Is Reformed Eschatology Hard to Understand?

On a prior post, a commenter said that reformed people have done a terrible job of interpreting Revelation and the 70 weeks of Daniel and that no one can understand our positions.  I started to reply in the comments but thought this warranted a post in and of itself. 

Before getting into this let me say that I welcome dissent in the comments on this blog, so this response is not an attack on the commenter himself and I welcome him and anyone else to dissent with what I will write here.  But I also want to give a personal perspective on the broader topic of reformed eschatology.

I am amil but won't be defending amillennialism here, I want to speak to the broader range of reformed eschatology.  By that I mean that historically, the reformed camp has had room for a wide range of eschatological views.  The dominant views have been amillennialism and postmillennialism, but historical premillennialism hasn't been unheard of.   Within the postmil and amil camps there has also been room for partial preterist views.  In the last few years the full preterist view has arisen within some reformed circles, but this has been rejected by the vast majority of reformed folks and most of us don't recognize this as a valid eschatological view.

Though there are many differences among those in the reformed camp, one thing they all have in common is a rejection of the dispensational premillennial view, which is the most popular view today.   I will add a caveat that I am aware that there is a good deal of movement within the dispensational camp with the rise of progressive dispensationalism, and I think the progressive dispensationalists and traditional reformed folks are finding more common ground these days.  But it is also my understanding that, within the dispensational camp, the jury is still out on the progressive dispensationalists, i.e. progressive dispensationalism hasn't yet found widespread acceptance in the dispensational camp.  Since I am not up to speed on that I would love it if any dispensationalists or progressive dispensationalists would comment on this or do their own post and leave a trackback.

But getting back on point, I contend that reformed eschatology if you are firmly grounded in a dispensational approach to eschatology.  And I think it is fair to say that the dispensationalist would contend that dispensationalism is only difficult if you are firmly grounded in a reformed approach to eschatology.  But, since this is my blog I'll argue for my positions and let others argue for theirs in the comments or on their own blogs.   

I don't intend to exegete my eschatological views here, but I will tell of some of my experiences in the past when I have done so.

First I want to tell of how I became amil.  I came to Christ when I was 16 years old and was involved in Southern Baptist churches for about 15 years that taught from a strict dispensational premillennial viewpoint.  From time to time I was told that there other views out there but the only people who believed them were liberals (I'm not making that up, it is what was taught).  In my mid twenties I went off to seminary to prepare for ministry. At this time I was still Southern Baptist and held firmly to the dispensational premil viewpoint. My first seminary stint lasted about a year and a half and it occurred to me at some point during that time that if I was going to be a minister someone would probably ask me a question about the end times, so I better be able to explain it to them.

Up until that time I had sat through many sermons on the end times and seen enough end times charts to last a lifetime.  I never quite understood them, but because all conservative Christians believed this way I knew they were true and if I applied myself a little more the study of these matters I would understand them.

And so it happened at that time that I turned to John MacArthur.  In the circles I ran in at the time John MacArthur was revered about as much as catholics revere the pope.  It was not uncommon in those circles that, when a biblical or theological question came up, that someone would say "what does John MacArthur have to say about this?"  And I loved John MacArthur (still do!!).  He was then and is still today my favorite preacher and I think he is a model of what a preacher should be and do.
So, I somehow acquired a set of tapes he did on the end times.  It was something like 20, maybe even 30 tapes, so this wasn't a quick run through, it was very thorough.  I eagerly devoured those tapes over a period of a few weeks and paid close attention to them.  Now, by this time I had been in seminary for a bit and had come to know that there were some other views out there and that there were even people who claimed to believe the bible who believed them.  But I was still heavily predisposed in favor of the dispensational premil view, and especially so since my hero John MacArthur believed it.

After listening to the tapes I was pretty confused.  I can't remember everything I thought, but I remember one thought very clearly.  That thought was "I know this is true because John and every good Christian believes it, but I will never be able to convince anyone of this who doesn't believe it already."  I thought to myself that if I became a minister I hoped I never came across someone who was a critic of this view because I won't be able to defend this.

