[Celtic Prince]

Most Fundamentalists are considered Dispensational anymore. There are many who hold to a strong Covenant stance as well, mostly Presbyterians and Reformists. Then there's the weird sects, like the UCC, Assembly of Gods, Mormons (more of a cult), etc.

Which one is "right"? Keep the debate civil.

[Ria]

do you mean regarding the millennium or biblical interpretation...or beliefs in the deity of Christ...or just in general as different "religions"?

[Celtic Prince]

do you mean regarding the millennium or biblical interpretation...or beliefs in the deity of Christ...or just in general as different "religions"?

The difference between them in eschatology is huge, but the reality is [no matter what] view you take, Christ is returning. The hugely pervasive view (of the three most common) is Amillennialism. This is most common among the Presbyterian and Reformed groups, as far as I can tell. Premillennialism has [two] views, if you want to call them different. One takes a stand for a pre-trib rapture, while the other is post trib. Lastly, we have the view Postmillennialism, which as the name states takes the view we're in the post-millennial era.

The oldest and most widely held view is Ammillennialism. Dispensationalism is a new phenomenon taking strong roots in the early 1900s with scholars like Scofield. It's changed many times in the last 100 years, to the point there are people called "Progressive Dispensationalists" and etc.

Biblical interpretation between the views is emphasized by most Disps as Eschatological and Spiritual[izing] differences. While the newer fundamentalists claim their view is more literal, which is more of an opinion than it is a fact, and the older fundies being more figurative (again, is it really a fact or a matter of perspective?), where do the differences truly lie on the altar of theology?

[As far as beliefs in the Deity of Christ, you'd have to be a far left liberal theologian to deny it, like Dan Brown's novel "Da Vinci Code" would lead you to believe.]

On th issue of cultic tie-ins (ecumenically speaking) being, in fact, "Christian", I have a hard time tossing the Mormons and JW's into the mix as Christians, because (as the name implies), you'd have to be a disciple of Jesus Christ. After extensively reading JW material, I've come to the conclusion that the deity of the Lord is lessened heavily than in traditional Reformed Christian viewpoints (nixing Catholicism, although it still has a very high view on the deity of Christ).

[Der Nachtfalter]

Premillennialism has [two] views, if you want to call them different. One takes a stand for a pre-trib rapture, while the other is post trib.

There's also a mid-trib/pre-wrath group.

[Celtic Prince]

There's also a mid-trib/pre-wrath group.

That's a pretty obscure group though...but yeah they do exist.

I find it funny there are so many views.

[Der Nachtfalter]

It's somewhat popular among some fundamentalists in Norther Michigan anyhow

I think it's a more tenable position than post-trib.

[Celtic Prince]

It's somewhat popular among some fundamentalists in Norther Michigan anyhow

I think it's a more tenable position than post-trib.

All three positions are new...and all three claim biblical support for their views, and as far as I've noticed, there's not really been any conclusive scriptural support for them as being different...it's sort of an opinion more than something blatantly stated in scripture.

[AnaleenAelwyn]

I am definitely Pre-trib, Pre-mill. I believe that people can possibly be saved and still believe in one of the other views, but from what I have read, heard, and studied, pre-trib/pre-mill has the best basis in Biblical references.

[Celtic Prince]

Is it really? Considering I grew up believing the same thing but have now come to grips with the historical viewpoint, I have a hard time thinking anymore that a pre-trib view is even biblical. Fact of the matter is that pre-trib dispensationalism is only about 125 years old. Now whether we want to get into "they're right you're wrong" arguments or not, it really won't make a difference. The change in theology happened when Dallas took over the 'conservative' Bible seminaries and replaced much of the foundational reformed seminaries in America. While the deispensational view is very very popular in America, it's a very new phenomenon and is rare in Europe, the original home of protestantism.

This isn't just simply based on historical premise either. Most of the truly respected scholars of the Bible in the past have embraced the amillennial view. If they haven't, the majority that remains would be considered classical dispensationalism, differentiated from the works of Scofield, Ryrie, and Darby.

The truth of the matter is that we can read amillennialism and bang our heads on the wall, read postmillennialism and do the same, and read premillennialism and go insane, or that's how someone I knew in seminary once put it.

