Premillennialism vs Amillennialism Debate

[postpre]

I'd like to make you all aware of a debate between Tim Warner and Norm Fields. The debate is on eschatology (premillennialism vs amillenialism). Throughout, Tim will try to argue the following proposition (if you read his material, you'll notice that he doesn't mince his words):

"The Christian's hope is not heaven, but the return of Christ to reign over the nations upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem, and to renovate this earth as the permanent inheritance of Jesus Christ and all who are in Him."

http://www.answersinrevelation.org/

You should be able to find the link to the debate from the above link (right in the middle of the screen). Tim just posted his opening statement:

http://www.oasischristianchurch.org/air ... lds_1a.pdf

Every two weeks (or less) there will be a new submission.

God Bless,
Brian

[postpre]

FWIW, I was hoping that Steve Gregg was Tim's opponent in this debate. I'm of the Premill persuasion, but I thought Steve would present the best arguments in favor of the Amill positions. I'd love to hear Steve's thoughts (or anyone else) if he has a chance to read the debate as it unfolds.

[steve]

I may find the time to participate, but right now I am overwhelmed with other responsibilities that are more urgent. Eschatology is one of my lesser interests, at this point of my life. While I am always up for a good debate, if time permits, I also consider that, in my lectures on the topic (and numerous posts at this forum), I have already answered most of the points that I would expect a premillennialist to make.

I am not saying that there are no new arguments that I have not yet heard, but I believe that the key subjects of Revelation 20, of the final resurrection, and of the identity of "Israel" are pivotal to deciding between the premillenarian and the amillennial viewpoints. Any other considerations are peripheral and are not likely to determine the basic paradigm to be adopted. I will try to get the time to read the debate, and to contribute my comments, if it seems that there would be any benefit in my doing so.

[postpre]

Steve,

That sounds good. The reason that I think reading this debate would be worthwhile is that Tim is a progressive dispensationlaist (not a traditional dispensationalist). From listening to you over the years, I get the feeling that you switched to Amill because you found the arguments from the traditional dispensationlist camp lacking (I haven't heard you comment much on Progressive Dispensationlism-- which does not see the sharp dichotomy between the church and Israel as the traditional camp does). I really think you would find Warner's work very challenging. I don't know of anyone else who articulates the view as well as he does. BTW, he also holds a post-trib rapture position.

Brian

[Mellontes]

Tim Warner greatly helped me to see that the rapture and second appearing were to occur at the same time (among some other things).
Philip Mauro's three excellent works Hope of Israel, The Gospel of the Kingdom, and Daniel's Seventy Weeks easily convinced me of the whole church versus Israel issue. From there it was strictly a matter of CONSISTENTLY holding to the audience relevance and time statements and presto-poofo, one full-preterist!