Sometime after that I came across the book The Meaning of the Millennium.  Although I wanted to believe it, my dispensational resolve had been weakened by listening to MacArthur so I was open to other viewpoints.  Reading this book was tremendously educational for me.  George Eldon Ladd argued the historic premil point of view, Lorraine Boettner argued the postmil view, Anthony Hoekema argued the amil view, and Herman A. Hoyt argued the dispensational premil view.  Curiously, in the years since then I have heard proponents of three of the positions say that the proponents of their postions did poor jobs representing themselves in the books - i.e. postmils faulting Boettner, dispensationalists faulting Hoyt and amils faulting Hoekema.  I think Ladd is the only one I haven't heard criticized from his own camp. 

In reading this book I was actually thrilled with Ladd, Hoekema and Boettner.  You have to understand the context of why I was so thrilled.  Remember, I was young and had always been taught that only liberals rejected the dispensational view.  Yet, Ladd, Boettner, and Hoekema, were obviously believers in the Bible, and they offered thorough Biblical exegesis of their positions. 

I came away from this book liking Boettner's presentation, but feeling that I just couldn't buy into postmillennialism.  I felt like I could accept either Ladd's historic premillennialism or Hoekema's amillennialism.  There was no way I could accept Hoyt's dispensationalism, though to be fair to my dispensationalist friends, I am aware that there are a fair number of dispensationalists who probably couldn't buy into it either. 

In reading this I got a better understanding of the prophetic/apocalyptic genre and how to understand and interpret the figurative elements of Scripture.

At this time I was still a good five to seven years away from embracing reformed theology as a whole and only later found out that Ladd, Boettner, and Hoekema fit within the reformed tradition.  At this point I just came to know that there were different ways of looking at eschatology than the one I had been taught.

But this reformed eschatology that I was learning had a couple of things going for it that were very persuasive.  First of all, it was based on the most basic and solid principle of hermeneutics and that is that Scripture interprets Scripture.

One of the key elements of the principle that Scripture interprets Scripture is that the clear interprets the unclear.  For most of my Christian life I had been trying to read and understand Revelation and Daniel's 70 weeks in a standalone fashion.  I think it was Hoekema who said that one of the keys to his position was that he interpreted the book of Revelation in light of the rest of Scripture, not the other way around. 

In other words, the book of Revelation is somewhat unclear, but throughout the Scripture there are many clear eschatological statements.  Rather than interpreting those clear passage in light of the unclear passages in Revelation, do it vice versa. 

This really sank in and over time as I learned more it moved me more and more into an amil position, though I still have a great respect for the postmil and historic premil positions.

In the intervening years I have studied and taught on this matter many times.  If you read The End Times Made Simple by Sam Waldron or The Returning King by Vern Poythress I think you will see that reformed eschatology is actually very simple and easy to understand.  Granted, the reformed position may be completely wrong, but I gotta tell you that I have never seen simpler presentations of eschatology than them.

In my opinion, and I'll try to be temperate and non-inflammatory in saying this, there is a difference between being hard to understand and hard to accept.  I have found that these things are just hard to accept for people who have been ingrained in decades of teaching on dispensationalism.

A typical scenario for me is this, at least in the church.  I teach my position and someone or a bunch of someones tell me I'm a loon.  After a few attempts to convince me I remain obstinate and obstreperous.  At that point they say that what you believe about the details of the end times is unimportant, as long as you believe that Jesus is coming back.  To some degree I accept this, I am not dogmatic at all about these matters, except when it comes to full preterism and flaming dispensationalism.  Though I'm arguing with dispensationalism here I get along with dispensationalists and recognize them as brothers and recognize that most of them have done far more for Jesus than I will ever do.  But it is also curious to me that it seems very important to lots of people what I believe about the end times when they engage me in the argument.  It only becomes unimportant once they can no longer convince me or answer my contentions.

