What happens to the Jews after the Millennium?

[Pastor Larry]

Where are you taking your class and what textbooks are you using?

 

[OldRegular]

BTW this thread is a happy coincidence> I am currently taking a class on the "Doctrine of the Kingdom".

BTW Old regular: as one who is moderately more disposed to your beliefs, than that of dispensationalism, I cannot believe you think Historic Premillennialism is more like amillennialism than dispensational premillenialism. That is crazy.

Historic Premillenialism, much like it's dispensational counterpart, interprets prophetic scripture literally, whereas amillennialism interprets them symbolically/allegorically.

Oh, and then there is the whole "millennium" thing...

You need to read the post from Ladd more closely, particularly the last sentence:

Therefore Hebrew's 8:8-13 refutes dispensational theology at two points: It applies a prophecy to the Christian church which in its Old Testament setting referred to Israel, and it affirms that the new covenant in Christ has displaced the Old Testament cult which is therefore doomed to pass away.

As noted by Ladd above historic premillennialists do not interpret prophetic scripture literally.

By the way, your above post does not agree with an earlier post:

Posted earlier by Havensdad

"Classic dispensationalism teaches that "Ethnic Israel" and "the Church" are distinct bodies, which remain distinct for all eternity.

Progressive Dispensationalism, on the other hand, teaches that Israel and the Church are only separate through the millennium (1000 years) at which point they become one people.

FYI: Covenant theologians, believe (as a whole) that the Church "replaces" Israel, Israel having forsaken their rights, because of them breaking God's covenant, and rejecting the Messiah.

Progressive Covenant theology (known by various names: I am using the one coined by Micheal Patton), sees the Nation of Israel and the Church, as one ever growing body referred to as "Children of the Promise", or just "Children of God". There is, in fact, no distinction between Israel and the Church, and there never has been. We are "all one body" in Christ. Paul calls Christians "of the seed of Abraham"."

 

[Havensdad]

Where are you taking your class and what textbooks are you using?

http://www.satsonline.org/

Textbooks:

Ladd GD 1981. The Gospel of the Kingdom
Williams JR 1992. Renewal Theology
Lewis GR and Demaris BA 1994. Integrative Theology

Gaffin RB 1988. The kingdom of God. In SB Ferguson and JI Packer (eds), New Dictionary of Theology, 367-368

Goldsworthy G 2001. In TD Alexander and BS Rosner (eds), New Dictionary of Biblical Theology
Ridderbos HN 1996. In DRW Wood (ed.), New Bible Dictionary

Morphew DJ 1991. Breakthrough: Discovering the Kingdom

Erickson MJ 1996. Contemporary Options in Eschatology

Grudem W 1994. Systematic Theology

Erickson MJ 1996. Christian Theology (2nd ed.).

MacArthur J 1992. Charismatic Chaos

Wimber J 1986. Power Healing


Williams JR 1994. Renewal Theology (vol. 2)

Moriarty MG 1992. The New Charismatics

Obviously since it is the "Doctrine of the Kingdom", it involves much more than just eschatological discussion.

 

[Havensdad]

You need to read the post from Ladd more closely, particularly the last sentence:

Therefore Hebrew's 8:8-13 refutes dispensational theology at two points: It applies a prophecy to the Christian church which in its Old Testament setting referred to Israel, and it affirms that the new covenant in Christ has displaced the Old Testament cult which is therefore doomed to pass away.

As noted by Ladd above historic premillennialists do not interpret prophetic scripture literally.

By the way, your above post does not agree with an earlier post:

You need a better understanding of exegesis and hermeneutics. "Literal interpretation" does not preclude taking verses of scripture and understanding them figuratively, as long as such is justified literally from corroborating scripture. Such is the case here: Paul states that we (the Church) ARE Israel. There is no "allegory" in Ladds interpretation.

"Allegorical" interpretation, such as used by amillennialists, takes passages, such as in Revelation, etc., and states that the events described are allegorical explanation of an ongoing spiritual battle. Historic premillennialism does not generally do this: they interpret those events as actual future happenings, which are being predicted.

Amillennialism is in a class of it's own, in regards to eschatology.

 

[Navymans]

If you are not familiar then how can you state: my suspicion is that you are not being accurate with Chafer. You are awful quick to impugn the integrity of those who don't agree with you. I suppose that is because you recognize your dispensational doctrine is not Biblical.

I had a teacher when I was a teenager who said people use profanity when they have a weak argument. May I say the same about those who question my integrity, particularly when they are ignorant of the source of my quote.

What does the Bible tell you about it? I dont put much trust into what some book writer says he thinks how it says in the Bible, I put more truth in what I think by rightly dividing the word and applying it to my life. There is very few books other than the Bible I trust out there unless it is by Moody or Garner too many put their own spin on things that is not always right.

 

[OldRegular]

What does the Bible tell you about it? I dont put much trust into what some book writer says he thinks how it says in the Bible, I put more truth in what I think by rightly dividing the word and applying it to my life. There is very few books other than the Bible I trust out there unless it is by Moody or Garner too many put their own spin on things that is not always right.

So what makes you think Moody or Garner don't put their spin on things? Dwight l. Moody was dispensational so he had to spin like a top. Don't know anything about Garner. As for Chafer I believe he was at one time president of Dallas Seminary and considered the "theologian of dispensationalism". So you are correct; he could spin also!

 

[TomVols]

FWIW, I've heard many dispies maintain a permanent (yes, eternal) division between Israel and the believers. I guess we get the basement in heaven while Israel gets the main floors. Fine with me. :thumbs:

 

[J.D.]

If you think this, then you don't understand any of these positions very well.

Ladd does an admirable job of showing the foolishness of your position. I am surprised you would quote him, giving that he presents such damning evidence against your own beliefs.

