- Nov 28, 2018
- 228
- 142
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-American-Solidarity
Premillennialism is divided into two main camps: historic premillennialism (a.k.a chiliasm) and dispensationalism.
I lean in a premillennial direction myself, but on the fence between historic premill and dispy.
I have heard that historic premillennialism (hereon, HP) can be further divided into two types: New Covenant and Old Covenant. The former was the view of some of the earliest church fathers like Irenaeus. They see no future for national Israel.
The latter type was held by the likes of Charles of Spurgeon, who despite not being a dispensationalist, seemed to believe in a restoration of Israel as a geo-political entity. This is also what I am leaning towards.
On one hand, I do believe that the ethnic Jews will be (or rather, already have been) returned to the promise land and restored as a political state. On the other hand, I still believe that ethnic Jews can only be saved the same way as everyone else: by hearing accepting the Gospel that Jesus is Lord. Also, I agree that the Jews being returned to their land fulfills biblical prophecy.
My issue with dispensationalism is that it seems to separate Jews from Gentiles, when there are no Jews nor Greeks in Christ. There are accusations lobbed against dispensationalism that it believes there are two ways to salvation: one for the Gentiles, and another for Jews.
Also, dispensationalism relies on a literalistic interpretation of prophecy, while other hermeneutical methods combine literalism with symbolism and antitypes.
I also think the NT is explicit that those who are in faith are part of the true Israel.
As for the rapture, idk if I believe in pre-trib or post-trib view. It'll happen when it happens, as far as I'm concerned.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off about anything in this post?
I lean in a premillennial direction myself, but on the fence between historic premill and dispy.
I have heard that historic premillennialism (hereon, HP) can be further divided into two types: New Covenant and Old Covenant. The former was the view of some of the earliest church fathers like Irenaeus. They see no future for national Israel.
The latter type was held by the likes of Charles of Spurgeon, who despite not being a dispensationalist, seemed to believe in a restoration of Israel as a geo-political entity. This is also what I am leaning towards.
On one hand, I do believe that the ethnic Jews will be (or rather, already have been) returned to the promise land and restored as a political state. On the other hand, I still believe that ethnic Jews can only be saved the same way as everyone else: by hearing accepting the Gospel that Jesus is Lord. Also, I agree that the Jews being returned to their land fulfills biblical prophecy.
My issue with dispensationalism is that it seems to separate Jews from Gentiles, when there are no Jews nor Greeks in Christ. There are accusations lobbed against dispensationalism that it believes there are two ways to salvation: one for the Gentiles, and another for Jews.
Also, dispensationalism relies on a literalistic interpretation of prophecy, while other hermeneutical methods combine literalism with symbolism and antitypes.
I also think the NT is explicit that those who are in faith are part of the true Israel.
As for the rapture, idk if I believe in pre-trib or post-trib view. It'll happen when it happens, as far as I'm concerned.
What are your thoughts? Am I way off about anything in this post?