Pre-millenial dispensationalism - Baptist?

As best as I can determine among Southern Baptists who have actually studied eschatology(not just accepting whatever form they grew up with), it is pretty much an even three way split among amillennialists, historical premillennialists, and dispensational premillennialists. Obviously, if you throw in the person in the pew who grew up with dispensationalism and knows of no other viewpoint, the majority of Southern Baptists are dispensational.

 

Thanks, Ken!

Brian, no offense, but I was under the impression the thread was about Baptists.

The other denominations are all wrong about everything else, anyway.

 

No offense taken. My last comment was about just Baptists: i.e. Many Baptist churches in non-western countries and most Baptists before the 20th century (and all Baptists before the 19th century) do not show a pretrib majority. Again, scope.

Um..... do you really want to go there? Last time I checked, the Trinity was not just a Baptist doctrine....

 

Regarding historic positions on eschatolgy,
I will grant that premillenialism was the dominant position amoung early church fathers.
I think the fact that many were Jewish or influenced by Jewish traditional teachings is the primary reason for that phenomenon. The Jews were looking for a physical kingdom on earth--the question is--is that what Jesus was promising?

Secondly, dispensationalism simply is not historically represented in any way prior to the 1800's. It's definitive tenet--God's separate and distinct plans for Israel and the Church is nowhere to be found in early church writings (unless Pastor Larry has found it and didn't tell me). Simply believing in different "ages" is not a definition of dispensationalism.

So to sum it up:
Early premillenialists--yes, lots!
Early dispensationalists--no, none!

In Christ,

Tim

 

Good theology is the result of proper hermeneutics and diligent study. In the area of salvation, one can argue that MOST Christians in MOST of history have held views of salvation that we Baptists do not hold today. Let's face it, salvation by grace through faith is a doctrine which was all but completely lost to the church for centuries until the reformation. How did the church recover the truth of salvation? The reformers got back to a high view of scripture and they adopted a hermenuetic that sought to understand the scriptures by interpreting them literally and in their simple sense. When this happened, the doctrine of salvation became clear once again. Unfortunately, the reformers never applied their literal method to the area of eschatology. They had bigger fish to fry and understandably so. However, in the 1800s when theologians DID begin to apply the hernemeutic of the reformers to eschatology, pre-millenialism was born. In the book Three Views of the Millenium and Beyond, edited by Darrel Bock, the pre-millenial writer develops in detail the historical roots of pre-millenialism in the application of the hermeneutic of the reformers to the field of eschatology. It presents an argument that is DEVASTATING to other millenial views. If you possibly can, get a copy and read it!

 

swaimj wrote:

That's right. Historical premillennialism has deep roots in Christendom. Dispensational premillennialism does not. These two must be kept separate when discussing premillennialism as they are different.

Also, in all areas of theology I have noticed that people will say that this or that or the other thing is devastating to whatever viewpoint is being opposed. Methinks that if these items were truly devastating concerning whatever subject they are addressing, then there would be much more agreement among Bible believing Christians than there is on these
subjects.

By the way, at www.lasttrumpet.com you can read Biblical studies that are absolutely DEVASTATING to the pretrib rapture viewpoint. If you can, go and read some of these Biblical studies.

 

I haven't read every post, so I'm not sure who you're talking about. My experience has been that almost everyone in every Baptist church I've attended is pre-trib. I'm pre-wrath (similar to post-trib), and people in these churches look at me like I have 3 heads if I say anything about it.

 

That was not my intention at all. If I poorly phrased what I meant to say, I apologize. But I do stand by what I meant to say.

 

Pastor Larry,

I am sorry if it seemed like I was trying to define what you believe because I know how bad I hate that myself. Regarding the secret Rapture, most folks I know who teach that believe that one morning we will all wake up and the Christians will be gone. Everybody will be looking for them because nobody will know where they went. Besides this, the "Left Behind" series depicts the same thing, although that is probably not a good resource! Like I said, I can see some truth in the Historic Premillennialism of John Gill, C. H. Spurgeon, et al. However, I can also see some truth in Amillennialism. I suppose I would fit somewhere in between. While Amillennialists do make spiritual applications of Old Testament prophecies, we go no further than the New Testament writers went themselves (e.g. Acts 15). Have you read the book, "A Case for Amillennialism" by Kim Riddlebarger? I bought that book, and it is very interesting and informative.

