Not So Fast (Before You Become an Amillennialist)!

Sometimes the value of a good book is found in one sentence, one paragraph, one chapter, or in the case of Dr. Barry Horner’s Future Israel, in a nine page personal introduction.  The testimony of Dr. Horner will no doubt resonate with many Text-driven Christians.  It will also challenge some of you as you desire to understand what the sacred Scriptures teach concerning the "end times."  But before I share Horner’s eschatological journey allow me to quickly highlight mine.

I was a student at The Master’s College when I came to fully embrace and to appreciate the "doctrines of grace" for myself.  Through the expository preaching ministry of John MacArthur and other gifted teachers at my home church (Grace Community) I began to appreciate more deeply the ministry of the Reformers and the Puritans.  During this same time I began to question if my convictions concerning eschatology needed to be refined.  After all, so many of my favorite theologians were Presbyterian and Reformed.  I remember reading Gerstner’s, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth as well as Mathison’s Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?  From a theological perspective the argumentation in these books was convincing.  At the same time however many of the Text-driven (exegetical) conclusions were lacking. 

I decided to go back to the Scriptures in order to determine whether my end times positions needed to be modified or overhauled.  As I made my way through the Old Testament Minor Prophets I found Charles Feinberg and Jim Boice’s commentaries to be faithful to the Text and to the point.  Both scholars embraced premillennialism.  By the time I went verse by verse through Romans 9-11 I was thoroughly convinced that the Word of God not only supports the doctrines of grace they also promote biblical premillennialism.  In view of this I was not surprised when John MacArthur titled his main plenary address Why Every Calvinist Should Be a Premillennialist.  Well enough about me.  Let’s given the floor now to Dr. Horner.

“In the pilgrimage of a Christian, significant junctures are encountered that bring about a radical change of direction, particularly in the realm of doctrinal course correction, that may be regarded as near-revolutionary.  Such was the case when I came to a knowledge of a more Reformed doctrinal emphasis, that is exegetical Calvinism.  I will never forget the change of perspective that came about with the reading of Martin Luther’s Bondage of the Will; a whole gospel worldview was turned around, even though appreciation still remained for an earlier evangelical heritage that did not agree with the German Reformer’s understanding of human corruption and the sovereign grace of God.  Furthermore, having been raised in Methodism, this new doctrinal allegiance became more sympathetic to Wesley’s Arminianism, and as a result fellowship titled toward those of a more Reformed persuasion.  There further came appreciative acquaintance with John Owen, C. H. Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, B. B. Warfield, Loraine Boettner, J. I. Packer, Martyn Lloyd-Jones, and other similar publishers.  Consequently, there also developed a more heartfelt understanding of the grace of God in light of man’s thorough sinful pollution, which led to expanding familiarity with Calvinism, more euphemistically refereed to as the “doctrines of grace.”

The whole new environment, although incorporating Anglican, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Baptist legacies, has presented an admirable united front.  Which this aura there has been fervent endorsement of the major historic strands of the Reformation with regard to God, man, sin, and the gospel, and to a lesser degree with regard to the doctrine of the church.  The area of eschatology, however, has also revealed a lesser degree of unity, except that it would be trust to say that Augustinian amillennialism has appeared to the be the prominent school of prophetic thought, with postmillennialism ranking a respectable second, and premillennialism being relegated to a tolerable third place, provided that it was purged of that much maligned subset, dispensationalism.  Certainly amillennialism has been paraded, in the main, as the most historically viable scheme of end times theology, having been rooted in the esteemed, fourth-century Bishop of Hippo, as well as the subsequent revered Reformers, and to a lesser and yet more variegated degree, their Puritan successors.

Following this awakening, I continued to maintain interest in the prophetic schools of thought while retaining premillennial conviction, even though pressure was experienced, especially from ammillennialists, to advance to purer Reformed heights that abandoned a carnal, Zionist system that clung to a Jewish “weak and bankrupt elemental forces” (Gal 4:9).  Yet will there was firm conviction that Biblical Calvinism rested on solid exegetical grounds, there was never the same strength of belief that one’s prophetic convictions needed overturning as well.  Certainly many challenging arguments were offered to convince me that the premillennial perspective was not in the mainstream of Reformation thought.  After all, Augustine had surely dealt chiliasm or millennialism, which he had earlier affirmed, such a crippling blow.  There was also the suggestion that as the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries had certainly witnessed the recovery of the Pauline gospel, so this awakening was to be heeded in terms of a parallel and more reliable scheme of eschatology.  In addition there was the inference that since premillennialism was more aligned with the popular tide of Arminianism, this provided further proof for Calvinists of its lack of validity.

Yet the gnawing conviction remained that the persuasive exegesis that led to biblical, soteriological Calvinism did not necessarily lead to the companion scheme of amillennialism.  The reason for this was that such a system was inclined to rely too heavily on lauded historical currents of belief, the result being that a questionable hermeneutical framework (of biblical interpretation) was imposed on the plain meaning of the biblical text.  In other words, historic tradition- especially that allied with Wittenberg in Germany, Geneva in Switzerland, and Westminster in England- tended to strongly influenced exegesis.  After all, Martin Luther, John Calvin, or John Owen could not possibly be wrong!

More recently, a closer study of four books of the Bible has led me now to more firmly assert that the basic premillennial model of biblical prophesy, and especially as it relates to ethnic and national Israel, is closest to the truth in Scripture.  First, there was a study of Zechariah, so permeated with the ultimate triumph of the Messiah and the nation of Israel.  The prophet speaks of God’s vindication on earth when He “will become king over all the earth- Yahweh alone, and His name alone” (Zech 14:9).  I will never forget the study of David Baron’s commentary on this book, which seemed so much more illuminating to the text than Calvin’s.  Then a close study of Romans over several years, in particular chapters 9-11, resulted in an indelible impression that for Paul, the converted Hebrew rabbi, Israel has an ongoing national identity, its unbelief notwithstanding.  One the other hand, it seemed as if Reformed exegesis, at least on a prima facie reading of the text, was trying to avoid the obvious.”  To be continued.  

This personal introduction is taken from Dr. Barry Horner's, Future Israel: Why Christian Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged.  This volume is part of the “NAC Studies in Bible and Theology.”  See also my article titled, Magnify Jesus Christ!  Preach Revelation!  See also Matt Waymeyer's, Revelation 20 and the Millennial Debate.  See also Vlach's, Has the Church Replaced Israel? A Theological Evaluation.

Note also this article by John MacArthur (click here) and this one (click here).