Comparing Historic Premillennial and Amillennial Eschatology

Posted by Collin Brendemuehl - November 29, 2007 on 5:55 pm | In Evangelical Perspective, eschatology | Comments Off Introduction
Christian eschatology is represented by the general categories of premillennialism and amillennialism Despite their clear distinctions, each has its respective benefit to the kingdom and is thus worthy of exploration and appreciation. Like any theological concept that attempts to explain what is often obscure in the Word, each one has its own particular strengths and weaknesses which merit examination and comparison.

The purpose of this brief paper is to compare and contrast the history and basic content of these two eschatological frameworks. To accomplish this each position is defined, its origin briefly examined, and then the positions are compared and contrasted. The comparison and contrast is concluded with a perspective on the effect of each view -- how each provides distinct advantages, not necessarily competitive with the others, but complementary and useful for the mission of the church.

Definitions
The core characteristic of each system is found in its hermeneutic. The historic approach of the Roman Catholic and Orthodox[1] version of amillennialism (postmillennialism) has been in the spiritualizing approach to Scripture. (There are some evangelical postmillennialists but the Roman Catholic and Orthodox proponents are far greater in number.) The amillennialism of evangelical Protestantism has depended on historical-grammatical methodology.

While evangelical Protestantism shares a common methodology it is not an eschatological monolith and the movement is home to both premillennialism and amillennialism. This variety within evangelicalism is not based on the legitimacy or illegitimacy of employing the methodology. It’s not that one is “literal” or more so and the other “non-literal” or less so, or otherwise valid or invalid. Rather, within the bounds of historical-grammatical literal interpretation, the difference is whether particular statements are to be taken at face value or whether they are to be taken as figures of speech. The end product of this difference is reflected in their views of the millennium, the thousand-year reign of Christ on the earth, hence their respective names.

Premillennialism is the understanding that the thousand-year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:6) is literal (understood plainly) and that it occurs within a future and markable time frame. That is, Revelation is a prophetic statement about the end times and the specific prophetic statements contained in the writing should be understood as actual future events. The thousand years should be understood precisely as “one thousand years” and nothing other.[2]

Amillennialism is the understanding that the thousand-year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:6) is figurative or metaphorical. That is, it is an expression of something regarding the church’s relationship to Christ, and that the content of Revelation is a broad prophetic statement which covers events from the times of the early church through and to the return of Christ. The term “one thousand years” is understood as an era or a condition where the church, and the whole world, exists under Christ’s rule.[3]

The amillennialist observes much of eschatology as completed or, as cited on the Orthodox site, “realized.” That is, some of the eschatological elements have occurred (in particular the millennium, in some figurative form) and the church, along with all of humanity, awaits the return of Christ and the final judgment.

Postmillennialism seems in some ways just nuance of the amillennial category and so is commonly placed in this same general category. Both positions see the millennium as both figurative and current. The difference can be expressed in how the millennium is to be recognized. Loraine Boettner describes postmillennialism in this way:

The millennium to which the postmillennialist looks forward is thus a golden age of spiritual prosperity during this present dispensation, that is, during the Church Age. This is to be brought about through forces now active in the world. It is to last an indefinitely long period of time, perhaps much longer than a literal one thousand years. The changed character of individuals will be reflected in an uplifted social, economic, political and cultural life of mankind. The world at large will then enjoy a state of righteousness which up until now has been seen only in relatively small and isolated groups: for example, some family circles, and some local church groups and kindred organizations.
Kenneth Gentry is a little more specific in his description of postmillennialism:

Postmillennialism expects the proclaiming of the Spirit-blessed gospel of Jesus Christ to win the vast majority of human beings to salvation in the present age. Increasing gospel success will gradually produce a time in history prior to Christ’s return in which faith, righteousness, peace, and prosperity will prevail in the affairs of people and of nations. After an extensive era of such conditions the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and in great glory, ending history with the general resurrection and the great judgment of all mankind. Hence, our system is postmillennial in that the Lord’s glorious return occurs after an era of “millennial” conditions.
That is, the amillennialist believes that we are now in the millennium and the postmillennialist is waiting to be told that such is the case. A greater distinction between evangelical Protestant amillennialism and postmillennialism is drawn later when the two are contrasted.

