Here’s my concluding analysis for the review:

Although CHP addresses many important issues relating to nondispensational premillennialism and does an [...]]]> In case anyone’s interested, I’ve reviewed A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to “Left Behind” Eschatology (edited by Craig L. Blomberg and Sung Wook Chung) for the latest issue of Themelios.  You can read the review here.

Here’s my concluding analysis for the review:

Although CHP addresses many important issues relating to nondispensational premillennialism and does an adequate job of refuting its rival, overall the work fails to make a clear, comprehensive case for historic premillennialism. As one might expect (given its origin), the feel of the book is more that of a series of papers presented at a conference on historic premillennialism, than of a monograph intended to present a cohesive case for that system (as its title suggests). While several of the articles are excellent and make a strong positive contribution to the overall case, others, although good in their own right, contribute very little to the actual case for nondispensational premillennialism. The result is a work that offers many good arguments in favor of historic premillennialism and provides a helpful critique of “Left Behind” eschatology, but that never really defines either in a way that makes their fundamental differences clear (outside of their differing views of the timing of the rapture) or that advances a cohesive, systematic case for its preferred premillennial scheme. Perhaps the best way to summarize my impression of CHP is that I found its essays helpful and informative, but overall the book failed to deliver what its title had led me to expect.

“In my ideal world, there would be no church or parachurch organization, including seminaries, that would make [...]]]> In addition to Dever’s and Schreiner’s recent comments, Craig Blomberg also has some good comments on the non-essential nature of eschatological beliefs such as the millennium and the timing of the rapture.  In A Case for Historic Premillennialism Blomberg says:

“In my ideal world, there would be no church or parachurch organization, including seminaries, that would make a certain belief about the millennium or the tribulation a requirement of anything, such as membership, employment, or the like.  If we believe in the literal, visible, public return of Christ to usher in the judgment of the living and the dead, if we believe in the bodily resurrection of all people, some to eternal life and others to eternal destruction, surely we can agree to disagree in love over the particulars on which intelligent, godly, Bible-believing Christians have never achieved consensus and yet fellowship and work together at every level of Christian service and activity.  The classic orthodox creeds of the patristic period, like the major confessions of faith from the Protestant Reformation, never required more than this.”

He was referring specifically to the issue of the Millennium, but his comments obviously apply to lesser issues (like the timing of the rapture).  (And obviously his comments don’t apply to fundamental doctrines like the second coming and final judgment.) Here’s what he said:

“I think that [...]]]> So said Mark Dever in his sermon yesterday on Revelation 20.

He was referring specifically to the issue of the Millennium, but his comments obviously apply to lesser issues (like the timing of the rapture).  (And obviously his comments don’t apply to fundamental doctrines like the second coming and final judgment.) Here’s what he said:

“I think that millennial views need not be among those doctrines that divide us. . . .  I am suggesting that what you believe about the millennium—how you interpret these thousand years—is not something that it is necessary for us to agree upon in order to have a congregation together.  The Lord Jesus Christ prayed in John 17:21 that we Christians might be one.  Of course all true Christians are one in that we have his Spirit, we share his Spirit, we desire to live out that unity. But that unity is supposed to be evident as a testimony to the world around us.  Therefore, I conclude that we should end our cooperations together with other Christians (whether near-ly in a congregation, or more at length in working together in missions and church planting and evangelism and building up the ministry) only with the greatest of care, lest we rend the body of Christ for whose unity he’s prayed and given himself.  Therefore, I conclude that it is sin to divide the body of Christ—to divide the body that he prayed would be united. Therefore for us to conclude that we must agree upon a certain view of alcohol, or a certain view of schooling, or a certain view of meat sacrificed to idols, or a certain view of the millennium in order to have fellowship together is, I think, not only unnecessary for the body of Christ, but it is therefore both unwarranted and therefore condemned by scripture.  So if you’re a pastor and you’re listening to me, you understand me correctly if you think I’m saying you are in sin if you lead your congregation to have a statement of faith that requires a particular millennial view. I do not understand why that has to be a matter of uniformity in order to have Christian unity in a local congregation.” (italics added)

I couldn’t agree more.  Dever’s comments fit well with Tom Schreiner’s recent discussion of whether or not eschatological questions should be considered non-negotiable (see Jason Button’s blog for a transcript of some of Schreiner’s comments).

What I appreciate about Dever’s comments is that they emphasize a vitally important truth–one that many people have failed to understand: unity among believers is a non-negotiable absolute in Scripture, and anyone who breaks fellowship or cooperation when it is not absolutely required by Scripture is sinning. Period.  Unity and cooperation among believers is not optional.  The N.T. does allow for (i.e. requires) separation from professing believers in certain extreme circumstances of blatant, unrepentant sin, but the norm is clearly unity and cooperation.

More on this later.

BTW, Dever’s whole series on Revelation is simply excellent, and a breath of fresh air from the “Left Behind” preaching so prominent on Revelation today.  As a premillennialist, however, I prefer Tom Schreiner’s premil treatment of Revelation 20 to Dever’s amil treatment.