R. C. Sproul and Amillennialism

[claninja]

R C sproul’s theology was reformed Amillennialsim. His eschatology was partial preterism.

His understanding of “this generation” is that it refers to Jesus’ contemporary generation, and is in line with partial preterism and the destruction of Jerusalem as being about the “coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel”

His understanding of the end of the age or last days is that it refers to end of the Jewish “age”.

1.) I’m just curious if there are there any current amillenials, who converted from dispensationalism, that agree with R C Sproul on “this generation” and “end of the age”? (My personal experience is that those raised Amil have an easier time accepting partial preterism, while those who were raised dispensational and converted to Amil later in life, have a difficult time accepting partial preterism)

2.) I find it interesting that RC sprouls arguments against non religious bible critics for “this generation” and “end of the age” are the same arguments partial preterists use agains dispensational futurists and hyperfuturists. Any thoughts?

 

[Hazelelponi]

I've never been anything but Amil since I was saved, but I recognize the commonalities - simply because when I first explored the topic I thought I was a partial preterist because they share very similar arguments.

Interesting thread - posting to bookmark.

 

[DavidPT]

R C sproul’s theology was reformed Amillennialsim. His eschatology was partial preterism.

His understanding of “this generation” is that it refers to Jesus’ contemporary generation, and is in line with partial preterism and the destruction of Jerusalem as being about the “coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel”

His understanding of the end of the age or last days is that it refers to end of the Jewish “age”.

1.) I’m just curious if there are there any current amillenials, who converted from dispensationalism, that agree with R C Sproul on “this generation” and “end of the age”? (My personal experience is that those raised Amil have an easier time accepting partial preterism, while those who were raised dispensational and converted to Amil later in life, have a difficult time accepting partial preterism)

2.) I find it interesting that RC sprouls arguments against non religious bible critics for “this generation” and “end of the age” are the same arguments partial preterists use agains dispensational futurists and hyperfuturists. Any thoughts?

I have heard of Sproul before but never listened to any of his teachings. So I started with the first video in this thread and managed to get through 8 minutes of it, and I couldn't listen to anymore. Those first 8 minutes I reject, thus not accept, pretty much everything he said. To apply Mark 13:30 to Jesus' contemporaries in the first century is bad enough. But to then apply verse 32 to verse 30 if verse 30 is allegedly pertaining to what he claims, is ludicrous. As if it is reasonable, the fact Jesus could clearly see beyond 70 AD, that He wouldn't know the day or the hour that event was to take place. The day and hour in question has to do with the end of this age and His bodily return, not the first century and 70 AD. Therefore, verse 30 would be out of context if meaning the first century and 70 AD while verses 32 is meaning the end of this age and His bodily return.

At this point in the Discourse, Jesus is speaking of things pertaining to the end of this age, not things pertaining to the first century and 70 AD. How anyone can be convinced Mark 13:30 is applicable to Jesus' contemporaries in the first century, is something I can't relate to, because, no way in a million years, per that context, could it possibly be pertaining to the first century and 70 AD, thus no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise.

Though I don't currently agree with Amillenialism, it is at least refreshing that there are Amils who wouldn't dare interpret some of the Discourse the way Preterists do. Yet some of these same Amils do interpret some of the Discourse the way Preterists do. An example, the AOD and great tribulation. Preterists apply that to the first century and 70 AD, and so do some of these Amils. Meaning Amils that interpret Mark 13:30-32 correctly by applying that to the end of this age and the 2nd coming.

I think there are even some Premils that apply Mark 13:30 in the same manner as Preterists do, but they then apply verse 32 to the end of this age and the 2nd coming. Where, in their case, they are not being consistent since verse 32 is undeniably pertaining to verse 30.

 

[claninja]

I've never been anything but Amil since I was saved, but I recognize the commonalities - simply because when I first explored the topic I thought I was a partial preterist because they share very similar arguments.

Interesting thread - posting to bookmark.

Thanks for the response! I was raised in the reformed Amil church, since I was a kid, So accepting partial preterism was just that much easier, as many in those theological circles are influenced by it. My dad is a big fan of R.C. sproul, and I've always enjoyed reading his teachings and interpretations on scripture. Not that I agree with everything, but I still believe he was a brilliant theologian. What I find fascinating is that, in my personal experience, many dispensationalists, who have converted to Amil later in life, will completely disagree R.C. Sproul's partial preterist eschatology. They still cling to that dispensationalist influenced eschatology, despite changing their position on the interpretation of the millennium. This is not to say that there aren't any life long amils who still believe the OD is about the 2nd coming. It's only to point out that in my experience, lifelong Amils are more prone to accept partial preterism, than those that converted from dispensationalism.