[Raven]

I think the subject is really something Christians shouldn't debate over. An argument over something like this, which neither party is sinning by holding to, can cause splits and fights and grudges, which are sin. I like Xyie's view: We won't know until it happens.

[Celtic Beauty]

That's always a good way to look at it It does affect one's worldview considerably though...

[AnaleenAelwyn]

I think the subject is really something Christians shouldn't debate over. An argument over something like this, which neither party is sinning by holding to, can cause splits and fights and grudges, which are sin. I like Xyie's view: We won't know until it happens.

Which is why I merely stated my view and then left it alone. I am not here to debate over eschatology with anyone, I was just putting out my opinion, and everybody else can take it or leave it. And you're right, we *won't* know, for certain, until it happens. Maybe i'm wrong, maybe he is, and hey, maybe we both are.

[Raptor]

I think the subject is really something Christians shouldn't debate over. An argument over something like this, which neither party is sinning by holding to, can cause splits and fights and grudges, which are sin. I like Xyie's view: We won't know until it happens.

There's nothing wrong with debating about things, as long as they stay debates. Arguments though...those are problems, for the reason you stated. As long as discussions remain civil, they can encourage people to think and discover what the Bible says for themselves.

[Celtic Prince]

Riffs are negative, one of the deepest of which has been going on since the Pelagion/Augustine issue on the doctrines of grace vs. will of man. It was later revived when Arminius sent five points of argument for Augustine's theology and was then refuted by John Calvin. I think I got the time line right, I was just reading a book on that the other day.THAT was an argument because there was a definite line of theological error during debate. Something that most certainly can destroy an entire biblical system from the heart of itself. There other argument that comes to mind is the issues of textual criticism, but I don't even bother with that anymore

Rsptor is right: the major problem with many churches and Christian schools is the issue of one-sidedness. When someone neglects to peruse other areas of study and adheres blindly to one system that they've merely been told is correct, the sight is shortened and narrowed drastically.

For instance, while we're on eschatology, I was having a conversation once with someone at BJU and they mentioned that they'd never ever heard of anyone who didn't believe in the rapture. In fact, they went as far as to say that any other view is heretical. The utter shock they received when that individual returned the comment with "I'm an ammillennialist." The point is that I grew up very much the same way. I was in a progressive dispensational church growing up (NOT baptist at all) with calvinistic leanings. When I hit the 11th grade we moved to PA where we attended a Baptist church with hardcore arminian leanings and no system of theology or structure to their beliefs of the Bible whatsoever. In fact,t he Bible was their guidebook to get into "the Jesus club" and your goal as a member was to get as many into the club and baptised as possible!

Needless to say I went thru three to four rough years of attendance before I cracked under the sheer weight of my conscience. What I was reading in scripture combined with the top-notched scholars was not what was (or wasn't) being preached from that pulpit. I ended up not going to church for a few months altogether because of disenchantment with not only the poor teachings of the church but the utter nonsense that it was growing into (preaching things wholly not even in scripture to the point that they were adding their personal beliefs into the Bible).

Luckily I ended up returning to school that fall and eventually assimilating 2 years later into Second Presbyterian. Right before this happenedm however, a friend of mine who had recently begun studying covenant theology began pressing issues into my mind and heart and asking provocative questions on parts of the Bible I simply took for granted or bought into from speakers at BJU or other similar churches. Realising that what he was saying nearly aligned perfectly with what I had come to find the Bible to say, I decided to give it a shot and started attending Heritage Bible as a student. Eventually my wife and I decided it wasn't for us but at this church we were immersed into a more Reformed type of teaching, which we loved. Eventually Second was on our list to visit and since then we've never looked back!

All this to say that if I'd never been given other options it's possible I would have grown more and more weary of fundamental Christianity to the point that I'd have looked elsewhere with little to no guidance. God is truly sovereign in every aspect in every way, nothing I have done could have even gotten me close to where I am. This much is certain and is proven by the life I've "lead".

[Raven]

An interesting point to add long after this topic was seemingly abandoned.

I have found that in the eyes of some Christians, a person who takes an amillenialist stance also must believe in the Social Gospel, golden age sort of thing.