Replies

I'm no PETA freak, but I think that the dispensationalists are a little too callous about the issues.

Under the Old Covenant economy, some very strange things--including an "in-your-face" kind of gore--were necessary to God's unfolding instructional plan. But now that the suffering of Christ as the prophecied Lamb of God is understood in the Gospel, the re-institution of animal sacrifices, even in some memorial way, is unseemly.

In my opinion, the proposal smacks of retrograde theology--very much like Romanism. (It pretends to honor Christ, whereas it is actually denigrating Him by the very beggarliness and uselessness of the ritual.)

***

The dispensationalists look forward to a materialistic millennium as a lovely age. But their anticipated re-institution of an in-your-face kind of gore involves a movement in the wrong direction for such a lovely age.

(The dispensationalists love to say that the lion will lie down with the lamb in their Golden Age of Peace. But it would appear that the lamb will need to keep his distance from the dispensationalist zealot--who will even kill that lamb for a completely needless display of religious violence.)

I'm actually wondering, since the dispensationalists tell us that we will keep the feasts, and as we will be in glorified bodies if we will actually get sick when keeping the Passover feast. Wouldn't this be a little like the horse abandoning his diet for say a monkey? That hardly seem like a fitting memorial.

I do actually agree with you about the retrograde theology; it is essentially a return to the "type and shadow" that foretold of better things to come. It also seems to me to be insulting to the Lord. Why would I carry the lamb outside the city for a slaughter when I can cast my crown at the foot of the Lamb in awe and wonder of the true sacrifice that the little lamb only told us about?