Most Christians will say that they believe in the fundamentals of Biblical interpretation. Virtually all would agree that the more confusing passages should be interpreted in light of those passages that are crystal clear. Most would say that taking into consideration the audience to whom each book of the Bible was written is also important. But that simply isn't the case in dispensational premillennialism. For example, reading through Daniel's prophecy would never cause one to come away with the assumption that there is a gap between the 69th and 70th weeks—especially one of an indeterminate amount of time. Dispensationalists fail to take that passage of Scripture at face value. They also fail to recognize at whom that prophecy was directed. The Hebrews of the time would have never assumed that the fulfillment of those 70 weeks would be thousands of years in the future. Looking at the timeline of events that occured after Daniel's prophecy, we can see the 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. But in order for the still-future fulfillment interpretation to hold up, a gap had to be inserted into the text.
One of the interesting things about many dispensationalists is the almost rabid visciousness with which they defend their position. For them, questioning their eschatological beliefs is tantamount to questioning their salvation. A few months ago I read a post on FR that said, "If I can't trust God to keep His promises to Israel, how can I trust that He will keep His promises to me?" While this may sound like a reasonable approach, it isn't. Assuming that the dispensational model is true, how can anyone point to God's promises to Israel as examples of His faithfulness when those promises have not yet been fulfilled?
But don't expect rational thinking from such people. They have had this pounded into their brains for so long that it's absolutely inconceivable for them to imagine any other possible interpretation of even the most clear passages of Scripture. And I am convinced that the church has suffered as a result.
I have known dispensationalists who are so focused on Israel and the Jews that they ignore the needs of their brothers and sisters in Christ. I think that is wrong, and it goes against the ecclesiastical responsibilities laid out in the New Testament for the believer. If a Christian is led by the Holy Spirit to minister to the Jews, to bear witness to the gospel and evangelize Jewish unbelievers, that is an entirely different matter. However, that doesn't seem to be the focus of dispensational theology.
I am encouraged now that I have seen a number of others express their concerns with the prevailing eschatological school of thought in the church today. I believe this number will grow, especially as more false prophecies fail to pan out.
Not to be further argumentative, but the same can be said for a number of preterists. The simply truth is that there is no simple truth in eschatology. I have spent a lot of time reading about various eschatological viewpoints, and there is not a single one out there that doesn't have to "jump through hoops" to reconcile passages which appear on the surface not to align with their position. There is quite simply NO way to arrive at any firm view from a plain reading of the text that is non-contradictory and backed up by historical fact. I am not saying the answer is not before us. I am only saying that we cannot seem to grasp fully what it is, whether we are not meant to or simply do not have the ability.
Most Christians will say that they believe in the fundamentals of Biblical interpretation. [SNIP] But in order for the still-future fulfillment interpretation to hold up, a gap had to be inserted into the text.
Again, non-dispensationalists are guilty of the same thing. I have yet to see anyone apply these fundamentals consistently and thoroughly and come up with a non-contradicting construct.
One of the interesting things about many dispensationalists is the almost rabid visciousness with which they defend their position. For them, questioning their eschatological beliefs is tantamount to questioning their salvation. A few months ago I read a post on FR that said, "If I can't trust God to keep His promises to Israel, how can I trust that He will keep His promises to me?" While this may sound like a reasonable approach, it isn't. Assuming that the dispensational model is true, how can anyone point to God's promises to Israel as examples of His faithfulness when those promises have not yet been fulfilled?
Here I agree with you. If our salvation rested upon our eschatological view, we'd all be in a LOT of trouble. There are many more important things in our Christian lives than trying to figure out what will or has taken place in regards to the end times. The social prevalence of the dispensationalist view has led to many people arguing fervently for it who really haven't done any serious, objective study of it for themselves, but are nevertheless so convinced of their correctness that they would jeopardize Christian fellowship over it. I personally have no problem in admitting I do not know what the correct interpretation is.
But don't expect rational thinking from such people. They have had this pounded into their brains for so long that it's absolutely inconceivable for them to imagine any other possible interpretation of even the most clear passages of Scripture. And I am convinced that the church has suffered as a result.
I agree, although the implication here seems to be that ALL dispensational pre-mills are non-rational people which is not the case.
I am encouraged now that I have seen a number of others express their concerns with the prevailing eschatological school of thought in the church today. I believe this number will grow, especially as more false prophecies fail to pan out.
I am not so much concerned with which view is prevalent as I am with how it is being presented and marketed. As I said before, I cannot say with any authority that the view is wholly and completely wrong because I do not know. I will continue to study, and may perhaps come to a conclusion some day, but I'm quite confident in knowing that I could die today undecided in regards to eschatology and still come before the Lord clothed in the righteousness of Christ.
Sheltonmac states:
The Hebrews of the time would have never assumed that the fulfillment of those 70 weeks would be thousands of years in the future. Looking at the timeline of events that occured after Daniel's prophecy, we can see the 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. But in order for the still-future fulfillment interpretation to hold up, a gap had to be inserted into the text.
This is misstated. Yes, there is a 'gap' between Daniel's 69 weeks and the 70th week. However, Daniel's prophecy of 69 weeks beginning with the decree of Artaxerxes I given to Ezra was fulfilled with the baptism (anointing) of Jesus Christ (Dan 9:25). Dan 9:26 refers to the cutting off of the anointed one (Christ's crucifixion) which is after the 69 weeks, and not included in the 69 weeks. This has already been explained here, and elsewhere. Specifically then, the incorrect phrase above is 70 weeks culminating with the birth, ministry, death and resurrection of Christ. It was 69 weeks and did not include Christ's ministry, death and resurrection. Yes, those happened, but not as part of Daniel's 69 week prophecy, and not as part of the 70th week either, as the math obviously doesn't work.