 

Surely one of the marks of the reformation was the move away from allegorical interpretation (the source of most of RCC heresy) and the move toward literal-historical-grammatical interpretation. I can't believe you are denying this.

This is the point I am making. When later interpreters DID start to take prophecy literally, pre-millenialism became prominent. Whether you agree with pre-millenialism or not, a literal hermenuetic applied to prophecy is the foundation of the view.

Yes, but did they have a high view of prophecy when they continued to allegorize it and spiritualize it as they had treated other passages while in the RCC?

I found the argument to be powerful because I had never read it before. After you read theology for a while, it becomes a rare experience to read something that is completely new to you. That is what I experienced when I read this article. Since you apparently are not familiar with the argument either (given the lack of understanding of it you displayed in your above responses) perhaps you might benefit from it as well. BTW, I read the entire book and all three views, not just the one I recommended. Also, Bock is the editor of the book but not the author of the article I mentioned.

 

I would not equate a "literal" interpretation with a "grammatical-historical" interpretation. I definitely believe in grammatical-historical interpretation, but I do not believe that leads to a consistently literal interpretation. Nor did the reformers.

Allegorical interpretation as it was commonly practiced in the RCC of the reformers' day had no meaningful limitations and became highly imaginative. The closest modern-day equivalent to it is the ramblings of Harold Camping. But to properly recognize the scripture's use of allegory is a natural byproduct of the grammatical-historical method.

The insistence of literalism places an artificial filter on the natural use of language as we find it in the Biblical text. Such a system led the Jews to misunderstand much of what Jesus taught. So I don't see why we should insist upon it, lest we also misunderstand the Scripture in the same ways that they did.

In Christ,

Tim

P.S. I may give Bock another try, but my last reading of him was disappointing. Maybe he's a better editor.

 

Tim said

On the other hand, I would say that a literal interpretation that is not guided by the grammatical and historical could definitely lead to fallacious conclusions. Thus, I would never knowingly separate the literal from the grammatical and historical. However, I would be curious if you could give an example of a passage which you interpret according to a grammatical-historical hermenuetic, yet which you do not take literally. I would also be interested in knowing how you decipher when to draw and when not to draw literal conclusions.

Since the book contains a statement of post-mill, a-mill, and pre-mill views and interaction among the writers defending and critiquing the views, you're bound to find something that you like! BTW, let me clarify my comment in which I described the article in the book Bock edited as "devastating". Since I am pre-mill, I have read many presentations of the pre-mill view. However, I found the presentation in this book to be unique and I found information in the presentation that I have never read anywhere else. I have read much in the way of presentations of other views also. If you can point me to a source where I might read something unique on the other views, I will happily seek it out. On the other hand, I would think that a person who is genuinely interested in understanding the views, when told of a source for unique information would also want to seek that out. If you read the argument that I call "devastating" and find that you can easily refute it, you have simply strengthened your own conclusion and nothing has been lost. On the other hand, if you are "devastated", you may come to see things in a new light. In either case, because I am such a generous person, I permit you to evaluate the material and its "devastation" quotient for yourself!

 

I think the devastating talk is always funny. I have been surfing another board where Amil is the marjority with historic premill in second place (Dispensational and Rapture and practically curse words) and they always talk about this and that book being devastating or better "the death" blow towards premillilienuilism.

 

First off, let me define my terms and see if you agree:

"Literal" usually means "physical" in dispensational hermeneutics. The physical nation of Israel matters, spiritual Israel does not. The physical kingdom (millenium) is important, the spiritual kingdom is relatively insignificant (based on how much the Bible apparently says about each according to dispensationalists).The physical throne of David on earth is the "real" throne, a spiritual rule by the Son of David doesn't really count. Figurative language is not literal.

But "Grammatical" basically means using proper rules of grammar or language. It does not necessarily mean literal. People have always used figures of speech--including metaphors, which do not directly state their meaning, but imply or suggest a figurative meaning.

"Historical" basically means considering the historical context of the statement. The meaning of the words at the time they were written, as well as historical circumstances at the time.

So defined, we find that literalism is the predominant form of language used in narrative accounts. But is it the predominent form found in prophecy? That's where we differ. Certainly it was NOT the predominent language of Christ's teaching.

So when we read most of Jesus' teaching we apply (as always) the grammatical-historical method, but we usually do NOT consider His words to be literal. He used parables and figures so much that when He didn't, His disciples were relieved! They sighed, "now you're speaking plainly!" Jesus stated reason for speaking in this veiled fashion was so that only some would understand--the ones willing to dig for the truth.

