Posted on 05/15/2014 12:50:47 PM PDT by PhilipFreneau
>>>So? Being both a postmillenialist and a preterist does not mean you are not a preterist.<<<
Are you really that thick-headed? The definition of Preterist means that all scripture is fulfilled. Postmillennialists, like myself, do not believe that.
>>>No, what you are defining is full preterism. Preterism is not limited to that definition.<<<
Yes it is. By definition, preterism means exactly that.
Jeesh! LOL!
Philip
“That is, they are forever in heaven with the Lord.”
Ah, remember, we have gone over this point before. You’re a literalist, so you can’t read “in heaven” into those verses. They’ll be with the Lord, but the verses don’t specify where that will be. Better be consistent with your interpretive principles, because if you insist on being wrong, at least you can aspire to be consistent.
“Besides, that is the “first resurrection” of AD 70, appropriately named in Revelation 20: not the second or general resurrection, also mentioned in Revelation 20.”
I agree, that is the first resurrection, when all dead Christians are resurrected, and all living Christians are transformed and go to the Lord as well. You say that happened in 70 AD, yet nobody bothered to record this event, and somehow there has never been an interruption in the presence of Christians on Earth.
“Certainly you can come up with a better argument than that in your pretense that I am not a Christian.”
You’re the one making the argument, when you say the first resurrection has already happened. You are still here, so you must have missed the boat on the first resurrection, and therefore, you are not a Christian. If the first resurrection has happened, then as you have told us in your last post, the Christians are with the Lord forever.
Revelation tells us that, for those who are part of the first resurrection, the second death (the lake of fire) has no power over them. The converse then must be true. Those who are not part of the first resurrection are at risk of hellfire. Do you believe that Christians are at such risk?
“Yes it is. By definition, preterism means exactly that.”
No, that is not what the definition says, but since you insist on such a silly denial, let’s post the definition for the rest of the forum to see how wrong you are:
“Preterism is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ’s birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled.
Preterism is most dramatically contrasted with Futurism, the view that most prophecies regarding the End times, and passages referring to Last Days, Great Tribulation, and Judgment are still future and will immediately precede the return of Christ. Proponents of preterist views generally fall in one of two categories: Partial Preterism or Full Preterism.
Partial Preterists
Partial Preterism, the older of the two views, holds that prophecies such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrist, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a “judgment-coming” of Christ were fulfilled circa 70 AD when the Roman general (and future Emperor) Titus sacked Jerusalem and destroyed the Jewish Temple, putting a permanent stop to the daily animal sacrifices. It identifies “Babylon the great” (Revelation 17-18) with the ancient pagan City of Rome or Jerusalem.”
Cont’d at: http://www.theopedia.com/Preterism
>>>At this point, it is just funny that he is so obstinate on the matter. It’s as if a poster were running around saying “Joseph Smith found some golden plates that reveal the ‘restored gospel’” and “Jesus Christ visited the Americas!”, but then refusing to admit they were a Mormon. I can’t fathom what he thinks he is accomplishing by it, besides destroying his own credibility.<<<
Will you ever get tired of posting snarky, childish comments; or is it in your blood?
Philip
>>>Well, let everyone else ask me then, and maybe I’ll clue them in.<<<
You certainly go out of your way to avoid defending your new-age doctrines.
“You certainly go out of your way to avoid defending your new-age doctrines.”
Funny, I have no problem defending my beliefs (which aren’t in any way “new-age”), while you refuse to even admit to holding your beliefs.
“Will you ever get tired of posting snarky, childish comments; or is it in your blood?”
I meet snark with snark. Stop inviting it upon yourself, and folks might stop dishing it out to you.
I never said I was a "literalist." That label is claimed by the dispy/futurist crowd, of which you are a part.
>>>They’ll be with the Lord, but the verses don’t specify where that will be.<<<
Actually, it does:
"Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air . . ." (1 Th 4:17 KJV)
I suspected you were experiencing reading comprehension difficulties.
