Amil & Antichrist

Status
Not open for further replies.

kalawine

Puritan Board Junior
This is actually a reply that I posted on the last thread (Amil Rules) but I decided to begin a new thread. - KPA

I was introduced to the Amil view with a partial preterist twist. The PP view seemed to answer lots of questions that I had such as: Why did Jesus say "this" generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened? Etc.
Until recently I didn't know that historical Amil allowed for an Antichrist and a tribulation. I learned this from Kim Riddlebarger who preaches against preterism (partial and full). He also holds to the belief that the book of Revelation was written after 70 AD which would blow preterism out of the water. I find myself still wanting to hang on to the partial preterist view though I am certainly no expert (or even a good amateur:lol:) in this area. Any comments are welcome though our Premil and Postmil friends might want to stay out of this one because we will be discussing REAL eschatology :lol::rolleyes::lol: !
 
This is my rule for eschatology. Find the system that makes the most biblical since to you and then hold it at ARM'S length. I have read Riddlebargers books and enjoyed them. I also find the partial preterist amill view to be closest for me. However, if you take the time to listen to Dr. Azurdia's messages on Revelation he may swing you to an idealist amill view. They are very good.
Spirit Empowered Preaching
 
Identity of the Anti-Christ.

The Beast of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry (or why Nero was the beast)


Thanks buddy but I already have the video. I think it's very convincing when it comes to 70 AD but I have a hard time swallowing the Postmil view. I'm open to correction but for now I'm not convinced.

I'll pray for your conversion. :lol:

What convinced of me of post-mill was a series of lectures (3 I think) I found online by Greg Bahnsen. At the time I was leaning more towards amill after having left historic pre-mil. I think they are for sale at cmfnow.com. Also there was Days of Vengeance by David Chilton

Amill books destroyed the pre-trib rapture for me.
 
Identity of the Anti-Christ.

The Beast of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry (or why Nero was the beast)


Thanks buddy but I already have the video. I think it's very convincing when it comes to 70 AD but I have a hard time swallowing the Postmil view. I'm open to correction but for now I'm not convinced.

I'll pray for your conversion. :lol:

What convinced of me of post-mill was a series of lectures (3 I think) I found online by Greg Bahnsen. At the time I was leaning more towards amill after having left historic pre-mil. I think they are for sale at cmfnow.com. Also there was Days of Vengeance by David Chilton

Amill books destroyed the pre-trib rapture for me.

Hey... seriously... I hope you're right! And I covet those prayers.
 
Identity of the Anti-Christ.

The Beast of Revelation by Kenneth Gentry (or why Nero was the beast)


Thanks buddy but I already have the video. I think it's very convincing when it comes to 70 AD but I have a hard time swallowing the Postmil view. I'm open to correction but for now I'm not convinced.

I'll pray for your conversion. :lol:

What convinced of me of post-mill was a series of lectures (3 I think) I found online by Greg Bahnsen. At the time I was leaning more towards amill after having left historic pre-mil. I think they are for sale at cmfnow.com. Also there was Days of Vengeance by David Chilton

Amill books destroyed the pre-trib rapture for me.


And I WILL check out all the reading material you suggested. BTW What made you decide against Amil?
 
Thanks buddy but I already have the video. I think it's very convincing when it comes to 70 AD but I have a hard time swallowing the Postmil view. I'm open to correction but for now I'm not convinced.

I'll pray for your conversion. :lol:

What convinced of me of post-mill was a series of lectures (3 I think) I found online by Greg Bahnsen. At the time I was leaning more towards amill after having left historic pre-mil. I think they are for sale at cmfnow.com. Also there was Days of Vengeance by David Chilton

Amill books destroyed the pre-trib rapture for me.


And I WILL check out all the reading material you suggested. BTW What made you decide against Amil?

It really was the three lectures by Bahnsen. He pulled together various OT & NT verses with their context and showed that 1) the millennium isn't a literal 1000 yrs, 2) the parable of the mustard tree and how it signifies Christ's ever growing kingdom, 3) the binding of Satan has already occurred, and 4) that the Kingdom of God will progress until the entire world is 'christianized', though this does not mean everyone will be Christian, but that the majority will and will change the governments to reflect a Christian society. After a golden age the falling away will come and then the end.

I found the link to it here: Why Am I A Postmillennialist?

If you want I can go through them again and write out the verses and his arguments from them. I can either post it or pm you with it. They're fun to listen to again. His 'Eschatology of Optimism' series is also very good.

He also keeps pointing out that one of the main differences between amill and postmill is that the amill don't go far enough. "Just come a little further and join us", is something you'll hear a lot in the first series.

He also deals mainly with the pre-trib view. He does interact with amill, but primarily to show they just didn't go far enough.

BTW, I'm naturally pessimistic. I think that's why the pre-trib held such sway for me.

