Post-Millennialism vs Amillennialism Debate (Wilson v Foskey)

Welcome, everyone, to this battle royale with royalty.

We're in the underground bunker deep beneath Dallas Theological Seminary, and safe from all of those readers of the late, great planet Mars and 88 Reasons Why Jesus Did Not Return in 1988.

And I'm your host for tonight, Pastor Tim Bouchon.

Before we begin, I must confess some affinity for each of the contestants, both royalty in their own right.

I happen to have affinity for Keith in his position on the recipients and timing of baptism, and I have affinity with Pastor Doug on his position of the nature of the kingdom now.

So I'm really in a pickle.

I don't know what to say.

But welcome.

Fortunately, my position in postmillennialism means that you guys get fixed eventually on the other one.

Oh, not again.

Here it comes.

Well, first of all, King Keith.

Now, I did want to say one other thing, and we'll get right to it.

We contacted the Duke of Dispensationalism and the Grand Poobah of Premillennialism.

Neither one was willing to enter the fray.

And I think it's because they're both just terrified and, frankly, cowards.

So Keith Foskey, introduce yourself.

Yes, sir.

I am Keith Foskey.

I'm the reigning king of the Amillennialists, and I'm also the pastor of Sovereign Grace Family Church in Jacksonville, Florida, where I have served for the past 16 going on 17 years now as their pastor.

Very good.

And Pastor Doug, introduce yourself, please.

My name is Doug Wilson.

I'm the pastor of Christ Church.

We're in the panhandle of Idaho.

Idaho, like Florida, has a panhandle, and I'm in it.

So I've been the pastor of Christ Church since 1977.

So the saints here are long-suffering saints.

They know what it is to go through the furnace of affliction, and so that's what I do.

I write and preach.

That's my day job.

All right, so first of all, Your Highness, Your Liege, let's start with this.

King Keith, why don't you explain what your eschatological position is and why you hold to that specific position? Well, very quickly, I began my eschatological journey as a dispensational premillennialist because I did come up in the 90s, and there was a very famous set of books that came out in the late 90s, early 2000s called The Left Behind Series.

And when I went to seminary, I was taught dispensational premillennialism, and I was told if I did not hold to that position, they hoped that I would get left behind.

So there was some pretty strong feelings about it.

But over time, having examined the different positions, I have settled quite comfortably as an amillennialist.

Some might say an optimistic amillennialist.

We might find that Pastor Doug and I may not differ on as many things as we may think, but I do know there are at least a few differences.

So that's how I got to where I am just through a series of studies and teaching and having been challenged in different areas.

All right, thank you.

In other words, the Bible.

Amen.

Yeah.

Pastor Doug.

Let me begin by saying that the pilgrimage from dispensationalism to amillennialism, I would consider a serious upgrade, so I'm appreciative of that.

And then when you qualify amillennialism with optimistic amillennialism, we have to be careful lest we wind up ruining the whole debate by agreeing too much.

So I became a post-millennialist reluctantly at first and then enthusiastically later.

I was a generic premill, never dispensational, but a generic premill simply because I was a Christian in North America.

And I couldn't get it to come out of the text over reading and rereading.

So I was a pastor by this time, and so I abandoned every eschatological position I knew of.

And all I would say when people asked me, I'd say, look, Jesus is coming again.

Don't push me.

And that would be something that where we would have a point of agreement.

Jesus is coming again.

So I knew that Christ was coming again, but I didn't have any idea.

And I was a nonmillennialist for probably two or three years.

And one day the penny dropped.

And I was reading a book that had—the hermeneutic was a little bit gaudy for me, and it wasn't really my jam.

But while I was reading that book, the author quoted 1 Corinthians 15, for he must reign until he put all his enemies under his feet.

And something snapped in my head.

And a full-fledged eschatological worldview assembled in my head over a very short space of time, like one of those Transformer thingies in a movie.

And that was exhilarating and loads of fun.

So that's one reason I'm a postmillennialist is that progress.

Also, as I was—I did prepare for this debate a few minutes ago.