>>>Better be consistent with your interpretive principles, because if you insist on being wrong, at least you can aspire to be consistent.<<<
You must be talking to yourself.
>>>I agree, that is the first resurrection, when all dead Christians are resurrected, and all living Christians are transformed and go to the Lord as well. You say that happened in 70 AD, yet nobody bothered to record this event, and somehow there has never been an interruption in the presence of Christians on Earth.<<<
Who was left to record it, if all were resurrected, except for the millions slaughtered by the Roman Armies, and those who had fled to Pella? Again, who was left to record it?
Don't you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies. What about John? It is claimed he lived to the end of the century. Why did he not write even a whisper about it?
I'll tell you why. That was not John, but a false apostle claiming to be John (we were warned about false apostles.) St. John was resurrected along with his fellow Saints.
>>>You’re the one making the argument, when you say the first resurrection has already happened.<<<
I am in good company. Jesus prophesied in several ways that he was coming in his own generation. I believe I mentioned some of them in my article.
>>>You are still here, so you must have missed the boat on the first resurrection, and therefore, you are not a Christian.<<<
That is truly a cult-like, red-herring argument.
>>>"If the first resurrection has happened, then as you have told us in your last post, the Christians are with the Lord forever.<<<
Only the saints, the earliest Christians, and holy men of old were resurrected in the first resurrection. Do you think you are a saint? LOL!
>>>Revelation tells us that, for those who are part of the first resurrection, the second death (the lake of fire) has no power over them. The converse then must be true.<<
That is true. Therefore, I recommend you clean up your act and quit slandering Christians, or you might not be found worthy to avoid the second death.
>>>Those who are not part of the first resurrection are at risk of hellfire. Do you believe that Christians are at such risk?<<<
True Christians? No. Of course, Jesus gave us examples of those who would be rejected, including some who claimed righteousness (e.g., the self-righteous.) Perhaps you recall some of those examples by the Lord.
Philip
>>>I meet snark with snark. Stop inviting it upon yourself, and folks might stop dishing it out to you.<<<
The following quoted statment was your first post on this thread: a snarky comment directed at me, but not to me.
“Forget it. Philip starts with the a priori assumption that most everything in Revelation happened in the past, never mind that Revelation itself demonstrates that this could not be true. You might as well talk to a wall.”
So you meet snark with snark? You dishonesty is telling.
Philip
>>>Funny, I have no problem defending my beliefs (which aren’t in any way “new-age”), while you refuse to even admit to holding your beliefs.<<<
Certainly you do, and they are most certainly NEW AGE?
Wait! You do believe in the so-called rapture, don’t you?
Philip
“I never said I was a “literalist.” That label is claimed by the dispy/futurist crowd, of which you are a part.”
Oh well, excuse me for using the wrong term. The point still stands that you can’t, by your own stated principles of interpretation, read “in heaven” into those verses. For proof of your stance, I submit, from the OP:
“I will not attempt to spiritualize John’s words. I will assume he meant exactly what he wrote: heaven when writing of heavenly things; earth when writing of earthly things; a short time when writing of a short time; and a thousand years when writing of a thousand years. “
“Actually, it does:
“Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air . . .” (1 Th 4:17 KJV)
I suspected you were experiencing reading comprehension difficulties.”
No, the verse say they will meet the Lord in the air, not that they will remain with the Lord in heaven. You’re not following your own principles. Meet means meet, not stay. Air means air, not heaven. Be consistent.
“Who was left to record it, if all were resurrected, except for the millions slaughtered by the Roman Armies, and those who had fled to Pella? Again, who was left to record it?”
Since the Bible says the entire world will witness the second coming and first resurrection, and not only the Christians, there would have been plenty left to record it.
“Don’t you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies.”
Not really. Countless cities have been destroyed throughout history, and it’s rare to even have one eye-witness record. It would be more unusual, for the time, if we had an abundance of such records.
