# Book Recommendations?



## "William The Baptist" (Sep 20, 2012)

I was wondering if anyone had any deep/detailed book recommendations that really explain differing views on the realized millennium? 

I've read a few different "introductory" books, if you will, and wanted to dig in deeper.

I've read a book on Scofield, some Gary Demar, and Jay Adams, and currently reading one called "Understanding Dispensationalists". I've ordered another Gary Demar book, but so far they are not as detailed as I want to go now. I've heard good things about Gentry (and listened to some of his teachings).

This is my current study, and I want to do it thoroughly before I tackle anything new in the time to come.  Plus, its pretty enjoyable and so utterly fascinating to read what I was supposed to believe in times past, but was never really taught... and no one ever answered my questions! Heh.


----------



## timmopussycat (Sep 21, 2012)

"William The Baptist" said:


> I was wondering if anyone had any deep/detailed book recommendations that really explain differing views on the realized millennium?
> 
> I've read a few different "introductory" books, if you will, and wanted to dig in deeper.
> 
> ...



One book I found very useful as a young Christian was Loraine Boettner's The millennium. It focuses primarily on amillenialism and dispensationalism.


----------



## crixus (Sep 21, 2012)

*The Bible Prophecy Handbook* by _Carol Smith_ does a real good job explaining the topic. It's not a big book, but it's very informative. And that's what really matters.


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 21, 2012)

I typed this into Monergism Books and got this: http://www.monergismbooks.com/Last-Things-Eschatology-p-1-c-588.html


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 21, 2012)

Leah, 

If you want deeper eschatology books from different perspectives, it would probably be best to read different books from different perspectives. 

For the Amill view: The Bible and the Future by Hoekema; The Promise of the Future by Venema, A Case for Amillenialism by Riddlebarger are a few

For Postmil view: The Puritan Hope by Murray (I'm sure there are others, but that is the one I know of)


----------



## malum in se (Sep 21, 2012)

"A Case for Amillennialism" would be good.

Riddleblog - A Case for Amillennialism - Understanding the End


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Sep 21, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> Leah,
> 
> If you want deeper eschatology books from different perspectives, it would probably be best to read different books from different perspectives.
> 
> ...



Yes, thanks! I guess you understood my question rightly. I was wanting different books on the different views.  Just a wild guess, but do you hold to the Amill position?


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 21, 2012)

Yes, I do.


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Sep 22, 2012)

I enjoy the "4 views" or "5 views on" books. They have several on the rapture, millennium, revelation and end times. 

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond: Stanley N. Gundry,Darrell L. Bock,Kenneth L. Gentry Jr.,Robert B. Strimple,Craig A. Blaising: 9780310201434: Amazon.com: Books

The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views (Spectrum Multiview Book): George Eldon Ladd,Robert G. Clouse,Anthony A. Hoekema: 9780877847946: Amazon.com: Books


----------



## timmopussycat (Sep 22, 2012)

Forgot the following postmillenial resource:
http://www.amazon.ca/Christs-Victor...08/ref=sr_1_76?ie=UTF8&qid=1348345469&sr=8-76


----------



## ladodgers6 (Sep 22, 2012)

"William The Baptist" said:


> I was wondering if anyone had any deep/detailed book recommendations that really explain differing views on the realized millennium?
> 
> I've read a few different "introductory" books, if you will, and wanted to dig in deeper.
> 
> ...



Check out Mongerism.com


----------



## Scot (Sep 23, 2012)

I highly recommend the book "An Eschatology of Victory" by J. Marcellus Kik


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 23, 2012)

There is this this site postmillennialism.com where gentry has some articles and interacted with the amill position more than he could have in the severval views book.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 23, 2012)

"William The Baptist" said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > Leah,
> ...



In coming to clearly understand covenant theology (and realized millennium) only a few years ago, here's a few things to remember:

1) The Westminster Standards Westminster Confession of Faith are implicitly covenant theology, they define what it is, in the main, because that's what they are. They were not written in opposition to what is now called dispensationalism because there was no such thing on the radar screen even at that time.

