In recent months I have gone through a great transformation in the eschatology I now embrace. It is not that I have once been a staunch dispensationalist and have suddenly done a u-turn. But it is more accurate to say that I was once completely ignorant as to what the various options of eschatology were, and as I studied hard to find the truth on this matter, I have now fully embraced covenant theology, and stand firmly in the reformed amillennialist camp.
To be honest, when I first began to look at this theology, I kept fleeing because of fearing it to be some sort of heretical departure to the standard theology of the Church. I had accepted the labels of “replacement theology” and “Roman Catholic theology” that were firmly covering it by the dominant dispensationalists that I was surrounded by. However I have come to realise recently that this couldn’t be further from the truth.
If I were to attempt to try and offer some sort of rebuttal against the accusations against amillennialism, as much as I now fully embrace it, I’m sure it would be more than a little messy to say the least. Therefore I will be making a series of posts containing the audio from a group of lectures given by Dr. Kim Riddlebarger, who in my opinion is an excellent mouthpiece for reformed amillennialism, but is also extremely gracious to those who oppose the theology.
The following audio message explains what amillennialism actually is, and is well worth listening. I would also highly recommend his book called “A Case for Amillennialism“.
One final thing I would like to point out is that although I openly embrace amillennialism as my own eschatology, it is not necessarily the same for all at Faith Defenders, nor many of the ministries linked to through our website. Therefore although I would very much like to create a strong argument in favour of amillennialism through some of the posts I make here, I am not against others making their own case for alternative eschatological views, providing it is done so graciously and based upon Scriptural arguments.
PDF No related posts.
Greetings,
Thanks for sharing this. I also underwent a journey but I landed on the premil, pretrib side. I see things in a dispensational light even though I would not say that I am a dispensationalist because I have never been taught dispensationalism per se. I gathered my views by self study of the Bible.
The OT covenant and NT covenant are clearly different; therefore, we have dispensations…that is not really arguable. There are others but let’s not go in that direction here. I see the amil point of view as an old covenant type of “I’ll protect you as you go through” type of point of view. Also, Amil people flip a really large switch to spiritualize much of Rev. Knowing how and when to flip this switch is critical to amil working out. Tricky to say the least.
I see the rapture as a new covenant type of deal. Once God is done with evangelizing for the sake of calling His elect then the church is gone. We see John being translated to Heaven and the church is already there. Rapture? Yes, in my mind. Also the wording used in Rev 3 and 7 indicate a keeping safe via removal as opposed to seeing us through the trib.
Anyway, this is what I see. I’m not trying to change your mind but offering what I have seen. Many Ph.D.s sell books all of the time. Some are good and others not so much. I have not read the book you mention but I have read some of Roddlebarger’s stuff. He is knowledgeable but does not convince me. Does it matter? Not really. Our mandate is to take the gospel to the world. Thanks for listening. I like much of your site.
Truthy
Hi Truthy,
I know I’ve seen your name knocking around on some other blogs I regularly visit, but can’t remember which? But thanks for your comments, they are appreciated.
You mentioned falling on the side of dispensationalism through personal study, and not being taught it per se. I can relate to this fully, as it has been the complete opposite for me. I wouldn’t have known the difference between an amillennialist and a dispensationalist if they smacked me in the face a year or so ago!
The reason for my stance is that I realise that dispensationalism is taught, not necessarily in an outright fashion, but more so having an attitude that simply assumes it is correct within the congregation. The fact that much of this system is built upon isolated texts of the Bible, and then further doctrine built upon that, makes the whole thing a house of cards to me.
When my first doubts began to emerge concerning a pre-tribulation rapture many years ago, it caused me to dig deeper into this doctrine, but led me to just as much a place of confusion as when I began. The reason being is that it is the underlying system itself that demands much of the doctrine built upon it to be true. Then when those things are challenged, it is dealt with by suggesting that the underlying system is true, and therefore the doctrines built upon it must be also. It is a vicious circle that one must step out of as a whole in order to see the truth.
I appreciate your honesty, and I fully agree with your Gospel mandate, and if that is where you want to leave it, as you’ve suggested, then I am perfectly happy to do so. However there is one thing I must approach before I close this reply:
You make a pretty large and sweeping accusation against much of reformed theology by the accusation of wrongful interpretation of Scripture. It is the analogy of faith, set in place by those of a reformed view, that is the safeguard against wrongful interpretation of Scripture. Not only that, but it is a safeguard that dispensationalism overlooks wherever it sees fit. On one hand it trumpets the merits of literal interpretation, and on the other it reads things into the text that are at times quite embarrassing to be honest.