I have found two major stumbling blocks for people who have been heavily grounded in dispensationalism.  The biggest stumbling block is their understanding of "literal" interpretation.  The idea of "literal" interpretation arose from the reformation, with its emphasis on sensus literalis,  which is to say that:

texts are to be read as language and literature according to the rules that ordinarily and appropriately apply to their usage and forms

But many people take a very straightjacketed approach to literalism which is closer to a sensus woodennes.

In one class I taught on eschatology my nemesis was a lady who was probably in her 60's or 70's who thought I was all wet and who questioned if I believed the bible.  At one point in the class I think we were talking about the locusts in Revelation and I was going through several potential understandings of the text.  We were about 10 or more weeks into the class and she had long since become exasperated with the drivel and error I had been trying to pass off as biblical teaching and on this day she had another meltdown and asked me why I just didn't take it literally, I suppose meaning that these were going to be literal locusts.

I too was exasperated with her and said that I didn't believe these were locusts for the same reason she didn't believe we were justified by works, though the bible clearly teaches this.  She gave me a dumbfounded look, as I am sure you are doing now, but I repeated to her that the bible very clearly and literally teaches that we are justified by works.  The rest of the class was also getting a little worried, this being a presbyterian church and all.  I then quoted James 2:24 to her:

You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.

The Holy Bible  : New International Version. 1996, c1984 . Zondervan: Grand Rapids

So I asked her if she believed that a person is not justified by faith alone.  She didn't.  I asked her why?  She fumbled around for a moment and I answered the question for her.  The reason she doesn't believe that we are justified by works and not by faith alone is that there are many other Scriptures that factor into her understanding of justification and that influence her understanding of this particular text.  She would not allow this text to stand on its own, but took the rest of the Scriptures into account when interpreting this text.

Similarly, the reformed do not let the book of Revelation and the 70 weeks stand on their own, we interpret them in light of the rest of Scripture.  And, we interpret them according to their genre, usage, forms, etc.. 

But my point is that one of the big stumbling blocks is a misunderstanding of what constitutes the sensus literalis.

A second reason that I have frequently seen for not accepting the reformed view of eschatology is that it contradicts the teaching of many well respected and beloved teachers.  In that same class I was teaching another lady hung with the class for several weeks and finally dropped out.  When I asked her why she said she couldn't answer my arguments, but she had been taught differently by a beloved pastor her whole life and couldn't bring herself to think that he was wrong.

Similarly, think of the icons of evangelicalism today.  The dispensational premillennial camp is represented by people like Billy Graham, John MacArthur, Chuck Swindoll, David Jeremiah, John Walvoord, Charles Ryrie and pretty much every radio preacher you can name.   On top of that, thousands upon thousands of churches across our land are led by godly and beloved pastors who are dispensational premillennial.  It just doesn't seem right that so many beloved and godly people could be wrong about this. 

I think that, for many, the reformed view of eschatology is hard to understand emotionally as much as intellectually.

At the same time, some of the older dispensationalists spoke of their opponents in less than helpful ways.  I am happy to say that this doesn't seem to be the case these days.  Although I will still hear laymen accuse you of not believing the bible if you don't hold to dispensationalism, I don't think dispensational pastors and scholars do this so much.

But I do remember reading one of those Christianity Today forums or roundtables or something like that several years ago where they brought in several folks from differing perspectives to discuss eschatology.  One of John Walvoord's famous quotes from that discussion was along the lines of "the trouble with amillennialists is that you can never know what they believe about the bible." 

In the context of the day, it was during the heat of the inerrancy debates, and so to question someone's view of the bible was a very serious matter.  It raised the ugly spectre of the "L" word - liberalism.  It was a perjorative comment that clearly put the onus on amillennialists to prove that they weren't liberals.

