Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Logical Fallacy “Tribulations vs. Victory”
American Vision ^ | April 13, 2011 | Bojidar Marinov

Posted on 04/13/2011 6:29:05 AM PDT by topcat54

That is exactly what postmillennialism believes about the victory of the Gospel. History will see the progressive triumph of the Gospel not only over individuals, families and churches, but also over nations, cultures, and governments. Nation after nation will submit to Christ; they will change their customs, mores, and legal systems to reflect the Law of God. More and more the Gospel will change the hearts of men but also their institutions and their societies; more and more the Biblical worldview will become the operational worldview for the powers and authorities in the land. The church will experience its ups and downs, but the Word of God preached to individuals and societies will never return empty to God.

(Excerpt) Read more at americanvision.org ...


TOPICS: Theology
KEYWORDS: eschatology; logic; victory
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
"There is no contradiction between victory in history and tribulations in history. Quite the opposite, victory only comes through tribulations. Those that do not believe in victory in history, do not believe in tribulations either, because they are a not a threat to the world system. Only postmillennialists have the true Biblical theology of suffering and tribulations because only postmillennialists have theology and practice that present a true challenge to the world. Escapists – that is, amillennialists and premillennialists – only talk about tribulations but in reality they agree with the unbelievers that the culture, the society, and the political power must remain anti-Christian. The contradiction “victory vs. tribulations” is a logical fallacy."
1 posted on 04/13/2011 6:29:09 AM PDT by topcat54
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ItsOurTimeNow; HarleyD; suzyjaruki; nobdysfool; jkl1122; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
Reformed Eschatology Ping List (REPL)
Biblically Optimistic and Gospel-Based

"For these are the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." (Luke 21:22)

2 posted on 04/13/2011 6:30:19 AM PDT by topcat54 ("Friends don't let friends listen to dispensationalists.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Quix; daniel1212; metmom; presently no screen name; Iscool
Only postmillennialists have the true Biblical theology of suffering and tribulations because only postmillennialists have theology and practice that present a true challenge to the world. Escapists – that is, amillennialists and premillennialists – only talk about tribulations but in reality they agree with the unbelievers that the culture, the society, and the political power must remain anti-Christian. The contradiction “victory vs. tribulations” is a logical fallacy."

What is that supposed to mean?

3 posted on 04/13/2011 6:33:37 AM PDT by Cronos (Christian, redneck, rube and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
But WHICH customs?

Are we to institute the burning of offerings on undressed stone altars supervised by a heriditary priesthood?

The stoning to death of adulterers and also those who curse their parents?

Or will really "let him who is without sin cast the first stone?"

The trouble with a theocratic government (or one endorsed and blessed by theocrats) is all those so far have been run only by men who claim to have a direct line to God or His instructiions,yet those men have imposed much misery and suffering in His name.

Kings ruling by divine right have sent tens of millions to their deaths ,and to be fair,are only recently surpassed in the last century by the atheistic socialists who bathed the modern world in the blood of a hundred million on the battlefields and nearly matched that number in the abortion mills of the world.

4 posted on 04/13/2011 6:55:02 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
Kings ruling by divine right have sent tens of millions to their deaths ,and to be fair,are only recently surpassed in the last century by the atheistic socialists who bathed the modern world in the blood of a hundred million on the battlefields and nearly matched that number in the abortion mills of the world.

Deviating from the topic. No, Kings sent far lesser to their deaths than democracies did and far, far less than the socialists (as you correctly pointed out) -- not 10s of millions (unless you include WWI which I think you are, correct?)

5 posted on 04/13/2011 7:04:31 AM PDT by Cronos (Christian, redneck, rube and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Boy, I wish that the Post-Millenial dream were reality. I think every true believer would rather live in a world that were more and more under the control of Christ. However Biblically and empirically speaking, the “Time of Jacob’s trouble” is fast approaching and most believers are blissfully ignorant. True Christianity (that is, not Homo-Christianity or Syncretized-Christianity) is rapidly becoming a “hate crime”, or “Religio Illicitas” (ask the Egyptian Christians). Come quickly Lord Jesus!


