Help with Dispensationalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

danmpem

Puritan Board Junior
I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence. I've read MacArthur's "Second Coming" and his commentaries and they seem pretty compatible with scripture (I'm not siding with him as opposed to other views here, though). I also read elsewhere that a new hermeneutic had to be created to make his eschatology work. Can anyone help make sense of all this? Thanks!
 
I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence. I've read MacArthur's "Second Coming" and his commentaries and they seem pretty compatible with scripture (I'm not siding with him as opposed to other views here, though). I also read elsewhere that a new hermeneutic had to be created to make his eschatology work. Can anyone help make sense of all this? Thanks!

Macarthur's not really a full-orbed dispensationalist. Most of the old-guard Dispensationalists are gone, along with their theology. Several very intelligent dispensationalists, Bock and Blaising, revamped the dispensational hermeneutics to allow for more covenantal unity in the Scripture. This is called "Progressive Dispensationalism" and it is quite respectable.

Here is an excellent symposium by an old-line Dispensational, a progressive Dispensational, an historic premillennialist, and an amillennialist.
The Henry Institute: Audio
 
Hi Dan,

I've come from a Dispensational background myself. A while back when I first join the board here, I asked a similar question and Chris Blum, who is a moderator here, gave me this advice:

Welcome to the board, Greg! I can certainly relate to your Dispensational background, being raised in the Assemblies of God myself. As Robin implied above, I would say the most important thing you can do coming from a Dispensational background is to start with a study of Covenant Theology in general, rather than beginning with eschatology. That is because, as Robin implied above, Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology are, at their hearts, entire theological systems on the very nature of God's whole plan of redemption and His outworking of that plan throughout history. Trying to gain a full understanding and appreciation of Reformed eschatology without having a grounded understanding of Covenant Theology is like trying to fully understand and appreciate the significance of Christ's resurrection without already possessing a good understanding of His deity, humanity, perfection and atonement. In like manner, someone's eschatology is simply one outgrowth of the broader view one has on the biblical nature of God's structure and plan of redemption. For that reason, it will be much easier and more rewarding to first study and take to heart the biblical principles of Covenant Theology and then see and appreciate its implications in eschatology, rather than to simply look at Reformed eschatology first and find out its distinctives, and only later discover its true significance and meaning that is rooted in Covenant Theology.

For a very basic, beginning look at Covenant Theology, I would recommend Matthew McMahon's (our webmaster here) book A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology, which can be found at Puritan Publications. Another popular introductory work on the subject is O. Palmer Robertson's The Christ of the Covenants. One of the most respected larger, thorough works on the subject is Herman Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man. The Westminster Standards are very explicit in their description of the fundamentals of the system, a helpful online compilation of which can be found here. Some excellent articles on various tenets of Covenant Theology can also be found here.

In any case, I would definitely recommend beginning with a general study of Covenant Theology before focusing on the specifics of eschatology, and beginning that study by reading over the Westminster Standards' sections on the covenants, as well as Matt's introductory book on the topic and some of the Monergism articles linked above.

I don't know how much you're familiar with Covenant Theology and how it differs with Dispensationalism, but I definitely agree with Chris's advice above. Another book that I would also recommend is "The Israel of God" by O. Palmer Robertson.
 
I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence.

I went to a Plymouth Brethren assembly for a while and left a few months after I saw the poverty of the dispensational argument (my leaving was not related to this though!).

The biggest problem with dispensational theology is that it draws a radical distinction between Israel and the Church.

The church is distinct from Israel The church does not replace or continue Israel, and is never referred to as Israel. According to dispensationalists, the church did not exist in the Old Testament and did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2). Old Testament promises to Israel, then, cannot be entirely fulfilled with the church. Evidences often used by dispensationalists to show that the church is distinct from Israel include: (a) Jesus viewed the church as future in Matthew 16:18; (b) an essential element of the church—Spirit baptism—did not begin until the Day of Pentecost (compare 1 Cor. 12:13 with Acts 2); (c) Christ became Head of the church as a result of His resurrection (compare Eph. 4:15; Col. 1:18 with Eph. 1:19-23); (d) the spiritual gifts associated with the church (cf. Eph. 4:7-12; 1 Cor. 12:11-13) were not given until the ascension of Christ; (e) the “new man” nature of the church (cf. Eph. 2:15) shows that the church is a NT organism and not something incorporated into Israel; (f) the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ and the New Testament apostles and prophets (cf. Eph. 2:20); (g) the author, Luke, keeps Israel and the church distinct. On this last point, Fruchtenbaum states, “In the book of Acts, both Israel and the church exist simultaneously. The term Israel is used twenty times and ekklesia (church) nineteen times, yet the two groups are always kept distinct.”
What is Dispensationalism?

