OK, convince me of Postmillenialism

Status
Not open for further replies.
Premils and amils have no triumph for the Gospel on a worldwide scale but only on an individual scale.

So individual salvation does not bring glory to God?

This statement is an attempt to present an erroneous misrepresentation of both the PreMil view as well as the Amill view.

Premils assume a gospel triumph for individual Gentiles, but ultimately and also for the nation of Israel as a whole, which supposed national salvation is an incorrect view.

Amills teach the triumph of elect individuals, resurrected from death to life, by the workings of grace and power in and through the Savior, Jesus Christ, alone.

In other words,'s, you are incorrect in thinking that God ever intended or decreed or provided a salvation that would be "worldwide" or "national" or "universal" in any way, shape, or form.

There is NO biblical precedent for teaching that God has ever chosen to save an entire nation; an entire religious organisation, or even an entire family.

NONE.

God has always chosen to save a remnant of souls; gathered out of all nations, churches, and families. This cannot be denied or rebutted or argued, by employing the Word of God, at all.

At an individual eschatalogical level we do not find that evil and good are meant to grow alongside each other in the saint's heart,

Of course not. This is a strawman fallacy, proposed to denigrate the Amillennial view.

Amills distinguish between the regenerated hearts of the elect sons of God, and the unregenerate wickedness of the world at large. It is the Amill view that best provides teachings (and Creeds) that establish an anti-thesis between the Church of Jesus Christ and the world systems.



but that there is meant to be progressive but imperfect victory over evil until the individual is more and more sanctified. Sanctification is uneven and there can be set backs, but the overall trend is upwards and onwards.

Victory over sin is not found in any kind of "progressive sanctification," but only through genuine faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

This I believe is also the pattern in the collective realms of Church history and the progress of the Kingdom and Millennium until all the world is leavened by the Gospel.

Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel."

That is not the purpose of the gospel message.

The gospel is not political or worldly, meant to save or even improve all of mankind. The gospel is strictly the calling of God, of His Elect, to come out of the world.

The "leavening" thereby achieved, is worked within individual hearts . . . not society at large . . . even though society is preserved like a meat that will go sour, if not exposed and sprinkled by the spiritual presence and "salt" of God's particular people. (Matthew 5:13)

Of course each soul is saved individually, but surely if more souls are saved and put into practice God's Word there will be greater salt and light in the world thus helping to transform society. Surely the more people that are saved, the more the beneficial effects on the world at large, as well as the fact that it will be beneficial for the saved individuals concerned in the life to come. Unless you believe that it is not beneficial or even detrimental for this world if large(r) numbers of individuals get saved?

Quote from Reformed Rush
Victory over sin is not found in any kind of "progressive sanctification," but only through genuine faith in the righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I don't know what you mean by this. We are justified by faith alone in Christ's righteousness and death. But are we not also to make (imperfect) progress in sanctification from the moment of regeneration until perfection/glorification in Heaven?

Quote from Reformed Rush
Sir, the world will never be "leavened by the gospel.

The created world is good; the world that lieth in the wicked one (i.e. unbelievers) needs to be converted. The more unbelievers that are converted and put into practice God's Word, the more the leaven of the Gospel has its beneficial effect, the more Christ's kngdom comes de facto, although the whole earth is already Christ's de iure; and the less of the world will be under the control of those who lie in the wicked one.

God in Christ is able to do it by the Holy Spirit. The only Q is, Are there any indications in Scripture that He has promised to do it?
 
Do you believe in a defeated foe? I'm not sure what you are saying. Sorry, I have read the whole post a few times but this last part does not fit in to me.

In reference to the Church being a defeated foe.....forced into our system by Postmil assumptions.

PLEASE clear this up. Do you think, are you saying, the Church is defeated? What system is being forced? Give me a few sentences here please, because I can't believe that anyone can read scripture and think that the Bride of Christ has been Blessed and the greatest force for good in the world. The Bride/Church is never portrayed as failing. If so please give me some verses.
 
I think his general defense is that God will save everyone He wants to save and therefore the Gospel will indeed conquer the enemy perfectly. In other words, he doesn't believe saving more people entails greater Gospel success.
 
In reference to the Church being a defeated foe.....forced into our system by Postmil assumptions.