I believe that prophecy, especially O.T. prophecy was also veiled in similar figurative language. Most Jews didn't study enough to understand the message which the O.T. prophets implied and alluded to. Even the clearest statements were little understood, because the bulk of what they believed pointed them toward a physical fulfillment as the ultimate and most significant. The Jews were primarily literalists. But that predisposition did not serve them well when Jesus came along revealing spiritual trurhs in parables and metaphorical speech.

In Christ,

Tim

 

Tim, let's take your definitions and put them to a test. Let's apply them to a prophecy in scripture and see if they work. I'll use the Abrahamic Covenant as my example. In the Abrahamic covenant, God promised Abraham a land, a seed, and a blessing.

Let's look at the land promise first. The promise is made on several occasions but is given in detail in Gen 15:18-21. Historically and grammatically, physical land boundaries are described. In this case, taking the promise literally means taking it to mean physical land. So, literal interpretation is bound up in the historical and grammatical hermenuetic. If it does not mean literal, physical land, there is no way to know what it means.

What about the seed? The grammatical-historical meaning of the promise requires us to understand it as the birth of a physical son and physical descendants born to him. The covenant is kept on Abraham's part through a physical sign, that of circumcision. Here again, the meaning must be literal.

What about the blessing? The statement here is that "in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed..." (23:18). In the immediate grammatical-historical context, the specific meaning of this promise is not revealed to Abraham. One does not know from Genesis alone how this will be fulfilled. I think that you will agree that its ultimate fulfillment is in Christ who comes and blesses the world with the offer and means of salvation. And, those who put faith in Christ become spiritual descendants of Abraham as Paul teaches in Romans. This connects back to the promise of the seed but not in a way that Abraham would have understood.

You stated that in dispensationalism, "literal" always means "physical". No, literal means physical when the grammatical-historical meaning is physical as in the land and seed promises. In the blessing promise, the grammatical-historical meaning is spiritual and we accept it as such.

The weakness in your explanation, in my view, is this: Yes, Jesus used veiled language and parables to teach spiritual truth and to hide truth from unbelievers. But not everything Jesus said was veiled or in parables. When he announced that he was going to Jerusalem to suffer and die, that was not veiled language, it was plain. Yet, no one understood that until after it was fulfilled. What you are doing is taking plain language from the OT and pretending that it is veiled and spiritual. The land and seed promises are not veiled and spiritual, they are literal and must be understood as such. You say "we find that literalism is the predominant form of language used in narrative accounts. But is it the predominent form found in prophecy?" The fact is that literal language IS found in prophecy sometimes. When it is, it is misinterpretation to spiritualize it.

 

"And the Lord gave unto Israel ALL THE LAND which he swore to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt in it." (Joshua 21:43 emphasis mine). So yes, I agree, God gave them the physical, literal land. Ultimately,all Christians will inherit the promises given to Abraham (Rom.4:13-16), in an even greater fulfillment. We will inherit the earth.

Again, I agree that Jesus was the physical seed of Abraham, but in an even greater way--all believers are his seed, because we are the spiritual seed of Christ. As before, the literal is true, but not the whole picture.

We agree on these theological truths. The spiritual truths in each case are greater than the physical truths. But literalism doesn't get us to that second level.

I actually said that for dispensationalists, "literal" USUALLY means "physical", with supporting examples. We are not LITERALLY the descendants of Abraham, yet the language of the N.T. makes it clear that God considers us to be so through Christ.

How do you know that O.T. language is always to be understood literally?
Didn't Malachi plainly say that Elijah would return--but later Jesus explained it as being John the Baptist? Other prophets wrote plainly that David would be king of Israel in another time--does that mean he will unseat Christ? Ezekiel plainly wrote that sacrifices would be offered in a gigantic temple--how does that work with Hebrews' teachings about the ultimate sacrifice displacing all others?

Dispensationalism tends to assume a literal interpretation of O.T. prophecy even when it gets them into theological quagmire in the N.T.

Grammatical-historical interpretation allows for some things to be literal and others to be figurative. Literalism does not allow the second option. So you end up with people redefining the word "literal" when they recognize an undeniably figrative expression so they can claim to be "consistently literal". But nobody really is. I simply admit that I'm not, and need't be.

Tim