I looked up amillennialism on Wikipedia.

And I'm here to tell you that it says amillennialism is a chilagaristic eschatological position.

Chilagaristic.

Chilagaristic.

And I'm sorry.

I just couldn't be an adherent of a chilagaristic position.

How would I defend that? I don't think I could spell it.

I can't fathom it.

So, in other words, the Bible.

Yes, the Bible.

Why am I a postmillennialist? Well, I decided when I was well into my Christian life, and I was into my ministry, I decided that, you know, I really ought to believe the promises of God.

I think that I should do that.

Yeah.

It's the best way.

Well, when THE king makes a promise, then us much lower potentates and poobahs should say amen, yes, and amen.

Go ahead.

So when you say like the king of the amills and all this other stuff, in the challenge video, Keith basically said postmill was fancy amillennialism.

Does that make amillennialism shabby chic postmillennialism? Well, I'll say this.

I did look for a pair of overalls.

It's hard to find them in 3X.

I'm a big guy, so finding a pair of overalls.

But I was hoping you'd wear a sweater vest.

I actually almost emailed you to ask what you were going to wear so I could look the same.

You know, I pretend to be you in so many forms now.

I'm the Harbor Freight version of Doug Wilson.

Well, one can aspire, can't one? You know, I've never smoked.

I don't ever smoke.

My cigars are like Joel Osteen's Salvation.

It's just not real.

So let's continue with the next question.

King Keith, in your mind, why are you so disagreeable to postmillennialism? In other words, what do you disagree with? Well, some people might say that the debate is unnecessary because in a sense we are both postmillennial.

We both believe that Christ will return to consummate the millennium and inaugurate the eternal state.

And we both believe that the millennium is not a literal thousand years.

At least I think that's the position that Brother Doug would hold.

So in that sense, we're both postmillennial and amillennial.

So I guess we both win.

We can both put on our crowns and go have a scotch.

But obviously the differences are there.

I think that probably the place where you hear the most difference is in regard to the optimism.

Sometimes postmillennialists are incurably optimistic in the idea that everything is going to become Christianized.

We hear a lot of terms being thrown around today.

I know Brother Doug wrote a book about Christendom, mere Christendom.

And so the idea that there's going to be this flourishing of Christianity not only in the souls of men, but also in the culture and in the national governments of the world.

And we're going to see this overtaking.

And most amillennialists would not expect so much.

They might expect that the gospel is going to go out into the world.

And we might call that a revivalistic version of postmillennialism, where the gospel is going to go out and people are going to be saved, but not necessarily that the entire culture of the world is going to be transformed in more of a reconstructionist view, I would say, is the postmillennial view.

And so our difference is probably what we expect.

And I think another important difference is possibly on the issue of the imminency of Christ's return.

If there is an expectation that these things are going to take place, does that mean that Christ's return is not something that we should be considering an imminent possibility, and therefore do we run the risk of becoming like the virgins who did not have the oil prepared for the return of the bridegroom? So those are the concerns I would raise in that regard.

So let me begin by addressing the question of the imminent return of the Lord.

This is one of those things where Jesus said emphatically, no man knows the day or the hour.

And so I don't want to pretend that I do know the day or the hour.

But if I were a betting man, do I anticipate lots of history ahead? Yes, I do.

I think that if we are thinking culturally, thinking about engaging with culture and building institutions, planting churches, that sort of thing, you can't do it or can't do it consistently if you think that it's all going to burn tomorrow.

Right now, having said that, I'm not opposed.

As I heard R.J.

Rushduny once say that he's not opposed to changing his theology in midair.

Yeah, I love that.

So, of course, the Lord is the Lord of history, and He can disrupt all our calculations.

But I think if I'm planning for a century out or five centuries out and praying and laboring for that, for any Christian who's doing that, an imminent return of Christ would be a pleasant surprise.

What about you? Oh, OK.

Who's going to object? You're back early.

Can you just wait a couple of minutes? Because we were doing this.

Yeah, we were trying to evangelize the world.

That would just be dumb and stupid.

