Comments on: Developing Thoughts on Eschatology

By: Steve Rives

Steve Rives — Sat, 10 Oct 2009 15:59:37 +0000

Just read Greg Beale or Meredith Kline and the transformation will be complete!

By: Josh C

Josh C — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:57:45 +0000

I understand that bounce! For me one of the big hermenuetical issues for those torn between the two is whether chapter 20 of Revelation concludes or begins a cycle in Revelation. If it begins a brand new section (I tend to hold to some kind of recapitulation), then amillennialism makes sense. However, most days I see chapter 20 as continuing the same thread as 19, especially in how it senses the devil’s final overthrow in 20:10 as an additional and concluding stage over the initial victory over the beasts in 19 at the parousia.

The nice thing is, the early church seemed to bounce between these two options as well, at least until Augustine became the only voice in the discussion for 1000 years or so. So we’re in good company!

By: Doug

Doug — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 15:54:14 +0000

Thanks Josh…I bounce between Hist. Premill. and Amill. as well. I do tend to lean more toward the Amill.

By: Josh C

Josh C — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 03:23:20 +0000

Hey, we had a class or two together at MBTS.

I grew up in the pre-trib, pre-mill, pro-nukes camp, but a class in hermeneutics pushed me away.

What would you call someone who is historical pre-mil 5 days a week, amillennial 2, who believes that the age of toil in the world from the time of first century on is the figurative 3 1/2 year tribulation, who views antiChrist as a general type (but won’t be surprised if there is an ultimate form of the Type at the very end), and on his historical pre-mill days still views the 1000 years as a symbolic number for a long earthly reign of Christ (I don’t imagine there will be a giant clock counting down from 1000 years for sure!).

Maybe if I had a chart, I could figure out my own eschatology! But it’s nice to hear others are thinking hard and not firmly settled on these issues too.