Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist 
In addition, with specific reference to you, the bulk of your comments regarding dispensationalism have always been against classic dispensationalism - and most modern dispies aren't classical at all.
|
Well, I’m not sure where you get your statistics, but the vast majority of my interactions are with classic (Scofield, Chafer) or neo-classic (John Walvoord, Hal Lindsey, Tommy Ice) dispensationalists who still carry their Scofield Bibles.
It's apparent from their expressed views they have far more in common with Tommy Ice than with Blaising and Bock.
They generally know nothing of the current crop of progressives at DTS. And those who do, along with folks like Tommy Ice, believe they are compromisers who border on heretics from the (classic) faith.
These folks are quick to label all non-dispensational theology as "replacement theology", a term they have picked up from their (neo-)classic masters. I understand the progressives are more sensitive, but I don’t find many of them running around in public.
Maybe I just don’t hang out in the right places.
BTW, saying that dispensationalists believe the 4th commandment was written in chalk is not inaccurate, even thought it may not be politically correct or terribly sensitive.
I’m, not aware of anything I’ve said that misrepresents what the dispensationalists I’ve have encountered believe. My comments may be a bit stark, but I think they are true based on my experience and encounters.
BTW, do you think John MacArthur’s comments from last year’s Pastor’s Conference were sensitive and appropriate for that forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlackCalvinist Quote: |
BTW, are you saying that you view dispensationalism as a damnable heresy?
| What have I said that made you ask that question ? |
"I've made a concerted effort to be a lot more graceful in my presentation - even with theology that is damnable."
In the context of this discussion I was wondering if dispensationalism somehow fell into that category.