In reply to:
[color:"blue"]All this, of course, leads to a question I have with the Post-Mil theory. When Does Christ Become King?



Postmills are in agreement with Amills that Christ became King during His first Advent. Thus, your "post-Mil theory" is flawed.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]"The Post-Mil position suggests that the kingship of Christ is not so much present as it is a future reality..."



I'm not sure who you are citing here, but the Post-Mill position is that the Kingship of Christ is indeed a present reality.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]"However the millennial commences, it does not commence until sometime after the great redemptive events attested in the NT Scriptures... These redemptive events will eventually lead to a M-King.... But, these events do nor coincide with the commencement of Christ’s millennial reign, which comes later in redemptive history."



Again, this is wrong because the Post Mil view is that the Millennium began with the binding of Satan during Christ's earthly ministry (Matt 12, Rev 20)

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]The problem here is that it compromises the testimony of the NT that the reign of Christ commences with the first advent and installation at the right hand of the Father.



This is a problem of your own making because the Post Mill view is that the reign of Christ commenced with His first Advent.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]The preaching of the Gospel to all creation and the discipling of the nations—these are the great tasks of Christ’s Church in this present period of history, and they express His present rule as king



And this is exactly what Postmillennialism teaches too.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Consequently, those passages that speak of Christ’s kingdom refer to the entire present age subsequent to Christ’s return at the end of the age.



Again, this is also the postmillennial position.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]This defines Christ’s present glory, not one that is reserved to the future in any new or distinguished sense (compare, Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:15; 1 Pet 3:22). Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and thus is reigning now!



Again, this is also the postmill view. But the Amill view of the future era prior to the Return of Christ is one where evil men dominate and thus, contradicts the present and ongoing earthly reign of Christ in that future era.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Now, Post-Mil will respond, what 1 Cor 15? But, the passages as explained above should be understood to reveal, that subsequent to His resurrection from the dead, Christ was installed as king and is presently reigning over all things.



Again, that is the postmill position too. Why do you persist in attempting to refute a strawman version of postmillennialism?

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]There is no suggestion in these passages of an unprecedented period of Christ’s millennial reign that will intervene between the present reality of His reign and the final state, when all His enemies, including death, have been defeated. The passage leaves no room for a Golden Age between the present age and the age to come.



The so called "golden age" passages are found primarily in the OT and are thus, need not be repeated in the NT, though they are implied in Romans 11 and in the gospels. Your argument is a fallacy of silence, not unlike the Baptist who claims that there is no specific mention of Infant Baptism in the NT (while conveniently ignoring the fact that there is also no NT command or example to permit women to the Lord's Table either).

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Rather, it teaches that the millennial reign of Christ encompasses the present period of history, to be concluded only at the time of the final conquest of all Christ’s enemies at the end of this age.



You have been defending postmillennialism all along so far, while attempting to argue against it.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Some modern day Post-Mils will now argue away from this view saying Christ is presently King and that His reign just varies in its degrees. Thus, this Post-Mil creature asserts that Christ as king will become increasingly more manifest as the Gospel progressively comes to triumph on the earth.



Do you normally refer to your reformed Christian brethren as "creatures"? Have you ever called "Pilgrim" a "creature" before?

Your description of postmillennialism is only now becoming accurate.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Thus, some Post-Mils concede that the millennial is now



This is not a "concession", but a centuries long declaration. Granted that some postmills have in the past described the Millennium as still future, but they have been in the minority. I only know of one or two postmills today who hold that view. The majority view has always been that the millennium began with Christ's first Advent. You need to study your primary sources better.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]According to this Post creature the basic difference between Post-Mil and A-Mil is that the former has a more optimistic and biblical expectation of success of the Gospel in this present age than the latter.



Is there such a thing as an "Amill creature"? or are only Postmill Christians properly labelled as "creatures" and are therefore, subhuman?

But this is a correct description of one of the differences between Amill and Postmill views.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Typically, those who argue in this fashion criticize the A-Mil for an unbiblical pessimism and lack of confidence in the promised success of the church’s discipling of the nations (Norman Shepherd).



Norman Shepherd said this? or are you interpreting what he said?

But regardless, this is still correct as even Amills themselves will concede that they are pessimistic. Amills will also accuse the postmill confidence of promised success as being "triumphantism", as if somehow the Gospel being "triumphant" in the world is a bad thing.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Curiosity, this argument seems to abandon the traditional Post-Mil claim of a future unprecedented period of Gospel blessing that is distinguishable from the remainder of the period between Christ’s first and second advents.



No, in fact, it affirms that "traditional Postmillennial claim". There is no contradiction here, except in your own imagination.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]It abandons the chiliasm of the classic Post-Mil expectation: the view that Rev 20 is a distinct period in history that begins some time after the first advent. Indeed, this represents a major concession to the A-Mil view!



Postmillennialism, unlike true Chiliasm, is not dependent on any particular view of Rev 20. See the postmillennial Commentaries on Romans chapter 11 by Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, Robert Haldane, John Murray, David Brown or Matthew Henry.

It is not postmillennialism that gives a "major concession" to Amillennialism, but rather, it is Amillennialism that has given a major concession to the Postmill view, since this view has historically been the postmillennial position since the time of Augustine who was a postmillennialist.

"Amillennialism" simply borrowed heavily from postmillennialism and then overly spiritualized many of the OT prophecies in an over reaction to Chiliasm (its main rival). Amillennialism is a very recent "creature" that began with Vos and Kliefoth. In fact, dispensationalism is even older than Amillennialism.

See the article, Amillennial History

[u]Footnotes under subheading, Eschaton[/u]

For more information on postmillennialism, see:

[u]Confidence About the Earthly Triumph of Christ's Kingdom[/u]

[u]The Triumph of the Church: A Biblical Defense of Postmillennialism[/u]

[u]Objections to Postmillennialism[/u]

[u]The Certainty of the World's Conversion[/u]

[u]The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism[/u]

Colin