A Question

Agreed, which is why I was pointing out for others who may not know they are part of the same system just variations of it.

Again I agree, and was speaking specifically about the system in place during the time of the Reformation. They were 180 degrees different only in that the Reformers held the Church is a continuation of Israel and thus all that transpires in that view is directly related to that fact. In the Replacement view it holds that not only has Israel 'been' rejected but that the Church took it's place and that it basically it is accursed by God. Thus I agree the current view has been affected and somewhat modified from their contemporal view which it previously held. It still holds to Replacement but it is much softer in form and apparently coming closer to current Covenant theology though I doubt they will ever allow that - you know their attitude toward those reformers .

Actaully brother what you will find, according to church historians, is that the Covenant view is reflected only in the historic premil view by way of a general resurrection. The rest, a literal 1000 earthly reign of Christ from Jerusalem, a dominating world leader (anti-Christ), the distinction between Israel and the Church, ect..

As shown above your view as an historic agrees with most of the main points of dispensationalism (with the exception of pre-trib rapture, and various dispensations in which God's grace was revealed and some other smaller things).

 

I am glad you made that note - I thought you knew what was being discussed.

Romans 11 doesn't equal your view and proper hermeneutics of chatper 11 proves this point beyond reasonable contestation. But of course you disagree :saint:

 

Ed, I thought I was clearly being sarcastic. Of course there is no conspiracy of Jews and Jesuits.

That is one of the accusations of another poster.

Sorry you misunderstood.

peace to youraying:

 

Actually, their is not a general resurrection. Dispensational premil and Historic pre-mil are worlds apart (though certainly not as far removed as the other eschatological systems). Historic pre-mils do not believe in the whole "distinction between the Jew and Gentile" thing. We are all one body.

Although, to be fair, Old regular has it wrong, too. The Church does not have preeminence over Israel in the Millennium. There is no distinction between the Church and Israel, Jew and Gentile; so their CANNOT be ANY distinction or preeminence whatsoever.

 

Shall I take you once again back to your own posting of your own Covenant scholar who disagrees with you
{give me a sec and I'll find it for you}

I have never heard of this position as an historically known name for Historic Premil.

 

Wow. What am I then?

I am glad to know I don't exist!

Bro, historical pre-mil is Covenantal.

 

Yes, I agree they are distinct but not different. Here is a post link to some quotes of Church History scholars who are stating primarily that Premil was the Churches view and accepted doctrine for till about 450'ish AD. However you will also note that it lists in these common beliefs they held and I list 7 of them at the bottom of the page.

According most dispys do not state that Israel has 'pre-eminence' over the church but that Israel is focused upon in the Mil Kingdom. However there 'is' a distinction between Israel and the Church and it is noted via various Church histrorians because Israel is still to be dealt with/evangelized thus they can not be the same. Here is sourse of a OldRegulars (George Eldon Ladd) which shows that Historic Premil and Dispy-Premil both show this distinction and can be seen in this post - this is just one sourse but there are other historians that agree as I show in the other listing of Church historians. Though he shows where Israel is the church I and many others don't necessarily agree with respect to the current time but that we will all be the Church and not all be Israel, in the end.

 

Allan,

Why would you say this?

 

Historic pre-mil says no difference, nor distinction. Exactly the same group.

There is absolutely no distinction between Israel and the Church in Historical pre-mil. No distinction, no difference. Ladd, might have had a different take, but that was not the position of the early church. They saw the Church as merely a widening and expansion of National Israel, and the promises thereof. There is no distinction whatsoever.

 

I'm sorry, I should have stated it is not historically known as this. I'll retract it and correct it. However just in looking it up it appears that it is relitively new form of Covenant theology - per-say.
Though some have 'tried' (only recently not historically) to apply the term convenant to the Historic premil position but in research one finds that while it tries to make this claim (most due to those who hold it being Reformed) find it lacks much covenant credibility.

I'll link to the website that OldRegular gave as his sourse which shows the similarities are much more in line with Dispensational premil views that Covenant.

 

There are quite a few church historians who differ with you. However, while some church historians who say a disticntion was known and believed but it was not the prevailing portion they worried about. I have seen Covenant theologians make the same statements you have and so apparently some agree and others do not.

My correction here - It was not Ladd but Robert Clouse, Mr. Ladd editted the work that Oldreg tried to cite as proving Israel was seen as seperate from the church and on his own weblink it shows they are not seen as one and the same - and he was a Covenant view holder.

 

In my cut and paste I left off the first resurrection and then.. the general - as was understood by Historic Premils.