2) "Amillennialism" was not even a term used at that time because it was not a peculiar view being distinguished from something else (e.g. dispensationalism). That term was one created by dispensationalism in its misunderstanding of the historical view. I say "misunderstanding" charitably because the "a" does not mean we do not believe in a millennium, which is even misunderstood to this day. The millennium is realized in Christ, from His first until His second coming, that's the millennium time the Bible speaks of, and it is very real, and very centered on the Kingdom of God, spiritually ruled by Christ until His physical return.

3) Believe it or not, at the time of the Westminster Standards, what is now called "amill" was then occasionally called "postmill" because their substance is so similar, e.g. Christ returns after the millennial age spoken of in Scripture.

The best material to understand realized millennium, what it is, and some variations within it:

1) The Westminster Standards
(The PCA blue notebook format is very useful for notes and reference, Scripture proofs at the bottom of every page)
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER COF & CATECHISMS 3

2) _A Case for Amillennialism_, Kim Riddlebarger
Christianbook.com: A Case for Amillennialism: Kim Riddlebarger: 9780801064357

3) An excellent concise summary and chart, within the context of the Westminster Standards is in Mr. Williamson's _Westminster Confession of Faith for Study Classes_
CEP Bookstore - WESTMINSTER CONFESSION FOR STUDY CLASSES

4) For a chart comparison that implicitly shows why covenant theology does not (at all) lead to dispensationalism, but toward realized millennium
http://www.faithbibleonline.net/MiscDoctrine/DispCov.htm


Then, if you wish further study that will lead you to the (less important) variations within realized millennium:

3. Simple Overview of Covenant Theology. McMahon. A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology | The Puritan Shop
4. Covenant Theology Made Easy, McMahon. Covenant Theology Made Easy - by C. Matthew McMahon | The Puritan Shop
5. The Manifold Wisdom of God Seen in Covenant Theology. George Walker. The Manifold Wisdom of God Seen in Covenant Theology - by George Walker (1581-1651) | The Puritan Shop
6. The Covenant of God. Thomas Blake. The Covenant of God | The Puritan Shop
7. The Covenant of Life Opened. Samuel Rutherford. The Covenant of Life Opened | The Puritan Shop
8. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. Herman Witsius. The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete ... - Herman Witsius - Google Books

Presbyterianism has always been realized millennium, amillennial, leaning toward premillennialism at times.

Don't get lost in the variations, understand the essential reality of Christ's Kingdom now.... and not yet,
and all of God's Word applicable, to all of life, now, and until the end of this age.


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 23, 2012)

Another reason what is termed amillennialism and postmillennialism are similar in important ways, and very different from dispensationalism, and the millennial views that flow from that:

A common resurrection of the just and the unjust at the Second Coming.

There is no great escape for God's people until then, any more than there has been for the people of God who have gone through great difficulty, tribulation and persecution before us (just think of the Apostles!).

And there is no separate plan for redemption for people who have some Jewish ancestry versus everyone else- it has always been about redemption by grace through faith in Jesus Christ, for all those the Lord has chosen, from every tribe nation, kindred and tongue.

Always.

Realized millennium is about that.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Sep 24, 2012)

Hank Hanegraaff's The apocalypse code. I have just read half of the book, and thus far it has been good, in case some one has been confused by Tim LaHaye's Left behind series. I'm not sure is Hanegraaff's views on the line with the forum's line, though.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 24, 2012)

The link to the chart in Scott's post above should be as follows:

DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY

AMR


----------



## Dordts5 (Sep 24, 2012)

In regards to what Scott wrote in regards to the WCF and it's amill stance of eschatology, I guess I would beg to differ. The WCF makes no pronouncement in these regards, barely even scathing the surface of any eschatological doctrine. It is my opinion that there were reasons why the divines did not do anything more than broach the topic, the biggest being the lack of argument within the doctrine itself. It seems that te amill position was so pervasive in that time, why make a full-fledged argument for it when nobody really argued against such a doctrine. Same for the doctrine of the resurrection of the believer and te timing of that moment. Thus, I believe the WCF needs expanded, if not amended.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 24, 2012)

Question 191 points to fairly optimistic eschatology:



> Q. 191. What do we pray for in the second petition?
> A. In the second petition (which is, Thy kingdom come), acknowledging ourselves and all mankind to be by nature under the dominion of sin and Satan, we pray, that the kingdom of sin and Satan may be destroyed, the gospel propagated throughout the world, the Jews called, the fullness of the Gentiles brought in; the church furnished with all gospel officers and ordinances, purged from corruption, countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate; that the ordinances of Christ may be purely dispensed, and made effectual to the converting of those that are yet in their sins, and the confirming, comforting, and building up of those that are already converted: that Christ would rule in our hearts here, and hasten the time of his second coming, and our reigning with him forever: and that he would be pleased so to exercise the kingdom of his power in all the world, as may best conduce to these ends.



