RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Correct, Gentry's exegesis is much closer to the traditional amill two-age theory, whereas somebody like Peter Gray (I think that is his last name) on the board would take the more older view.
Future role of Reformed Tradition in Postmillenialism
- Thread starter Solo Christo
- Start date
- Status
Correct, Gentry's exegesis is much closer to the traditional amill two-age theory, whereas somebody like Peter Gray (I think that is his last name) on the board would take the more older view.
Originally posted by rgrove
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.
Actually, it's not either noticed or admitted...but it does occur (perhaps unintentionally) due to the overemphasis on OUR situation - rather than considering the OT's connection to the NT as real people and history. Hence, the literializing.
So do the OT prophecies have dual fulfillment coherent with Chrtist's 1st and 2nd Advent? Or does the OT primarily focus on us, the Final Day and 70 AD?
I've yet to hear anyone on PB espouse Christ's incarnation; ministry; death/resurrection/ascension/church inauguration as being as important as 70AD or contemporary concerns - with regards to eschatology. Well, how about it? Are they?
One example could be the Holy of Holies curtain being torn in the Temple during His crucifixion. Well, is that as important as 70 AD? What? Inquiring minds want to know...
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by rgrove
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.
Actually, it's not either noticed or admitted...but it does occur (perhaps unintentionally) due to the overemphasis on OUR situation - rather than considering the OT's connection to the NT as real people and history. Hence, the literializing.
So do the OT prophecies have dual fulfillment coherent with Chrtist's 1st and 2nd Advent? Or does the OT primarily focus on us, the Final Day and 70 AD?
I've yet to hear anyone on PB espouse Christ's incarnation; ministry; death/resurrection/ascension/church inauguration as being as important as 70AD or contemporary concerns - with regards to eschatology. Well, how about it? Are they?
One example could be the Holy of Holies curtain being torn in the Temple during His crucifixion. Well, is that as important as 70 AD? What? Inquiring minds want to know...
You are confusing partial preterism with hyper-preterism. No, 70 AD isn't as important as incarnation et al. But it is fallacious to conclude that since it isn't as important, then it isn't important at all. It is very important since 70 AD was the destruction of the Jewish typologica order.
Concerning OT prophecies that might be fulfilled in 70 AD, you would have to give me specific examples with the understanding that not all preterists agree on this or that minor detail.
Andrew....I appreciate your insight....
You're right: Scripture interpretting Scripture is the proper thing A N D the New Testament interprets the Old Testament. Get it? That IS Scripture interpretting Scripture properly. The New is the conclusion of the Old....the Old points to the New....the New looks back to the Old, having the Reality/Christ to illumine what was formerly hinted at: Christ in type & shadow.
r.
Not sure I follow. Where does a postmill do this and not notice? Postmills aren't focused on our situation, we're focused on what God has prophesied would happen in the last days. I just don't understand the last part at all. Dispensationalists tell me I'm spiritualizing, amills tell me I'm literalizing... I say I'm interpreting scripture with scripture in it's context.
I'm afraid I don't follow you here again.
Interesting. I'm yet to see anyone on PB espouse AD 70 as being more important than "Christ's incarnation; ministry; death/resurrection/ascension/church inauguration"
Can't say I see where the source of the question comes from. It doesn't make sense to me at all why someone would believe that this board (the post seems to include all of us, not just postmills) would say AD 70 is more important than anything related to the crucifiction.One example could be the Holy of Holies curtain being torn in the Temple during His crucifixion. Well, is that as important as 70 AD? What? Inquiring minds want to know...
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by rgrove
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.
Actually, it's not either noticed or admitted...but it does occur (perhaps unintentionally) due to the overemphasis on OUR situation - rather than considering the OT's connection to the NT as real people and history. Hence, the literializing.
So do the OT prophecies have dual fulfillment coherent with Chrtist's 1st and 2nd Advent? Or does the OT primarily focus on us, the Final Day and 70 AD?