6 posted on 04/13/2011 7:09:31 AM PDT by Jan_Sobieski (Prov 30)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jan_Sobieski

I’m convinced that there is something so utterly devastating that is being covered up that even the likes of Beck, Rush, Levin and all the other people who would normally investigate have been cowering in fear.


7 posted on 04/13/2011 7:20:03 AM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
Yes,WWI was a squabble amongst kings.

I'm no fan of pure democracies,either.

But you might count up all the deaths in war pre-1920 ,and lay them at the thrones of history's kings.There were precious few areas where a king did not rule .

So exactly WHICH version of God and His rules do you advocate as the template for society?

Remember there is much disagreement amongst those who call themselves Christians about just what He wants us to do.

You could even simplify it "love one another as you do yourself" but then some people will insist on "tough love" requiring long lists of behaviorial,dietary, and myriad other rules as necessary for your own good.Pharisees come to mind?

I'd prefer a government which neither murdered nor allowed murder to go unpunished;neither stole nor allowed theft to go unpunished,did not punish thrift and reward sloth;neither promoted gambling,intoxication,or licentiousness, nor denigrated those who keep themselves under control.

8 posted on 04/13/2011 7:24:55 AM PDT by hoosierham (Waddaya mean Freedom isn't free ?;will you take a credit card?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham
So exactly WHICH version of God and His rules do you advocate as the template for society?

For human society on this earth, I personally advocate the American republican form as the best with the caveat that it is still imperfect, but less imperfect than the alternatives. The reason for the imperfection is that we've human.

The "love one another" or extreme anarchistic communism may have worked in kibbutzes or monasteries but cannot work in the real world

9 posted on 04/13/2011 7:31:37 AM PDT by Cronos (Christian, redneck, rube and proud of it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: topcat54
Have you read Cornelius Van Til's “Defense of the Faith”?
Van Til was at Westminster Seminary.

It is a strong apologetic for Christianity. But Van Til identifies true Christianity with Reformed Theology. I think he said something along the line of that any Christian theology that is not Reformed theology is a deformed theology.

I, as a Darbyite, Plymouth Brethren, premillenial, pretribulational dispensationalist on the other hand.... just joking - sort of.

Dispensationalism is too often identified with caricatures of premillenial teaching.

But dispensationalism does offer some solutions to questions like the difference between Israel and the Church; Israel in prophecy; the second resurrection; and others.

One Reformed hermeneutic principle I found interesting is the tenet that Satan is bound at this time, based on the saying of Jesus in the Gospels. That was used to support an amillenial doctrine. But then what of James or Paul? They say something different. So the statement of Jesus must have been prophetic. That is one of the kinds of things that dispensationalism tries to answer.

Then there is the idea that eventually the world will become Christianized eventually. I cannot find any satisfying support in Scriptures for that idea. But on the contrary dispensationalism does seem to have a better answer in the tribulation and imposition of the Kingdom.

Nevertheless, dispensationalism is not without problems itself. It has some good answers, but like any theology it is a man-made finite system of human thought and understanding. Phillip Schaff makes a very good point that the varying theological systems, ie: denominations, each have some contribution to make to the collegiality of the Church's understanding. That seems like a more positive approach than denominational strife. But it's not as easy. However we have a mandate to "strive to maintain the unity of the faith". After weeding out heresy it becomes incumbent upon us to carefully consider other points of view.

I hope you don't take anything I say as contentious, I just wanted to reply to your tagline and suggest a moderating approach to things.

10 posted on 04/13/2011 7:54:06 AM PDT by hfr (Calvin, Hodge, Darby, Chafer - and, the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church") - all good reading)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: hoosierham; DManA; M. Espinola; topcat54; ShadowAce; jy8z; The Theophilus; Dr. Eckleburg; ...
So exactly WHICH version of God and His rules do you advocate as the template for society?