There is no indication of a gap, of 1,000 years or otherwise, in WCF Chapter 23 between our Lord's Second Advent and the judgment:



> CHAPTER 33
> Of the Last Judgment
> 
> 1. God hath appointed a day, wherein he will judge the world, in righteousness, by Jesus Christ, to whom all power and judgment is given of the Father. In which day, not only the apostate angels shall be judged, but likewise all persons that have lived upon earth shall appear before the tribunal of Christ, to give an account of their thoughts, words, and deeds; and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.
> ...


----------



## Scott1 (Sep 24, 2012)

Dordts5 said:


> In regards to what Scott wrote in regards to the WCF and it's amill stance of eschatology, I guess I would beg to differ. The WCF makes no pronouncement in these regards, barely even scathing the surface of any eschatological doctrine. It is my opinion that there were reasons why the divines did not do anything more than broach the topic, the biggest being the lack of argument within the doctrine itself. It seems that te amill position was so pervasive in that time, why make a full-fledged argument for it when nobody really argued against such a doctrine. Same for the doctrine of the resurrection of the believer and te timing of that moment. Thus, I believe the WCF needs expanded, if not amended.



Really, and I think you are saying this if I'm understanding you correctly, a realized millennium was "the only game in town" at the time of the Westminster Divines, there was no dispensationalism and the millenial views that flowed from it. The latter is a modern invention, an incorrect one. Add to that the confusion of what later became termed "a" millennial was at the time of the Divines known as postmillennial, the summary of the doctrine of Scripture that the millennium described in Scripture followed the ascension of our Lord to Heaven, after His first coming, until the time of His return- the trials and tribulations of His church between (now).

I don't think the Divines needed to add more (or that we need to do that today) because they were only stating what was clear biblically to all:

1) the Lord will return
2) there will be a general resurrection (of the just and unjust)
3) the wrath of God will be poured out on sin 

There are enough differences on other nuances still today, so I think it wise to bind by Confession only what was clear.
2)

What's clear is that that what are now called amillennialism and premillenialism are both compatible with the Confession, historic premillennialism might be acceptable but only after careful evaluation.
Modern dispensational premillennialism would not be compatible and is serious error.


----------



## Dordts5 (Sep 25, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Dordts5 said:
> 
> 
> > In regards to what Scott wrote in regards to the WCF and it's amill stance of eschatology, I guess I would beg to differ. The WCF makes no pronouncement in these regards, barely even scathing the surface of any eschatological doctrine. It is my opinion that there were reasons why the divines did not do anything more than broach the topic, the biggest being the lack of argument within the doctrine itself. It seems that te amill position was so pervasive in that time, why make a full-fledged argument for it when nobody really argued against such a doctrine. Same for the doctrine of the resurrection of the believer and te timing of that moment. Thus, I believe the WCF needs expanded, if not amended.
> ...



Yes Scott, that is exactly what saying, at least what you surmise in your first sentence. The issue is that it wasn't like there were many views of eschatology, because there weren't. There may have been more than one, but the dominant view was just as you said, a millennial view that was predominantly much like today's amill view. 

In my opinion, because the divines weren't so concerned with eschatology because it was not a divisive issue like many of the other systematic topics of the WCF. I think it might surprise how many Reformed Elders, ruling and teaching like, that take exception to a futuristic understanding of the Parousia, as well as the verbiage of the last chapter dealing with the Resurrection of the Dead. Not only do they hold exception to the verbiage in the WCF, but also to the verbiage in the Creeds, the Apostles Creed especial. Within the Reformed camp some hold to futurism, some to preterism, and others to "realized preterism." Within the camp of the realized folk the thoughts are so scattered that there really isn't one, solid core position, but most are now extending their thought into Universalism and Annilationism. Yes, the WCF does need to be reconsidered in regards to its verbiage. Eschatology has never really been a soteriological issue within Reformed doctrine, but it is part of soteriology and our view of eschatology effects our view of the complete Cross Work of Christ, as well as His Priestly office. In my opinion, I believe the WCF has some of it wrong and we should all be willing to concede to the fact that the divines could have worded it wrongly.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Sep 25, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> What's clear is that that what are now called amillennialism and premillenialism are both compatible with the Confession, historic premillennialism might be acceptable but only after careful evaluation.
> Modern dispensational premillennialism would not be compatible and is serious error.



