Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in '2004 Archive' started by Bro.Bill, Jun 30, 2004.
If he was Pre=millineal or ammill or what?
I believe that A.H. Strong was a postmillennialist.
This is from his book "Systematic Theology":
"Elliott's whole scheme [based on his "interpretation of `time and times and half a time' of Dan. 7:25, which according to the year-day theory means 1260 years..." p 1009, ed], however, is vitiated by the fact that he wrongly assumes the book of Revelation to have been written under Domitian (94 or 96), instead of under Nero (67 or 68). His terminus a quo is therefore incorrect, and his interpretation of chapters 5-9 is rendered very precarious. The year 1866, moreover, should have been the time of the end, and so the terminus ad quem seems to be clearly misunderstood--unless indeed the seventy-five supplementary years of Daniel are to be added to 1866. We regard the failure of this most ingenious scheme of Apocalyptic interpretation as a practical demonstration that a clear understanding of the meaning of the Prophecy is, before the event, impossible, and we are confirmed in this view by the utterly untenable nature of the theory of the millennium which is commonly held by so-called Second Adventists, a theory which we now proceed to examine. (Systematic Theology, A.H. Strong, ©1907, published 1912, The Griffith & Rowland Press, Boston, p 1010.)
Bancroft revised Strong and made both more readable and basic in Christian Theology and even more simplified in Elemental Theology.
Emory Bancroft was pre-trib so his book would be the logical choice for typical ifb colleges. And I would highly recommend it.
thanks Dr. Bob,
Just what I need to know.I guess I need to get a copy of Christian Theology by Bancroft.
I have a copy of the Master Christian library that has a lot of good stuff but I know you gotta watch out for some of these old guys.
Also thanks Netpublicist for your entry.