Just remembered that Gentry has a series on Eschatology for free at sermonaudio.com.
 
I'll pray for your conversion. :lol:

What convinced of me of post-mill was a series of lectures (3 I think) I found online by Greg Bahnsen. At the time I was leaning more towards amill after having left historic pre-mil. I think they are for sale at cmfnow.com. Also there was Days of Vengeance by David Chilton

Amill books destroyed the pre-trib rapture for me.


And I WILL check out all the reading material you suggested. BTW What made you decide against Amil?

It really was the three lectures by Bahnsen. He pulled together various OT & NT verses with their context and showed that 1) the millennium isn't a literal 1000 yrs, 2) the parable of the mustard tree and how it signifies Christ's ever growing kingdom, 3) the binding of Satan has already occurred, and 4) that the Kingdom of God will progress until the entire world is 'christianized', though this does not mean everyone will be Christian, but that the majority will and will change the governments to reflect a Christian society. After a golden age the falling away will come and then the end.

I found the link to it here: Why Am I A Postmillennialist?

If you want I can go through them again and write out the verses and his arguments from them. I can either post it or pm you with it. They're fun to listen to again. His 'Eschatology of Optimism' series is also very good.

He also keeps pointing out that one of the main differences between amill and postmill is that the amill don't go far enough. "Just come a little further and join us", is something you'll hear a lot in the first series.

He also deals mainly with the pre-trib view. He does interact with amill, but primarily to show they just didn't go far enough.

BTW, I'm naturally pessimistic. I think that's why the pre-trib held such sway for me.

Just remembered that Gentry has a series on Eschatology for free at sermonaudio.com.

Thanks so much for the info
 
Check this out as well brother.
BTW, I've listened to all 81 of Azurdia's messages.

A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism


Hmmm. How does an amil get to teach at a seminary with this for a doctrinal statement?

CONCERNING LAST THINGS

We believe that at death, the spirits of believers pass immediately into the presence of Christ and there remain in joyful fellowship awaiting their bodily resurrection. The spirits of unbelievers are in misery and torment as punishment for sin awaiting their bodily resurrection. (Dan. 12:2; Lk. 16:22, 23; 23:43; 2 Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:21-26; 3:10, 11, 21; Rev. 20:11-15)

This age will culminate in the rapture of believers and the tribulation, followed by the return of Christ in glory with his saints to the earth to destroy his enemies, to initiate the millennium, and to restore Israel as a nation in fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy. (Deut. 30:1-10; Isa. 11:1-16; 65:17-25; Ezek. 36:22-38; 37:21-28; Dan. 9:27; 12:1; Jn. 14:2, 3; Acts 1:4-8; Rom. 14:10-12; 1 Cor. 3:11-15; 15:51-53; 2 Cor. 5:10; 1 Thess. 4:13-17; Tit. 2:11-13; Rev. 3:10; 16:1-21; 19:1-21; 20:1-6)

At the close of Messiah’s millennial reign the devil, his demons, and the unbelieving dead will be judged and committed to eternal conscious punishment in hell. God will create a new heaven and new earth where all his people will dwell eternally in his presence, giving worship and service to him to whom belongs all glory. (Mk. 9:43 48; Matt. 25:31-46; 1 Cor. 15:24-28; 2 Thess. 1:9; 2 Pet. 3:10-13; Rev. 20:11-15; 21:1-4; 22:5, 11)

(Note: This is not designed to dictate to students the particulars of their orthodox faith, but rather to state clearly the doctrinal commitment of the teaching faculty.)

Western Seminary
 
As a lifelong historic premil, I have recently crossed the Jordan on the backs of Kim Riddlebarger. Since I always believed in an historical Antichrist to come (sometimes suspecting that one or another of you on the PB might be the one), it will be interesting to see how my thinking and exegesis stand up under the new paradigm.

I started reading Riddlebarger's book on Obama . . . ooops . . . excuse me that was LaHaye's new book . . . let's see . . . Kissinger? . . . no that was the old Hal Linsey when he was teaching in colleges in the late 60s . . . hmmm . . . Nero? . . . no that was that funny guy who wants me to donate so that he can stay home and work on his Revelation commentary that never gets finished . . . man o man, where is that book? . . . oh, here it is: The Man of Sin!!! It will be interesting to see how Riddlebarger fleshes out his view.

Incidentally, to show you how far I've come on this subject of eschatology, many years ago we were examining a Baptist candidate for ordination who held to the amil position. My question was:

"In Rev. 20, vss. 4 and 5, John uses the aorist active indicative ἔζησαν to reference the resurrection. Grammatically, either they should both be viewed in a straight-forward way or in a figurative way. If you choose the second, congratulations, you've just spiritualized away the resurrection. If you select the first, you should be a premillennialist. Just answer me this: how could you misplace a 1,000 years!?!"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top