I believe what would be unconfessional is futurism and preterism, both of which were teachings to remove the attention of the Papacy as part of the counter reformation. Dispentational Premillenialism is futurist and most modern flavors of what is known today as "postmillenialism" is preterist. The only two view that could be compatible with most reformed confessions (at least from my understanding) would be Historicism and Idealism.


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Sep 26, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> > Romans922 said:
> ...





Scott1 said:


> Another reason what is termed amillennialism and postmillennialism are similar in important ways, and very different from dispensationalism, and the millennial views that flow from that:
> 
> A common resurrection of the just and the unjust at the Second Coming.
> 
> ...



Thanks so much for your helpful answers, Scott. One of the books I recently finished was really driving home the point of how important a "realized" millennium is. Thank you for the resource recommendations, I really appreciate it. I actually have one of the books on my bookshelf, "The Covenant of God".


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Sep 26, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The link to the chart in Scott's post above should be as follows:
> 
> DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
> 
> AMR



Thanks!! I actually had this bookmarked on my computer a year and a half ago... then had my hard drive wiped a year ago, and never found this list afterward. So glad you posted it!


----------



## Jackie Kaulitz (Sep 26, 2012)

Wow! That's SOOO GREAT!!! I'm printing this to teach all the Dispensational's around me!

I noticed this is Lewis Sperry Chafer's version of Dispensational. What would be REALLY helpful is if someone compared John MacArthur's version to Hodge's. Everytime I try the "Dispensational messes up salvation" they pull the "not MacArthur's version"  Ack!





Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The link to the chart in Scott's post above should be as follows:
> 
> DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
> 
> AMR


----------



## rd451 (Sep 26, 2012)

Building on what Fogetaboutit has said, I would say most postmillennial guys would be preterist these days. I think I tried posting some of my thoughts earlier this evening but I'll repost in case something got messed up. During my earlier years in Bible college, I didn't think either view was even defendable. After going through most of Gentry's view in Four Views on the Book of Revelation by Zondervan, David Chilton's Paradise Restored and Days of Vengeance (both of which are obtainable online), and the objection chapters in Gentry's He Shall Have Dominion (which is also available online), I would say both are amply defendable.


----------



## KaphLamedh (Sep 27, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> The link to the chart in Scott's post above should be as follows:
> 
> DISPENSATIONALISM AND COVENANT THEOLOGY
> 
> AMR



That's good link. Just wonder is there something between dispensationalism and covenant theology? Just few names that are against dispensationalism and are not standing for covenant theology, but are calvinists: Paul Washer, Charles Leiter, Tim Convey and Bob Jennings and John Piper...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 28, 2012)

KaphLamedh said:


> Just wonder is there something between dispensationalism and covenant theology?


Well, there's "leaky dispensationalism".

See the summary at the end of this bio sketch of MacArthur:
John MacArthur

And this:
http://www.middletownbiblechurch.org/dispen/jmacdis.htm

AMR


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 28, 2012)

Amil is the only real biblical position Leah. Don't read about it, just believe me, right?


----------



## "William The Baptist" (Sep 28, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well, there's "leaky dispensationalism".
> 
> See the summary at the end of this bio sketch of MacArthur:
> John MacArthur
> ...



 That's just such a funny term... leaky dispensationalist! It makes me think its broken or something...




Romans922 said:


> Amil is the only real biblical position Leah. Don't read about it, just believe me, right?


 my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord!  LOL!


----------



## Romans922 (Sep 28, 2012)

&quot;William The Baptist&quot;;968462 said:


> my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord! LOL!



That may be wise...Acts 17:11


----------



## Dordts5 (Sep 28, 2012)

Romans922 said:


> "William The Baptist" said:
> 
> 
> > my only objection to your most wise assertion is... after growing up in churches who skirted all my questions and didn't even fully teach their own views, I feel compelled to investigate the scriptures of my own accord! LOL!
> ...



