A Defense of (Reformed) Amillennialism
Well, I found it. I've been looking for a couple of weeks for a comprehensive and free online article which refutes postmillennialism from an amillennialist perspective. The two views (postmil and amil) have been of interest to me ever since I realized that inserting thousand-year gaps of time into the biblical prophetic timetable in order to support a wooden literal interpretation of apocalyptic literature (dispensational premillenialism) is not a good hermaneutic.
Up until this evening, I have been a dedicated believer in partial preterism, but after reading relavent parts of the page linked above, I'm not so sure about Matthew 24 anymore. And I've always had doubts about the postmillenial promises of world domination by Christians. Clearly, the postmillenial optimism is undergirded by the partial preterist interpretation of Matthew 24. If the tribulation was over and done with in AD 70, most of the gloom and doom passages in the New Testament can be explained away. But if Jesus was really using AD 70 as a picture of his future coming, much of the trials and tribulations predicted can be expected today.
The main problem I have with amillennialism is that it seems to propogate the same sacred-secular dichotomy that is common among evangelicals today. Christ's kingdom is spiritual, so His Word only applies to spiritual things in the here and now? I don't think that this is exactly the amil position, however I'm having trouble squaring my presuppositionalism (assumption of an all-encompassing Christian worldview is critical) with the limited nature of Christ's kingdom in the amil position. I need to keep reading and studying.
Can I be a theonomist amillennialist?
***
Thank you Lord for the time to study these things. May I know You better because of it. Remind me to rely upon Your Word as the final source of truth. Give me wisdom to rightly divide your Word. And, especially this week, help me to focus on the central point of all history: the death and resurrection of Your Son. Thank you for loving me that much.
1 comment:
Dear Paul,
There is no way a post like this shouldn't have comments or eprops. Thank you for thinking about this, and putting your thoughts up for us to see.
Hm, as a premillenialist and non-Dispensationalist myself, I don't think that inserting thousands of years here and there to make the calendar look right is necessary. Not all premillenialists argue for the period sort of structure!
Although I'd absolutely love to discuss more about this with you, there are a lot of papers that have to be written for school right now. Know, however, that your writings are appreciated!
Sincerely,
Thomas
Post a Comment