In that case the modern evangelical default position would be Premil Dispensationalism.
I agree. I'm not saying that holding on to default positions automatically makes it correct but I do agree with that statement.
I've read The Apocalypse Code and it seems Hank is a partial preterist.
Yes, Hank does not say he is a partial preterist but he continues to argue that revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD but he also believes Christ will come back. Thus, I would definitely call him a partial preterist.
Considering that many of the reformers had a catholic background it is not surprising that the default position of reformed theology to believe in the trinity.
Considering that many of the reformers had a catholic background it is not surprising that the default position of reformed theology is to believe in the incarnation.
Considering that many of the reformers had a catholic background it is not surprising that the default position of reformed theology is to believe in the virgin birth.
Considering that many of the reformers had a catholic background it is not surprising that the default position of reformed theology is to believe in the resurrection.
....your point?
They also believed in purgatory and indulgences. Saying that they have some of their doctrine correct does not automatically make all of their doctrine correct.
The Trinity, incarnation, virgin birth, and resurrection are biblical literal truths. Ammelianism, on the other hand, is biblical allegory. The early church held a pre mil position. It only change to amil as Rome and the pope began to gain positional power.
Another argument that is used is that you don't see premillenialism prior to the 18th century. Considering that Rome had power for far so many years it should not be surprising that we didn't see premillenialism in the church history. The reformation had to do with soteriology, the doctrine relating to salvation. Therefore I understand why the reformers didn't reform eschatology as well. I would much rather we get our doctrine straight on salvation than eschatology. But the only reason I raise any objection to amillenialism and preterism is because it is something I have trouble completely embracing. As I read and study the scriptures, old and new testament I find myself jumping back to a premillenial position. One of the most common themes in the Old Testament, besides the coming of Christ, is the forgiveness and restoration of Israel. It is almost in every single book.
The early church, including Jesus' own disciples, believed in the imminent return of Jesus. They were living under heavy persecution from Rome; in their eyes it was the last days. The Gospel was being preached everywhere, just like Jesus predicted; the church was being persecuted, just like Jesus predicted; Jerusalem and the Temple had been destroyed, just like Jesus predicted. All that was left, as far as the early church was concerned, was for Jesus to appear.
Therefore, the end time eschatology of the early church would have been one of imminence. It's only when it appeared that Jesus was delaying did end times theology start to change; as the years, decades and centuries went by the church started to make up new things like "amillennialism" and "premillennialism" and "postmillennialism" to try and untangle the mess that is end times prophecy.
Exactly, and it also doesn't help when Israel has vanished as a nation for hundreds of years. The idea was that since Jesus Christ did not appear immediately, they had misunderstood what he really meant. It was the church's job to take over the world, and once it had gotten to a point where most if not all of the world was converted that Christ would appear. We have the same idea in dominion theology, which is getting a huge reappearing in our modern days, especially in the mormon church.
Portions of this is correct but others are a stretch. For example, the apostles during Jesus time believed as the Jews believed, that Jesus would reign in the literal throne of David and deliver God's people. You can see this unfold clearly in Matthew and Luke. The imminence of His return dealt directly with the fulfillment of the literal kingdom on earth not with just the return of Jesus.
Which is why Paul would say...
Act 26:6 And now I stand and am judged for the hope of the promise made of God unto our fathers:
Act 26:7 Unto which promise our twelve tribes, instantly serving God day and night, hope to come. For which hope's sake, king Agrippa, I am accused of the Jews.
Act 26:8 Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?