PLEASE clear this up. Do you think, are you saying, the Church is defeated? What system is being forced? Give me a few sentences here please, because I can't believe that anyone can read scripture and think that the Bride of Christ has been Blessed and the greatest force for good in the world. The Bride/Church is never portrayed as failing. If so please give me some verses.

Exactly...AMEN

My point is that the Church is and always be victorious in the Amil view despite the assumptions forced into our position by the postmil.

Some thoughts from one of my older posts.....

I think we must define what in da world does "gospel success" means. I hear that thrown around alot as if any reformed would actually believe that the gospel will not do its job as intended by our God, it just seems so weird to me.

But the problem as far as I see it is that the postmil would say that gospel succession can only mean a christianization of all nations ushering in the golden age but the amil will say that gospel succession means that it will save God's elect who are in all nations but not that it will christianize entire nations or most of the nation so then the postmil will accuse the amil of pessimism because they don't have a million kabillion trillion or watever people getting saved hence God loses cause there are more people in hell than heaven, thats silly to be quite frank. If being optimistic means to believe that the gospel will do its job, then for heavens sake we are all optimistic, don't you think.

Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. TRUE. But this will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means "completion;perfect" 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7).

And again....Understanding Gospel succession does not necessitate a postmil definition

And please refer to post #31 on this thread for more of my arguments..

http://www.puritanboard.com/634123-post31.html
 
Last edited:
The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.

"6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison."

It is clear as crystal that the intermediate state is the point of reference of the thousand year reign with Christ. A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible.

Greetings Brother!

Interesting take, but I fail to see why "A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible" since the very next passage you quote says that the thousand years will be expired.

I would suggest that either the thosand years does not represent the intermediate state, or, the intermediate state does expire prior to Judgment Day.

Blessings,

Rob
 
2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
How does this fit into a post-mil paradigm? How will these things happen in the 1000 year reign?
 
The fact that there will be suffering and loss does not imply that Christ will not be victorious on Earth. There were many casualties in World War II, but the Allies won out.
 
What is the "victory" men seek?

Political, religious, or spiritual?

Victory is described in Scripture, as:

"'. . .Death is swallowed up in victory.' 'O, death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is your victory?'

The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law, but thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." I Corinthians 15:54-55

It is our opinion that those in the Pre-Mil and Post-Mil camps are primarily looking for a societal and religious, political victory, rather than the ultimate spiritual victory over sin and death, already achieved by the Lord Jesus Christ and presently enjoyed by the citizens of His kingdom. (Philippians 3:20)
 
Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.
 
Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.

Is "saving society" then your definition of a total victory?

Is the choice to attempt to save society, even really our choice? . . .Who exactly is sovereign over the nations, after all?

And for what purpose did Jesus Christ usher in His kingdom?
 
Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.

Is "saving society" then your definition of a total victory?

Is the choice to attempt to save society, even really our choice? . . .Who exactly is sovereign over the nations, after all?

And for what purpose did Jesus Christ usher in His kingdom?

No, but it would be part of it. I would want to leave nothing to the kingdom of darkness.

Is the choice to attempt to save souls even really our choice? Who is sovereign over souls? :)

Jesus Christ ushered in His kingdom to save His elect and have every one of His enemies be a footstool.
 
Total victory. Why do we have to choose between saving souls and saving society? We don't want to relinquish a single square inch to Satan.

Is "saving society" then your definition of a total victory?

Is the choice to attempt to save society, even really our choice? . . .Who exactly is sovereign over the nations, after all?

And for what purpose did Jesus Christ usher in His kingdom?

No, but it would be part of it. I would want to leave nothing to the kingdom of darkness.

With all due respect, it is at points like this that one sees how eschatology reflects one's soteriology.

Who has destroyed the powers of the devil, and who will eliminate all wickedness, sorrow, and darkness?

The earthly churches? The believers?

How? By what power?



Jesus Christ ushered in His kingdom to save His elect and have every one of His enemies be a footstool.

Amen.

The victory is HIS, and His alone.

Solus Christus!
 
With all due respect, it is at points like this that one sees how eschatology reflects one's soteriology.

Who has destroyed the powers of the devil, and who will eliminate all wickedness, sorrow, and darkness?

The earthly churches? The believers?

How? By what power?

I am not arguing for a humanistic utopia, but for a Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit. I wasn't implying that I was the one doing the Christianizing.
 
