Historicity of Postmillennialism ...

[amishrockstar]

I'm studying Postmillennialism right now and I've noticed that when the question of 'history' comes up, the Postmil points to the Puritans and Princeton; are there any prominent Postmils before that era? Why do they always stop there?
When I read Amillennialist literature, they point to all sorts of early church fathers (especially Augustine) who held to their position; even Premils reference some of the 'fathers' who were clearly Premil (Justin Martyr).

Any thoughts?

(Please note, I'm NOT committing the fallacy of saying that if it's older it's better!!! I'm simply wondering why Postmils stop at the Puritans; don't they have any earlier references?)

THANKS

[eschaton]

Barnabas taught that the future was hidden in parables, and God would finish all things in six thousand years because scriptures says “He finished in six days.” People tend to believe that the fathers understood the six thousand years as literal, and maybe some of then did, but there is also evidence that others such as Papias understood an anagogical interpretation of the week of creation. That is more consistent with what Barnabas taught. This sort of understanding isn't consistent with premilleniallism which looks at the thousand years, and the scriptures in general in a literal fashion. Barnabas' view has been identified as amillennial. Origen and Clement are among others that deny Chilliasm.

[TyRockwell]

I'm studying Postmillennialism right now and I've noticed that when the question of 'history' comes up, the Postmil points to the Puritans and Princeton; are there any prominent Postmils before that era? Why do they always stop there?
When I read Amillennialist literature, they point to all sorts of early church fathers (especially Augustine) who held to their position; even Premils reference some of the 'fathers' who were clearly Premil (Justin Martyr).

Any thoughts?

(Please note, I'm NOT committing the fallacy of saying that if it's older it's better!!! I'm simply wondering why Postmils stop at the Puritans; don't they have any earlier references?)

THANKS
Good questions, amishrockstar. I believe that much of the debate is confused by terms that have 'ist', or 'ism' attached to them. They don't allow for some views that might be termed unorthodox, or heretical, because they are not 'consistent' with one of the boxes they want you to fit in. Put a label on it, with a disparaging connotation, so you can avoid considering it.
a) We should use the words found in the Word of God.
b) Dating certain ideas, as you said, is a fallacy; doesn't confirm them. There are old false doctrines just as there are more recent false doctrines. God's Word is Truth.
c) We can research what reasoning others have as long as we don't choose to follow someone's point of view just because we choose a winner based on their ability to articulate it persuasively.
d) Jesus said that the Holy Spirit would be our teacher, remind us of what he taught us, and guide us into all truth. We should all pray for that, as well as wisdom.
e) Seek to understand which passages of scripture are to be taken literally, and which are figurative, symbolic, or parables.
I'm sorry that I didn't deal precisely with your questions. I wanted to deal with terms that too often limit our ability to understand.

[amishrockstar]

So, any thoughts on who would be some of the early church 'fathers' who held to a postmillennial understanding of scripture?

[Fizban]

So, any thoughts on who would be some of the early church 'fathers' who held to a postmillennial understanding of scripture?

I can't name them off the top of my head, but a good resource would be "Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond". You can get it off Amazon.com. I believe it is Kenneth Gentry who defends the post-mill view and he lists several church fathers that supposedly supported it.

[TyRockwell]

My problem with the early church fathers, is that their writings do not amount to equality with scripture. They are mostly interpretive of scripture, or opinion. Can you imagine a 2nd Revelation? No. Revelation completes the unfolding of scripture, since it concludes with the future eternal.

[eschaton]

I can say the same about modern interpreters. Their writings do not amount to equality with scripture. The earliest church fathers either knew the apostles personally or knew others who had spoken with the apostles. Many of the early christians were martyred for their faith. You can't say the same for many modern writers.

Modern writers vary widely with their opinions. The early church fathers do to a degree, but are more uniform in their beliefs IMO. Like I said, some of them got it directly from the apostles. Who are we nearly 2000 years later to say we understand Jesus better than they do?