So I think it's best to have a long-term faith commitment where we're going to seek to disciple the nations long term.

I think it's going to take a while.

But if the Lord said, no, I think you'd gotten more done than we thought we had gotten done, and He returned, that's not a bad thing at all.

I mean, it's the Lord coming again.

So that's the first thing.

The second thing is when you say optimistic, Amil, I would want to ask optimistic about what? OK, optimistic about what? If you're simply saying optimistic about the opportunity of salvation to everyone who believes, then premills, dispensationalists, postmills, Amils, all are optimistic in exactly the same way.

OK, we all believe that if someone believes in Jesus and repents of his sins and calls on the Lord, he will be saved.

If that's the extent of our optimism, then we agree.

But I would want the optimism to leak out more.

I don't see how there's any way for a large number of people to be converted and not have that transform the world around them.

Business becomes more industrious, more honest.

Wilberforce gets the slave trade abolished.

Things start to happen outside of our hearts, outside of our minds.

And that kind of cultural engagement, I think, is what we mean when we talk about optimistic eschatology.

Of course, it has to start with the forgiveness of sin and the transformation of individual sinners.

That's the place where Ezekiel's living water starts to flow from.

But I just think it gets farther than the threshold.

Well, I would agree in the sense that the gospel, when it goes out and it changes hearts, it does change the world around it.

It can't help but do that because changed men change the world around them.

So I absolutely have no issue with that.

I think where I may have some trouble is when we see the gospel going in the parables, the mustard seed and others as they're growing, that is true.

Even Daniel's stone cut without hands hitting the feet of the Colossus, and we would see that as the gospel growing.

I assume that's your understanding of it.

Yeah, it grows and fills the whole earth.

Yes, I agree.

But it's the existence of and continued survival of those who are opposed to Christ.

And I think of the parable of the wheat and the tares.

Yes, there's going to be wheat.

Yes, there's going to be growth.

And yes, that is going to change culture.

But I don't see it as something that is going to be so wholesale that there doesn't still have an existence of those who are in opposition to it.

And that there aren't those still in the world who are going to suffer for it.

I think about Romans chapter 8, which tells us that those who are fellow heirs with Christ will suffer with him.

And therefore, does that truth not apply to those who are in the later part of the millennium where this Christendom has filled the earth? Is there still not a sense in which there will be suffering? Is there still not a sense in which there's going to be evil in the world? Will that be wholesale abolished? So it's not that I don't see Christendom growing.

I see with the wheats and the tares, both are growing together until the harvest, which Christ says is the end of the age.

So with responding to both of those things, I would say that yes, there will be holdouts all the way to the end.

I don't think postmillennialism requires us to believe 100% of all the people alive for millennia will all be true believers.

I believe that there will be infidels and people who reject and, you know, just stubborn sort.

So that the presence of tares in the wheat does not present a problem with to the postmillennialist.

We just want to say, look, it's a wheat field.

It's not a it's not a tare field.

OK, it's a wheat field and there are tares in it.

Great.

Jesus told us to expect that with regard to the question about affliction and trusting the Lord.

I believe that every Christian right up to the very end is going to have to trust the Lord with things that are a weight and an affliction and a grief to him.

It says in Isaiah that a man who dies at 100 will be considered accursed.

OK, everybody's looking around, man, what did he do? But there will be saints, let's say, let's pick that guy.

There'll be saints at that time who have to go to that guy's funeral.

That man will have daughters.

That man will be diagnosed with a terminal terminal disease and have to depart when he's 100 instead of 300, like everybody else.

There will be grief.

There will be heartache.

There will be things that we have to trust the Lord for.

And one of the things that I think that we have to come to grips with, and this seems like you've probably heard the joke about first world problems.

You know? Yes.

So you've got somebody living in a cardboard box under a bridge in Manila somewhere.

And he's going to define a good day and a bad day very differently than we would.

Right? We're having a bad day because the air conditioner on our car went out.

And now I'm going to have to take it to the shop and they're going to fix it.

It's going to take two days instead of one day.

And I've got first world problems.

But all of us know what it's like to stumble over those sorts of problems.

