Originally posted by Robin
Just to through-out here, J, anything with "neo" attached to it IS NOT a good thing! Good theology does not invent "new" doctrines. Plus, I take it (and could be wrong) you're thinking there should always be an "argument" (or what you assume passes for sound argumentation.) ???
Calvin teaches that there are sophist arguments not worth a response.
So far, it appears your line of argumentation relies on opponents reading enough Bahnsen so as to quote and agree with him; if they don't quote or agree with him, they are either mis-representing him or are wrong. (The Emperor has no clothes, J.)
A sign that a person's eschatology is Biblical is that it will always focus on Christ - not the teacher of it (Bahnsen, et al.) It will lift-up and edify the flock, not flaunt, brag nor exult over the divisions suffered in the Body. God's truth does not change - the eschatology of the Bible has always been there. The predominant eschatology of the Church, historically, has been some form of Amillennialism (though not labelled as such.)
Aren't boards like PB neat? Posters can "refute" a scholar's position with a keystroke...instead of engageing the argument legitimately by writing a counter treatise (so positions can be fairly heard and thoroughly scrutinized.)
But then, we're not serious about theology, posting on PB, are we?
(off soapbox)
Robin
First,
Robin doesn't like my
definiens. That's fine; I can change it. Secondly, and I won't spend too much time here, the charge that "if its new it aint true" is a weak one, although it has much rhetorical force. The Romanist church could easily apply that to Calvin/Luther. But, you might say, they were being biblical. Yes, they were, and that is what I am trying to do as well. I just used a term to differentiate me from both amillennialism and Puritan postmillennialism.
As for my argumentation merely being a repitition from Bahnsen--which it isn't, by the way--I can charge Robin with repeating exactly what Riddlebarger, Kline et al are saying, and with the same rhetorical effectivness.
A sign that a person's eschatology is Biblical is that it will always focus on Christ - not the teacher of it (Bahnsen, et al.) It will lift-up and edify the flock, not flaunt, brag nor exult over the divisions suffered in the Body. God's truth does not change - the eschatology of the Bible has always been there. The predominant eschatology of the Church, historically, has been some form of Amillennialism (though not labelled as such.)
I agree with the first sentence, although as we will see it is quite irrelevant to the discussion. She then says that my eschatology isn't Christ-centered because it focuses on Bahnsen whereas (reasoning by way of implication) that her eschatology is Christ-centered because...well...it just is.
Actually, she says that amillennialism is the historic position and that means...well..I don't really care what it means. It is asking a loaded historical question that cannot be answered by 21st century students.
(BTW, I can make St. Athanasius to look like a postmillennial partial-preterist; Also, the Romanist church interpreted Augustine in a way different from the Reformed church--so the historical argument backfires).
Riddlebarger writes
As Meredith Kline points out, "Revelation 20:7-10 by itself refutes the postmillennial projections, for it is evident that the nations of this world have not become Christianized institutions during the millennium."
Actually, postmillennialism teaches that the nations will apostasize at the end of the millennium. So, Kline's objection is null and void. Almost as embarrassing is when he tried to critique theonomy...
Riddlebarger continues
How can such a thing happen, if Christ's kingdom has truly transformed the political, cultural, and economic affairs of all nations?
Simple. The apostasy mentioned above.
The global revolt betrays the postmillennial insistence that the nations will be Christianized.
Repeat last two steps
Taken from A Case for Amillennialism, pp. 223-224.
His critiques on premillennialism buried it forever. They are quite good and I will gladly join Riddlebarger in them. But if you are going to critique a system, try to understand it first.
Listen, its fine to disagree with the postmillennial outlook and our interpretation of Revelation 20, but don't take the postmillennial outlook (gospel takes over the world) and then say, well, Revelation 20 says there will be a falling away, so the nations can't be Christian. Well, that is bad reasoning. Its a half-truth, and the wrong half at that.
If they are saying that there will be a revolt at the end of the millennium, fine; no argument there.
But it does not logically follow that since there will be an apostasy at the end of the millennium, then there can't be victory during the millennium!
In fact, the apostasy rather suggests it
