(2) the book of Daniel is admitted by all evangelicals to be fulfilled through progressive history, and is thus historicist. Every argument against Historicism is an argument against the book of Daniel.
Actually, the commentary recycles this more extensive work. If I recall, some chapters were reprints of articles in NTS. Others were new to the book. Good stuff. Advanced in some ways. Specific in its focus. But really good stuff! I'm a big Beale fan. So I'm biased too.Does this book recycle content from the large commentary or is it unique? Trying to decide if I need to own both.
For a really good video series on Partial Preterism see the links in the first post in this thread. Quite convincing though I'm still 'up in the air' as it were.Question for some of you. This might seem extremely basic but I am a little puzzled.
Partial preterist, partial futurist, or a historicist.
If your only a partial preterist, wouldn't you also be a partial futurist?
And what would be some distinctions between a partial preterist and a historicist? If only some prophecy has been fulfilled in the past, and some will still be fulfilled in the future, what is the difference between either one of those positions and a historicist viewpoint?
Very elementary questions, but I am very elementary on these things if I'm honest. Avoided these studies much in the past in the Christian life.
I am a Futurist, and so would disagree with many of his points, but he has here done a nice job putting down reconstructionism aspect of some PostMils views, as well as full blown pretierism heresy.For a really good video series on Partial Preterism see the links in the first post in this thread. Quite convincing though I'm still 'up in the air' as it were.
Good enough that R.C. Sproul changed his view because of Reverend Gentry, if I'm not badly mistaken. Anyone please correct me if I am.
He did move form the Amil viewpoint to his current partial view, but what is the main distinctions between those two views, as seem much alike to me?Good enough that R.C. Sproul changed his view because of Reverend Gentry, if I'm not badly mistaken. Anyone please correct me if I am.