Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

millenial age

Expand Messages
  • Dan Fraas
    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
    Message 1 of 4 , Mar 6, 2003
      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,

      Riley
    • Colin
      ... The scriptural support for Amillennialism is only true as far as it is in agreement with Postmillennialism, such as the spiritual first
      Message 2 of 4 , Mar 6, 2003
        --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Dan Fraas"
        <fraasrd@y...> wrote:
        > 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.)

        The "scriptural" support for Amillennialism is only true as far as it
        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 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.

        That is one significant distinction. Amillennialism overly
        spiritualizes the present millennial reign of Christ and restricts it
        to the heart and to the church alone. For a good critique of this
        view, see:

        "This World and the Kingdom of God"

        http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt052.htm

        For a critique of the pessimism of Amillennialism, see:

        "Triumph or Tribulation?" (A Debate between an Amill and a Postmill)

        http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-3disputatio.php

        "Planning for Defeat"

        http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/2001may/sandlin1.shtml

        "Pessimistic Amillennialism"

        http://www.credenda.org/issues/11-3eschaton.php

        "Amillennial History"

        http://www.credenda.org/issues/14-2eschaton.php

        Footnotes to the above link listed under "Eschaton".

        http://www.credenda.org/issues/14-2footnotes.php

        > 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.
        >

        For a defense and exposition of Postmillennialism, see:

        "The Triumph of the Church: A Biblical Defense of Postmillennialism"

        http://www.chalcedon.edu/report/98jun/einwechter.shtml

        "An Exegetical Defense Of Postmillennialism From I Corintians 15:24-
        26"

        http://www.wordmp3.com/gs/postmill.htm

        "Notes on Postmillennialism"

        http://www.liberty.edu/courses/theo250/gentry.html

        "The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism"

        http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt031.htm

        "The Certainty of the World's Conversion"

        http://www.allsaintspresbyterian.com/covenantfuture.htm

        "The Covenant Future: Postmillennialism"

        http://www.allsaintspresbyterian.com/covenantfuture.htm

        "Postmillennialism: Wishful Thinking or Certain Hope?"

        http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt568.htm

        "Gospel Prosperity and the Future of Israel"

        http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt158.htm

        "Postmillennialism Today" (A book Review)

        http://www.visi.com/~contra_m//cm/reviews/cm09_rev_postmillennialism.h
        tml

        "Cross-Examination: Objections to Postmillenialism"

        http://www.cmfnow.com/articles/pt136.htm

        "Confessional Postmillennialism"

        http://www.forerunner.com/puritan/PS.Postmil_creedal.html

        "Christ's Total Victory"

        http://www.credenda.org/issues/12-1eschaton.php

        "Am I Really a Postmillennialist?"

        http://www.graceunknown.com/Reformata/Eschaton/SecondThought.html

        "The Success of Redemption" (An excerpt from the Works of Jonathan
        Edwards)

        http://www.credenda.org/issues/10-3puritaneye.php

        "Postmillennialism"
        (Excerpt from 'The Millennium' by Loraine Boettner)

        http://www.mbrem.com/eschatology/post.htm

        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:

        "http://www.armageddonbooks.com/3views.html

        which is much better than the previously published, "Meaning the
        Millennium: Four Views" by R.G. Clouse.

        Colin Tayler
      • Brian Kirkman
        Careful Colin, Most of the links you provided for Postmillennialism are for the semi-preterist variant, which is not consistent with Westminster, Calvin,
        Message 3 of 4 , Mar 6, 2003
          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.

          http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?seriesOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&sourceID=swrb&keyworddesc=Preterism+%28%26+Jesuits%29+Refuted+&keyword=Preterism+%28%26+Jesuits%29+Refuted+

          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?

          Thanks,
          Brian Kirkman





          _________________________________________________________________
          Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
          http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
        • Colin
          ... Strange that you would recommend a *premillennial* writer like Elliot who was also *not* consistent with Westminster, Calvin, Turretin, M leod, James
          Message 4 of 4 , Mar 7, 2003
            --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Kirkman"
            <b_kirkman@m...> wrote:
            > 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.

            Strange that you would recommend a *premillennial* writer like Elliot
            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 camp
            > refuse the historic postmillennial position? Do they just skip
            > over it or do they attempt to refute it?
            >

            Gentry does not "skip over" it, in fact, he even wrote
            the "Introduction" to a 1990 reprint of historicist David Brown's
            postmillennial book, "Christ's Second Coming, Will It Be
            Premillennial?".

            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-
            70).

            "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
            Jerusalem)."

            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).

            Colin Tayler
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.