I'd say that (1) Christ will return, and usher in the world made new; and (2) at some point, probably shortly before Christ's return, there will be a period of worldwide apostasy, intense persecution, and rule by a spiritually evil person or force that in some sense apes Christ, and this is probably associated with the Jerusalem Temple. …
I'd say that (1) Christ will return, and usher in the world made new; and (2) at some point, probably shortly before Christ's return, there will be a period of worldwide apostasy, intense persecution, and rule by a spiritually evil person or force that in some sense apes Christ, and this is probably associated with the Jerusalem Temple. I don't want to go any further than that, other than highly speculatively.
I don't really care about things like amillennial, premillennial or postmillennial. Most historic churches are amillennial, but I recognise that that particular passage in Revelation is difficult to understand. I find all this intricate stuff about the Rapture and so on a bit silly, but I don't much care. I find the prophecies difficult to understand, highly debated, and not central to the Christian life.
The things I really object to are these:
1. Belief that the Jews remain Israel and God's Chosen People, and must be blessed in accordance with Genesis. This is clearly contravened by Galatians. If applied politically, it leads to injustice, and it detracts from the central message that all the human race is one. It is particularly odd when held by Evangelicals who rule out the possibility of salvation without Christ, as they are celebrating the existence of an entity that condemns people to eternal damnation.
2. Christian Zionism: This is tied up with point 1. At its most extreme, it holds that the Temple must be rebuilt, which is unnecessary if one accepts Christ's atonement, and looks very much like preparing the way for Antichrist. It also paints Palestinian Christians out of the picture.
3. Intepretations of prophecies that encourage proactive violence and oppression, i.e. not merely that there will be war with, say, Iran, but that one must go and try to cause such war. This is obviously contrary to the central Christian message.
I always come back to "the stone that the builders rejected": we don't know what God's plans are, and we shouldn't be trying to force his arm.
There were Christians who were philosemitic (e.g., Charlemagne; Casimir the Great of Poland) but I don't think anyone held that the Jews remained the Chosen People before the Dispensationalists came along.
I don't object to philosemitism, in the sense of fascination with aspects of the culture, or even seeing positive aspects to the spiritual or moral teachings. I feel a bit like that myself about Hasidic Judaism. One can respect the teachings of other religions, and think that they would be completed by Christ.
I think Dispensationalism is new, unless perhaps one were to include some of the Judaisers in the Middle Ages. However, its roots in fringe Protestantism in England go back to the 17th century.
I didn't know that Charlemagne and Casimir were philosemitic.
In England, William the Conqueror was philosemitic, and invited Jews into England for the first time, but his mother was almost certainly Jewish, making him Jewish in halakhic terms. His son William II organised a debate between rabbis and priests, but that was because he hated the Church, and was almost certainly atheist, rather than philosemitic.
Oliver Cromwell, who invited Jews back in again after they had all been expelled centuries earlier, also seems to have been philosemitic, but that might have been sort of proto-Dispensationalist. Although Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism are usually traced to Darby, Scofield and the Plymouth Brethren in the 19th century, some of their beliefs were expressed by English Puritans in the 17th century.
Under Charlemagne rabbis were invited to explain puzzling or hard to translate passages from the Old Testament, though critics complained about "Judaizing"-- though Great Karl stood in such esteem by everyone that such critiques failed to land.
Casimir opened Poland as a refuge to Jews being persecuted in the West during the Black Death-- and the plague itself largely bypassed Poland and Bohemia (the reason for that is a bit of a medical-historical mystery). Poland was tolerant of the Jews-- or religious differences in general-- for many centuries. The growth of antisemitism there later came as a sad betrayal of a noted history.
Re: some of their [Dispensationalist] beliefs were expressed by English Puritans in the 17th century.
There were some very oddball sects at the time, like the Fifth Monarchy Men, who expected the Millennium to begin forthwith. Of course you could find that sort of thing under medieval Catholicism and Orthodoxy too, but the official Church(es) kept proto-dispensationalism at arm's length if not suppressed outright.
What I actually hate even more than Dispensationalism, but with which it tends to be tangled up, from its roots in 17th-century British Calvinism, is the belief that the OT genocidal commands apply not only to Palestine (e.g. extermination of Palestinians), but to anywhere that Christians enter a new land for conquest.
At the massacre of the Pequot Indians in Massachusetts, the Puritan pastor declared the English settlers to be the chosen people and the Native Americans to be Canaanites, who must be entirely wiped out. Calvinists in particular have repeatedly expressed these beliefs, in places such as Ireland and South Africa, as well as America.
I think it is telling that support for Zionism is so common among Americans, Ulster Protestants, and white South Africans.
