Featured Historic(Chialist) pre-mill view?

I have a question for Historical Pre Mills, what do you see as distinguishing features between your view and dispensationalist, and how do you respond to dispensationalist using your view to try to prop of their own?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

What I mean is that I have had discussion with dispensationalist who will point to the early church father's, such as have already been mentioned in this thread, to say that their view is the oldest. They will not even mentioned that there are distinctions between dispensationalist, and historical pre mill. If you point out the difference between what the early church father's believe and dispensationalist believe they will then say that age doesn't matter, but if you bring up Darby they will once again point to church father's to show that their view predates Darby and it just goes around in circles.

Already there has been a dispensationalist on this thread say that he is a historical pre mill. And we have seen in point to the church father's but also try to cover up the difference between the two views by saying that the early church father's did not have detailed views but that got disproved fairly quickly by TCassidy.

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Apologies for the delay in replying, I've been about other things.

Just as a note before we get going, the historical premillennialist position is usually more about the role of the tribulation and the placement of the rapture, and whether there is one or two. The position on Israel and its role eschatologically has little to do with a historical premillennialist position but is more the result of one's view of either covenantalism or dispensationalism.

My position is that Israel as a spiritual people of the old covenants, or the political nation of today, no longer has significance in the eschatological accomplishment that is either separate or greater than the gentiles. Though geographically Israel may figure into some end time events, it isn't about the Jewish people or some new remnant of God's people. The Church is the key figure in the eschatological completion of the age. Most people will have a problem with this. There's a lot of discussion to be had on the background of this and where it lands theologically.

I see Israel (of the OT) and the Church (corporately) as successive entities. Keep in mind the "chialist" position in antiquity wasn't as developed as covenant theology is now. Most chialists, in the patristic period, were severe in their view of supersessionism to a point of being, what we now classify, as punitive supersessionism. I don't hold that view.

 

Perhaps she was attempting to write "prop up"?

 

Keep in mind I do see a nuanced difference between what some call Chialism and historical premillennialism. I prefer the latter term, particularly because it is broader and has not been hijacked by dispensationalists.

I would suggest that 1 Thess 4 occurs alongside the events between Rev 19 and 20. There is only rapture which occurs at the end of the age, prior to the millennial reign of Christ. The tribulation is a dubious concept which I reject in any limited timeline, and likewise, I also reject the notion of a singular anti-Christ.

Chialist eschatology wasn't very refined in patristic thought (which is where the Chialist interpretation is limited) so it is difficult to get a precise angle on their positions.

There is only one covenant whereby mankind is saved, the new covenant and all are equals in its application and their participation.

My personal view on the notion of chialism is that it effectively ends in the patristic period and historical premillennialism extends during their medieval and into the Reformation era. The challenge of eschatology in the Patristic period is that, by the time you get to Augustine, most are moving towards amillennialism. So it is unlikely to find a standard position on issues like you've listed above.

Some, for instance Irenaeus, do view a personal figure as an anti-Christ (e.g. AdvHaer 3.8.2; 5.25.1) but also talks generically about anti-Christ (e.g. AdvHaer 3.16.8.) Since the Roman Catholic Church doesn't take shape until the seventh century, and even well before during Nicaea, there isn't much to rebel against. One would be hard pressed to show any correlation, patristically, of an anti-Christ figure with a singular leader in the Catholic Church. You might find more of an indication in the arch-heretics (Arius, Marcion, Montanus, etc) of this era than a Christian view. The worst that could've happened at this point of time was that orthodox (small-o) Christians start accusing each other of being the anti-Christ.

I will note this, that from the NT and even documents from the Apostolic or near post-Apostolic age, we get a sense of waning immanence of Christ's return. Particularly in Paul we see him, in the early writings, anticipating a quick return of Christ for the end of the age, but in his late, near death, works, he hedges his language. This happens with other documents too. It shouldn't be surprising that in the 1st century there is a sizable move to see Christ returning soon, and very soon, and this carries into the second and third centuries. It becomes more inflamed during severe persecutions for sure, but then the nature of the Second Coming is pushed farther out it seems as we wander into the middle of the third century. The real challenge for the pre-trib, pre-mil dispensationalist is showing that any of their perspectives live on in the documents following the NT. You just don't get the sense that it does. Anyways...this is fruitful. Thank you for the conversation.