Donations for the month of December


We have received a total of "$0" in donations towards our goal of $175.


Don't want to use PayPal? Go HERE


Forum Search
Member Spotlight
John_C
John_C
Mississippi Gulf Coast
Posts: 1,852
Joined: September 2001
Forum Statistics
Forums30
Topics7,668
Posts54,363
Members973
Most Online523
Jan 14th, 2020
Top Posters
Pilgrim 14,318
Tom 4,342
chestnutmare 3,244
J_Edwards 2,615
Wes 1,856
John_C 1,852
RJ_ 1,583
MarieP 1,579
gotribe 1,060
Top Posters(30 Days)
Tom 46
Pilgrim 21
jta 6
John_C 1
Recent Posts
Another Attack on the Scripture
by Tom - Thu Dec 01, 2022 3:06 PM
The Golden Idol of Freewill
by chestnutmare - Thu Dec 01, 2022 8:03 AM
"Old Landmarks" by Archibald G. Brown
by Pilgrim - Thu Dec 01, 2022 7:31 AM
Trudeau on Unvaccinated Canadians
by Tom - Thu Dec 01, 2022 2:07 AM
Genesis 1:1
by Tom - Wed Nov 30, 2022 4:12 PM
To gain the favor of the people by flatteries
by chestnutmare - Wed Nov 30, 2022 12:18 PM
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
Hop To
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#2952 Wed May 14, 2003 8:56 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
As I said you have the last word and you took it. <br><br>But, this is off topic and as Pilgrim said STOP. You posted this at the same time Pilgrim made his post so you probably did not see it. Mathison's book BTW was good, but not adequate enough for me. As always Eschatology is controversial, some parts more than others, but we have to learn to agree to disagree with some views, as we grow in grace and truth with our Lord.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
J_Edwards #2953 Wed May 14, 2003 9:25 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
[quote[But, this is off topic and as Pilgrim said STOP[/quote]<br><br>Actually Pilgrim said that about the Reconstructionism thread, and not about this Amillennialism thread. I am assuming that Pilgrim meant Reconstructionism (theonomy) is not be discussed here. BTW it was you who first brought up the topic of Reconstructionism, not me. And I will abide by Pilgrim's request and I trust that he will correct me if I am wrong in my assumption.<br><br>But I don't see why he would ban discussions of Amillennialism and postmillennialism, especially since this was originally an eschatology thread and both views are historically reformed in origin. Our Amill/postmill discussion was not nearly as long as the dispensationalist discussion was. So why would discussions over dispensationalism be tolerated here and not postmillennialism?<br><br>I am certainly willing and able to discuss postmillennialism apart from reconstructionism. They are distinctive positions. (e.g. Jonathan Edwards and Loraine Boettner and B.B. Warfield and Charles Hodge were all postmillennial, but not reconstructionist).<br><br>I am surprised that you thought that Mathison's book was "not adequate enough". It is one of the best postmill books ever written IMO. Perhaps you were looking for another definition of postmillennialism and didn't find it in that book. There is also Kenneth Gentry's chapter in the book, Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond edited by Darrel Bock. Also, Dr. Gentry's postmill article in the Fall 2001 issue of the Westminster Theological Journal is very helpful in response to the "suffering church" argument of Amillennialism.<br><br>Colin

#2954 Thu May 15, 2003 5:47 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]But I don't see why he would ban discussions of Amillennialism and postmillennialism, especially since this was originally an eschatology thread and both views are historically reformed in origin. Our Amill/postmill discussion was not nearly as long as the dispensationalist discussion was. So why would discussions over dispensationalism be tolerated here and not postmillennialism?</font><hr></blockquote><p> Post-Mil could be brought up in a New Post, but this thread is about DPM-thus OFF TOPIC.<br>


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#2955 Thu May 15, 2003 6:37 AM
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,318
Likes: 48
Head Honcho
Offline
Head Honcho
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 14,318
Likes: 48
CT292,<br><br>This is a probably a good illustration of why there is little agreement or amiable discussions with some Recontructionists..... they refuse to take things which are clearly written if they don't conform to their presuppositions. I said that the Reconstructionist/Amillennialism debate is clearly OFF-TOPIC in this thread, which any child could see; Subject: [color:blue]Are Calvinism and Premillennialism Incompatible?</font color=blue>. Now, perhaps you could explain to me how Reconstructionism is biblical and Amillennialism is not, etc., etc.. ad nauseam is even remotely related to the topic of this thread?? [Linked Image] I couldn't care less who got the thread off topic.... it was allowed to continue, which I will take the heat for, but I did say it was to come to an end and it WILL.<br><br>Another fact is that I distinctly said that if you (plural) wanted to continue discussing this topic that a new thread should be created. What is so difficult to understand about THAT? If the topic isn't worth the little effort it takes to begin a new thread, then all the more reason to put a lid on it, eh? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img]<br><br>If there is ONE more word re: Reconstructionism posted here, it will be deleted and the author temporarily banned! Is that clear enough for everyone to comprehend? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]<br><br>


