Eschatology

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
With all due respect, there is no word "hermeneutic" as a noun. "Hermeneutics" is a singular noun. Just as there is no noun "mathematic". No one speaks of "a mathematic".

Hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation. You can speak of a hermeneutical framework or hermeneutical principles, but the result of applying such a framework is one's hermeneutics. It is proper to speak of "Calvin's hermeneutics" not "Calvin's hermeneutic".

I think Packer's usage was incorrect.

In any case, I think we at least agree on the relevant and important point that Covenant Theology is both part of the substance of, and a pure application of, biblical Reformed hermeneutics, and that eschatology has no meaning or significance apart from those foundations.

Originally posted by Swampguy
Greg, see what happens when you ask a simple question

 

[tcalbrecht]

Originally posted by Me Died Blue

In any case, I think we at least agree on the relevant and important point that Covenant Theology is both part of the substance of, and a pure application of, biblical Reformed hermeneutics, and that eschatology has no meaning or significance apart from those foundations.

Yep.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I think Packer is smarter than me, so I'll still agree with him.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
Another good book is Messiah the Prince: The Mediatorial Reign of Christ by William Symington.

This book should be required reading for everyone. It is the coolest.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[Myshkin]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I agree. That is how I became an Amil. I first read The Meaning of the millennium by Robert Clouse.
The Millenial Maze by Stanley Grenz is also very good.

Randy-

As you know by my posts this is an area I am currently investigating. When you have time, if you mind, a few questions for you...

What were your "sticking points" that kept you from embracing amill and/or postmill? What was it that broke these sticking points? What finally convinced you positively for amill, and negatively against postmill? I respect your input. Thanks.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Originally posted by RAS

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
I agree. That is how I became an Amil. I first read The Meaning of the millennium by Robert Clouse.
The Millenial Maze by Stanley Grenz is also very good.

Randy-

As you know by my posts this is an area I am currently investigating. When you have time, if you mind, a few questions for you...

What were your "sticking points" that kept you from embracing amill and/or postmill? What was it that broke these sticking points? What finally convinced you positively for amill, and negatively against postmill? I respect your input. Thanks.

Allen,
Fortunately I wasn't one who started out being taught a biblical system of beliefs. I got saved reading the living bible. I then started reading a KJV Bible. I didn't have dispensational thought nor Covenant Theology taught to me. I just was able to spend my first year as a Christian reading the Bible. On my first cruise in the Med. I was introduced to Dispensationalism. I rejected it based upon the premise that Isreal and the church were two different things. I understood that the Church was considered Isreal in the New Testament. So I had problems with Dispensationalism.

Another thing that became very important to me was the fact that the word Gospel was so attached to the word Kingdom in the Gospels. One thing that is of most importance is the recognition of the Kingdom of God. The Mediatorial Kingdom of Christ's dominion is all throughout the New Testament.

All authority had been given to Christ. I didn't start studying the millenial positions until about 1986. As I stated above I did it in the context of reading one guys position in relation to the other three positions. I just flat out rejected the Premil position. I don't need to go into that. The postmil position at that time seemed to be a bit wishful (in my thinking) that this earth would someday be Christianized for a literal 1000 years. I just didn't see this since the martyrs are crying under the altar for retribution and it seemed that persecution was promised to us from the time of Christ to His return.

(Joh 15:19-21) If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.


At the same time I will acknowledge that there are Old Testament passages that seem to give light that there is suppose to be a time on the earth when all nations will be in subjection to Christ. I am still Amil because I see Satan bound from the time of Christ to his return. Some posties believe this. His dominion is considered earth wide in scope from that time on. Even the book of Ephesisan says he has all dominion. I am waiting and yet anticipating a possible work that the nations may become subject to Christ. It seems impossible but so did the fall of the temple in Jerusalem. But it fell in 70 A.D. Either way Christ is the ultimate authority as Prince and King. He inherited such a great name.

I now know Postmils and Amils have a lot more in common than they have in disagreement. Theonomist are postmils that I have some problems with but I am still in much need to learn more about them.

If you have time to read a book I do recommend

.

Plus Sinclair B. Ferguson reccommends it.

It is a very fair appraisal of all the positions. Amil was known as postmil for a millennium and a half. Distinctions have been more forth coming in the past 500 years from what I understand.

Messiah the Prince is a must read book. I did find it to be some what post mil but it acknowledges an amil position also. It is focused on the Kingdom in this age, which both Post and Amil positions acknowledge.

It is an excellent biblical exposition.

And just for fun you may want to read Hanagrafs book the Last Disciple. I aint much of a novel reader but it sets the book of Revelation in light of how a first century christian would interpret it.

I also recomment William Hendricksons commentary on Revelation.
More Than Conquerors

Also The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema.

These are both good books on the Amil position. Anthony Hoekema was the one who defended the Amil position in the four views book I read.



[Edited on 9-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]

 

[yeutter]

Originally posted by puritancovenanter
[
As you know by my posts this is an area I am currently investigating. I also recomment William Hendricksons commentary on Revelation.
More Than Conquerors

Also The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema.

These are both good books on the Amil position. Anthony Hoekema was the one who defended the Amil position in the four views book I read.



[Edited on 9-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]

I would agree with those two suggestions and add a third.

Behold He Cometh by Herman Hoeksema

 

[non dignus]

Originally posted by tcalbrecht
With all due respect, there is no word "hermeneutic" as a noun. "Hermeneutics" is a singular noun. Just as there is no noun "mathematic". No one speaks of "a mathematic".

Hermeneutics is the theory of interpretation. You can speak of a hermeneutical framework or hermeneutical principles, but the result of applying such a framework is one's hermeneutics. It is proper to speak of "Calvin's hermeneutics" not "Calvin's hermeneutic".

I think Packer's usage was incorrect.

 

[non dignus]

"I think Packer's use of 'hermenuetic' was incorrect."

This is a good example of the growth of language and words.

When Ronald Reagan 'incorrectly' saluted soldiers while in civilian clothes no one told the Commander in Chief it was incorrect. As it happens, it is now regular practice.