I would be interested in hearing how some of the Amillennialists and Postmillennialists here understand the practical "working out" of the eschatological ideas found in 1 Corinthians 15, specifically:
21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive. 23 But each one in his own order: Christ the firstfruits, afterward those who are Christ's at His coming. 24 Then comes the end, when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father, when He puts an end to all rule and all authority and power. 25 For He must reign till He has put all enemies under His feet. 26 The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
I see this teaching the following concepts:
1. Christ has been raised from the dead and rules at this very present time and will continue to do so until all enemies are put underneath His feet. 2. The last enemy Christ will destroy is death. 3. We know that the resurrection will take place prior to the Final Judgment. 4. The resurrection is the victory over death. 5. Hence, the enemies of Christ must somehow be defeated prior to the Second Coming when all are raised unto the resurrection of condemnation or the resurrection of life.
Question for the Amil.: How is this victory over the enemies of Christ realized in history?
Question for the Postmil: If the defeat of the enemies of Christ is realized by the gradual victory of the Gospel over the majority of the world, how is it that the enemies of Christ were really defeated if they only rise up to essentially take over again prior to the Second Coming?
(Or ... are my basic assumptions about the order of the above events in error?)
These are two questions that I have been trying to resolve, albeit unsuccessfully. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Question for the Amil.: How is this victory over the enemies of Christ realized in history?
Simply put, Christ shall build His church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. As the elect of God were called and preserved from Adam to Christ, so shall the elect of God be called and preserved until the return of Christ. The Church shall be victorious in that the Gospel shall reach all that it was intended to reach and bring salvation to the remnant of God.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Question for the Postmil: If the defeat of the enemies of Christ is realized by the gradual victory of the Gospel over the majority of the world, how is it that the enemies of Christ were really defeated if they only rise up to essentially take over again prior to the Second Coming?
Where does 1 Cor 15 say that the enemies of Christ "take over again" prior to the Second Coming? I think you are missing some scripture references for that if there are any.
And your question to the Amill is one of the issues in the debate between Amills and Postmills. See this article, This World and the Kingdom of God[/u].
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] 1 Corinthians 15:22-26…How is this victory over the enemies of Christ realized in history?</font><hr></blockquote><p> Verses 23-24 reveal to us a beginning of some order. These verses begin to explain the sequence of those people who shall be made alive in Christ. Christ, the first in the resurrection ([color:blue]firstfruits</font color=blue> revealing the full-harvest will ensue in due time), will be followed by countless multitudes of those that belong to Him. The resurrection of Christ’s elect take place in two stages; (1) the dead in Christ shall rise from their graves… (2) then the believers who are alive at His coming shall be transformed (1 Thess 4:16-17). But, Paul says NOTHING here about the resurrection of unbelievers, even though the OT & NT relate that these will be resurrected to shame and everlasting condemnation (Dan. 12:2; John 5:29). The comes then end. <br><br>The last enemy that will be destroyed ([color:red]abolished</font color=red>) is death.<br><br>For the human race, this force—death—has continued to rule from Adam’s fall until now…Adam’s disobedience to the Divine mandate resulted in his and his posterities death… But, Jesus, through His death, burial, and resurrection, [color:red]conquered</font color=red> and will [color:red]abolish</font color=red> it in the consummation. The dominion of death will be abolished when all Christ’s people have been raised from the dead are glorified.<br><br>The Greek verb [color:red]katargeo</font color=red> which is translated [color:red]I abolish</font color=red> (passive voice), conveys the idea of making ruling powers ineffective, that is, by terminating and setting them aside (Bauer). Paul enumerates three categories: all rule, all authority, and power. These expressions were often used by the Jews to designate demons. Where they occur in Paul’s epistles, the context must determine if the text refers to demonic powers (Rom 8:38; Eph 1:21, 3:10, 6:12; Col 1:16, 2:10, 15—Walter Grundmann writes, [color:blue]the term [color:red]dynameis</font color=red> is designed to express the power of angelic and demonic forces</font color=blue>). After the resurrection of believers, Christ will [color:red]abolish</font color=red> these spiritual forces of evil (Eph 6:12). He will destroy the power of all rule, all authority, and power in heavenly places and will do so in a single action! After He accomplishes that feat, He hands the Kingdom to His Father.