dwmoeller1 said:First, lets be sure not to confuse amil with preterism. Reformed seems to be arguing in preterist terms.
Secondly, I agree with you about historical premil - its quite acceptable. However, I am having difficulty accepting that about postmil (maybe because I can only find preterist postmils to discuss things with?) and find it impossible to do so with dispy eschatology (even if I can find other aspects of their position acceptable). Can you maybe comment on what you find to be acceptable forms of dispy and postmil eschatology?
About Sproul though, hasn't he strongly gone partial preterist/postmil in recent years? Or am I thinking of someone else?
Yep - literalism always ends up having to rely on non-literal explanations to remain consistent in interpretation. That being, amil becomes much more acceptable. Since it seems to me to answer several questions much better than the premil system does, I lean strongly towards it. I think this is esp. true if one finds themself in the New Covenant Theology camp. The 'now, but not yet' paradigm of amil thought seems to find strong resonance in the NCT paradigm.
DW, I don't have time right now to get into details. But I do want to go ahead and explain what I mean by "responsbile, rational dispy and postmil". I don't speak here of the doctrines but of the people. For example, Jack Van Impy - headline phrophecy - and other dispys, that are so Israel-focused that they almost have the church answering to Moses. I consider them irresponsible and irrational. And I find some postmils scary. Rushdoony, North comes to mind. Seems they're looking for a grand church-state reunion, before Christ's return.
BTW I know that extreme positions are not limited to dispy and postmil.
More later. Bye.
Last edited by a moderator: