Originally Posted by John_C
Is the resurgence in Postmillennialism coming from a newer take on the doctrine or a rediscovering of it back in the 1600s-1700s? Writers such as Keith Matheison makes post-mill sound somewhat like a-mill, except with the distinction of post-mill being optimistic and a-mill being pessimistic. They do not emphasize the 'golden era' before the rapture. Can we say they have introduce a new doctrine on post-millennialism and should be referred to with a new name (not just post-mill), such as the dispensationalist did with pre-mill. We have the historic pre-mill and the dispensational pre-mill doctrines.
Amillennialism is no less optimistic than Postmillennialism. We Amils hold that Christ will be 100% victorious in securing His elect and establishing the New Heaven and New Earth as God has eternally decreed. And, all that transpires on this earth; the gradual and eventual apostasy of the majority of churches and the reign of paganism all serves to glorify God in His judgment and exalt Christ in His supremacy as Savior and Lord of God's chosen people.

Secondly, the "Golden Age" is one of the main tenets of Postmillennialism and that which most certainly distinguishes it from Amillennialism. That alleged Golden Age is the culmination of their optimism, for without it, they believe Christ would be deemed a failure.

Lastly, I am not familiar with Matheison's eschatology and thus I cannot comment on whether it deviates from historic Postmillennialism as held by Edwards, Warfield, Boettner, et al... sorry.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]