Postmil Without Partial Preterism

[Seth The Presbyterian]

Hello friends,

I have been struggling to land comfortably on an eschatology position for the last few years. I'm leaning towards optimistic amil & postmil - recently I found myself leaning to a postmil view. My problem is, I am enjoying the postmil arguments from Scripture however I do not believe that Revelation was written pre 70AD so I can not be a partial preterist. Most if not all the postmil resources I am seeing are from guys who are partial preterists. Is there such a thing as a "late date" postmil? I am also not interested in theonomy so if anyone knows of any good books/online resources for this weird form of postmil that I seem to be looking for I would greatly appreciate it! Or am I alone in this flavor of postmil?

 

[arapahoepark]

The Puritans were historicists and postmill. Their form of classical postmill has interpretations of Revelation 20:7-10 that would have a great apostasy at the end of time after a long period of growth and calm.

 

[DanSSwing]

Hello friends,

I have been struggling to land comfortably on an eschatology position for the last few years. I'm leaning towards optimistic amil & postmil - recently I found myself leaning to a postmil view. My problem is, I am enjoying the postmil arguments from Scripture however I do not believe that Revelation was written pre 70AD so I can not be a partial preterist. Most if not all the postmil resources I am seeing are from guys who are partial preterists. Is there such a thing as a "late date" postmil? I am also not interested in theonomy so if anyone knows of any good books/online resources for this weird form of postmil that I seem to be looking for I would greatly appreciate it! Or am I alone in this flavor of postmil?

I don't recall any mention of preterism in Joe Boot's The Mission of God, though there was quite a bit of theonomy. There are many on here who know more than I do, but I'm thinking the position you describe was more common among the Puritans.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

I don't recall any mention of preterism in Joe Boot's The Mission of God, though there was quite a bit of theonomy. There are many on here who know more than I do, but I'm thinking the position you describe was more common among the Puritans.

To be honest I'm not really sure where I fit in at the moment. I know many of the Puritans held to a Historicist view - I don't think I would follow them to the conclusion they came to with the antichrist/pope. I also think I take a more Amil approach to the millennium, rather than a future 1,000-year golden age. Where I begin to separate from the Amil view is when I look at the nature of Christ's kingdom as well as verses like 1 Corinthians 15:25 and many others. Not sure if that helps clarify where I'm at currently in my thought process.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

The Puritans were historicists and postmill. Their form of classical postmill has interpretations of Revelation 20:7-10 that would have a great apostasy at the end of time after a long period of growth and calm.

I would also hold to a future great apostasy just before Christ's return. I'm just not sure what to do about the man of lawlessness. Because of my views of the dating of the book, I'm having trouble with that. If the man of lawlessness was 2,000+ years out, why would Paul bother to mention him to that audience in his letter?

 

[MatthewBall]

Brother,

As a former Postmil-turned-Amil, this particular sermon series was beneficial for me https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX4EImuBph1zOwkvyBsGgxWPYTy7qnDpH. You may just fall within a more optimistic flavor of the Amillennial view. It seems hard for me to see a way to be Postmillennial without partial-preterism, but of course, I could be wrong about this.

 

[cthorn14]

Some have held to a "consistent idealist" interpretation of Revelation along with an optimistic eschatology.

From BB Warfield The Millennium and the Apocalypse, available: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_millennium.html

What, then, is the eschatological outline we have gained from a study of this section? Briefly stated it is as follows. Our Lord Jesus Christ came to conquer the world to Himself, and this He does with a thoroughness and completeness which seems to go beyond even the intimations of Romans xi and I Cor. xv. Meanwhile, as the conquest of the world is going on below, the saints who die in the Lord are gathered in Paradise to reign with their Lord, who is also Lord of all, and who is from His throne directing the conquest of the world. When the victory is completely won there supervenes the last judgment and the final destruction of the wicked. At once there is a new heaven and a new earth and the consummation of the glory of the Church. And this Church abides forever (xxii. 5), in perfection of holiness and blessedness. In bare outline that is what our section teaches. It will be noted at once that it is precisely the teaching of the didactic epistles of Paul and of the whole New Testament with him. No attempts to harmonize as the several types of teaching are necessary, therefore, for their entire harmony lies on the surface. John knows no more of two resurrections - of the saints and of the wicked - than does Paul: and the whole theory of an intervening millennium - and indeed of a millennium of any kind on earth - goes up in smoke. We are forced, indeed, to add our assent to Kliefoth's conclusion, that "the doctrine of a thousand-year kingdom has no foundation in the prophecies of the New Testament, and is therefore not a dogma but merely a hypothesis lacking all Biblical ground."17 The millennium of the Apocalypse is the blessedness of the saints who have gone away from the body to be at home with the Lord.