I've yet to hear anyone on PB espouse Christ's incarnation; ministry; death/resurrection/ascension/church inauguration as being as important as 70AD or contemporary concerns - with regards to eschatology. Well, how about it? Are they?
One example could be the Holy of Holies curtain being torn in the Temple during His crucifixion. Well, is that as important as 70 AD? What? Inquiring minds want to know...
You are confusing partial preterism with hyper-preterism. No, 70 AD isn't as important as incarnation et al. But it is fallacious to conclude that since it isn't as important, then it isn't important at all. It is very important since 70 AD was the destruction of the Jewish typologica order.
Concerning OT prophecies that might be fulfilled in 70 AD, you would have to give me specific examples with the understanding that not all preterists agree on this or that minor detail.
Jacob...forget preterism! Don't go there, OK?Does OT prophecy bear double/multi-fulfillments: Christ's 1st and 2nd advents?
r.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by rgrove
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.
Actually, it's not either noticed or admitted...but it does occur (perhaps unintentionally) due to the overemphasis on OUR situation - rather than considering the OT's connection to the NT as real people and history. Hence, the literializing.
So do the OT prophecies have dual fulfillment coherent with Chrtist's 1st and 2nd Advent? Or does the OT primarily focus on us, the Final Day and 70 AD?
I've yet to hear anyone on PB espouse Christ's incarnation; ministry; death/resurrection/ascension/church inauguration as being as important as 70AD or contemporary concerns - with regards to eschatology. Well, how about it? Are they?
One example could be the Holy of Holies curtain being torn in the Temple during His crucifixion. Well, is that as important as 70 AD? What? Inquiring minds want to know...
You are confusing partial preterism with hyper-preterism. No, 70 AD isn't as important as incarnation et al. But it is fallacious to conclude that since it isn't as important, then it isn't important at all. It is very important since 70 AD was the destruction of the Jewish typologica order.
Concerning OT prophecies that might be fulfilled in 70 AD, you would have to give me specific examples with the understanding that not all preterists agree on this or that minor detail.
Does OT prophecy bear double/multi-fulfillments: Christ's 1st and 2nd advents?
r.
You began knocking preterism and I said, "Hold on now, you are confusing categories." As to the multi-fullfilment thing, I would have to know what prophecies you are talking about.
Perhaps a clearer answer could be had from another question...
So what has God prophesied in the last days? What is the focus on? What? Last days, as in our contemporary situation? Or, Last Days, as commencing in Acts 1? Or the single-day Zech. 3:10?
To clarify my former assertion, (which is not a very big deal since there is a close connection to amill) do the works of Christ have OT prophetic connections and do those prophecies have multi-fulfillment language in them? How this is answered is the crux of the argument and differences between all the eschat positions.
still having fun.....
r.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Originally posted by Robin
Perhaps a clearer answer could be had from another question...
So what has God prophesied in the last days? What is the focus on? What? Last days, as in our contemporary situation? Or, Last Days, as commencing in Acts 1? Or the single-day Zech. 3:10?
To clarify my former assertion, (which is not a very big deal since there is a close connection to amill) do the works of Christ have OT prophetic connections and do those prophecies have multi-fulfillment language in them? How this is answered is the crux of the argument and differences between all the eschat positions.
still having fun.....
r.
Rather than giving a single yes/no answer as to whether the OT have multiple fulfillments (although Walt Kaiser rejects that in Toward an Exegetical Theology, but he is pushing an agenda), I will say that the NT itself does not always apply "last days" in the same sense. Sometimes it will associate last days with the consummation of history, other times it will associate it with the coming of Christ/Resurrection of Christ/and what I would suggest as the destruction of the Temple.
To go farther in this with examples would probably require another thread.
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by Draught Horse
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by rgrove
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.
Actually, it's not either noticed or admitted...but it does occur (perhaps unintentionally) due to the overemphasis on OUR situation - rather than considering the OT's connection to the NT as real people and history. Hence, the literializing.
