Hmm...I was introduced into dispensationalism (Bible Baptist Churches) back in 1973. But after all the lessons they gave me in "Sunday and Wednesday" classes, telling me to examine the Bible to see if it was so, my examination led me out of that faulty school of thought. Later examination of the origins of dispensationalism intensified my conclusions that it was really wrong theology. It was sensationalism magnified, not Biblical. Signs were its main proof...has that been changed?
We view daily events that happen today as "the beginning of birth pangs" ... nothing more, not fulfillment of prophecy.
I see...the name has just been changed, not the idea.
Well, honestly ... you don't really demonstrate a solid understanding of dispensationalism. Perhaps like many in the 1970s you think you learned it from reading The Late Great Planet Earth. Anyway, it is certainly possible that the Baptist church you "learned" it from was not all that solid.
Later examination of the origins of dispensationalism intensified my conclusions that it was really wrong theology.
And what origins would that be?
It was sensationalism magnified, not Biblical. Signs were its main proof...has that been changed?
This is where I am confident your understand of dispensationalism is so lacking that your article posting refuting it is impotent. Perhaps you believe Jack VanImpe is the model dispensationalist. I think he is a nut job and there are many others; VanImpe and Hal Lindsey are not the theologians who are doing serious work in dispensationalism.
This Curtis fellow you keep posting has an impressive array of articles, but if they mis-represent positions and are full of shotty exegesis (which they are) then its a pile of bits at a link. Replacement theology is not true theology, it ignores the priority of the OT text in OT interpretation.
Dispensationalism is the natural result of the application of the historical-grammatical approach to Biblical interpretation coupled with proper theological method.