“I’ll tell you why. That was not John, but a false apostle claiming to be John (we were warned about false apostles.)”
Now I’m going to have to take a page from your playbook and say: prove it!
“I am in good company. Jesus prophesied in several ways that he was coming in his own generation. I believe I mentioned some of them in my article.”
Jesus never said that it already happened, only that it would happen. You are the one interpreting a time frame into his words as to when it would have happened. Jesus gave us no date.
“That is truly a cult-like, red-herring argument.”
Nope, it’s simple logic. If the first resurrection has happened, as you say, then the Christians are with Christ forever. If you are still here, then you either can’t be correct about the resurrection, or you aren’t a Christian. You can’t play it both ways.
I understand you may want to dismiss the argument by calling it names, but that is only because you have no logical response to the argument.
“Only the saints, the earliest Christians, and holy men of old were resurrected in the first resurrection. Do you think you are a saint? LOL!”
Yes, all Christians are saints, as the Bible says. Also, again, the verse in Thessalonians makes none of those limitations, so you are again violating your own principles of interpretation in an attempt to wish away something inconvenient to your cherished ideology.
“Therefore, I recommend you clean up your act and quit slandering Christians, or you might not be found worthy to avoid the second death.”
Well, by your own argument, you can’t be a Christian. They’re all with Jesus now, according to you.
“True Christians? No.”
Well, since being part of the first resurrection is the only sure way to avoid such a risk, you again confirm that your interpretation wouldn’t allow there to be any Christians living today. If the first resurrection has happened, and the first resurrection is the only way to avoid such a risk, and if all true Christians are not at such risk, then all true Christians were part of the first resurrection, and there must be none left. QED.
>>>“Preterism is a view in Christian eschatology which holds that some or all of the biblical prophecies concerning the Last Days refer to events which took place in the first century after Christ’s birth, especially associated with the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 AD. The term preterism comes from the Latin praeter, meaning past, since this view deems certain biblical prophecies as past, or already fulfilled."<<<
That is not the definition I am familiar with, nor is it the definition sasportas supplied in an earlier post. This is it:
"Wikipedia: “1) Interpret prophecies of the Bible as events which have already happened. 2) Daniel is interpreted as events that happened in the second century BC while Revelation is interpreted as events that happened in the first century AD. 3) Preterism holds that Ancient Israel finds its continuation or fulfillment in the Christian church at the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. "
I don't certainly don't believe like that. It must be another new-age interpretation. You and your fellow new-agers need to get your stories straight.
BTW, part of your definition is accurate. The Latin word, praetor, means past. Therefore, the word preterist, in a biblical sense, means all prophecies have been fulfilled, exactly like the Wikipedia definition claims.
Therefore, I am no preterist. I, like other postmillennialists, believe in a future, general resurrection. Preterists don't believe that.
But keep sniping. Maybe you will distract everyone enough to keep them from realizing how weak your belief really is.
Philip
“Certainly you do, and they are most certainly NEW AGE?”
Which exactly of my beliefs are new age?
“Wait! You do believe in the so-called rapture, don’t you?”
Well, I believe that, at the first resurrection, living Christians will be glorified and translated bodily to the afterlife, without tasting death. Some folks mistakenly call that a “rapture”, and they usually try to make that out to be a separate event and place it outside the Biblical timeline. I don’t subscribe to those ideas though.
>>>... you refuse to even admit to holding your beliefs.<<<
I forgot to mention that I posted my belief along with many, many lines of scripture to initiate this thread. Don’t you think you claim that I will not “admit my beliefs” is a little weak?
Ironically, you will not admit that your “belief” is new-age.