So do the OT prophecies have dual fulfillment coherent with Chrtist's 1st and 2nd Advent? Or does the OT primarily focus on us, the Final Day and 70 AD?
I've yet to hear anyone on PB espouse Christ's incarnation; ministry; death/resurrection/ascension/church inauguration as being as important as 70AD or contemporary concerns - with regards to eschatology. Well, how about it? Are they?
One example could be the Holy of Holies curtain being torn in the Temple during His crucifixion. Well, is that as important as 70 AD? What? Inquiring minds want to know...
You are confusing partial preterism with hyper-preterism. No, 70 AD isn't as important as incarnation et al. But it is fallacious to conclude that since it isn't as important, then it isn't important at all. It is very important since 70 AD was the destruction of the Jewish typologica order.
Concerning OT prophecies that might be fulfilled in 70 AD, you would have to give me specific examples with the understanding that not all preterists agree on this or that minor detail.
Does OT prophecy bear double/multi-fulfillments: Christ's 1st and 2nd advents?
r.
You began knocking preterism and I said, "Hold on now, you are confusing categories." As to the multi-fullfilment thing, I would have to know what prophecies you are talking about.
J - pick one! Why not Amos 9? Do you agree with James? Or IS he wrongfully "spiritualizing" the Text? What is the sum total of meaning in Amos 9?
One of my personal favorites is Stephen's speech in Acts 7. Note his content. Is Stephen successful in convincing the Jews of OT prophecy/double fulfillment? (He references Gen. 12:7; 17:8; Isaiah 66:1-2; 2 Sam. 7:12--13, 26 -- proving Christ is the true Temple.)
r.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Those NT interpretations of OT promises don't bother me. They neither help nor hurt my case. What I won't to see is where the NT interpretations of OT victory passages now exclude gospel prosperity within time and history. You have just delivered several devastating critiques of premillennialism (praise be to Thee, O Christ!) and is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't go far enough. Here is what I am getting at:
I would say that the "last age" is used in different ways and cannot be absolutized.
Many in the RH camp think of it only as "this present evil age" (or something like it) and implicitly preclude the possibility of gospel prosperity.
But that runs into some problems. Elsewhere I can find examples of the "latter days"filled with gospel prosperity that would seem to be in tension with the above scenario. So what gives?
Matthew 24:3 tells us that Christ's coming will signify the end of the age. Yes, I see this referring to the destruction of Jerusalem (and with it, the old typological order). The destruction of the Temple (and the priesthood) inagurated a new era where the blood of Christ cleanses our consciences from dead works to serve the living God (Heb. 9:14). Therefore, the end of the age refers to the end of the Jewish age.
Hebrews 9:26 tells us "But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself." Christ died at the consummation of the ages, not at the beginning. The period between AD 30 and AD 70 is, as the apostle Peter tells us, "these last times" (1 Peter 1:20)
Notice the disciples did not ask when the dissolution of the physical heavens and earth would be, but the end of the age? When did the end occur? The only approximate framework is the time period between AD 30 and AD 70. The destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 signaled the end of the old order and the beginning of the Age to Come.
Jacob-
How do you define "gospel prosperity"? What exactly does this mean? I have yet to read anything by an amillenialist that denies the success of the gospel. So maybe we need to define what "success" means in this context per amill. and postmill. And by gospel do you man justification by faith alone, or do you mean "the good news of the kingdom"?
(just fleshing things out as I observe your discussion......back to the sidelines...)
How do you define "gospel prosperity"? What exactly does this mean? I have yet to read anything by an amillenialist that denies the success of the gospel. So maybe we need to define what "success" means in this context per amill. and postmill. And by gospel do you man justification by faith alone, or do you mean "the good news of the kingdom"?
(just fleshing things out as I observe your discussion......back to the sidelines...)
