Talk:Postmillennialism

message: We should make optimillennialists a blue link with its own wikipage. I believe this to be a good way of looking at the Second Coming of Christ, as well as I hold it to be sound doctrine.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 02:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Optimillennialists

message: The first paragraph says, "The majority of postmillennialists DO NOT believe in an apostasy" (emphasis mine). But the remainder of the paragraph seems to indicate that they DO in fact believe in an apostasy. The second paragraph then says, "There is a minority of postmillennial scholars, however, who discount the idea of a final apostasy..." This is confusing. 
Later in the first paragraph, it says that the majority "apostasy perspective" dovetails with premillennial schools of eschatology. This is definitely not true in dispensational premillennialism, in which the apostasy is not limited to those of Jewish descent. Postiffm (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Types

message: I propose reconstructionist and revivalist postmill be merged here. The three articles are not long enough to justify a separation under WP:SUMMARY, and they each spend half their space explaining the same material. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mergers

message: I deleted the second intro paragraph that was recently added. User:BlueMoonlet noted that the part delineating the difference between revivalist and reconstructionist postmillennialism should remain since articles link to this one through redirects on those topics. I agreed, but upon inspection of all of those links, they were all in the "see also" sections of their respective articles, sometimes joined together ("revivalist vs. reconstructionist"). This was an oversight on my part from when I performed the merger mentioned in the previous section, so I took the liberty of removing the links where they were redundant and skipping the redirect where they were not. Hence the second paragraph became obsolete again, so I removed it. --Flex (talk/contribs) 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  --BlueMoonlet 00:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: Some have argued that Vatican II was post-millenialist in its theology and that Pope Paul VI advocated such views. For instance, Paul VI gave up the idea that the Church should play a major role in governing modern society and felt instead that the the Kingdom of God would come at the end of time. This position is somewhat different than the amillenial views of Pius XI, who defended the doctrine of the Christ-King in the enyclical Quas Primas. ADM (talk) 05:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Theology of the Second Vatican Council

message: The article states:
"Revivalist postmillennialism is a form of the doctrine held by the Puritans and some today that teaches that the millennium will come about not from Christians changing society from the top down (that is, through its political and legal institutions) but from the bottom up at the grass roots level (that is, through changing people's hearts and minds)."
It would be good to know who are the main proponents of this form of postmillenialism both contemporary and in the past. I believe Jonathan Edwards (theologian) was one, based on Richard F Lovelace's book Dynamics of Spiritual Life (pages 40,41) where he writes: "Earlier generations of Puritans had felt that England and the New English colony in America would have a special role in establishing the kingdom of God among the other nations, and Edwards adapted this concept of America to his postmillenial vision. A revived American church would serve as a base for the missionary expansion of the gospel until all the earth was filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea."
Who are the contemporary writers, teachers, that hold to a similiar form of revivalist postmillenialism?DMSBel (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revivalist postmillennialists