But this conclusion obviously does not carry with it the denial that a "golden age" yet lies before the Church, if we may use this designation in a purely spiritual sense. As emphatically as Paul, John teaches that the earthly history of the Church is not a history merely of conflict with evil, but of conquest over evil: and even more richly than Paul, John teaches that this conquest will be decisive and complete. The whole meaning of the vision of xix. 11-21 is that Christ Jesus comes forth not to war merely but to victory; and every detail of the picture is laid in with a view precisely to emphasizing the thoroughness of this victory. The Gospel of Christ is, John being witness, completely to conquer the world. He says nothing, any more than Paul does, of the period of the endurance of this conquered world. Whether the last judgment and the consummated kingdom are to follow immediately upon its conquest - his visions are as silent, as Paul's teaching. But just on that account the possibility of an extended duration for the conquered earth lies open: and in any event a progressively advancing conquest of the earth by Christ's Gospel implies a coming age deserving at least the relative name of "golden." Perhaps a distinction may be made between a converted earth and a sanctified earth: such a distinction seems certainly more accordant with the tone of these visions than that more commonly suggested between a witnessed-to earth and a converted earth. The Gospel assuredly must be preached to the whole world as a witness, before the Lord comes. These visions seem to go farther and to teach that the earth - the whole world - must be won to Christ before He comes: and that it is precisely this conquest of it that He is accomplishing during the progress of this inter-adventual period.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

Brother,

As a former Postmil-turned-Amil, this particular sermon series was beneficial for me https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLX4EImuBph1zOwkvyBsGgxWPYTy7qnDpH. You may just fall within a more optimistic flavor of the Amillennial view. It seems hard for me to see a way to be Postmillennial without partial-preterism, but of course, I could be wrong about this.

I saved this playlist. Will give it a listen!

Some have held to a "consistent idealist" interpretation of Revelation along with an optimistic eschatology.

From BB Warfield The Millennium and the Apocalypse, available: https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/warfield/warfield_millennium.html

Was Warfield postmil or amil? I see him claimed by both haha

 

[Shadow Forge]

As a newly saved Christian, 11/2/2022, it took some time for me to really dig in to hold a position. I am well suited in the "pessimistic" Amil position. The reason why I did not agree with postmil is that, in my view, is a fairy tale hence not realistic.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

As a newly saved Christian, 11/2/2022, it took some time for me to really dig in to hold a position. I am well suited in the "pessimistic" Amil position. The reason why I did not agree with postmil is that, in my view, is a fairy tale hence not realistic.

What's funny is that naturally, I am a very pessimistic person. I tend to always see things as a "glass half empty" kind of guy. However, I definitely lean much more optimistic when reading the Scriptures - which sometimes goes very much against my natural instincts.

 

[cthorn14]

Was Warfield postmil or amil? I see him claimed by both haha

I believe it is a contested point. The answer seems to lie in how intimately one ties eschatological optimism and postmillennialism together.

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

My biggest difference with what I perceive is the Amil view is that I don't believe the kingdom of God is merely a spiritual reign within the church. I think the kingdom of God will most definitely overcome the evil of this world. Then I see the final apostasy and then Christ returns. As far as the specifics of how I get there...that's what I need help with and why I'm asking about "late date" Postmil.

 

[Northern Crofter]

The reason why I did not agree with postmil is that, in my view, is a fairy tale hence not realistic.

That's not really a very good reason - most of the world views the contents of Scripture as a collection of fairy tales, and yet it is all amazingly true.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I also think I take a more Amil approach to the millennium, rather than a future 1,000-year golden age.

