PP,

1.) True, Jonathan Edwards was a post millinealist who believed in the future restoration of Israel. He was the ONLY Post-Millinealist on the list too - FYI

2.) False, HISTORICAL Premillinealists believe in the future restoration of Israel. Charles Spurgeon, Horatious Bonar, John Bunyan, etc. all believed that. In fact, in John Bunyan & Horatious Bonar's books on "JUDEO-CENTRIC PRE-MILLINEALISM" there are chapters on the fiture restoration of Israel & the Jewish people. So you are incorrect sir. I actually posted them but you probably didn't bother reading them (you called it "spam" I believe?).

God Bless,
Jeff

I just say your post, PP. So, I think I have this right.

Jeff, a few questions for clarity sake: Maybe will dispel the confusion that others have, too.

1. Do you believe that in the post-Parousia millenial reign of Jesus Christ on earth that the earth will still be under the influence of sin, corruption, and death?

Tell me if I am wrong in my thinking in trying to differentiate between Historic Premillenialism and Dispensational Millenialism.

1. Historic premillennialists believe the church is the new Israel, that is, the new spiritual Israel. It occupies the place in the new covenant that Israel occupied in the old.

2. Dispensational premillenialists, on the other hand, do not see the church as replacing or fulfilling national Israel. They assert that all references to “Israel” in the New Testament are references to ethnic Jews or believing ethnic Jews (see Gal. 6:16).

Also, historic premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of national Israel. Historic premillennialists believe in a salvation of ethnic Israel but this salvation is viewed as incorporation into the Church. And this salvation is different from the concept of restoration in which Israel is saved as a national entity with a role to play to other nations in the future. In summary, historic premillennialists often believe in a salvation of Israel but not a restoration of national Israel.

Dispensationalists, on the other hand, believe in both a salvation and restoration of national Israel. Israel is saved and then restored to a position of prominence and service to the other nations on the earth. The coming millennium is also a time when God will fulfill all aspects of the Abrahamic, Davidic, and New covenants with Israel and the nations.

Do I have this backwards or is this about right?

Straight up questions, please don't read into them.

Thanks.

Jeff wrote "So you are incorrect sir."

Jeff wrote : ///False, HISTORICAL Premillinealists believe in the future restoration of Israel.///

Modern Premillinealist that reject the pretrib rapture call themselves 'HISTORICAL Premillinealists' but that is a misleading title.

"Historic Premillinealism draws its name from the fact that many of the early Church Fathers...apparently believed and taught that there wold be a visible Kingdom on earth, after the return of Christ." - monergism.com

The early Church writings did not teach a "JUDEO-CENTRIC PRE-MILLINEALISM" !!!!

I'm not going round and round on the "early church believed xyz" PP. you can redefine terms of you want, but it doesn't change it. I'm most interested in what the Bible (& especially the prophetic texts of the prophets, Jesus, & Revelation, as well as other confirming texts) on prophesy teaches anyways.

Julius,
I will answer your questions as soon as I have time. You know what I wonder sometimes? If I read everyone's articles, links, etc. & people keep asking me questions on things I have already answered (some of them many times), is this really a discussion? Or is it just ignoring what I post to get back to asking me more questions, having me to redefine words again, etc.? I guess what I'm asking is, if people of a Preterism/Amillineal/Historic/Replacement Theology Framework of interpretation are convinced & not "REALLY" willing to look into other things they haven't seen/heard/studyed/examined before, is this a waste of time? In other words, if the point isn't iron sharpening iron & attaining to the knowledge of the truth as at least the goal where one is willing to lay ALL the info side by side & really look at all of it, pray about it, study it, ask the Lord, be willing to be wrong, etc. is it just a one-sided predetermined suppositional argument stance? That's not directed at you Julius, & I will answer your questions later, but I am really starting to wonder that honestly. I am a little slow on large scale realizations sometimes. Forgive me. Lol 😊

///RE :if people of a Preterism/Amillineal/Historic/Replacement Theology Framework of interpretation are convinced & not "REALLY" willing to look into other things they haven't seen/heard/studyed/examined before, is this a waste of time?///

Jeff, most of us at one time believed like you do, our willingness to lay ALL the info side by side & really look at all of it, pray about it, study it, ask the Lord, be willing to be wrong, etc. Is why we no longer view things the way that you do.


add: And Look at What the Early Christians Believed About Israel in Prophecy, either do an independant study or get a teaching on the subject from an expert like Bercot:
http://www.scrollpublishing.com/store/product2814.html

PP,
Actually, it is clear from all of the prior discussions thatyou didn't believe as I believe, nor have you looked (nor willing too apparently) at what I have looked at & am recommending. You came from a John Darby brand of Dispensationalism, with a Roman Anyichrist background (as almost everyone else) & moved to a Preterist/Amillineal/Supercessationist view. And are now strawman broad brushing what I'm sharing as such (which is wrong), & unwilling to revisit the issue (which is surprising if you were so wrong before that your "reactionary theology" move to Preterism/Supercessationism might also be wrong again).

I NEVER believed Dispensationalism. Ever. I got saved in a prison cell & spent 21 months not following the common prophesy teachers of the day, but reading the Bible day and night for 21 months. I wasn't a pre-tribber for one single day of my life - were you? I then went and put myself through Bible College (mostly a waste of money really except the "Jewish Roots" teacher was phenomenal), & I have been in various levels of study & ministry for the last 18 years. But just recently I felt clearly led to do a very specific, detailed, focused study on these issues. And so where I am coming from it's not where you say you are coming from in the past as far as having someone else shape all my understanding and positions on these things.the Lord is also steadily confirming these things in both my study, by dreams, other confirmation, etc. And I didn't start out on this with a preconceived notion/agenda, but "Lord, teach me what is true from your Word. I don't know & understand all these things & it's very confusing as you listen to all the sides use "their proof texts" & interpretations.

The Lord is & has been answering that prayer. And I wish teaching was my primary gift, but it's not, but I pray it's getting a little sharper/better over time by God's Grace? My heart is for evangelism & my mouth was gifted for something else, but it's not teaching specifically.

Anyways, God Bless you friend!
Jeff

I would encourage you to slow down on your judgements!

You wrote...

"Jeff, most of us at one time believed like you do"

Bro what exactly are you basing your assumption on. Jeff has been saying that the Antichrist will be of Islamic descent. This view has only come up on the radar in recent years. And right now that view is still a minority view.

So are you saying that at one time you believed that the Antichrist was going to be of islamic xescent?

Just wondering bro. :-)

Bro Bear