With all due respect, it is at points like this that one sees how eschatology reflects one's soteriology.

Who has destroyed the powers of the devil, and who will eliminate all wickedness, sorrow, and darkness?

The earthly churches? The believers?

How? By what power?

I am not arguing for a humanistic utopia, but for a Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit. I wasn't implying that I was the one doing the Christianizing.


"A Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit."

Where is such a thing taught in Scriptures? Where is the kingdom of heaven ever described as such?

Is not the commission of the Holy Spirit to convince and convict the sons of God to turn away from the things of this world? (John 8:8-11; I John 2:15-17)
 
"A Christianized world by the power of the Holy Spirit."

Where is such a thing taught in Scriptures? Where is the kingdom of heaven ever described as such?

Is not the commission of the Holy Spirit to convince and convict the sons of God to turn away from the things of this world? (John 8:8-11; I John 2:15-17)

:)

You brought up a critique of postmil essentially saying that postmillers are choosing politics over saving souls, and I argued that it's a false dichotomy. I answered the point you initially brought up.

At this point, therefore, to argue for postmil exhaustively would be a red herring, so I'll defer to someone else who is willing.
 
The passages cited above from Revelation 20:3-10 are clear as crystal on this point.

"6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison."

It is clear as crystal that the intermediate state is the point of reference of the thousand year reign with Christ. A literal expiration of the thousand years or intermediate state prior to the second coming of Christ is not possible.

Paul spoke of reigning as kings and judging in 1 Corinthians. In the first six chapters he is addressing the ones who have become puffed up against each other, judging him against Apollos, Cephas, and Chirst. Paul says it is a "very small thing that I should be judged of you" (and doesn't even judge himself) but takes defense in that it is the Lord who judges him. He cautions his readers, "Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come..".

Paul continues his caution to them with some satire saying, "Now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us.." (which of course is not the present truth, though he wishes they did reign) "I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign with you." His readers are supposed to know what manner of judging they should participate in now, in view of the judging they will do once Christ comes. "Do you not know that the saints shall judge the world?"... and "that we shall judge angels?"

The anticipated reigning and judging of which Paul speaks does not seem to occur in the intermediate state. Is this a distinct explanation of reigning and judging apart from the intermediate state?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
 
I was under the impression that we "ruled over angels" etc. when we received our resurrection bodies.
 
Greetings:

The silver bullet that kills the "Golden Age" theory is found in the very verses that teach the Millennium:

(20:3)And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season .. (v.7) And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea. And they went up on the breadth of the eath, and compassed the camp of the saints about, and the beloved city: and fire came down from God out of heaven, and devoured them.

If, "after the thousand years" (the Millennium) Satan will be released from his prison to persecute the saints on earth, then it does not speak much for a "Golden Age prior to Christ's return" does it?

Blessings,

Rob

The 1000 years reign is the golden age, and it is prior to Christ' return. The rebel after it is just but a little season.
 
Postmillennialism repeatedly emphasizes that the struggle between Christ and satan is a historical struggle that ends in historical victory. TRUE. But this will end in TOTAL and PERFECT victory at the END of history (greek: to telos which means "completion;perfect" 1 Cor. 15:24; 1 Peter 4:7).

And again....Understanding Gospel succession does not necessitate a postmil definition

And please refer to post #31 on this thread for more of my arguments..

http://www.puritanboard.com/634123-post31.html

Postmillennialism does not accept a struggle between Christ and Satan. Neither do the Amil's that I know; if Christ wished He could kill Satan with a word this very second. We Postmil's only see the Words and parables of Christ teaching the victory of the gospel.

CONFESSOR, if you want to be convinced of the Bible teaching of the Postmil view simply read your Bible in a new way. Do you remember or have you ever heard someone talk about the first time the read the Bible after they had been taught about Calvinism and Grace? Then they re-read the Bible and see God's Election in every chapter. It is the same for the Victory of Christ we believe in; we see it in the Bible everywhere, Old and New testaments, nothing can stop Christ Kingdom.
 
I was under the impression that we "ruled over angels" etc. when we received our resurrection bodies.

So? . . .

When is that?

What is your theological point?

How does this statement fit the subject of this thread?

I was answering a question immediately before my post.