In fairness to Walvoord, he may have been partially right in the sense that it may be that many classic liberals were amillennialists.  But it painted with too broad a brush.  And unfortunately this kind of mentality has filtered down.  On more than one ocassion I and others who hold to non-dispensational views have been debating a point of eschatology when our opponent changes the argument to a discussion of our views on Scripture. This is similar to what the lady in my class did when I discussed various interpretations of the locusts - she questioned my commitment to Scripture.

I do think this has filtered down in evangelicalism so that, for many, there is an assumption that if you aren't dispensational, you might not believe the bible is the Word of God.

At the least there is a mentality that, if you don't believe in dispensationalism you are compromising.  Witness Tim LaHaye's disappointment in and chastisement of his publisher for publishing Hank Hanegraaff and Sigmund Brouwer's The Last Disciple.  LaHaye has called this book "nonsense."  It is apparent that there is no room for dialogue on eschatological views in LaHaye's world, if you aren't dispensational, then you believe in nonsense.

There is another reason that some won't accept reformed eschatology and that is because they have studied and found it wanting.  Maybe it is confusing in the sense that they are convinced we in the reformed camp have misinterpreted things.  I respect that and I know there are several of my fellow bloggers whom I love and respect who would take this view, just as there are many in the church at large whom I love and respect and who take this view.  Like I said before, John MacArthur is still my favorite preacher and he's a dispensationalist.  And I understand that though I am fully persuaded on these matters there are others who are far more studied than I am who aren't.

I also want to say that I'm not under the illusion that I have said anything definitive here.  I am sharing my experiences and observations.  In my experience, many who reject reformed eschatology do it for reasons that have nothing to do with thorough exegesis of all the relevant passages.

What I am hoping to do in this post is to say that I have heard good reasons for rejecting reformed eschatology and bad reasons.  Bad reasons for rejecting reformed eschatology are saying that we have done a terrible job exegeting the passages or are not understandable.  If you don't have the time to wade through some of the ponderous commentaries let me invite you to check out Steve Gregg's parallel commentary called "Revelation: Four Views."  In it you will see thoughtful exegesis of the book of Revelation from several perspectives, including the dispensational.  I think this book will give you a good feel for the nuances of interpretation and you will see that there are good exegetes in all camps who have come to differing conclusions. Thus, hopefully the word "terrible" won't be used as much to describe the exegesis of parties you disagree with.

And, as I mentioned before, I think if you read the books by Waldron and Poythress you will see that, far from being hard to understand, the reformed positions on eschatology are amazingly simple and easy to understand.  I would also say that they are amazingly biblical, but I know I won't convince everyone of this. 

And in conclusion, though you can see that I am amazingly opinionated in this matter I do offer this post in hopes of furthering dialogue.  As one of my old profs once said and as I have repeated often, I disagree with the dispensationalists, but by and large they love Jesus more than I do and have accomplished more for Christ than I ever will.  So though I am pigheaded about some of  these matters I am a friendly and respectful pig when it comes to my brothers on the other side of the issue.

Comments

[Mike]

Whether dispensationalists have accomplished or love Christ more than you, I do not know. Who can really say what another person's motives are and whether they are stockpiling wood, hay, and straw or gold, silver, and precious stones?

I do believe, however, that a more effective way of refuting "false teaching" is to simply teach truth and explain why one believes what they believe. As a dispensationalist - who eschews in-depth eschatological study - I can tell you that there are certainly problems with it as a theological system (for example, Ezekiel's temple and the re-introduction of animal sacrifice during the millenium). But a normal or literal reading of the Bible is rarely the cause of incorrect theology by careful theologians and little ol' ladies in the pew might not be representative of anyone's view.

[BTW, most Southern Baptists I know are amil - if they are anything at all. A dispensational Baptist is an oxymoron here in Texas - or, as my Baptist friends might say - simply a moron.]

