- I've been doing some eschatological research, and I am trying to
compare the amillenialist and postmillenial views with the Scriptural
support that exists (for either.) It seems to me the only major
difference is that the former sees Christ's millenial reign as a
figurative reign over the Church in this age and the latter foresees
a complete and apparent subjection of the entire world (all nations)
to Christ's authority/gospel at some point in the New Testament age.
First of all, do any of you hold the postmillenial view and secondly,
can you provide some Scriptural support for the triumph of Christ's
kingdom over all peoples and nations before His second coming? Thank
you in advance.
Grace and Peace in Christ,
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Dan Fraas"
> I've been doing some eschatological research, and I am trying toThe "scriptural" support for Amillennialism is only true as far as it
> compare the amillenialist and postmillenial views with the
> Scriptural support that exists (for either.)
is in agreement with Postmillennialism, such as the spiritual first
resurrection/regeneration of the elect (Rev. 20:5-6) and the future
general resurrection of the dead and the future judgement of all men
(John 5:28,29; Rev 20:11-15). Also, the inner spiritual nature of the
present Kingdom of God established at the first advent of Christ when
He had begun His binding of Satan (Matt 12:28, 29; Rev 20:1-3).
> It seems to me the only major difference is that the former seesThat is one significant distinction. Amillennialism overly
> Christ's millenial reign as a figurative reign over the Church in
> this age and the latter foresees a complete and apparent subjection
> of the entire world (all nations) to Christ's authority/gospel at
> some point in the New Testament age.
spiritualizes the present millennial reign of Christ and restricts it
to the heart and to the church alone. For a good critique of this
"This World and the Kingdom of God"
For a critique of the pessimism of Amillennialism, see:
"Triumph or Tribulation?" (A Debate between an Amill and a Postmill)
"Planning for Defeat"
Footnotes to the above link listed under "Eschaton".
> First of all, do any of you hold the postmillenial view andFor a defense and exposition of Postmillennialism, see:
> secondly, can you provide some Scriptural support for the triumph
> of Christ's kingdom over all peoples and nations before His second
> coming? Thank you in advance.
"The Triumph of the Church: A Biblical Defense of Postmillennialism"
"An Exegetical Defense Of Postmillennialism From I Corintians 15:24-
"Notes on Postmillennialism"
"The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism"
"The Certainty of the World's Conversion"
"The Covenant Future: Postmillennialism"
"Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope?"
"Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel"
"Postmillennialism Today" (A book Review)
"Cross-Examination: Objections to Postmillenialism"
"Christ's Total Victory"
"Am I Really a Postmillennialist?"
"The Success of Redemption" (An excerpt from the Works of Jonathan
(Excerpt from 'The Millennium' by Loraine Boettner)
In addition, see the 1999 book, "Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of
Hope" by Dr. Keith Mathison. (Dr. Kim Riddlebarger's recently
published (2003) book on Amillennialism fails to interact with or
even acknowledge Dr. Mathison's book).
See also, the Fall 2001 issue of the Westminster Theological Journal
which contains an article by Dr. Kenneth Gentry defending
postmillennialism against recent Amillennial arguments (e.g. "the
suffering church", etc.)
In addition, see the book, "Millennialism and Social Theory" which
contains a critique of Amillennialism as espoused by Dr. Richard
Gaffin. Also, Dr. Gentry wrote a rebuttal to Gaffin's 1990 Critique
of Postmillennialism. cf. Gentry's "Whose Victory in History?" found
in "Theonomy: An Informed Response" edited by North.
More information can be found in the book, "Three Views on the
Millennium and Beyond" by Darrell Bock:
which is much better than the previously published, "Meaning the
Millennium: Four Views" by R.G. Clouse.
- Careful Colin,
Most of the links you provided for Postmillennialism are for the
semi-preterist variant, which is not consistent with Westminster, Calvin,
Turretin, M'Leod, James Durham, nor David Steele (nor the bible and church
history). I have not studied the ties between Gentry's views and the first
semi-preterist German theologians, but E.B. Elliot does quite well at
dispelling the latter position.
