Who Said That?

Okay, who said that?

"The premillennialist maintains that there will be a lengthy gap in the end-time events into which the millennium will be inserted after Christ’s return; the millennial kingdom will be characterized by the prosperity of a restored Jewish state.  The amillennialist denies any such gap in the end-time events, looking for Christ to return after a basically non-prosperous millennial age.  And the post millennialist is distinguished from the two foregoing positions by holding that there will be no gap in the end-time events; rather, when Christ returns subsequent to the millennial, interadventual, church age. There will have been conspicuous and widespread success for the great commission.  In short, postmillennialism is set apart from the other two schools of thought by its essential optimism for the kingdom in the present age.  This confident attitude in the power of Christ’s kingdom, the power of its gospel, the powerful presence of the Holy Spirit, the power of prayer, and the progress of the great commission, sets postmillennialism apart from the essential pessimism of amillennialism and premillennialism."

The goal is to guess who said this!  So, don't cheat and do a google search.  Leave your answer in the comments section below.

Update on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 02:30PM by Kim Riddlebarger

This quote comes from Greg Bahnsen's very influential essay, The Prima Facie Acceptability of Postmillennialism (found in the Journal of Christian Reconstructionism, Vol. III, 1976-77, pages 66-67). 

Two major problems are found here.  One is Bahnsen's specious argument that amillenniarians are "pessimistic" while postmillennarians are "optimistic."  For one thing, amillennarians are very optimistic about the kingdom of God and the spread of the gospel.  We are pessimistic about the city of man (otherwise known as "Babylon the Great" in the Book of Revelation).  Eschatology must be done by exegesis not by ramming everything into the procrustean bed of cultural "optimism" and transformation (a category, by the way, which may have more to do with the Enlightenment than with the New Testament).

The second problem is Bahnsen's lumping amillennialism in with premillennialism because both are supposedly "pessimistic."  The better contrast is millennarianism in all its forms ("pre and post") with non-millenarianism (which makes amillennialism unique when contrasted with either "pre" or "post" millennialism). 

Comments

[Keith Mathison]

Rick, I can't really think of anything that only I would know and that everyone else would know that only I could know. I know I have an article coming out in the next issue of Modern Reformation. Does that work?

And nope, I didn't write that quote. I did cheat and Google it to see who did write it, but I'm not going to spill the beans before the Riddleblogger has the chance to reveal the author.

[Ivan]

Keith,
How are you?
I recall you working at the RTS bookstore, helping me with my various questions.
I graduated with Darren Edgington May 1994.
I am Ivan Lambert
Great to hear from you,

[Rick B.]

Dr. Mathison,
Works for me.

I assume though, that you do agree with the quote?

[Keith Mathison]

Ivan, I sent a response to your email address.

Rick, I'd likely state my position somewhat differently.

I tend to see various versions of amillennialism and postmillennialism along a spectrum. Some versions of each are closer to the other than are other versions. I think my own view is somewhere where the two tend to blur.

You might find it interesting that in discussions with Bob Strimple, he's told me that my view is not really postmillennialist at all :-) He says I'm really an amillennialist.

[Robin]

The phrase "essentially pessimistic" is an annoying straw-man.

Was Jesus pessimistic when he told his disciples they would suffer and die for their faith? Was Paul pessimistic?

Craig has an excellent point, too.

[pilgrim]

Okay--I could change my guess, but I'm not sure who else.


I feel kind of "honored" that my comment was the last one to guess Keith Mathison before the denial...

[Rick B.]

Many Postmills see us Amils as pessimistic because we don't see the Church ultimately conquering all the social and political structures of this world. But who ever said that Great Commission success must mean that all common institutions will be won over? Is the Kingdom of this world? One does not need to believe in worldly success to be an optimist. I believe in wide-spread success of the Great Commission, the Gospel is conquering new sinners everyday.

How is belonging to an already reigning and victorious Savior in an unshakeable kingdom pessimistic?

Well, since the quote is not Dr. Mathison’s, I think I’ll change my guess to Bahnsen or Kik.

[Craig Phelps]

Dr. Keith Mathison, do you really side with any distinctives of amillenialism? If so, which ones and why?

[Ivan]

I don't get it; I don't feel the Amil position is pessimistic at all.
a. Christ is reigning at the Father's right hand
b. The gospel is powerful increasingly reaching nations
c. Christ continues to keep bound the strong man
d. The gates of Hell will not defeat Christ's church


Perhaps it is Post-Mil that on the continuum of eschatological positions tends to be a bit naive?
I mean, why do we think if you believe the church still suffers persecution, that we live in a wicked world, to admit these things is pessimistic?

Help me someone, but perhaps the other positions are not considering how evil this world really is? We are talking Cosmic Warfare here folks and the saints are caught in the middle of it, yet the gospel prevails where God wills .... and everytime God wills.

That is powerful; that is good news and that is where I find encouragment in this difficult battle.

I am open to being corrected from any of you, realizing I don't have all of the answers.

Thanks,

[Ivan]

have yet to venture a guess:
I am clueless but will not cheat.
How about a name no one has guessed?

Jim Jordan?
Steve Wilkins?

[Jim Vellenga]

I was clueless, googled, and will not say anything.