Replies

How would you define classic premil as it contrasts dispensationalism? I’ve read a little but not much, but have wholly rejected dispensationalism based on what I find in scripture. I’d love to hear your perspective.

The single biggest difference between them is over the Church vs the Nation of Israel in future events. Here's an excerpt from the thread Four Views on the Millennium:

The historical premillennialist's view interprets some prophecy in Scripture as having literal fulfillment while others demand a semi-symbolic fulfillment. As a case in point, the seal judgments (Revelation 6) are viewed as having fulfillment in the forces in history (rather than in future powers) by which God works out his redemptive and judicial purposes leading up to the end.
Rather than the belief of an imminent return of Christ, it is held that a number of historical events (e.g., the rise of the Beast and the False Prophet) must take place before Christ's Second Coming. This Second Coming will be accompanied by the resurrection and rapture of the saints (1 Thessalonians 4:15-18); this will inaugurate the millennial reign of Christ. The Jewish nation, while being perfectly able to join the church in the belief of a true faith in Christ, has no distinct redemptive plan as they would in the dispensational perspective. The duration of the millennial kingdom (Revelation 20:1-6) is unsure: literal or metaphorical.

Thank you, that helps. I would have to look further into the view's notion of some prophecy demanding "semi-symbolic fulfillment" because I think that in most places, God is pretty literal and pretty clear, but that's another discussion.

One more question - you also said:

Christians will be losers in every area of culture and history. There's no way for the world to move towards a Great Tribulation unless this is true (classic Premillennialism actually has a way around this, but Dispensationalism IMO does not).

So what is the classic premillenialist's way around this?