<br><br>Paul writes the verb to abolish in the PASSIVE voice and intimates that God is the agent who will terminate the power of this destructive force—death. Look at this outline's symmetry (compare A w/A, B w/B, et. al.):<br><br><ul>A. Verse 24. Then comes the [color:red]end</font color=red>,<br><br><ul>B. when He delivers the kingdom to God the Father,<br><br><ul>C. after He abolished all rule, and all authority and power,<br><br><ul>D. Verse 25. for he must rule until he has put all enemies under His feet,<br><br><ul>E.Verse 26. the last enemy that will be abolished is death.[/LIST] <br>D. Verse 27. For He has put all things under His feet,[/LIST] <br>C. and when He says, “All things are put under Him,” it is clear that the one who subjected all things to Him is excepted.[/LIST] <br>B. Verse 28. and when all things are subjected to Him, then even the Son himself shall be subjected to the one who subjected all things to Him. [/LIST] <br>A. so that God may be all in all![/LIST] All this, of course, leads to a question I have with the Post-Mil theory. When Does Christ Become King? Venema asserts, and I agree:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]The Post-Mil position suggests that the kingship of Christ is not so much present as it is a future reality: The coming of Christ in the fullness of time, though inaugurated a new period in the history of redemption, did not by itself constitute the great turning point in history so far as the Kingdom of God is concerned.... Rather, it commenced a series of events which only in terms of subsequent developments lead to a M-King.... However the millennial commences, it does not commence until sometime after the great redemptive events attested in the NT Scriptures.... These redemptive events will eventually lead to a M-King.... But, these events do nor coincide with the commencement of Christ’s millennial reign, which comes later in redemptive history.</blockquote></font color=blue> The problem here is that it compromises the testimony of the NT that the reign of Christ commences with the first advent and installation at the right hand of the Father. Though the manifestation of Christ’s rule may vary throughout history, it is the entire period between Christ’s resurrection and His return at the end of the age in which He has all authority (Matt 28:16-20) and exercises kingly dominion on the earth. The preaching of the Gospel to all creation and the discipling of the nations—these are the great tasks of Christ’s Church in this present period of history, and they express His present rule as king (Strimple—Amillennialism, p 61).<br><br>Consequently, those passages that speak of Christ’s kingdom refer to the entire present age subsequent to Christ’s return at the end of the age. In, Philippians 2:9-11, after the well known description of Christ’s humiliation, the Apostle Paul describes Christ's exaltation:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.</blockquote></font color=blue> This defines Christ’s present glory, not one that is reserved to the future in any new or distinguished sense (compare, Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:15; 1 Pet 3:22). Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and thus is reigning now!<br><br>Now, Post-Mil will respond, what of 1 Cor 15? But, the passages as explained above should be understood to reveal, that subsequent to His resurrection from the dead, Christ was installed as king and is presently reigning over all things. This present reign of Christ will come to an end when all of His enemies have been brought under His feet—the last enemy being death. There is no suggestion in these passages of an unprecedented period of Christ’s millennial reign that will intervene between the present reality of His reign and the final state, when all His enemies, including death, have been defeated. The passage leaves no room for a Golden Age between the present age and the age to come. Rather, it teaches that the millennial reign of Christ encompasses the present period of history, to be concluded only at the time of the final conquest of all Christ’s enemies at the end of this age. <br><br>Some modern day Post-Mils will now argue away from this view saying Christ is presently King and that His reign just varies in its degrees. Thus, this Post-Mil creature asserts that Christ as king will become increasingly more manifest as the Gospel progressively comes to triumph on the earth. Thus, some Post-Mils concede that the millennial is now [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]. According to this Post creature the basic difference between Post-Mil and A-Mil is that the former has a more optimistic and biblical expectation of success of the Gospel in this present age than the latter. Typically, those who argue in this fashion criticize the A-Mil for an unbiblical pessimism and lack of confidence in the promised success of the church’s discipling of the nations (Norman Shepherd).<br><br>Curiosity, this argument seems to abandon the traditional Post-Mil claim of a future unprecedented period of Gospel blessing that is distinguishable from the remainder of the period between Christ’s first and second advents. It abandons the chiliasm of the classic Post-Mil expectation: the view that Rev 20 is a distinct period in history that begins some time after the first advent. Indeed, this represents a major concession to the A-Mil view! <br><br>Thus, either way IMHO, Post-Mil loses to the truth of A-Mil.<br><br>That is my final 2 cents [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]. Read Kistemaker, 1 Cor. (or take his 1 Cor. course this coming semester at RTS) and see Venema—Promise of the Future for more.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Where does 1 Cor 15 say that the enemies of Christ "take over again" prior to the Second Coming?