What I typically run into, however, is a silly misrepresentation or straw man of dispensationalism that is then attacked and defeated. There are good, simple explanations of dispensationalism available (e.g., Ryrie's "Dispensationalism Today" that provide a basic introduction. Jumping into books like "Progressive Dispensationalism" or "Contemporary Dispensationalism" will leave you scratching your head.

In whatever discussion might ensue following your post, I do hope they can be conducted in a civil manner without name-calling from any of the camps. I don't think there's any need to dredge up unfortunate quotes from the past that reflect "ad hominem" attacks (this is not directed at you, David).

The primary thing to keep in mind, as far as I'm concerned, is that the study or reading of prophetic literature is intended to result in living holy lives. It is not for the purpose of charts, books, movies, or figuring out what - literally - God only knows. Most discussions I've heard usually just deal with the information without getting around to the application: get out of sin and seek the Lord.

I figure when I'm living a holy enough life that then I'll be in a good place to try to understand the depth of such prophetic writings. At the end of the day, though, what I believe about eschatology isn't going to change God's plans and purposes at all.

[Curt]

I have a masters in theology and consider myself well read on a variety of theological subject, but when I start hearing all the shorthand escatological phrases such as amil, premil, postmil, pretrib, etc., my eyes glaze over and my mind starts to wander (I'm not even sure I know what all the phrases mean).

As a result my eschatalogy is pretty much limited to "Christ will return to judge the living and the dead."

Is reformed eschatology hard to understand? In my opinion ALL eschatology is hard to understand.

[David Wayne]

Mike - agreed on all points. I think all sides of these debates tend to caricature one another and create straw men. And, thanks for the reminder about the purpose of studying eschatology.

I like a robust discussion of these things where we can get past the "well the details don't matter." Yet, we can do this without the name calling you talked about.

Several years ago Chuck Swindoll spoke at a Ligonier conference and he spoke of his admiration for and respect for R. C. Sproul then mentioned that they were far apart in many ways. He said that they save their best insults for one another.

I'm not saying that we ought to insult one another in these matters but this illustrates that you can have substantive disagreements while still being friends.

My motto in these discussions is that I am absolutely convinced I am right, and I am absolutely convinced I could be wrong. Thus, I'll argue my position strongly knowing I could be all wet and that even though I think someone else is all wet I still love them and respect them.

That really surprises me that all of those Baptists in Texas are amil. Where I come from in Florida I don't think I've ever met a non-premil Baptist.

Curt - "all eschatology is hard to understand" - grin ;-)

[Jeff Wright]

I consider myself to be a Progressive Dispensationalist and I want to respond to your question about whether or not the jury is still out on Progressive Dispensationalism. I am a second-year student at a (the?) bastion of Dispensationalism - Dallas Theological Seminary. I would say that the professors and students are evenly split between Classic Dispensationalism and Progressive. However, I believe the trend is moving more toward the adoption of Progressive Dispensationalism. The trend seems to be stronger amongst the students but there are a significant number of Progressive Dispensationalists throughout the faculty as well. You mentioned the common ground betweem PD and the Reformed view. Some speak of this as a good thing and others use that fact to belittle PD. Again, I think PD will become the predominant view with Dispensationalists in the near future. Thanks for the article.

[stan]

I turned to amil in the early 80s after having been raised dispensationalist. My journey mirrors yours. My point was that we have not done a good job of interpreting specific passages in scripture that deal with the Lord's return, especially the book of Revelation. I think that the recapitulation idea is a sound one but how much popular Christian literature is there that puts it out there for an average Christian to absorb and understand? It's on us to get the word out. I think that amil is a simple and beautiful and accurate interpretation of Scripture but we lack any works in a popular form that explain it to the average saint. Maybe the works that you suggest are different. I hope so. I love Hoekema's work and Ladd's but you'll search in vain to find very much specific exegesis of crucial passages. I think you're also aware that MacArthur has in the past called amil people "liberals". His intense opposition to this view fueled my desire to find out what he was so fired up about, as reading scripture was taking me more and more to amil.

