Historicist Postmillennialism and the "when" of the millennium

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pslagle2012

Puritan Board Freshman
I am postmillennial and interested in historicism. I have come across a few historicists who date set the timing of the millennium and the end, I believe by estimating the fall of the papacy based on the 1260 day-years of the little horn. The problem is those I read date the millennium to around the year 2000.

Is there a model of postmil historicism that doesn't have this tendency of date setting and if so what are some of those alternative views?
 
I thought post mil viewpoint had same starting date as A mil, at His ascension , but that they view the church ushering the fullness of it in throughout history more and more?
 
Dachaser said:
I thought post mil viewpoint had same starting date as A mil, at His ascension , but that they view the church ushering the fullness of it in throughout history more and more?
Click to expand...

Different varieties of postmil. Also, for a while most postmil were amil were more or less the same thing.
 
Dachaser said:
I thought post mil viewpoint had same starting date as A mil, at His ascension
Click to expand...

Some do, and some don't.

Technically, Postmills believe in a future time for the start of the millennium, where Amills think we are now living in the millennium. But, some people called Postmills agree with the Amills that we are now living in the millennium. I guess they are technically Amills who have an optimistic view of the future success of the Kingdom on earth. I think Amillennialism is a poor name because it means no-millennium whereas both views believe in a millennium. Amills (not all) tend to be very pessimistic about the future success of the Gospel.

Personally, I believe we may have thousands of years before the end. My eyes cry, literally, for those that have a remnant mentality and no hope for the triumph of the One to whom all power and authority is given. I liken them to the ten spies (always the majority view) who did not believe that they could take the promised land.

Well, that's enough for now.
 
Ed Walsh said:
Some do, and some don't.

Technically, Postmills believe in a future time for the start of the millennium, where Amills think we are now living in the millennium. But, some people called Postmills agree with the Amills that we are now living in the millennium. I guess they are technically Amills who have an optimistic view of the future success of the Kingdom on earth. I think Amillennialism is a poor name because it means no-millennium whereas both views believe in a millennium. Amills (not all) tend to be very pessimistic about the future success of the Gospel.

Personally, I believe we may have thousands of years before the end. My eyes cry, literally, for those that have a remnant mentality and no hope for the triumph of the One to whom all power and authority is given. I liken them to the ten spies (always the majority view) who did not believe that they could take the promised land.

Well, that's enough for now.
Click to expand...
I see the Lord active in and through His own people always in History, but that there will also be a really dark time coming upon this earth, but that the Lord Jesus shall return to establish His kingdom in full upon this Earth and paradise restored time.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Different varieties of postmil. Also, for a while most postmil were amil were more or less the same thing.
Click to expand...
Think that the main difference would be that post mils would see the church taking over to some extent , and transforming culture/society, while A Mils would tend to see it becoming worse until the second coming of Christ.
 
Dachaser said:
Think that the main difference would be that post mils would see the church taking over to some extent , and transforming culture/society, while A Mils would tend to see it becoming worse until the second coming of Christ.
Click to expand...

How many books by postmillennialists have you read? They would dispel a lot of your misconceptions. The church doesn't take over. The "church" isn't the same thing as "godly culture."
 
BayouHuguenot said:
How many books by postmillennialists have you read? They would dispel a lot of your misconceptions. The church doesn't take over. The "church" isn't the same thing as "godly culture."
Click to expand...
My main reading has been those who describe a reconstructionism/dominion theology, by which they would see God working through the church in ways that would have us to make culture and society line up with the rules and laws of God.
 
Dachaser said:
My main reading has been those who describe a reconstructionism/dominion theology, by which they would see God working through the church in ways that would have us to make culture and society line up with the rules and laws of God.
Click to expand...

God's working through the church is not the same thing as The Church Taking Over. The latter makes it sound like the Inquisition.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
God's working through the church is not the same thing as The Church Taking Over. The latter makes it sound like the Inquisition.
Click to expand...
Some of those who advocate the church have dominion and setting up the Kingdom in order for Jesus to return do sound like soldiers for Christ.
 
Dachaser said:
Some of those who advocate the church have dominion and setting up the Kingdom in order for Jesus to return do sound like soldiers for Christ.
Click to expand...

I'm a soldier for Christ.

But unless you are talking about people saying the church should militarily take over city hall. If you believe postmils teach that, then you need to provide documentary evidence.
 
I think one problem is that people don't see that the Church can triumph even while the world grows darker. They think the Church must somehow have the upper hand visibly, rather than overcoming spiritually. As the world's population increases, God is gathering in His elect--there are more sinners born every day, but God is adding to His church daily such as should be saved. In fact, the Church is triumphing even now as her Lord sustains and guides her and providentially disposes all events.
I suppose that makes me a pessimistic optimist amillennial. The world grows darker, the Church is built notwithstanding, and God will be glorified in the end. "Even so come, Lord Jesus."
 