And we have to learn how to trust the Lord for those problems.

And we're all still going to die.

So everybody has to cross the Jordan River, whether they're living in 50 A.D.

or 5000 A.D.

We're all going to have to give it up to God.

So I think that all the lessons that the New Testament teaches us that we should have to learn in this life, which is a veil of tears, I think it remains a veil of tears even when times are, comparatively speaking, good.

That's very helpful.

When both of you were talking about evangelism and the imminency of Christ, I wrote down the word urgency.

I think there's an urgency in premillennialism for evangelism.

There's an urgency in postmillennialism for engaging the culture and winning.

Keith, I'll ask you this, and then Doug, you can give an answer as well.

What is the urgency, the sense of urgency, given your eschatological position, amillennialism? What gets you up in the morning? Well, I would say both of the things that you said are true of amillennialists.

And I don't know if I said this earlier.

I don't think I did.

But sometimes the postmillennialists are called optimists and the premillennialists are called pessimists.

And if that's true, then I guess we're the realists.

Well, I'm glad that's settled.

So we have the reality that we're going to continue to preach the gospel and continue to expect that there is a binding of Satan through the preaching of the gospel.

There is the flourishing of the gospel throughout the world, and we're seeing that not necessarily in the United States.

But even though the gospel is going out in the United States, but in other parts of the world, it's flourishing.

And especially where it's persecuted, it's flourishing wonderfully.

And so we're thankful and getting up in the morning knowing that we're supporting missionaries that are going, and we're holding the rope for these men who are going into these terrible places, and we're sending them, and we're thankful.

And still standing outside of abortion clinics like I have done and will continue to do and continue to preach the gospel in the open air as we do at our church.

These are not things that are opposed to the amillennial view.

Like I said, when it comes down to brass tacks, there may not be that big of a difference between us in the sense of how we do ministry, because I think we both have the same goal, and that's that the world would hear the gospel and that Christ would change hearts and through that change this world.

It's just what extent are we going to see that change? Right.

Can I break in just a second, and then I'll give Doug, you can respond to that.

So, Keith, you're telling me that it's legitimate for a pastor to call his civil magistrate to legislate in a certain way, say, abolish abortion rather than regulate abortion.

Would you agree with that's a legitimate thing for a pastor to do? Yeah, I would say that I am an abolitionist.

In my heart, I understand some of the people who are incrementalists, and I don't want to paint them with a terrible brush.

I know that's not what we're here to debate, but in my heart, I believe abortion is a sin.

I believe it's wrong, and I believe it's against God's law, and it should be against all of man's laws, because it's one of the most heinous things that's ever existed.

And so, like Jonah, who went to Nineveh and proclaimed repentance, and God saw fit to bring repentance from the king all the way down to the stall, I would preach the same.

I would call men to repent because they are facing the judgment of God.

A man who stands behind a governmental desk or within the Oval Office who makes a declaration of some law is going to stand before God and be judged for that, and I think he needs to hear that.

And so, yeah, I certainly would.

Well, good.

The only reason I brought that up is that does not sound like a lot of my other AMIL friends that are more Two Kingdom, R2K.

They don't think it's legit for a pastor to do such a thing.

Well, and perhaps I may disagree with some of my brothers on that, and that's fine.

You know, again, I've been known to disagree with people.

But yeah, definitely.

All right.

Prince of the Post Mills, Doug, what do you say to that? So it sounds to me that Keith is more than happy to witness for and fight for various tactical victories on the ground, right? Outside the abortion clinic or in a particular situation.

God has put us in various settings, and I have to witness to the truth of the gospel and God's untouchable law wherever I am.

OK, so I don't have any doubt that all sorts of AMILs and premials, too, for that matter, are able to be faithful tactically where they are.

But what happens when you're testifying before the magistrate and the magistrate listens and the magistrate says, oh, you're right.

That is a big sin.

We're going to and the King of Nineveh tells everybody, OK, everybody, the orgy is off.

We're repenting.

We're repenting now.

With the AMILs, all of a sudden, it's a strategic issue.

