Just to throw everyone a curve, the Dakes Annotated Bible claims the passage refers to “the mobilization for the Battle of Armageddon”.

(I got mixed up with a splinter church in the Seventies that claimed the Dake’s was the Only True Bible, sort of the KJV1611 for the era of flare pants & big hair. Remembering those marginal notes with thirty years of hindsight, I now call that edition “The Flaky Dakes”.)

On the other end about traditional amillennials – Is there a pretty good consensus out there that the 21st century believer has a right to tell me that Matt 24 will have a second, third and even possibly more future fulfillments? What is the strongest argument for it? I would listen to an apostle tell me this, but it’s hard to hear it from a Christian of today.

I attended Kim Riddlebarger’s (White Horse Inn) 2007 eschatology conference at his church with the express purpose of learning more about the traditional amillennialist view and pull me away from my persuasions. The master, Dr. Beale, who wrote the massive commentary on Revelation was also there (and was quite delightful I might add). I thoroughly enjoyed the conference; however, I still left wading in the middle right between the postie and traditional amil view.

Yes, postmodern puritan, I feel your pain – I get lonely in my SBC quarters here – many in my parts of the world have the “end times makes no difference to me, so why study it” view. Sigh!

Read all the parallels of the statement “one is taken; one is left.”

Michael,

It occurred to me several years ago that it was not obvious exactly who the ones were who were being taken. But despite trying to cleanse myself of presuppositions, I wasn’t able to see it as “obvious” that the ones taken were taken to judgement. If you care to elaborate, it might be helpful.

Unusual quotes like this: “If he is to remain alive till I return, what is that to you?” go unexplained.

And then the disciples ask about the destruction of the temple combine that with the question about His coming. Why combine two events totally unrelated?

This isn’t theological nitpicking. What results from believing in pre or post?

Yes I agree IT DID. I was standing on the campus of Harvad U. back in June and rubbing the foot of the bronze work of John Harvard. He seemed like a postmil, a man with a vision for redeeming society . . . thus his huge library and his endowment that started Harvard.

Well in the days of Noah, it was the wicked who were judged and “taken” and the righteous that were left.

Left Behind theology has it backwards.

I find myself very lonely being a partial-preterist (we all are in some way anyway) Postmil guy even in Presbyterian circles now that Amillenialism has taken hold in most Reformed seminaries.

Postmillenialism was once the standard among Princeton Theologians like Hodge and Warfield. I believe the grandddady of much Reformed thought; John Owen, was Post-mill as well. I came to it by reading Marcellus J. Kik books from P&R Publishing in the 70’s. Peter Leithart has written a more recent book on Post-Mill view that’s worth checking out.

Its a shame that Postmillinialism is often misunderstood, and in some cases attached to theonomy which turns many off.

Read all the parallels of the statement “one is taken; one is left.”

When it comes to post-mill position, I’m pretty much a blank, and I think I’ll grab this book for my education. Who knows, I may switch to post-mill.

This may expose the depth of my non-interest in end-times, but I have to ask – where is the place that is talking about being taken to judgment?