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]
Pilgrim #2956 Thu May 15, 2003 11:09 AM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
Pilgrim wrote:<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]CT292,<br><br>This is a probably a good illustration of why there is little agreement or amiable discussions with some Recontructionists..... they refuse to take things which are clearly written if they don't conform to their presuppositions. I said that the Reconstructionist/Amillennialism debate is clearly OFF-TOPIC in this thread, which any child could see</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>And I did "clearly see" that you had specifically banned discussion of Reconstructionism, but not postmillennialism. Thus, I did not continue that discussion after my last reply to Joe and when I read your ban. But I thought the discussion was amiable except for some of Joe's belligerent statements. <br><br>Thus, I would request an apology from you for your above statement: "they refuse to take things which are clearly written if they don't conform to their presuppositions". I did read what you "clearly wrote", and I even said that I would "abide by it" too. Thus, there was no "refusal" on my part, but rather a humble submission to your decree. <br><br>Now I understood that the postmill/Amill debate was a separate discussion from the Reconstructionist thread. Hence, there were two distinctly labelled threads that any child could clearly seen labeled.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Now, perhaps you could explain to me how Reconstructionism is biblical and Amillennialism is not, etc., etc.. ad nauseam is even remotely related to the topic of this thread??</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It was Joe who had first brought up the discussion of Reconstructionism, not me. I was only replying to his criticisms. And Joe first brought up Reconstructionism in his discussion with me on postmillennialism. He had asked some legitimate questions and so I politely replied. But the postmill discussion was digressed by Joe when he had began to criticise Reconstructionism, which is an entirely separate topic.<br><br>And for a direct answer to your question, I would simply tell you to ask Joe, for he was the one who had begun it with his initial criticism of postmillennialism, and later criticism of reconstructionism. Any child could clearly see that Joe was the one who began this digression in the first place.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Another fact is that I distinctly said that if you (plural) wanted to continue discussing this topic that a new thread should be created. What is so difficult to understand about THAT? If the topic isn't worth the little effort it takes to begin a new thread, then all the more reason to put a lid on it, eh?</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>I am in agreement with making a new thread too and hence, am happy about this new thread here. Though I'm not sure why you lumped the Amill/Postmill threads together with the Reconstructionism thread. And BTW there is no need for you to act so patronizing either. Why are so emotional about this particular topic? <br><br>So I will repeat what I said in my last post before, so that even a child could clearly understand. I am perfectly willing and able to discuss postmill/Amill issues apart from reconstructionism. Postmillennialism is not the same thing as Reconstructionism and it is a mistake to argue that it is. I hope that is clear enough for everyone to understand.<br><br>Colin<br>

#2957 Sat May 17, 2003 12:29 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
CT292 said "This is also a postmill position, however, postmills and some Amills believe in a future wide spread conversion of the Jews to Christ. Of course, this is not some nationalistic conversion and occupation of some land in Palestine, as is found in Zionism and Dispensationalism. But a covenant promise of God to restore Israel spiritually to the one covenant of grace (Romans 11) that will precede a future worldwide revival of the NT Church." <br><br>This is a misinterpretation of Romans 11. The "conversion of the Jews" Paul refers to there is not future, but PRESENT; and "all Israel" is the Church, elect Jews (the olive tree) and Gentiles (those grafted into the olive tree). Romans 11 is an affirmation of "realized millennialism" and does not support the postmil notion of a future conversion of the Jews.<br><br>

J_Edwards #2958 Sat May 17, 2003 12:38 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A while back as I was listening to the White Horse Inn with Michael Horton he mentioned a new book coming out by KIM RIDDLEBARGER - "Case for Amillenialism" has anyone read this book or has any remarks on it. I read some where that Riddlebarger held to dispy premill then to a postmill position then finally ended up a Amill then comes this book.