This is very wise. In my own experience I have encountered, with great sadness, the IDEA that the creeds, confessions and catechisms can't be wrong because: 1.) they are historical 2.) they were written by very learned men, and 3.) should I "actually pretend like I know better."

All three of these points are well taken; however, just like those that enunciate the arguments holding steadfastly to the 3 C's, I too say that they are infallible. It's amazing what our presuppositions will do to the Scriptures when our thoughts aren't ready to be tried.

And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member, or to not come under discipline if we don't believe jot and tittle to the 3 C's. Boy, do I have stories!


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 12, 2012)

comment below.



Dordts5 said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> > "William The Baptist" said:
> ...


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 12, 2012)

Dordts5 said:


> And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member,



I would submit, it is the opposite.

Far worse for a communion not to clearly communicate to its members, potential members (and the world) what it believes the Scriptures teach.

How on earth could there be any discipline, members or officers, without it?


----------



## Dordts5 (Oct 12, 2012)

Scott, I am responding below. Your response was difficult for me to follow, so if you choose to reply to anything that I have written would you be kind enough to copy and paste and reply. If you reply by copy/paste, as opposed to the "reply" icon, it would be less confusion for me to follow. Thanks.


Scott1 said:


> comment below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Dordts5 (Oct 12, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> Dordts5 said:
> 
> 
> > And, I should add how dangerous it is when the church tells us what we must believe in order to become a member,
> ...



Given the example above concerning the Apostle's Creed, if I hold the exception to believing that Christ is the Creator, in His Economic Function of the Trinity, along with Father and Holy Ghost, I should not be allowed to become a member of the communion. What if I hold different exception to the Apostle's Creed, namely the statement of "I believe in the resurrection of the body," should I be withheld from membership and communion? Maybe a person could give the blanket answer of "yes, he should be withheld." 

Let's take the example of eschatology. If I hold to a different eschatology than that of my teaching elder, do you suppose it would be proper to deny a communing member marriage (what I mean is that Elder denying himself to the couple as the official of the ceremony)? It's a big can of worms, but let's take it a step further. Their pastor has denied them, however they go to the judge and get married. Should the Session now bring disciplinary charges against the couple because they broke their vow, as members, to keep themselves under the authority and teaching of the Session?

This isn't about what the local congregation believes the Scriptures teach. It is about denying a person membership because they do not believe the jot and tittle of the 3C's. Even if a person believes the 3C's to be wrong with a particular doctrine it is inherently wrong to deny one who professes, confesses, and trusts Christ as Lord and Savior, especially if it is not a salvific issue or doctrine that is in question. in my opinion the only reason why this would happen is if the Session believed there was risk of a public discourse of the issue by the petitioning member, and that there was risk of bringing contempt upon the 3C's. So why, in the first place, are the 3C's being held to a higher standard than Scripture. There is no such warrant for denying a person membership because they do not believe everything about the 3C's.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 12, 2012)

Dordts5 said:


> understand your position quite clearly and the position of any confessional church, after all I am ordained by such a church. I also understand the position of members the Confessional take of ANY member not undermining the Scriptures, Confessions, Creeds and Catechisms. Is someone "publicly challenging it"? Is the "public challenge" in the BCO somewhere? If it is and a member is not aware of it, is it good to give caution to the member who may be challenging any part of the 3 C's, or better yet "being challenged?" I'm just wondering if this doesn't remind us of Roman Catholicism.



Not sure I'm following your points.
A confessional church is what it is, with its confession being the basis of its unity, and what it confesses as faithful summary of the doctrine of Scripture.

Roman Catholicism teaches that church tradition ultimately is above Scripture, no church that holds the "3 C's" does that, none I'm aware of, so not sure what point you are making.

Your premise was, 


Dordts5 said:


> In my own experience I have encountered, with great sadness, the IDEA that the creeds, confessions and catechisms can't be wrong because: 1.) they are historical 2.) they were written by very learned men, and 3.) should I "actually pretend like I know better."



