The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum A shift to Covenant Theology and Amilennialism

Below is a good article in one's man shift to Covenant theology, especially amillennialism. I would like to give it to others to read, but would like to receive The Highway forum of approval before doing so. Is there anything in the article that is circumspect? I don't see anything.

http://thirdmill.org/articles/dav_white/dav_white.Shift.pdf

While I'm not a big fan of "Third Millennium Ministries" nor "Modern Reformation Magazine" I'll give the article a good read and comment on any major issues I have with it... IF there are any. Nice to see someone embracing Amillennialism which I too believe is the most biblical view.

I read the first section of the article while eating my lunch today and I'll reserve my comments (if any) until after I have read the entire article, but one thing stood out to me so vividly because I related to it so personally:

That particular book remains one of the most influential books I have ever read.

Just finished the article and although I might not be the best exegete, I found the article to be quite sound.
I would be interested in seeing more thoughts on the article.
Tom

Okay, I thought the author's critique of Dispensationalism was fair enough, including both 'classic' and the revised "progressive' varieties. And, his reasons for rejecting Dispensationalism were accurate enough as well. It was smart to include a few examples of how the major proponents ignore CONTEXT and simply make assertions rather than offering their exegesis of a particular passage. This has always been the ground upon which I examine ALL claims of someone's beliefs.

My only criticism would be with the very last section where he briefly deals with Revelation 20. For some reason he chose not to use the same method he used throughout his article; exegetical error or non-existence of the passage but rather wrote that his objection to the Dispensational notion that the passage refers to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, etc. was that it didn't mention certain things, e.g., the rebuilding of the Temple, reinstitution of animal sacrifices, etc. Hmmmmm, asserting that Revelation 20 should have those things if it was a literal description is no less the error of those who he was critiquing, i.e., eisogesis. Why MUST Revelation 20 include certain elements? Obviously, God didn't think it was necessary to give a full description for His purpose for including that section was something other than to give one. The reader's task is to learn what it was that God wanted to reveal to us.

Lastly, ALL Premillennialists have an insurmountable problem with Revelation 20 when they try to read it with their wooden 'literal' hermeneutical method. One cannot say that the '1000 years' is literal and consistently interpret the passage. For example, is the Devil (a spirit being) literally bound with a literal chain? and then thrown into a literal bottomless pit? And is there a literal Lake of Fire and brimstone? One cannot simply arbitrarily pick and choose what one wants to be literal or spiritual to make it fit with one's preconceived theology/ideas.

Pilgrimn
I like the way you dealt with the article especially the problems you had with it.
I was wondering if you could "flesh out " the questions you asked a little more.
I have always wondered how to deal with Rev. 20.

Go tribe
Any further thoughts on the article?

There's not much more than need be "fleshed out" as far as I'm concerned.

Again, IF the "1000 years" is determined to be a literal 1000 years, i.e., one year being 365 solar days, then what warrant does one have to interpret the rest of the passage as 'spirital' vs. 'literal'. Is the chain which Satan is bound with literal? If not, then what hermeneutical principle warrants the switch? And, the bottomless pit certainly cannot be taken 'literally', for no such thing can exist; a pit that has no bottom. Can a 'literal' pit contain and restrain a spirit being? Amillennialists are far more consistent in their dealing with Revelation 20. The "1000 years" is understood to be a indeterminate long period of time with a beginning and an end which began when the Lord Christ was on earth and it ends when the Lord Christ returns to earth. The "chain" is understood as God's control over the Devil along with the restraint put upon him symbolized by the "bottomless pit", i.e., no escape possible from God's sovereign control of him. And of course, the Lake of Fire is likewise symbolic of God's eternal punishment which will be endless horrible suffering, aka: Hell.

You said that it does not need to be fleshed out anymore, yet you did just that.
It helped me find another piece of the puzzle. Or rather, You gave me another piece of the puzzle.
Tom