If you honestly believe that the book of Revelation is to be read in a chronologically linear, and literal sense, as the claim of dispensationalism, then you have enormous problems. For example, when the reformed interpret the text of Revelation, it is viewed as varying perspectives of the outworking of history between the two advents of Christ. It is not “spiritualizing” as you wrongly claim, but it is reading the text in the context it was written. Then further parallel passages of a more clear nature are sought out to bring clarity to the prophetic perspective found in the original text. This is why the book of Revelation makes much sense to those of a reformed perspective, for it fits clearly with the revelation of the other New Testament writings, rather than being interpreted through the lens of the Old Testament.
On the other hand, premillennial dispensationalism is built upon an isolated text in a highly allegorical book of the Bible (Revelation 20), concerning an earthly 1000 millennial reign of Christ, that flies in the face of the revelation of other New Testament writings that talk of His second coming. Not only that, it demands that much of Old Testament prophecies containing promises to Abraham, David and Israel are yet to be fulfilled, because it refuses to accept the fulfillment of these promises in Christ Himself. And to suggest otherwise, in the light of many Scriptures suggesting the forming of One body from the Jews and Gentiles, the card of “replacement theology” is shown. This could not be further from the truth.
God bless,
John
This is funny because I see the reformed people doing what you see the dispensational people doing…reading their own bias into their interpretation. From my standpoint, it is pretty clear what is to be interpreted literally and what is allegory. And, yes, I do believe that there are large problems with reformed theology when it comes to eschatology. You guys make sweeping assumptions also and, without these assumptions, your house collapses as well.
Oh well. One day we will all know for sure.
Thanks and have a blessed Christmas.
Amillenialism is nothing more than a law based theological system. I think some historical understanding is important to help me clarify what I mean:
Origen (185-254AD) et al when in Alexandria developed a system of Biblical interpretation based on allegory. Origen was greatly influenced by pagan Greek philosophy and tried to integrate this into their Christian theology. Accordingly, all physical matter was seen to be inherently evil, thereby rejecting the idea of a literal earthy, millennium with physical blessings.
Then, Augustine (354-430AD) (who started out as a premillennist used Origen’s method of interpretation to explain away some of the more supernatural sections of Scripture (including a literal 6 day creation and a literal, earthly return of Christ). In what is arguably his most famous book, The City of God, Augustine teaches that the Church is the Messianic Kingdom and that the Millennium began with Christ’s first advent. Augustine’s teaching continued to be the standard view of organized Christendom until the 17th century. Occasionally premillennial groups challenged that doctrine through out the dark ages, but they were a small voice compared to the powerful Roman Catholic church.
When the reformers broke away from the Roman Catholic church, they carried a lot of Roman Catholic teachings with them – Amillenialism is one of them.
A big part of Amillennial teaching is that the Church has replaced Israel. You can’t really have Amillenial Theology without Replacement Theology. This is where a whole bunch of other doctrines in the church have come from – infant baptism, for example, came from the belief that it is a replacement for circumcision. According to Replacement Theology, the church is the new Israel, so where Israel has the sign of circumcision on the 8th day so the church has the sign of infant baptism. The justification for infant baptism, priesthood offering the sacraments, the mass, high church liturgy, incense burning and a whole string of other practises comes from the idea that the church has replaced Israel in God’s scheme of salvation. My point is that Amillennial Theology promotes a doctrine of law rather than grace. (This doesn’t mean that all Replacement Theologians practise infant baptism and no dispensationalists do.) My point is that the justification for these practises are rooted in the understanding that the church has replaced Israel. Whilst some evangelicals reject infant baptism and the mass – they haven’t been as discerning when it comes to eschatology.
I don’t know if you even read my post or listened to the audio, but what I’m trying to do is put forth the truth what amillennialism believes. The comments you’ve made about replacement theology and romanism, are precisely the same I had once held too.
For your information I believe Roman Catholicism to be complete heresy, and agree fully that they hold to replacement theology also, but this is completely different to reformed amillennialism. Roman Catholics believe their church is the kingdom of God on the earth, as far as I’m aware, and fully replace the nation of Israel as God’s chosen people.
Reformers however don’t believe the church replaced Israel, but rather the mystery of the Gospel is that provision was made to graft into Israel, the elect from all nations. From Paul’s statements in the book of Romans concerning ethnic Israel, many reformed believe that the grafting in of the gentiles leads to provoking ethnic Israel to jealousy, that after the full number of Gentiles have been brought in, God will open the eyes of the Jews once more to be saved in great number prior to the return of Christ.