And again, I have to note the poverty of Scripture in your posts.

This is why I started a thread on dispensational eschatology vs ecclisiology. While there are some similarities in CP and DP in the order of future events, the rest of the story is indeed WORLDS APART.

Those covenantalists that hold to a future saving of "all [genetic] Israel" view it as a Gospel work, a grand sweeping of Jewish people into the CHURCH. Completely different from dispensationalism.

 

[J.D.]

You need a better understanding of exegesis and hermeneutics. "Literal interpretation" does not preclude taking verses of scripture and understanding them figuratively, as long as such is justified literally from corroborating scripture. Such is the case here: Paul states that we (the Church) ARE Israel. There is no "allegory" in Ladds interpretation.

"Allegorical" interpretation, such as used by amillennialists, takes passages, such as in Revelation, etc., and states that the events described are allegorical explanation of an ongoing spiritual battle. Historic premillennialism does not generally do this: they interpret those events as actual future happenings, which are being predicted.

Amillennialism is in a class of it's own, in regards to eschatology.

Don't confuse "figurative" with "allegorical" - they're not the same thing, even though people often use them interchangeably. And preterism is not "allegorical" explanations - it is just as literal as futurism, on which premil/dispy is based. You're assuming that a "literal" interpretation necessarily points to future fulfillment of prophecy. You need to consider what is called "historicism" also, which is similar but not exactly the same as preterism. "Historic Premillenialism", which is what most covenantal premils follow, is the view that MUCH (but not all) of Revelation speaks of historical events.

The smear against amil that it interprets "allegorically" is patently false. A "vision" is a literal "vision", which speaks to literal events or phenomena. The chief difference between premil and amil is how the thousand years of Rev 20 is approached and applied.

Most reformed churches allow for variation in understanding covenantal eschatology among its member and even elders, but exclude dispensationalism from its teachings. Why do they do this? Because dispensationalism completely changes one's view of the Church. It is a different system altogether.

 

[OldRegular]

You need a better understanding of exegesis and hermeneutics. "Literal interpretation" does not preclude taking verses of scripture and understanding them figuratively, as long as such is justified literally from corroborating scripture. Such is the case here: Paul states that we (the Church) ARE Israel. There is no "allegory" in Ladds interpretation.

"Allegorical" interpretation, such as used by amillennialists, takes passages, such as in Revelation, etc., and states that the events described are allegorical explanation of an ongoing spiritual battle. Historic premillennialism does not generally do this: they interpret those events as actual future happenings, which are being predicted.

Amillennialism is in a class of it's own, in regards to eschatology.

I am afraid you are ignorant of amillennial hermeneutics. Although R. C. Sproul is not necessarily an amillennialist he is certainly not premillennial or dispensational. He writes [Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, page 25], as follows [emphasis mine] regarding the interpretation of Scripture:

"In addition, properly understood, the only legitimate and valid method of interpreting the Bible is the method of literal interpretation. Yet there is much confusion about the idea of literal interpretation. Literal interpretation, strictly speaking, means that we are to interpret the Bible as it is written. A noun is treated as a noun and a verb as a verb. It means that all the forms that are used in the writing of the Bible are to be interpreted according to the normal rules governing those forms. Poetry is to be treated as poetry. Historical accounts are to be treated as history. Parables as parables, hyperbole as hyperbole, and so on. In this regard, the Bible is to be interpreted according to the rules that govern the interpretation of any book. In some ways the Bible is unlike any other book ever written. However, in terms of its interpretation, it is to be treated as any other book."

Surprise!:laugh: Surprise!:laugh: Surprise!:laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

FWIW, I've heard many dispies maintain a permanent (yes, eternal) division between Israel and the believers. I guess we get the basement in heaven while Israel gets the main floors. Fine with me. :thumbs:

Well according to Chafer it is not clear that Israel ever makes it to heaven. It is certainly true that according to dispensationalists Christians are second class citizens during the millennium. The Jews are top dogs.

 

[OldRegular]

Don't confuse "figurative" with "allegorical" - they're not the same thing, even though people often use them interchangeably. And preterism is not "allegorical" explanations - it is just as literal as futurism, on which premil/dispy is based. You're assuming that a "literal" interpretation necessarily points to future fulfillment of prophecy. You need to consider what is called "historicism" also, which is similar but not exactly the same as preterism. "Historic Premillenialism", which is what most covenantal premils follow, is the view that MUCH (but not all) of Revelation speaks of historical events.

The smear against amil that it interprets "allegorically" is patently false. A "vision" is a literal "vision", which speaks to literal events or phenomena. The chief difference between premil and amil is how the thousand years of Rev 20 is approached and applied.

Most reformed churches allow for variation in understanding covenantal eschatology among its member and even elders, but exclude dispensationalism from its teachings. Why do they do this? Because dispensationalism completely changes one's view of the Church. It is a different system altogether.

Thanks JD. Good points.

 

[OldRegular]

This is why I started a thread on dispensational eschatology vs ecclisiology. While there are some similarities in CP and DP in the order of future events, the rest of the story is indeed WORLDS APART.

Those covenantalists that hold to a future saving of "all [genetic] Israel" view it as a Gospel work, a grand sweeping of Jewish people into the CHURCH. Completely different from dispensationalism.

JD

The only similarity between Covenant or Historical Premillennialists and Dispensationalists is the belief in an earthly millennium. The Covenant or Historical Premillennialists view of the millennium is totally different than that of the dispensationalists. According to dispensational eschatology the Jews dominate during the millennium. According to Covenant or Historical Premillennialists the Church in the millennium includes the redeemed of the Old Testament and the believing Jews of the New Testament.