 

Alan, I am really not trying to argue with you, but in one of your links, you applied the following to Historical Pre-millennialism...

This is simply not true of the Historical position, IF you are speaking of Israel as a group of people. If you are speaking of it as a quasi geographical area, then I would agree with you.

Again, NONE of the early Church fathers (1st and 2nd century) that I know of, nor any of the History we have during that time, held any type of distinction between Jew and Gentile. The view of the early Church was that Christianity was simply a continuation and fulfillment of Judaism, and that Gentiles, who were believers, were no longer gentiles, but Sons of Abraham (Jews). No distinction, no difference. Saying "Jews will have a different place of preeminence" than gentile believers, would be like saying "The Jews will have a different place of preeminence over the Jews". They are the same people, the same nation, the same group, with no distinction.

 

Actually you don't find many early church fathers stating 'we are spiritual Israel' until about the time of Constatine in which many changes to the churches views took place. However in answer somewhat your question - yes, to rule FROM Israel is to have within it walls a people who make up that place and therefore the Israel is about a national make up of people.
I do note that some early church fathers did hold, to a spiritualizing of the church as Israel and is first seen somewhat by Justin Martyr in about 160 a.d. (and he is basically the only one till we come to primarily Barnabas and Ignatius. But we are not Israel though Israel will one day be a partaker in and of the CHurch - that we might all become one in Christ Jesus.

Not with respect to salvation no. But just as Paul shows a distinction between Jew, Gentile and the Church so did they (at least until Israel as a Nation was destroyed - then of course they couldn't be)

Again, there is disagreement here on this with respect to prominant and well respected Church historians.

Secondly brother, Abraham was not a Jew. Jews came from Jacob/Israel (his grandson) NOT Abraham. Otherwise Ishmaelites are also Jews as well. Abraham is not equated as Israel only equated with faith. We are sons of Abraham not Jacob who was Israel, since God changed his name to it.

WHo said anything about 'pre-eminence? Significance does not mean preeminence, only that there is a purpose for it. Therefore if it is seen to mean as being primarily dealt with in evangelism - I can agree. However only within the context of the saved do Gentiles and Jews loose their distiction and are called the Church - not Israel. Paul states in Romans 9 the distinction between the saved Jew and unsaved Jew - in which the saved Jew is equated as True Israel and thus the other is only physical Israel.
Also seen in Romans 11 in which Paul states - "hardening in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in." Is Paul making a biblical distinction here between the nation and the believers (which arise in the time of the Gentiles) and that it is then the harding will be done away with after the Gentiles time is completed. IF that is true what will happen to the Nation of which Paul is refering?

Remember - the restoration of the Kingdom (asked in Acts) is "TO" Israel - not "FOR" Israel.

 

A National make up of people, of whom we (Gentiles) are an equal and undistinct part...

1Pe 2:9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession...

Not true. Ireneaus spoke/held to a spiritual Israel, which included former gentiles. He was the student of Polycarp, who was the student of the Apostle John...

And there simply WERE no other ideas, until much, much later.

No true. We have been "grafted in" to Israel. "Ye ARE Abrahams seed, children according to the promise."

Paul's only distinction between Jew and Gentile, is in regards to Gentiles pre-salvation, i.e. before they become a part of Israel.

Disagreement? I have never seen a single reputable source, that claimed any different. Certainly there are no quotes/writings, that demonstrate ANY dispensational bent in the first or second century.

"Children of Abraham" was a common first century phrase meaning "Jew" or "Israelite". You will never find the first century Jews using the phrase "Children of Jacob", unless it is connected to Abraham, i.e. "Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob".

Joh 8:39 They answered him, "Abraham is our father."

This was a common phrase, meaning "We are Jews". Anyone reading Paul in the first century, would have understood him to mean we were Israel, when he said:

Gal 3:29 And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise.

Not so. There is now "no distinction". Not "No distinction, except when it comes to reward". Never do we see any distinction between the Gentile believers and TRUE Israel. On the contrary, the entire NT screams that they are one and the same.

But he also speaks of those who are "imputed" (counted) as seed. He specifically references believers being "grafted in"...grafted into what? The Olive tree, which has ALWAYS referred to Israel.

A hardening is happening, in part, to Israel as he has already defined it in Chapter 9; believers. Until the"Fulness of the Gentiles come in". Come into what? The Olive tree, a.k.a "Israel". Paul specifically says the Gentiles cease being gentiles, and come fully into and part of the Olive tree, Israel.