Pre-Mil Only The Distinctions in the Futurist's Camp

[Jerryhuerta]

Premillennialists are viewed as falling under two categories: historic and dispensational premillennialism. While historicists are more often premillennialists, there are some exceptions. This thread explores the difference between the two futurist views of historic and dispensational premillennialism.

Dr. Paul M. Elliott defines the distinction between the historic and dispensation forms of premillennialism on the website teachingtheword.org,

Historic premillennialists in more recent times include Baptists John Gill (1697-1771), Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892), Benjamin Newton (1807-1899), and George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982)… I could point to many things that notably distinguish all historic premillennialists from Dispensational premillennialists, but I believe two stand out. First, historic premillennialists see in Scripture a unity of all believers, Jew and Gentile, through all of time, as one body in Christ. They do not believe that Scripture posits separate programs of God extending into eternity for national Israel and the New Testament church. Secondly, virtually all historic premillennialists agree that Scripture teaches no re-institution of bloody sacrifices (even on a memorial basis) during a thousand-year reign of Christ on earth. They point especially to the statements of the Book of Hebrews as clear evidence that those sacrifices have been done away with forever by the full and final sacrifice of Christ Himself…​

Dispensational premillennialism draws its name from the fact that it represents the eschatological position that developed, beginning in the early 1800s, principally under the influence of John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)… They maintain that the Bible teaches two distinct plans of God, one for Israel and another for the New Testament church, extending into eternity. Most Dispensational premillennialists hold to a pre-Tribulation Rapture, but some believe it will take place in the middle of the seven-year Tribulation, and a few believe it will take place at the end of that period.05 - How Can You Be a Premillennialist But Not a Dispensationalist?​

I’m sure there will be debate over the definitions, but I must concur with Elliott. I delved into the subject when I first started breaking from my Catholic upbringing. In my first encounter with Protestantism, I was introduced to dispensational futurism. But that is not unusual; insomuch as eschatology goes, I would conclude it has gained hegemony in Christendom. Soon after that, I was also confronted with historicism, which led me to investigate historic premillennialism and finally settle on historicism. It is that investigation into the mainstream schools of eschatology by which I make my assessment that Elliott is correct in his views.

Any disagreement with Elliott’s definitions will have to prove there isn’t a separate program concerning the destiny of the Church and Israel in dispensationalism, which is not held by historic premillennialism. In essence, the distinction should not be held by historic premillennialists. No argument can prevail against the documentation supporting this specific difference between the two forms of futurist eschatology. This difference is portrayed in the writings of historic premillennialists like George Eldon Ladd and Leon Morris. Concerning Revelation 7, both authors make the comment that the 144,000 and the great multitude represent the Church, the true Israel of God (Galatians 6:15-16),

There is good reason to believe that by the 144,000 John means to identify spiritual Israel–the Church… The great tribulation will be but a concentration of the same satanic hostility which the church has experienced throughout her entire existence when Satan, in one final convulsive effort, tries to turn the hearts of God’s people away from their Lord.[ii]​

​

There is good reason for seeing a reference here to the church as the true Israel. Here it is the church, sealed in view of the coming trials; later in the chapter it is the church triumphant and at peace.[iii]​

I’m not interested in debating whether the church is spiritual Israel or not. What I’m debating is whether a historic or non-dispensational premillennialist can hold the distinction between the Church and Israel. I don’t believe a historic premillennialist can maintain different destinies for the church and Israel and claim to be a non-dispensationalist futurist. And it follows if there aren’t two destinies, then there is no reason or warrant for a pre-tribulation rapture, as the pre-tribulation rapture is not historic; it doesn’t exist as a doctrine before the ninetieth century, which dispensationalists concede,

Now, what do we make of this accusation that the teaching of the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is a novelty, that no one taught it or believed it before the 19th century… It’s true that there was not much specific interest before the 19th century in the “catching up” of the church as described in 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17.[iv]​

The author contends that the doctrine existed in the Bible before the systematic doctrine of dispensationalism brought it to the forefront, but again, this isn’t my concern. My issue is that without the distinction, there is no reason or foundation for the pretribulation view, which dispensationalist Thomas Ice pretty much concedes,