Reformers however don’t believe the church replaced Israel,
erm … Although many of the early Reformers and Puritans (including John Calvin) wrote about the nation of Israel one day being restored and experiencing a national regeneration, this is a minority view in modern Reformed Theology.
I don’t know if you even read my post or listened to the audio, but what I’m trying to do is put forth the truth what amillennialism believes. The comments you’ve made about replacement theology and romanism, are precisely the same I had once held too.
Part of Reformed Theology (as Riddlebarger states) is the belief that the church has adopted the promises given to Israel (otherwise how can you have a Kingdom of Promise that involves the church?). Other Reformed Theologians (O.Palmer Robertson for example) also understand the promises in Romans 11 to refer only to the salvation of all the elect (Rom. 2:28) rather than to a future conversion of Jews.
If your argument is that Amillenialism isn’t linked to Replacement Theology you really make a poor case.
I just do not get how you keep coming to the conclusion of replacement theology? Romans 11 makes it perfectly clear that the Gentiles, through the power of the Gospel, have been grafted in as branches into the olive tree, in order to partake of its blessings. It has nothing to do with replacing Israel, but rather being drawn into its commenwealth by the power of the Gospel received in faith. Therefore the church of the New Testament have most definitely adopted the promises given to Israel by faith, but not by driving them out to obtain them.
One other thing I think I should make clear, is that I believe that only the elect of God will ever be saved, and solely by faith in Christ. Whether by predominantly the Jews under the Old Covenant, responding to Christ being revealed through types and shadows. Or by Jew and Gentile alike under the New Covenant that we are now under. There is no other way to salvation, whether for Jew or Gentile, other than through Christ [John 14:6].
I think by reading the New Testament, especially with some of Paul’s writings, there is reason to have hope that ethnic Israel will once again turn to Him in faith and be saved. But their salvation will be through the Gospel of Christ crucified and risen again, or not at all.
I don’t have a problem with your last comment. My exception is with how Amillenialism and Replacement Theology are so intrinsically linked. If the church age is the Millennial Reign of Christ then surely it has replaced Israel in that respect. no?
Not at all. I believe that Christ is already enthroned on David’s throne, according to the promise of God, for it is rightfully His throne anyway. Therefore Christ is the fulfillment of the Law, and rightful heir to all things because of His obedience to His Father. Also Gal 3:16 bears out the fact that Christ alone is the Seed of Abraham to Whom the promise applied. And that chapter concludes with:
“Galatians 3:28-29
[28] There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
[29] And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.”
The way I see it is that when the Jews witnessed Christ at His first advent, which was highly expected, especially because of the prophecy in Daniel. The reason for His rejection, apart from God’s sovereign will, was that a time of glorious victory was expected. However in hindsight, the mystery of the Gospel [Rom 11:25] was revealed, namely that a season of redemption was being thrown open to men from all nations, in accordance to the promise God made to Abraham. We are told that “blindness in part” has fallen upon the Jews, but only until the fullness of the Gentiles have been brought in. This is an extremely compelling statement in favour of an influx of Jews before the second advent of Christ.
With regard to the millennial reign of Christ being now, I cannot see anything but Christ already being throned in Glory. The Glory of Heaven itself, and that which we have no right to expect Him to once again leave behind for an earthly copy, where once again rebellion will occur. I believe Christ is the Firstfruits of salvation, and has gone before us to prepare a place. When He returns it will be to judge the living and the dead, and take us to be with Him in glory forever.C hrist is right now seated in glory, and by His Spirit and through His Word, He reigns in the lives of believers throughout the nations of the earth.
You mentioned previously about wrongful interpretation of the Bible using allegory. All I am saying is that we should seek to interpret the Bible in the context it was written, and if a portion is symbolic in nature, then we should seek more straightforward passages to clarify. To demand literal interpretation only demands that Rev 20 is talking of an angel, with a real chain, binding Satan and casting him into a bottomless pit for a 1000 years. Hence it could not possibly be anything but the future. Personally I feel it wiser to seek a clearer passage of Scripture to confirm these things, and has been a passage I’ve never been able to locate.
My understanding now however is to treat this book as a sort of spiral staircase if you will, that looks at the current church age through various prophetic perspectives, and drawing heavily from the Old Testament prophecies such as the book of Daniel. Obviously there are real life messages to the church which were to be delivered at the opening three chapters, but then the book moves into the prophetic.
