Featured Historic(Chialist) pre-mill view?

I'm a historical premillennialist. I also hold to covenant theology and am not dispensational...so that might be a bit of a unique perspective around here.

I don't believe that there will be a tribulation of any specific time period nor a seven year tribulation. You'll find a variety of positions on this from theologians.

This is also varied, but, in accordance with my covenant theological position, I'm also an economic supersessionist in terms of the relationship between the Church and Jews. Your question is rather broad so I don't know what specific issues you would like insight on, but I am happy to provide some input on more specific inquiry.

Ask away.

 

Van, this is a Doctrinal Discussion, the use of Scripture is generally expected.

Questions are given to motivate discussion:

This opens it up to Pre. mid, and post believers and we would not expect it to be void of a Biblical Basis, that is implied in the question.

The second is also relative to the difference between pre and post Millennial believers.

So where do you stand? Pre or post Millennial? Why do you take that position? How do you view Israel and the Church? The same group? Or two groups from differing dispensations? Will the Church go through the Tribulation?


God bless.

 

This is a bible study forum. I asked for the scriptural support for Historic Chiliasm. Why was I singled out for bullying, and not the other non Historic Chiliasm posters. Thus far not one poster has supported the post trib pre mill viewpoint from scripture.

 

I've stated before that I wasn't real sure how to brand myself, maybe best to call myself an Inverted Dispensationalist. But I'm pretty comfortable being called Historic Premil

I'm not Covenant, because I believe the two covenants to be beyond distinct, even "apples and oranges".

The Mosaic Covenant distinctly related to the nation of Israel after Moses died. It was never a covenant for Gentiles, is not now, and never will be. It was a type of what would later ve poured out on all people. A pseudo righteousness through a flawed priesthood, and centered around an earthly inheritance.

The New Covenant in Christ was given through Israel, and brings a literal fulfillment of righteousness to both Jew and Gentile. It is a covenant of literal holiness, and righteousness, whereby the Spirit removes the sin of those who hope in Christ. This new covenant centers not around "making it" to heaven, but rather around an inheritance for those who are able to righteous works vecause they have been made the righteousness of God.

BTW, I don't particularly care for the lingo of a "distinction between Israel and the Church" because I think that's a false dichotomy

I believe all who are in Christ are one body, whether Jew or Gentile, all called "the saints", and during a literal period of 7 years, a literal anti Christ will make war with the saints - even Gentile saints. Then after the 7 years, the saints will be taken up into the clouds to meet Christ as He comes to judge the nations. We will return with him (the u-turn as TCassidy mentioned)

I also believe the current "nation" of Israel to be fictitious in the eyes of God. It does not seem to fit with a chronological reading of Ezekiel 36-39, whereby God will regenerate them before gathering them.

I believe Israel to still be cut off

 

Quick question SG do you mind if other non-chialist ask questions of the Chialist responders?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

OK I don't have any questions yet but I'll be following this thread and I just wanted to respect the OP if I had a question

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

 

Absolutely I am a Historic Premillenarian.

It is my view that the Pre-Millenarian view is the only historic view substantiated by Scripture. The fact that we do not see detailed teachings concerning the Pre-Mill view in antiquity does not validate or invalidate what Scripture teaches. But because so many look to commentators of Church History to define a Scriptural view they actually take on the limitations imposed by such an approach. It is similar to creating a doctrinal position on part of what Scripture teaches. Its going to be weak, and incomplete, and dismantled by those who take into account a full presentation of all relevant details.

Why do you ask?


God bless.

 

This suggests that you also believe God is dealing with Israel and the Church as two separate entities, which is correct. You correctly identify the creation of the new entity, the Church, which is complrised of both Jew and Gentile, as contrasted with Israel being distinct from all other nations.

The veil did not just keep the Gentile converts from entering, it kept Israel from entering with the exception of the Tribe of Levi, who served as the Priesthood available to men in that Era. Prior to the Levitical Priesthood we see "Gentiles" serving as priests. I view Abel to be the first person to serve in that function:


Genesis 4

King James Version (KJV)


4 And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering:


We also see Noah, Abraham, Job, and Melchisadec fulfilling that role.