It is true that some hold to the Pre-Trib position that do not want to be called dispensationalists, but it is equally true that it was dispensational thought which provided the theological rationale for the Pre-Trib viewpoint… A dispensationalist holds to the above mentioned “Israel—church” distinction as well as the Pre-Trib rapture. Dispensationalists believe that God has a distinctive plan for ethnic and national Israel that includes their spiritual restoration and conversion, as well as a specific geographic destiny.(emphasis added)[v]​

Again, without the distinction, there is no warrant for a pretribulation rapture, which is supported by Alan S. Bandy, assistant professor of New Testament & Greek at Oklahoma Baptist University,

Historic premillennialists affirm only one return of Christ and typically believe that the church will persevere through the tribulation. This differs from dispensationalists, who maintain that the second coming of Christ will involve a secret return for the church prior to the tribulation followed by his visible return after seven years. One reason they do not necessarily affirm the need for the pretribulation rapture is due to the reality of the new covenant that makes all believers in Jesus the spiritual descendants of Abraham and, therefore, covenant members of the people of God—true Israel (Rom. 11:1-24; Eph. 2:11-22; Gal. 3:28-29).[vi]​

Any doctrine always contains aberrant views, but the rules that define doctrines cannot be ignored because they would defy the ability to define paradigms such as historic premillennialism. This is why the forum allows for “statements of purpose” such as Premillennialists Only. Dispensationalists' distinctions concerning the Church and Israel must accompany the pretribulation view, and any aberrant is confusion.

---

Christian Forums Dr. Paul M. Elliott, How Can You Be a Premillennialist But Not a Dispensationalist? 05 - How Can You Be a Premillennialist But Not a Dispensationalist?
[ii] George Eldon Ladd, A Commentary on the Revelation of John (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972), 114, 118.
[iii] Leon Morris, The Book of Revelation-An Introduction and Commentary (Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,1987), 112.
[iv] WAS THE PRE-TRIBULATION RAPTURE INVENTED ONLY 200 YEARS AGO?

Was the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Invented Only 200 Years Ago? – Q&A for March 4, 2021 - Enduring Word

Today’s lead question was, “Was the Pre-Tribulation Rapture Invented Only 200 Years Ago?” Then, questions from our live viewers.

enduringword.com

[v] Ice, Thomas D., "A Short History of Dispensationalism" (2009). Article Archives. 37.

A Short History of Dispensationalism

The first systematic expression of dispensationalism was formulated by J. N. Darby sometime during the late 1820s and 1830s in the British Isles. I believe that Darby’s development was the culmination of various influences which produced within his thought one of the most literal approaches to...

digitalcommons.liberty.edu

[vi] Alan S. Bandy, HISTORIC PREMILLENNIALISM,

Historic Premillennialism

[audio:https://www.baptistmessenger.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Messenger-Insight-106-Dr.-Alan-Bandy1.mp3|titles=Messenger Insight 106- Dr. Alan Bandy] by Alan Bandy In the earliest period after the apostles, most of the discussions on the end-times focused on the nature of the future Kingd

www.baptistmessenger.com

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I don’t believe a historic premillennialist can maintain different destinies for the church and Israel and claim to be a non-dispensationalist futurist.

Any takers?

 

[Douggg]

I don’t believe a historic premillennialist can maintain different destinies for the church and Israel and claim to be a non-dispensationalist futurist.

Any takers?

I rather spend my time praying to God thanking Him for everything He has done for me.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

"Claiming historic premillennialism contradicts the belief of pre-trib."

Does anyone care to dispute that?

 

[Jerryhuerta]

Again, does any one want to defend they can be a historic premillennialist and hold the contradictory distinction between Israel and the Church? True historic Premillennialists believe the Church is the Israel of God, the good seed scattered in Christ's parable.

 

[Timtofly]

I would prefer not to argue for a certain theology, but challenge all distinctions, because all have a flaw to some degree. Not that I think I have it figured out. Not that I am starting some movement, and to be remembered in 500 years.

I don't know that much about pre-reformation eschatology, but I do know that there was a church seperate from both the catholic and reformation views that was not as vocal as the other two, nor followed after either's theological positions.

You forgot the one point that makes such a distinction, and that is defining the tribulation itself. Had any one prior to the concrete formation of a future millennium, even established what is the tribulation itself as seperate from the one dispensational thought established?

Personally I think the Reformers were wrong in conflating the church with Israel, because that had nothing to do with the future, eschatology, tribulation, nor dispensational thought. I don't think any one from 35AD to even 1800AD thought God would keep waiting for hundreds of years before a Second Coming.