Origins
Both millennial and amillennial views can trace their core values to the early church. While these systems certainly did not exist then as they do today, the foundations were present none the less.

Justin took a literal view of the millennium in his Dialogue with Trypho. He made clear reference to the renewal of Jerusalem and the thousand years in a literal sense. In chapter 80 he says

But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
Others in the early church who held to a literal interpretation of thousand-year reign of Christ include Irenaeus, Papias, and many others. But this teaching did not go unchallenged and the amillennial framework’s heritage was also developing at this same time.

The figurative foundation for the amillennialist found its home via Augustine’s spiritualization method and this foundation has been maintained though the view’s pervasive influence within Roman Catholicism.[4] Today’s Protestant amillennialist is not dependent on spiritualization as Cox points out.[5] The result is that the Protestant amillennialist differs greatly from his Catholic counterpart even though one end result, their respective defintions of the millennium, is very similar.

Aquinas clarified the postmillennial position and the beatific vision of Augustine. By clarifying the intimate relationship of eschatology with the Trinity and expanding on both individual and collective eschatology, Aquinas was able to answer Augustine’s critics and firmly establish this framework within the Roman Catholic Church.[6]

Comparisons
The differences between premillennialism and amillennialism would seem to set the two camps at complete odds. But even with these differences there is a commonality in the advancement of the gospel. For the Roman Catholic and similar views the advancement of the gospel is seen in the advancement of the church. For the evangelical and fundamentalist the advancement of the gospel is seen in the individual message of faith and repentance and made visible through the growth of local churches. While those last two sentences seem to reflect more on the missiological differences between protestantism and Catholicism than on the eschatological, it should be noted that the Catholic postmillennial position does drive it to expand the Kingdom over all of society. Evangelical Protestantism, on the other hand, has an emphasis in its eschatology that primarily promotes the advancement of the individual faith response to the Gospel.

The historic premillennial position holds a view of the church that is consistent with the amillennial position. Both see no distinction between Israel and the Church in God’s plan as Israel is people of faith only and being a Jew brings no special standing in God’s plan for the ages. Hence amillennialists generally view the Jewish people as just another group of people in need of the same salvation that all humans need and not the recipients of any material promises. The postmillennialist commonly diverges from the rest of the amillennial community, seeing the Jewish people as spiritual recipients in the end times. Though they see the true Israel in the same way as does the amillennialist they still view the Hebrew people as selected and recipients of some level of special (but not necessarily saving) grace.

Premillennialism also has its own split on the subject of Israel. The dispensationalist sees the church as beginning at Pentecost (Acts 2), and not having existed before that time, drawing a distinction between Israel and the church. The dispensationalist does not see the Old Testament saints as part of the Church.

While their views of the church may be specifically a matter of ecclesi-ology, it factors directly into eschatology. As the amillennialist looks for Christ’s return to establish the eternal kingdom following the growth of the current church kingdom[7], the premillennialist looks toward a series of events that lead to the establishment of the millennial kingdom, followed by the eternal kingdom. Though the premillennial community seems to suffer from a set of conflicts regarding some of its particulars,[8] the end understanding is always a literal millennium.

The postmillennial system is classed as amillennial because the millennium is not taken literally. Postmillennialists take a nearly identical position to be amillennialist while others hold to a literal millennium but the advent of which is not discernable until after it is finish and Christ returns – it will only be known retrospectively.

