RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
No, he questioned their overly literal interpretation of those prophecies
It's a little more complicated than that. He critiqued them for failing to see the Messiah, not for taking God's word at face value.
But seriously, we can at least agree that the promised earthly reign of Christ begins when he returns, correct?
Nope. George Ladd. Already-not yet. I am surprised that as a Vos-Ridderbosian amillennialist, you didn't jump on this. In some sense it began when Christ came for the first time. There are future fulfillments, however. Zech. 14, Isaiah 11, a few others.
The neo-platonic strawman is getting old. No one is arguing for an immaterial kingdom.
I have a few D.G. Hart essays for you to read where he argues precisely that and does so in explicitly neo-platonic, dualistic categories. I don't think he realizes that, though. Mark Karlberg is another--he disagrees with Amillennialists Hoekema, Gaffin, Ridderbos and S. Ferguson.
We disagree as to when the earthly reign of Christ begins and what the nature of that kingdom will be.
If you agree that it will be earthly, then the only disagreement is timing. As to the nature, the disagreement is now one of degree, not kind, since you agree it will be earthly.