Neither do I think calling the church Israel came out of defining the term "tribulation". I think by 1500, people had realized that after 1,000 years nothing had happened, but the church was already speaking out that the popes fit the end time description of an antichrist and that they were already in some end time tribulation period. The book of Revelation was already being applied to the apostate church around 1200.

So to make a distinction that Israel will not be a restored entity at some point and rule the nations is missing Paul's point in Romans 11. And getting Paul wrong, would then lead to defining the tribulation itself wrong, by both the historicist view and the dispensational view. Dispensational thought does not go far enough to establish the distinction. And this distinction does not extend into eternity. It stops when this creation is handed back to God at the end of the Millennial reign of Jesus on the earth.

I think applying the church to the role Israel should be playing is the wrong approach. The church is not based on the earth, but in heaven. Israel is not based in heaven, but on the earth. That distinction does not seem to be made at all.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I would prefer not to argue for a certain theology, but challenge all distinctions, because all have a flaw to some degree. Not that I think I have it figured out. Not that I am starting some movement, and to be remembered in 500 years.

I don't know that much about pre-reformation eschatology, but I do know that there was a church seperate from both the catholic and reformation views that was not as vocal as the other two, nor followed after either's theological positions.

You forgot the one point that makes such a distinction, and that is defining the tribulation itself. Had any one prior to the concrete formation of a future millennium, even established what is the tribulation itself as seperate from the one dispensational thought established?

Personally I think the Reformers were wrong in conflating the church with Israel, because that had nothing to do with the future, eschatology, tribulation, nor dispensational thought. I don't think any one from 35AD to even 1800AD thought God would keep waiting for hundreds of years before a Second Coming.

Neither do I think calling the church Israel came out of defining the term "tribulation". I think by 1500, people had realized that after 1,000 years nothing had happened, but the church was already speaking out that the popes fit the end time description of an antichrist and that they were already in some end time tribulation period. The book of Revelation was already being applied to the apostate church around 1200.

So to make a distinction that Israel will not be a restored entity at some point and rule the nations is missing Paul's point in Romans 11. And getting Paul wrong, would then lead to defining the tribulation itself wrong, by both the historicist view and the dispensational view. Dispensational thought does not go far enough to establish the distinction. And this distinction does not extend into eternity. It stops when this creation is handed back to God at the end of the Millennial reign of Jesus on the earth.

I think applying the church to the role Israel should be playing is the wrong approach. The church is not based on the earth, but in heaven. Israel is not based in heaven, but on the earth. That distinction does not seem to be made at all.

I do believe I qualified my intent concerning the thread. The point was just to challenge those who claim historic premillennialism that the paradigm does not allow for the distinction between Israel and the church, which is the sine qua non of dispensationalism. It also doesn't allow for pre-trib. As I said on the OP, I'm not interested in anything beyond that here, as few ever engage my contentions or refute my work. They merely parrot their dogma, which forces me to refute theirs. It's called side-stepping and I tire of the games.

BTW, are you Pre-mill?

I will give you this, go here and we can debate the issue of the church and Israel.

 

[Timtofly]

I do believe I qualified my intent concerning the thread. The point was just to challenge those who claim historic premillennialism that the paradigm does not allow for the distinction between Israel and the church, which is the sine qua non of dispensationalism. It also doesn't allow for pre-trib. As I said on the OP, I'm not interested in anything beyond that here, as few ever engage my contentions or refute my work. They merely parrot their dogma, which forces me to refute theirs. It's called side-stepping and I tire of the games.

BTW, are you Pre-mill?

I will give you this, go here and we can debate the issue of the church and Israel.

How can you understand the distinction between Israel and the church if you refuse to define the tribulation?

The church is not Israel. But this is the eschatology section, not the debate the distinction between Israel and the church.

Since the Cross there has been no distinction so what is the argument about to begin with, if not to defend a pointless doctrine?

There was not a distinction in the OT either. Israel was the natural born church, as long as they remained in belief and obedience to the Covenant. But the Gentiles did not join the church. They had to convert to the Law. The church was an unspoken spiritual component in a physical works based economy.