You don't have to hold to a literal 1000 years to be post-mil.

I do not believe that Revelation was written pre 70AD

If everything else "fit," and this belief was the only thing holding you back, you might reconsider (i.e. if all of the pieces of evidence except one point to a particular conclusion, it is more likely that one piece of evidence is faulty/misinterpreted than it is that the conclusion arrived at is incorrect).

...naturally, I am a very pessimistic person.

Me, too. I'm not really sure that is consistent with the fruits of the Spirit, so I try to overcome it. (However, I am generally happy as things rarely turn out as bad as I had imagined they would!)

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

You don't have to hold to a literal 1000 years to be post-mil.

If everything else "fit," and this belief was the only thing holding you back, you might reconsider (i.e. if all of the pieces of evidence except one point to a particular conclusion, it is more likely that one piece of evidence is faulty/misinterpreted than it is that the conclusion arrived at is incorrect).

Me, too. I'm not really sure that is consistent with the fruits of the Spirit, so I try to overcome it. (However, I am generally happy as things rarely turn out as bad as I had imagined they would!)

Is it safe to assume you hold to a pre70AD dating of the book? I've spent a lot of time looking into the date specifically. Someone shared a link on the board one time with some really compelling evidence for the early date and I switched my view for a time and then I came across a site with (in my opinion) even more compelling evidence for the late date - so I switched back. Needless to say I'm open to switching my view on the date but I just haven't looked at evidence for the early date like I have for the late date (it's ALOT harder to find good evidence for the early date since most scholars hold the late date). I would think my view of the kingdom is what pushes me to the Postmil camp. Now it's a matter of understanding whether or not Postmil is compatible with a post 70AD dating of Revelation and how I would go about the book with a post 70AD date and my view of the kingdom. I'm not sure if what I believe is consistent when it comes down to the finer points of study if that makes sense.

 

[DanSSwing]

Is it safe to assume you hold to a pre70AD dating of the book? I've spent a lot of time looking into the date specifically. Someone shared a link on the board one time with some really compelling evidence for the early date and I switched my view for a time and then I came across a site with (in my opinion) even more compelling evidence for the late date - so I switched back. Needless to say I'm open to switching my view on the date but I just haven't looked at evidence for the early date like I have for the late date (it's ALOT harder to find good evidence for the early date since most scholars hold the late date). I would think my view of the kingdom is what pushes me to the Postmil camp. Now it's a matter of understanding whether or not Postmil is compatible with a post 70AD dating of Revelation and how I would go about the book with a post 70AD date and my view of the kingdom. I'm not sure if what I believe is consistent when it comes down to the finer points of study if that makes sense.

I'd be curious as to the sources that convinced you of the earlier date. I had once dismissed the early date because of the "scholarly consensus" of external sources, but even though I now doubt that external evidence, what really convinced me of the early date was the internal evidence, as explained by this lecture in particular: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=102820221492729

As a newly saved Christian, 11/2/2022, it took some time for me to really dig in to hold a position. I am well suited in the "pessimistic" Amil position. The reason why I did not agree with postmil is that, in my view, is a fairy tale hence not realistic.

You're right. It isn't realistic. That's why Isaiah 9:7 concludes by telling doubters, "The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."

 

[DanSSwing]

I believe it is a contested point. The answer seems to lie in how intimately one ties eschatological optimism and postmillennialism together.

Did he believe in a literal 1,000-year golden age or did he see the culmination of optimism achieved more gradually?

 

[Seth The Presbyterian]

I'd be curious as to the sources that convinced you of the earlier date. I had once dismissed the early date because of the "scholarly consensus" of external sources, but even though I now doubt that external evidence, what really convinced me of the early date was the internal evidence, as explained by this lecture in particular: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=102820221492729


You're right. It isn't realistic. That's why Isaiah 9:7 concludes by telling doubters, "The zeal of the LORD of hosts will do this."

I've been trying to locate the link that someone shared in one of the eschatology threads started here. It was very well done and has very compelling evidence for the early date....part of the reason I'm currently convinced of the late date is because I can't find that stinkin link haha I'd like to compare the two.

