Amil vs. Preterist

Status
Not open for further replies.

youthevang

Puritan Board Freshman
Hello, everyone. Are Amils and Preterists in agreement with each other? If not, can someone give me some web links that show a compare and contrast of the two? Thanks.
 
Amillennialism has more to do with the nature/timing of the millennium whereas preterism has to do with the timing of key first century events. In short, some will agree with each other and vice-versa. Neither is mutually exclusive or demanding of the other. The above links should be pretty good.
 
Welcome Joshua

Do a couple of word searches, that was one of my first questions on this board. Several threads do a good job of sorting out the differences and similarities of the two broad labels.
 
Originally posted by youthevang
Hello, everyone. Are Amils and Preterists in agreement with each other? If not, can someone give me some web links that show a compare and contrast of the two? Thanks.

Josh, get this book: "A Case for Amillenialism" by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger.

Not only is it a good explanation of ALL the eschat positions; it fairly compares the Biblical qualities of them...by a world-class theologian/apologist, formerly a dispensationalist.

As an Amill....I have yet to read or hear a sound/complete discription of our viewpoint by others who are not Amill.

The short answer to your question: "no" Amill and Preterism are not compatible and are not the same. Full preterism may be classified as a dangerous heresy because it must re-explain the nature of the resurrection....which leads to denying a physical bodily resurrection.

This is explained in Riddlebarger's book.

:book2:

Robin
 
Thanks, everyone. I have the book A Case for Amillenialism, but I have not had the time to sit down and read it yet. Thanks again for pointing me in the right direction.
 
Check out The Last Days According to Jesus by R.C. Sproul Sr. or Last Days Madness by Gary DeMar for a clear definition and explanation (exegetical) of orthodox preterism (not the heretical, extremist version that denies the resurrection and actual return of Christ). Both of them are Postmillennial, though.
 
Originally posted by Robin
Originally posted by youthevang
Hello, everyone. Are Amils and Preterists in agreement with each other? If not, can someone give me some web links that show a compare and contrast of the two? Thanks.

Josh, get this book: "A Case for Amillenialism" by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger.

Not only is it a good explanation of ALL the eschat positions; it fairly compares the Biblical qualities of them...by a world-class theologian/apologist, formerly a dispensationalist.

As an Amill....I have yet to read or hear a sound/complete discription of our viewpoint by others who are not Amill.

The short answer to your question: "no" Amill and Preterism are not compatible and are not the same. Full preterism may be classified as a dangerous heresy because it must re-explain the nature of the resurrection....which leads to denying a physical bodily resurrection.

This is explained in Riddlebarger's book.

:book2:

Robin

He does a good job in burying the premillennial case but ignores key premises in the postmillennial argument to make his own argument against postmillennialism valid. I won't develop that here at the moment because I am considering a friendly critique of his critique of postmillennialism in the book. His book while silencing all forms of premillennialism, failed to give the hammer-blow to postmillennial preterists. His book is good but did not seriously deal with postmillennial preterism.
 
Riddlebarger's book is a decent Amill presentation, but it fails miserably in dealing with the preterism of Gentry et al as well as Postmillennialism as has already been noted. Adams has an amill presentation that is preterist as well. The two are NOT incompatible and I was an amill preterist before I moved to a postmill position. I still hold to "this age and the age to come" because there is no contradiction there. I recommend Gentry's chapter in Chapter Five of "Thine is the Kingdom - Studies in the Postmillennial Hope". He outlines how he not only holds firmly to this view but shows how he has used it in his counterpoints books against the premillennial position.

[Edited on 7-11-2005 by rgrove]
 
Originally posted by rgrove
Yes, I recommed all amills watch that video. You should be postmill soon after! :)

Gaffin and Gentry (Also Strimple and White) also involved themselves in a series of back and forth articles in the Westminster Theological Journal a little while back. Here are the conclusions to a couple of the articles that I have access to while at work. I'll try to post the other journal article references tonight. [Time to plug the Theological Journal Library for Libronix by Galaxie software. http://www.galaxie.com/ It is incredible. To have that many issues of WTJ searchable should be a crime. It is one of the most searched out resources in my library that I have.]

