Featured Eschatology...

Of course! Who would think anything different?

 

You hit the nail on the head with your hammer!

hav eto see if a literal view or a spirualized one best fits the prophetic word!

 

You might want to look at Historical pre Mil view, as that keeps the lord returning to set up Kingdom on earth in its fullnes, and reigning, but does not have the Dispy aspects to it!

I can see one not seeing a Rapture, but NOT seeing the pre Mil rule of christ on earth!

 

The best thing about those who believe the historic premillennial doctrine is: They have a Biblical doctrine of the Church rather than the dispensational doctrine that the Church is an afterthought, a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God's program for Israel.

 

I have to take issue with the idea that we should rely on the Bible instead of men for our opinions. I don't think it has to be either/or.

Every preacher I know has a library filled with books. If all we need is the Bible, why do we need books? And, if all we need is the Bible, why do we need pastors and teachers who have been given the gifts to follow their callings? Why should I sit under preaching by my pastor, if all I need is the Bible? Why should I pay any attention to my Sunday School teacher?

Frankly, I have been greatly influenced by others in their writing and preaching.

For instance, I read George Eldon Ladd's The Blessed Hope (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) when it first came out. It resonated with what I was taught by my pastor.

It was my pastor who first exposed me to historic pre-mil. Up to that point, all I had ever heard was pre-trib, I had read all the Hal Lindsey books, and took it for granted that it was the only view worth having.

One Sunday, my pastor preached from a post-trib view. Afterward, a bunch of us headed toward him to protest. We'd never heard this stuff before.

He held up his hand and said, "okay guys, we're not going to debate this tonight. Your assignment is to go to your Bibles. Find for me a clear, unequivocal scripture verse or passage which teaches a pre-trib rapture. The verse or passage must not be subject to any other interpretation. It must leave no doubt as to what it means."

So we did. We couldn't find one. I Thessalonians 4 was my go-to passage, but it only said what, not when. Ladd's book moved me closer to historic pre-mil and farther away from dispy pre-mil.

That said, I have lately been taking a closer look at A-mil. I'm not there yet, so I'm still at historic pre-mil. But I emphasize that that's where I am today. I'm keeping an open mind.

 

RLB

Look at each of those passages and read it as if Jesus is reigning from the heavenly Jerusalem.....and Zion

 

I still hold to a pre trib pre mil view but lately seeing that Mid trib makes sense also from the scriptures...

Historical pre mil seems to be the way progressive Dispy seems to be heading towards...

Still cannot see the millinium as being all spiritually Jesus reigning from heaven since asencion!

 

Why not... its the most fun!

 

maybe, but to me not the most scriptural!

 

I have a church friend who holds to mid-Trib, but won't fall out with anybody over it. She's the only one I know who holds to it.

 

My take on that is that IF we see the 2 witnesses in Revelation as standing/representing the Church on earth, once raptured up to heaven, satan falls to earth, and the beast/antichrist THAN has power to do his thing, as the Church would have been restraining him, as per paul!

 

This is the problem with the pre-trib eschatology. There is not one passage of Scripture that teaches such. I have routinely presented a very clear passage from the Gospel of John that teaches a "general resurrection" of all the dead: John 5:28, 29.

I realize that Revelation 20:5 speaks of a "first resurrection" which implies a second. Furthermore Revelation 20 speaks of a 1000 year reign. Consider that the First Resurrection, that of Jesus Christ, has already occurred. That cannot be denied. The second resurrection is that of John 5:28, 29. When does the 1000 year reign begin. Understanding that the Book of Revelation is a book of symbols the 1000 need not be understood literally and may well indicate the time lapse between the two comings of Jesus Christ with the departed Saints reigning with Jesus Christ.

 

Revelation 20:4-6
4. And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5. But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6. Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.

Notice in Verse 4 that John sees souls, not resurrected bodies.

The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the "first bodily resurrection". There can be no argument about that! Who are those who have part in the first resurrection? They are the Saints, the "true believers". Those Saints who are deceased are now reigning with Jesus Christ in Heaven!

Then there is the spiritual resurrection which occurs when the Saints are "regenerated" or saved [John 5:25]. There are many who believe this is the resurrection called the "first resurrection" in the above Scripture.

 

Classic dispy views the Church as brought in as you say 'after thought", but many progressive ones like myself see the Church as already in Will of God, based upon isreal rejecting yeshua as their messiah!