Does Pre-millennialism cause an outworking of non inclusiveness?

I had a discussion last night with a very dear friend who is holds to a Premillennialist point of view and why I am more of a AmillennialistFor my non Christian readers these are fancy terms which denote a particular belief system and interpretation of the Bible about  end times.

One of the questions I asked was, “Why is it that those who hold to the Premill position are so motivated to the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple….when Scripture clearly shows that we are the Temple of the Holy Spirit?”

It also appears to me that those who hold a Pre-mill position are less likely to be concerned about the state and welfare of all people in the east and rather focus solely on that of the welfare of the Jewish nation.

If the Gospel clearly calls for a unity, peace and equality between all nations, class and gender…it appears to me that a Pre-mill position by default makes one take a different stance to which the Gospel calls the church to take.

About Craig Benno

I'm an average aussie guy who has lived perhaps a not so average life.
This entry was posted in End times and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Does Pre-millennialism cause an outworking of non inclusiveness?

  1. Dan says:

    Now being “Christian” has spilled over into eschatalogical positions as well? We couldn’t just leave with, “Arminians are barely saved?”

    What may be a little out of line is an understanding between Pre-Mil and Pre-Trib. Dispensationalism is a side product of Pre-Mil. That position is often confused with Pre-Mil. Premillennial views are held by early church fathers, just like A-Mil or Post_mil positions. It was not dogma.

    Pre-Trib is part of Dispensationalism and often gets confused and thrown into the Pre-Mil camp so that crazy conclusions get made, like, “Pre-Mil is anti-gospel.”

    But, really, do we have to keep going through these theological differences and put disparaging labels on long-held theological thoughts?

  2. Craig Benno says:

    Hi Dan.

    I appreciate your comment and my post wasn’t about who is in or out. Rather its a continuation of my thought processes regarding the inclusiveness of the Gospel, which is a major thrust of my writings.
    If the Gospel doesn’t cause the church to equally minister to all nations, gender and classes of people then what is believed and preached is a false gospel.

    I take on board the different strains of Pre-mill… can you honestly say that the modern position of premill hasn’t been influenced by the pre-trib and its focus on Israel / Jerusalem doesn’t effect the ministry call to all in the middle east?

    • Dan says:

      Nice save on the title. 😉

      I think the pre-trib position has been assumed as the default position for classical pre-mil. And it’s wrong. It demonstrates an unwillingness to examine further aspects of theology and delineate the differences. (I’d call it laziness and as Pentecostals, we are just simply theologically lazy at times.)

      But that doesn’t deter my view that I can say (possibly) I’m a CLASSICAL pre-mil and not the new strain of dispensationalism. (Although I’m just not smart enough to figure it all out so I could be A-mil… lol.)

      Certainly, the likes of Justin Martyr and Tertullian could hold a pre-mil position and they had no idea what pre-trib was in their day.

      The pre-trib position IS too focused on the issue of Israel and I would agree with your post completely in that light.

  3. Craig Benno says:

    Hi Dan… I changed my title… what do you think of the change?

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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