What church was that?
(No church I'm aware of holds the "3 C's," as you call them, infallible.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 12, 2012)

Dordts5 said:


> ried by Scripture itself. Should the Scriptures determine what we are to believe, or the 3C's? What happens if the 3C's do not line completely square with Scripture? If the 3C's do not completely square with Scripture, are we to simply forget what Scripture is pointing towards and go with the 3C's? I know, I'm begging the question. My point is, dear friend, is even though any preamble may clearly deem the fallibility of men and the infallibility of Scripture, holding those 3C's, not only as doctrinal statements, but as highly as they are in any reformed, confessional church must not be done. Most Synods, Presbyteries, and Consistories will not ever admit that this is what is done, but I have witnessed otherwise. My own personal witness.



The question was, tried by who, one church member, maybe a baby Christian?

The "3 C's" can be amended, I think in any denomination. The Westminster Standards can be in Presbyterian standards. It's not a simple thing one member can do unilaterally, it takes a lot of deliberation and agreement, but it can be done.

So, if, as you say, "the 3C's do not completely square with Scripture," you have two choices:

1) join a communion that confesses what you do believe the scripture teaches
2) propose amendment of that statement and/or proposition of doctrine in the Confession

Vaguely asserting they are not biblical to the public is harmful.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 12, 2012)

Dordts5 said:


> Here is an example for you, a very simple one. Let's take the Apostle's Creed. In the back of every Red Hymnal in the PCA the Apostle's Creed is there for us to read,



Dallas,
The Apostle's Creed does not hold Confessional status in the PCA.
It does no purport to be a comprehensive summary of the Trinity.


----------



## Scott1 (Oct 12, 2012)

Dordts5 said:


> Let's take the example of eschatology. If I hold to a different eschatology than that of my teaching elder, do you suppose it would be proper to deny a communing member marriage



Dallas,
What do you mean?
How would your eschatology differ from your elder? It's not so much differing from your elder as differing from the Westminster Standards summary of the doctrine of Scripture on that point.

What on earth does that have to do with "denying a communing member marriage." Denying marriage is not a (formal) means of discipline.



Dordts5 said:


> in my opinion the only reason why this would happen is if the Session believed there was risk of a public discourse of the issue by the petitioning member, and that there was risk of bringing contempt upon the 3C's.



I don't think what is sometimes called "confessional membership," i.e. requiring a new member to vow they agree with every statement and/or proposition of doctrine, far less even understand it, is required by Scripture, but for the few churches that do practice that for members, I can understand the risk to unity, which is based on doctrinal agreement.

I'm not sure what you mean by "petitioning member." The member would not appeal "to the public," he would appeal to the church, through the authority God has ordained there. He would not around them while a member and make a case to strangers.

We don't want to distract from this thread-
If what you are getting at is confessional membership, it would be helpful to start a thread on that topic to discuss that.


----------



## Dordts5 (Oct 13, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> We don't want to distract from this thread-
> If what you are getting at is confessional membership, it would be helpful to start a thread on that topic to discuss that.


Yes, let's do that. However, because I am not familiar with the board and the different topics I will have to search for the appropriate place to start a thread.


----------



## Dordts5 (Oct 13, 2012)

Scott, I was simply responding to the statement of the idea of studying more by the gentle lady above. I then responded to what you wrote.


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 13, 2012)

Scott1 said:


> In reformed theology, the church is much more than a loose association of consenting adults, each independently and authoritatively evaluating doctrine for themselves.



Unfortunately, that's _exactly_ what we are in the PCA! Constitutionally, we don't really have to hold to our constitution.


----------



## Dordts5 (Oct 13, 2012)

you may go to this thread if you want to discuss any of the topic of which Scott and I are discussing. http://www.puritanboard.com/f117/membership-role-confessions-catechisms-creeds-therein-76238/#post970302


Dordts5 said:


> Scott, I was simply responding to the statement of the idea of studying more by the gentle lady above. I then responded to what you wrote.


----------



## Mephibosheth (Oct 13, 2012)

Amill: "The Promise of the Future" by Cornelius Venema

Postmill: "Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?" by David Brown, and "He Shall Have Dominion" by Gentry (it's well over 600 pages and pretty exhaustive)


----------



## KaphLamedh (Oct 22, 2012)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> KaphLamedh said:
> 
> 
> > Just wonder is there something between dispensationalism and covenant theology?
> ...



Thanks AMR.


----------