Looking at the text from this perspective, parallel texts can be found from much clearer portions of Scripture. For example:
“and he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal on him, so that he should deceive the nations no more till the thousand years were finished. But after these things he must be released for a little while.” [Revelation 20:3]
A parallel can be seen here:
“Now, brethren, concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him, we ask you, not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ had come. Let no one deceive you by any means; for that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of sin is revealed, the son of perdition, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God. Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming. The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved.”
[2 Thessalonians 2:1-10]
Again this passage also echoes what Rev 20:3 says concerning the ability of Satan to deceive the nations. The reason he was bound according to the text was to deceive the nations no longer, and that is precisely what has happened. In the time since the first advent of Christ, multitudes of men from all nations have entered into His salvation by faith in His redeeming blood. But what is common in both 2 Thess and Rev 20 is that upon his release, there will be once again full scale deception going on. But that will not happen until the 1000 years has ended. Which if taken symbolically, means God’s perfect time of fulfillment. Or in other words, upon the full number of Gentiles being brought in by the Gospel.
Similarly in the Gospels we can see the same thing too:
“And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. “Therefore when you see the ‘ABOMINATION OF DESOLATION,’ spoken of by Daniel the prophet, standing in the holy place” (whoever reads, let him understand), “then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not go back to get his clothes. But woe to those who are pregnant and to those who are nursing babies in those days! And pray that your flight may not be in winter or on the Sabbath. For then there will be great tribulation, such as has not been since the beginning of the world until this time, no, nor ever shall be. And unless those days were shortened, no flesh would be saved; but for the elect’s sake those days will be shortened. “Then if anyone says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘There!’ do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will rise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect. See, I have told you beforehand.”
[Matthew 24:14-25]
Please believe me that I fully understand your reservations, because I held them myself not too long ago. But if I am right in my understanding, then what dispensationlists look for in seeing a real life person [antichrist] seated in a rebuilt earthly temple, is not a sign at all. But rather the sign is that the antichrist has invaded the true temple of God in the earth, which is the church [1 Cor 3:16][2 Thess 2:3-4].
What is more, what we see is a growing apostasy around us that will suddenly explode upon the loosing of Satan, and as Jesus warns us in the verses above, it will take all the faith God has gifted us in order to survive the course. And the reason for this period of time God has allowed as far as I can tell, we both agree upon. Namely the salvation of the Jews. As to the actual time scale being a full seven years, I’m not sure, but I sincerely hope not!
God bless you friend,
John.
All I am saying is that we should seek to interpret the Bible in the context it was written, and if a portion is symbolic in nature, then we should seek more straightforward passages to clarify
It seems that you are using this very selectively! You must be consistent. What is the context of Ezekiel 37:21-28?
Ezekiel 37:21-28 – “Then say to them, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD: “Surely I will take the children of Israel from among the nations, wherever they have gone, and will gather them from every side and bring them into their own land; (22) and I will make them one nation in the land, on the mountains of Israel; and one king shall be king over them all; they shall no longer be two nations, nor shall they ever be divided into two kingdoms again. (23) They shall not defile themselves anymore with their idols, nor with their detestable things, nor with any of their transgressions; but I will deliver them from all their dwelling places in which they have sinned, and will cleanse them. Then they shall be My people, and I will be their God. (24) “David My servant shall be king over them, and they shall all have one shepherd; they shall also walk in My judgments and observe My statutes, and do them. (25) Then they shall dwell in the land that I have given to Jacob My servant, where your fathers dwelt; and they shall dwell there, they, their children, and their children’s children, forever; and My servant David shall be their prince forever.
It takes a massive amount of spiritualising to say that this is the church and that Jesus is currently sitting on the throne of David. This idea was not in view for the first readers!
and if a portion is symbolic in nature, then we should seek more straightforward passages to clarify.
is this passage symbolic? What about these passages that all refer to the same thing: Deut 10:1-30; 30:3, 4, Isaiah 11:11-16, 27:12, 13; 43:6; 49:12, Jeremiah 3:18, 16:15, 23:3, 8; 29:14, 30:3, 10, 18; 31:8-10, 32:37; 33:7, 11; 50:19, Ezekiel 23:5-6, 34:13, 36:24; 37:25, Amos 9:11, 14, 15; Hosea 1:11, Obadiah 1:17-21; Micah 7:11-12.
Are they symbolic?
