Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Postmillinium


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

Good one!

 

I know this view was more popular before the world wars of the 20th century, but there seem to be a few more turning back towards this position. It seems most here are pre-mil (either historic or dispensational) but I thought maybe there might be a post-mil somewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Moderators

I've never really read much about the PM position, but I have just been reading a blog by a fellow named Jay Rogers at 'the forerunner' website, and his view on the PM.

 

I'll say this for them: they're very optimistic! They believe that things are getting better, that more people are getting saved, and more nations are becoming Christian nations than ever before. And of course, that Jesus will come back because the world has been so well-evangelized that its virtually a paradise! So, very optimistic; naive, but optimistic.

 

One interesting thing I read, of the other interesting things there, was his assertion that nowhere does the Bible either implicitly or explicitely state that Jesus will return before the Millenial reign. Yet, I find at least three places that appear, to me anyways, to explicitely state that He will, indeed, return before it:

 

   Rv 19: 11-19, the description of Jesus returning on a white horse with the armies of heaven behind Him, to make war against the beast and his followers, the armies fighting Jerusalem;

Zech 14: 3&4, the same thing from a Old testament persepctive, the Lord returning to the Mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem, to fight for Israel against the armies invading her;

Matt 25:31-46, Jesus as judge, who has 'returned' with His holy angels, judging the nations, the sheep and the goats. This is clearly NOT the 'final' judgment, because it is based on works, not faith. This shows the judgment that will take place as soon as Jesus has returned, defeated the armies attacking Jerusalem, and then he calls together the nations of those surviving, as seen in Zechariah 14:16, who will be judged according to how the treated the people of God who were being persecuted. Thus, it is not so much salvation they receive, since it is by grace through faith, but it is passage into His kingdom, in the flesh.

 

Three times specifically the Bible says Jesus will come just prior to the start of the milennial reign, and that He WILL reign from earth, not from heaven for an unspecified, long period of time, as they also believe.

 

That's my view on it, anyways. It seems like, at some point, someone rejected dispensationalism, and had to invent something else to replace it. Then they pretend that it was the original view.  This is the problem with our various boxes we like to place our theology into: it is rarely complete and often full of non-facts. Instead of being dispensationalists, post-mailennialists, Calvinists, Arminianists, etc, why can't we just be Biblicists and see where that takes us-otherwise, instead of interpreting the Bible for what it says, we interpret it to fit our 'isms', so to speak. Let God be true and every man a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think the post-millennium concept arose after the Reformation, with Catholicism vanquished & the "true" Protestant religion established in much of Europe. The post-mil was starting !

Mike:

I've never really read much about the PM position, but I have just been reading a blog by a fellow named Jay Rogers at 'the forerunner' website, and his view on the PM.

 

I'll say this for them: they're very optimistic! They believe that things are getting better, that more people are getting saved, and more nations are becoming Christian nations than ever before. And of course, that Jesus will come back because the world has been so well-evangelized that its virtually a paradise! So, very optimistic; naive, but optimistic.

Look around - with the Toronto blessing sweeping the world, & the  revival in China, the return of the Jews, the breakdown of religious barriers between RCs & Protestants who could fail to expect the conversion of the world? Sometimes I feel lonely as I don't share the euphoria.

 

One interesting thing I read, of the other interesting things there, was his assertion that nowhere does the Bible either implicitly or explicitely state that Jesus will return before the Millenial reign. Yet, I find at least three places that appear, to me anyways, to explicitely state that He will, indeed, return before it:

There is a lot of "reading in" from a range of doctrinal standpoints - as Mike acknowledges. If they restated that Scripturally, "return" would not be used for the Lord's COMING for resurrection & judgement. "Return" is used 3 times in 2 parables Luke 12:36 & Luke 19:12ff. Arguably both relate to the Lord's coming in AD 70 to judge the generation that rejected him. As the millennium is the present Gospel age the Lord does return before the [a]millennium.  

 

   Rv 19: 11-19, the description of Jesus returning on a white horse with the armies of heaven behind Him, to make war against the beast and his followers, the armies fighting Jerusalem;

Zech 14: 3&4, the same thing from a Old testament persepctive, the Lord returning to the Mount of Olives, outside Jerusalem, to fight for Israel against the armies invading her;

Matt 25:31-46, Jesus as judge, who has 'returned' with His holy angels, judging the nations, the sheep and the goats. This is clearly NOT the 'final' judgment, because it is based on works, not faith. This shows the judgment that will take place as soon as Jesus has returned, defeated the armies attacking Jerusalem, and then he calls together the nations of those surviving, as seen in Zechariah 14:16, who will be judged according to how the treated the people of God who were being persecuted. Thus, it is not so much salvation they receive, since it is by grace through faith, but it is passage into His kingdom, in the flesh.

 

Three times specifically the Bible says Jesus will come just prior to the start of the milennial reign, and that He WILL reign from earth, not from heaven for an unspecified, long period of time, as they also believe.

That is definitely imposing a futurist dispensational interpretation that is far from explicit from the Scriptures cited.

 

 

That's my view on it, anyways. It seems like, at some point, someone rejected dispensationalism, and had to invent something else to replace it. Then they pretend that it was the original view. 

No. At some point, 200 years ago, someone invented dispensationalism.

 

This is the problem with our various boxes we like to place our theology into: it is rarely complete and often full of non-facts. Instead of being dispensationalists, post-mailennialists, Calvinists, Arminianists, etc, why can't we just be Biblicists and see where that takes us-otherwise, instead of interpreting the Bible for what it says, we interpret it to fit our 'isms', so to speak. Let God be true and every man a liar.