Can anybody show me why Gentry and the many others from that camp refuse the
historic postmillennial position? Do they just skip over it or do they
attempt to refute it?
Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
- --- In email@example.com, "Brian Kirkman"
> Careful Colin,Strange that you would recommend a *premillennial* writer like Elliot
> Most of the links you provided for Postmillennialism are for the
> semi-preterist variant, which is not consistent with Westminster,
> Calvin, Turretin, M'Leod, James Durham, nor David Steele (nor the
> bible and church history). I have not studied the ties between
> Gentry's views and the first semi-preterist German theologians, but
> E.B. Elliot does quite well at dispelling the latter position.
who was also *not* "consistent with Westminster, Calvin, Turretin,
M'leod, James Durham, nor David Steele". Nor was Elliot's Anglicanism
consistent with them either.
Elliot does not address the current brand of preterism today, but the
brand of preterism in his day, thus his arguments are quite dated.
And one should not at all be surprised if a premillennialist would
disagree with preterism.
But the thread is about the Millennial age, and not tied directly to
issues relating to the distinctive views of preterism or historicism.
You will note that in my recommended links, I had cited both
preterists (e.g. Gentry) and historicists (Jonathan Edwards) since
they are equally both postmillennialists.
> Can anybody show me why Gentry and the many others from that campGentry does not "skip over" it, in fact, he even wrote
> refuse the historic postmillennial position? Do they just skip
> over it or do they attempt to refute it?
the "Introduction" to a 1990 reprint of historicist David Brown's
postmillennial book, "Christ's Second Coming, Will It Be
Gentry wrote in the Introduction:
"It is with great pleasure that I avail myself of the opportunity to
write a forward to ....David Brown's "Christ's Second Coming: Will It
Be Premillennial?"...this work is widely regarded as 'a classic'....
"Lest it be misunderstood by my endorsement of Brown, I would like to
point out on major area of disagreement. This has very little to do
with the millennial question, ironic as it may first appear. Brown's
approach to Revelation is along the lines of historicism. That is, he
sees the prophecies of Revelation as stretching out over the long
ages of history. This, of course, helps explain his latter day view
of the millennium mentioned above (in that Revelation 20 occurs after
Revelation 6-19). My interpretive approach to Revelation, as is
evident in each of my three most recent works is that of Preterism.
That is, I believe that the judgement chapters of Revelation (Chs. 6-
19) focus almost exclusively on the events associated with the first
imperial persecution of Christianity (AD. 64-68), the Roman Civil
Wars (AD 68-69), and the destruction of the Temple and Israel (AD. 67-
"Nevertheless, the differences between Brown's historicist approach
to Revelation and my preteristic approach has absolutely no bearing
on the postmillennial question. Either approach to Revelation could
be rejected and postmillennialism would still remain.
Postmillennialism is not dependent upon the book on Revelation,
whereas premillennialism and dispensationalism very much are....
"Clearly Brown's historicism allows a postmillennial dominion for
Christ in earth's history before His Second Advent. So does my
preteristic view. Despite the confusion in the minds of some, the
issues just mentioned are in two wholly different arenas of debate.
The postmillennial question involves a locus of theology:
eschatology; the preteristic verses the historicist approach to
Revelation involves an interpretive methodology -- to one particular
book of the Bible. In other words, I would have desired more access
to preterism by Brown that he offers (he does approach a number of
prophetic passages as preteristically relevant to the destruction of
It is the obligation of *current* historicist theologians to refute
current preterism. Dr. Nigel Lee, a current historicist par
excellence theologian refuses to directly challenge Gentry and
similar writers on preterism. (Interestingly, Dr. Lee also happens to
agree with Dr. Gentry's *early* date view of Revelation's authorship,
whereas premillennial writers like Elliot do not).