Comments on: From an Eschatalogical Dinosaur: Am I the Last Pretribulationalist Left?

By: Henry III

Henry III — Mon, 12 Apr 2010 02:08:59 +0000

To All,
There is one book I would highly recommend that I have not seen on this blog. It is, The Rapture? by Dr William E Anderson. It is written from a Historic Premillennial view. Well written, well researched, easy to read and good exegesis. Every dispensational petrib premillennialist should read this book along with historical premills that need further study.

Dr. Anderson is alive, well and active in the Dallas-Ft. Worth area. There he could probably be reached for comment.

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:36:19 +0000

Hey Dave,

I am not sure if there is any real huge difference other than minor tweaks on the understanding of what events lead up to the tribulation.

The PDF chart I had linked in my last post highlights it a little.

Am I a little off on how I broke the views out?

-Aaron

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 22:26:39 +0000

I guess I could have made A-Millennial number 2a instead of 3, as it used to be grouped in with Post-Millennialism in the past. Of the 3 views they are the most related in their understanding of eschatology.

The biggest difference is that Post-Millennialism teaches that the Church will usher in the millennium, a “Golden Age” (or we may be in it now as Johnathan Edwards thought). It also says that things are getting better spiritually and physically in the world, slowly being restored to its original glory.

A-Millennialism teaches this as well, that we are in the millennium now (spiritually with Christ, because his Kingdom is not of this world), and this started with Christ’s ascension (it is basically the Church age). They differ in that they teach, like Pre-Millennialism, that things are getting worse and worse in the world, while things are improving spiritually within the true church.

Both A and Post teach that AFTER the millenium, (whether literal, spirtual, present, or future), the Second Coming of Christ will be Post, not Pre this ‘millennium’. This is why they both used to be grouped under Post-Millennialism, and only recently has A-Millennialism been called by this name.

Hopefully this makes sense as well.

-Aaron.

By: Dave Miller

Dave Miller — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:49:16 +0000

Dennis, “Reformed” theology generally demands a covenant-theology Amillennialism. However, it is not unusual for Calvinists (those who believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation but do not accept the entire “Reformed” system) to be found in just about every camp.

By: Dave Miller

Dave Miller — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:45:58 +0000

Aaron – what is your differentiation between historic premillennial and Pre-mil, Post-trib?

By: Dennis Thurman

Dennis Thurman — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:41:46 +0000

For those who seem to find it difficult bridging the gap between reformed and dispensationalist camps, here’s an interesting blog and review:

http://bibchr.blogspot.com/2010/03/book-review-dispensational-covenantal.html

By: Aaron

Aaron — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 21:26:16 +0000

I am not sure if this is clear, but I know it was confusing for me at first. Someone please correct me if I have this wrong.

As I understand it, the major views are as follows,

1. Pre-Millennial (Historic)
1a. Pre-Millennial (Dispensational)
—–> Pre-Trib
—–> Mid-Trib
—–> Post-Trib
2. Post-Millennial
3. A-Millennial

I notice many still confuse Post-Millennialism with Post-Trib (Pre-millennialism), which they are VERY different.

This chart is also very helpful,
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/eschatology-charts/millennial_views.pdf

-Aaron

By: Dave Miller

Dave Miller — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:34:51 +0000

Kendall, don’t confuse an old man.

By: Kendall Adams

Kendall Adams — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:28:15 +0000

I’m sorry…. 107 is fine for some reason I thought i posted the same article twice….

By: Dave Miller

Dave Miller — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 17:16:51 +0000

Kendall, I’m a little confused. In comment 107 you asked me to delete comment 107?

I hope you realize that I think your comment #103 was fine and good. I’m not upset at all or offended or anything. It was a good comment.

I’m just kinda burned out right now on blogging. Wrote 3 major articles in about 10 days, and the one on inerrancy has gone to about 350+ comments. That is the only reason I did not engage your comment in more depth.

Nothing is wrong with your comment. Just my old, tired bones.

I think Eric will tell you as well that about 93% of what I say is tongue-in-cheek. Actually he might say that it is higher than that and he may very well use other words to describe it.