Irregardless of your position, were there any commentaries or authors in particular that assisted you in moving from one position to another? I have a question for you or anyone else. Douglas Moo (who is also premil/postrib)thoroughly explained his position. However, Counterpoints book on Eschatology solidified my position. Subsequently, I had to address the Sunday School class, and announce my change of positions and give my evidence, which was compelling to the class for them to follow me on this Exodus. (Same with Phillips, Wiersbe and Macarthur) Thomas had to do too many gymnastics to force dispensationalism into the text. Around the 7th chapter my positioned slipped. Thomas, Grant Osborne, and Daniel Akin’s notes from his website.
#Danielakin.com judgment seat of christ series
Carson’s 23 volume audio series at TGC (he is postrib by the way) also Robert L.
As I was teaching through Revelation I was consulting D.A. I’m a recovering ex-dispensationalist for 9 months now. I’m glad you decided to hold those pretrib horses:) Hi, my name is Allen. So what are your thoughts on eschatology? Changed your mind recently? The emphases I’ve gathered as an Amillennialist-regarding the present reign of Christ, the “binding of Satan” for the advance of the Gospel, the unity of Jews and Gentiles in the people of God, the emphasis on the new heavens and the new earth-are important and valuable, and won’t simply go away. I should conclude by saying that I do not think Amillennialism is completely wrong. This coming to life is explicitly called a “resurrection” and a bodily resurrection seems most likely. (2) The reference to “the rest of the dead” in Rev 20:5 was always hard to square in the Amillennial interpretation as well as (3) “they came to life” in reference to the souls of beheaded Christians. When Rev 20 is compared with these it is hard not to see the common apocalyptic heritage. Likewise, evangelicals often speak of conversion as a “born again” experience, but this is a particularly Johannine concept, stemming primarily from John 3, and yet it is ubiquitous in evangelical rhetoric.Īnd the three most convincing things for me in this debate which caused me to change my mind are (1) the comparisons between 4 Ezra, 2 Baruch and Revelation 20 regarding temporary messianic kingdoms. Is that really so weird? If we didn’t have 1 Cor 11, we may assume that Pauline churches did not practice the Eucharist.
#Danielakin.com judgment seat of christ full
I also completely affirm that Revelation is full of recapitulations-I just have changed my opinion about whether Rev 20 constitutes another recapitulation.Ģ) “one passage”-Yea, if one passage teaches something that’s all it takes. I still completely affirm that Revelation is a critique of first century Rome for the encouragement of suffering Christians.
In fact, nothing even changes about the way I read Revelation. My kind of premillennialism looks at the lack of detail in Revelation 20 regarding the millennium and the lack of emphasis from a broader biblical perspective on the millennium and says that the main telos of the Bible is not the millennium but the new heavens and the new earth. Just some beheaded Christians coming to life and reigning with Christ. There is no mention of Jerusalem, or Israel, or the Temple, or red heifers, or anything. There are two reasons why.ġ) “too much weight”-this really only applies to certain kinds of premillennialists, specifically those who pull out their prophecy charts and dispensational timelines. But it’s a silly question (and a silly rebuttal). So what about the idea of placing too much weight on one passage? This is asked a lot in debates about eschatology. So I used to say that if I became a premillennialist I’d be the kind that said there was only one text that even addressed the topic.
I disagree with those who try to make Paul a millenarian from 1 Cor 15, and I completely reject the idea that the millennium is taught in the OT (look again, the prophets are thinking of the new created order-the new heavens and the new earth). Now, I believe that the entire Bible is non-millennial in perspective. I can’t actually call myself an Amillennialist anymore. And I feel like it’s been true for some time. I didn’t want to finally say it, but it’s true. That was the first time I actually admitted it. Now I’m ready to say it: I’m a Premillennialist. Nearly two years ago I wrote a post entitled, “ Amillennialism: Rethinking and Critiquing my Eschatology After Five Years.” In that post I analyzed an earlier blog post I wrote back in 2007 called, “ How I Became An Amillennialist.” Two years ago I concluded that I was still an Amillennialist, but I realized that many of the arguments I previously found so convincing were not nearly as persuasive.
0 kommentar(er)
