Postmillennialism and the Law

Status
Not open for further replies.
Even on a premil scheme, we are glorified when Jesus returns (so that we don't die in the millennium). Do glorified believers procreate?
No, for there are many who survived unto the coming of Christ who were not glorified, as they accepted Jesus at that time itself.
 
I guess that meant that the majority of the ECF who held to some form of premil were all grave diggers, eh?

While Irenaeus and Justin Martyr held to premillennialism, they also admit that it was one option among many. They were premil, to be sure, but they also weren't dominant.
 
While Irenaeus and Justin Martyr held to premillennialism, they also admit that it was one option among many. They were premil, to be sure, but they also weren't dominant.
That is my position, that the premil was a held view, and that other options are also viable to hold with, so reformed need not just be as Amil/post/pre Mil, but any of them.
 
That is my position, that the premil was a held view, and that other options are also viable to hold with, so reformed need not just be as Amil/post/pre Mil, but any of them.

My contention was never whether premillennialism was a viable historical option among the Reformed. My problem is whether it is correct or not.
 
The premil position was advocated for and held by many of the Ecf, who had no doubt received that information from those who knew the Apostles themselves, and there have been many throughout church history who also have advocated for the historical premil position, even among reformed and Calvinistic Christians.
 
I think the single biggest reason was rejected as the prominent viewpoint later on was due to the influence of those such as Origen and Augustine, who both went for a much more spiritual view on understanding prophecy in the bible than the prior Ecf did on the whole.
You didn't read it did you?
 
You didn't read it did you?
Yes, and that was a main emphasis that the author seemed to be making, as the church shifted form the "Jewish: literal understanding of prophecy to a more allegorical understanding, as a kind of now realized eschatology.
 
Yes, and that was a main emphasis that the author seemed to be making, as the church shifted form the "Jewish: literal understanding of prophecy to a more allegorical understanding, as a kind of now realized eschatology.
Yes sort of. He highlighted the idea that the church, correctly, was reading the OT in light of the NT, not merely literal vs allegorical.
 
His viewpoint though became the dominant held position around that time, and continued forward in church history.
 
Yes sort of. He highlighted the idea that the church, correctly, was reading the OT in light of the NT, not merely literal vs allegorical.
We who are premil do to read the OT into the NT prophecy accounts, but also still see that at times the literal position fits the context and intended meaning better.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top