The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Millennial views

William I'm a Goldenbond user myself nothing seems to relieve the itch of amillennialism like Goldenbond.

So if your plagued by dry itchy skin caused by too much premillennialism or amillennialism try Goldenbond used by Posties the world over.

Disclaimer: Goldenbond isn't responsible for fracas or fistfights occurring because of change of millennial view points. We will not guarantee Kim Riddlebarger won't come to your house and harangue you for hours on eshatological views. Goldenbond is not responsible for certain provisions of the Savoy declaration being inserted into your Church's statement of faith. If the itch or rash continues for more than two weeks contact your local Reformed Seminary and consult with their Doctor of Theology. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

You might like to read The Puritan Hope by Iaian Murray (published by BoT).
He claims that the predominant eschatalogical view of the Puritans was Postmillennial. I'm not saying tha they were right, mind you!!

Steve

It wouldn't surprise me that the Puritans were largely Postmil. Considering the time they lived in and the events they saw and the founding of colonies in the New World, there was good reason for optimism and an optimistic eschatological view.

Ian Murray would make that claim, of course, he being one who embraces Post Millennialism. But as I have explained elsewhere, the definition of Postmillennialism was different, i.e., not as distinctive, in previous earlier centuries, compared to how it has been defined in recent history, e.g., the last 350 years. When individuals began seeing a "golden kingdom", for example, among other distinctives which were not previously seen and understood the Scriptures to teach, they went their own way and developed what is now recognized as Postmillennialism vs. Amillennialism.

BTW, I do have The Puritan Hope and have read it.

In His grace,

If it can really cure premillennialism maybe we should start putting it in their food.

As Pilgrim mentions, the postmillennialism of the Puritans is not quite the same as postmillennialism today. The distinction between postmillennialism & amillennialism didn't really develop until the 19th century. Before then, "postmillennialism" really referred to the idea that Christ would return after the "millennium." Ultimately, it's the quality of the "millennium" that distinguishes these two views: is the millennium going to consist in the Church expanding to include the whole world, at which point Christ will return (thus the Christianization of the world envisioned by postmillennialists); or is it rather going to be that the church will continue to expand throughout the world, enduring trials and tribulations until the return of Christ?

On one hand, we see how that historically when the Church gains worldly wealth and status and power, that corruption quickly follows. And that the Church is purified by trial and hardship. So looking at two millennia of church history and seeing that pattern, one might conclude that the Amil position is the more likely picture of "the millenium."

Both Amil and Postmil agree that we are in the "thousand year reign" right now, but the "Posties" have a picture of a global culture captured and conquered by the gospel before the Lord returns. I hope they are right! That is the "other hand" view is that that the gospel, because it is the power of God unto salvation and because it so radically changes the heart, will eventually win the global culture. Adam's mandate to "subdue the earth" finally gets fulfilled in the progeny of the Second Adam before the Lord returns. My friend Dan calls the modern Postmillennial view "Optimistic Amillennialism."

Somehwere in any and all of the views the simple fact that building the church is the Lord's doing must be taken into consideration.

That ,not what I see, is the basis of my optimism.

H

Agreed! as our Lord Christ said, "...and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

The disagreement is, of course, whether the Church will continue as one that is "militant and a remnant" or one that is "triumphant (at peace) and predominant" ON THIS EARTH before Christ returns. I hold to the former choice. For me, the Church shall and is victorious in that Christ's prophetic promise IS being fulfilled even today and shall continue to be fulfilled unto the end of the age, after which He will immediately return to inaugurate the eschaton of all things. "Victory" does NOT necessitate the idea of "quantity", i.e., the mass population of the earth will be converted and thus bringing in an end to the turmoil and antagonism (war) that exists between the world and God's elect (the Church) but rather in its application in regard to the Church in this age one of "quality" and "perfection", i.e., completeness (all the elect shall be called, gathered in and redeemed" in Christ as His glorious body. Peace is already owned by those who are truly in Christ Jesus; a peace that passes all understanding and of which the world cannot and shall never know. (cp. Matt 10:34; Lk 12:51; and Lk 7:50: 10:5; Jh 14:27: 16:33; Acts 10:36)

In His grace,

Im scouting for a new pipe. Whatzatyagot there?

That makes an important starting point. I oftencome across A-Mills who devote their lives to teaching that cultural failure is not only possible but the only possibility and build fantastic schemes from the Scriptures in support.

Better I recon to take care and rememeber that in the dark days of the first century the church was structured constitionally with Christ enthroned in heaven and the Holy Spirit ministering on earth. Just as it is today.

H

It's a Prebem Holm freehand.

Two could make a great viking war helmet.

Interesting bio.

Take care

H