Dispensationalism and Historical Premillenialism

[SteveF]

The reason I can't correct the point I made regarding "Historical Premillennialists" and the seven-year trib is that it has been my understanding that some, many (?) "Historical Premillennialists" believe the 70th week of Daniel 9:24-27 has not yet been fulfilled.

RND, I'm scratching my head. Please help me, I don't see how what you wrote is related to whether the antichrist will appear at the beginning of the 7 year trib or at the end....which is the subject at hand. The question is not whether there is a future trib(that question is already settled) but when it's believed the antichrist will appear in that trib....beginning or end. You said they beleive he will show up at the end of the 7 years. Steve said, more than once, there is no support for that view. What say ye?

[steve]

RND,

I can't believe that you are failing to see your error. I have to believe that you see it and, out of embarrassment, are trying to conceal it with double-talk (I am choosing this option over the only other one, which is that you are mentally deficient—something that I do not believe to be the case). This has now become a test of your honesty. Please give simple "yes' or "no" answers to the following questions:

1. Do you remember saying that historic premillennialists believe that the Antichrist will rise after the seven-year tribulation?

2. Do you remember being corrected about this (two pages ago) and being informed that no premillennialists believe that doctrine (they all place the rise of Antichrist at least 3 1/2 years before the end of the tribulation/seventieth week)?

3. Are you unable to see that the people you quoted in your support have actually contradicted your original point (which you are still trying to defend)?

4. Do you see that your mention of some people equating the 70th week of Daniel with the tribulation is not relevant to the question of when they see the rise of the Antichrist?

5. Do you remember that I told you ALL Premillennialists, of every kind, make this same identification of the 70th week with the tribulation, but that it does not affect their view of when the Antichrist rises?

6. Are you going to pretend that anything you have posted since I first corrected you has explained away your original error?

This matter of the chronology of eschatological events is so uninteresting to me that it puts my feet to sleep up to my hips, but we have moved from these unimportant details to the very important question of your integrity. Are you going to say something that will set our minds at rest that you are a man with a conscience about truthfulness, or shall we simply turn your volume down to zero at this forum?

[RND]

RND,

I can't believe that you are failing to see your error. I have to believe that you see it and, out of embarrassment, are trying to conceal it with double-talk (I am choosing this option over the only other one, which is that you are mentally deficient—something that I do not believe to be the case). This has now become a test of your honesty. Please give simple "yes' or "no" answers to the following questions:

1. Do you remember saying that historic premillennialists believe that the Antichrist will rise after the seven-year tribulation?

2. Do you remember being corrected about this (two pages ago) and being informed that no premillennialists believe that doctrine (they all place the rise of Antichrist at least 3 1/2 years before the end of the tribulation/seventieth week)?

3. Are you unable to see that the people you quoted in your support have actually contradicted your original point (which you are still trying to defend)?

4. Do you see that your mention of some people equating the 70th week of Daniel with the tribulation is not relevant to the question of when they see the rise of the Antichrist?

5. Do you remember that I told you ALL Premillennialists, of every kind, make this same identification of the 70th week with the tribulation, but that it does not affect their view of when the Antichrist rises?

6. Are you going to pretend that anything you have posted since I first corrected you has explained away your original error?

This matter of the chronology of eschatological events is so uninteresting to me that it puts my feet to sleep up to my hips, but we have moved from these unimportant details to the very important question of your integrity. Are you going to say something that will set our minds at rest that you are a man with a conscience about truthfulness, or shall we simply turn your volume down to zero at this forum?

Steve, do whatever you feel you have to do.

As for your questions I think my corrected statement speaks for itself.

1. Do you remember saying that historic premillennialists believe that the Antichrist will rise after the seven-year tribulation?

Yes, I said this. It's true. Many historic premillennialists believe that the rapture will occur after a seven-year tribulation. Do you remeber agreeing with this point by saying "First, while it is true that many historic premillennialists today do believe that Daniel's 70th week is still future, and is to be identified with the tribulation period?"

2. Do you remember being corrected about this (two pages ago) and being informed that no premillennialists believe that doctrine (they all place the rise of Antichrist at least 3 1/2 years before the end of the tribulation/seventieth week)?

According to all the information I presented you still want to insist you "corrected" me Steve? It is more than obvious that many historic premillennialists believe that "rapture" is AFTER the seven-year trib.

3. Are you unable to see that the people you quoted in your support have actually contradicted your original point (which you are still trying to defend)?

Not at all! Have you failed to read the many cites I provided that clearly show many historic premillennialists believe that "rapture" is AFTER the seven-year trib?

4. Do you see that your mention of some people equating the 70th week of Daniel with the tribulation is not relevant to the question of when they see the rise of the Antichrist?

Be serious Steve. What you're suggesting is that the very backbone of much of "premillenial" teaching which revolves around the very understanding of Daniel 9 doesn't matter. As I mentioned, premillennialism has so many different sub-beliefs that unless one understand where someone stands on Daniel 9 belief it is almost impossible to understand what one believes.

5. Do you remember that I told you ALL Premillennialists, of every kind, make this same identification of the 70th week with the tribulation, but that it does not affect their view of when the Antichrist rises?

