I don't know that I am going to try and recreate the wheel regarding the distinctives of historic premillenial eschatology. It seems that many other brothers far more educated than I have labored to create charts showing the disctinctives of the various eschatological systems. I will provide links to the best ones that I ran across below and then provide some clarifying comments.
Here is one from Fide-O's blog
Here is a nice overview created by Kim Riddlebarger
Here is probably the most detailed one from Reformed Reader
Here are some nice timeline charts created by Mark Vander Pol
One thing that you will notice as you look through the various charts and graphs is that there is disagreement among them regarding the question of rebuilding the temple in Israel. Because George Eldon Ladd is the undisputed forerunner in this century on Historic Premillenialism I decided to let him have the last say on the temple issue. In his book An Eschatology for Laymen Ladd writes:
Before we leave the millennial question, we should note another form premillennialism has taken, that of Dispensationalism. This is probably the most popular form of premillennialism in America. It holds that the millennium is primarily for the Jews. Israel will be restored to her land, will rebuild the temple, and will reinstitute the Old Testament sacrificial system. At this time all of the Old Testament prophecies about Israel as a nation will be fulfilled literally. This is deduced from the conviction that God has two distinct and separate peoples:Israel and the Church, with two different programs and different blessings. God's program for Israel is theocratic and earthly; God's purpose for the church is universal and spiritual.
Although he was brought up in this theology, the present author can no longer accept it. The reader is referred to chapter two of this book where the future of Israel is discussed. Hebrews 8 says clearly that the age of types and shadows -- the Old Testament cultic system -- has been abolished since the reality pictured in the cult has come in Christ. Romans 11 says clearly that Israel as a people are to be saved, but in the same terms of faith in Christ as the church. Today the church is spiritual Israel, and literal Israel is yet to be regrafted back into the olive tree and be included in the true Israel of God. Therefore, it is impossible to view the millennium as primarily Jewish in character.
After the millennium when the Age to Come has been inaugurated, John sees a new heaven and a new earth, unto which the holy city, the new Jerusalem, descends. Here is an important fact: the ultimate scene of the Kingdom of God is earthly. It is a transformed earth to be sure, but it is still an earthly destiny. Scripture everywhere teaches this. Paul says that "the creation itself will be set free from bondage to decay and obtain the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom. 8:21) . Corresponding to the new creation is the resurrection of the body, discussed in another chapter of this book.
I also thought that this link from Spurgeon.com was interested regarding where they thought he came down on the eschatological issues.
This has been a great discussion and I hope that the sharpening can continue.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi Greg,
Of course I am still behind. From your second post titled, An Overview of historical Premillennial Eschatology – Part 2, I read this “Ladd was not dispensational but his understanding of the already/not yet aspect of the kingdom of God played a large role in the inception of progressive dispensationalism”. Is this “all ready not yet” view different from the Amil, “all ready inaugurated Kingdom, not yet consummated kingdom”?
Also, I was thinking that post-millennialism was the majority report among the puritans.
jAson
Jason,
I think that they already is exactly this same, that it was inaugurated at the first advent, obviously the not yet is different, regarding how/when the kingdom is consummated. I do think it is fair to say that the overarching already/not yet concept though would be very consistent at its core with the amill position.
You’re probably right about the Puritans, I really didn’t get into that much in the post or in my study. Main point was just that they didn’t interpret the millennium literally. Do you think it was hard core D. James Kennedy postmillennialism or do you think it was more optimistic amillenialism?
I’m not really sure about how the post-millennialism of the puritans would have manifested itself culturally. Of course they had a very different world to apply it to than Kenney does. That would be an interesting historical study though…what about witches?!? I think Don Kistler has done a good deal of work with the puritans, maybe he would be a good resource. In any case, I couldn’t imagine they were as extreme as Kennedy. I respect Kennedy for many things, but it seems as though he has abandoned his people regarding the general topic of his messages…at least what we are privy to through TV and the radio.
jAsOn
It is interesting isn't it, how one's eschatology can really have such a negative impact on the overall ministry.
Because Kennedy is trying to usher in the kingdom he has seemingly abandoned exegesis and exposition and is trying to usher in the kingdom by cultural change.
The same thing happens to those who embrace the extreme semi-pelagian dispensational eschatology. They are watering down the gospel and trying to spray it on as many as possible b/c "you never know when the trumpet will sound", and they don't want anyones "blood on their hands".
Post a Comment