Good web page on dispy, pre, a, postmill positions

[rgrove]

www.fivesolas.com/esc_chrt.htm

There's been some question on what the different conservative, evangelical systems of eschatology are. This site doesn't try to prove any one of them with scripture. But it gives a pretty straightforward overview of each. I should think it would be helpful for someone who may not have ever been exposed to the discussion before. I think it's about as even handed as you're going to find (especially since it's an excerpt from Kim Riddlebarger, an Amillenialist, who has written a book on the topic and written many eschatology articles for the alliance of confessing evangelicals and other periodicals). Bibliographies are okay, but could use an update in my opinion. I don't know how old the synopsis is so that may have some impact.

I'm still looking for a good, general, straightforward premill definition for the definitions page. I'll try to find one tonight. I think I'll break out dispensationalism from historic premillenialism, however. There are too many differences to lump them in the same group (and many historic premills get upset by being grouped with dispensationalists).

In Christ,
Ron

[Soulfyre]

I think these are largely good definitions. They are precise, and as reasonably even-handed as may be expected by a proponent of amillennialism. However, it is impossible not to note the authors bias. He states "Amillennialism has always been the majority position of the Christian family." That this is not the fact is clear from his second statement, " It was first articulated by St. Augustine...". In fact, during much of the time prior to Augustine, one might argue that "historic premillennialism" was in fact either predominant, or in equal acceptance. It was the tension between Hebraistic and Hellenistic believers, as well as the development of an allegorical approach to Biblical interpretation, which allowed the complete shift of God's promises to Israel to the church (viewing the church as the true "Israel of God"). Also, antiquity alone does not necessarily argue for accuracy. Although it certainly should bear some weight (giving our own assumptions immediate precedence is, to some extent, a product of our modern rationalism), there are also valid reasons for the growth of dispensationalism, not the least of which is the apparent distinction Paul appears to make between Jew and Gentile in Romans 9-11. I hope to have much more discussion of hermeneutics, tradition, and eschatology.

God bless you always,

Matthew (soulfyre)

[rgrove]

Soulfyre said:

I think these are largely good definitions. They are precise, and as reasonably even-handed as may be expected by a proponent of amillennialism.

The page doesn't give his bias, but I felt it is an important thing to note...

However, it is impossible not to note the authors bias. He states "Amillennialism has always been the majority position of the Christian family." That this is not the fact is clear from his second statement, " It was first articulated by St. Augustine...". In fact, during much of the time prior to Augustine, one might argue that "historic premillennialism" was in fact either predominant, or in equal acceptance.

I find most proponents try and arbitrarily take church history onto their side regardless of any facts that may confront them. I've even seen a dispy book that tried to identify Augustine as an early dispensationalist. My personal research has shown me that there are very few quotes to go on, but the ones that are available demonstrate premill understanding, but acknowledge that there are others "of the true and orthodox faith" that disagree. He also gets heavily involved in the tug of war between amills and postmill as to who was what before the terms were coined. Considering both positions are technically postmill (the both have Christ coming after a millenial period), it gets very thorny because they never directly discussed many things that are points of division today. Doctrine develops over time as new controversies occur. Too many people lose sight of that and try to import too many historical figures into their fold. Needless to say I've disagreed with some of his assessments as to who was what when we apply current distinctives to historical figures as well.

In Christ,
Ron