From the Catholic perspective, the idea of a literal millennium amounts to a position known as Chiliasm, and it may be either heretical or simply erroneous. The Rt. Rev. Msgr. Joseph Pohle states it as follows:

Chiliasm in Its Two Forms. – There are two forms of Chiliasm or Millenarianism. The exaggerated form is heretical, while the more moderate is simply erroneous.
a) The heretical form of Chiliasm may be traced partly to the Jewish expectation of a temporal Messias and partly to the apocryphal writings of the Old Testament, which abound in fables. The Chiliasts of theis school conceived the millennium as a period of unbridled sensual indulgence. Eusebius the church-historian says of Cerinthus, a Gnostic heretic who flourished towards the end of the first century: “He held that at some time in the future Christ would reign on the earth; and as he was addicted to the pleasures of the flesh, he imagined that the reign of God would consist of such things.” This error was shared by the ancient Ebionites and Apollinarianists and, in somewhat more respectable form, still persists among the Mormons and Irvingites.
b) Moderate Chiliasm has a number of adherents among Patristic writers, notably Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Nepos, Commodian, Victorinus of Pettau, and Lactantius. Its favorite text was Apoc. XX, 1 sqq. Papias believed that the resurrection of the flesh would be followed by a glorious reign of Christ, in which the Saints would enjoy a superabundance of earthly pleasures for a thousand years. These pleasures, however, were to be spiritual, or at least morally licit. In developing this idea its champions parted ways. Some expected the millennium between the General Judgement and the Resurrection of the dead, while others believed it would occur after the General Resurrection, immediately before the assumption of the just into Heaven. A third, still more moderate group of Millenarianists, which is not yet extinct, contents itself with asserting that an era of universal peace and tranquility will precede the second coming of Christ, to be suddenly interrupted by the great apostasy and the forerunners of the Antichrist.[9]
Generally speaking, the postmillennialist anticipates that the majority of the world will be following Christ or be under the protection of the church when Christ returns. Augustine, along with Aquinas and others, developed an eschatology based on spiritualization and which is expressed through the “beatific vision” of the church. Matthew Lamb summarizes the starting point in this way:
The greatest contribution of Aquinas to eschatology is his profound analysis of beatitude and the fulfillment of the deepest desires of intelligent creatures and the whole of creation. He spelt out in careful cognitive and metaphysical terms the full implications of St Augustine’s ‘our hearts are restless until they rest in thee’. Eternal beatitude in the beatific vision contextualizes Aquinas’ eschatology within the orders of wisdom so fundamental to his entire systematic theology.[10]
Liberal protestant theology has its variation on the amillennial position. For the theological liberal everything escahtological relates to the social character of the Christian and is fulfilled in a spiritual maturity that is represents in Christ’s behavior toward the poor and needy. John Milbank adds to this a postmodern twist and sees the believer’s character as being fulfilled in desires of the church and the Christian. His Cities of God reduces Augustine’s singular City of God to a collection of individuals who find the end of their existence in desire, especially sexual desire.

Premillennialism also has its recent historic developments but diverges slightly with its more recent expressions of dispensationalism and progressive dispensationalism. The raison d’etre of progressive dispensationalism is to attempt to resolve some of traditional dispensationalism’s difficulties.[11] These clarifications include the nature of the dispensations (how they flow through history) and a more holistic view of redemption.