[DEAN BERRY -- REAL AMERICAN]

ISN'T IT IRONIC THAT THE MOSLEMS AND THE NEOCOMMS WILL BE IN THE SAME HELL FOR ETERNITY? YOU ALL BETTER HOPE JESUS ISN'T REAL: http://www.deanberryministries.org/index7.html.

[BlackCalvinist]

Excellent blog entry. I may have to link to this. My eschatalogical journey, as yours, began in classic dispensationalism (my old pastor actually sat under Ryrie years ago). Around the tail end of the 1999, I began to question my traditional views. I ended up a bit MacArthuresque in my view (premill, pretrib, but without all of the other dispensationalist trappings). I also became a Calvinist around the same time period.

As I've grown more reformed in my thinking, I've been leaving more and more of traditional dispensationalism behind. I quietly migrated to progressive dispensationalism 2 years ago (still being premill, pretrib) and earlier this year, migrated again to covenant theology. I've recently been re-evaluating my eschatology as well so for now, I'm "stuck" at non-dispensational-close-to-historic-but-not-quite premill. There's only one issue I'm working through (which I'm inclined to believe the traditional dispy camp got right), which may be the timing of the rapture.

In any case, I never make eschatology a major issue anymore....as long as you're not a full preterist (then you're a heretic and an unbeliever, IMO) or one of the rabid dispy folks (i.e. - Peter and Paul Lalonde, John Hagee and others).

In any case, you'll be on the blogroll next update.

Soli Deo Gloria,
Kerry

[Brian]

Isn't it strange how most people tend to start out as dispensationalists and/or arminians?

AMDG

[Jason]

Wayne, good job on the article showing the progress of eschatological understanding. Let me raise an issue with one of your sentences.

"Though there are many differences among those in the reformed camp, one thing they all have in common is a rejection of the dispensational premillennial view, which is the most popular view today."

But wait a minute...Take a moment and think back to J.O. Buswell. If he doesn't come to mind, then give this important article a read.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3817/is_200112/ai_n9010162

Buswell proves that Covenant Theology and a Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil eschatology are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Of course, many of the factors of Dispensationalism must be dropped in order to be consistent with Covenant Theology, but the mix is possible.

For what it is worth, I am a Covnenat Theologian and a Calvinist who maintains that Pre-Trib, Pre-Mil is the best explanation and fit for my theology. Buswell blazed the trail. A-mil takes all of the exapansionism of the Scripture and curtails it, cuts it short. It is simply unacceptable to me that all of this history simply leads up to a wham! Christ comes, the end. There must be more to the story and every prophecy (Mark 13, Matthew 24-25, Luke 17, I and II Thess., and Rev.) seem to validate the point.

Let me conclude by saying I have not worked out all of the details to a degree I am comfortable with. However at this early stage of development I do feel comfortable with my view of Israel and the Church (strongly the Covenantal view, BUT maintains the possibility that God will work exclusively with ethnic Israel, BUT not to the degree that Classic Disp. teaches). There are tons of other issues as well, but I'll leave it there.

Again, thanks for the post.

[apostleJohn]

I see the problem as being that no one really lays out for the people in the pews what our eschatological theology is all about. That leaves the people in the pews left to getting their theology out of fiction works, such as the "Left Behind" series.

[Broken Messenger]

Dave,

Very interesting post. I'm pre-mill. pre-trib., but we can indeed still be friends? :o)

By the landscape around the church today, I thought this to be an impossibility....

Brad

[David Wayne]

Brad -

I love you

You love me

We're best friends as friend should be

With a great big

OK, I'll stop

[Jeff Downs]

This blog entry on titled "Two Dozen (or so) Orthodox Arguments Against Hyper-Preterism", by Paul Manata (posted 8/6/05) maybe of interest

http://presstheantithesis.blogspot.com/2005/08/two-dozen-or-so-orthodox-arguments.html

[ellen]

I figure when I'm living a holy enough life that then I'll be in a good place to try to understand the depth of such prophetic writings.