CHANGING PATTERNS IN AMERICAN DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY
 
I've been reading on a lot of Reformed web sites about the incompatibility of dispensational eschatology, but they have been mere references rather than hard evidence. I've read MacArthur's "Second Coming" and his commentaries and they seem pretty compatible with scripture (I'm not siding with him as opposed to other views here, though). I also read elsewhere that a new hermeneutic had to be created to make his eschatology work. Can anyone help make sense of all this? Thanks!

Macarthur's not really a full-orbed dispensationalist. Most of the old-guard Dispensationalists are gone, along with their theology. Several very intelligent dispensationalists, Bock and Blaising, revamped the dispensational hermeneutics to allow for more covenantal unity in the Scripture. This is called "Progressive Dispensationalism" and it is quite respectable.

Here is an excellent symposium by an old-line Dispensational, a progressive Dispensational, an historic premillennialist, and an amillennialist.
The Henry Institute: Audio

Talk about equal representation! Why is the post-mill position not presented in this symposium?
 
Talk about equal representation! Why is the post-mill position not presented in this symposium?

Because it is a forum for Southern Baptists in particular, and postmillennialism simply isn't represented in the Southern Baptist Convention. Similarly, if there were an eschatology forum presented by Presbyterians, you wouldn't see dispensational premillennialism represented.
 
I agree with the others here -- the key is the Church / Israel distinction. Historic Premillennialism often shares a lot in common with Dispensational Premillennialism in its futurism, but it breaks down when you study the timing of the rapture.

If there is no Church / Israel distinction and the 70th week of Daniel isn't postponed for the nation of Israel, there really is no reason for a pretribulational rapture.
 
Talk about equal representation! Why is the post-mill position not presented in this symposium?

Because it is a forum for Southern Baptists in particular, and postmillennialism simply isn't represented in the Southern Baptist Convention. Similarly, if there were an eschatology forum presented by Presbyterians, you wouldn't see dispensational premillennialism represented.

But A-mill is?
 
Talk about equal representation! Why is the post-mill position not presented in this symposium?

Because it is a forum for Southern Baptists in particular, and postmillennialism simply isn't represented in the Southern Baptist Convention. Similarly, if there were an eschatology forum presented by Presbyterians, you wouldn't see dispensational premillennialism represented.

But A-mill is?

Not well-represented, but there are a few. Ken Jones from WHI and Jason Robertson from Fide-o comes to mind, and, historically, James P. Boyce, who founded Southern Seminary. I think they brought Gaffin in from Westminster because, as far as I know, there aren't any Southern Baptists at a seminary professor level who are amillennial, and Gaffin would have been the best representative of the position.

In contrast, I've only met one postmillennial Baptist in my life, and he wasn't Southern Baptist, and he was tenuous on that point at best. A. H. Strong is the only postmill Baptist that comes to mind, and that was before World War I and World War II decimated the number of postmillennials.
 
Because it is a forum for Southern Baptists in particular, and postmillennialism simply isn't represented in the Southern Baptist Convention. Similarly, if there were an eschatology forum presented by Presbyterians, you wouldn't see dispensational premillennialism represented.

But A-mill is?

Not well-represented, but there are a few. Ken Jones from WHI and Jason Robertson from Fide-o comes to mind, and, historically, James P. Boyce, who founded Southern Seminary. I think they brought Gaffin in from Westminster because, as far as I know, there aren't any Southern Baptists at a seminary professor level who are amillennial, and Gaffin would have been the best representative of the position.

In contrast, I've only met one postmillennial Baptist in my life, and he wasn't Southern Baptist, and he was tenuous on that point at best. A. H. Strong is the only postmill Baptist that comes to mind, and that was before World War I and World War II decimated the number of postmillennials.

Understood, it's just usually where you find any a-mill's you will not have to look too hard to find post-mills because they are so similar in nature.
 
Understood, it's just usually where you find any a-mill's you will not have to look too hard to find post-mills because they are so similar in nature.

I guess that doesn't hold true for Baptist circles. When I was in DC listening to Mark Dever preach, he once commented briefly on eschatology positions (he doesn't hold one publically) in relation to secondary issues not to divide over (Romans 14, I think). He mentioned that he didn't know if there were any postmillennials in attendance.

