The Highway
Posted By: Tom Progressive Parallelism - Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:03 PM
I had the pleasure of talking to a pastor/theologian who is Amillennial. I was talking to him about William Hendrickson’s book, ‘More Than Conquerors’.

The response I received back went a little over my head; so later I did a little more research.
He said among other things:
Beale and Smalley and Johnson for that matter, flesh out more thoroughly the progressive parallelism advocated by Hendricksen
The following is something I found on “Progressive Parallelism”.

Any thoughts that may help me to understand this better, would be appreciated.
Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Progressive Parallelism - Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:11 AM
OVERSIMPLICATION follows: the revealing of specific events during certain time periods which are repeated but with more information than the first. So, typically you will get 2 "parallels" of each event/time period as the revelation progresses toward the final judgment of the wicked and the glorification of the elect and the finalization of the New Heaven and New Earth.
Posted By: Tom Re: Progressive Parallelism - Sat Sep 26, 2020 9:49 PM
Do you know whether or not Beale who is Amil believes "Progressive Parallelism"?
I was not sure from what I read.
It did appear that many Amils do not agree with "Progressive Parallelism". Though, I had thought it was part of the Amil argument.

Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Progressive Parallelism - Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:08 PM
1. Don't know about Beale's approach to eschatology.

2. Don't know how many Amils agree with Progressive Parallelism.

3. I do know I have been persuaded by Hendriksen's overall understanding of Revelation from the very first time I read his More Than Conquerors.

4. Hoeksema's book, Behold He Cometh is quite good and I see similarities with Hendriksen's approach.
Posted By: Tom Re: Progressive Parallelism - Sun Sep 27, 2020 1:35 AM
I don’t want to spend too long on this, but in the link I provided in my OP, it said regarding Hendrickson and others who believe in Progressive Parallelism.

However, none of these authors manages to give a textual reason for the theory of repetition they all espouse, made especially difficult for them when you consider John’s constant use of conjunctions to tie each section together. It’s an imaginative theory; but I think it is incumbent on them to prove from the text itself that their method is valid, especially considering that they do not treat any other book of the bible (even the apocalyptic ones) in the same manner. And it seems to me that they are much too reliant on divisions of John’s letter that are not obvious in the original text. In other words, they rely on the rather random chapter and verse divisions, of which John’s First Century audience would have been completely unaware.
Anthony Hoekema, one of the leading proponents of the Progressive Parallelism view, understood where the “fatal flaw” was in his theory. In his book, The Bible and The Future, Hoekema wrote, commenting on Revelation 20:1-6:
“The premillennial interpretation of these verses understands them as describing a millennial reign of Christ on earth which will follow his Second Coming. And it is true that the Second Coming of Christ has been referred to in the previous chapter (see 19:11-16). If, then, one thinks of Revelation 20 as setting forth what follows chronologically after what has been described in chapter 19, one would indeed conclude that the millennium of Revelation 20:1-6 will come after the return of Christ. As has been indicated above, however, chapters 20-22 comprise the last of the seven sections of the book of Revelation, and therefore do not describe what follows the return of Christ. Rather, Revelation 20:1 takes us back once again to the beginning of the New Testament era.” (pp. 226-227)
In other words, Hoekema admitted that if chapter 20 continues chronologically on the heels of chapter 19, the thousand years described therein would occur after the return of Christ. However, because such a conclusion runs contrary to his system, Hoekema dismisses the idea of chronology and argues for the consistency of the system rather than the consistency of the text. He gives us no grammatical or exegetical evidence for the idea of parallelism; he just assumes it and charges forward….

It also gives examples.

How would you handle this critique?

By the way, I think Beale does indeed believe in Progressive Parallelism. It was just the opinion of the pastor/theologian that I talked to, that Beale fleshed it out more.

Posted By: Pilgrim Re: Progressive Parallelism - Sun Sep 27, 2020 9:38 AM
Another silly Premillennialist trying to refute the Amillennial view. The "and"s he uses to disprove the Progressive Parallelism view simply doesn't work. Why? Because the content/context of each of the divisions which are seen. The repetition of similar events within the respective divisions are obvious. So, I would use the author's own conclusion to his view... if the Progressive Parallelism view is false, then the book of Revelation makes little sense. Personally, I could care less about such arguments, especially the specious claim that Chiliasm was the uncontested orthodox view, and then (implied) that modern Premillenialsim is a synonym of Chiliasm. See The History of Chiliasm. Cornelis P. Venema's book The Promise of the Future, from which there are a few articles in the Escatology section of "Calvinism and the Reformed Faith" on The Highway website deals with the differences between the two views; Amillennialism vs. Premilleniallism and defends the former more than adequately. Why you are once again allowing yourself to be involved with and/or troubled by such arguments is somewhat puzzling. scratchchin
Posted By: Tom Re: Progressive Parallelism - Sun Sep 27, 2020 11:48 PM
Just so you know, when I am studying a subject like eschatology, sometimes I find by looking at the arguments against it and actually looking at the context of the Scripture they use; often helps me in taking a firmer grip on the position (Amil) I lean most towards.
It is interesting when I see Scripture verses critics of the Amil position use, are used out of context. Yet, often it is easier not to do the homework of checking the context. Context is king.
It also really helps to get another Christians perspective on the same material; mainly because another set of eyes notices things I don't. Thank you for that, Pilgrim. smile

I must admit however, that although the subject of eschatology certainly does not stress me out like learn Calvinist soteriology did years ago. It certainly is not an easy subject to get a firm grip on.
I have been studying the subject for many years and though I am fairly certain that the Amil position is biblical. I still think I am barely scratching the surface in terms of learning it enough to defend it biblically.

I also need to admit I did not notice the comments about Chiliasm (Historical Premillenialism?) being the uncontested orthodox view.
My understanding is it was just one of the 3 main orthodox views in historic orthodox Christianity.
I believe however the two main positions at least when it comes to confessionalism, were Post and Amil.

© The Highway