Quote:
Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor  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.  |
I think there is a lot to be said for that comment. I appreciate that amillennialism has stopped some of the hermenuetical excesses of earlier postmillennialism (historicist interpretation of Revelation, a golden age separate from the rest of the NT). However, I think many amillennialists went too far in undermining the earthly victory of Christ's kingdom in the NT age (yes, I know they say they believe in victory). Therefore, modern postmillennialism - and one which takes into account the sufferings which the church must go through as Christ's kingdom expands - is the best option, imho.