Ken Gentry, in the Three Views book mentioned, claims post-millennial "roots" in Origen, Athanasius, Eusebius and Augustine. He doesn't claim they were full blown post-mill though.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

My problem with the early church fathers, is that their writings do not amount to equality with scripture. They are mostly interpretive of scripture, or opinion. Can you imagine a 2nd Revelation? No. Revelation completes the unfolding of scripture, since it concludes with the future eternal.
My problem with appeals to the fatthers is that they must always be selective and biased. Premils who cite the fathers must exclude key components of those very same Fathers' eschatology (such as the six thousand year theory that eschaton mentioned - what premils today hold that view?). On the other hand, there's a work floating around out there by an Australian guy named Francis Nigel Lee - it's called "always victorious" and it documents the dominionist strand of patristic thought that is so central to postmillennialism. See it here (http://lig1.tripod.com/lee/early/leeearly.htm).

[TyRockwell]

My problem with appeals to the fatthers is that they must always be selective and biased. Premils who cite the fathers must exclude key components of those very same Fathers' eschatology (such as the six thousand year theory that eschaton mentioned - what premils today hold that view?). On the other hand, there's a work floating around out there by an Australian guy named Francis Nigel Lee - it's called "always victorious" and it documents the dominionist strand of patristic thought that is so central to postmillennialism. See it here (http://lig1.tripod.com/lee/early/leeearly.htm).
Why can't the premillenial return of Jesus be based upon a postribulation victorious dominion?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Ty, the return of Jesus is not "based" on dominion or lack thereof on earth, I hope all sides will accept that without reservation.

The point of the paper is that the ECF he cites paint a different view of the future of the church than most premils do, that's all. They paint a picture, so the author claims, that simply fits what postmils believe better.

[eschaton]

My problem with appeals to the fatthers is that they must always be selective and biased. Premils who cite the fathers must exclude key components of those very same Fathers' eschatology (such as the six thousand year theory that eschaton mentioned - what premils today hold that view?). On the other hand, there's a work floating around out there by an Australian guy named Francis Nigel Lee - it's called "always victorious" and it documents the dominionist strand of patristic thought that is so central to postmillennialism. See it here (http://lig1.tripod.com/lee/early/leeearly.htm).

I don't completely agree that appeals to the fathers must always be selective and biased. They had a few different ideas about things to be sure, but I don't think they were nearly as divided as we are today. When it comes to chilliasm, those like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr explain that there are other orthodox Christians that differ with them. I think too many assume that the six year, six thousand year idea is equivalent to chilliasm. Barnabas is the first to mention it, and I've seen some identify him as premill while another says he's amill. IMO moderns have a tendecy to read their own beliefs back into what the fathers were saying, or perhaps just assume that the ancient Christians always spoke in a literal way. So maybe the selectivty and bias is more our fault than that of the ancient christians. As always the full context of what was written should be considered. Barnabas, for example summarized that prophecy was hidden in parables. That would seem to inconsistent with a premill belief.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we may differ over what the fathers say in the same way we differ over what the Bible is saying. So if appeals to the fathers must be selective and biased, then the same thing can be said about the way we appeal to the scriptures themselves.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