Agony, Irony, And Victory In Inaugurated Eschatology:
Reflections On The Current Amillennial-Postmillennial Debate
R. Fowler White


WTJ 62:2 Fall 2000 pg. 161-176

Conclusion:
In conclusion, I believe we are justified to say with Beale that John´s Apocalypse reveals the nature of the church´s present reign. Like Jesus´ initial kingship, the church´s kingship consists now in conquering by maintaining her faithful witness in the face of trials (e.g., 2:9"“11, 13; 3:8; 12:11); in overcoming the powers of evil (e.g., 6:8 in relation to 6:9"“11); in subduing sin in her members´ lives (see chaps. 2"“3); and in beginning to rule over death and Satan by identification with Jesus (cf. 1:5"“6, 18). The church´s endurance, then, is part of the process of conquering.70
The focus of our study has meant that key issues in a complete eschatology of victory could not be treated here. For example, Greg Bahnsen poses a legitimate question: "œDo our inevitable sufferings issue in greater or lesser manifestation of Christ´s saving rule on earth, breaking the power of sin?"71 We may also ask with Gentry whether Paul´s teaching on Christ´s defeat of his enemies in 1 Cor 15:20"“28 requires a postmillennial vision or not.72 Indeed, in Rom 8:35"“39, does Paul not join John in teaching the irony of victory through perseverance73 and thus obviate the need for the postmillennial vision in 1 Corinthians 15? On these questions and others, the discussion should continue.
Meanwhile, however, this study makes clear that the church´s present victorious reign is not merely in principle. We can and must talk about the church´s victory in history, whether she ever emerges as the organon of world culture or not. In affirming this reality, we must be careful, however: it is vital to maintain the link between victory and perseverance in suffering (for what is right; see 1 Pet 2:19"“20; 3:13"“17; 4:15"“16). As the letters of Revelation 2"“3 make clear, the ironic conception of victory identified herein does not apply to the church wherever and whenever she is complacent or compromising and thus failing to persevere in faith and good works. Such a church can and should never be described as victorious. On this point, amillennialists and Reconstructionists should agree.

This study also makes clear that the so-called amillennial hermeneutic of persecution, though it may have been insufficiently or inconsistently applied, is valid. It finds its validity precisely in the eschatologically significant principles of redemptive irony by which God achieves victory over his enemies. God is seeing to it that the means by which Satan´s anti-kingdom intends to defeat Christ´s kingdom-church end up being the very means by which the latter defeats the former. Moreover, while Satan´s anti- kingdom intends the suffering"”even unto death"”of Christ´s kingdom-church as her defeat, God reverses that intention and constitutes her perseverance in suffering as the means of her victory over her enemies in history. Through these principles of redemptive irony, then, it becomes clearer that and how Christ´s church can be said to be perpetually victorious in history: following the example of Christ, she perseveres in faithfulness despite persecution.


Agony, Irony, And The Postmillennialist: A Response To Gaffin, Strimple, And White
Ken Gentry


WTJ 63:2 Fall 2001 pgs. 422-434

Conclusion:
Perhaps, it is true, as White contends, that postmillennialists have not fully engaged the discussion regarding suffering and perseverance (162). But it certainly is not true that the biblical message of suffering and perseverance contradicts the postmillennial hope. Postmillennialists gladly affirm the redemptive irony of God´s victory over Satan. Postmillennialists wholeheartedly agree that the faithful church weathering the storms of persecution is victorious. Postmillennialists unashamedly confess the reality that our state prior to the resurrection is one of suffering. With Gaffin, we do humbly affirm the "œtheology of the cross" (216); but we also heartily rejoice in the "œtheology of the resurection."
 
My New Testament prof in college argued from a very firm partial-preterist AND amillennialist standpoint. That was my position for quite a while.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top