Fingers crossed (though expectations set really, really low), still hoping for a dispensationalist, who converted to amil later in life, and agrees with partial preterism to chime in. It'd be very interesting to see what pushed them that far in eschatological beliefs.

 

[claninja]

I have heard of Sproul before but never listened to any of his teachings. So I started with the first video in this thread and managed to get through 8 minutes of it, and I couldn't listen to anymore. Those first 8 minutes I reject, thus not accept, pretty much everything he said. To apply Mark 13:30 to Jesus' contemporaries in the first century is bad enough. But to then apply verse 32 to verse 30 if verse 30 is allegedly pertaining to what he claims, is ludicrous. As if it is reasonable, the fact Jesus could clearly see beyond 70 AD, that He wouldn't know the day or the hour that event was to take place. The day and hour in question has to do with the end of this age and His bodily return, not the first century and 70 AD. Therefore, verse 30 would be out of context if meaning the first century and 70 AD while verses 32 is meaning the end of this age and His bodily return.

I have no doubt that you do not agree with Sproul. Sproul was a big proponent of apologetics when it comes to defending difficult passages against unbelieving bible critics. And so his arguments in video 1 and video 2 are largely in that regard, and NOT defending against dispensationalism.

dispensationalists agree with unbelieving bible critics and scholars that the OD was not fulfilled in the first century

Partial prets agree with unbelieving bible critics and scholars that "genea" means Jesus' contemporaries.

At this point in the Discourse, Jesus is speaking of things pertaining to the end of this age, not things pertaining to the first century and 70 AD. How anyone can be convinced Mark 13:30 is applicable to Jesus' contemporaries in the first century, is something I can't relate to, because, no way in a million years, per that context, could it possibly be pertaining to the first century and 70 AD, thus no one will ever be able to convince me otherwise.

completely disagree

Though I don't currently agree with Amillenialism, it is at least refreshing that there are Amils who wouldn't dare interpret some of the Discourse the way Preterists do. Yet some of these same Amils do interpret some of the Discourse the way Preterists do. An example, the AOD and great tribulation. Preterists apply that to the first century and 70 AD, and so do some of these Amils. Meaning Amils that interpret Mark 13:30-32 correctly by applying that to the end of this age and the 2nd coming.

That's not really saying much if those Amils were converts from dispensationalism.

 

[DavidPT]

Sproul was a big proponent of apologetics when it comes to defending difficult passages against unbelieving bible critics. And so his arguments in video 1 and video 2 are largely in that regard, and NOT defending against dispensationalism.

dispensationalists agree with unbelieving bible critics and scholars that the OD was not fulfilled in the first century

Partial prets agree with unbelieving bible critics and scholars that "genea" means Jesus' contemporaries.

I realize that, which presents another problem, IMO. Sproul and apologists like him, act as if there are no other options. Either Jesus was meaning His contemporaries in the first century, in regards to this generation not passing until all these things be fulfilled, or Jesus lied. And since no bodily coming occurred in 70 AD, these things can be explained another way, that He came in another sense. But that's not the only option, though. If this generation does not pass until He bodily returns, and the fact He hasn't bodily returned yet, this does not equal Jesus lied if this generation is not meaning His contemporaries in the first century. Does Sproul offer that as a solution as well to these unbelieving bible critics? I'm guessing probably not, though I don't know that for certain.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Though I don't currently agree with Amillenialism, it is at least refreshing that there are Amils who wouldn't dare interpret some of the Discourse the way Preterists do. Yet some of these same Amils do interpret some of the Discourse the way Preterists do.

LOL. So what? We also interpret much of the Discourse the way Futurists do. So, all of this means what exactly? Nothing, really. If anything, it means our particular view is more balanced than the views of Futurists and Preterists.

Jesus was undeniably asked about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time, but also was asked about His second coming at the end of this temporal age. So, Amils like myself acknowledge that and understand that He spoke both about things that ended up happening in 70 AD and things that would happen in the future to that (His coming at the end of the age) and things that would be ongoing in between those things (wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc.).

 

[Spiritual Jew]

R C sproul’s theology was reformed Amillennialsim. His eschatology was partial preterism.

His understanding of “this generation” is that it refers to Jesus’ contemporary generation, and is in line with partial preterism and the destruction of Jerusalem as being about the “coming of Christ in judgement upon Israel”

His understanding of the end of the age or last days is that it refers to end of the Jewish “age”.

1.) I’m just curious if there are there any current amillenials, who converted from dispensationalism, that agree with R C Sproul on “this generation” and “end of the age”?

That would be interesting if there are any. There probably are a few, but any who post here? It's doubtful. I used to be Premil, but was never a dispensationalist. And, of course, I disagree with RC Sproul and partial preterism (mostly, but agree with a few things that partial preterists believe and futurists disagree with).