For me...that will be when I'm in heaven...

[Clive]

I've been Amil (by association) since birth. But the problem was I didn't know it. I didn't know what it meant. I never heard eschatology discussed or preached on so I didn't know what I believed about last things. That was the problem. Many in the Reformed camp, myself included, became "pan-millennialists" That is, "...it will all pan out in the end."
But Eschatology does matter. Pastors are supposed to preach the whole council of God right? They're supposed to "preach the Word" right? That means the whole Word, including last things. In fact Eschatology is central in all biblical revelation from creation on. As Geerhardus Vos put it; "...there is a whole chapter of eschatology recorded before the fall into sin..."
I think part of the reason we the Reformed have been so ignorant about eschatology is because it often stuffed into the back of our books on reformed dogmatics or systematic theology.
But lately the Reformed are well expressing their views and it's causing quite a stir.(This discussion is proof).
I decided about 4 years ago (in reaction) to figure out what the Historic Reformed view is. All I had been told prior was "We don't believe in that secret rapture stuff" or that "so-and-so is a Golden ager and we don't buy into that."
I remain Amil because to me it makes the most sense in light of the entire history of revelation. I am Amil because it's the only view that doesn't get refuted by the Historic creeds and confessions. I am Amil because it's an eschatology of comfort, victory, and hope. I am Amil because it fits best with the infallible rule for the interpretation of scripture, that is, Scripture interprets Scripture. To me, other systems view too many texts in isolation. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. You may not see it that way. Most of my dear friends do not see these things the way I do. But instead of arguing we find our common ground in the shed blood of Jesus Christ. If you confess the 5 solas we have everything in common.

[Bobby]

I too am a progressive dispensationalist. I grew up under classical disp. and am a graduate of Multnomah Bible College and Multnomah Biblical Seminary (MA BS). Multnomah is also, like DTS, a staunch dispensationalist school. Historically, of course, they have been classical--but I would say, by and large, most faculty (college and seminary) are progressive (and much of the faculty are DTS grads from the old school). Anyway, like Mike I would say I see the future of disp. being PD.

While a difficult task, I believe, to say, it's just to difficult (understanding millenial approaches) is not the way to go here--even in the name of living holy (maybe this is pastoral theology). The way one views eschatology is framework through which they will, hermeneutically, read the Bible (i.e. Israel/Church distinction). I argue against establishing, as many reformed interpreters do, a "New Testament" hermeneutic. If interested in this article you can access it here:http://affectiveforchrist.blogspot.com/2005/07/myt
h-of-finding-new-testament.html

I'd like to comment more, but time constraints, hopefully I'll make it back later to interact further. Thanks

[Brian]

Ellen,

Thanks for that link!

I wrote a few things on the issue a while back after discussing it with a brother in Christ (who is a full preterist).

http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/13/full-preterism-creeds/
http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/13/face-to-face-1-corinthians-1312/
http://www.pantokrator.org/2005/07/14/preterism-continuation/

[Marla]

Until I can research "progressive dispensationalism" (sounds very intriguing), I'm with John MacArthur in the "leaky dispensationalist" camp. That's how he refers to himself :) Being Jewish by birth, I read the Scriptures about Israel in the OT and NT as very personal promises to a stubborn people who were so hated by the enemy that they endured a holocaust. It's not a coincidence that Jews and Christians have both been persecuted so heavily...

[Rey]

Pre-Mil Dispensationalist Non-Calvinist here (gingerly waves hand and prepares to duck).

I don't think the Left Behind series was the thing that convinced (confused) folk that Dispensationalism is right (or wrong). You probably can attribute it to earlier movements but booksales within the last three years? nah.

