For me, Eschatology is the final plank in the bridge to Covenant Theology. I am very close now to being counted as one with the Amill camp. Most of the reading I have done seems to have the live and let live attitude toward the Postmill folks."Not something to break fellowship over" was the statement one author used.
Then, While reading an article by Professor David Engelsma I came across this:" There are three main rival views of evangelical eschatology — four, considering dispensationalism. Either all are in error, or all but one is. It is always the task of Trinitarian theologians to discover what is biblically correct. When a theologian has concluded that a particular view is correct, he should seek to make his discovery a test of orthodoxy — if not in his own era, if that is premature, then someday. The goal of the Church should always be an increase in confessional precision. A large part of the Church’s confession deals with eschatology. Orthodoxy means straight speaking. One cannot speak straight with a four-way tongue.

It is time to stop believing in theological pluralism as anything more than a temporary stopgap. It is time to reject the idea of the equal ultimacy of incompatible theological positions. Premillennialism, postmillennialism, and amillennialism are theologically incompatible. God cannot be pleased with all three. At least two of them should be discarded as heretical, if not today, then before Christ comes in final judgment."
This was offered by Gary North, a Postmill Reconstructionist.My question is, are just some of the Postmill group ready to "man the battle stations" are do these men being noted in this thread have the same feelings as North?
Secondly, are there those in the Amill camp that feel this strongly?

[Linked Image]