-----Added 6/14/2009 at 12:04:51 EST-----

CONFESSOR, if you want to be convinced of the Bible teaching of the Postmil view simply read your Bible in a new way. Do you remember or have you ever heard someone talk about the first time the read the Bible after they had been taught about Calvinism and Grace? Then they re-read the Bible and see God's Election in every chapter. It is the same for the Victory of Christ we believe in; we see it in the Bible everywhere, Old and New testaments, nothing can stop Christ Kingdom.

I already am postmil. :) But thank you for that advice nonetheless. I enjoyed reading over the parable of the mustard seed with postmil in mind today.
 
CONFESSOR, if you want to be convinced of the Bible teaching of the Postmil view simply read your Bible in a new way. Do you remember or have you ever heard someone talk about the first time the read the Bible after they had been taught about Calvinism and Grace? Then they re-read the Bible and see God's Election in every chapter. It is the same for the Victory of Christ we believe in; we see it in the Bible everywhere, Old and New testaments, nothing can stop Christ Kingdom.

Exactly what I have been saying, reading victory passages with postmil lenses and forcing a postmil interpretation into the text......again I refer you to my previous posts. Any refutes are welcomed
 
If you saw what other "lens" he compared the postmil lens to, there's no way that's "exactly what you were saying."
 
He wasn't talking about eisegesis, but about understanding the framework of Scripture. Just as we can very easily see God's unconditional election in tons of passages when reading it through that lens (though not imposing that on the text), so also we can see plenary earthly victory for Christ when we read with that lens.
 
To throw something in at this point from the Book of Revelation itself.

The binding of Satan in Revelation 20 seems to have a distinct progressive flavour to it which would tie in well with the postmil position but not the amil, and would explain why the world is still not as it should be even though Satan's binding by the Gospel started in the first century (Matthew 12:29; Mark 3:27; Luke 11: 21-22).

The angel from heaven with the great chain - often identified with Christ with the Gospel

laid hold on Satan

bound him one thousand years

cast him into the bottomless pit

shut him up

set a seal on him

Does this process of dealing with Satan correspond to the mystical three and a half years of conflict - expressed in different ways, e.g. 1,260 days - with the two Beasts and Babylon, before the final conquest of the nations (Armageddon) by the Gospel in Revelation 19.

If so, as Patrick Fairbairn points out, the period in which we may still be living while Satan is in the process of being shut up is relatively short - half a week of years - compared to the period of Christ's millennial reign over the earth, 1,000 years.

What are the various preterist, historicist and idealist interpretations of the mystical three and a half years in Revelation, which seems to tie in with the final half week of years of Daniel 9? When does it start and end, should it be taken literally or symbolically? I would have thought symbolically to be consistent with taking the 1,000 years symbolically.

I'll make this a separate thread.
 
I was under the impression that we "ruled over angels" etc. when we received our resurrection bodies.

Your statement sorta touches on the question but stops short of a yes or no answer or explanation to the question. Perhaps the genesis of my question was not apparent.

There seems to be a textual conflict with regard to the saints reigning and ruling. It was proposed that John's observation of saints reigning and judging (in Rev 20) is to be understood as occurring during the intermediate state (or in view of the whole thread, perhaps during the interadvental period). In either case, a comparison to the reigning and judging spoken of by Paul in 1 Corinthians seems at odds with that proposition. Paul directs the Corinthians, "judge nothing before the time, before the Lord come" (4:5) and satirically rebukes them for acting as if they were already kings before the time (4:8). In view of the fact that they should know they will judge the world, and even angles (6:2,3) at an anticipated time, then they should now be more than capable to settle petty disputes among believers (6:1).

Since it appears that Paul admonishes the Corinthians for judging or acting as kings before the Lord comes, then how do we resolve the text in Rev 20 if it speaks of saints reigning and judging in the intermediate state or interadvental period?

bryan
tampa, fl
.
.
.
.
 
The anticipated reigning and judging of which Paul speaks does not seem to occur in the intermediate state. Is this a distinct explanation of reigning and judging apart from the intermediate state?

The saints reign with Christ now (Eph. 2:6), and yet what they shall be is not yet visible (1 John 3:2). At death the souls of believers immediately pass into glory and hence reign with Christ in a personal sense, but it will not be until the resurrection that this reign assumes a visible form for all the world to see.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top