And that, my friend, is where our two sides irreconcilably diverge, and the precise point from which our respective criticisms of each other flow. Those of us approaching this from the POV of Postmillennialism and the Reformation would say yes, the blood of Christ is capable of redeeming everything affected by the Fall, flowing outward from the repentant/obedient soul, compounded by the number of repentant/obedient souls, effecting a progressive change in culture and politics and art and everything produced by man. At the end of JONAH, A VEGGIETALES MOVIE, do you think that everyone in Ninevah retained their fish-slapping ways after the entire population repented?
Many (but not all) approaching this from other POVs, especially Scofield-flavored Dispensational Premillennialism would say no, the Rapture-era culture will not (cannot?) be redeemed by anything - including a wholesale repentance and conversion of the population - other than the physical return of Christ. Beyond that, I'm just extrapolating backwards to show that if you're right, then living one's life for Christ in any era doesn't add up to jack squat statistically or sociologically, whereas living one's life for Satan has a statistically measurable, progressively successful effect on society in every era.
How effective do you think the latter's sales pitch will be on winning men and women for Christ (especially if monergism is wrong)?
I'm A Victor In Christ!
