Reply With QuoteI can't speak much about wal or Australia, but most of this idea was birthed in England and came to America where it grew into what is now called "dispensationalism." It's got several other ideas attached to it, and from what I can tell it's a good bit of eisegesis over exegesis plus poor scholarly work.Originally Posted by Matt Jackson
Interestingly, it's also largely responsible for the blanket literalism that I take issue with. As I found somewhere else, "Everyone is okay with taking all scripture literally until it's time to start looking for a prostitute riding a beast."
It's weird to me because you have to forgo quite a bit of exegesis of both the old and new testament as well as hundreds or thousands of years of early church understanding to get on board with tying whatever is going on right now explicitly to a prophecy (none of which were ever understood before fulfilled, anyway).
Not to go too deeply into it here, but perhaps you'd be interested in it. While new, it's still roughly 200 years old. I find no issue in saying Hamas attacking Israel is wrong and unjustifiable, I also can say the same for much of what Israel has been up to, and it strikes me as deeply ironic when you read the Old testament and second temple writings historically to see how far Israel falls when they resort to any and all means to guarantee their "kingdom" outside of what and who they were originally called to be.
Perhaps not terribly pertinent to this board, but maybe kinda since it's both pertinent and important to the people we're talking about. If there's one reason I personally reject dispensationalism it's for the fruit it bears: fear, distraction, and division.
Sorry, not sorry Kirk Cameron...