I don't completely agree that appeals to the fathers must always be selective and biased. They had a few different ideas about things to be sure, but I don't think they were nearly as divided as we are today.Oh, I agree that it's not the case that appeals must walways be selective and biased. But they very often are - and they are when it comes to eschatology, I think, just because often those who makes such appeals either secretly or openly reject key aspects of the eschatology of the very people they cite.
When it comes to chilliasm, those like Irenaeus and Justin Martyr explain that there are other orthodox Christians that differ with them. I think too many assume that the six year, six thousand year idea is equivalent to chilliasm. I would never say the two are equivalent. It;s more accurate to say that the six thousand year theory is just one variety if chiliasm. No chiliast today holds it that I know of, but it was a common form of chilliasm among the fathers, among those who actually did express chiliasm.
Barnabas is the first to mention it, and I've seen some identify him as premill while another says he's amill. IMO moderns have a tendecy to read their own beliefs back into what the fathers were saying, or perhaps just assume that the ancient Christians always spoke in a literal way. So maybe the selectivty and bias is more our fault than that of the ancient christians. As always the full context of what was written should be considered. Barnabas, for example summarized that prophecy was hidden in parables. That would seem to inconsistent with a premill belief.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that we may differ over what the fathers say in the same way we differ over what the Bible is saying. So if appeals to the fathers must be selective and biased, then the same thing can be said about the way we appeal to the scriptures themselves.

Well, not quite in the same way. For example, none of us - or at least hopefulle very few - would appeal to a passage of Scripture to support our views, while ourselves consciously disagreeing what cam in the next sentence. But when, say a person quotes an early father's saying on chiliasm for support, while secretly rejecting what that very same father said on the saem topic elsewhere, I think that's innappropriately selective and biased, and not very honest, as it implies agreement on eschatology where really there's more disagreement than the appellant tis admitting.

I don't mean that eschatology is the only area where that happens, but it does happen. I've seen it at least a few times.

[eschaton]

I read Mr. Lee's page, and it seems to me he falls into the same trap of selective and biased quotes. He asserts that just about all the church fathers were postmillennial. I've never heard Victorinus called that. I have always read that he was a chilliast, although maybe he wasn't. His ideas about chilliasm coming from Babel seem pretty loose. He totally ignores the ancient Hebrew books of I Enoch and Jubilees. Both appear to indicate a golden age and have been identified as the source of that idea by others. Many fragments of those books are found among the Dead Sea scrolls, and they are part of the Ethiopian OT canon. The NT even quotes and alludes to Enoch several times.

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Yes, I didn't mean to exclude Lee from the "selective" camp. But he does show that some key elements of postmillennialism were present in the fathers, just as it can be shown that key elements of chiliasm were present - bearing in mind that the earlier version of postmillennialism (e.g. Jonathan Edwards) was a form of "golden age" chiliasm.

[Fizban]

I read Mr. Lee's page, and it seems to me he falls into the same trap of selective and biased quotes. He asserts that just about all the church fathers were postmillennial. I've never heard Victorinus called that. I have always read that he was a chilliast, although maybe he wasn't. His ideas about chilliasm coming from Babel seem pretty loose. He totally ignores the ancient Hebrew books of I Enoch and Jubilees. Both appear to indicate a golden age and have been identified as the source of that idea by others. Many fragments of those books are found among the Dead Sea scrolls, and they are part of the Ethiopian OT canon. The NT even quotes and alludes to Enoch several times.

The "Mysterious Apocalypse" by Wainwright has a brief historical survey that shows the trends in the church in regard to the Millennium. Prior to Constantine, the dominant view was definitely chilliastic, with a few dissenters. His presentation of Victorinus was basically amillennial and that Augustine successfully propounded that view for the rest of the church.

Sadly, most modern commentators I've read on Revelation 20 don't deal with the Jewish context that a Temporary Messianic Kingdom arises out of. It has been argued, sucessfully in my opinion, that a TMK is a synthesis between prophetic eschatology and apocalyptic eschatology. Rather than having a two-stage eschatology like both prophetic and apocalyptic, a TMK makes it a three-stage eschatology. It contains both the hope of a golden age here in this world as well as a golden age in the age to come. I think when Revelation 20 is read in light of its Jewish context that an actual kingdom on earth is whats in view rather than a spiritual kingdom.

[eschaton]

I think when Revelation 20 is read in light of its Jewish context that an actual kingdom on earth is whats in view rather than a spiritual kingdom.