#2959 Sat May 17, 2003 12:59 PM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Needs to get a Life
Offline
Needs to get a Life
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,615
Actually it is a very good book. Exegesis is Grade A.<br><br>From the Discerning Reader Web Site:<br><br>In a clear and accessible manner, Kim Riddlebarger presents and defends amillennialism as the historic Protestant understanding of the millennial age. Amillennarians believe that the millennium is a present reality centered in Christ's heavenly reign, not a future hope of Christ's rule on earth after his return.<br><br>Recognizing that eschatology-the study of future things-is a complicated and controversial subject, Riddlebarger begins with definitions of key terminology and an overview of various viewpoints and related biblical themes. He then discusses key passages of Scripture that bear upon the millennial age, including Daniel 9, Matthew 24, Romans 11, and Revelation 20. Finally, he evaluates the main problems facing each of the major millennial positions (dispensational premillennialism, historic premillennialism, postmillennialism, and preterism) and cautions readers to be aware of the consequences of each view.<br><br>For combining thorough exegesis, readability, and lucid argumentation on this important subject, this volume has no peers. <br>Michael Horton<br><br>By careful examination of the key biblical passages, Dr. Riddlebarger will help and encourage Christians both to understand the real teaching of the Bible and to appropriate the blessing of this truth. <br>Robert Godfrey <br><br> P.S. to prevent confusion, Kim is a man.<br><br>Another book I like and not one widely publicized is Amillennialism Today, by William Cox.


Reformed and Always Reforming,
#2960 Sat May 17, 2003 1:10 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I would be interested to know if Dr. Riddlebarger did in fact once hold to postmillennialism. <br><br>As for his book, I have not read it, but I did get a chance to look at it briefly. I was disappointed to notice that he did not interact with or even mention Keith Mathison's 1999 book on Postmillennialism. That was a very curious omission. Also, his book lacks a Scripture Index (Mathison's book has a ten page Scripture Index).<br><br>But he does attempt to interact with Boettner and Dr Gentry, so it does have something to contribute to the Amill/Postmill discussion. I fear though that like in most Amill works, Riddlebarger's book's strength lies more in critiquing the errors of premillennialism, than in presenting a positive case for Amillennialism. But I could be wrong in this case. Most Amillennialism is just a form of pessimistic postmillennialism, since ALL Amills are in fact, postmillennial in regards to the timing of Christ's return at the end of the present Millennium.<br><br>Colin

#2961 Sat May 17, 2003 1:19 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I keep reading your claims about a-millenialism being pessimistic. Could you please show why, and that humanistic emotionalism is the proper approach to eschatology? Or is it simply an emotional argument, since a-millenialists are seem quite optimistic about God's sovereignty?<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

#2962 Sat May 17, 2003 6:33 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I keep reading your claims about a-millenialism being pessimistic. Could you please show why?... </font><hr></blockquote><p>. <br><br>I can just quote Amillennialist Moderator Joe as one of many examples:<br><br><blockquote>"It [postmillennialism] stands in sharp contrast with the whole body of Biblical data which portrays the days prior to the coming of Christ as days in which lawlessness thrives (Matthew 24:12), persecution is the lot of God's people (Matt 24:16-22, Rev 11:13-17, et. al.), and Antichrist reigns in a universal kingdom in which there is no room for the saints of Christ."</blockquote><br><br>For more proof, just read any Amillennial book (with the possible exception Dr. Venema's book) when they come to discuss the last days prior to the return of Christ. One notable example is [u]David Engelsma's Amillennial book[/u].<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]...and that humanistic emotionalism is the proper approach to eschatology?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>This is not "humanistic emotionalism" (is there such a thing as Christian "emotionalism" too?). Rather, the terms "pessimism" and "optimistism" refer to matters of faith which is not an "emotionalistic" issue, unless you are a Charismatic or something.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Or is it simply an emotional argument, since a-millenialists are seem quite optimistic about God's sovereignty?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>If its an "emotional argument", then you have also given an "emotional argument" by saying that Amillennialists "seem quite optimistic".<br><br>But the "optimism" of the Amillennialist is reserved primarily, if not exclusively, for the Second Coming of Christ. Anything before that time, is a sinking ship that is not too far different from the Dispensationalist view.<br><br>However, one could say that Amills are "optimistic" about the power of some future Antichrist whom they claim will rule the world (see Joe's quote above). Thus, Amill "optimism" before the 2nd Advent is reserved exclusively for the mythical Antichrist and not for Christ's ever growing Kingdom.<br><br>Colin

Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
All I will say is read The Puritan Hope by Iain Murray, or almost any reformed commentary on Romans 11.<br><br>Colin

