Posted on 08/13/2009 12:07:59 PM PDT by P.O.E.
It’s because his language does not suggest a dispensational perspective. That plus his church choice, plus his background all add up to something other than dispensationalism to me.
There is also the issue that many consider this a purely apocryphal, unsubstantiated story that was put out by enemies.
My sense is that there’s “some” truth to it, but that it has all the earmarks of a story told and retold and grown distorted in that retelling.
Besides, it makes perfect sense if one is in a mainline denomination where there is zero emphasis on eschatology to find a book or preacher and adopt the latest fad. Especially one that sells lots of books.
Yours is a reasonable reply. As an ordained elder in his denomination, however, my sense is that Pres Bush is not dispensationalist. His language is not the language of a dispensationalist.
In fact, his neo-conservative Pax Democratia, of its march via destiny to the renewal of the political earth is a transfer of post-millenialism to the political realm.
Maybe Bush is either indirectly fulfilling a handful of God’s prophecies or wants to delay them because he feels the world is not ready yet for prophetic major events.
Is there any place OTHER than in the Leftists’ blogs and editorials that CONFIRMS that Chirac actually made this claim?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.