Another silly Premillennialist trying to refute the Amillennial view. The "and"s he uses to disprove the Progressive Parallelism view simply doesn't work. Why? Because the content/context of each of the divisions which are seen. The repetition of similar events within the respective divisions are obvious. So, I would use the author's own conclusion to his view... if the Progressive Parallelism view is false, then the book of Revelation makes little sense. Personally, I could care less about such arguments, especially the specious claim that Chiliasm was the uncontested orthodox view, and then (implied) that modern Premillenialsim is a synonym of Chiliasm. See The History of Chiliasm. Cornelis P. Venema's book The Promise of the Future, from which there are a few articles in the Escatology section of "Calvinism and the Reformed Faith" on The Highway website deals with the differences between the two views; Amillennialism vs. Premilleniallism and defends the former more than adequately. Why you are once again allowing yourself to be involved with and/or troubled by such arguments is somewhat puzzling. scratchchin


[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]