 

[cthorn14]

Did he believe in a literal 1,000-year golden age or did he see the culmination of optimism achieved more gradually?

He's somewhat vague on this point. In the essay referenced above he seems to teach a 'relative' golden age of unspecified length. I'm not a Warfield scholar, it's quite possible he goes into more detail elsewhere.

The Gospel of Christ is, John being witness, completely to conquer the world. He says nothing, any more than Paul does, of the period of the endurance of this conquered world. Whether the last judgment and the consummated kingdom are to follow immediately upon its conquest - his visions are as silent, as Paul's teaching. But just on that account the possibility of an extended duration for the conquered earth lies open: and in any event a progressively advancing conquest of the earth by Christ's Gospel implies a coming age deserving at least the relative name of "golden."

 

[DanSSwing]

I've been trying to locate the link that someone shared in one of the eschatology threads started here. It was very well done and has very compelling evidence for the early date....part of the reason I'm currently convinced of the late date is because I can't find that stinkin link haha I'd like to compare the two.

I haven't read it, but Kenneth Gentry's Before Jerusalem Fell is supposed to have the most comprehensive argument for the early date. Here is one link I think I've seen here before though it might be shorter than the one you're looking for: https://www.revelationrevolution.org/forums/topic/ireneaus-stupid-mistake/

 

[DanSSwing]

He's somewhat vague on this point. In the essay referenced above he seems to teach a 'relative' golden age of unspecified length. I'm not a Warfield scholar, it's quite possible he goes into more detail elsewhere.

That sounds to me like the modern take on postmil, which is really just the more optimistic take on amil. I'm not personally aware of any teachers today who are pure chiliast postmils.

 

[Northern Crofter]

Is it safe to assume you hold to a pre70AD dating of the book? ....most scholars hold the late date....

I lean that way. Most modern scholars hold the late date, but there is a pretty strong pre-70 tradition prior to modern times. Also, I tend to discount scholarship from those who do not profess faith - some of it is very good, but there is always the issue that, if the person doesn't believe the Scriptures are the Word of God, this allows them to arrive at conclusions they would not otherwise be able to hold. I find this especially true with dating prophesy. A good question to ask is how those scholars who arrive at a late date for Revelation treat other prophetical works (like Isaiah and Daniel, for example) though I find there is little expert crossover - most modern Greek/NT scholars aren't also Hebrew/OT scholars.

 

[cthorn14]

That sounds to me like the modern take on postmil, which is really just the more optimistic take on amil. I'm not personally aware of any teachers today who are pure chiliast postmils.

It's a subject I've been recently interested in as I find myself fluctuating somewhere between amil and postmil. Kim Riddlebarger has a detailed essay "Princeton and the Millennium" which goes into some of the nuances. He sees the eschatology of Old Princeton as essentially postmil, but adopting much of the exegesis of amil and thus moving away from the exegesis of earlier writers like Jonathan Edwards.

His conjecture is that this movement opened the door for the prevalence of contemporary American amillennialism. He rejects "optimistic amil" as a valid label, which also seems to be a debated point.

https://www.kimriddlebarger.com/s/Princeton-and-the-Millennium-2021-Revision.pdf

 

[Northern Crofter]

the exegesis of earlier writers like Jonathan Edwards

I think in may respects Edwards is in a category of his own when it comes to this topic.

 

[cthorn14]

I think in may respects Edwards is in a category of his own when it comes to this topic.

That's a fair observation, he gets extremely specific with certain interpretations. However, the movement of Old Princeton seems to be towards idealism and away from historicism, so I can see the point Riddlebarger is making.

 

[sovereigngrace]

My biggest difference with what I perceive is the Amil view is that I don't believe the kingdom of God is merely a spiritual reign within the church. I think the kingdom of God will most definitely overcome the evil of this world. Then I see the final apostasy and then Christ returns. As far as the specifics of how I get there...that's what I need help with and why I'm asking about "late date" Postmil.

I am Amil. I believe there are two aspects to the kingship of Christ. The first is the whole sphere of Christ’s providential rule over all creation as God. Then there is His intimate kingship over His spiritual kingdom - His new creation.