#2964 Sat May 17, 2003 11:11 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
I noticed in quoting "a-millenialist moderator Joe" you gave nothing but more emotionalist pleadings. Got any scripture backing your claims that the world will be oh so rosey until Christ's return? <br><br>CT292...This is not "humanistic emotionalism" (is there such a thing as Christian "emotionalism" too?). Rather, the terms "pessimism" and "optimistism" refer to matters of faith which is not an "emotionalistic" issue, unless you are a Charismatic or something.<br><br>Yes, we can have "pessimistic or optimistic faith", but I'm not too worried if you got yourself in a wad over this, but what the scriptures truly teach. As stated earlier, please uphold your views scripturally. <br><br>CT292...If its an "emotional argument", then you have also given an "emotional argument" by saying that Amillennialists "seem quite optimistic.<br><br>Wrong. I employed your argument aginst you. I am scripturally optimistic knowing Christ will be victorious. Yet I understand that the world is going to get worse, hence I believe I have reason to be pessimistic. If I am optimistic every single person will be saved, I'd be heretical. Unscriptural optimism is simply unscriptural. I know not everybody will be saved. Am I pessimistic concerning this matter, or simply scripturally real?<br><br>CT292...But the "optimism" of the Amillennialist is reserved primarily, if not exclusively, for the Second Coming of Christ. Anything before that time, is a sinking ship that is not too far different from the Dispensationalist view.<br><br>Associating one view with another simply to knock it is poor methodology. You have much in common with sinful men in appearance, but I'd never claim that these similarities would require you to be wrong. Another dilemma is also presented here; you have proved nothing by this associatiosn. It reminds me of those who are soooooo against Rome, yet must admit that not ALL that came from Rome was wrong. I'm no dispy, yet I see some things that make me think. <br><br>CT292...However, one could say that Amills are "optimistic" about the power of some future Antichrist whom they claim will rule the world (see Joe's quote above). Thus, Amill "optimism" before the 2nd Advent is reserved exclusively for the mythical Antichrist and not for Christ's ever growing Kingdom.<br><br>If those things are scriptural, I'll believe them despite your emotional pleadings. It's my duty to accept the truth no matter if it makes me cry. As far as that statement goes, it shows exactly the duality of the situation. I am pessimistic about the state of affairs in the world. I am optimistic Christ will return and be victorious, and we shall be saved. Just a side note, I wonder if the Apostles were optimistic through their suuferings?<br><br>One more thing, I am more a-millenialist than anything. However, please realise I am not thoroughly learned in this area, yet. I am persuaded that either the post or A approach is correct. I'm no dispy and no pre-miller. However, I am attempting to be scriptural and not emotional.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
Addict
Offline
Addict
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 285
I have read some of those commentaries and found them wanting. Have you read O. Robertson's treatment of that? It's really good.<br><br><br>Carlos


"Let all that mind...the peace and comfort of their own souls, wholly apply themselves to the study of Jesus Christ, and him crucified"(Flavel)
#2966 Sun May 18, 2003 5:01 PM
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I noticed in quoting "a-millenialist moderator Joe" you gave nothing but more emotionalist pleadings.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It was not "emotional pleading", do you even know what that is? I was merely citing Joe as a readily available example of pessimistic Amillennialism. His view can easily be found duplicated in any number of Amill writings including your every own words. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Got any scripture backing your claims that the world will be oh so rosey until Christ's return?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Just reading any postmillennial book for scripturally based arguments. You will find plenty if you bother to study the topic [io]first[/i] before attempting to criticise it. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As stated earlier, please uphold your views scripturally.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I have presented enough scriptural arguments, as well as cited numerous articles, essays and books that have established the scriptural case for Amillennialism. Just read them for yourself.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]CT292 wrote:...If its an "emotional argument", then you have also given an "emotional argument" by saying that Amillennialists "seem quite optimistic.<br><br>Wrong. I employed your argument aginst you.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>That was hardly "employing an argument against me" since it did nothing to challenge my statement. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am scripturally optimistic knowing Christ will be victorious. Yet I understand that the world is going to get worse, hence I believe I have reason to be pessimistic. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>You obviously fail to see the blatant contradiction in your argument: "I am optimistic, but I am pessimistic". Christ's victory includes being victorious on earth prior to His Second Coming.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Associating one view with another simply to knock it is poor methodology.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>In some cases it is, but in this case, it is a valid comparison given that Amills and Dispies share almost the same pessimism about the World prior to the Return of Christ. (Actually, Dispies are a bit more optimistic since they have the so called future mythical Pre-trib Rapture to help them escape the future Antichrist.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am pessimistic about the state of affairs in the world.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Thank you for conceding my argument.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am optimistic Christ will return and be victorious</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>So are all postmills and premills too. <br><br>Colin<br><br><br><br><br>

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 38 guests, and 8 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
His Unworthy Son, Nahum, TheSojourner, Larry, Nana Dadzie Jr.
973 Registered Users
ShoutChat
Comment Guidelines: Do post respectful and insightful comments. Don't flame, hate, spam.
December
S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31
Today's Birthdays
There are no members with birthdays on this day.
Popular Topics(Views)
1,400,832 Gospel truth