Pete,

It may be the case that Tom's opponent might use that argument, i.e., the articles have a Roman influence, which historically is rather absurd since the ECF held to A/Post millennialism as did some of the Reformers who were more than aware of Rome's errors and thus not wanting to repeat them. However, regardless, there is no reason why the CONTENTS of good biblical Amillennial polemics can't be used in its defense. If the defense is biblically sound, then it stands firm on its own regardless of the attacks against it, eh? Of course, the wrong approach IMHO is to simply provide links to the articles themselves if there is reason to believe that the response would be as you suggested. It is incumbent upon us as individuals to be ready to give a reason for the hope that resides in us and not simply provide a litany of links to articles. The Spirit works through OUR testimony of the truth no less than that of a scholar. We should STUDY those writings so that we can personally defend the faith as we have been enabled and not function simply as a parrot. scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]