Actually, we don't need to re-invent the wheel. Common law is the application of God's law to local circumstances over the course of 1,500 years. As Harold Berman pointed out, we have been transitioning out of common / Biblical law and into statist / statute / lawmaker-made law for the last 150 years. As we've lost our grip on God's laws, tyranny has increased.

You see, every law order is a theocracy, with some standard for declaring some things good, and others ungood. Which standard should we point to, even if imperfectly? Which god should call the shots in public life? If your confession is that "Jesus is Lord," the answer to these questions is a no-brainer.

11 posted on 04/13/2011 8:04:52 AM PDT by RJR_fan ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RJR_fan
"You see, every law order is a theocracy, with some standard for declaring some things good, and others ungood."

Since the last 150 years some things are "double plus ungood". My confession is that Jesus is Lord.

12 posted on 04/13/2011 8:34:10 AM PDT by hfr (Calvin, Hodge, Darby, Chafer - and, the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church") - all good reading)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RJR_fan
These were the musings of the likes of Aquinas, Coke, and Blackstone, who wrestled with Eternal Law, Divine Law, Natrural Law, and Human Law in the contex of proper reason and application of justice. Point being there was not always agreement, but a common desire to "find" law and justice in the light of God and godly virtue.

As you point out, since around 1900 we've moved into an age never before seen, except maybe the first thousand years leading up to the flood, where nations and societies have kicked God out of their thinking and living. And also as you point out, the common law, which was a reflection of that effort to "find" just law, has been replaced by the liberal "realists" and "theorists" resulting in unjust laws (that favor the "rights" of the State over justice to the individual): what Blackstone calls, "No law."

13 posted on 04/13/2011 8:58:37 AM PDT by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear

Do you have an idea what is the nature of the “something”?


14 posted on 04/13/2011 11:35:21 AM PDT by Hepsabeth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Hepsabeth
>>Do you have an idea what is the nature of the “something”?<<

I truly wish I did. We can only conjecture and I have my ideas but until we actually see the long form and other documents I don’t think there is really any way to know. My take on it is that he is not even a citizen of this country. I think he traveled on an Indonesian passport and received aid as a foreign student.

15 posted on 04/13/2011 1:47:28 PM PDT by CynicalBear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Cronos
What is that supposed to mean?

It means Bojidar Marinov doesn't understand amillennialism and doesn't expect to see the Parousia within the next millennium.

Both Dispensationalism and Post-millennialism are characterized by poorly substantiated hypothetical premises. In the former, the Bible is considered to be mainly irrelevant for the church, teaching little about Christ and nothing about His bride yet is written primarily with an eye towards apostate Israel, "left behind" reprobates and identifying and chronicling the day-to-day activities of the Man of Sin. PM rejects the idea that Christ returns to save the Church, rather they claim that Jesus returns to a saved Church; that is, no matter how bad things look at anytime in history the present or future, someday, maybe millions of years from now, the LORD will return to an earth that is almost all populated by the Church.

Postmillennialism embraces the idea that no matter how bad your rear-end is getting kicked in, that ultimately God wins in the form of most of the people on the earth are saved. That is how victory is defined. There is no Scripture to clearly support this, yet there are enough passages that, with the proper amounts of eisegesis, can be wrested to produce that particular desired view.

Imagine a football team that regularly gets stomped on the playing field, game after game, season after season. Players are routinely mangled up so bad that their careers are prematurely ended (aka "martyrs"). Nevertheless, the coach keeps reminding the bandaged up and wounded players that "this drubbing builds character", and "the other team is so intimidated by you that they bring their best game every time we meet". All of this may be true, yet the team still has a growing roster of players willing to play the game and get creamed each game. The coach says "we will eventually win the Super Bowl" despite countless years of failing to even make the post-season.

