Replies

IMO, this particular "ism" takes our eyes off God's command to preach the Gospel to all men, and instead focuses our attention on fear, insecurity and useless speculation.

As does Mr. Gianello's pointless screed. Really -- if a fellow's gonna argue about the word "CONTENT", doncha think he should actually discuss the word to which he takes exception?

As for the argument itself .... well, we have a choice. Should we argue with Ryrie or Gianello, or should we preach the Gospel to all men?

Because we can't really do both: suppose a seeker opens this thread. He might need to hear the Gospel, but he only sees Gianello blathering on about "dispensationalism." The distinction is utterly pointless to a seeker, who will in any case be chased away by the ugly manner in which Gianello makes his case.

We could use a lot fewer screeds like this one....

suppose a seeker opens this thread. He might need to hear the Gospel, but he only sees Gianello blathering on about "dispensationalism." The distinction is utterly pointless to a seeker, who will in any case be chased away by the ugly manner in which Gianello makes his case.

There's nothing "ugly" about the author's manner other than you disagree with it which is your prerogative.

IMO dispensationalism weakens the Gospel and confuses the assurance and clarity with which Christ spoke -- "Be not afraid; only believe" (Mark 5:36). Any understanding that says we should not preach to the Jews today to acknowledge Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior today is unScriptural.

As far as hindering the seeker, I rest content in Paul's assurance that it is "God that giveth the increase." (1 Corin. 3:7)