Posted on 04/20/2009 7:21:21 PM PDT by Star Traveler
The best exegesis and hermeneutics applied have come from pretrib, premil studies. Try Walvoord, Pentecost, Thieme, Dean, Ice, Chafer, Fruchtenbaum, and a large number of others who simply place their emphasis on learning Scripture first, then upon historical theology, instead of appealing to a particular church denominational platform prior to simple faith alone in Christ alone.
"Best" only if you presuppose the literalist futurist pretrib view and discard/ignore the Reformation practice of carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture.
I would put men such as Calvin, Turretin, Bullinger (Heinrich not E.W.), Spurgeon, Hodge (Charles and A.A.), Warfield, Machen, and assemblies such as Westminster and Dordt over and against your list anyday.
Comparing reformation theology with dispensational theology is like comparing Newtonian mechanics with Quantum Mechanics.
Their basis is quite similar, and firmly rooted in His Word, but studies by Reformed theologians for several centuries after Calvin led to Dispensationalism based upon His Word.
There are many physicists who never bother to understand quantum mechanics and can solve many a problem quite well, but don’t ask an auto mechanic to perform solid state physics. He won’t understand it.
This is the religion forum, not the laugh-out-loud humor forum. Your analogy is quite comical.
Dispensationalism grew in independent, non-creedal groups ... groups that had little or no contact with the great doctrines and leaders of the historical Reformation.
Real Reformation churches have warned against its errant teachings from the very beginning.
like comparing Newtonian mechanics with Quantum Mechanics.This is the religion forum, not the laugh-out-loud humor forum. Your analogy is quite comical.
I did, in fact, laugh out loud when I read that.
He won’t understand it. --cvengr
Another LOL.
We understand dispensationalists and their -ism just fine. Many of us used to be one, if only because most places it's the default American evangelical position. I'd venture to guess that too many disconnects between dispensational dogma and the plain teaching of scripture have led many to abandon it.
The Freerepublic dispy contingent doesn't seem to understand any other position at all.
The past most critical complaint from Reformed FReepers against dispensational positions was that the charts presented as third grade level expressions of the dispensations were too challenging for the Reformed intellect to comprehend.
Why would any studied Christian anticipate a Reformed believer to comprehend anything more significant?
Not to worry though, there is plenty of work for a believer regardless their perspective, to return to God, to place faith alone in Christ alone, and perform the works He had predestined from eternity past.
The past most critical complaint from Reformed FReepers against dispensational positions was that the charts presented as third grade level expressions of the dispensations were too challenging for the Reformed intellect to comprehend.
That's just silly. No more substantial than Quix on an html augmented rant. Argument's over.
Only problem is that it was presented by Reformed FReepers, not by any antagonist to their perspective.
Anytime that an eschatology focuses on CNN, Fox News, the AP, etc... to try squeezing out fulfillment of Scripture - whenever an eschatology looks to the Jerusalem Post to learn about the endtimes - that eschatology develops a new theology that attempts to extend God's grace to those not in Christ. According to this twisted theology Jesus, our Redeemer, our Savior, the Messiah is not needed universally. That is the core problem with dispensation theology. All other perversions of the Scripture are logical fallicies resulting from that perversion of God's Grace and application of justice.Besides, it's not that it's hard to understand what's being attempted by the charts, it's just that we don't know which one to shoot down.
One of the familiar arguments against the continuance of Israel as a nation is the idea that when Israel rejected Christ they failed to meet the necessary conditions for the fulfillment of their promises and are in fact disinherited as far as national promises are concerned. According to this point of view, an Israelite today has only the possibility of entering spiritually into the promises given to the church, not the promises given to Israel as a nation.Familiar argument? Hardly!
Such a position speaks volumes. Rather than adversarily approaching Walvoord, it's far wiser to remain in fellowship with God through faith alone in Christ alone.
Walvoord provides an enormous amount of true guidance on the topics queried. In your query,
"Which among us non-dispensationalists has ever argued that the reason that the nation of Israel didn't (won't) receive the land promise was because they rejected Christ?"
The last conversation I had with a Lutheran on the topic, he took the exact same position. The argument is fairly familiar within the community.
"Walvoord invented fallacies that don't actually exist in post-mil/amil eschatology in order to oppose them."
Seems like an accusation to me.
Perhaps the reader would return to the Walvoord sampling and read it from the perspective of learning instead of accusing.
(1) The postmillennial interpretation that the promise of future blessing for the Jews will be fulfilled in the people of Israel in the latter days of the period of the church on earth when the Jews are converted and accept Christ as Saviour. This was typical of the conservative postmillennialism of the nineteenth century.Nope, although that view existed, and still exists today, it was not and is not typical. Nor does it have anything to do with Hebrews 11, to which he is referring. Instead it is an interpretation of "the fullness of the Jews" from Romans 11:11ff. Though a cursory mention may have been called for (had he been referring to Romans instead of Hebrews) his fifth point, which reads:
(5) The amillennial position that the church is true Israel and that the prophecies given to Jeremiah and other prophets are being fulfilled in the church age in a spiritualized waywould have been better representative of the actual position if it read, "The postmillenial/amillennial position that the church is true Israel..." with some more tweaking of the end of the sentence. On this point, amils and postmils have and do generally agree. It's not exclusively the amil position. Postmil and amil are alot closer than speculative disagreements such as Walvoord's point (1) concerning Hebrews 11 (which actually concerns Romans 11).
William Hendriksen, for instance, a well-known amillenarian, takes the position that Israel means Israel in the New Testament, not the church. In a similar way Charles Hodge, the postmillenarian of the last generation, held that the term Israel is never used in the New Testament except for those who were physical descendants of Jacob. It would seem in view of the fact that some amillenarians and postmillenarians concede that Israel means Israel in the New Testament it would be unnecessary to debate this point. However, in view of the evidence that many amillenarians consider it, as Allis does, “an almost unprecedented extreme” to insist that Israel actually means Israel (Prophecy and the Church, p. 218), it is necessary to dispose of this point first.it should be pretty clear from the past discussions on this forum that preterists, postmils, and amils at least mostly agree.
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.