Personally I like hearing other eschatological POV's and reading the material. I am happily convinced in my position and stand tall with the rest of the so called Plymouth Brethren patting Darby on the back and yet am completely open in sharing my suspicion....and it is this: Jesus will come, fulfill all that what was promised and many (if not all) will be surprised on how exactly it all pans out.

There you have it. Don't let the cat out of the bag and tell my Dispy brethren my nagging suspicion. And if you do I'll tell them "Yes, we're all be wrong in many details but the Premil Dispy's will be less wrong than others." heh heh.

::ducks::

[Glenn Piper]

I am pre-mill and post trib.
That for me is the plainest reading of scripture. Why anyone thinks we (Christians) will miss out on the tribulation is a complete mystery to me. God says He will shorten the tribulation because of the Elect, well if the Elect aren't there, why shorten it?
Let me quickly state that none of this would stop me fellowshipping with someone who had a different veiw on this.
Amill is actually the least likely. Too many scriptures twisted to make them fit and this is supposed to be the world with Satan confined, I don't think so.

[Glenn Piper]

I am pre-mill and post trib.
That for me is the plainest reading of scripture. Why anyone thinks we (Christians) will miss out on the tribulation is a complete mystery to me. God says He will shorten the tribulation because of the Elect, well if the Elect aren't there, why shorten it?
Let me quickly state that none of this would stop me fellowshipping with someone who had a different veiw on this.
Amill is actually the least likely. Too many scriptures twisted to make them fit and this is supposed to be the world with Satan confined, I don't think so.

[Clive]

Satan "bound" does not mean inactive. It means that his activity is restricted here in the millennium. It means that he can’t stop the Gospel from going forth, he is being restrained from exercising all that he is capable of exercising.
Think of Christ after He withstands the temptation of Satan in the wilderness - he emerges proclaiming "The Kingdom of God is at hand" Satan's activity has been restricted - the reign of Christ with the elect begins. The Kingdom has come, Satan is bound.
Think of Christ's words to the Seventy-Two (Luke) after they came to him saying "even the demons are subject to us" - He responds with: "I have given you authority to trample serpents...nothing will hurt you." Satan is bound.
And again in Luke, Jesus says (in so many words) that in order to pillage the house of a strong man - one must first bind the strong man. Christ has bound Satan and here in the millennium he is being pillaged - the gospel is prosperous while he is restrained.
Paul, in II Thessalonians 2 calls this present age a time of restrained lawlessness.
Bound does not mean inactive – it means restrained. But as Paul, John, and Christ Himself tell us – there will be a brief period wherein Satan is let loose (Revelation), Lawlessness will be unrestrained (II Thessalonians), and there will be great tribulation – the days of which are shortened for the sake of the elect (Matt. 24).

There are some great reformed amillennial audio sermons at this site: http://www.trinityurc.net/sermons.htm

(Eschatology at the top right - Revelation at bottom left)

Great discussion everyone!

[Secret Rapture]

My Inaugural Address at the Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead.

At: http://www.angelfire.com/crazy/spaceman/

eschatology,End Times,second coming,rapture,secret rapture,Second Resurrection,Great White Throne Judgment of the Dead,
End of days,Day of the Lord,Endtime,Judgment Day

[BJ Edenfield]

Partial preterist, post-mil here...the debate was over for me after reading "Before Jerusalem Fell" and "Beast of Revelation" by Ken Gentry and after listening to many lectures and sermons on the subject. I have a blog to see wether or not you are a Dispy at "menofathens.blogspot.com"

[Jeff]

You set up a straw man argument with the lady in your Sunday School class. Why do you think baffling this poor woman proves your position on eschatology?

You play on the semantics of the word justification in James 2:24. If Jesus came to fulfill the law, then we are justified, as opposed to condemned, by His blood and by extension the law He fulfilled. Following this reasoning, our works are then governed by our Faith in Jesus and the law He fulfilled.

By no means does James cheapen Faith.

Don't let your position be clouded by weak arguments in Sunday School.

Jeff B