It's not tactical anymore.

It's not just one sidewalk or one section of your town.

All of a sudden, you have this breakthrough.

And Jonah goes, oh, crud, that's not what I wanted.

And Jonah's not a coward.

He just hated Nineveh.

He just wanted to see Nineveh burn.

And he knew, God, you're like this.

This is just the sort of thing I was afraid you were going to do.

That's why I ran to Tarshish.

With the AMIL, when the king repents, when there's a massive revival, there's a great breakthrough, are you going to struggle fitting it into your eschatology? I would say no, only because if that were to happen, I would rejoice.

Just like I did rejoice when the Supreme Court struck down Roe versus Wade.

Even though I know that there's a ton more work to be done, I can still rejoice in those types of victories and see that happen and thank God for it.

I can thank God for it.

And yet, at the same time, know that in this situation that we're in and the structure of government that we're in, it would take such a wholesale and massive change in the hearts of more than just one man.

It's not as if we have a king who can make a decree, even though the president often acts like he is.

We have a situation where it might change my eschatology if I saw all of our senators repent in the sackcloth and ashes.

And yeah, I mean, like you said, if you were caught up in the air, you would change your eschatology on the way up.

Well, if I saw the government cast down their idols and bow the knee to the Lord Jesus Christ, yeah, that would change.

But as I said, it's an expectation situation at this point.

I don't expect that even though I preach to the man and I do call him to.

I don't expect it, but if it were to happen, I wouldn't be unhappy.

I wouldn't be like Jonah and cursing the gourd.

I'd be happy or cursing God because of the gourd.

I'd be praying and thanking God for his ministry.

One of my pleasant eschatological daydreams is to envision the day when the earth is as full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.

Our missions were triumphant.

All the nations have streamed to Christ, and it was all done by dispensationalists.

And the Left Behind series is studied in all the schools, and it's on the bestseller list.

Millions of them sell, and the dispensationalists are looking around at each other.

What do we do now? I must have forgot to cross a T somewhere because it's not working out quite as planned.

Right.

So, honestly, it doesn't sound like there's that much difference except maybe in expectation.

And, Keith, you don't sound like some of the Amils that Doug and I know, so you're in good company there.

I mean, am I right? So we absolve you of everything.

I may have to give this back.

I may have to hand it.

They may take it back now if I don't quite meet the standard.

You are now an honorary Post Mill.

Yeah, just not quite.

You're not a fancy lad yet.

You're a grumpy Post Mill.

Right, right.

Well, gentlemen, it is at the 30-minute mark, and then some.

Thank you both for coming and giving of your time.

Appreciate it.

All of us are pastors.

We see the gospel and the stewardship of the Word of God as being primary.

And then all these other things that are just extensions.

And I'm going to quote Prince Doug here.

Our theology should come out of our fingertips.

Couldn't agree more.

So let's pray for one another.

Keith, continue your great ministry down there.

Well, there's Florida, and then there's inland, so that's a whole thing.

And Doug, up in the panhandle of beautiful Idaho.

You're just too close to Washington State, that's all.

That's the problem with Governor Kim Jong Inslee.

Right.

Oh, may you live in interesting times.

Well, folks, this is Pastor Tim Bushong.

So glad you listened in tonight.

And we're all best friends now and everything.

We go hang out at the Waffle House and whatnot.

But seriously.

Yeah, watch the fights.

Yeah, that's right.

I forgot.

Yeah, they know how to fight there.

Yeah.

Something about the chair training process.

Right.

Know this, that God is the creator of the universe.

He spoke and the universe leapt into existence.

God alone is the one who has the authority to determine the boundaries of men's actions and thoughts and lives.

And if you're a lawbreaker, you need to repent and trust in Jesus Christ.

Repent from your sins, believe in him only, and be forgiven.

And all of us are united on this.

I guarantee if you repent and trust in Jesus, you will not be disappointed in finding him to be anything less than a perfect savior.

This is Tim for Eschatology Matters.

Thank you, Keith.

Thank you, Doug.

Bye for now.

Thank you.