Capitol Hill Baptist is a Southern Baptist Founders church that's very strong on teaching Covenant Theology, with Amill and Historic Premill positions each well represented and a very small and not-very-vocal dispensational population. That's how rare postmillennialism is in the Southern Baptist world.
 
Woah! I didn't expect this kind of a response. Thank you!

I agree with the others here -- the key is the Church / Israel distinction. Historic Premillennialism often shares a lot in common with Dispensational Premillennialism in its futurism, but it breaks down when you study the timing of the rapture.

I know that Historic Premillennialism is just post-trib premil. Could you elaborate please?
 
I know that Historic Premillennialism is just post-trib premil. Could you elaborate please?

Recall that the dispensationalist believes that God has two programmes. One for the earthly people (Israel) and another for the spiritual people (Church). So for the dispensationalist the two programmes do not meet hence their take of Daniel's 70 weeks and their rather odd view of the New Covenant. For them the 70 weeks are to do with Israel and so the programme whereby God deals with the Church takes place between week 69 and week 70, a parenthesis caused by Israel's rejection of the Messiah. Therefore in order for week 70 to start the Church must be done with hence the rapture is before the 70th week for that is the Tribulation etc.

Once you see the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, that there is one people of God and not two then these ideas fall to pieces. These fanciful Larkin charts are founded upon an Israel-Church distinction, once the foundation is removed then you have a problem. :D
 
I know that Historic Premillennialism is just post-trib premil. Could you elaborate please?

Once you see the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, that there is one people of God and not two then these ideas fall to pieces. These fanciful Larkin charts are founded upon an Israel-Church distinction, once the foundation is removed then you have a problem. :D

I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:

a. Weren't most ante-nicene fathers historic premil's? (If not, then maybe I misunderstood what I once read)

b. Didn't Augustine declare premil heresy?
 
Several very intelligent dispensationalists, Bock and Blaising, revamped the dispensational hermeneutics to allow for more covenantal unity in the Scripture. This is called "Progressive Dispensationalism" and it is quite respectable.

Another one of those men is my former systematic theology professor, Robert L. Saucy (pronounced "so-see") (who is now 77), who has been teaching at Talbot School of Theology (formerly Talbot Theological Seminary) since 1961. He still teaches part time. His book, The Case for Progressive Dispensationalism was published in the 1990s and is considered the original volume that got that ball rolling. (He wanted to call it A Case... but the publisher decided the definite article would make it sell better!)

A former Baptist, Saucy was, the last I checked, attending a Presbyterian Church near his home. I still run into him from time to time.
 
I know that Historic Premillennialism is just post-trib premil. Could you elaborate please?

Once you see the continuity between the Old and New Testaments, that there is one people of God and not two then these ideas fall to pieces. These fanciful Larkin charts are founded upon an Israel-Church distinction, once the foundation is removed then you have a problem. :D

I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:

a. Weren't most ante-nicene fathers historic premil's? (If not, then maybe I misunderstood what I once read)

b. Didn't Augustine declare premil heresy?

Historic premill is immune to the critiques AV1611 just gave.

Most church fathers were premil.

Augustine didn't like premil because he didn't like the earthy promises of Scripture.
 
I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:

a. Weren't most ante-nicene fathers historic premil's? (If not, then maybe I misunderstood what I once read)

b. Didn't Augustine declare premil heresy?

I think that we all see a distinction between Israel and the Church in some sense but the radical line of separation as advocated by dispensational premillennialism is wrong. Just look at the NT interpretation of OT prophesy!

Concerning you point a above - Some Church Fathers held to premillennialism but we know that there were a variety of opinions. What we ought recall is that i. they were not dispensational, ii. it was founded upon the day-age-theory of creation and that as the Church grew in understanding they rejected chillialism.

Concerning b. yes you are correct, he did as does the Second Helvetic Confession saying:

We further condemn Jewish dreams that there will be a golden age on earth before the Day of Judgment, and that the pious, having subdued all their godless enemies, will possess all the kingdoms of the earth. For evangelical truth in Matt., chs. 24 and 25, and Luke, ch. 18, and apostolic teaching in II Thess., ch. 2, and II Tim., chs. 3 and 4, present something quite different.

Some helps:
Evaluating Premillennialism by Cornelis P. Venema - Table of Contents
"The History of Chiliasm" by William Masselink
"What is Meant by Israel" by William Hendriksen
"Amillennialism: Intoduction and the Book of Revelation" by Anthony Hoekema
A Present or Future Millennium? by Kim Riddlebarger
The Premillennial Deception
Is the Pretribulation Rapture Theory Biblical?
 
