Quote:
Originally Posted by danmpem  Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivanhoe
I reject millennial schemata (post, a, pre). I do not think they do justice to the text. I do like the millennial kingdom idea. But I am a partial preterist with regard to the "negative passages."
| Could you ellaborate a little more please? |
Postmills are absolutely correct to note that the latter days do not always mean failure for God. Isaiah 2, etc.
Premils are absolutely correct to note the prophetic role of the church in calling judgment on apostate culture. They are also correct to affirm the goodness of God's material creation (e.g., Rev 20). They rightly react to the hyper-spiritualizing of OT passages by amils (there is a difference between typology and spiritualizing).
amils? Well, I can't think of strengths at the moment but I am sure they are there. I guess I would agree with them that we are in the church age, but I reject that the church is synonymous with the kingdom of God and that the Church simply replaces Israel.
Problem is, I am not convinced by any one scheme. With the exception of amil, they all have their good points.
Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter reconvinced me of partial preterism.
Here is a quote from Russell Moore.
Apocalyptic Kuyperianism