Question for Historicists

[Josheb]

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:

• 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.

 

[JesusFan]

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:

• 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.

A question for you would be what would be your view on differences between historical premil and Covenant pre Mil eschatology? As there have been reformed, b oth Baptists and Non Baptist reformed who have affirmed Covenant Theology premil position?

 

[Josheb]

A question for you would be what would be your view on differences between historical premil and Covenant pre Mil eschatology? As there have been reformed, b oth Baptists and Non Baptist reformed who have affirmed Covenant Theology premil position?

I am apprehensive about answering that question because it is off topic. This op is specifically about Historical Premillennialism being influenced by Dispensational Premillennialism, and Historicists' view of of that prospect. The op is NOT about differences between Historical Premillennialism and any other premillennialism other than the Dispensational alternative.

I will say this: Charles Spurgeon was an Historic Premillennialist and he openly and vigorously opposed Dispensationalism and the Dispensationalists attempt to align Darbyism/Scofieldism with Premillennialism (which is what Historicism was called prior to Darby). The reason Historic Premillennialism is called "Historic" is because the historic premillennial view of end times was much different than Dispensationalism's viewpoint. Spurgeon was Reformed Baptist. He was a great teacher/preacher (everyone should own a copy of his devotional, "Morning and Evening"), and he openly, actively, and vigorously made sure everyone knew DPism should not be influencing Historicism.

That seems to have changed.

I observe many self-described Historicists increasingly describing the necessity of Israel in Christian premillennialist eschatology. Spurgeon believed Jews would return to the land previously known as "Israel" and accept Jesus as the Messiah. Or, to word it in a manner consistent with the monergist Reformed Theology to which Spurgeon adhered and espoused, Jews would be brought back to the land and converted to salvific life in Christ. It would occur as a consequence of predestination, not political, educational, sociological influence (which is what DPism currently teaches).

The question that should be asked is, "What do I, @JesusFan, believe as an Historicist, and what is my view on the differences between Historical Premillennialism and the Dispensational alternative?"

That is the question being asked in this op as it would apply to you. My views are irrelevant outside of my perception DPism is influencing Historicism at the common believer's level.

 

[JesusFan]

I am apprehensive about answering that question because it is off topic. This op is specifically about Historical Premillennialism being influenced by Dispensational Premillennialism, and Historicists' view of of that prospect. The op is NOT about differences between Historical Premillennialism and any other premillennialism other than the Dispensational alternative.

I will say this: Charles Spurgeon was an Historic Premillennialist and he openly and vigorously opposed Dispensationalism and the Dispensationalists attempt to align Darbyism/Scofieldism with Premillennialism (which is what Historicism was called prior to Darby). The reason Historic Premillennialism is called "Historic" is because the historic premillennial view of end times was much different than Dispensationalism's viewpoint. Spurgeon was Reformed Baptist. He was a great teacher/preacher (everyone should own a copy of his devotional, "Morning and Evening"), and he openly, actively, and vigorously made sure everyone knew DPism should not be influencing Historicism.

That seems to have changed.

I observe many self-described Historicists increasingly describing the necessity of Israel in Christian premillennialist eschatology. Spurgeon believed Jews would return to the land previously known as "Israel" and accept Jesus as the Messiah. Or, to word it in a manner consistent with the monergist Reformed Theology to which Spurgeon adhered and espoused, Jews would be brought back to the land and converted to salvific life in Christ. It would occur as a consequence of predestination, not political, educational, sociological influence (which is what DPism currently teaches).

The question that should be asked is, "What do I, @JesusFan, believe as an Historicist, and what is my view on the differences between Historical Premillennialism and the Dispensational alternative?"

That is the question being asked in this op as it would apply to you. My views are irrelevant outside of my perception DPism is influencing Historicism at the common believer's level.

The views expressed and articulated by Spurgeon would be very consistent as to what I as a Historical Premil person would say the scriptures affirming

 

[Josheb]

The views expressed and articulated by Spurgeon would be very consistent as to what I as a Historical Premil person would say the scriptures affirming

Great. Do you perceive any influence coming from Dispensationalism in your own thinking or those of your fellow Historicists? For example, I just mentioned the DP position the millennial kingdom provides political, educational, and socialization for multiple generations of people so they can and will all eventually be brought to salvation in Christ. That would be salvation by works, not grace. That would be a salvation by osmosis , not grace. Salvation-by-education. We have that now in every church and Christian school around the world and it clearly does not make every learner a believer. An Historicist isn't going to know and understand any such influence unless s/he's knowledgeable of the differences and sufficiently knowledgeable of Historicism and not-Historicism. It may have little to do with scripture because, and I say this partly in jest, neither premillennialism is supported by whole scripture . Both millennial viewpoints rely heavily on inference when reading scripture........ but that's not the subject of this op, either. You and I are having that conversation HERE (or at least I am attempting to do so ).

 

[Josheb]

@JesusFan, another increasing influence I perceive is the common, and increasingly common, practice not being able to stay on topic. This used to be the sole domain of Dispensationalists, when eschatology was discussed. An intelligent, focused discussion on eschatology was once the norm with Historicists but Historicists increasingly move from verse to verse to verse to verse unendingly without every staying put with one text, exegeting it properly and attaining three-way agreement with scripture, themselves and whoever the other person may be. Dispensationalist have refined that practice to near-professional-level. They also change the topic again and again and again despite the fact nearly every forum I have ever joined has explicitly rules requiring topical discourse and prohibiting the obfuscation of others' discussion of the specified topic. They gaslight those who ask for topical discourse and mock or ridicule those who request moderation. In interpersonal discourse outside of internet controls ad hominem is routinely employed. They also impose their views in any and all threads no matter the designated topic of the board, not just the thread. For them everything turns into a discussion of the rapture, the tribulation, or the millennial kingdom. Their individual and collective "regulators" are broken. I was just told by a poster who used to post here that he had no regard for the rules of the forum and was going to post whatever he liked and what he liked was off-topic rants about Dispensational Premillennialism. It's nearly impossible to have a focused conversation of only one subject with a Dispensational Premillennialist. Everyone here in this forum has experienced it.

I observe the tendency to digress happening increasingly with Historic Premillennialists, along with the avoidance of valid comment and inquiry. The problem could be ascribed to poor reasoning skills. Anyone can digress. It could be the fleshly desire to preach and since most of us preach what we know (or think we know). I am certainly not the measure of these things because I tend to be more focused, exacting, and less flexible than most and, therefore, may be more observant of the DP practices and the prospect those practices influence other premillennialists (if it is, in fact an influence from DPism).