# One sentence on Pre-millennialism



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 2, 2005)

For all the Pre-mils out there - 

How would you give a "one liner" on defining Pre-millennialism?


----------



## Average Joey (Aug 3, 2005)

For dispensationalism:

"It`s the cool thing to believe today"


----------



## Joseph Ringling (Aug 3, 2005)

A literal interpretation of Rev. 20:1-10. 

(I'm not Pre-Mil but this thread looked lonely)


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

How would one distinguish between Historicl Premil and Pretrib Premil?

What would be the big difference?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> How would one distinguish between Historicl Premil and Pretrib Premil?
> 
> What would be the big difference?




The pre-trib rapture is the most obvious distinction I can think of.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 3, 2005)

I can't think of anything else either. That was my thoughts as well. Either they are delivered before the tribulation or they are delivered after.


----------



## pastorway (Aug 3, 2005)

there are more differences than that - substantial differences. I will post when I have time later.

Phillip


----------



## RamistThomist (Aug 3, 2005)

Christ returns before the millennium. I think that would be the technical answer.


----------



## Answerman (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> How would one distinguish between Historicl Premil and Pretrib Premil?
> 
> What would be the big difference?



The unbiblical distinction between Israel and the Church, this is what drives their hermeneutic and what determines their end times sequence of events.

In Christ,
David


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Answerman_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by webmaster_
> ...



True, True, but ever more so is their excessive literal exegesis which leads to that distinction of Israel and the church. They also tend to use OT to interpret NT, rather than put emphasis on NT to understand OT.


----------



## Answerman (Aug 3, 2005)

> True, True, but ever more so is their excessive literal exegesis which leads to that distinction of Israel and the church.



Be careful not to let them trick you into thinking that theirs is the more literal approach. This is one of their favorite tricks. I always like to stop them at this point and demonstrate that my position is actually more literal then their position.



> They also tend to use OT to interpret NT, rather than put emphasis on NT to understand OT.



Exactly! and this is how I demonstrate this point:

First, I define the word literal to mean: the way in which the author (God) intended it to mean, to which you should get no objections.

Second, I demonstrate from the New Testament that the way in which God intended certain prophecies to be understood stands in direct contradiction to their position and in harmony with my position.

A few samples should suffice:

Acts 2:30-31 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, 31 "he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption.

Ask them if they agree with Peter that when God´s made the promise to David that He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne that he was speaking of Christ´s resurrection and ascension to the right hand of the Father. If not, then they are the ones that are not taking God´s word literally (the way that God intended).

Acts 15:14-17	"Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 "And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 'After this I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; I will rebuild its ruins, and I will set it up; 17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord, even all the Gentiles who are called by My name, says the Lord who does all these things.'

Ask them if they understand this prophetic passage in the same sense in which God intended and James understood it. And that is that, after this (the testing, sifting of Israel, based on the context in Amos) God will rebuild the tabernacle of David (the first century Jewish Christians); so that the rest of mankind (Gentiles) may seek the Lord.

And so they can be easily defeated using, what they believe, is one of their strongest arguments, that is a "œliteral" hermeneutic.

In Christ,
David


----------



## rgrove (Aug 3, 2005)

Important to note that neither of these passages would phase an historic premillennialist. They don't maintain the rigid Church/Israel distinction that dispensational premills do. 

Act 2:30ff will be answered with the usual Scofield answer:

"_This passage, in harmony with Luke 1:32,33; Matthew 19:28; Acts 2:30,34,35; Acts 15:14-16 is conclusive that Christ is not now seated upon His own throne. The Davidic Covenant, and the promises of God through the prophets and Angel Gabriel concerning the Messianic kingdom await fulfilment._"

Dispensationalists use Acts 15:14-17 regularly and apply it to the millennial reign for fulfillment. You'll usually see it cited as a proof text for pre-trib teaching actually like here We see benefits of these OT promises now, but actual fulfillment is in the millennial reign of course.

I would agree with Poythress that classical dispensationalism isn't "easily defeated". It takes time and a lot of discussion. These verses may be the beginning of a change, but I've never witnessed them have immediate effect. People just go off, do some research, and come back with an answer if they even feel compelled to give one. They certainly won't overcome the extraordinary emotional attachment most lay dispensationalists (who don't really know much about the system) have for the rapture. You're just someone trying to take away their blessed hope.


----------



## New wine skin (Aug 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Answerman_
> 
> 
> > True, True, but ever more so is their excessive literal exegesis which leads to that distinction of Israel and the church.
> ...




This was very helpful Dave,
I would not have anticipated the potential word game with defining "literal" with the premil the way you explained it. Great point.


----------



## Answerman (Aug 3, 2005)

> I would agree with Poythress that classical dispensationalism isn't "easily defeated". It takes time and a lot of discussion. These verses may be the beginning of a change, but I've never witnessed them have immediate effect. People just go off, do some research, and come back with an answer if they even feel compelled to give one. They certainly won't overcome the extraordinary emotional attachment most lay dispensationalists (who don't really know much about the system) have for the rapture. You're just someone trying to take away their blessed hope.



I wasn't trying to say that their entire system is easily defeated only that their claim to being the most literal should be easily demonstrated by someone that is well versed on the topic of hermeneutics and how to apply it to prophetic texts.

In Christ,
David


----------



## pastorway (Aug 3, 2005)

let's be absolutely clear that the pre-mil view argued against in the above posts is not the historic premil view, but the dispensational.

There are 2 different premil views. One is dispensational. The other is not dispensational.

I will post more shortly explaining the *historic* premil view - which was by the way, Spurgeon's view!

Phillip


----------

