What is Postmillennialism?

A non-postmillennial website with an overt bias against postmillennialism should NOT be used to define postmillennialism. GotQuestions is great fro understanding Dispensationalism but not so good for understanding positions outside it's own points of view. It is a biased website. There are a few errors in this opening post. 

For example, while it is true postmillennialists do not read the mentions of "one thousand years" in Revelation 20 literally, they are as a general rule inclined to read scripture much more literally than the Dispensationalist. Revelation 1:1-3 and 22:7-10 would be notable proofs to that effect. Postmils are usually partial-preterist and as such they read the opening and closing statements literally where the Dispensationalist (including those at GotQuestions) does not. It was very bad form for of them to accuse others when they themselves are so poor, selective, and inconsistent at literal reading. 

Neither does postmillennialism arise solely from Revelation 20. That's just wrong. Postmillennialists don't place a particular emphasis on a few sentences from just one chapter in one book over the whole of scripture. They consider passages found throughout the whole of scripture from beginning to end, including the Cultural Mandate (Gen. 1:27-28) and the Great Commision in their eschatology. They take Psalm 110:1 literally. So GotQuestions got that wrong, too. In other words, the opening statement of their article is WRONG, and so too will be everything built on their erroneous opening statement. They've misled their audience from the beginning. 

This isn't about my views of the sources as a whole. My criticism is about the facts of postmillennialism. GQ got it wrong. 

Generally speaking, most postmils do look forward to a "golden age" before the final coming of Christ but they do not look forward to a perfect state on this side of resurrection. Furthermore, those most inclined to see a specific golden age are the Dominionists, and they do not make up the whole of postmillennialists. Within their portion of postmillennialists are the Reconstructionists. The Recons believe Christians must assert the gospel under the guidance and power of the Holy Spirit and doing so will gradually produce a Christian state. Most of them believe this state is necessary for Christ's return to occur. Recons are NOT the majority of Dominionists and not all postmils are Dominionist. All postmillennialists believe the gospel will eventually be victorious and once that happens Jesus will return. Again, verses like Psalm 110:1 are the prooftext, not anything said in Revelation 20. 

This position of the gospel being victorious stands in stark contrast to Dispensationalism, which holds the Church is corrupt, the Church will become increasingly corrupt and impotent and therefore need rescuing from both the increasingly depraved world where satan rules and the wrath of God they keep telling us is going to happen any day now. Where Postmillennialism is optimistic, Dispensationalism is pessimistic. Their optimism is placed solely in the return of Christ and not the Church, the gospel, or the work of the Spirit here and now in both. 

Postmillennialists do subscribe to a literal reading of scripture. They believe in a literal reading of WHOLE scripture, not a literal reading of proof-texted scripture. They follow an exegetical reading of scripture that has its basis in a literal reading of scripture with the words taken in their ordinary usage with the normal meaning...... except where the text gives reason to do otherwise, and chief among those reasons is how the New Testament writers handled the Old Testament. Dispensationalists, in contrast or comparison, take Old Testament prophecies literally relevant to the Jew of the era in which those prophecies are fiorst written and ignore what the newer revelations say about those prophecies. Dispensationalist don't always read even the OT prophecies literally. For example, any OT prophecy about the temple should be read as a reference to the temple that was then still standing and not some hypothesized future temple of the 21st century (or further in the future). THAT is a non-literal reading. The New Testament tells us there were two temples standing after Old Testament prophecy, one of stone and one of royal priests. Postmils read those passages literally, Dispensationalists do not. Amils and many Historicists agree with the Postmils. 

So Postmils have not lost all objectivity to the meaning of words. GQ got that wrong. If you trust the GQ article you will walk away from the reading believing falsehoods. They are responsible for the teaching. The reader is responsible for the believing the falsehoods, either unknowingly or knowingly. 




So if you want to know something about Postmillennialism try reading the Postmillennialists. I recommend starting with, "The Meaning of the Millenium: Four Views," edited by Stanley Gundry and the YouTube video series by R. C. Sproul, "The Last Days according to Jesus." Sproul was not originally postmil. His studies of scripture brought him to that position and his series is very even-handed. Lorraine Boettner's book, "Postmillennialism," is an introductory treatise. The Dominionist Ken Gentry has also written a book, "He Shall Have Dominion" that does a good job of focusing on postmillennialism without being heaving Dominionist. Gary Demar's polemic against Dispensationalism is hard to read because of its overt harsh contempt for modern prognostication but "Last Days Madness" gives plenty of reason to his book sincere contemplation. I also highly recommend Ken Gentry's book "Before Jerusalem Fell." You may not agree with his conclusions but his work is astounding.


But, above all of that I recommend reading Kim Riddlebarger's book, "A Case for Amillennialism." I've read all the books listed above and all the leading Dispensationalist and Historicist books but Riddlebarger is by far the best exegete, comparatively speaking. If you take a scripture sited by an author and the look it up in the Bible you will find they all play fast and loose with scripture in one place or another. If Riddlebarger says, "Scripture says _________________," there's a good chance more often than not that is in fact what the scripture says. 


The respective views in their own words, not those of their critics. 

Historic Premillennialism = "The Blessed Hope" by George Eldon Ladd or "A Case for Historic Premillennialism," by Craig Blomberg

Amillennialism = "The Bible and the Future" by Anthony Hoekema or "A Case for Amillennialism" by Kim Riddlebarger 

Dispensational Premillennialism = "Dispensationalism" by Lewis Sperry Chafer or "Dispensationalism" by Charles Ryrie, or "Things to Come" by Dwight Pentecost 

Postmillennialism = Boettner and Gentry, mentioned above or "Postmillennialism Made Easy," also by Gentry or "Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope" by Keith Mathison


I have to warn you, though. Once you've read these positions in their original sources, you'll be alarmed how much their opponents lie about one another. You may also learn you don't believe the positions as they assert them.