Yuku free message boards

I haven't read Dr. Engelsma's series, so I don't know if he supports his position more than in this article. But all I see here is emotion-laden casting of stones, rather than well-reasoned argumentation. He assumes the very points under discussion -- does the Bible actually teach increasing lawlessness and apostasy throughout the church age, or does it teach increasing godliness throughout that time? He makes a reference to 2 Thess. 2, without explaining why that passage teaches what he believes (and not, as the preterist version of postmillennialism teaches, a prophecy of the great apostasy and judgement in 70 AD).

There's not much different in the mode of argumentation here than what I generally hear from evangelicals in general. The evangelical world has been so inundated with sensationalistic pre-mil thought, that if anyone questions such things as a pre-trib rapture, a single anti-christ yet to come, etc., then those who question these things are immediately assumed to be liberals, denying the clear teaching of the Bible. Dr. Engelsma's article seems to take on the same tone.

I see no problem, in principle, with the idea that theological thought should grow in precision through the ages. It has already done so, as is well obvious. I remember a number of years ago reading Berkhof's book on the history of doctrine. It amazed me that the church, for several hundred years after the apostles, did not have a well-defined concept of the substitutionary atonement -- they generally believed that the extent of Christ's sacrifice was to be an example for believers (to live a self-sacrificial life). The church finally came to understand what is, for us, a basic, foundational doctrine. Of course, there's the refinement of theology with the Reformation and the reformed creeds. So why should we not expect further refinement and depth of understanding in the future? Why should we not expect that the church in the future will come to consensus about eschatology? Why should we not expect that the church in the future will come to consensus about the mode and objects of baptism? I don't think we can act as if the Reformation creeds were the be-all and end-all of theological development.

Right now, we accept all 3 eschatological positions (excepting dispy premil) in the Reformed world, because it is obvious the Holy Spirit has not worked a common understanding in His Church yet. But, if and when He does so in the future, I would expect that the Church would say that the consensus position (which I would hope would be postmil) is THE position of the church, and other viewpoints are outside the pale of orthodoxy.