(My personal experience is that those raised Amil have an easier time accepting partial preterism, while those who were raised dispensational and converted to Amil later in life, have a difficult time accepting partial preterism)

Are you talking about people who were raised Amil, but not partial preterist?

2.) I find it interesting that RC sprouls arguments against non religious bible critics for “this generation” and “end of the age” are the same arguments partial preterists use agains dispensational futurists and hyperfuturists. Any thoughts?

Is it assumed that all non-religious Bible critics interpret those terms the same way? I don't understand this one.

 

[claninja]

I realize that, which presents another problem, IMO. Sproul and apologists like him, act as if there are no other options. Either Jesus was meaning His contemporaries in the first century, in regards to this generation not passing until all these things be fulfilled, or Jesus lied. And since no bodily coming occurred in 70 AD, these things can be explained another way, that He came in another sense. But that's not the only option, though. If this generation does not pass until He bodily returns, and the fact He hasn't bodily returned yet, this does not equal Jesus lied if this generation is not meaning His contemporaries in the first century. Does Sproul offer that as a solution as well to these unbelieving bible critics? I'm guessing probably not, though I don't know that for certain.

I’m not familiar with any unbelieving Bible critics that would argue the phrase “this generation” refers to anyone else but Jesus’ contemporaneous generation. So, in that regard, it wouldn’t make sense for Sproul to argue that “this generation” can mean something else in the context of apologetics.



**however, If anyone is aware of any unbelieving scholars who argue ”this generation” can refer to those outside of Jesus’ contemporaneous generation, i think that would really add to the discussion.

 

[DavidPT]

LOL. So what? We also interpret much of the Discourse the way Futurists do. So, all of this means what exactly? Nothing, really. If anything, it means our particular view is more balanced than the views of Futurists and Preterists.

Jesus was undeniably asked about the timing of the destruction of the temple buildings standing at that time, but also was asked about His second coming at the end of this temporal age. So, Amils like myself acknowledge that and understand that He spoke both about things that ended up happening in 70 AD and things that would happen in the future to that (His coming at the end of the age) and things that would be ongoing in between those things (wars and rumors of wars, earthquakes, etc.).

Since I already started a thread involving Daniel 12 and Matthew 24:15-21 awhile back, I just revisited that thread with what you said in this post, in mind, and that I added a post to that thread. Which then further lays out some more of my reasoning concerning some of this. No doubt, you will still disagree, regardless, since I can't even recall one single time since I have known you, where you initially disagreed with me about something, then changed your mind then agreed with me instead. I can't say the same about me though, since there have been a number of things since knowing you, that I initially disagreed with you about, but then eventually agreed with you about. In my case, I can sometimes meet someone somewhere in the middle at least. In your case, at least in regards to me, it seems to be either, all your way, or no way, thus no meeting somewhere in the middle.

 

[claninja]

That would be interesting if there are any. There probably are a few, but any who post here? It's doubtful. I used to be Premil, but was never a dispensationalist. And, of course, I disagree with RC Sproul and partial preterism (mostly, but agree with a few things that partial preterists believe and futurists disagree with).

Doubtful yes, but fingers crossed. I’m curious what would make someone jump from premil/disp to partial pret/amil?



If you don’t mind me asking, what made you change from premil to Amil?

Are you talking about people who were raised Amil, but not partial preterist?

Correct. From my personal experience, those that were raised Amil, but not necessarily partial preterist, seem to have an easier time accepting partial preterism vs those who converted later in life from premil/dispensationalism to Amil.

Is it assumed that all non-religious Bible critics interpret those terms the same way? I don't understand this one.

The Main argument by an unbelieving biblical critics is that Jesus was wrong as he didn’t return bodily to end the world within “Jesus’ contemporaneous generation”. Sproul argument is mainly against that. Now, if there are any unbelieving biblical critics that argue that “this genea” refers to those beyond Jesus’ contemporaneous generation, I think that would be helpful for the discussion.

 

[JM]

It has been said on numerous occasions that RC was moving toward Postmil and away from Amil. At the very least he was very sympathetic to Postmil.

 

[claninja]

It has been said on numerous occasions that RC was moving toward Postmil and away from Amil. At the very least he was very sympathetic to Postmil.

Interesting. I wonder if his being influenced by postmill, and a more optimistic outlook on the kingdom, is what influenced his eschatology to partial preterism?

That would be a great study: Are those with an “optimistic” view more inclined to accept partial preterism than those with a “pessimistic” view?

 

[JM]

Interesting. I wonder if his being influenced by postmill, and a more optimistic outlook on the kingdom, is what influenced his eschatology to partial preterism?

That would be a great study: Are those with an “optimistic” view more inclined to accept partial preterism than those with a “pessimistic” view?