Sure, I remember you saying that. Of course based on all the evidence I provided that obviously is an incorrect statement. ALL Premillennialists, of every kind, made indeed make this same identification of the 70th week with the tribulation, and it certainly affects their view of when the Antichrist rises? That's why some are called Pre-Tribulation, Mid-Tribulation, Post-Tribulation (all either Classic/historic), Pre-Wrath or Partial Rapture.

6. Are you going to pretend that anything you have posted since I first corrected you has explained away your original error?

Adding the word "that" corrected my original error. You even admitted as much. But to suggest that ALL "historical premillennialists" believe the same way is just as obvious mistake as the first one I made. Tell me Steve, are you man enough to admit you can't pigeon-hole one "premillennialists" with another?

But, as I said Steve, do whatever you feel you have to do.

[RND]

What say ye?

Steve, there is plenty of evidence that many "historical pre-millentists" believe the AC will appear after the seven-year trib and not at the beginning or in the middle of this period. I think where much of the confusion lies is that not all attribute the "tribulation" with the rise of the AC and his supposed reign. The tribulation of this age is stopped by the coming of Christ, the believers will be resurrected, Satan will be bound and thrown into the abyss, and the evil forces who have followed Satan will be destroyed.

[steve]

Wow, RND! I guess I was wrong. It really IS your intelligence! The fact that you don't know the difference between the rapture and the Antichrist, and you think that there are historic premillennialists who believe that the latter will rise at the end of the tribulation means that you do not even know the basic vocabulary of the most well-known and commonly-discussed eschatological subjects. Ignorance of these subjects is not a bad thing, in itself. What is astonishing is that you have the audacity to jump into a thread about which you plainly know nothing at all, and profess to answer Schoel's question.

Nothing you have said has addressed the concerns SteveF and I have raised with you. Your answers to my above questions are irrelevant to what I asked you. Even the commentary that you pasted to defend your position flatly contradicts your own statements—and you either cannot see that, or else pretend not to see it. In either case, you have lost all credibility in terms of answering anyone's questions about theological subjects.

[Paidion]

I am very thankful to the amil position - at least for the short time that I was involved... Philip Mauro was a genius in many ways. In fact, when I was in a rural town (Port Perry, Ontario) I stumbled upon a book of his which predates his Gospel of the Kingdom, The Hope of Israel and Daniel's Seventy Weeks. It is a lessor known book called "The Number of Man" and is copyrighted 1909. Amillennialism got me out of the separate kingdom view - one for the church and one for Israel.

My guess is that your separate kingdom view came from dispensationalists. I, too, have read Philip Mauro's "The Hope of Israel" and "the Gospel of the Kingdom" and hold the same position myself. I found neither in conflict with my historic pre-millenialist position. Indeed, previous to reading these works I already believed in the "The Israel of God" which has always been composed of the remnant of Israel, but after the Messiah appeared, gentiles were grafted into "the olive tree". There was never a "replacement of Israel with the Church" but rather a continuation of the true Israel with believing gentiles grafted in. Only a few among the national Israelites have been the true people of God.

Romans 9:6 ...For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. RSV

Romans 9:27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. RSV


I confess my ignorance of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks" and "The Number of Man". Until I read your post quoted above, I was not even aware of that these books existed. Thank you. I hope to have the opportunity to read them.

[schoel]

Do I understand correctly?

The differences are all tied to the idea that dispensationalists hold to regarding the idea that God has 2 separate people, the Church and the Jews.
A historical premillenialist understands that the Church is the fulfillment of promises to Israel, and therefore no future promises specific to the Jews.

These ideas/assumptions weave throughout the futurist perspective that the both share, causing disagreements at different points.

[steve]

RND has sent me a private message, asking me to ban him from this forum. I gladly comply.

[Mellontes]

I am very thankful to the amil position - at least for the short time that I was involved... Philip Mauro was a genius in many ways. In fact, when I was in a rural town (Port Perry, Ontario) I stumbled upon a book of his which predates his Gospel of the Kingdom, The Hope of Israel and Daniel's Seventy Weeks. It is a lessor known book called "The Number of Man" and is copyrighted 1909. Amillennialism got me out of the separate kingdom view - one for the church and one for Israel.

My guess is that your separate kingdom view came from dispensationalists. I, too, have read Philip Mauro's "The Hope of Israel" and "the Gospel of the Kingdom" and hold the same position myself. I found neither in conflict with my historic pre-millenialist position. Indeed, previous to reading these works I already believed in the "The Israel of God" which has always been composed of the remnant of Israel, but after the Messiah appeared, gentiles were grafted into "the olive tree". There was never a "replacement of Israel with the Church" but rather a continuation of the true Israel with believing gentiles grafted in. Only a few among the national Israelites have been the true people of God.

Romans 9:6 ...For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. RSV

Romans 9:27 And Isaiah cries out concerning Israel: "Though the number of the sons of Israel be as the sand of the sea, only a remnant of them will be saved. RSV


I confess my ignorance of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks" and "The Number of Man". Until I read your post quoted above, I was not even aware of that these books existed. Thank you. I hope to have the opportunity to read them.

I agree completely with your assessment. Dispensationalism is very harmful to one's understanding of the NT. The OT fulfillment in Christ is relegated to fulfillment to a physical nation of types and shadows...