The Post-mills pretend the goal of the game is to win the Superbowl. Most people would think that is the point of the game. PostMills keep saying "ok we got our ass kicked in this week, just like every other week, but NEXT week we are going to school the other team."

Dispensationalists are the ones who are always begging the coach to forfeit the game the instant any actual effort is needed, or if they are uncomfortable with the way the game is going. They know they suck. They rarely if ever practice; couldn't care less about learning the play book; are far more interested in strutting around and posing in the uniform while trash talking the opposition. They love the hope that by playing for this team they will get the Lexus in the driveway and bed down the cheerleaders. Their thinking is, why sweat it when the other team is going to cheat? Lets just wait until we get our ringer player to walk on to the field and he'll win our games for us, we don't have to do anything.

Amillennialists don't worry about the score, we simply care did all who were drafted to play get to go on the field and play to the best of their abilities? Because when all that were to ever play get their chance, then, and only then, will the franchise be dismantled. We play because we love our coach and we train and struggle because yes, we would like to win, and occasionally do; but as the old adage goes "It doesn't matter if you win or lose, it matters how you play the game." PostMills and Dispies seem to miss that concept.

16 posted on 04/13/2011 6:46:16 PM PDT by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216; RJR_fan
As you point out, since around 1900 we've moved into an age never before seen, except maybe the first thousand years leading up to the flood, where nations and societies have kicked God out of their thinking and living.

How would you characterize the love for the Almighty by the people of the world from Noah through Pentecost?

Each iteration of "history repeating itself" is better characterized by comparing history to the movie "Groundhog Day" where Satan is "Phil Connors" and each iteration is an opportunity to tweak his approach to bed down Rita.

17 posted on 04/13/2011 6:56:52 PM PDT by The Theophilus (Obama's Key to win 2012: Ban Haloperidol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Postmillennialism is nothing but a private interpretation, a theory of men, in other words. A theory read into the word of God. One would have to be blind to see that the second coming of Christ in Rev. 19 has immediate reference to the first resurrection and the millennial reign of the chapter 20.

The sequence is plain enough in Rev. 19 & 20. It, however, doesn’t fit their theory, so they have to wrest the word of God to make it fit their theory. They swim these threads like sharks deceiving the gullible with their theoretical sophistry.

The prophets certainly prophesied the millennial following the coming of the Messiah in judgment. They weren’t pushing a man made theory, their’s was the true word of prophecy, not a private one of men, but of the Holy Spirit. John’s apocalypse...same thing, there is your true word of prophecy.

2Pet 1:19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:
20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.


18 posted on 04/13/2011 7:09:44 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sasportas

I left out the word “not” here. I better get it in before the Rushdoonies ding me.

“One would have to be blind NOT to see that the second coming of Christ in Rev. 19 has immediate reference to the first resurrection and the millennial reign of the chapter 20.”

One would have to be blind, in other words, not to see that the second coming takes place BEFORE the millennial.


19 posted on 04/13/2011 7:18:35 PM PDT by sasportas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: The Theophilus
I don't understand how you can say that Dispensationalism considers the Bible "mainly irrelevant" for the Church. That is incorrect. Dispensationalism takes some of the words of Christ in the Gospels as applying to the millennial Kingdom. But only some.

They when you say that Dispensationalism teaches little about Christ, that is very incorrect. Christ is given the preeminence in all things.

And to say that Dispensationalism says nothing about His bride, that is the Church, is absolutely incorrect also. Dispensationalists for the most part teach in depth about the Church.

Then you say that eschatology is the main focus of Dispesationalism. In fact it is not the main focus, although it may be the most "spectacular" and easy to grasp part of Dispensationalism. And it certainly has been taken up by many who have little to do with actual Dispensational theology. And it has certainly been misused by many. But that isn't Dispensationalism. To characterize Dispensationalism the way you have is simply incorrect.

20 posted on 04/13/2011 8:28:30 PM PDT by hfr (Calvin, Hodge, Darby, Chafer - and, the CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church") - all good reading)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson