#13 in Eschatology books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology
Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 2
We found 2 Reddit mentions of A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology. Here are the top ones.
or
- Heavy Duty Nickel Plated Steel Wires
- Cross Wire design for stability
- Measures: 8 1/2" long x 12" wide x 5/8" high
- Fits great in 9 x 13 sheet pan
- Oven and Dishwasher safe
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 9 Inches |
| Length | 6 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | February 2009 |
| Weight | 0.7495716908 Pounds |
| Width | 0.46 Inches |
I'm Amill, so take recommendations with a grain of salt:
Premill: A Case for Historic Premillenialism by Craig Blomberg, The Blessed Hope: A Biblical Study of the Second Advent and the Rapture by George Eldon Ladd
Postmill: Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope by Keith Mathison, The Millennium Loraine Boettner
Amill: The Bible and the Future by Anthony Hoekema, The Promise of the Future by Cornelis Venema
> Except that that isn't really an option. If he's ruling here and now, then we're in the millennium.
Yup. The Already-Not-Yet doctrine means that we are in the millenium right now.
> So during the millennium, he rules on earth as much as he is ever going to. There isn't really any option for "He's kind of ruling now, but he'll rule more later".
There is no scriptural support for this.
> Umm. . . no it doesn't? Not in any version that I've ever heard described anyway.
Hmm. Maybe you should do some research into the doctrine of the Already-Not-Yet, because that is the central tenant of the doctrine: we live in the present age AND the age to come. Even just a quick google search will show you that the majority of Already-Not-Yet subscribers believe this.
This concerns me a bit. You seem to espouse that you understand pre-millenialism and yet even this most basic part of it, you have admitted that you are completely unaware of, even though a quick google search will pull up plenty of examples of the very thing I am speaking of.
> More to the point, I've never heard anyone, anywhere, describing the particular set of beliefs that you put forward here. I just see too many points of internal tension and inconsistency. If you can refer me to theologians that advance your particular mix of theological positions, I'll look into it, but I simply can't get my head around where you say you're coming from. Doesn't make any sense to me at all.
Just look into any theologian that espouses historical premil and the Already-Not-Yet doctrine. All of them have my view. Wayne Grudem for instance.
Other resources on Already-Not-Yet (not all I agree with, but just examples). They are all pre-mil and affirm that we live in the present age AND the age to come:
> I just see too many points of internal tension and inconsistency.
Don't dismiss something too quickly before you come to a proper understanding of it. And I can assure you, from your assertions, you have a lot of researching to do before you can make a judgment about this particular doctrine. You're at stage 1: You don't know what you don't know.