This is an issue that I would assume has been discussed here in the past. However, I seem to have missed it, so here goes!
Below is a link to an article by a guy called Fred Zaspel (who is a Calvinist, by the way). Monergism.com links to a bunch of his stuff, including this essay.
Zaspel is neither dispensationalist nor amillenialist; some places call him NCT, while Monergism.com calls him historic premillenialist.
Anyways, the article is called "Jews, Gentiles, & the Goal of Redemptive History: An Exegetical & Theological Analysis of Romans 9-11." His main point in the essay is to show that to maintain a future for national Israel (note: this guy is not a classical dispensationalist) is not driven by extraneous theology but is exegetically demanded by this chunk of scripture. He goes on to demonstrate that the amillenialist interpretations of Romans 9-11
are driven by extraneous theology, rather then an unbiased exegesis of the text itself, and gives examples of amillennialists saying as much about each other's arguments.
Anyways, Zaspel's points seem rock-solid to me, but then again, I've never engaged in any serious dialogue on this subject before. So, for those of you who are amillennialists, I am curious: after reading this article through, why do you disagree? What drives you to hold to amillennialism? Why is Zaspel wrong?
Here it is, and I look forward to your responses:
http://www.biblicalstudies.com/bstudy/eschatology/romans11.htm
