My View: Historic Premil & Post-Trib

Let me just sketch my own view on all of this stuff. As you know I grew up as a classic Dispy, and then converted to Progressive Dispy; with both approaches, in regards to the Tribulation, I was always Pre-Tribulational. Now, within the last couple of years, I have converted once again to Historic Premillennialism and Post-Trib, for my Tribulational view. Let me explain a bit about what this means.

I believe that there is one people of God (cf. Eph. 2:11ff), not two people of God — so classic/revised dispy . . . progressive in a qualified way. I follow what some might call a christocentric hermeneutic, so that all of the Old Testament is re-interpreted as if all of its reality is signifying, Christ (cf. John 5:39). Having said this, I do believe that tied to this; that the promises made to ethnic Israel (or the ‘Father’s see Romans 11:29) will also be realized in the millennial kingdom Christ will set up upon his second coming wherein the Church (both Jew and Gentile) will rule and reign over creation with Christ. Further, in regards to my ‘trib’ view, I follow the post-trib perspective now because it makes the most straightforward sense of the text. Pre-trib is inimically tied to the hard distinction between Israel and the Church (articulated by dispies); once the “Church-Age” is done (time of the Gentiles), this time (parenthesis), or dispensation is over, and God takes his ‘mystery kingdom of people’ (the Church, his ‘Heavenly people’) out of this earth. Then the Lord gets back to what he always intended for salvation history and prophetic history, that is his ‘earthly people’ the Jews (‘Jacob’s Trouble’ starts Jer. 30 Daniel’s 70 Weeks). So it can be seen that Pre-Trib is a necessity in this scheme, since the Church really was never intended to be part of God’s salvation plan; the mechanism of Pre-Trib solves this problem. Since I reject this hard distinction between Israel and the Church, I also reject the Pre-Trib position; since it is really only a mechanism added in order to make the broader dispy system work (w/o it, it cannot!). As I also said, I am post-trib because it simply makes the most straightforward sense to me of the text.

There you have it, a quick sketch; I’ll have to elaborate more later.

Advertisements

Posted on June 16, 2011, in Historic Premillenial, Post-Trib, Pre-Trib. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. I should also say that pre-trib (as do all trib views) turns on how one views God’s wrath. Also pre-trib argues the imminent return of Christ means any-moment. I think though that post-trib can answer both of these issues even within the constraints set up by pre-tribbers. More posts to come . . .

  2. Bobby,

    Been listening to a lot of Chuck Missler’s material recently, and Rev 13:7 makes a pretty strong case for me that the church isn’t around. Doesn’t makes sense in light of Matt 16:18 unless there are two groups of saints.

    Thoughts on this?

    Ben

  3. Ben,

    Do I know you?

    1) I wouldn’t listen to Chuck Missler πŸ˜‰ . But since you are . . .

    2) Based on the apparent logic that I’m gathering from your usage of Mt 16:18 and Rev. 13:7, I would not understand why those need to be read in competitive mutually excluding ways. In other words, it can rightly be argued that even if Mt 16 applied in the way that apparently Missler is saying it does in Rev 13, that even Rev. 13:8 presupposes that all who dwell on the earth whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world will not worship him; meaning that the Church will still be co-existing along with the “tares” prior to the “harvest” at the second coming of Christ. I don’t see two different groups of saints ever mentioned in the Bible; so the burden of proof would fall on those who do, and if they only assume that there is prior to their argument that there is; then they are engaging in circular reasoning and question begging which is a fallacy (and I think Missler is doing this).

    I don’t read the book of Revelation, primarily in temporal/sequential ways; I see the Seals, Trumpets, and Bowl judgments all referring to the same judgment from different angles (in complementing ways). Of course I don’t buy the amil’s recapitulation hermeneutic at chptrs 19 and 20, where 20 is a restatement of 19, but other than that my method of interp. here looks a lot like the amillennialist’s.

    Missler presupposes his conclusions as the basis for his interpretation of the text, in my opinion. This to me is not the way we should go about interpreting the Scriptures. Beyond that, there are critiques of dispy pre-trib at a deeper level that ought to be considered first. Such as the issue of two-people’s of God, like MIssler holds to (Jew and Church); like more than one New Covenant (like Ryrie and all classic dispies are forced to believe in); like the apparent method of “Literal” interpretation that dispies supposedly follow; and much more (but I think the hard Israel/Church distinction is the biggest theological and biblical issue/problem).

    Let me know what you think, and let me know if I know you personally?

  4. Hey Bobby,
    Ben Fogelson here. (i thought the comment box was going to post my email)

    I wouldn’t call myself a “disciple” of Missler. He would discourage that kind of thing anyway. I will say that his scripture surveys have increased my interest in the Bible recently, after a long dry spell. His approach and way of thinking makes sense to me.

    How are dispensationalists forced to believe in 2 new covenants? Can’t Israel be under the same covenant when the 70th week of Daniel starts?

    Anyway, as you point out, part of the foundation is the distinction between Israel and the Church. We probably disagree here. I don’t think God is finished with Israel. And the Father seems to treat them very differently in Revelation. (chap 2-3 vs. the rest of the book)
    Different origins, different destinies.

  5. Oh, Hey Ben Fogelson πŸ™‚ ,

    Hope you’re doing well these days!

    1) I’ve listened to Missler way too much in my past life (even in person when I attended Calvary Chapel Costa Mesa) πŸ˜‰ . But if he is being used of the Lord as an impetus to whet your appetite for Bible Study; then amen πŸ™‚ !

    2) Just read the dispensationalists (i.e. not Missler, Lindsey, Jenkins/Lahaye), their “scholars.” Read Ryrie’s “Dispensationalism,” he explains why he believes in more than one New Covenant (one would have to if one believes that the New Covenant in Jer. 31 etc is only for ethnic Jews — when Paul applies that to the Church in II Cor 3 and Eph 2 by implication etc) — I’ll do a post on that soon, and quote Ryrie directly. If you are following Missler’s dispyism though you are following a hard distinction (ontological) between Israel and the Church, and thus would have to posit more than one New Covenant (I once emailed Dr Tom Ice on this, and he never got back to me . . . he is the founder along with Lahaye of the Pre-Trib Research Center : http://www.pre-trib.org/ — why? because he knows this is true and a necessary implication of his classic dispyism).

    3) I don’t think God is done with Israel (a remnant per Rom 9–11), but I don’t think salvation histories’ point is the nation, but the PERSON of Jesus Christ. Dispies see the point of salvation/prophetic history as the nation of Israel; which to me is just dead wrong, and not defensible exegetically or theologically. What do you mean though, “different origins, different destinies”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: