Thread: Seminaries' Eschatologies

Which of the following seminaries tend to lean toward postmil and what seminaries lean toward amil? What variations? Are certain well-known faculty either amil or postmil? I'm looking especially at GPTS and wondering if it is postmil, or who teaches there that is postmil, and what variation of postmil it is. I know that Gentry has been a guest there and is theonomic postmil. But I also want to see a census of the other seminaries' views on eschatology to see how they all line up.

Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Westminster Theological Seminary
Calvin Theological Seminary
New Geneva Theological Seminary
Reformed Theological Seminary
Whitefield Theological Seminary
Erskine Theological Seminary
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
Birmingham Theological Seminary
Western Reformed Seminary
Mid-America Reformed Seminary
Covenant Seminary

I would say the only one that may lean Post-Mill would be Whitefield. All the others are squarely A-Mill.

I had always thought though, that at least some faculty of other seminaries would be postmil, especially those who are more strictly puritan perhaps? Am I off the wall on that guess?

Puritan claims to be amil; although they teach that the Jews will be restored.

is amil really that dominant academically? I saw that GPTS on sermonaudio.com has a lecture by Gentry that is titled "Answers to Postmillennial Objections" is Pipa, Morton Smith, or any other of the faculty postmil at GPTS?

Ken Gentry does not teach at GPTS. However I HIGHLY recommend listening to his teaching on sermonaudio.

right, i know that Gentry doesn't teach there, but does anyone at GPTS espouse postmil? I know that postmil is a pretty common belief...how come it isn't espoused by any of the seminaries (besides Whitefield) mentioned above?

-----Added 10/5/2009 at 08:07:09 EST-----

does anybody go to one of these seminaries who could clarify what their seminary teaches regarding eschatology?

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

I know that postmil is a pretty common belief..

You and I must have different views of 'common'.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

I know that postmil is a pretty common belief..

You and I must have different views of 'common'.

Right, I should have said, it's an eschatological view held by many presbyterians, perhaps not the majority, but it is a prevalent view of eschatology is it not?

I find it interesting that whenever Reformed seminaries are listed on the PB, Covenant Seminary tends to be left out.

Whitefield Seminary accepts other eschatologies, but not Pre-mil Dispensationalism. I am slowly working on an EdD. in Counseling and Education at Whitefield and the President, Dr. Kenneth G. Talbot, is also my pastor and often professor. Dr. Talbot is Post-Mil. I am on the fence between amil and postmil pending further study.

Hmm... I didn't take the eschatology class at GPTS, but I'm pretty sure Pipa is preterist post-mill and (not as sure about this) that Shaw is A-mill (I know he doesn't believe in a Jewish restoration, but that may not by itself decide the question). Willborn says it depends on how you draw the line. I think Dyer is futurist post-mill. I don't know about others. Anything I say should be checked with the professor before being repeated as a dogmatic assertion.

Cornelis Venema from MARS referred to himself as an optomistic a-mill at the GPTS eschatology conference.

Erskine has at least one post-mil -- R.J. Gore.

What didn't Dallas make the list?

Originally Posted by Curt

I find it interesting that whenever Reformed seminaries are listed on the PB, Covenant Seminary tends to be left out.

Ya...whats up wit dat???!!

Covenant is a great seminary

I thought Westminster taught premill dispensational.

Originally Posted by lukeh021471

I thought Westminster taught premill dispensational.

I hope you are joking.

lol yes I am

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

I know that postmil is a pretty common belief..

You and I must have different views of 'common'.

Right, I should have said, it's an eschatological view held by many presbyterians, perhaps not the majority, but it is a prevalent view of eschatology is it not?

I've met some, but not many. But it's not something I search for. I'm more interested in hunting down the dispys.

-----Added 10/7/2009 at 05:51:33 EST-----

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

What didn't Dallas make the list?

Perhaps he just wanted to list reformed seminaries.

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

Originally Posted by Edward

You and I must have different views of 'common'.

Right, I should have said, it's an eschatological view held by many presbyterians, perhaps not the majority, but it is a prevalent view of eschatology is it not?

I've met some, but not many. But it's not something I search for. I'm more interested in hunting down the dispys.

-----Added 10/7/2009 at 05:51:33 EST-----

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

What didn't Dallas make the list?

Perhaps he just wanted to list reformed seminaries.

Is that why Covenant isn't on the list?

Originally Posted by Curt

I find it interesting that whenever Reformed seminaries are listed on the PB, Covenant Seminary tends to be left out.

As well as the first PRTS - Protestant Reformed Theological School

I believe Amil has gained the academic ascendency due to the influence of many Biblical Theology guys like Vos, Kline, Gaffin, Ridderbos, etc. Hendrickson as well made it popular and easy to understand. And Venema's recent book has basically brought it all together into an easily understood view which a lot of us were thinking but couldn't quite express. But again, that's just my limited observations and speculation on the issue.

Originally Posted by Curt

Originally Posted by Edward

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

Right, I should have said, it's an eschatological view held by many presbyterians, perhaps not the majority, but it is a prevalent view of eschatology is it not?

I've met some, but not many. But it's not something I search for. I'm more interested in hunting down the dispys.

-----Added 10/7/2009 at 05:51:33 EST-----

Originally Posted by Blue Tick

What didn't Dallas make the list?

Perhaps he just wanted to list reformed seminaries.

Is that why Covenant isn't on the list?

It is. And has been for a while.

