Believing Amillennialism requires inconsistent hermeneutics and Eschatology

This is a good article that refutes Amillennialism. If you read the whole article that was quoted in part here and still do not understand the issues or still want to believe in Amillennialism you might read my own article on Amillennialism. It gives many more arguments and details. The facts are that believing Amillennialism requires inconsistent hermeneutics and inconsistent Eschatology.

Inconsistent Eschatology: Examining Amillennialism

Many read the Bible with two competing views mixing pre, post, and amillennial scholarship through the use of randomly bought commentaries. This “grab bag” of interpretations is sloppily promoted through prophetic guess sessions linked with every current event to hit the papers. Chafer answers this current trend with these pointed words:

Lastly, the Scriptures present but one system of truth. Men may not comprehend it, and of those who disagree respecting interpretation one or both sides of the controversy may be wrong; but both cannot be right. The Word of God does not lend itself as support to postmillennial, amillennial, and premillennial schemes of interpretation at the same time. It is for the student to weigh these claims and to be convinced of which one is Biblical.[5]

Answering the claim that prophecy should be avoided because it is “divisive,” Chafer goes on to say that he believes the premillennial position to be irrefutable and points out that there are no more problems in Eschatology than in Soteriology.[6] Disagreements as divisive as the raging debate between Calvinism and Arminianism do not hinder the great creedal statements made by the reformers but disunity over even the slightest aspect of Eschatology has been seized on as a reason to neglect prophecy.[7]

Prophetic Hermeneutics

It is of great significance that some amillennialists have admitted that if they took prophetic Scripture at face value they would have to be premillennialists.[15] Being that God has spoken to us through the medium of language, it is not unreasonable to think that He would not write something for us that we could not understand. The allegorical method of interpretation used by the amillennialist for prophecy misses the main point of allegory and symbolism; to make a picture clearer. Interpreting the promise in Isaiah 11:6-9 that ferocious animals will be tame as referring to the spiritual transformation of Saul, changed from a “vicious wolf-like persecutor to a lamblike follower of Christ,” is plain wrong.[16] The rules for interpretation are not arbitrary because they are the rules we use everyday in order to understand one another. To say “I ran for a mile,” would imply, in normal everyday speech that I actually ran for a literal mile. It is the normal meaning of my words that are being interpreted. The Bible is a human book, and God is a God of order who makes sense. It would be false to say that I meant that I ran for spiritual miles. Likewise, if I were to say that I ran like the wind it would be false to think that I was invisible and I went across the water. But rather that I, being a person, ran as fast as I could. In this case, depending on the context that I am not crazy, it would seem I am literally using an idiom. Whenever we read or hear anything we presume the literal meaning, which includes figures of speech, until the nature of the communication gives us reason to presume otherwise. This is the way the Bible is to be interpreted. To do otherwise gives one no safeguard to the imaginations of man and leaves God without the same authority we give ourselves, the ability to define our own terms when we communicate.

Full article