The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Distinction between a-mill and post-mill

It has been said that at the time of the Reformation, there was not a distinction between the A-Mill and Post-Mill.

Nowadays, there appears to be clear gap between the two. What happened? Which camp has moved?

I believe you will find your answer here: A Study of American Postmillenialism by Kim Riddlebarger (though I do not think his treatment of the subject is as thorough as Venema's in The Promise of the Future).

Joe, thanks - a very good and interesting article.

When the post-mill speak of the Church or Christianity being victorios in the end, do they mean the visible church, or the invisible. Will everyone become a believer. What do they really mean by that?

I do not know of any Post-Mill or A-Mill that does not think the invisible church is not victorious. The invisible Church are “the” called of God, the elect from the very foundations of the earth. They will and have overcome! This is even NOW, for we are in Christ!

However, the Post-Mill believes in a "golden age" of spiritual prosperity that may continue for centuries, during which Christ's Kingdom will be triumphant over the earth. This “golden age” will be before the return of Christ. It is the triumphant spread of the Gospel which coverts the nations and the preponderance of the human race. Some of the evidence they cite relates not only to the visible Church, but civilization in general: (1) world has come a long way over last 2000 years, (2) higher social, moral and economic plane than 2000 years ago, (3) today Bible in native tongue of 98% of population, (4) Gospel in radio to all major languages, (5) Bible schools and enrollment in them, rapidly advancing, (6) publication of Christian magazines and books, (7) Christianity advanced more in last 100 years than in previous 1800 years, (8) foreign missions on greatest scale ever, (9) society already benefited from Christian influence (transportation, communication, new knowledge, new energy sources, principles of justice, etc.), etc. Though they do not believe that the “golden age” will be a time of absolute perfection and righteousness, it will be a period of time marked by moral righteousness, universal peace among the nations, and unprecedented economic prosperity. Different brands of Post-Mills see more/less victory in this “golden age.” Some Post-Mills (PM), particularly the "Christian Reconstructionists," call the church to "Christianize" the world, a task that Holy Scripture nowhere assigns either to the church or to the believer (Engelsma).

While the A-Mill (AM) position does not debate the advancement in all the above areas, they do not see where this can be termed as a “golden age.” The, AMs argue: (1) that the church in the end time will be a persecuted church, not a triumphalist church and thus PMs ill-prepare the people of God for the struggle that lies ahead, (2) that PMs take the hope of the church off the coming of Christ and the resurrection of the body and re-direct hope toward the golden age, and (3) the Messianic kingdom in history is the church, not a "Christianized" world, etc., etc., etc.

The best book to read in this area is The Promise of the Future by Cornelius Venema.

John,

You might also enjoy and benefit from reading this: Why Not Postmillennialism?.

The Golden Age viewpoint has always been a bugaboo for me. Is it due to God's superintending whereby He makes life easier or is it due to the faithfulness of believers. Both imo are questionable Scripturally. We are called to be aliens and at enmity with the World.

I must say most, if not all, Post-Mills that I know are Theonomists who believe we can usher in the Golden Age by our faithfulness. That also runs contrary to the depravity of man, imo. Why do we think we can keep the law, and moreso, why not voting for the Constitutional Party is a sin. Which brings to mind a different question that should be asked in another thread. Is Christianity corporal or individual?

It just appears that the a-mill has better answers, though that may have been classified as Post-mill in the past.

Christianity is individual. It involves an individual relationship with the LORD. However, second it is corporate. Being a Christian effects others as well (we have gifts to share with the body, we share communion, etc.). Being a Christian affects the whole Kingdom of God in one form or the other. Neither of these though "ultimately" affect the Second Coming of Christ. The time has already been set by the Father (Matt 24:36) and "every" elect soul shall be saved before that great and glorious day. If indeed the time has been set, then how by our faithfulness do we change this day--(sounds like openess theology <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/drop.gif" alt="" />). (Dr. Richard Pratt does not agree: Historical Contingencies and Biblical Predictions). However, faithfulness is a matter of Covenant/Kingdom obedience--it is what is expected of us at all times .....

As you said though, if we discuss this further it does need to be in a different thread.

I think the following from the article answers that question.

By the way, when I was trying to decide which eschatological position I agreed with, this particular part is what made me lean towards the amil position.
My understanding of what the Bible is saying is that it will be hard on the true Christian, not easy.

Tom

I agree with you, John.

Most of my postmil pals are either theonomist / reconstructionist and/or proponents of "Federal Vision" theology. I would love to believe that the postmil guys are right, but I haven't been convinced from Scripture that they are. I'd love to be persuaded, but I can't choose to believe something just because I wish it were true.

Not long ago I would have summed up the difference between amil and postmil as being mostly agreed on major points and differing only in what each expects the Lord to find on the earth when He returns: Postmils expect Him to find a world and culture that has been subdued by the gospel, and amils expect Him to find His elect in the minority, perhaps persecuted or hidden within a largely apostate visible church.

But I no longer think that is an accurate description of the difference. It isn't just a matter of what the Lord will find when He arrives, but today's theonomy/NPP-driven flavor of postmillennialism differs from historic non-millennialism in it's belief about the nature of the kingdom of God. Part of that belief has to do with the whole corporate-versus-individual question you've raised.

I like the way the WCF describes the covenant community and distinguishes it from the truly regenerate using the terms "visible church (the church as we see it)" and "invisible church (the church as God sees her)." The NPP and theonomy-based postmillennialism blurs and confuses that distinction, and even suggests certain forms of works-righteousness and salvation by sacrament (sola fide formata - faith formed by works or by means of grace such as the sacraments, rather than sola fide - faith alone, demonstrated by works).

Still amil,
Robin

Good post, Robin, and I agree with your observations.

We are warned we'll be at odds with The World, yet if postmil is accurate there will come a point when no, Christians won't be at odds with it. IOW, there are fairly significant chunks of Scripture which will become passé before Christ returns, and I just don't think that's accurate.