This is precisely why im not a *anythingism* because im not locked in yet. Why? Because ALL of them have weaknesses and problems, some more than others. Im still trying to match it all together
But in order to not make my reply just an empty plate, i'll answer from the point of view of some of the views ive considered:
Calvinism definately has biblical backing when it comes to PREDESTINATION of things, the election of Israel in the OT, the lack of prophets and missionaries sent to nations outside of Israel, all these prove that God had very little interest in dealing with the majority of the world outside of Israel. It can also take verses like Ezekiel 36:25-26 John 6:44 etc. at face value, which is always something good.
HOWEVER: It cannot take verses like 1 tim 2:1-4 at face value. It also cannot deal with the fact that God pleads for everyone to repent, especially His people Israel in the OT. Had it been the calvinist system in effect back then, GOd could have just GIVEN Israel the gift of repentance and faith, and He wouldn't of needed to be commanding them to do something constantly they cant do and wont do because God refuses to give them the gift of repentance and saying "what more could i have done for you?" (in case someone thinks thats not in the bible, looky here: Isaiah 5:4)
Dispensationalism I enjoy for its literal interpretation, and an organized approach to scripture. I also like it how dispensationalist preacher are the most aware of current events, many consider that a negative but I believe its smart to WATCH whats going on. The irony is that while they are watching the most, they also believe they wont see the antichrist, so there is that level of irony there lol. I also believe that some of the best preachers of our day have been dispensationalists.
What I dislike is the tendency by some (not all I said some like robert breaker, gene kim, etc.) to play down the words of Jesus to the point where its all for the jews the jews the jews. And the overall sharp distinction between church and israel is something that just isnt there in the NT. We have one people of God, made up of both jews and gentiles. And its the church, and everyone saved jew or gentile will be part of that one people, that will inherit all the promises in Christ . (if ye are Christ's ye are Abraham's seed etc.)
Now as to what I believed by reading the Bible with no commentary and no man to teach me: I believed in historical premillennialism. Meaning, there is one people of God, church is not the replacement of Israel, but rather Christ is the fulfillment of the seed of Abraham and all who are in Christ, JEW OR GENTILE inherit the promises made. There is a literal physical millennium where Jesus will rule the nations from Jerusalem.
I saw the famous rapture passage as just referring to the resurrection when Jesus returns at the second coming, before the millennium, and the mystery Paul told the corinthians was the fact that they would be changed immediatealy if they were alive at the second coming.
What are the difficulties with what I got by just reading the Bible? Well It has taken me a while to think of what to write here but I think the biggest problems would be that: Who populates the millennium? Zechariah says that there are some people left from those nations who attack Jerusalem, who go to celebrate the feast of booths, so there is that. (this seems to contradict 2 thess 1:6-( though, anyone know explanation to match em together?)
Another problem would be animal sacrifices, if I claim to take the scriptures literally, it would be hypocritical of me to spiritualize the animal sacrifices WHILE maintaining the rest of the chapter like Zechariah 14 are literal, especially since there is no reason to indicate they are spiritual or symbolic.
Another problem would be yet again in Zechariah 14:3-5 where the israelites are escaping, when Jesus returns and splits the mount of olives. Now why is that a problem? Because, I assume (and i believe correctly) that these Israelites escaping here are SAVED PEOPLE, which would mean that when Jesus returns to the mount of olives, THEY SHOULD BE RAPTURED/TRANSLATED THEN, instead of just staying there in the flesh and in the text there is no mention of a translation occuring.
Thats quite alot of text, I doubt anyone will read this but hey. I tried to be objective and impartial as much as possible. I believe EVERY position has some kinds of tough verses for it, otherwise we wouldnt have so many views.
For example: Jesus says many times the resurrection is at the LAST DAY, thats a tough verse if you believe in the pre-trib rapture. Another example: IF you believe in the post-trib rapture, you are stuck with the dilemma of 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8 which seems to contradict Zechariah 14:16. Paul says ALL those who dont obey the gospel will be destroyed, Zechariah 14:16 says they will live and come to celebrate the feast of booths. What say, ye post-tribber? [Or anyone else?]