I'd say that (1) Christ will return, and usher in the world made new; and (2) at some point, probably shortly before Christ's return, there will be a period of worldwide apostasy, intense persecution, and rule by a spiritually evil person or force that in some sense apes Christ, and this is probably associated with the Jerusalem Temple. I don't want to go any further than that, other than highly speculatively.
I don't really care about things like amillennial, premillennial or postmillennial. Most historic churches are amillennial, but I recognise that that particular passage in Revelation is difficult to understand. I find all this intricate stuff about the Rapture and so on a bit silly, but I don't much care. I find the prophecies difficult to understand, highly debated, and not central to the Christian life.
The things I really object to are these:
1. Belief that the Jews remain Israel and God's Chosen People, and must be blessed in accordance with Genesis. This is clearly contravened by Galatians. If applied politically, it leads to injustice, and it detracts from the central message that all the human race is one. It is particularly odd when held by Evangelicals who rule out the possibility of salvation without Christ, as they are celebrating the existence of an entity that condemns people to eternal damnation.
2. Christian Zionism: This is tied up with point 1. At its most extreme, it holds that the Temple must be rebuilt, which is unnecessary if one accepts Christ's atonement, and looks very much like preparing the way for Antichrist. It also paints Palestinian Christians out of the picture.
3. Intepretations of prophecies that encourage proactive violence and oppression, i.e. not merely that there will be war with, say, Iran, but that one must go and try to cause such war. This is obviously contrary to the central Christian message.
I always come back to "the stone that the builders rejected": we don't know what God's plans are, and we shouldn't be trying to force his arm.
I'm Orthodox, yes.
However, my understanding is that what I'm saying here applies equally to conservative mainstream Protestants (Lutherans, Anglicans, etc.)
There were Christians who were philosemitic (e.g., Charlemagne; Casimir the Great of Poland) but I don't think anyone held that the Jews remained the Chosen People before the Dispensationalists came along.
I don't object to philosemitism, in the sense of fascination with aspects of the culture, or even seeing positive aspects to the spiritual or moral teachings. I feel a bit like that myself about Hasidic Judaism. One can respect the teachings of other religions, and think that they would be completed by Christ.
I think Dispensationalism is new, unless perhaps one were to include some of the Judaisers in the Middle Ages. However, its roots in fringe Protestantism in England go back to the 17th century.
I didn't know that Charlemagne and Casimir were philosemitic.
In England, William the Conqueror was philosemitic, and invited Jews into England for the first time, but his mother was almost certainly Jewish, making him Jewish in halakhic terms. His son William II organised a debate between rabbis and priests, but that was because he hated the Church, and was almost certainly atheist, rather than philosemitic.
Oliver Cromwell, who invited Jews back in again after they had all been expelled centuries earlier, also seems to have been philosemitic, but that might have been sort of proto-Dispensationalist. Although Dispensationalism and Christian Zionism are usually traced to Darby, Scofield and the Plymouth Brethren in the 19th century, some of their beliefs were expressed by English Puritans in the 17th century.
Under Charlemagne rabbis were invited to explain puzzling or hard to translate passages from the Old Testament, though critics complained about "Judaizing"-- though Great Karl stood in such esteem by everyone that such critiques failed to land.
Casimir opened Poland as a refuge to Jews being persecuted in the West during the Black Death-- and the plague itself largely bypassed Poland and Bohemia (the reason for that is a bit of a medical-historical mystery). Poland was tolerant of the Jews-- or religious differences in general-- for many centuries. The growth of antisemitism there later came as a sad betrayal of a noted history.
Re: some of their [Dispensationalist] beliefs were expressed by English Puritans in the 17th century.
There were some very oddball sects at the time, like the Fifth Monarchy Men, who expected the Millennium to begin forthwith. Of course you could find that sort of thing under medieval Catholicism and Orthodoxy too, but the official Church(es) kept proto-dispensationalism at arm's length if not suppressed outright.
What I actually hate even more than Dispensationalism, but with which it tends to be tangled up, from its roots in 17th-century British Calvinism, is the belief that the OT genocidal commands apply not only to Palestine (e.g. extermination of Palestinians), but to anywhere that Christians enter a new land for conquest.
At the massacre of the Pequot Indians in Massachusetts, the Puritan pastor declared the English settlers to be the chosen people and the Native Americans to be Canaanites, who must be entirely wiped out. Calvinists in particular have repeatedly expressed these beliefs, in places such as Ireland and South Africa, as well as America.
I think it is telling that support for Zionism is so common among Americans, Ulster Protestants, and white South Africans.