life, theology, worship, etc, will be guarded in the future as they have been in the past? Simply put, could today's FV's be "the reformed" of tomorrow, perhaps 1000 years from now?
How the mix of reformed/non-reformed will look in the future is a tough guess, but Reformed will certainly be at the leading edge considering they're about the only postmills around at this point. 
in my opinion it's the only soteriology that is consistent with the position. If I weren't committed to the doctrines of grace, I don't see how I could maintain my postmillennialism after watching one day of news on an all day news channel...
Yours In Christ,
Ron
in my opinion it's the only soteriology that is consistent with the position. If I weren't committed to the doctrines of grace, I don't see how I could maintain my postmillennialism after watching one day of news on an all day news channel...Yours In Christ,
Ron
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
Postmillennialism shall prevail! 
Solo Christo
Puritan Board Freshman
Hypothetically, what if postmil came to fruition without it being predominantly preached or even understood? What if the Lord used, say, Methodism and all of its theological fallacies to make his enemies a footstool?
These may seem strange questions to some, but there this is what some non-reformed postmils and even some amils believe.
These may seem strange questions to some, but there this is what some non-reformed postmils and even some amils believe.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by Robin
Watching the daily news and reading all of Paul's references on Christian suffering and dying....rather affirms convictions of the Amill position, for me.
r.
We always teased you amills for interpreting the bible according to the daily news, but we didn't know yall would actually admit it!
What do you make of the passages that prophecy victory in the latter days that preclude any possibility of being in the eternal state?
Solo Christo
Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry, I should have clarified. I was speaking as we Reformed folks being the dying breed in the eyes of others.Originally posted by Robin
I thought the Amillennialists were?
Robin
Originally posted by Paul manata
hmmmm, the New York Times -vs- God's word... let me think, tough one there!Originally posted by Robin
Watching the daily news and reading all of Paul's references on Christian suffering and dying....rather affirms convictions of the Amill position, for me.
r.
Josephus is the quintessential antiquated news source; American Vision is devoted to the culture watch. (clearing throat)
All in good fun, is this the pot calling the kettle black?
r.
[Edited on 8-2-2005 by Robin]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Take the "golden" verses (Psalm 72, Isaiah 2, 7, 9, 60ff; there are other verses as well) and look at them.Originally posted by Robin
Hey J,
it's probably another post, but why not name one or two of these? I've got my GK Beale book in hand....
R.
Psalm 72: Many see the king here (Solomon) to be a type of Christ It says he will rule from Sea to Sea, from the rive to the ends of the earth. Fair enough, the amiller says, and will usually say this is in the heavenly reign after history has been consummated. And here is my thesis for this psalm and for the other passages listed: There are actions, conditions, states, and entities that exist in this psalm that cannot by definition exist in the final state. This would include in Psalm 72 "the poor" and "oppression" (v.4), the "sun and the moon" which we know will not be in the new Jerusalem, his "enemies" etc.
People quickly point out that we can expect no "christianization" of the nations in the New Covenant. I will leave that to the side for the moment. I think it is poorly phrasing the opposition's argument. Let's look at how we can expect the nature of Christ's kingdom to be in Isaiah 9,
in vvs 1-6 we see the coming of the Christ and what do we notice of his ministry? We see Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
Now some could say that this is only spiritual and not earthly. Well, why not both? Why must they be mutually exclusive? What would a reader of this text see when he sees it?
I could do the same with the rest of Isaiah. Quite frequently when you read "the glorious" passages that were long thought to be descriptive of "heaven," we see states of existence there that in no way can be limited to "heaven." In other passsages we see the poor oppressed, infants dying, heavenly bodies still in orbit, none of which can exist in "heaven."
Again, I am just going off the top of my head, but a few more:
In Amos 9 we see that evangelism will be so successful in the latter day glory, that it will be difficult to find someone to evangelise:
Behold, the days are coming," declares the Lord,
"œwhen the plowman shall overtake the reaper
and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed;
the mountains shall drip sweet wine,
and all the hills shall flow with it.
14 I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,
and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,
and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant them on their land,
and they shall never again be uprooted
out of the land that I have given them,"
says the Lord your God.
But Evangelism cannot by definition exist in the eternal state.
Those are my thoughts for now.
[Edited on 8--2-05 by Draught Horse]
just_grace
Puritan Board Freshman
A lot of Old Testament stuff..
A question, do you think God revealed more through the prophets of old than He has now done through His Son.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Take the "golden" verses (Psalm 72, Isaiah 2, 7, 9, 60ff; there are other verses as well) and look at them.Originally posted by Robin
Hey J,
it's probably another post, but why not name one or two of these? I've got my GK Beale book in hand....
R.
Psalm 72: Many see the king here (Solomon) to be a type of Christ It says he will rule from Sea to Sea, from the rive to the ends of the earth. Fair enough, the amiller says, and will usually say this is in the heavenly reign after history has been consummated. And here is my thesis for this psalm and for the other passages listed: There are actions, conditions, states, and entities that exist in this psalm that cannot by definition exist in the final state. This would include in Psalm 72 "the poor" and "oppression" (v.4), the "sun and the moon" which we know will not be in the new Jerusalem, his "enemies" etc.
People quickly point out that we can expect no "christianization" of the nations in the New Covenant. I will leave that to the side for the moment. I think it is poorly phrasing the opposition's argument. Let's look at how we can expect the nature of Christ's kingdom to be in Isaiah 9,
in vvs 1-6 we see the coming of the Christ and what do we notice of his ministry? We see Of the increase of his government and of peace
there will be no end,
on the throne of David and over his kingdom,
to establish it and to uphold it
with justice and with righteousness
from this time forth and forevermore.
