Please assist me with this.
Dispensational theology refers to the unified teachings of Dispensationalism that address what other views teach as divergent theologies in the Old Testament and New Testament. Its name reflects a view that biblical history is best understood as a series of dispensations, or separated time-periods, in the Bible.
I'm quoting
"But when people try to pin me down to some kind of system all I would say this, here is the sum total of my dispensationalism. One sentence, "There is a true future for national Israel." Period, paragraph. Why do I believe that? Because that's exactly what Scripture says. Old Testament, New Testament. I'm not content to just imbibe a theology passed down through centuries, as respected as it might be. And many covenant theologians are absolutely at the very pinnacle of biblical scholarship and understanding of the great doctrines of grace and things like that and we applaud them and we affirm them and we revere them and we stand with them and love them and appreciate them for that. I just don't understand why they change the rules of the game when they get to Israel.
What is to be gained by that? I know what is to be lost. It's the call into question the faithfulness of God and to call into question the straightforward interpretation of Scripture. The difference is not a difference in exegesis. If somebody's wondering why are some people covenant theologians and some people what's called futuristic premillennialist believing in a literal future as outlined in Scripture. For Israel including the millennial kingdom. What is the difference? It's not exegetical. That is, it's not in the words, it's not in the syntax or the grammar or the lexicography of the language. It's not a difference in what the text says. We don't disagree on what it says. We just flatly disagree at this point.
We say it means what it says. They say it doesn't mean what it says. It means what we say it means. Now have an authority problem because you've now presupposed that it has to mean something other than what it says. Once you say it's not literal then you can't know what it is and why would you do that? Why? Why not, except a literal, historical, normal understanding of Scripture and if it yields a future for Israel, I'm not going to be sad. I'm going to be glad, because that means God keeps His what? His promises. Why would I want to come up with a system that has God voiding out His promises and then while I might have done away with the problem regarding Israel, for reason I'm not sure, I've got a problem regarding God."
-J.MacArthur
Dispensational theology refers to the unified teachings of Dispensationalism that address what other views teach as divergent theologies in the Old Testament and New Testament. Its name reflects a view that biblical history is best understood as a series of dispensations, or separated time-periods, in the Bible.
I'm quoting
"But when people try to pin me down to some kind of system all I would say this, here is the sum total of my dispensationalism. One sentence, "There is a true future for national Israel." Period, paragraph. Why do I believe that? Because that's exactly what Scripture says. Old Testament, New Testament. I'm not content to just imbibe a theology passed down through centuries, as respected as it might be. And many covenant theologians are absolutely at the very pinnacle of biblical scholarship and understanding of the great doctrines of grace and things like that and we applaud them and we affirm them and we revere them and we stand with them and love them and appreciate them for that. I just don't understand why they change the rules of the game when they get to Israel.
What is to be gained by that? I know what is to be lost. It's the call into question the faithfulness of God and to call into question the straightforward interpretation of Scripture. The difference is not a difference in exegesis. If somebody's wondering why are some people covenant theologians and some people what's called futuristic premillennialist believing in a literal future as outlined in Scripture. For Israel including the millennial kingdom. What is the difference? It's not exegetical. That is, it's not in the words, it's not in the syntax or the grammar or the lexicography of the language. It's not a difference in what the text says. We don't disagree on what it says. We just flatly disagree at this point.
We say it means what it says. They say it doesn't mean what it says. It means what we say it means. Now have an authority problem because you've now presupposed that it has to mean something other than what it says. Once you say it's not literal then you can't know what it is and why would you do that? Why? Why not, except a literal, historical, normal understanding of Scripture and if it yields a future for Israel, I'm not going to be sad. I'm going to be glad, because that means God keeps His what? His promises. Why would I want to come up with a system that has God voiding out His promises and then while I might have done away with the problem regarding Israel, for reason I'm not sure, I've got a problem regarding God."
-J.MacArthur