It would not be difficult to sustain the conjecture that our era still reflects some degree of positivism in theology. The rise of dispensationalism in the 19th century with its emphasis on the immanent return of Christ expresses the desire of many Christians to see history culminated around the most magnificent of events. That mindset can also be seen in the amillennial outlook of the era. George Leech looked to the end of missions as he saw the kingdom advancing around the world:
There is every sign of the dissolution of heathen systems.
Max Müller not only declares that “heathen nations are shrinking,” but gives it as the “strongest evidence of the death of a relgion that it has ceased to send forth missionaries to propagate its ideas.” Missionaries and travellers tell us that thus judged, paralysis has already supervened. In China, India, Japan, and nearly all heathen lands, the temples are falling into decay. Effort to extend their faith has ceased. ... The outgoings of a Christian civilization, such as the newspaper, the telegraph, the steam and street car, the factory, and a thousand other conjoined influences, combine to tear the flimsy livery from the deceiving jugglers of the idols and open the souls of men to receive the freedom given by the Christ.[12]
I sometimes wonder if the increased popularity of dispensationalism after the revival era, and especially after World War I, was partly due to the collapse of the previous generations’ positivism.
Contrasts
Some more detailed contrasting these positions will be done in two parts. The first is to contrast how some specific passages of Scripture are handled. The purpose is not just to show their differences but also to exhibit some of the inherent weaknesses of each position. Following this is a comparison by way of mutual criticism. Capable proponents of each position are able to provide thoughtful insight into the strengths and weakness of the other positions just as they are able to point to each others’ deficiencies in the handling of Scripture.

In comparing these broader frameworks we should note that all of them have as a basis a sound exegetical foundation. We should not understand “sound” to mean “perfect” but instead to mean that the system is consistent to itself, though it may or may not be consistent to the whole of Scripture. Each position has its own exegetical issues.

One of these issues arises with the handling of Revelation 20:1[13]. This verse leaves the amillennialist with a conflict as to the location of the angel and thus a question about the interpretive method. If the text is interpreted either analogical or anagogical, the location of the angel would seem to be in the eternal state. But because the text is clear about the specific locations where the angel exists, only the understanding of this as a non-figurative expression appears suitable. That would seem to leave the amillennialist with an inconsistent hermeneutic.

Of difficulty for the premillennialist is the Rapture, a distinctive among the more challenging to defend. Cox’ criticism regarding interpreting Revelation 4:1 deserves attention.[14] It’s a valid criticism that “church” is read into the call to “John” to watch the transpiring events.

If the premillennialist were to alter the interpretation of this passage for consistency, then they would have a system without the Rapture. While that might be acceptable in the academic studies of Scripture, it would cause serious ripples in many local churches. Communicating this would be very difficult, though certainly far more honest.

An issue that the dispensational theologian attempts to solve is the issue of the difference between the church and Israel. Both the historical premillennialist and the amillennialist have difficulty with Romans 11:28-29, where a direct appeal is made to the favored position of the patriarchs, and that is in the sense of the physical nation, not the spiritual nation.[15]

A common feature in Catholic eschatology is (what appears to be) a near-equivalence between the eschatology of the individual and the eschatology of the human race. Pohle dedicates roughly half of his work[16] to each and Karl Rahner also concentrates on the individual. As Migliore[17] says:
Christian hope amidst the ravages of sin, evil, and death has many dimensions. One of these is, of course, hope for the fulfillment of personal life. Protestant theologians have not written much about this dimension of hope in recent decades. As their emphasis has shifted to the political dimensions of Christian hope, the question of the meaning of hope in relation to the death of individuals has been pushed to the side. Some Catholic theologians (notably Karl Rahner) have developed a theology of death in which the death of each person becomes a final opportunity to give oneself into the gracious hands of God in trusting self-surrender.
While this segment of eschatology seems to depart from the discussion of the meaning of the millennium, for the postmillennialist it is an essential part of our current time and relates directly to the millennium and the mission of the church.

Dealing with difficulties in handling Scripture is one of the ways that the proponents of each position critique each other. Along with this also comes criticism of the application of Scripture to life and some of the additional difficulties met along the way. While these may not be necessarily wrong or sinful errors, they are do appear to lead, or may lead, the believer toward a distraction from Biblical imperatives.

Two volumes have been published in recent years that provide some insight into both the positions and how theologians within each view the positions of the other’s proponents. These are The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views,[18] edited by Robert Clouse, and Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond,[19] edited by Darrell Bock and Stanley Gundry.