I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:

a. Weren't most ante-nicene fathers historic premil's? (If not, then maybe I misunderstood what I once read)

b. Didn't Augustine declare premil heresy?

Concerning you point a above - Some Church Fathers held to premillennialism but we know that there were a variety of opinions. What we ought recall is that i. they were not dispensational, ii. it was founded upon the day-age-theory of creation and that as the Church grew in understanding they rejected chillialism.

I thought day-age-theory of creation was the attempt to reconcile new scientific findings with the Genesis 1 account of creation. In the Augustinian days, this doesn't seem to be an issue, as far as I can tell, that would impact the Church's views on the end times. Or am I missing something along the way?
 
I gather from this that most Premil's believe that there is some distinction between the church and Israel, but that the two are ultimately one people of God. I'm starting to see the difference and the strengths of both. Two things, though:

a. Weren't most ante-nicene fathers historic premil's? (If not, then maybe I misunderstood what I once read)

b. Didn't Augustine declare premil heresy?

Concerning you point a above - Some Church Fathers held to premillennialism but we know that there were a variety of opinions. What we ought recall is that i. they were not dispensational, ii. it was founded upon the day-age-theory of creation and that as the Church grew in understanding they rejected chillialism.

I thought day-age-theory of creation was the attempt to reconcile new scientific findings with the Genesis 1 account of creation. In the Augustinian days, this doesn't seem to be an issue, as far as I can tell, that would impact the Church's views on the end times. Or am I missing something along the way?

They held to a day-age sort of theory, but not for scientific reasons. Augustine didn't like six days because he didn't like time. It involved getting involved in creation, which made him uncomfortable.

Augustine's day-age (sort of) view was for philosophical, not scientific reasons.
 
I thought day-age-theory of creation was the attempt to reconcile new scientific findings with the Genesis 1 account of creation. In the Augustinian days, this doesn't seem to be an issue, as far as I can tell, that would impact the Church's views on the end times. Or am I missing something along the way?

Justin Martyr:

Chapter 80. The opinion of Justin with regard to the reign of a thousand years. Several Catholics reject it.
And Trypho to this replied, "I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies?"

Then I answered, "I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.

Chapter 81. He endeavours to prove this opinion from Isaiah and the Apocalypse.
"For Isaiah spoke thus concerning this space of a thousand years: 'For there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, and the former shall not be remembered, or come into their heart; but they shall find joy and gladness in it, which things I create. For, Behold, I make Jerusalem a rejoicing, and My people a joy; and I shall rejoice over Jerusalem, and be glad over My people. And the voice of weeping shall be no more heard in her, or the voice of crying. And there shall be no more there a person of immature years, or an old man who shall not fulfil his days. For the young man shall be an hundred years old; but the sinner who dies an hundred years old, he shall be accursed. And they shall build houses, and shall themselves inhabit them; and they shall plant vines, and shall themselves eat the produce of them, and drink the wine. They shall not build, and others inhabit; they shall not plant, and others eat. For according to the days of the tree of life shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound. Mine elect shall not toil fruitlessly, or beget children to be cursed; for they shall be a seed righteous and blessed by the Lord, and their offspring with them. And it shall come to pass, that before they call I will hear; while they are still speaking, I shall say, What is it? Then shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, and the lion shall eat straw like the ox; but the serpent [shall eat] earth as bread. They shall not hurt or maltreat each other on the holy mountain, says the Lord.' Now we have understood that the expression used among these words, 'According to the days of the tree [of life] shall be the days of my people; the works of their toil shall abound' obscurely predicts a thousand years. For as Adam was told that in the day he ate of the tree he would die, we know that he did not complete a thousand years. We have perceived, moreover, that the expression, 'The day of the Lord is as a thousand years,' is connected with this subject. And further, there was a certain man with us, whose name was John, one of the apostles of Christ, who prophesied, by a revelation that was made to him, that those who believed in our Christ would dwell a thousand years in Jerusalem; and that thereafter the general, and, in short, the eternal resurrection and judgment of all men would likewise take place. Just as our Lord also said, 'They shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but shall be equal to the angels, the children of the God of the resurrection.' Luke 20:35f.​

Iraeneus:

3. For in as many days as this world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. And for this reason the Scripture says: "Thus the heaven and the earth were finished, and all their adornment. And God brought to a conclusion upon the sixth day the works that He had made; and God rested upon the seventh day from all His works." Genesis 2:2 This is an account of the things formerly created, as also it is a prophecy of what is to come. For the day of the Lord is as a thousand years; 2 Peter 3:8 and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.​
 
