Eschatology

My good friend Nate Busenitz has been talking alot about eschatology and he's been sharing his biblical convictions on this topic at http://www.sfpulpit.com/ You may disagree with him but i think his posts are worth your time.

I find myself falling into a more progressive dispensational understanding of eschatology (in certain areas atleast), but i am certainly premillennial. I wavered on this topic during college (in part due to my immense respect for so many Covenant theologians). It was basically my bible study through the minor prophets and Romans 9-11 that convinced me of my current position.

Eschatology of course is a secondary matter of theology, but let us not forget, prophecy does make up atleast 25% of our Bibles.

Phil Johnson wrote one post on this topic at http://teampyro.blogspot.com/ (see March 16th post). He makes some good points here.

My friends at Expository Thoughts are also writing some great posts on this subject at http://expositorythoughts.wordpress.com/


Why Premill theology?
By Nathan Busenitz

"Why Premillennialism? With all the theological garbage that parades itself under the name 'dispensational premillennialism,' I think this is a fair question. (I for one certainly wouldn’t mind thinking up a new label.) So — why would anyone be a premillennialist? Is it because of the colorful charts? Or maybe the fast-paced novels? Maybe it’s the funky hair-dos on all those prophecy TV programs.
Actually… it’s not any of those. In fact, for me it’s not ultimately about eschatology at all. It’s about the clarity of Scripture and the irrevocable nature of God’s promises.
If I were asked to give a brief defense of why I am a premillennialist, I would say that it ultimately comes down to those two things. In other words —

(1) God cannot lie and He can communicate clearly — Thus, when I read the Old Testament, taking His promises at face-value, I come away a premillennialist. In the same way that the prophecies regarding Christ’s first coming were fulfilled literally, so (I believe) the prophecies surrounding Christ’s second coming should be also taken at face value. The New Testament does not annull the OT promises (but rather affirms them — in passages like Acts 1:6-8; Romans 9-11; and Rev. 20:4-6). The burden of proof, then, falls on the amillennialist — to demonstrate that what God promised is (in actuality) somehow different than what He will bring to pass.
Amillennialists will perhaps reply that they are interpreting the Old Testament in the way the NT authors interpreted it. But this becomes very difficult in light of the fact that the NT authors do not approach the Old Testament in a consistent way, nor do they give us normative instruction to spiritualize the OT.
For that matter, if later revelation is to be read into earlier revelation (as amillennialism suggests), then why is Revelation 20:4-6 so quickly discounted? As Craig Blaising asks:
Considering that this book [Revelation] is a late revelation from the Lord himself to the churches (Rev. 1:1; 22:16), with the admonition that the words are “faithful and true” (22:6), we ask, is this wise [to discount it]? Should not one be open to what the Lord himself says about how (i.e., the manner and the time) he will fulfill those things that he has previously revealed, especially as it is the most detailed explanation given on the topic? (Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond, 151-52).

In any case, I’m trying to be brief… so I’ll move on to my second point:
(2) God’s unconditional covenants with the nation of Israel are irrevocable — This includes the Abrahamic, Land, Davidic, and New Covenants. As Arnold Fruchtenbaum demonstrates in this article, these unconditional promises necessitate a physical kingdom on this earth for the nation of Israel.
If the promises given in the Old Testament could not be taken at face value by those who received them, then what guarantee do I have when I take the New Testament promises at face value? This is an honest question that I would ask my amillennial brothers. Isn’t it possible that New Testament prophecy (like Old Testament prophecy) doesn’t really mean what it says? How much stock can I put in the literalness of 1 Corinthians 15; 2 Peter 3; or Revelation 21-22 if it’s possible that those prophecies were never intended as literal?
Well, anyway… those are honest questions. I don’t claim to have everything figured out on my own eschatological chart. Nor would I ever question the intelligence or sincerity of my amill and post-mill brethren. But, at the end of the day – without overwhelming evidence to the contrary — I’m left with no other choice than to believe that God will do exactly what He said He would do in the Old Testament, in exactly the way He said He would do it.
As those who are soteriologically reformed, we take God’s promises very seriously. In fact, we stake our eternities on them. That’s why Dr. MacArthur titled his message, “Why Every Self-Respecting Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.” It wasn’t a dig, so much as a call to really consider the basis for premillennialism — the very promises of God. If those promises did not hold literally true for the nation of Israel, why would we expect them to hold literally true for us? "