Originally Posted by Nathan Riese

Which of the following seminaries tend to lean toward postmil and what seminaries lean toward amil? What variations? Are certain well-known faculty either amil or postmil? I'm looking especially at GPTS and wondering if it is postmil, or who teaches there that is postmil, and what variation of postmil it is. I know that Gentry has been a guest there and is theonomic postmil. But I also want to see a census of the other seminaries' views on eschatology to see how they all line up.

Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary
Westminster Theological Seminary
Calvin Theological Seminary
New Geneva Theological Seminary
Reformed Theological Seminary
Whitefield Theological Seminary
Erskine Theological Seminary
Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
Birmingham Theological Seminary
Western Reformed Seminary
Mid-America Reformed Seminary
Covenant Seminary

I know that L. Anthony Curto from GPTS is a postmil.

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

I believe Amil has gained the academic ascendency due to the influence of many Biblical Theology guys like Vos, Kline, Gaffin, Ridderbos, etc. Hendrickson as well made it popular and easy to understand. And Venema's recent book has basically brought it all together into an easily understood view which a lot of us were thinking but couldn't quite express. But again, that's just my limited observations and speculation on the issue.

The interesting thing at least to me in reading Venema's book The Promise of the Future is that Venema almost comes off as being Post-Mill in defending an "Optomistic A-Mill" point of view. In fact Venema is far fairer and pleasant concerning the Post-Mill view than many of his colleagues who write on eschatological topics.

Originally Posted by Backwoods Presbyterian

Originally Posted by Puritan Sailor

I believe Amil has gained the academic ascendency due to the influence of many Biblical Theology guys like Vos, Kline, Gaffin, Ridderbos, etc. Hendrickson as well made it popular and easy to understand. And Venema's recent book has basically brought it all together into an easily understood view which a lot of us were thinking but couldn't quite express. But again, that's just my limited observations and speculation on the issue.

The interesting thing at least to me in reading Venema's book The Promise of the Future is that Venema almost comes off as being Post-Mill in defending an "Optomistic A-Mill" point of view. In fact Venema is far fairer and pleasant concerning the Post-Mill view than many of his colleagues who write on eschatological topics.

Yes, I think he's working to be more ecumenical, drawing on the strengths and common ground of both. The post-mils and amils have been learning from each other over the last century or so.

Nathan,
Thank you for adding Covenant.
I am a student there and I don't know the answer to your question. I personally lean towards Amil but it's not something that occupies my mind so I never think to ask others or to speculate about others.

Originally Posted by Curt

I find it interesting that whenever Reformed seminaries are listed on the PB, Covenant Seminary tends to be left out.

Take this as anecdotal information, but the N.Cali Presb of the P C. A. has been receiving left-leaning seminarians for quite some time. In fact, it is filled with alumni, and is one of the most liberal Presbs in the P C. A.

Cheers,

[quote=Christusregnat;698719]

Originally Posted by Curt

Take this as anecdotal information, but the N.Cali Presb of the P C. A. has been receiving left-leaning seminarians for quite some time. In fact, it is filled with alumni, and is one of the most liberal Presbs in the P C. A.

Adam,

Please define what you mean by "left-leaning".

So,
1)North Cali presby. is filled with CTS alumni
2)North cali presby. is one of the most liberal presbys. in the PCA
Therefore, CTS is liberal?

Not addressed to you Adam, but rather just some general thoughts:

To piggyback on others in this thread who have stood up for CTS, I thought seminaries were to educate, not to follow graduates and enforce them to hold what they have been taught. I guess we are to assume that these graduates are "liberal" because it is what they have been taught? Or maybe it is possible that those who hold "liberal" views do so before they go to seminary and in spite of what they are taught in seminary. Perhaps the problem in the PCA of "liberal" pastors/elders is due to "liberal" presbyterys ordaining them and is not particularly at the feet of those who educate them?

I went to a university with a liberal and neo-orthodox religion department. I came out an orthodox reformed christian. There are too many variables involved to simply say: this student from a given institution believes x, therefore the institution teaches x.

I am no apologist for CTS, nor am I a student there, but I do live nearby. It may be that CTS has serious issues (I honestly don't know), but when all that ever seems to be given on here is anecdotal evidence without solid evidence backing it up, it effects some of us who are investigating the option of attending seminary there. I think if a place is so bad then one who is in the know should privately give solid reasons as to why because they care for the soul of the one who is pondering going there. That would be the charitable thing to do. But if one is not willing to go this far, than the criticism just rings hollow to some and may even be a stumbling block to others who simply don't know enough yet to make an informed decision. It also rings hollow when, being close by CTS, experience has shown that many criticisms on here just don't stick.

I am certainly not asking that criticism be disallowed. I just wish some would realize that hit and run criticisms are not an abstraction to those of us who may be trying to make decisions where the rubber meets the road and that this would be kept in mind before criticism so easily pours out. Otherwise, it is only fair to give solid evidence to back up such significant public statements. I have not seen where any PCA presbytery has demanded discipline of CTS (its own seminary), does this mean that the entire PCA is "liberal" or latitudinarian?

I am sorry to contribute to the derailing of this thread. It just irks me when this issue is treated as such an abstraction, as if the criticism just floats around without ever effecting the lives of others. Perhaps I am being thin-skinned or too sensitive in some eyes, but for me (and I am sure others) this is a flesh and blood issue. Please understand this is meant as nothing personal to anyone, just a plea for respect of consciences and for charity in how (not the disallowance of) criticism is given.

As to the original post, I know that Dr. Peterson of CTS is amillenial (based on a local conference he spoke at here about 7 years ago). I don't know about the other faculty.