And I too believe that dispy eschatology is in some degree a knee-jerk reaction to some (and relatively few when all of the 2000 years since Christ is considered) Covenant guys, with a “literal” hermeneutic which does lead to interpretations that do not allow for NT passages that insist on a contrary interpretation.

Best Wishes, the curmudgeonly pastor

I look forward to hearing more of your explanation of pre-mil and what you think a-mil teaches. You have a good weekend as well.

In all these posts, I am seeing alot of confusion about the pre-mill and a-mill views. But as I said, I am going to hold off in giving a response. I will probably send something very lengthy after Memorial Day weekend. Talk to you then- have a nice weekend.

Eric

Below is a quote from former dispy, presently Amil guy, Sam Storms. He is describing dispy/premil, let me know if this is what you believe about premillennialism.

“To be a Premillennialist of any sort, you must believe that physical death and the curse on the natural creation will continue to exist beyond the time of Christ’s return. You must believe that the New Heavens and New Earth will not be introduced until 1,000 years subsequent to the return of Christ. You must believe that unbelieving men and women will still have the opportunity to come to saving faith in Christ for at least 1,000 years subsequent to his return. To be a Premillennialist, you must believe that unbelievers will not be finally resurrected until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return and that unbelievers will not be finally judged and cast into eternal punishment until at least 1,000 years subsequent to Christ’s return.”

And I would add, that to be a premillennialist you must believe that all the OT prophesies of a future millennial temple must be physical, erected in physical Jerusalem prior to the renewal of the New Heavens and Earth, and that all the OT ceremonial laws (sacrifices, feasts, sabbaths, and circumcision) will all be observed, and in fact, one in that age must become a physical Jew prior to their justification by God for salvation.

Though our hermeneutical presuppositions (and all of us must admit that we are forced to come to the scriptures with some assumptions) are the architecture by which we understand the Word in an organized fashion, premil, postmil, or amil is a conclusive detail that points back to the way we interpret scripture.

One more clarification on the definition of “A”-millennialism. I have, until now, assumed that everyone in the discussion knows that “amils” do believe in a millennialism, even though the term connotes that we believe in NO millennium, this is not true. It would be better understood as Anthony Hoekema and others have put it, as realised millenialism, with an emphasis on the “already” and the “not yet”. That Christ inaugurated the Kingdom at His first coming and He will consummate it at His second; so I can say that the Kingdom of God/Heaven began to intrude upon His creation at Christs birth and will be ultimately and finally realized when Christ returns in all His glory.

Perhaps our definitions of expert differ.

I’m aware that the issue revolves around hermeneutics. I think John 8:39-59 clearly shows unbelieving, ethnic Jews as not having Abraham as their father in the spiritual sense. On the one hand Jesus calls them the sons of abraham (physically in v.37) but He goes on to call them the children of Satan, and proclaim that they are not the Sons of Abraham (spiritually v.39).

So this description is, to one degree or another, apt for all unbelievers in any age, even unbelieving, ethnic Jews today..that’s why they need the same gospel everyone else needs, which I’m sure you would agree.

I will show you why I disagree about your view of some of those passages you mentioned as well as some other issues. But at this point, I am not going to send a superficial response. I am going to hold off for a few days- I have some work that involves alot of time. And let me say this- this entire issue does involve hermeenutical issues- it does take some expertise. I will get back to you. Thanks and God bless.

Eric

I’m not sure about your referrence to Hank…I don’t think I mentioned him. It was the Sam Waldron and Horner mp3s on Iron Sharpens Iron that I was recommending, and Waldron’s responses to Horner’s book on the Illumination blog, and the “reformed Readers’” post of Edward’s work. I think Arnsen said he read Hanegraff and Horner’s books at the same time?

Actually, Amils don’t say that the Church has replaced Israel since Israel failed to uphold the Mosaic Covenant, they say that all the promises of the AC are fulfilled in the NC. I think it is very clear that the NT interprets the OT for us, and I also am convinced that the dispy/premil model is wrong b/c of such passages as these: Rom. 2:25-29; 9:6-8; Gal. 3:29, 6:16; Eph. 2:11-22,1 Peter 2:8-10, and much of the book of Hebrews. We, gentiles, are made a part of the same body of believers as the remnant of Israel (Gal 3:29 calls us Abraham’s offspring, and 6:16 calls us part of the Israel of God)there has only ever been one Israel of God, and we are grafted into that body and made near to those promises from which we were once far off…we have not replaced the remnant.

Amils don’t have an allegorical method of interpretation (Horner’s use of calling it an “Augustinian hermeneutic is a bit of an historical anachronism). One of the primary emphases of the covenantal hermeneutic is to allow the NT writer to inform our understanding of OT passages, so the gramatical/historical interpretation of the OT prophesy for instance is often added to by the NT interpretation which gives its fulfillment additional meaning in the context of the NC.

Though I claim no expertise in any field or system of hermeneutics, I was once a staunch “Ryrie-type” Dispensationalist.

Also, do you believe that Christ fulfilled all the OT types and shadows; the cultic rituals (sacrifices, feasts, and sabboths) of the OT?