How does a premil systematic theology bleed into other doctrines
I'm want to go through Culver's Systematic. He's premil, but I'm Amil.
So I have a quick question. But I don't want this to turn into a debate.
What doctrines could be different between the two views.
Or would they essentially be the same except their eschatology?
mm.
Comments
-
Milkman said:
I'm want to go through Culver's Systematic. He's premil, but I'm Amil.
So I have a quick question. But I don't want this to turn into a debate.
What doctrines could be different between the two views.
Or would they essentially be the same except their eschatology?
mm.
This is something that is difficult to answer within the forum guidelines or entering into a debate.
This particular difference in eschatology should have implications for other areas; whether or not they are picked up and carried through will depend on the specific theologian.
Ecclesiology will definitely be affected, especially the outlook on the church's mission. Very generally speaking, postmills tend to be more optimistic in that regard, premills more pessimistic, and amill in between--based on their different understandings of what will happen before the end/the inauguration of the millennium.
Understandings of the work of Christ (theories of atonement) should also be affected, but many are less than consistent in following through on their implications here. Other areas it's hard to say; they'll vary depending on the theologian.
I myself have not read Culver so I can't be more specific. Hope this helps a little.
0 -
I would expect premil to hav a dispensation all outlook on scripture, Amil covenental.
0 -
Premil wouldn't necessarily be dispensational. Isn't Piper premil but non-dispensational? They usually distinguish themselves by the label "historic premil" I think. I don't know what Culver is.
In my opinion, I wouldn't think that one's eschatology would effect other areas of their theology unless you are talking specifically about a pre-trib, pre-mil dispensationalist. Personally, I was raised dispensational and I can understand how eschatology can play a big role in that perspective. In college I dropped dispensationalism and adopted historic premil, then I switched to postmil and now I don't have any strong enough opinions to adopt any label (aside from the tongue in cheeck "pan-mil").
In my theological journey, from historic premil to postmil to I-don't-know no other theological view of mine has shifted. So the only link, in my case, was pre-trib premil and dispensationalism. And I can't see why shifting from historic premil to postmil should have changed my other theological beliefs (and it didn't) or why it might have if it had gone in the other direction.
(I might add that I can see why things might flow in the other direction in some cases: why one might, for instance, hold to a certain non-eschatological doctrine that has effects on one's eschatological thinking. This makes more sense to me than the flow from eschatology to non-eschatology.)
Potato resting atop 2020 Mac Pro stand.
0 -
I can't resist so take this tongue-in-cheek: if his logic is rotten on one issue, won't the inability to think clearly bleed into everything?
Orthodox Bishop Alfeyev: "To be a theologian means to have experience of a personal encounter with God through prayer and worship."; Orthodox proverb: "We know where the Church is, we do not know where it is not."
0