It takes a massive amount of spiritualising to say that this is the church and that Jesus is currently sitting on the throne of David. This idea was not in view for the first readers!
I totally agree with you, and is probably the reason why Jesus was rejected. But isn’t the New Testament there to cast light and understanding upon the Old Testament scriptures? I noticed that every single one of the verses you quoted were from the Old Testament, and my guess is that if I use any verses from the New Testament to show how they have been fulfilled in Christ and those in Him, then I would be accused of spiritualizing the promises of the Old Testament. Even though the New Testament is filled with such “spiritualizing” by the apostles who wrote them under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
29 “Brothers, I may say to you with confidence about the patriarch David that he both died and was buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. 30 Being therefore a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that he would set one of his descendants on his throne, 31 he foresaw and spoke about the resurrection of the Christ, that he was not abandoned to Hades, nor did his flesh see corruption. 32 This Jesus God raised up, and of that we all are witnesses. 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says,
“ ‘The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit at my right hand,
35 until I make your enemies your footstool.’
36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”
Acts 2:29-36 (ESV)
I’ll be quite honest with you, in that I cannot interpret the Old Testament scriptures, apart from through the revelation of the New Testament scriptures. It is the apostles who were given understanding to open up the Scriptures, and did so through the apostles doctrine, which of course is now canonized in the New Testament. To approach the Old Testament from any other perspective in my opinion, invites disaster.
As much as I appreciate your comments, and I sincerely do, I believe we cannot see eye to eye on these matters. You seem to come to your conclusions by reading plain promises in the text of the Old Testament, made to an ethnic nation, and therefore must be fulfilled literally and ethnically too.
If this was the understanding of the apostles then I wouldn’t have a problem accepting that as the truth, but even from a few of the NT quotes I’ve offered in this and previous comments shows this is not so.
We could go around in circles with this for weeks I suppose, but I’m sure we both would rather not. I’m going to leave it here by saying that, in response to the Old Testament verses you’ve gathered en masse above, the whole of Hebrews 8 shows that in Christ, and under the New Covenant, things are not the same as under the old. In fact, the old is made obsolete. Not my words.
But isn’t the New Testament there to cast light and understanding upon the Old Testament scriptures?
this is precisely why Riddelbarger’s book is so poorly written. His methodology (and the one that you’re arguing for in the above quote) insists on the priority of the NT when interpreting the OT. He says (page 36) that “The New Testament must be seen as the final authority and interpreter of the Old Testament”. Now, I must say that I support Riddlebarger in this view (to a general degree, but to say that all the NT is interpreting the OT is a little far fetched). It would have been much more valuable if he had explained why the NT interprets the OT … but he does not. However, that is not the problem. The real problem with his methodology is that he is very inconsistent in his hermeneutic approach. He goes on to say (page 198) that the OT must not become the hermeneutical foundation for the NT (and again, I am in general agreement). But when it comes to his handling of the Book of Revelation, both he and you, have claimed that the OT should be our interpretive anchor. If Riddlebarger applied this same principle to other parts of the NT he might gain more insight into their meanings. What is also interesting is that at no time does Riddlebarger engage in a exegetical analysis of key texts like Galatians 3:28-29; 6:16; 1 Peter 2:9; Acts 15)
By using this strange method he does an injustice to the OT doctrine of Israel’s restoration, stating that it is merely “pointing ahead to the church” (page 55).
Riddlebarger’s use of his “NT priority” view can also be seen as selective well following his argument about Jesus. Riddlebarger argues that Jesus is the fulfillment of prophecy including the true Israel and the temple. However, Riddlebarger ignores the texts in the NT that speak of Israel’s restoration (Matt 19:28; Acts 1:6) and the texts that speak of an eschatological temple (2 Thess 2:4). Why are those texts not allowed in his view of NT interpretive priority?
I believe there are extremely strong reasons why we should give priority to the New Testament over the Old when interpreting the Bible, but to continue the discussion here is not really the place. In short it is not that the OT points forward to the church at all, for that would be a church centred hermeneutic. Just as a dispensationalist seems to have an Israel centred hermeneutic. But the OT in all its types and shadows, points forward to Christ. The NT however brings the revelation of Christ having come, and His testimony about Himself, handed down through the apostles by His Spirit.
Anway, I thank you greatly for your feedback, and I believe this thread shows clearly where our differences truly lie. If you would like to continue chatting about these things or anything else for that matter, I’d be more than happy to give you access to our forum. Just let me know.
God bless you,
John.