Joe wrote:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]In reply to:<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>Again, whether Amill is older or younger than Postmillennialism, is not a fundamental issue.<br>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br><br>Then why did you raise it?</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>It was mentioned as only a minor point in my original post. Pilgrim and you seemed to have elevated it into a "major" one, in both of your responses to it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]it is nice to see you finally recant--i.e. "is not a fundamental issue"</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Joe, I did not "recant" of anything I merely made a clarification over a minor point. And the "evidence" that you and Pilgrim provided is hardly "overwhelming" or convincing, given that Amillennnialism and Postmillennialism overlap in many areas. <br><br>If anything, I could easily say that the "evidence" given by you and Pilgrim only supports the historicity of postmillennialism, despite the facts being interpreted by the Amillennial historical revisionism of Dr. Venema. But I do want to thank Pilgrim for taking the time for supplying the quotations from Dr. Venema. Again I say, I look forward to reading his book. I only wonder if Pilgrim can say the same thing about Mathison's book (or Gentry's book)?<br><br>Colin
