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.
And what origins would that be?
Ribera, a Jesuit priest, wrote of a future antichrist in the 17th century which was translated into English in the 18th century, and in the 19th century (1830) Edward Irving preached his dispensational theories which culminated in prophetic conferences. In the church Irving pastored, a Miss Margaret McDonald gave a prophecy in which she spoke of Christ's visible second coming - but in continuing she began to speak of another coming, a coming that was secret and would result in the rapture of believers only; those who were left had to face tribulation.
This spread to the "Plymouth Brethren" church and let to John Nelson Darby systemizing this new doctrine. He wrote over 30 volumes of 600 pages each concerning this new theological theory. Following him, Charles Henry Mackintosh, simply known as C.H.M., popularized the spread of dispensationalism. William Blackstone wrote a book untitled "Jesus is Coming" which taught the secret rapture theory. Next came probably the largest single factor that spread that theory - the Scofield Reference Bible in 1909.
Naw, this dispensational theory is a recent addition to the topic of the return of Jesus - and has caused so many other theories to pop up that it is ridiculous to the extreme. In all respect to those who hold to this doctrine, some of my best friends being in that number, I am fully convinced that it lacks a solid scriptural foundation. It is a theory based on a faulty method of interpretation.
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.
Replacement theology it is not! I would dare you to write on any of the topics he has written on with such clarity. None of what he wrote is new - it's been proclaimed for centuries by various individual who were, so it seems, persecuted and put to death quite often. It upset the ecclesiastical establishment so much that they did all they could to silence it - without success I may add. In fact, most of todays theologians and writers stay away from addressing what he and many others have to say about many topics, including the destiny of man. Replacement theology is dispensationalism, pure and simple; and it uses a rubber dictionary - as FR Quix likes to say.