The zeal of the Lord of hosts will do this.
Now some could say that this is only spiritual and not earthly. Well, why not both? Why must they be mutually exclusive? What would a reader of this text see when he sees it?
I could do the same with the rest of Isaiah. Quite frequently when you read "the glorious" passages that were long thought to be descriptive of "heaven," we see states of existence there that in no way can be limited to "heaven." In other passsages we see the poor oppressed, infants dying, heavenly bodies still in orbit, none of which can exist in "heaven."
Again, I am just going off the top of my head, but a few more:
In Amos 9 we see that evangelism will be so successful in the latter day glory, that it will be difficult to find someone to evangelise:
Behold, the days are coming," declares the Lord,
"œwhen the plowman shall overtake the reaper
and the treader of grapes him who sows the seed;
the mountains shall drip sweet wine,
and all the hills shall flow with it.
14 I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel,
and they shall rebuild the ruined cities and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and drink their wine,
and they shall make gardens and eat their fruit.
15 I will plant them on their land,
and they shall never again be uprooted
out of the land that I have given them,"
says the Lord your God.
But Evangelism cannot by definition exist in the eternal state.
Those are my thoughts for now.
[Edited on 8--2-05 by Draught Horse]
A question, do you think God revealed more through the prophets of old than He has now done through His Son.
I presume your unspoken presupposition here is that what he said is in contradiction to what Jesus taught? It isn't. He taught the postmillennial hope quite clearly in Matt 13 as one example. Jesus inagurated the New Covenant period and there are serious prophecies about what will happen in that period. This is a question of what he has been doing, is doing now, and will do in the future through His Son. Not just what happened in the past.
Yours In Christ,
Ron
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Paul: I know they will spiritualize the passages, but this brings us back to an overarching presupposition: Does the redemptive work of Christ apply only to the spiritual and not to the historical? Phrase it differently, does King Jesus noticeably win within time and history?
Ditto to everything Rgrove said.
Robin: Why bring Gary Demar into this? We are discussing postmillennialism and you are throwing out red herrings. Anyway, Demar is usually dead-on in his stuff.
Ditto to everything Rgrove said.
Robin: Why bring Gary Demar into this? We are discussing postmillennialism and you are throwing out red herrings. Anyway, Demar is usually dead-on in his stuff.
VirginiaHuguenot
Puritanboard Librarian
How much, Chris?
J -
Only had time for this here....I AGREEEEEEE! The nature of prophetic speech includes both earthly and heavenly (the already and not yet categories) language. This entails prophecy's multi-fulfillment applications - a precedent well established in the OT. (See Dan. 7, 9 for example --- but it's everywhere!)
The prophet sees a distant "mountain range" horizon...yet in the actual travel (time) to reach it, there are many turns and valleys encountered not discernable from the former starting point - and sometimes mistaken for the final destination.
OT prophecy can have 2 or 3 applications. (This why Jesus quotes only a portion of Isaiah's prophecy in Luke 4.)
r.
Paul,
I don't know if that is meant as an ad hominum??
May I point out that the Apostle John spiritualized his Text in Revelation (Rev. 1:10)? But wait! Let's stop using useless strawman labels, OK?
Amillennialists see the New Testament data as the determinative category by which Old Testament and future eschatology is to be interpreted. This means the Book of Revelation is the God-given interpretation of Daniel. Also, important, is the distinction between literal and literalistic interpretations -- the latter downplays or ignores how Old Testament passages are interpreted by the NT passages.
Was James "spiritualizing" Amos 9 in Acts 15:13--21? Here James interprets Amos as referring to the church (at that present moment.) He saw the prophecy as fulfilled in Christ's resurrection, exaltation and in the reconstitution of his disciples as the new Israel - the presence of both Jew and Gentile in the church was proof! Could it be that James was reading the Old Testament through a Christ-centered lens typical of the greater light of the messianic age?
(Pssst, Jacob, there's your answer! It is BOTH/AND.)
r.
I don't believe you would find anyone maintaining either position that would believe they are interpreting the NT in light of the OT. Only dispensationalists proudly proclaim something like this as far as I can tell... As a postmill, I certainly don't believe that to be the case for me. I believe the NT teaches postmillennialism on it's own, and that this is confirmed time and again by passages of the OT regarding what will happen during the last days. If anything, I would say that I believe the postmill position to be more consistent with the OT testimony than amillennialism, but I'm sure they'll line up to disagree with that.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
Originally posted by Robin
Paul,
I don't know if that is meant as an ad hominum??
May I point out that the Apostle John spiritualized his Text in Revelation (Rev. 1:10)? But wait! Let's stop using useless strawman labels, OK?
Amillennialists see the New Testament data as the determinative category by which Old Testament and future eschatology is to be interpreted. This means the Book of Revelation is the God-given interpretation of Daniel. Also, important, is the distinction between literal and literalistic interpretations -- the latter downplays or ignores how Old Testament passages are interpreted by the NT passages.
Was James "spiritualizing" Amos 9 in Acts 15:13--21? Here James interprets Amos as referring to the church (at that present moment.) He saw the prophecy as fulfilled in Christ's resurrection, exaltation and in the reconstitution of his disciples as the new Israel - the presence of both Jew and Gentile in the church was proof! Could it be that James was reading the Old Testament through a Christ-centered lens typical of the greater light of the messianic age?
(Pssst, Jacob, there's your answer! It is BOTH/AND.)
r.
That was a good argument against premillennialism. I don't see it touching the postmill case, being that I exist most of that foundation as well.
[Edited on 8--3-05 by Draught Horse]
- Status
Similar threads