Philip
“That is not the definition I am familiar with, nor is it the definition sasportas supplied in an earlier post. This is it:
“Wikipedia:”
Ok, from your preferred source, wikipedia, here is the same basic information included in their entry:
“Partial preterism
Partial preterism holds that most eschatological prophecies, such as the destruction of Jerusalem, the Antichrists, the Great Tribulation, and the advent of the Day of the Lord as a “judgment-coming” of Christ, were fulfilled either in AD 70[30] or during the persecution of Christians under the Emperor Nero.[31][32] Some partial preterists identify “ Babylon the Great” (Revelation 17–18) with the pagan Roman Empire, though some, such as N.T. Wright and David Chilton, identify it with the city of Jerusalem.[30][33] Most interpretations identify Nero as the Beast,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40][a] while his mark is often interpreted as the stamped image of the emperor’s head on every coin of the Roman Empire: the stamp on the hand or in the mind of all, without which no one could buy or sell.[41] However, others believe the Book of Revelation was written after Nero committed suicide in AD 68, and identify the Beast with another emperor. The Catholic Encyclopedia has noted that Revelation was “written during the latter part of the reign of the Roman Emperor Domitian, probably in AD 95 or 96”.[42] Many Protestant scholars agree.[43][44] The Second coming and the resurrection of the dead, however, have not yet occurred in the partial preterist system.[45]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preterism#Schools_of_preterist_thought
Can you stop playing games now and admit that you fit the definition of a partial preterist quite well? Or do you need a third definition to prove it to you?
“Don’t you think you claim that I will not “admit my beliefs” is a little weak?”
No, not at all. You are a preterist, yet you refuse to admit it, even after being shown how your own statements dovetail with the well-known doctrines of preterists. The claim looks pretty strong to me.
“Ironically, you will not admit that your “belief” is new-age.”
You haven’t even said what of my beliefs is supposed to be “new age”, so of course I won’t admit it. I don’t have any such beliefs. If I do have some, go ahead and point out where I have stated them, just like I pointed out your preterist statements.
“I will not attempt to spiritualize John’s words. I will assume he meant exactly what he wrote: heaven when writing of heavenly things; earth when writing of earthly things; a short time when writing of a short time; and a thousand years when writing of a thousand years. “<<<
I did not spiritualize John's words. Paul wrote the passage we are discussing. But it is minor point. If you don't believe that they are in heaven, that is your problem. I have no problem believing all the Saints: the earliest Church members: are in heaven; and that air and clouds in the passage are symbolic references for heaven. It is a major part of my faith that the righteous have been, and will be, resurrected to heaven.
>>>The verse say they will meet the Lord in the air, not that they will remain with the Lord in heaven. You’re not following your own principles. Meet means meet, not stay. Air means air, not heaven. Be consistent.<<<
Where does it say they returned to earth? In any book?
But I see you avoided the "underlying Greek" I mentioned. This is how it goes: according to Strong's Concordance, the Greek word for "so" in 1 Thess 4:17 is #3779. Let's look at a few other verses that use that particular Greek word. The words/phrases with the underlying Greek word #3779 are highlighted in red:
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 2:5 And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
Mat 5:12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Mat 6:9 After this manner therefore pray ye: Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Mat 11:26 Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight.
Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
In every case, it means the same. Like I said, they will not be returning to earth. They are forever "in the air" serving the Lord as priests and kings in his eternal kingdom.
>>>Since the Bible says the entire world will witness the second coming and first resurrection, and not only the Christians, there would have been plenty left to record it.<<<
Actually, it says in the Revelation "every eye" will see him. It says nothing about the entire world, that I am aware of. If it did, it would only be those in the first-century Roman Empire.
Now all we have to do is determine what John meant by "every eye," in his highly symbolic literature. John hints at the tribes of Israel with the old testament tribal word, "kindreds." Young's literal translation reads:
"Lo, he doth come with the clouds, and see him shall every eye, even those who did pierce him, and wail because of him shall all the tribes of the land. Yes! Amen!" (Rev 1:7 YLT)
Young's states that "kindreds of the earth" actually means, "tribes of the land." Matthew 24 uses similar language:
"And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other." (Mat 24:30-31 KJV)
You do believe Matthew and Revelation are writing about the same event, don't you? If so, then one member of each tribe seeing Christ return is all that is really necessary to fulfil the prophecy, unless one believes in something out of character for prophecy fulfillment (e.g., every eye on earth--all six billion of them--seeing him.)