It's remarkable that we're 12 posts into the thread and no one has even attempted to answer the original post.
pslagle2012 said:
I am postmillennial and interested in historicism. I have come across a few historicists who date set the timing of the millennium and the end, I believe by estimating the fall of the papacy based on the 1260 day-years of the little horn. The problem is those I read date the millennium to around the year 2000.

Is there a model of postmil historicism that doesn't have this tendency of date setting and if so what are some of those alternative views?
Click to expand...
I have not studied historicism thoroughly, but there are some notable historicists ministering today, including W. J. Mencarow, Steven Dilday, and Rob McCurley. I have a hard time believing that any of these men have adopted their position without giving due weight to questions like this; so, to the question, "Is there a model of postmil historicism that doesn't have this tendency of date setting and if so what are some of those alternative views?" I'm going to say, probably.

This sermon may be of use to you regarding the 1260 days: 1260 Days of Revelation, W. J. Mencarow.

I wish I could give a more helpful response than that, but perhaps I've pointed you in the right direction.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
I'm a soldier for Christ.

But unless you are talking about people saying the church should militarily take over city hall. If you believe postmils teach that, then you need to provide documentary evidence.
Click to expand...
I am speaking here about reconstructionists/Dominion theology, like Kingdom Now.
 
Dachaser said:
I am speaking here about reconstructionists/Dominion theology, like Kingdom Now.
Click to expand...

Dominion theology is a "scare term," so I don't consider it in the discussion. No respectable Reconstructionist calls himself "Kingdom Now" (also a scare term). Which recon authors have you read and what about their specific theses made you think they want to get the church to take over?
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Dominion theology is a "scare term," so I don't consider it in the discussion. No respectable Reconstructionist calls himself "Kingdom Now" (also a scare term). Which recon authors have you read and what about their specific theses made you think they want to get the church to take over?
Click to expand...
I have read mainly those such as Gary North, and Bishop Paulk.
 
Dachaser said:
I have read mainly those such as Gary North, and Bishop Paulk.
Click to expand...
Brother, if you put the two of those men in the same category, then you do not understand one or either of them. Further, if you think that they (whether considered separately or together) are a good representation of Reconstructionism as a whole, then you are seriously mistaken, and you don't understand Reconstructionism.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, recons don't necessarily believe in "Kingdom, Now." Gary North makes clear in Dominion and Common Grace that God gives the covenant-breakers enough rope to hang themselves. We don't believe in Kingdom Now because sometimes the covenant-breakers don't have enough rope yet.
 
TylerRay said:
Brother, if you put the two of those men in the same category, then you do not understand one or either of them. Further, if you think that they (whether considered separately or together) are a good representation of Reconstructionism as a whole, then you are seriously mistaken, and you don't understand Reconstructionism.
Click to expand...
I am very open to understanding this issue more, as the ones have heard and read seemed to see the Lord using the Church to set up the Kingdom here on earth in full over a long period of time.
 
BayouHuguenot said:
Anyway, recons don't necessarily believe in "Kingdom, Now." Gary North makes clear in Dominion and Common Grace that God gives the covenant-breakers enough rope to hang themselves. We don't believe in Kingdom Now because sometimes the covenant-breakers don't have enough rope yet.
Click to expand...
Is there any difference between how Calvinists see Christians become involved in culture and having Christ in the arts/music/etc?
 
Why don't we start a different thread on Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism? The original post has nothing to do with these issues, and I think the way that this thread has been hijacked is very disrespectful to Patrick (pslagle2012), who had a very specific question which has not yet been answered.
 
TylerRay said:
Why don't we start a different thread on Theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism? The original post has nothing to do with these issues, and I think the way that this thread has been hijacked is very disrespectful to Patrick (pslagle2012), who had a very specific question which has not yet been answered.
Click to expand...
I did not mean to hijack this thread, as was trying to get a better handle on postmil, and those 2 viewpoints that seem to be part of it.
 
Dachaser said:
Which one sees the Lord as setting up the Mosaic law as the civil authority for the government then?
Click to expand...

That's not the point, and North doesn't spend all that much time on it. That's very small in the theocratic program. North spends the bulk of his time talking about the Covenantal Model.
 
Back to the OP. I think answering it is almost impossible. One of the difficulties of historicist hermeneutics is that it has to update the charts every few generations. The French Revolution and Napoleon are case in point. The papacy was fairly weak and lame after that--and well still is, at least politically.

And it was hard to make the claim that the Pope was the Antichrist during the time of Hitler and Stalin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top