Josheb
Senior Member
- Joined
- May 19, 2023
- Messages
- 7,117
- Reaction score
- 3,892
- Points
- 150
- Location
- VA, south of DC
- Faith
- Yes
- Marital status
- Married with adult children
- Politics
- Conservative
This forum now has at least a pair of Historical Premillennialists, and I've been trading posts with Historicists in other forums where they have openly separated themselves from the Dispensationalist alternative. Now, having read a fair number of Historical Premillennialists commentaries and Apologetics, as well as comparative works and criticisms, I'm prompted to revisit some of those writings (I just got done re-reading George Eldon Ladd's commentary on Revelation), such as Blomberg and Chung's "A Case for Historic Premillennialism," (which is my next read) because I am noticing a difference in older defenses versus newer ones. Historically speaking (no pun intended), Christianity in general, which includes Historic Premillennialism (HP), has never held Israel is particularly relevant to Christian eschatology. When the early church began to discuss and write about eschatological matters there was no Israel. Israel was gone and Israel's near-eradication was considered a function of Providence and therefore, not particularly germane to Christian thought, doctrine, or practice. God had destroyed Israel and God was now working in the Church. Many of the ECFs were, in fact, openly opposed to Judaism and Jews having anything to do with Christianity other than service as an historical root for God work (some were polemically antisemitic). Jesus' promise of return was spoken to Christians, not Jews, to the nation of priests, not the nation of biological bloodline. Jesus had come to Israel and that was done. Early premillennialists, especially the chiliasts (those who believe the "thousand years of Rev. 20 is literal) among them began asserting events would take place in Israel and/or Israel as either a people or a nation would come back in some way BUT they ALL tied it to those events to Christ salvifically and, thereby, the Jews of Israel becoming Christians. In Christian thought the goal was for everyone in the world, including Jews of Israel, to become Christian (or face judgment).
That all changed with the rise of Dispensational Premillennialism (DP). DPism, from its inception, openly asserted the inextricable relevance of Israel in Christian eschatology. DPism not only teaches a necessary and inherent relativeness for geo-political nation-state Israel, but it asserts a completely different identity, purpose and goal for Israel that is, nonetheless germane to Christian eschatology. This is one of the main distinctions separating DPism from all other doctrines of end times. This was one of the defining reasons why HPs openly and vigorously separated themselves from DP.
My question has to do with the views of Dispensationalism seeming to creep into the HP lexicon. I increasingly read HPists asserting and defending HP against DPists. Is this my imagination or do you Historical Premillennialists also perceive the same? Have HPs unwittingly been influenced by DP? Do the HPs here observe it in other HPs? Are they aware of the DP influence in their own thinking, no matter how witting or unwitting the receipt may be? How aware are you, as a Historic Premillennialist, of the differences between the two premillennialisms and how consciously are those differences maintained in your own apologetics so that you're not taking in DP views and not appearing to share ground when speaking/posting with others? To reiterate and summarize:
These inquiries are intended specifically for the Historical Premillennialists members of the forum, but others are also invited to contribute their observations on the matter of whether and to what degree Dispensationalism is now influencing Historicism.
That all changed with the rise of Dispensational Premillennialism (DP). DPism, from its inception, openly asserted the inextricable relevance of Israel in Christian eschatology. DPism not only teaches a necessary and inherent relativeness for geo-political nation-state Israel, but it asserts a completely different identity, purpose and goal for Israel that is, nonetheless germane to Christian eschatology. This is one of the main distinctions separating DPism from all other doctrines of end times. This was one of the defining reasons why HPs openly and vigorously separated themselves from DP.
My question has to do with the views of Dispensationalism seeming to creep into the HP lexicon. I increasingly read HPists asserting and defending HP against DPists. Is this my imagination or do you Historical Premillennialists also perceive the same? Have HPs unwittingly been influenced by DP? Do the HPs here observe it in other HPs? Are they aware of the DP influence in their own thinking, no matter how witting or unwitting the receipt may be? How aware are you, as a Historic Premillennialist, of the differences between the two premillennialisms and how consciously are those differences maintained in your own apologetics so that you're not taking in DP views and not appearing to share ground when speaking/posting with others? To reiterate and summarize:
- Do you Historical Premillennialists perceive a growing influence of Dispensational Premillennialism within your ranks?
- How aware are you, as a Historic Premillennialist, of the differences between the two premillennialisms?
- How consciously are those differences maintained in your own apologetics?
These inquiries are intended specifically for the Historical Premillennialists members of the forum, but others are also invited to contribute their observations on the matter of whether and to what degree Dispensationalism is now influencing Historicism.