What does the amillennialist have to say about the postmillennial position? Robert Strimple confronts this in his response[20] to Kenneth Gentry’s definition of the postmillennial position. He points to a great difference in the final hope of each. For the postmillennialist, the hope is in the better world to be created. For the amillennialist, the hope is in the return of Christ. The postmillennial theonomy is also held by the newer small segment within evangelicalism known as “Reconstructionists” or “Dominionists” of whom Strimple makes note.[21] This position has its foundation in the cultural mandate of Kuyper but goes beyond influence on society to the establishment of Biblical Government. R. J. Rushdoony stated this in his work, The Institutes of Biblical Law (p. 725):
Thus, the first step in the [cultural] mandate is to bring men the word of God and for God to regenerate them. The second step is to demolish every kind of theory, humanistic, evolutionary, idolatrous, or otherwise, and every kind of rampart or opposition to the dominion of God in Christ. Third, this requires that, like Paul, we court-martial or 'administer justice upon all disobedience' in every area of life where we encounter it. To deny the cultural mandate is to deny Christ and to surrender the world to Satan.
Some form theonomy is shared by all postmillennialists but not necessarily by amillennialists. As a result the two views, though they are categorized within the same broader theological camp, will separate on this theonomic position.

The dispensationalist is likewise critical of the amillennial position. Herman Hoyt makes the matter even more specific[22] as he points to the postmillennial positions lack of emphasis on the Great Commission or Christ’s return.

Even though dispensational and premillennial perspectives are close cousins, George Eldon Ladd holds Hoyt, and much of the dispensational community, guilty of not maintaining theological dialogue with the rest of evangelicalism.[23] Even apart from Hoyt’s exclusive rhetoric, this seems the case even by general observation. Too often the evangelical and fundamentalist dispensationalists seem in their own world and treat the remainder of the Christian community, even other evangelicals and fundamentalists of varying persuasions, as a distinct and even inferior species of Christianity.

Effects
Both of these broader frameworks have been valuable tools for the work of the church. The amillennial theologian, seeing the millennial kingdom as the church age, has a theological motivation for a Christian influence within society. With this motivation the influence of Christian values is available to the benefit of all, a testimony to God’s love for all and His sense of justice. In history this has shown up as the lifting of the position of women in western society, the ending of slavery, and the current debates over the life ethic, and philosophical epistemology, among other matters. While these movements aren’t the private domain of amillennialism, the principle that the church would have some level of either dominion over society or a calling to alter society belongs to the amillennial community.

The premillennial movement has provided the evangelical with a motivation to spread the gospel in a world-wide missions and revival movements, along with the Bible college movement, in the 19th and 20th centuries that has not been equaled through much of church history. The efforts of the premillennalists over the last two centuries have been unique and extremely effective in today’s world.

Despite their differences, there are many areas where these eschatological frameworks agree. They all agree that there is a millennium, in one form or another. They all agree that the church has the task of disseminating the gospel around the world. They all agree that Israel, in some sense, is the recipient of God’s blessings, even though they may disagree on the composition of Israel. They all agree that the Lord will return at some future time to judge and finally fulfill redemption, creating a new heaven and earth.

Conclusion
The amillennial and the premillenial positions both come with a rich history and have provided their own particular benefit to the faith. One can certainly be a committed believer, orthodox in the faith, and hold to any one of the orthodox versions of these views. (I would exclude the postmodern and liberal frameworks from orthodoxy, though there are many evangelicals, Catholics, and the like who hold many of these tenets.) Each of them in its own way does great justice, and unfortunately a little injustice, to various passages of Scripture and the mission of the church. Yet each of them is valuable in its own way for building up the church in the service of Christ and the gospel.