Sorry, it does not, I included aspects derived from other parts of Scripture. From what I have read, most Postmils admit that there is a significant falling away prior to the Second Coming. I'll check out your articles.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]All this, of course, leads to a question I have with the Post-Mil theory. When Does Christ Become King?
Postmills are in agreement with Amills that Christ became King during His first Advent. Thus, your "post-Mil theory" is flawed.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]"The Post-Mil position suggests that the kingship of Christ is not so much present as it is a future reality..."
I'm not sure who you are citing here, but the Post-Mill position is that the Kingship of Christ is indeed a present reality.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]"However the millennial commences, it does not commence until sometime after the great redemptive events attested in the NT Scriptures... These redemptive events will eventually lead to a M-King.... But, these events do nor coincide with the commencement of Christ’s millennial reign, which comes later in redemptive history."
Again, this is wrong because the Post Mil view is that the Millennium began with the binding of Satan during Christ's earthly ministry (Matt 12, Rev 20)
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The problem here is that it compromises the testimony of the NT that the reign of Christ commences with the first advent and installation at the right hand of the Father.
This is a problem of your own making because the Post Mill view is that the reign of Christ commenced with His first Advent.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The preaching of the Gospel to all creation and the discipling of the nations—these are the great tasks of Christ’s Church in this present period of history, and they express His present rule as king
And this is exactly what Postmillennialism teaches too.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Consequently, those passages that speak of Christ’s kingdom refer to the entire present age subsequent to Christ’s return at the end of the age.
Again, this is also the postmillennial position.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]This defines Christ’s present glory, not one that is reserved to the future in any new or distinguished sense (compare, Eph 1:22-23; Col 1:15; 1 Pet 3:22). Christ is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, and thus is reigning now!
Again, this is also the postmill view. But the Amill view of the future era prior to the Return of Christ is one where evil men dominate and thus, contradicts the present and ongoing earthly reign of Christ in that future era.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Now, Post-Mil will respond, what 1 Cor 15? But, the passages as explained above should be understood to reveal, that subsequent to His resurrection from the dead, Christ was installed as king and is presently reigning over all things.
Again, that is the postmill position too. Why do you persist in attempting to refute a strawman version of postmillennialism?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]There is no suggestion in these passages of an unprecedented period of Christ’s millennial reign that will intervene between the present reality of His reign and the final state, when all His enemies, including death, have been defeated. The passage leaves no room for a Golden Age between the present age and the age to come.
The so called "golden age" passages are found primarily in the OT and are thus, need not be repeated in the NT, though they are implied in Romans 11 and in the gospels. Your argument is a fallacy of silence, not unlike the Baptist who claims that there is no specific mention of Infant Baptism in the NT (while conveniently ignoring the fact that there is also no NT command or example to permit women to the Lord's Table either).
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Rather, it teaches that the millennial reign of Christ encompasses the present period of history, to be concluded only at the time of the final conquest of all Christ’s enemies at the end of this age.
You have been defending postmillennialism all along so far, while attempting to argue against it.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Some modern day Post-Mils will now argue away from this view saying Christ is presently King and that His reign just varies in its degrees. Thus, this Post-Mil creature asserts that Christ as king will become increasingly more manifest as the Gospel progressively comes to triumph on the earth.
Do you normally refer to your reformed Christian brethren as "creatures"? Have you ever called "Pilgrim" a "creature" before?
Your description of postmillennialism is only now becoming accurate.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Thus, some Post-Mils concede that the millennial is now
This is not a "concession", but a centuries long declaration. Granted that some postmills have in the past described the Millennium as still future, but they have been in the minority. I only know of one or two postmills today who hold that view. The majority view has always been that the millennium began with Christ's first Advent. You need to study your primary sources better.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]According to this Post creature the basic difference between Post-Mil and A-Mil is that the former has a more optimistic and biblical expectation of success of the Gospel in this present age than the latter.
Is there such a thing as an "Amill creature"? or are only Postmill Christians properly labelled as "creatures" and are therefore, subhuman?
But this is a correct description of one of the differences between Amill and Postmill views.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Typically, those who argue in this fashion criticize the A-Mil for an unbiblical pessimism and lack of confidence in the promised success of the church’s discipling of the nations (Norman Shepherd).
Norman Shepherd said this? or are you interpreting what he said?