Yes, I am Premil, but as neither of the man made eschatological positions of either point. The only thing dispensational thought gets is the distinction between the church and Israel, at least at the point of the Second Coming. I don't agree that there was a separation prior to the Cross, because Israel was the only church in the OT. To clarify, Israel was in the church, Israel was not the church. The church was always Christ. I think that over time, Israel lost even their understanding of their heritage. You can see that with about every great Christian work to this very day. Once a group succumbs to the cares of this life, they go the way of the twelve tribes, just not as violently.

I never wanted to debate the church and Israel. I thought this was about the Millennium Kingdom, but you can't just jump to the kingdom without getting through the Second Coming itself.

Nor can you define the participants of the tribulation, without talking about the tribulation. That is why I asked if there was any defined aspect of the tribulation, instead of just assuming the 144k were the church? There is a huge point people miss, that removes the church from the equation entirely. No one seems to get that point either.

BTW: the Second Coming happens first, it does not happen in Revelation 19, as the last event. That is why there is a distinction between the church and Israel.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

How can you understand the distinction between Israel and the church if you refuse to define the tribulation?

The church is not Israel. But this is the eschatology section, not the debate the distinction between Israel and the church.

Since the Cross there has been no distinction so what is the argument about to begin with, if not to defend a pointless doctrine?

There was not a distinction in the OT either. Israel was the natural born church, as long as they remained in belief and obedience to the Covenant. But the Gentiles did not join the church. They had to convert to the Law. The church was an unspoken spiritual component in a physical works based economy.

Yes, I am Premil, but as neither of the man made eschatological positions of either point. The only thing dispensational thought gets is the distinction between the church and Israel, at least at the point of the Second Coming. I don't agree that there was a separation prior to the Cross, because Israel was the only church in the OT. To clarify, Israel was in the church, Israel was not the church. The church was always Christ. I think that over time, Israel lost even their understanding of their heritage. You can see that with about every great Christian work to this very day. Once a group succumbs to the cares of this life, they go the way of the twelve tribes, just not as violently.

I never wanted to debate the church and Israel. I thought this was about the Millennium Kingdom, but you can't just jump to the kingdom without getting through the Second Coming itself.

Nor can you define the participants of the tribulation, without talking about the tribulation. That is why I asked if there was any defined aspect of the tribulation, instead of just assuming the 144k were the church? There is a huge point people miss, that removes the church from the equation entirely. No one seems to get that point either.

BTW: the Second Coming happens first, it does not happen in Revelation 19, as the last event. That is why there is a distinction between the church and Israel.

I do believe I qualified my intent concerning the thread. The point was just to challenge those who claim historic premillennialism that the paradigm does not allow for the distinction between Israel and the church, which is the sine qua non of dispensationalism. It also doesn't allow for pre-trib.

 

[Timtofly]

I do believe I qualified my intent concerning the thread. The point was just to challenge those who claim historic premillennialism that the paradigm does not allow for the distinction between Israel and the church, which is the sine qua non of dispensationalism. It also doesn't allow for pre-trib.

But you refuse to define what pre-trib even means?

I agree historic premillennialism would be wrong if the trib started with the stoning of Stephen.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

But you refuse to define what pre-trib even means?

I agree historic premillennialism would be wrong if the trib started with the stoning of Stephen.

People who are historic premillennialists should know what dispensational pre-trib means. I shouldn't have to define it for them, and that's who I'm addressing. You're trying to be funny, to say the least.

 

[Timtofly]

People who are historic premillennialists should know what dispensational pre-trib means. I shouldn't have to define it for them, and that's who I'm addressing. You're trying to be funny, to say the least.

I was asking about the tribulation as defined by historic pre-mill. You are not defending dispensational pre-trib.

I can only assume you agree that dispensational pre-trib is wrong. If you are not defending your position, that is fine. If you only want to prove something is wrong, then fine. You should not have said pre-mill only posters, but dispensational pre-trib only posters.

 

[Jerryhuerta]

I was asking about the tribulation as defined by historic pre-mill. You are not defending dispensational pre-trib.

I can only assume you agree that dispensational pre-trib is wrong. If you are not defending your position, that is fine. If you only want to prove something is wrong, then fine. You should not have said pre-mill only posters, but dispensational pre-trib only posters.

The futurist camp includes both dispensational and classic premillennialists' eschatology. I do believe that's contained in the title, the "futurist's camp!" The tribulation is in the future in the premillennial futurist's camp. From there they go their separate ways!