I am from a dispensational background and have spent several years (at least) wrestling with some of the issues involved. I've never been able to accept some of the distinctives of "classic dispensationalism" such as the church being a parenthesis in God's program. I have, more recently, been leaning toward more of a covenantal premill. view. One thing that influenced my thinking was simply realizing that I need to turn to Scripture to find an authoritative guide to hermeneutics. I realize that I have, for years, carried what I would call a scientific, rationalistic hermeneutic to the Bible. Now, as I look to the New Testament for guidance in interpretation of the Old, I find more evidence for a continuity in the one people of God and for a "reinterpretation" of certain features of Old Testament prophecies. I tend to think that both classic covenantalists and classic dispensationalists have over-systematized their eschatological systems. We should, perhaps, recognize elements of continuity between the testaments as well as elements of discontinuity.
 
Most church fathers were premil.


This is news to me.

I need to qualify that. Many of the leading fathers held to what we would call historic premillennialism regarding the timing and nature of the millennium. Origen, reacting to the crassness of OT prophecies, spiritualized the millennium.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus argue for a chiliasm while noting that there are godly men who disagree.
 
Most church fathers were premil.


This is news to me.

I need to qualify that. Many of the leading fathers held to what we would call historic premillennialism regarding the timing and nature of the millennium. Origen, reacting to the crassness of OT prophecies, spiritualized the millennium.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus argue for a chiliasm while noting that there are godly men who disagree.

But from what I have read Chiliasm was not the majority view. And Justin Martyr's writing has been drawn into questioning.
 
This is news to me.

I need to qualify that. Many of the leading fathers held to what we would call historic premillennialism regarding the timing and nature of the millennium. Origen, reacting to the crassness of OT prophecies, spiritualized the millennium.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus argue for a chiliasm while noting that there are godly men who disagree.

But from what I have read Chiliasm was not the majority view. And Justin Martyr's writing has been drawn into questioning.

That's because "chiliasm" has different levels of meaning. Fringe radicals used it, too. It is well-established what Martyr believed. We can bring it into questioning, but he said things that are historic premillennial, precisely in areas that define millennial positions.

Augustine crystallized what would later be known as amillennialism (although that is an anachronism). Augustine didn't like concepts like time, mountains bringing sweet wine, feasting banquets, etc.
 
I need to qualify that. Many of the leading fathers held to what we would call historic premillennialism regarding the timing and nature of the millennium. Origen, reacting to the crassness of OT prophecies, spiritualized the millennium.

Justin Martyr and Irenaeus argue for a chiliasm while noting that there are godly men who disagree.

But from what I have read Chiliasm was not the majority view. And Justin Martyr's writing has been drawn into questioning.

That's because "chiliasm" has different levels of meaning. Fringe radicals used it, too. It is well-established what Martyr believed. We can bring it into questioning, but he said things that are historic premillennial, precisely in areas that define millennial positions.

Augustine crystallized what would later be known as amillennialism (although that is an anachronism). Augustine didn't like concepts like time, mountains bringing sweet wine, feasting banquets, etc.


Augustine was after Martyr. Iwill have to go look up my references for you. Augustine is beside the point. And Amil wasn't really a term used until much much later if I am not mistaken..... Postmil was the Amil position albeit took many different forms also.
 
But from what I have read Chiliasm was not the majority view. And Justin Martyr's writing has been drawn into questioning.

That's because "chiliasm" has different levels of meaning. Fringe radicals used it, too. It is well-established what Martyr believed. We can bring it into questioning, but he said things that are historic premillennial, precisely in areas that define millennial positions.

Augustine crystallized what would later be known as amillennialism (although that is an anachronism). Augustine didn't like concepts like time, mountains bringing sweet wine, feasting banquets, etc.


Augustine was after Martyr. Iwill have to go look up my references for you. Augustine is beside the point. And Amil wasn't really a term used until much much later if I am not mistaken..... Postmil was the Amil position albeit took many different forms also.

I know Augustine was after Martyr. That is precisely my point, btw. Augustine's monumental work is what crystallized Western and Catholic theology.
 
Was an Old style Dispensational and Landmarkist for some years. I agree with others on this thread that see the major problem with dispensational theology as the Church/Israel distinction. One must bend alot of Scripture to split the two in my opinion. The idea of the Church as being a sort of "God's plan B" seems ludicrious to me now but when I was under the sway of that doctrine I couldn't see the forest for the trees when it came to eschatalogical matters. I was convinced that if one was of another stripe that they must be antisemitic.

Since I've been covenantal, I've even been accused of antisemitism simply because I view God's Church as Israel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top