But regardless, this is still correct as even Amills themselves will concede that they are pessimistic. Amills will also accuse the postmill confidence of promised success as being "triumphantism", as if somehow the Gospel being "triumphant" in the world is a bad thing.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Curiosity, this argument seems to abandon the traditional Post-Mil claim of a future unprecedented period of Gospel blessing that is distinguishable from the remainder of the period between Christ’s first and second advents.
No, in fact, it affirms that "traditional Postmillennial claim". There is no contradiction here, except in your own imagination.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]It abandons the chiliasm of the classic Post-Mil expectation: the view that Rev 20 is a distinct period in history that begins some time after the first advent. Indeed, this represents a major concession to the A-Mil view!
Postmillennialism, unlike true Chiliasm, is not dependent on any particular view of Rev 20. See the postmillennial Commentaries on Romans chapter 11 by Charles Hodge, W.G.T. Shedd, Robert Haldane, John Murray, David Brown or Matthew Henry.
It is not postmillennialism that gives a "major concession" to Amillennialism, but rather, it is Amillennialism that has given a major concession to the Postmill view, since this view has historically been the postmillennial position since the time of Augustine who was a postmillennialist.
"Amillennialism" simply borrowed heavily from postmillennialism and then overly spiritualized many of the OT prophecies in an over reaction to Chiliasm (its main rival). Amillennialism is a very recent "creature" that began with Vos and Kliefoth. In fact, dispensationalism is even older than Amillennialism.
In reply to:In fact, dispensationalism is even older than Amillennialism.
This is pathetic and again indicative of the unbelievable rhetoric posited by some. These types of statements are classically cultic and have no basis in fact whatsoever. But I suppose you would say that Cornelius Venema, for example, is simply totally confused and ignorant of history in this matter and should read your Reconstructionist or select Postmillennial propoganda literature to find out the true facts, eh?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]This is pathetic and again indicative of the unbelievable rhetoric posited by some. These types of statements are classically cultic and have no basis in fact whatsoever.
Come on Pilgrim, don't be so coy, tell us how you really feel. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
But seriously, I have been studying eschatology for over 15 years. I have based my remarks on very credible scholarly research, some of which I have documented (unlike your undocumented comment above). Now I grant that I could be mistaken in some of my comments. I am not infallbible. But neither is it infallibly true that my remarks are "classically cultic" or have "no basis in fact whatsoever". Your hyperbolic statement only reveals a very emotional person who is very touchy on some topics.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]But I suppose you would say that Cornelius Venema, for example, is simply totally confused and ignorant of history in this matter
Both you and Joe seem to love to put words in other people's mouths. I never criticised Dr. Venema, and in fact, I look forward to reading his recent Amillennial book when I get a chance. Also, I would agree with your Review of Venema's book when you said that it was, "a valuable addition to the field of eschatology".
But I don't expect to agree with his critique of postmillennialism. However, I think I will appreciate much of what he has to say, even though his work is regarded by some as merely an updated version of Hoekema and Vos. Venema's work I think is much more scholarly and optimistic than Engelsma's scandalous book on Amillennialism.
Since you've obviously read Venema's book, I would challenge you to read Dr. Keith Mathison's book, [u]Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope[/u]. Maybe you could even write a review of it to add to your review of Venema's book? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/read.gif" alt="read" title="read[/img][img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]
But Pilgrim, I would suggest that in the future that you tone down the belligerent rhetoric. It doesn't help your Amillennial position one bit.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Come on Pilgrim, don't be so coy, tell us how you really feel.
I don't think it would be wise for me to do so in regard to your views on a public board! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]But seriously, I have been studying eschatology for over 15 years. I have based my remarks on very credible scholarly research, some of which I have documented (unlike your undocumented comment above).
Congratulations on your 15 years, but they pale in comparison to the years some of us have been studying. Yet, that is certainly no guarantee of coming to learn the truth, eh? Your estimation of what is credible scholarly research is rather subjective, and no doubt it would be rejected by others. My comments are certainly "documented" and can be found on The Highway if you would only take the time to look. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Your hyperbolic statement only reveals a very emotional person who is very touchy on some topics.
Well, thank you for that Dr. Phil!! I will admit I do have a strong distaste for cultic views which are detrimental to the historic faith.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Both you and Joe seem to love to put words in other people's mouths. I never criticized Dr. Venema,
Did you even bother to actually READ what I wrote before criticizing?