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Gospel prosperity? The preaching and teaching of the gospel (and the baptizing of babies) will have a noticable effect on history and institutions that will progress toward a glorious point. In Micah 2:14 we read "For the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters cover the sea." Does the gospel only go out to representative groups of people here and there, or does it overwhelm the earth? How does the water cover the sea? It overwhelms it!
This leads to a corollary: Those who believe in the gospel have their lives (real belief, anyway) changed by it.It will influence and control their worldview.
This does not preclude the possibility of suffering. Of course we suffer, but our suffering is unto victory. If we do not suffer with the mentality that we are suffering unto victory, then we are spiritual masochists, if I may speak frankly. No one should pursue martyrdom for martyrdom's sake. Christ will vindicate our martyrdom adn we are to rejoice in the destruction of the pagan, tyrannical state that oppresses the Church. When the Patriots fought the Tyrants in teh first War for American Independence, was their suffering on the colonials side? Of course, but does that take away from the noticable effect of their victory? Of course not.
[Edited on 8--3-05 by Draught Horse]
Hey J,
I want to address your various references to Matthew and Micah...but should we begin another thread?
I think there should be some detailed clarifications for these....I could be off here...but it sounds like your conclusions are quite different than the contexts demand. ???
Just wanting to learn a few things, here...
r.
[Edited on 8-4-2005 by Robin]
I want to address your various references to Matthew and Micah...but should we begin another thread?
I think there should be some detailed clarifications for these....I could be off here...but it sounds like your conclusions are quite different than the contexts demand. ???
Just wanting to learn a few things, here...
r.
[Edited on 8-4-2005 by Robin]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
Sure, but give me a few days, my brain is quite scattered at the moment. I will also be away from a definite computer until Friday night.
Thanks
Didn't want to let this go by....
No - Allan, this is not THE difference -- or should not be!
For the record...I'm sure good theology insists that the New Testament writings should always "interpret" the Old Testament. Scripture interprets scripture. Whether or not folks remember to do this and/or do this consistently is another matter and explains all the various reasons for different interpretations; faulty teachings, Etc.
Differences in the Amill and Postmill positions have to do with opinions about the essential character of the millennial age, the precise nature of the victory of the kingdom of God and the way in which "this present evil age" comes to an end. Moderate forms of Postmill can vary slightly and non-substantially to the Amill. However, these differences should be carefully nuanced in debate. (It is useless to fling ad hominum/straw-man remarks -- putting fun aside for a moment.)
From the Amill position, I'd say Postmill has problems confusing the "already and not yet" language (eternal blessings of the consummation). This relates to answering the question: "is there an OT precedent for multi/double-fulfillment in prophecy?" To which, the Amill affirm a definite "yes". This conclusion does not come from "spiritualizing" - it comes from understanding the design/nature of apocalyptic literature; grammar in general and history. Another useful question (vital, really) "what is the eschatology of the New Testament?" What is Paul's eschcat position? Jesus? Here we must track the "two age" language of their testimony. If you wish to discover the eschatology of Paul (Jesus) read through all of the NT, finding all the phrases where they speak of "age, kingdom, day, world, life, Spirit" in regards to the kingdom and the end of all things. These words are most always connected to eschatalogical language/issues.
In these phrases, notice the qualities of life. Example: Matthew 12:32 no forgiveness for blasphemy of the Holy Spirit; Matthew 24:3 the end of the age will be preceded by signs; Luke 20:34 people of this age marry and are given in marriage; Romans 12:2 we are not to be conformed to the pattern of this world.
Try to separate-out the qualities of this life and the life to come in categories - or rather find the difference between the earthly life and the heavenly life. EL = temporal HL = eternal; EL = evil & death; HL = righteousness & eternal life Etc.
R.
Thanks Robin. I apologize, I should have stated my question in terms of if there is a tendency or temptation for the respective views to do this; did not mean to imply that postmill. adopts a different hermeneutic at the outset of interpretation. In this sense, your above quote answers my intended meaning.
- Status
Similar threads
