Primer on Eschatology

I think the problem with every book is that they all tend to be skewed in the whatever belief the author has. Usually the better ones are compiled by multiple authors, however they usually are never equally strong in each section. I don't know if this is due to the editor's viewpoints, or if it's just that certain arguments just aren't as strong.

The Meaning of the Millennium: Four Views edited by Robert Clouse is ok. Each section is written by a different person, unfortunately each section isn't as strong as the other. The Pre-Mil and A-Mil sections are the strongest.

Three Views on the Millennium and Beyond edited by Stanley Gundry is another ok one. But as the other text I mentioned the sections aren't equal in strength.

 

I think any book that is purely about eschatology is one to avoid.

Think about it. In all of the systematic studies, eschatology is the only one that refers to the Biblical narrative. It is the only systematic area that looks at the end of redemption history. But if we thought of eschatology not in the systematic form but in the biblical theology form, and if we started with a sound protology, and if that protology found its fulfillment in eschatology, and if both protology and eschatology were discussed in relationship to the redemptive history (the body of the story), then you have a sound eschatological theory.

My protology and salvation history understanding is why I am now an Amillennial. It has nothing to do w/ reading Rev. 20 spiritually or anything like that. My understanding of God's mission in the garden and how that mission was carried out by Israel, Jesus, and the church greatly affects how I see the Bible story ending.

Eschatology in a vacuum is weak and of little value. A good eschatology is based on a solid protology and sound metanarrative of Scripture.

So to answer your question: I would say any biblical theology that walks you through redemption history. There are many good ones out there that end w/ various eschatological schemes. And their value can be measured based whether the end matches the beginning and body of the story. If it seems completely distinct and separate, then they have done eschatology through the grid of systematic theology not biblical theology.

I would recommend Drama of Sripture or something similar like According to the Plan. I look forward to Schreiner's King in his Beauty (his biblical theology primer).

 

I do not have a book to recommend but a method for consideration. Try just looking at the four gospels, and what Jesus said concerning end times. Having read more than one interpretation of Revelation, I fear it is all too easy to get to where ever the interpreter wants go. I know I wrote up an understanding, and then years later reread it and laughed because my view had changed over time.

 

It would appear that some are essentially stating that Jesus was just "confused" in Matthew chapter 24 (for example).

 

http://www.christianbook.com/four-views-times-the-major-millennium/9781596360891/pd/360895

This is OK, however I have only read the participants guide, not the leader's guide. (It's to be used as a group study curriculum) I'm not sure, but I assume the leader's guide contains more info.

And I can empathize with you, I bailed on the dispensational scheme last year and settled into Historic pre-mil though I can see good support for a-mil.

 

"Things to come" by Dwight Pentecost would be one good source. He himself is pre-trub, pre-mill but he presents a number of views in a fair manner. This is a scholarly book as it was his doctoral thesis.

 

There is no one good source. All books have an opinion, ie bias. Read Ryrie or Pentecost on premillennialism; George Eldon Ladd on historic premillennialism; Keith Mathison on postmillenialism; and Kim Riddlebarger on Amillennialism. Take your time.

 

Didhe "convert" to a historical premil position?

 

Who is the question directed towards? If me, I stated that I converted to Amillism when I began to base my eschatology on biblical theology and the redemptive historical metanarrative.

 

wasn't a "dig", just wondered if you also heard that the author you referred too switched from Amil to His pre mil now?

 

I didn't take it as a dig. I was genuinely confused. Clarified