Thread: amill vs. postmil

What are the main differences between the two?

This chart seems helpful to distinguish the major differences between all 4 major views.

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/eschtlgy.htm

There also needs to be a distinction made between the hermeneutic one uses (Historicist, Preterist, Futurist, Idealist, etc...) and ones view of the Millennium (A-Mill, Post-Mill, and Pre-Mill). I for one am moving towards a Historicist Post-Millennial position.

Amil - we are currently in the millennium
Postmil - the millennium will occur when most of the world is Christianized

Amil - the tares and the wheat grow at the same time therefore there will be a struggle between the two until the coming of Christ
Postmil - though the tares and wheat grow together, it's still a wheat field therefore the Church will overcome the world to a point of Christianization before the coming of Christ

Amil - Christ's kingdom in the millennium is of a spiritual nature
Postmil - Christ's kingdom in the millennium is of both a spiritual and physical nature

I am historicist amillennial.

I have come to like Wayne Grudem's Systematic theology for helping people with basic questions like this. It doesn't have the depth of an entire book on one subject, but it has chapters on most major subjects Christians ask about or debate about ( with the notable exception of the sabbath controversies).

I think he is historic premil but he lays out all the positions very well...even as an amil I'd suggest it as a good basic primer. I know many many Reformed folks who disagree with Grudem on baptism ( he is credo) and gifts ( he is a continuist) but prize his book as one of the best general references available.

Originally Posted by lynnie

I have come to like Wayne Grudem's Systematic theology for helping people with basic questions like this. It doesn't have the depth of an entire book on one subject, but it has chapters on most major subjects Christians ask about or debate about ( with the notable exception of the sabbath controversies).

I think he is historic premil but he lays out all the positions very well...even as an amil I'd suggest it as a good basic primer. I know many many Reformed folks who disagree with Grudem on baptism ( he is credo) and gifts ( he is a continuist) but prize his book as one of the best general references available.

I have Grudem's systematic theology. I think that his eschatology section runs a little thin. Although I agree it's good for a basic understanding of all the major positions in Christendom right now I don't think he presents all the arguments for and against each view.

Another complain I have is that he doesn't really cover dispensationalism vs covenant theology. But that's just me whining.

Originally Posted by ManleyBeasley

I am historicist amillennial.