Millennialism – Ch 5-6 Combo!

It’s been a while since I’ve posted on Dr. Charles Feinberg’s “Millennialism”, so let’s pick it up with a two-fer! Actually, Chapters 5 & 6 are rather short, so it makes sense to combine them into one blog post.

—Chapter 5: “The Historical Argument for Premillennialism”—

The title for this chapter is completely self-explanatory, but don’t make the mistake of thinking that somehow this is an unnecessary argument. A classic critique of Dispensationalism is that the theological system is such a recent innovation, appearing at the writings of John Darby in the mid-1800’s. Not that premillennialism belongs solely to Dispensationalism (it doesn’t), but the historical account shows that premillennialism is anything BUT a recent theological position within the church. As Dr. Feinberg argues, premillennialism was THE predominant school of thought among the Church Fathers until Origen’s allegorical interpretations & it was almost permanently set aside after Augustine.

As has been standard in the book, Feinberg shows where Amillennialists disagree, and then proceeds to demonstrate they were wrong. (One charge that cannot be made against the late Dr. Feinberg is that he was unbiased! But in fairness, he made it clear which side of the argument he stood on in the 1st pages.)

The bottom line Dr. Feinberg is getting across is that (1) premillennialism is absolutely biblical, and (2) premillennialism has a great historical basis within the church…and thus it is an absolutely valid alternative to amillennialism.
.

—Chapter 6: “Pre- and Amillennialism as Systems”—

Admittedly, this chapter is one of the most circular arguments in the book thus far, at least to my reading. Basically, it says that premillennialism has an accompanying theological system & amillennialism doesn’t, so premillennialism must be the better system. Obviously an argument can be made on *why* a theological system matters, but it seems that Feinberg assumes this truth; he does not provide one.

If there’s any critique I have thus far with the book, this goes to the heart of it. Dr. Feinberg’s work is extensive, no doubt…but he seems to have written it for the academia & not the layperson. I’m learning a lot from the book, but I would hesitate to give it to someone as a primer on premillennialism…most people (and I would include myself with them at times) would get lost with all the counterarguments to other theologians out there.

——-
Next time: we begin part 2 – Dr. Feinberg’s analysis of the premillennial system. I’m hoping we get beyond the counterarguments here & into the depths of the foundation of premillennialism.