The only point I would make in tying these two issues together under a context of the OP is that we see two differing priesthoods in these differing Eras, that of men, and that of Christ. Until Christ entered into the Holiest of All (pictured in the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Temple), remission of sins was accomplished, on a temporary and temporal basis, by men. This is contrasted with Christ's Offering up of Himself.

So the point consists of a central focus on the fact that both Hebrew/Jew and Gentile had no access to the Holiest of All prior to Christ's offering, which means they were in the same boat. Israel had an advantage in that they were created to be the Witness Nation that God would create when He made one man of two. We are a Nation of Priests, for all of us have, not access to a Holy Place made with hands (which was only a parable of the True), but access to the Holiest of All, that is, Heaven itself. The only man that could come into God's presence under the Law was the High Priest. The Tribe of Levi had access to the First Room, the Holy Place. But we Gentiles, and all Tribes of Israel, now have no restriction for coming into God's presence.

Of necessity we have to conclude that there is a distinction between the One Man created in Christ and the economy which did not afford access to God to all men.


God bless.

 

Er, ahem, could I remind you of your numerous comments on the length of my posts, and that our idea of "detailed" might just in fact differ a bit?




God bless.

 

And you forgot to mention Ephraem the Syrian.

Just saying...


God bless.

 

Silly question.

Where is the Scripture that is given to back up the statement? What is different from their belief in the Resurrection of the Dead and Job's?

Simply making a statement, whether it is factual and Scriptural or not, is not detailed.

As I said, we have a different view of what "detailed" means.

So who is making up stuff as they go along, TCassidy?

You have presented no fact that the above is a detailed description of the Pre-Millennial view.

What I know by now, TCassidy, is that I can expect no detailed response from you on anything. What I get is snide comments and insults. This is unbecoming of someone in the position you are in.

You are insinuating that I am somehow denying the positions of those quoted above, I am not. I am saying, again...this is not a detailed description of the Millennial Kingdom.

If you want to show them giving detailed description, do so. Show me their teachings concerning The Rapture of the Church, the Tribulation, the Antichrist, the Return of Christ, the judgment of the Sheep and Goats, the conditions of the Kingdom, where they are spoken about in the Gospels, the passing away of the earth, and the Eternal State.

If you can in fact show detailed teachings in antiquity concerning the Pre-Millennial view, can I just ask you...

...why so many on here reject the teaching of the Pre-Millennial Return of Christ. For surely you have "called them on it" many times before, and have a ready answer for our OP.

Right?

So where is it, TCassidy?


God bless.

 

It's a phrase I coined myself. Where is a Dispensationalist would view Israel as premier in God's "plan for humanity" and the Church as a parenthesis, I see all of humanity as premier, and Israel as the parenthesis

Correct. And I'm not suggesting that I disagree with every aspect of Covenant Theology, as I'll point out later

Sort of. Yes to Gentile proselytes, but the Mosaic Covenant was a spin-off from the Abrahamic covenant where God said He would make Abraham a great nation. It was a promise of an inheritance for his posterity. And as Darrell C noted, the veil kept out everyone except the Levites.

Just as the Old Covenant was a promise of inheritance, it was a type of that to come.

God's promise to Abraham was "great is your reward" and Abraham asked "what will you give me, seeing I have no heir?"

The Old was essentially this - I have a great possession for your children to inherit, and it's in Canaan.

The New is similar - I have a great possession for the children of promise to inherit, and it's in heaven

The focal point is not making it to heaven, it's the inheritance waiting there for the faithful.

I agree in part.
The "Church vs Israel" distinction is a false dichotomy because the Old Covenant was for an ethnic group without any regared for whether or not they were believers.

The New Covenant is for believers without any regard for ethnicity.

So the two covenants are not contextually comparable, nor are they contextually distinct. They're apples and oranges

Jews didn't automatically become partakers of the New Covenant, they were/are required to believe upon Christ. So the two covenants were not brought together, but all believers from all time are part of one body.

I understand that, but that viewpoint was developed from a particular paradigm which sees Christendom as "Rome and Her children" seemingly without regard for the Great Schism

I've entertained thoughts of whether the big horn which rises from10 little horns might be talking about the U.S.
If the little horns were nations, why wouldn't the big horn be a nation? And the man himself would be our President.

But that hasn't progressed beyond merely pondering

I agree with this.