The following excerpt is from Christian Theology by Millard Erickson. Like the post below, it too is reproduced without the publisher’s permission, awareness, or (hopefully) objection.

After rejecting postmillennialism, Erickson discusses the remaing two options:

This leaves us with a choice between amillennialism and premillennialism. The issue comes down to the biblical refrences to the millennium – are they sufficient grounds for adopting the more complicated premillennial view rather than the simpler amillennial conception? It is sometimes contended that the whole premillennial conception rests on a single passage of Scripture, and that no doctrine should be based on a single passage. But if one view can account for a specific reference better than can another, and both views explain the rest of Scripture about equally well, then the former view must certainly be judged more adequate than the latter.

“We note here that there are no biblical passages with which premillennialism cannot cope, or which it cannot adequatly explain. We have seen, on the other hand, that the reference to two resurrections (Rev 20) gives amillennialists difficulty. Their explanations that we have here two different types of resurrection or two spiritual resurrections strain the usual principles of hermeneutics. The premillennialism case appears stronger at this point.

“Nor is the premillennialist interpretation based on only one passage in the Bible. Intimations of it are found in a number of places. For example, Paul writes, ‘For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; then, when he comes, those who belong to him. Then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power’ (1 Cor 15.22-24). Paul uses the adverbs επειτα (epeita – v. 23) and ειτα (eita – v. 24), which indicate temporal sequence. He could have used the adverb τοτε (tote to indicate concurrent events, but he did not do so. It appears that just as the first coming and resurrection of Christ were distinct events separated by time, so will there be an interval between the second coming and the end. We should also observe that while the two resurrections are spoken of explicitly only in Revelation 20, there are other passages that hint at either a resurrection of a select group (Luke 14.14, 20.35; 1 Cor 15.23; Phil 3.11; 1 Thess 4.16) or a resurrection in two stages (Dan 12.2; John 5.29). In Philippians 3.11, for example, Paul speaks of his hope of attaining ‘the resurrection from the dead.’ Literally, the phrase reads ‘the out-resurrection out from among the dead ones’ (την εξαναστασιν την εκ νεκρων – ten exanastasin ten ek nekron). Note in particular the prefixed preposition and the plural. These texts fit well with the concept of two resurrections. Accordingly, we judge the premillennial view to be more adequate than amillennialism.” – pp 1223-4


2 Cor 1:13