There I agree, up to a point. That point is of course where YOU disagree with ME! There is Bible truth - Gospel truth which as DeaconDixon pointed out, all Christians must agree - but profoundly disagree about what we must agree on....... 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've been studying some more in this area and it's interesting to note that those who hold to the main different views of the millennium all have some points in common. Then as one looks closer, some of them actually have a lot in common (such as post and a-mils).

 

I've also found it interesting to note that at different times over the centuries, different millennial/end times views have been the most common one held to, and then another takes its place, then another, and it seems to keep cycling.

 

Also, for some reason, I've noted that a-mils, post-mils and even most historic pre-mils, are rather respectful of one another and the differing views, but many of the dispensational pre-mils are on the arrogant side, and are more prone to make personal charges against those who hold to another view.

 

Perhaps the most important point I've noticed is that not any of the views are 100% solid. Each of them have some "difficult areas" which are harder for the proponents to support or make to fit their view, and which those from other views have possibly reasonable alternative views in that area.

 

Another factor is the almost universal propensity for American dispensational pre-mils to speak as if whatever they see or think here in America is true for the whole world. From what I've been reading about just the dispensational aspect, that view was mostly rejected in England where it was formulated, but a few took the idea to America. Some in America latched onto the new teaching and it began to spread, especially once incorporated into the Schofield Bible. Yet outside of America dispensationalism doesn't seem to ever have been widely accepted.

 

Until I was studying this more deeply, I wasn't fully aware of there being two main pre-mil camps, the historic and dispensational. I've known several pre-mils who reject what they call the unbiblical teaching of dispensationalism, but I've never heard any of them refer to themselves as historic pre-mils.

 

While those who hold to the post-mil position have some good points to make, I can't see that the world is progressively becoming more Christian nor can I see in Scripture that Christians are to make the world very Christian before Christ can return. On an interesting historic note, many of those in the Northern (mostly Northeastern) abolitionist movement, which helped elect Lincoln president and which continually pushed for war, were post-mils who viewed a war against the Southern States to be a necessary step in making the world ready for Christ to return. The unbiblical song "Battle Hymn of the Republic" was written by such and as such.

 

I'm currently studying more into the historic pre-mil view and the a-mil view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I've been studying some more in this area and it's interesting to note that those who hold to the main different views of the millennium all have some points in common. Then as one looks closer, some of them actually have a lot in common (such as post and a-mils).

 

I've also found it interesting to note that at different times over the centuries, different millennial/end times views have been the most common one held to, and then another takes its place, then another, and it seems to keep cycling.

 

Also, for some reason, I've noted that a-mils, post-mils and even most historic pre-mils, are rather respectful of one another and the differing views, but many of the dispensational pre-mils are on the arrogant side, and are more prone to make personal charges against those who hold to another view.

 

Perhaps the most important point I've noticed is that not any of the views are 100% solid. Each of them have some "difficult areas" which are harder for the proponents to support or make to fit their view, and which those from other views have possibly reasonable alternative views in that area.

 

Another factor is the almost universal propensity for American dispensational pre-mils to speak as if whatever they see or think here in America is true for the whole world. From what I've been reading about just the dispensational aspect, that view was mostly rejected in England where it was formulated, but a few took the idea to America. Some in America latched onto the new teaching and it began to spread, especially once incorporated into the Schofield Bible. Yet outside of America dispensationalism doesn't seem to ever have been widely accepted.

 

Until I was studying this more deeply, I wasn't fully aware of there being two main pre-mil camps, the historic and dispensational. I've known several pre-mils who reject what they call the unbiblical teaching of dispensationalism, but I've never heard any of them refer to themselves as historic pre-mils.

 

While those who hold to the post-mil position have some good points to make, I can't see that the world is progressively becoming more Christian nor can I see in Scripture that Christians are to make the world very Christian before Christ can return. On an interesting historic note, many of those in the Northern (mostly Northeastern) abolitionist movement, which helped elect Lincoln president and which continually pushed for war, were post-mils who viewed a war against the Southern States to be a necessary step in making the world ready for Christ to return. The unbiblical song "Battle Hymn of the Republic" was written by such and as such.

 

I'm currently studying more into the historic pre-mil view and the a-mil view.

 

The dispensationalist teaching was confined to the Brethren and Irvingites (The Catholic Apostolic Church) in England during most of the 19th c.  Then Darby went to America and it went viral.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The dispensationalist teaching was confined to the Brethren and Irvingites (The Catholic Apostolic Church) in England during most of the 19th c.  Then Darby went to America and it went viral.

It was the acceptance of Scofield's 1-volume "commentary" and its free issue in the US Bible colleges that popularised dispensationalism. In my younger days here in the UK, many carried the Scofield "Bible."

 

John - don't neglect the (partial) Preterist position.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

It was the acceptance of Scofield's 1-volume "commentary" and its free issue in the US Bible colleges that popularised dispensationalism. In my younger days here in the UK, many carried the Scofield "Bible."

 

John - don't neglect the (partial) Preterist position.

I mostly have to rely upon you to put forth that position. There doesn't seem to be as much out there addressing that specific point as there are the pre-mil, post-mil and a-mil views; though there is also a good amount of information on the mid-trib view, which is mostly like the pre-mil other than the timing of when they see a rapture occurring.

 

Scofield not only put forth dispensationalism, he also put forth the Gap Theory, and held to other views not in line with Scripture. I've never been a fan of the Scofield Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...