Justin Taylor and Jim Hamilton are mixing it up on premillennial eschatology

The debate goes on. Justin Taylor and Jim Hamilton are now mixing it up on premillennial eschatology. Once again, I think Jim has the stronger argument.

15 Responses to Justin Taylor and Jim Hamilton are mixing it up on premillennial eschatology

  1. D.J. Williams October 7, 2009 at 12:20 pm #

    Hmm. I don’t think Hamilton’s response is enough. The NT passages JT references in the Storms article are more specific in what they say than the OT passages Hamilton references are. I’d like to hear Hamilton interact with Storms’ exegesis of those texts rather than say “well, the OT prophesies were different than you’d think, so the NT ones could be, too.” In fact, by using the argument that he does, he inherently gives creedence to the fact that these passages seem to point to this transformation taking place immediately upon Christ’s return.

  2. D.J. Williams October 7, 2009 at 12:22 pm #

    Oops – *credence*

  3. Everett October 7, 2009 at 1:14 pm #

    Finally, a DTS alum with some intestinal fortitude:)

  4. Mark October 7, 2009 at 1:43 pm #

    D.J., did you watch the panel discussion on premillennialism by Profs. Ware, Brand, and Schreiner on the entry below? I don’t know if you know already but Prof. Schreiner recently moved from an amill position to a premill position. He gives compelling reasons for his shift. You non-premills still have to struggle with Rev 20:1-3 (the binding of Satan) with Rev 12:7-18 (Satan thrown out of heaven); and why the beast and false prophet are already in the lake of fire (Rev 19:20) when Satan is thrown in there later (Rev 20:10) at the end of the millennial reign.

  5. D.J. Williams October 7, 2009 at 2:52 pm #

    I haven’t watched the panel, but I did attend a similar one with Brand, Danny Akin and Hal Ostrander when I was at Boyce. And yes, I’m aware of Schreiner’s shift and all the issues you brought up. I’m more than happy to discuss them, but I’m more interested now in hearing how a pre-miller would address Storms’ exegesis.

    BTW, in the interest of full disclosure, I’m a partial preterist (everything pre-ch. 20) and amillennialist.

  6. Debbie Kaufman October 8, 2009 at 2:56 am #

    Mark: No struggles here. I am not pre-mil and feel that I could adequately answer each of the points you brought up. At least I’m comfortable with it. 🙂

  7. D.J. Williams October 8, 2009 at 7:44 am #

    BTW, in the interest of more full disclosure, I watched the Desiring God forum last night and am now teetering on the brink of post-mil. But I’m with Debbie – none of those points causes me to go the pre-mil direction.

  8. Collin October 8, 2009 at 12:45 pm #

    Mark, Satan’s binding in Rev. 20 is no problem at all for non-premils. They just say what the text says. He’s bound so that he can’t deceive the nations. Non-premils don’t think he’s powerless. John uses the imagery of binding to explain a new limitation on Satan’s power after the resurrection of Christ. Before the resurrection, Gentiles couldn’t believe; after the resurrection (because Satan’s no longer deceiving them) they have opportunity.

    There is no text that slam dunks any position. All the positions approach all the texts with interpretational presuppositions. I appreciate non-premils for their willingness to actually read what John claims is the purpose of Satan’s binding in Rev. 20.

    Oh, and I wouldn’t be surprised if Tom Schreiner switched back to amil within the next 5 years. He’s a notorious flip-flopper.

  9. Mark October 8, 2009 at 1:08 pm #

    Collin, the binding of Satan in Rev 20:1-3 seems to be more extensive than just the inability to deceive the nations. He is thrown into the Abyss by an angel and the Abyss is locked and sealed until the thousand year reign comes to an end. Looking at the past two thousand years of history it doesn’t seem like Satan is unable to deceive and is bound in the Abyss.

    I don’t believe Satan’s binding simply means that “now Gentiles can believe the gospel.” It’s not as simplistic as Israelites only (OT) vs. Gentiles also (NT). The binding is so extensive that there will be a drastic reduction of sin, deception, and corruption on the earth during that time (unlike our present age).

    Debbie, I would appreciate how you would handle the sequential development between Rev 19:20 (the beast and false prophet thrown into the Lake of Fire before the millennium) and Rev 20:10 (Satan being thrown into the Lake of Fire after the millennium to join the beast and false prophet).

    Btw, I won’t go into the whole “two resurrections” argument in Rev 20:4-5 since we all know that won’t lead anywhere.

  10. Erick October 8, 2009 at 2:17 pm #

    Also we must note the differentiation between the first cating out of Satan (Rev 12) and the his being sealed under the abyss (Rev 20). These two events seem sequential, and not only that, with different implications.

    In addition, the deception which the nations are held in is service to the beast, of which will not characterize this millenial period.

  11. Collin October 8, 2009 at 2:35 pm #

    Mark, the key words in your response to my statement are “I don’t believe.” Thanks for affirming my previous point about the subjectivity of our interpretational presuppositions.

    Erick, of course there is a difference between chap. 12 and 20. You say, “these events seem sequential.” Lots of things “seem sequential” in Revelation that obviously can’t be. John moves back and forth and recasts the same events with different imagery. I believe (and I acknowledge the subjectivity in this statement) that chap 12 deals with Satan’s relationship to believers; he can’t accuse them any longer because he doesn’t have access to the throne. Chapter 20, as I said before, gives the perspective on his relationship to unbelievers; he can no longer deceive the nations. Given the way John talks, chap 12 and 20 could be referring to the same event, the resurrection of Christ.

    Am I right? Well, I wouldn’t stake eternity on it, but I am convinced in my own mind.

  12. D.J. Williams October 8, 2009 at 3:10 pm #

    Mark said…
    “The binding is so extensive that there will be a drastic reduction of sin, deception, and corruption on the earth during that time (unlike our present age).”

    Where does the text say that? What it actually says is that he can no longer decieve the nations. Couple that with Jesus’ statement that he has bound Satan in Mark 3:22-27 and the case gets even stronger.

  13. Erick October 8, 2009 at 3:13 pm #

    I think some of the amill’s need to be content with the doctrine of premillenialism (if this is how things will happen) and vice versa.

    Premil and Amill seem to be the only two options.

  14. Darius T October 8, 2009 at 8:46 pm #

    Nope, postmill is a very distinct option. Much more of an option, in my opinion, than premil. It comes down to amill or postmill.

  15. jeff miller October 11, 2009 at 2:55 am #

    the book of Revelation helps Christians understand our relation to world History by giving us 7 visions to be understood in parallel. With each vision emphasizing a specific aspect of the one period between the advents. The visions are different on purpose.

    I have wondered if the millenium is an invention of Christianized folks who want the non-violence of Jesus (as prophesied in OT) to be shoved to some future era allowing us to get on with some good old “Christ-blessed” just-war in the interim.

Comment here. Please use FIRST and LAST name.

Powered by WordPress. Designed by Woo Themes