But I suppose you would say that Cornelius Venema, for example, is simply totally confused and ignorant of history in this matter
Given your ridiculous statement about Dispensationalism predating Amillennialism and knowing how Venema documents carefully the TRUE history of the Amillennial and Postmillennial views, it is a reasonable conclusion on my part that you would also criticize him as one who is totally ignorant of history, etc...
To be perfectly honest, I have too many Postmillennial authors already in my library who I do have respect for, even though I disagree with their view. They are the older writers who were far more amiable and conservative in their use of the Scriptures than their modern progeny, which may be an insult to them to even use the term "progeny". In fact I have more books that aren't Amillennial than those that are. But, since all one needs to learn of Amillennialism is the Bible, there is really no need to buy any more. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/evilgrin.gif" alt="evilgrin" title="evilgrin[/img]
And we wonder why the Reconstructionist and Post-Mil posts were moved? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]
As put in my post this is part of Venema's—Promise of the Future argument of which I completely concur. If I had time I would summarize more of it to continue to show you the straw-man position of the Post-Mil theory. Your insinuation that Venema, myself, or other individuals in the A-Mil camp do not know history or anything about the Post-Mil view is indeed [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
How many books in history have you written in your 15 years of scholarly research? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/broke.gif" alt="broke" title="broke[/img] How many books has Venema written? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bravo.gif" alt="bravo" title="bravo[/img] Venema IMHO is a trusted scholar as opposed to??? Additionally, this is not only his research, but that of several others that have come to the same conclusion.
The only problem here is that you cannot refute what was written and thus your Post-straw-man is all burnt up and you have nothing left, but insinuations. Of course, if Post-Mil is incorrect other systems you embrace crumble as well [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Do you normally refer to your reformed Christian brethren as "[color:red]creatures"? Have you ever called "Pilgrim" a "creature" before?
Now, I understand what part and parcel of you problem is. CT292 you must read the whole Bible and not just study eschatology from other books! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/yep.gif" alt="yep" title="yep[/img] See the Bible uses the term [color:red]creature. As matter a fact Paul says, [color:blue]Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new [color:red]creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. (2 Corinthians 5:17). Are you a [color:red]creature or not? As matter a fact, this is done several times:
[color:blue]Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new [color:red]creature.
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every [color:red]creature:
Colossians 1:23 If ye continue in the faith grounded and settled, and be not moved away from the hope of the gospel, which ye have heard, and which was preached to every [color:red]creature which is under heaven; whereof I Paul am made a minister;
I am surprised you did not understand this, but apologize that you took offense, though I used a biblical term. If one is born-again ([color:red]new creature) he will of course embrace an eschatological view making him a ..... an A-Mil creature, if he is correct in his eschatology (IMHO), or if incorrect, a DPM-creature, Post-creature, et. al.
But, as stated in another post, we still love you [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]. BTW have you ever read Venema, I have read your book(s) (Three Views of the Future [various authors], The Millennium [Boettner], Dispensationalism or Postmillennialism, An Eschatology of Hope [Mathison], et. al. ), have you read [color:red]Promise of the Future, or Bavinck ([color:red]Reformed Dogmatics or [color:red]The Last Things), Vos ([color:red]Pauline Eschatology or [color:red]Eschatology in the Old Testament), or Hoekema ([color:red]The Bible and the Future or [color:red]Behold He Cometh), et. al.? Enjoy [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Well, I had some extra time [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Venema, continues his exegesis against the Post-Mil by asking another simple question, [color:blue]Is a servant greater than His master? One of the great themes in Scripture is the theme of suffering and cross-bearing. This was a major theme in the Reformer’s writings as well—Luther, Calvin (2 chapters in his The Sum of the Christian Life: The Denial of Ourselves, et. al.).
Suffering of Christians is unmistakably spoken about in Scripture (Matt 10:34-39, 16:24; Mark 8:34; Luke 9:23-24, 14:27; Rom 8:18, Phil 3:10, Col 1:24, et. al.). To cite just one other example look at:
[color:blue]Romans 8:18-22 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. For the earnest expectation of the creature [color:red]waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
This passage reveals that this present age is one of suffering, not only of Christians, but of the whole creation. Not until [color:blue]the manifestation of the sons of God, that is the close of this age, will this circumstance be changed! Therefore, it is an inescapable feature of this interval between the times of Christ’s coming and His return in glory that suffering marks the circumstance of believer and creation alike.