>>>“Don’t you think it strange there is no eye-witness record of the destruction of Jerusalem, except by a Jewish priest who was spared by the Roman armies.”
Countless cities have been destroyed throughout history, and it’s rare to even have one eye-witness record. <<<
So, the destruction of the seat of Jewish faith, the slaughter of millions, the levelling of an entire city, the divorcement of the former "wife" of the Lord, and rejection of the Laws of Moses as a way to atone for sins, was not worth of even a line of inspired Word of God? You can fool some people, but not all. John wrote an entire book about it, and it is called the Revelation of Jesus Christ.
BTW, Do you have any proof of what you just wrote?
>>>Now I’m going to have to take a page from your playbook and say: prove it!<<<
Back at ya! Prove that John is an apostle. No one can. Therefore, the didactic claims by futurist/dispensationalist writers that John lived to be 100 are little more than hearsay (and wishful thinking.) It is much more reasonable to assume that when John was riding on horseback at full gallop, as one of the Church Fathers wrote, it was during the time of Nero, when John would be in his 60's, rather than in the time of Domitian, when John would be in his 90's.
>>>Jesus never said that it already happened, only that it would happen. You are the one interpreting a time frame into his words as to when it would have happened. Jesus gave us no date.<<<
Of course he did, on several occasions, in different ways. Well, let me add a condition: he explained when he was coming, in the general sense, as defined in every language dictionary in the world. The only place your statement is true is in the new-age "Premillennial/Dispensational Dictionary," created out of thin air by the doctrine founders.
These are some of the time references Jesus gave us. I will explain so you can follow along.
In the first two, Jesus said that some of his disciples would still be alive when he returned:
"For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works. Verily I say unto you, There be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom." (Mat 16:27-28 KJV)
"And he said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power." (Mark 9:1 KJV)
In this one, Jesus said he would avenge (the persecutions and murders of) his elect speedily, not 2000 years in the future:
"And shall not God avenge his own elect, which cry day and night unto him, though he bear long with them? I tell you that he will avenge them speedily. Nevertheless when the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth?" (Luke 18:7-8 KJV)
In this one, Jesus said to his disciples, the hour is now, not 2000 years away:
"Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live." (John 5:25 KJV)
Here, Jesus is instructing his disciples before sending them out to gather the lost sheep of the house of Israel. He tells them that they will not have time to visit all the cities of Israel before he returns:
"And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come." (Mat 10:22-23 KJV)
Just so you know that his apostles also anticipated an imminent return, this is Paul:
"Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him, That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand." (2 Th 2:1-2 KJV)
Only in the minds of a futurist would the phrase "the day is at hand" means 20 centuries. LOL!
The following are the most convincing. They are almost identical in the first three Gospels:
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled." (Mat 24:34 KJV)
"Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done." (Mark 13:30 KJV)
"Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled." (Luke 21:32 KJV)
In every other case where Jesus used the term "this generation" (many times,) it was in normal, every-day language that we are accustomed to, meaning, simply, his current generation. He used "this generation" the same way in those three verses.
Almost forgot, in the Revelation there about 30 near-time references, such as "shortly come to pass," "the time is at hand," and "seal not" the sayings of the book.
>>>If the first resurrection has happened, as you say, then the Christians are with Christ forever.<<<
So, you don't believe Daniel when he writes about a partial resurrection of believers and non-believers?
"And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." (Dan 12:1-2 KJV)
I don't understand why you cannot see something so simple.
>>>If you are still here, then you either can’t be correct about the resurrection, or you aren’t a Christian. You can’t play it both ways.<<<
So you believe in a first resurrection, but not a second? Then why did Christ call it a "first resurrection?" Why not simply, "the resurrection?" Were those idle words?