[1] Saint Demetrios Greek Orthodox Church puts the eschatology into clear and simple terms. “Two distinct stages are to be recognized, in terms of Christian Orthodox eschatology: that of a ‘partial judgment,’ of a ‘partial’ or ‘realized’ eschatology, and that of a ‘final judgment,’ at the coming again of the Lord, which will come at the end of time.” http://www.stdemetrios.ca.goarch.org/eschatology.html

[2] Clouse, Robert G., editor, "The Meaning of the Millennium", 1977, Intervarsity Press, "Historic Premillennialism", George Eldon Ladd, p. 17
Premillennialism is the doctrine stating that after the Second Coming of Christ, he will reign for a thousand years over the earth before the final consummation of God's redemptive purpose in the new heavens and the new earth of the Age to Come. This is the natural reading of Revelation 20:1-6.

[3] Cox, William E, "Amillennialism Today", 1975, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 1
A good definition of amillennialism come from the pen of one of its severist critics. "Its most general character is that of denial of a literal reign of Christ upon the earth. Satan is conceived as bound at the first coming of Christ. The present age between the first and second comings is the fulfillment of the millennium. Its adherents are divided on whether the millennium is being fulfilled now on the earth (Augustine) or whether it is being fulfilled by the saints in heaven (Kliefoth). It may be summed up in the idea that there will be no more millennium than there is now, and that the eternal state immediately follows the second coming of Christ. As they freely recognize that their concepto fht emillennium is quite foreigh to the premillennial view they have been given the title of amillennial by most writers" (John F. Walvoord, The Millennial Kingdom, p. 6).

[4] Cox, William E, "Amillennialism Today", 1975, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 8

[5] Ibid, p. 15. Cox points to an apparent discrepency in Walvoord’s The Millennial Kingdom, p. 62, where Walvoord seems to acknowledges the historical-grammatical method of the amillennialist and not any allegorical or spiritualization method.

[6] Weinandy, Thomas G., Keating, Daniel A., and Yocum, John P., editors, “Aquinas on Doctrine, A Critical Introduction”, 2004, T & T Clark International, “The Eschatology of St. Thomas Aquinas”, Matthew L. Lamb. In this section Lamb describes Aquinas’ clarification of Augustine’s position on various aspects of personal resurrection as well as adding a metaphysic that was later useful for dealing with Descarte’s dualism.

[7] Bock, Darrell L., editor, “Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond”, 1999, Zondervan, p. 100.
Robert Strimple summarizes amillennial eschatology in one paragraph:
The Old Testament does not teach a future millennial kingdom of Christ. Uniformly the Old Testament prophets speak of the Messiah's everlasting kingdom and everlasting blessing. With regard to the New Testament revelation concerning the future, however, we must say even more than that. Not only does the New Testament not teach a future millennial kingdom, in what it teaches about Christ's second coming, the New Testament rules out an earthly millennial kingdom following Christ's return, because the New Testament reveals clearly that the following events are all concurrent; that is, all will occur together in one cluster of end-time events, one grand dramatic finale of redemptive history: the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of believers (and the "change" of living believers I Cor. 15:51), the resurrection of the unjust, judgment for all, the end, the new heaven and new earth, and the inauguration of the final kingdom of God, the blessed eternal state of the redeemed.

[8] Bock, Darrell L., editor, “Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond”, 1999, Zondervan.
Craig Blaising briefly summarizes some of the conflicts and responses of dispensational and historic premillennialism:
Classical dispensationalism sought to resolve the tensions between new creation and spiritual vision eschatologies by affirming two coexisting eternal realms of salvation, one heavenly and one earthly. The earthly eschatology, dispensationalists believed, was clearly derived from literary historical studies of Old Testament prophecy; it corroborated Protestant millennialism's growing interest in Israel. At the same time, the early dispensationalists promoted a highly mystical form of Christian spirituality that drew heavily on the traditional spiritual vision model of heaven as the final destiny for Christian believers. Dispensationalists solved the tension between these two concerns by postulating two coexisting forms of ultimate salvation --one eternal in heaven for the church and one everlasting on the new earth for Israel. (p. 182)

