Bobby Grow, over at The Stumbling Block wrote a post on what he sees as the strong points of Amillennialism as he continues to weigh Amillennialism and and Progressive Dispensationalism (Article: Amillennialism… Closer Than Ever). The following are those points, quoted from the article linked:
- It is highly Christocentric, sense[sic] it makes Christ the center of all the biblical covenants (even the “Land” covenant or Siniatic)
- It notes the universal scope of the Abrahamic Covenant (as key) to interpreting the rest of the biblical covenants
- It sees salvation history oriented to a person (Christ), instead of a people (the nation of Israel)
- It emphasizes continuity between the “people of God” (Israel and the Church are one in Christ Eph. 2:11ff)
- It provides an ethic that is rooted in creation, and “re-creation” (continuity between God’s redemptive work now, carried over into the eternal state then)
- It emphasizes a trinitarian view of God as it elevates the “person”, Christ Jesus, the second person of the trinity as the point and mediator of all history
- It flows from a hermeneutic that takes seriously the literary character of the Scriptures (esp. the book of Revelation)
RSS/XML Feed:
Email:
Bryan,
thanks for the link. I have grown up in a classic dispensational pastors home, been trained in theology and exegetical studies at staunch premil dispy schools (Multnomah Bible College and Multnomah Biblical Seminary) . . . and I would still “label myself” as a premil progressive dispy—although I’m leary of the emphasis that dispyism provides on the “nation” instead of the “person” as I noted in my points that you highlight here. I’m thinking though that prog. dispyism holds, like amil, the Davidic cov. as a central plank and “progression” on the Abrahamic cov., if so, the Davidic cov., which of course is related to the son of David, Christ . . . in this sense it would seem that prog. dispyism is equally focused on Christ. Just some thoughts, thinking out loud. I’m thinking that a better label, and construct that I’m gravitating toward is “historic premillenialism”—we’ll see.
In Christ
Good Stuff. I’ll be using these quite a bit in the near future.
However, I would add another important feature of our hermeneutic. It considers the inspired writers of the New Testament to be the interpretative authority on Old Testament prophecy. It never ceases to amaze me how many premillennialists will adamantly reject this. Time and again, they state, “I refuse to use the New Testament to interpret Old Testament prophecy”. Instead, they insist on asking, “How would the Jews have understood Old Testament Prophecy?” My response: They didn’t. Jesus said that they were blind leaders of the blind. Why would a Christian want to follow that?
PL,
You hit the nail pretty squarely on the head there. Great point.