>>>I understand you may want to dismiss the argument by calling it names, but that is only because you have no logical response to the argument.<<<
Sure…
>>>Yes, all Christians are saints, as the Bible says.<<<
Where does it say that? I can't wait to read your response.
[Another snarky "saint." What is this world coming to?]
>>>Also, again, the verse in Thessalonians makes none of those limitations, so you are again violating your own principles of interpretation in an attempt to wish away something inconvenient to your cherished ideology.<<<
You are spiritualizing the scriptures if you believe any of those of the first resurrection are returning to earth.
>>>Well, by your own argument, you can’t be a Christian. They’re all with Jesus now, according to you.<<<
Another in a long list of red-herrings.
>>>Well, since being part of the first resurrection is the only sure way to avoid such a risk, you again confirm that your interpretation wouldn’t allow there to be any Christians living today.<<<
There will be a second resurrection, when all us will bow before the Lord Jesus and confess our sins. Do you think all of them (all of us) will be condemned?
Philip
Since you have been keeping them secret, maybe all of them. You do believe in a thousand year reign of Christ on earth, don't you?
>>>Well, I believe that, at the first resurrection, living Christians will be glorified and translated bodily to the afterlife, without tasting death. Some folks mistakenly call that a “rapture”, and they usually try to make that out to be a separate event and place it outside the Biblical timeline. I don’t subscribe to those ideas though.<<<
So, the so-called "raptured saints" will not return to reign on earth with Christ for 1000 years?
Philip
My beliefs are on the table for all to see. I have started MANY new threads this year, and have defended all of them----with SCRIPTURE!
You do know that it is you who have been hiding your beliefs, while trying to turn a biblical debate into a kindergarten-style name-calling session. That must be one of the tactics written in the dispensational/futurist playbook, because it happens so often. It may be even modelled after the smear techniques written in the socialist/communist playbook; e.g., modelled after Saul Alinsky. That would be a good research project: to compare the two smear tactics.
>>>You haven’t even said what of my beliefs is supposed to be “new age”, so of course I won’t admit it. I don’t have any such beliefs. If I do have some, go ahead and point out where I have stated them, just like I pointed out your preterist statements.<<<
I personally think you are a closet dispensationalist. Prove me wrong.
BTW, have you ever read the article, "The Dispensational Origins of Modern Premillennialism and John Nelson Darby", by Jack Van Deventer?
Philip
Postmillennialism (from Wikipedia): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmillennialism
"In Christian end-times theology, (eschatology), postmillennialism is an interpretation of chapter 20 of the Book of Revelation which sees Christ's second coming as occurring after (Latin post-) the "Millennium", a Golden Age in which Christian ethics prosper. The term subsumes several similar views of the end times, and it stands in contrast to premillennialism and, to a lesser extent, amillennialism."
"Postmillennialism holds that Jesus Christ establishes his kingdom on earth through his preaching and redemptive work in the first century and that he equips his church with the gospel, empowers her by the Spirit, and charges her with the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) to disciple all nations. Postmillennialism expects that eventually the vast majority of men living will be saved. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ's return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of men and of nations."
I believe all of that, except I believe in an additional resurrection: a first resurrection that precedes the "millennium," exactly like it is written in Revelation. More on postmillennialism …
"After an extensive era of such conditions Jesus Christ will return visibly, bodily, and gloriously, to end history with the general resurrection and the final judgment after which the eternal order follows."
I believe he will return, and every knee will bow before him; but I believe the Church and this earth will last forever, as written:
"Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen." (Eph 3:21 KJV)
"One generation passeth away, and another generation cometh: but the earth abideth for ever." (Ecc 1:4 KJV)
"In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations." (Rev 22:2 KJV)
So, with slight shades of difference, I am a Postmillennialist.
Now, will you stop playing childish games and debate the scriptures?
Philip
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.