Other than dispensationalism's experiment with dualist eschatologies, premillennialists throughout history have sought to present their views as one unfolding salvation narrative. In doing so, they had to face the question as to whether and to what extent they were willing to accommodate the cultural and traditional idea of a spiritual vision eschatology in the biblical text, and they easily related these features to the millennial kingdom that they expected on the basis of a literal reading of Revelation 20. But when it came to the final state, some were inclined to affirm a traditional spiritual vision of eternity. As a consequence, they developed premillennial views that might be called reductionist premillennialism. That is, they reduced the scope of new creation eschatological fulfillment ot the millennial period alone. Some reductionist premillennialisms can be found in the patristic period, as exemplified by Tertullian, as well as in the early modern recovery of premillennialism, as exemplified inthe seventeenth-century scholars Joseph Mede and Thomas Goodwin.

Other premillennialists were willing to adopt a more thoroughgoing new creation eschatology. The Millennium that they anticipated was compatible and consistent with the new creation order of the final state. We can see this in the patristic era in Irenaeus of Lyons, and in modern times in the work of many well-known nineteenth-century premillennialists, such as Nathaniel West, W. J. Erdman, A. J. Gordon, and Samuel Kellogg. This approach might be called consistent or holistic premillennialism. The work of George Ladd fits here as well. (p. 187-188)

[9] Pohle, Joseph, “Eschatology or The Catholic Doctrine of The Last Things: A Dogmatic Treatise”, 1946, B. Herder Book Co., pp. 155-156

[10] Weinandy, Thomas G., Keating, Daniel A., and Yocum, John P., editors, “Aquinas on Doctrine, A Critical Introduction”, 2004, T & T Clark International, “The Eschatology of St. Thomas Aquinas”, Matthew L. Lamb, p. 225

[11] Blaising, Craig A., and Bock., Darrell L., “Progressive Dispensationalism”, 1993, Bridgepoint, p. 46ff.

[12] Potts, J. H., Editor, “The Golden Dawn, or Light on the Great Future”, pp. 378-379, “Heathenism Giving Way,” George V. Leech.

[13] Clouse, Robert G., editor, "The Meaning of the Millennium", 1977, Intervarsity Press, "An Historic Premillennial Response", George Eldon Ladd, p. 189

[14] Cox, William E, "Amillennialism Today", 1975, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, p. 17
Just how objective are the premillenarians in their interpretation of Scripture? One example should suffice here. In order to get this example clearly before us we first quote a verse of Scripture: "After this I looked, and, behold, a door was opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard was as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter" (Rev. 4:1, Italics added). What does this verse say? Well, it says to John that John will be taken up higher and that John will be shown things which must happen after the time the voice was speaking. A, but is that what it says? Let us see now the objectivity with which the dispensational premillenarian approaches this verse. He says -- and bases much of his entire teaching on this -- that the voice actually was saying to the church that the church should come up higher and that the church would be shown things to come. And when will this verse be fulfilled? Well, the amillenarian would say that it happened -- to John -- nearly two thousand years ago. But not so, says Dr. Walvoord's group. They say it will not be fulfilled until the church is raptured.

[15] In his broadcast study of Romans, R. C. Sproul stated that Romans 11:28-29 is one passage which would seem to give credence to the dispensational position.

[16] Pohle, Joseph, “Eschatology or The Catholic Doctrine of The Last Things: A Dogmatic Treatise”

[17] Migliore, Daniel L., “Faith Seeking Understanding”, 1991, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, p. 238

[18] Clouse, Robert G., editor, "The Meaning of the Millennium", 1977, Intervarsity Press

[19] Bock, Darrell L., general editor, “Three Views of the Millennium and Beyond,” 1999, Zondervan

[20] Ibid, p. 65-66.

[21] Ibid, p. 58.

[22] Clouse, Robert G., editor, "The Meaning of the Millennium", 1977, Intervarsity Press, "A Dispensational Premillennial Response", Herman Hoyt, p. 145

[23] Ibid, p. 93.