I don’t care much for George Eldon Ladd’s historic premillennialism, since it has scant support in Scripture, I think. Ladd pretty much concedes this when he writes:
One would never discover [premillennialism] from most of the the New Testament because it sees the future like a two-dimension canvas in terms of length and breadth without depth. The transition between the ages is viewed as through it were one simple event, even as the Old Testament prophets look forward to a single Day of the Lord. Only when we come to the Revelation do we find scripture clearly outlining the two stages in the conquest of Satan which are separated by the Millennium. [G.E. Ladd, The Gospel of the Kingdom, (Eerdmanns, 1959), p38]
He calls premillennialism “a fact”, despite the more obvious fact that the interpretation of 1 Cor. 15 and Rev. 19 are hotly contested. It’s not that I object to Ladd holding firmly to this interpretation. After all, we are all to be clear in our own minds about such things. But, I’m not sure if anyone is helped by using emphatic or definite language (like “fact” and “…scripture clearly outlines…”) to describe interpretations of ambiguous passages. Strongly held beliefs are not more true than weakly held beliefs, and so we need to teach in such a way that the expression of our beliefs reflects the strength of biblical support for them. If there is doubt, then don’t teach it as “fact”.
