Tuesday, November 28, 2006

A POSTMILLENNIAL MODUS PONENS ARGUMENT

The following is a valid modus ponens argument. The law of modus ponens is simply this:

If p, then q.
p.
Therefore, q.

Applying to a major aspect of postmillennialism, we can make a valid postmillennial modus ponens argument.

Let J= Jesus asked the Father for the nations.

Let F= the Father will give Christ the nations.

Here is the argument:

If J, then F.

J.

Therefore, F.

"Ask of Me, and I will make the nations Your inheritance,
the ends of the earth Your possession." --Psalm 2:8

8 comments:

Josh's Loving Wife, aka Angela Brisby said...

Amils and premils alike, would have to assume that Jesus forgot to ask the Father for the nations. :)

Josh Brisby said...

Some adorable, beautiful woman has been listening to Greg Bahnsen's excellent quote: "Do you think Jesus forgot to ask?".

Anonymous said...

the argument never specified *when* the Father would give Jesus the nations and *what* that means to give Jesus the nations.

As such, your argument hardly proves *postmillennialism.*

Furthermore, don't premillennialists believe that all the nations will serve Jesus during his 1,000 year millennial reign?

And so a premillennialist could just as easily use your argument.

Don't give postmillennialists a bad name by using such shoddy argumentation.

Josh Brisby said...

Paul,

The argument was not intended to prove the postmil position. It was intended rather to demonstrate that we do not have warrant to be pessimistic with regards to the nations turning to Christ.

I may use that argument with amil brothers, but with premil brothers, of course, we would have to get into other aspects.

En Cristo Nuestro Salvador,
Josh

Anonymous said...

Josh,

Without specifying the *how* and *when* he gets the nations I fail to see how it could even be used as an argument against amils.

Furthermore, your post is called "A Postmillennial Modus Ponens Argument."

But if it was not intended to prove the "postmil" position, how is it a "postmillennial argument?"

Furthermore, you've now went beyond the premises. If the argument was to prove that the nations "would *turn* to Christ" then I did not see that term used in the premises.

It's not at all obvious to me that "giving the nations to Jesus" means "the nations turn in repentence during a golden age."

As such, I don't really think your argument gets you to where you want to go.

~ME

Josh Brisby said...

Pauly,

I know when I'm beaten. :0) So I will now humbly throw in the towel here. :0)

--Josh

Anonymous said...

No worries. You know I'd still call meself postmil, though. :-)

Secret Rapture said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.