http://beretta-online.com/articles/t.../engelsma1.pdf

First of all, I am not postmil so of much of the book, I don't care (it being a critique of postmil). However, at best Engelsma comes close to libeling Christian teachers. At worse he has some heterodox views which seems to contradict his own doctrinal statndards.

First of all Engelsma has a weird view: resurrection of the soul. His interpretation of Rev 20 demands such an odd construct.

And then there is just the sheer name calling in the book:
On Englesma's grounds, Ezekiel 36 and Revelation 21-22 are earthly and carnal since they portray realities that cannot seriously be spiritualized away.

__________________
J. B. Atken
John Knox PCA
Layman, M.A. student at Louisiana College

I have never been convinced that Q. 191 of the Larger Catechsim is 'clearly' Post-mil. As one who holds to an Amil. position, I can affirm the answer to question 191 without hesitation.

One of the problems with the Post/Amil argument is these terms were not used as antithetical positions in history. I know the term amillenialmsm is fairly new; not sure how far the term postmillennialism goes back.

From my understanding of history, you had the pre-mil view(s) and then you had the post-mil view(s) that also incorporated what has now been segregated out as a separate position called amillenialmsm.

I believe in the victory of Christ and the gospel. The thing is, Christ has won in every century past, he is winning today, and he will win tomorrow. That has not meant and does not necessarily mean all the nations will be converted to Christ. The victory of Christ is seen as much in the martyrdom of hundreds of thousands like the the case of the Waldenses in the Piedmont; virtually wiping Christianity out of the region. This is every bit a victory as entire nation coming to Christ. According to my understanding of Revelation, Christ is not waiting for Christianized nations, but for the last martyr who will die for him (Rev 6:9-11).

As far as being active in kingdom growth, I believe that every Christian should be involved in working that out; it is our commission. What irks me the most about the dogmatic branch of reconstructionist postmillers, is that I have experienced, as a pastor, division over this issue when for me I have in times past been happy to make it a matter of liberty. That's not been good enough for those who are dogmatic reconstructionists. I've experienced it in the church, in other relationships, and on the Internet. I'm honestly at the place when someone comes to our church and is dogmatic on things like theonomy, postmillennialism, and reconstructionism, that I'm up front in telling them that we may not be the church they are looking for. I wish this were not the case because I honestly see these positions as a matter of liberty, but experience has shown that those that tend to strongly hold these views can be very divisive. This is sad because we are probably the most practically post-mil/reconstructionistic (I hope that's a word church that I know of for our size. Sadly, we don't have a marble bust of Rushdoony in the foyer so for all else that can be said about it, it just isn't enough for some.

Finally, its not just the actions of some that I find distasteful, but their lack of action. In the recent march in Atlanta against abortion for instance, I did not see one of the many aggressive post-millers I know in attendance. One individual I know who works for a well known reconstructionist ministry could not attend the march because they would not let him off work!!!

Boil it all down...in my ministry I want to be engaged in influencing the culture with the gospel, see sinners come to Christ, and raise godly children. I want to do what I can to see that godly laws are legislated and ungodly ones are struck down, etc. If this makes me a confused amillennialist than so be it.

As a pastor, I am much more interested in a demonstration of power; what you are doing to bring the gospel to all spheres of life, than I am in your talk; whatever 'ism' is your fancy. What I want to see is are you consistent in giving both of your time and money to the work of the ministry, making contributions to our food drives for the poor, going out of your way to get off work and march (yes even in the freezing rain) in the streets of our city against the evils of our day, sharing the gospel with the lost, being active in looking or opportunities to advance the gospel for Christ versus always being 'out of the know', etc. I have no interest in talk. As you can see from the length of my postm I am 'talked out' on this subject

__________________
Robert Truelove
Pastor
Christ Reformed Church
Lawrenceville, GA

The application to the intermediate state is basic amil teaching. Non-historicist postmils also accept it -- e.g., Warfield: "It, too, embraces the whole inter-adventual period, but that period as passed in the security and glory of the intermediate state." (Biblical Doctrines, p. 658.) My personal opinion is that the Apocalypse has suffered from gross misunderstanding because it has not been interpreted according to its own thematic statement, which is the comparison of the here with the hereafter.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

Please elaborate, brother

And did you vote?

__________________
-JD
1Thess5:21
Ordained Deacon, PCA
Serving in the SBC
MS

Team blog: ChristianSkepticism.org | Personal:...a Longmire rambles | facebook

I didn't vote becase you can't fit a square peg in a round hole. I hold the "Puritan hope" within the amil framework of exegesis.

The Apocalypse fluctuates between "now" and "hereafter," "earth" and "heaven." The failure to recognise this has led readers to temporally order its successive visions and hence to distort its dual-level schema.

(don't faint, now! )

Could you write a book for us? Perhaps a commentary on Revelation? Nothing fancy. Maybe in your spare time...

__________________

That's just not possible. But I would suggest anyone who reads the book should try to do so from beginning to end in one sitting, and keep in mind the suffering condition of Christ's servants (the things which are) in comparison with the key statement of chap. 1:7, that He cometh with clouds (the things which shall be hereafter).

Dispensational Pre-Mil

__________________
Aaron
Independent Baptist
Holland MI
Blog: earthdwell22.blogspot.com

Christ said His Kingdom is not of this world so don't look for it,his kingdom ultimate place is the new heavens and the new earth. Kim Riddlebarger in "A Study of American Postmillenialism" says,"Another critical factor which must be kept in view is that the term postmillenial is usually understood today as an eschatological position quite distinct from "amillennialism." in fact, it is generally understood that one who adopts a postmillennial eschatology self-consciously rejects the amilllennial understanding of the millennial age and nature of the reign of Christ. However, the term amillennialism, as we will see, was not used in the ninteenth century, and the origin of the term is shrouded in mystery. Accordingly, Gaffin asks the poignant questionin this regard, "Who coined the term amillennial?" The problem is that apparently there is not a clear-cut defining moment when the term amillennial comes into standard usage and the position is recognized as something quite distinct from postmillennialism. This problem is illustrated by the treatment given this subject by Louis Berkgof, Berkhof, himself a Princeton graduate, and astudent of B.B.Warfield, pointed out in 1938 that "the name [amillennialism]is new indeed, but the view to which it has applied is as old as Christianity. And yet, virtuallyall historians of doctrine agree that what is now known as amillennialist is generally the eschatology of historic Christianity. Even B.B.Warfield, usually portrayed as postmillennial in his eschatology, remarked to his friend SamuelG. Craig, that amillennialism of the type held by his esteemed Dutch colleagues Herman Bavinck and Abraham Kuyper "is the historic Protestant view, as expressed in the creeds of the Reformation period including the Westminster StandardS."What then are the differences between "amillennialism" and "postmillennialism," and how do these terms develop unique distinctives".

I have question for the postmillennialist on this site such as DanielRitchie that said that amillennialist was pessimistic about their end times belief's.How long will it take for this victory to take place? I see the world around us is not getting better and better,but is getting worse,for instance the slaughter of million's of babies avery year just for starters.

Very well said

Postmillenial position here.

__________________
Andrew
PCA Surrey Hills
Victoria, Australia

The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!
Rev. 11:15

Amillenial, thanks to Kim Riddlebarger's books A Man of Sin and A Case for Amillenialism.

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA
Fairmount ARP Church

Student of Theology
Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
My Blog

I have recently reconvinced myself of partial preterism due to Peter Leithart's commentary on 2 Peter.

Can you explain the "Preterist/Historical Premil" position for us?