Peter tells us in Acts 2:36: “let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Many miss the significance of this summing up by failing to grasp the importance of our Saviour’s titles. The title “Lord” here refers to His divine role as the “Son of God” whereas the title “Christ” relates to His Messianic office as “the son of man.” He carries a dual kingship as king of kings and Lord of lords.

 

[Northern Crofter]

I am Amil. I believe there are two aspects to the kingship of Christ. The first is the whole sphere of Christ’s providential rule over all creation as God. Then there is His intimate kingship over His spiritual kingdom - His new creation.

Peter tells us in Acts 2:36: “let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.”

Many miss the significance of this summing up by failing to grasp the importance of our Saviour’s titles. The title “Lord” here refers to His divine role as the “Son of God” whereas the title “Christ” relates to His Messianic office as “the son of man.” He carries a dual kingship as king of kings and Lord of lords.

How do you get to the universal sphere of Christ’s providential rule over all creation and His intimate kingship over His spiritual kingdom from something Peter prefaced with "let all the house of Israel know..."?

 

[sovereigngrace]

How do you get to the universal sphere of Christ’s providential rule over all creation and His intimate kingship over His spiritual kingdom from something Peter prefaced with "let all the house of Israel know..."?

This statement recognizes the 2 aspects of His character - "Lord," His divinity, and "Christ" His Messianic earthly ministry as man. Jesus has been raised to a position of supreme power at His Father’s “right hand,” reigning over His defeated enemies who are now being “made His footstool” Christ is indeed Lord, in an absolute sense. He carries sovereign authority and dominion over all creation and every creature. That is because he is the Creator. In Acts 10:36 Paul significantly said of “Jesus Christ,” that “he is Lord of all.”

In 1 Corinthians 8:9, Paul said: “to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.”

1 Corinthians 1:9 tells us: “God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his Son Jesus Christ our Lord.”

1 Corinthians 12:3 says: “no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”

Philippians 2:8-11 tells us: “And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.”

 

[sovereigngrace]

How do you get to the universal sphere of Christ’s providential rule over all creation and His intimate kingship over His spiritual kingdom from something Peter prefaced with "let all the house of Israel know..."?

It predicts in the Old Testament and outlines the fulfillment in the New Testament of Jesus taking David's throne. This is to fulfil prophesied Scripture of One coming of the offspring of David that would rule over true Israel - God's elect. This is talking about His messianic ministry. This reign would never end. Christ is fulfilling that now. He is the head; we are His body. He rules over the kingdom of God. But that is not all. He rules over more than that. Christ rules over His enemies. He rules over all creation. He enjoys all power today. He shuts and no one opens, He opens and no one shuts. Christ has also assumed His Father's throne. This is talking about His exaltation and vindication as the Son of God.

I don’t believe this means that there are two literal physical thrones but rather two aspects to His kingship – human over His new creation, and divine over all creation. These are two aspects of the one kingship – He is both God and man. This does not in any way mean there are 2 kings, 2 kingdoms or 2 thrones. No. There are two aspects to Christ’s kingship - human and divine. As God Christ reigns over all creation; as Messiah He reigns over His new creation.

 

[Sam Jer]

Is it safe to assume you hold to a pre70AD dating of the book? I've spent a lot of time looking into the date specifically. Someone shared a link on the board one time with some really compelling evidence for the early date and I switched my view for a time and then I came across a site with (in my opinion) even more compelling evidence for the late date - so I switched back. Needless to say I'm open to switching my view on the date but I just haven't looked at evidence for the early date like I have for the late date (it's ALOT harder to find good evidence for the early date since most scholars hold the late date). I would think my view of the kingdom is what pushes me to the Postmil camp. Now it's a matter of understanding whether or not Postmil is compatible with a post 70AD dating of Revelation and how I would go about the book with a post 70AD date and my view of the kingdom. I'm not sure if what I believe is consistent when it comes down to the finer points of study if that makes sense.

While I do not think preterism is the correct view of the book of Revelation, this is a terrible reason to reach that conclusion.