Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe  This is something I have wrestled with for a while, and partly explains why I float between pre and postmil. I see truth in each scheme (not quite for amil, though). I also realize that these are sort of modern terms.
While I realize this is vague, are we perhaps asking the wrong questions when we frame our eschatology? | I think the banter between postmils and amils over the last century has resulted in a gradual melding of the two. Amils are postmils regarding the return of Christ. They just define "victory" and "historical progress" differently. And postmils for the most part have given up the later golden age idea for a more transformational progression concept between the advents of Christ. When Amil's understand that there is a promise of a new earth, and that history does continue with the Incarnate Christ, then that gives them more common ground to talk about historical victory with post and pre mils. I think when we all focus on the common points and clearer doctrines rather than the polarizing rhetoric and specualtions, it will enable us to reform and build a more biblical and ecumenical eschatology. 
__________________
Patrick
OPC
MDiv, RTS Jackson.
"He does well, that discourses of Christ; but he does infinitely better, that by experimental knowledge, feeds and lives on Christ." Thomas Brooks.
|