I think you may be right that Rev 20 is chilliastic when read in a Jewish context. That is, in what the fathers called "Jewish". When they say "Jewish" they mean Pharisees and others around Jerusalem that interpreted in a non-spiritual manner. Philo was a first century Jew in Alexandria and he preferred a very allegorical interpretation of scripture. Early Christians generally used "spiritual" or allegorical interpretation. Even those like Irenaeus admitted that the scriptures were in a large part allegorical.

As proof of that see how Jude alludes to the book of I Enoch and interprets the symbols as false teachers, or see how Paul talks about the Jerusalem above, or the true Israel. The Epistle of Barnabas relies heavely on allegory.

I'm not sure it's correct to refer to church fathers as postmillennial, premillennial or amillennial since those classifications didn't really exist back then. It would probably be more correct to refer to them as either chilliastic or non-chilliastic, and that was dependent on how literally they interpreted the scriptures. I think most of the ECF should be considered non-chilliastic because of their heavy dependence on "spiritual" or allegorical interpretation of scripture.

[TyRockwell]

Ty, the return of Jesus is not "based" on dominion or lack thereof on earth, I hope all sides will accept that without reservation.

The point of the paper is that the ECF he cites paint a different view of the future of the church than most premils do, that's all. They paint a picture, so the author claims, that simply fits what postmils believe better.
Then what does the most repeated verse in the Bible mean? "The Lord said to My Lord, 'Sit here at my right hand UNTIL I make all your enemies a footstool for your feet.'" Is there no dominion there, under his feet?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Yes there is dominion there. I don't understand the reason for the question, however.

[TyRockwell]

Yes there is dominion there. I don't understand the reason for the question, however.
Hi, Jack. Since "under your feet," (The Lord's feet) symbolizes the Lord's dominion, and the feet are attached to his body, and the body of Christ is in the earth, then the purpose of the body of Christ is to exercise dominion over all Jesus' enemies. The eternal purpose of God, is that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God be demonstrated to the principalities and powers in the invisible realm, according to Eph. 3:10-11.
The "until" of Psalm 110:,1 and its several repetitions in scripture, requires this dominion to be exercised by the church, through whom God the Father is working before Jesus can return. This is the "good news of the kingdom," the good news of the king's dominion, that must be preached as a witness, (something that can be demonstrated and seen) in all the world. Then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

Hi, Jack. Since "under your feet," (The Lord's feet) symbolizes the Lord's dominion, and the feet are attached to his body, and the body of Christ is in the earth, then the purpose of the body of Christ is to exercise dominion over all Jesus' enemies. The eternal purpose of God, is that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God be demonstrated to the principalities and powers in the invisible realm, according to Eph. 3:10-11.
The "until" of Psalm 110:,1 and its several repetitions in scripture, requires this dominion to be exercised by the church, through whom God the Father is working before Jesus can return. This is the "good news of the kingdom," the good news of the king's dominion, that must be preached as a witness, (something that can be demonstrated and seen) in all the world. Then the end will come. Matthew 24:14
I guess the issue I'm having is your emphasis on "before Jesus can" and "is the basis of" that you mentioned earlier.

If A occurs prior to B, and B will not happen until A happens, it's not correct to assume that A causes B, or that A makes B possible, or even that A is th basis of B.

See what I mean?

[TyRockwell]

I guess the issue I'm having is your emphasis on "before Jesus can" and "is the basis of" that you mentioned earlier.

If A occurs prior to B, and B will not happen until A happens, it's not correct to assume that A causes B, or that A makes B possible, or even that A is th basis of B.

See what I mean?
It really is not difficult unless you take "until" to be something more subjective than the plain meaning. You also didn't explain what you think Hebrews 1:13 (same as Psalm 110:1) means.
The original question seemed to not allow for a post-tribulation return of Jesus, prelimenary to the 1000 year reign. I was asking why that would not be considered. Afer all, it would be a manifestation that could entail a "victorious dominionism," another part of the original question. Do you see how "...until I make your enemies a footstool," seems to require a fulfillment to happen, regarding "your enemies," while Jesus is still seated? 1st Cor. 15:25-28 says that Jesus is reigning now, before he returns. Since God is going to "make all your enemies a footstool..." and God gave dominion on the earth to man, then is he not going to use the "new creation in Christ" to do so?