Now, the Golden Age of the Post-Mil MUTES this biblical teaching about the fellowship in the suffering between Christ and His disciples. No matter how it is qualified or described, the Post-Mil Golden Age excludes these dimensions of what it means to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Consequently, Post-Mil betrays a triumphant theology of glory that prematurely anticipates in history what will be a circumstance of God’s people only in the day of their vindication.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Your insinuation that Venema, myself, or other individuals in the A-Mil camp do not know history or anything about the Post-Mil view is indeed [laughable]
I never insinuated that about you or Dr. Venema or "other individuals in the A-Mil camp". In fact, I had said the very opposite when I pointed out how you had later began to describe the postmillennial view "more accurately". I had also expressed to Pilgrim, my awareness of Dr. Venema's scholarly credibility.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Additionally, this is not only his research, but that of several others that have come to the same conclusion.
Research which could very well be mistaken in some areas, since Dr. Venema is not infallble, nor are the others who agree with him.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]The only problem here is that you cannot refute what was written
Where Amillennialism is in agreement with Postmillennialism such as on the timing of the inaugaration of Christ's earthly and spiritual Messianic Kingdom, then why would I want to refute that?
In reply to:[color:"blue"]and thus your Post-straw-man is all burnt up
What exactly is my alleged "Post-straw-man"? Rhetoric is much easier than a valid argument.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]Of course, if Post-Mil is incorrect other systems you embrace crumble as well
Really? So then that would be mean that 5 Point Calvinism, Covenant Theology, The Trinity, the Inerrancy of the Bible, Sola Fide, Sola Scriptura, Sola Gratia, and even my Christian theism would "crumble as well", and I would be left with Atheism?? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
In reply to:[color:"blue"]See the Bible uses the term creature. ....I am surprised you did not understand this, but apologize that you took offense, though I used a biblical term
Of course I know of the Biblical use of the word "creature". Your insinuation that I don't is insulting, but what else is new? However your original usage of the word when applied exclusively to the postmillennialist and not to other millenial adherents, clearly implied a non-Biblical usage and a derogatory one at that. Your Spin-doctoring of this is very amusing though.[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] But can you honestly admit that your original use of the word "creature" was intended in the Biblical sense and not one of a subtle insult? You never said that about the Amillennialist until now. So your spin-doctoring is open for all to see.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]BTW have you ever read Venema[?]
As I mentioned to Pilgrim. I have not yet read Venema, but I look forward to doing so in the future.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]I have read your book(s) Three Views of the Future [various authors], The Millennium [Boettner], Dispensationalism or Postmillennialism, An Eschatology of Hope [Mathison], et. al.
That is very good beginning. There is also:
Kenneth Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion Greg Bahnsen's Victory In Jesus: The Bright Hope of Postmillennialism John Jefferson Davis's Christ's Victorious Kingdom Roderick Campbell's Israel and the New Covenant Iain Murray's The Puritan Hope Marcellus Kik's An Eschatology of Victory David Brown's Christ's Second Coming Reformed Commentaries on Romans 11 by John Murray, Charles Hodge, W. Shedd, R. Haldane, David Brown and Matthew Henry J.A. De Jong's As the Waters Cover the Sea: Millennial Expectations in the Rise of Anglo-American Missions, 1640-1810 Errol Hulse's The Restoration of Israel William Symington's Messiah the Prince: The Mediatorial Dominion of Jesus Christ F. Nigel Lee's Christocratic Eschatology Gary DeMar's, Reduction of Christianity and his Last Days Madness David Chilton's, Paradise Restored and his Days of Vengeance Gary North's Millennialism and Social Theory and his Dominion and Common Grace. Also, the various writings of B.B. Warfield and other early Princeton Theologians and numerous puritan writings too.
And yes, I have read Vos, Bavinck and Hoekema, as well as other Amill writers (Hendrikson, Grier, Cox, Engelsma, etc). I was once an Amillennialist back in the 1980's. I even remember reading Boettner's Reformed Doctrine of Predestination back then, and I recall disagreeing at that time with his postmillennialism expressed in that book, while fully appreciating its great truths of the doctrines of sovereign grace. But of course, I later came to see that Boettner was correct on postmillennialism after all. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
This is pathetic and again indicative of the unbelievable rhetoric posited by some. These types of statements are classically cultic and have no basis in fact whatsoever. But I suppose you would say that Cornelius Venema, for example, is simply totally confused and ignorant of history in this matter and should read your Reconstructionist or select Postmillennial 