Sproul recommended Matheson's book on Postmillennialism and I would as well. It would be a good help in your study.

I'm Postmil by the way.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Since I already started a thread involving Daniel 12 and Matthew 24:15-21 awhile back, I just revisited that thread with what you said in this post, in mind, and that I added a post to that thread. Which then further lays out some more of my reasoning concerning some of this. No doubt, you will still disagree, regardless, since I can't even recall one single time since I have known you, where you initially disagreed with me about something, then changed your mind then agreed with me instead. I can't say the same about me though, since there have been a number of things since knowing you, that I initially disagreed with you about, but then eventually agreed with you about. In my case, I can sometimes meet someone somewhere in the middle at least. In your case, at least in regards to me, it seems to be either, all your way, or no way, thus no meeting somewhere in the middle.

I have my mind mostly made up on these things and that has been the case for awhile. There's nothing wrong with that. I only got to that point after doing much study. I can't help it that you have such a hard time deciding what you believe about some things. You can't expect me to be just like you in that way.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Doubtful yes, but fingers crossed. I’m curious what would make someone jump from premil/disp to partial pret/amil?

If you don’t mind me asking, what made you change from premil to Amil?

I was not really exposed to Amil at all until I joined a different forum many years ago now. I had already believed that Christ would destroy all His enemies when He returned, but I just didn't put two and two together as to what that would mean when it comes to Revelation 20.

But, the discussions I saw on there made me dig into the scriptures more deeply and I concluded that Amil was true based on the scriptures that I studied. I concluded that those scriptures teach that Christ reigns now and has been since His resurrection, that all believers will be changed and all of the dead in Christ will be raised when Christ returns, that all unbelievers will be destroyed when Christ returns, that there is one general resurrection day/event and that there is only one judgment day.

Correct. From my personal experience, those that were raised Amil, but not necessarily partial preterist, seem to have an easier time accepting partial preterism vs those who converted later in life from premil/dispensationalism to Amil.

That makes sense because going from dispensationalism to partial preterism is going from one extreme to another.

The Main argument by an unbelieving biblical critics is that Jesus was wrong as he didn’t return bodily to end the world within “Jesus’ contemporaneous generation”.

It's too bad that they have the wrong understanding of "this generation" just like you.

Sproul argument is mainly against that.

In what way? His understanding of "this generation" is the same as theirs, right? He doesn't argue that Jesus returned bodily in 70 AD, does he?

Now, if there are any unbelieving biblical critics that argue that “this genea” refers to those beyond Jesus’ contemporaneous generation, I think that would be helpful for the discussion.

I don't know if there are any. It's not surprising that they would just assume that the word would mean what it most commonly means without thinking any more about it and considering other definitions of the word beyond that. I wouldn't expect them to consider context or anything like that since they are unbelievers.

 

[claninja]

I was not really exposed to Amil at all until I joined a different forum many years ago now. I had already believed that Christ would destroy all His enemies when He returned, but I just didn't put two and two together as to what that would mean when it comes to Revelation 20.

But, the discussions I saw on there made me dig into the scriptures more deeply and I concluded that Amil was true based on the scriptures that I studied. I concluded that those scriptures teach that Christ reigns now and has been since His resurrection, that all believers will be changed and all of the dead in Christ will be raised when Christ returns, that all unbelievers will be destroyed when Christ returns, that there is one general resurrection day/event and that there is only one judgment day.

Thanks for sharing. I appreciate that.

That makes sense because going from dispensationalism to partial preterism is going from one extreme to another.

With such a big jump, I would question if someone was even really that into premil. Maybe just more of “raised that way” but didn’t buy into too much?

Otherwise, maybe historic premil, which is often preterist when it comes to the OD, but futurist when it comes to revelation?

Just throwing out ideas.

It's too bad that they have the wrong understanding of "this generation" just like you.

Lol, nice burn .

In what way? His understanding of "this generation" is the same as theirs, right? He doesn't argue that Jesus returned bodily in 70 AD, does he?

Yes, to his understanding of generation being the same as theirs. And no, he doesn’t argue the son of man coming on the clouds = the 2nd coming.

I don't know if there are any. It's not surprising that they would just assume that the word would mean what it most commonly means without thinking any more about it and considering other definitions of the word beyond that. I wouldn't expect them to consider context or anything like that since they are unbelievers.

Why would they consider other definitions when it doesn’t have any other meaning besides contemporaneous in the koine Greek? Just about every English Bible translates it as generation, and every other use of genea (koine Greek) in the LXX and NT refers to contemporaries.

That being said, it seems easier to “interpret” the coming of the son of man on the clouds, in the context of the temple destroying, as something other than the 2nd bodily coming, than it would be to change or stretch the definition of the word, in regards sprouls counter to secular scholars and critics.