[Dr. Jack Bauer]

It really is not difficult unless you take "until" to be something more subjective than the plain meaning. You also didn't explain what you think Hebrews 1:13 (same as Psalm 110:1) means.
The original question seemed to not allow for a post-tribulation return of Jesus, prelimenary to the 1000 year reign. I was asking why that would not be considered. Afer all, it would be a manifestation that could entail a "victorious dominionism," another part of the original question. Do you see how "...until I make your enemies a footstool," seems to require a fulfillment to happen, regarding "your enemies," while Jesus is still seated? 1st Cor. 15:25-28 says that Jesus is reigning now, before he returns. Since God is going to "make all your enemies a footstool..." and God gave dominion on the earth to man, then is he not going to use the "new creation in Christ" to do so?No appeal to the "plain meaning" is going to work here, because you just assume that causality is part of the plain meaninging. It's not.

Consider this: I go into a cafe, drink a coffee, and leave at 3:27pm. My wife later asks me how long I was there. I tell here: "I was there until 3:27pm." With me?

But then my wife turns to me and says "Oh, so 3:27pm was the basis of your leaving the cafe, if we take worda at their plain meaning - you literally could not leave until that time!"

See how silly that would be? But look, the same thing is happening in this thread. It's not a big issue for me, and as opne who holds dominion theology I'm not bothered, since I look into the dominion theology I hold and I can see as plain a day that it's not fairly represented by the claims being made about it. If people want to paint other, idiosyncratic versions, I suppose that is their business. All I subvmit for your consideration is this: That the Gospel will have a certain effect on the world before the return of Christ doesn't mean that that effect is the basis of the return of Christ.

If you hold a view in whicht he return of Christ is permitted or made possible by the work of the church on earth, fine. I just hope you won't attribute that specific, uniquiely defined view to others who hold dominuion theology. That's all.

[dizzle]

Theo brought up a good point in which, to find the roots of postmill, or the historicity behind some of its major tenets, one must go back to dominionism - at least for modern postmillennialism because that is the heart of it.

[TyRockwell]

No appeal to the "plain meaning" is going to work here, because you just assume that causality is part of the plain meaninging. It's not.

Consider this: I go into a cafe, drink a coffee, and leave at 3:27pm. My wife later asks me how long I was there. I tell here: "I was there until 3:27pm." With me?

But then my wife turns to me and says "Oh, so 3:27pm was the basis of your leaving the cafe, if we take worda at their plain meaning - you literally could not leave until that time!"

See how silly that would be? But look, the same thing is happening in this thread. It's not a big issue for me, and as opne who holds dominion theology I'm not bothered, since I look into the dominion theology I hold and I can see as plain a day that it's not fairly represented by the claims being made about it. If people want to paint other, idiosyncratic versions, I suppose that is their business. All I subvmit for your consideration is this: That the Gospel will have a certain effect on the world before the return of Christ doesn't mean that that effect is the basis of the return of Christ.

If you hold a view in whicht he return of Christ is permitted or made possible by the work of the church on earth, fine. I just hope you won't attribute that specific, uniquiely defined view to others who hold dominuion theology. That's all.
If you left the cafe at a certain time, you still didn't tell your wife WHY you left the cafe, or how long you where there.

It would not be the plain meaning of your words, to only assume on the part of your wife, that you had a set time for leaving. When there is an 'until' involved, the simple declaration that you took an action, does not not tell why, or what occurences fullfiled the reason, the 'until' of your wait. See? 'Until' does not imply a time in this instance, but an accomplishment preceding an action. That's all.