Replies

It wasn't a non-response. I thought it was pretty cogent. A mathematician who recognizes a step 1 error in the "proof" of a theorem will not waste his time going through the other steps. He will look at his student and say "You have a big problem here in step 1, go fix it and come back when you have a solid proof."

The article clearly states the authors underlying belief ...

He believes that the interpretive methodology of dispensational premillennialism is inexorably linked to the way its advocates defend their position on creation.

My response was ...

Dispensational premillenialism is a natural result of the historical grammatical approach to biblical interpretation combined with proper theological method.

Whether all dispensational authors recognize the same approach is debatable. But it is theological method that separates dispensational from non-dispensational threology. Only dispensationalism is grounded in proper method. The reason why non-dispensational eschatology (i.e., Reformed) is a hogde-podge of uncoordinated results is its inability to deal with the OT. A dispensationalist develops a Biblical theology of the OT from the OT text. The non-dispensationalist develops a Biblical theology of the OT from a NT understanding of the OT text.

That is why a non-dispensationalist has no use for Israel, the millenium, an earthly kingdom of God ... everywhere you see the kingdom of God in the OT, you are thinking "Kingdom of God in the heart."