Main Differences between AMil/Preterism/PostMil ?

[dece870717]

Careful examination by others notwithstanding of course:

http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/

I was actually reading through some of that today before I made my first post. Unfortunately, that reply article dealt with a specific sermon he gave at the Shepards Conference, the reason it's unfortunate is that that specific sermon is essentially a very brief overview of the in-depth study in the sermon series I shared. Some bold statements were made by MacArthur but he didn't have anywhere near enough time to expand on and support his statements. In the 6 part sermon series, MacArthur addresses quite a bit of the replies/objections found in that reply article and makes some points in those sermons that, I would say, are quite hard to ignore or get around. I would implore anybody to listen to the whole thing and then make a decision.

One thing I noticed in that article was something I mentioned previously, I see tradition in there; it appears as those that are Amil make the Church fathers their guides and interpreters of Scripture. One of the problems I see with some Reformed folks is that they seem to make the Church fathers an almost kind of ultimate authority/standard by which to view and understand Scripture, the problem with that, of course, is that those men were just as affected by their historical context and traditions at the time as we tend to be today.

Also, I find the fact that Christians in foreign countries that are not first taught/exposed to amillennial/covenantal/replacement theology type views often don't come to those views and end up premillennial when not exposed to outside influences, that is rather significant in my opinion.

 

[TylerRay]

I thought Dr. John MacArthur did a very good and thorough sermon series on this topic https://www.gty.org/library/topical...-every-calvinist-should-be-a-premillennialist

6 hours essentially, but if you listen at 1.20-1.50x speed using VLC player it'll go by a bit faster lol. I really didn't have a strong or confident position on Eschatology until listening to the entire series.
-------
This excerpt from Part 1 makes me convinced that tradition plays a crucial role over the issue of millennialism

"I remember when I flew to Kazakstan(?), in about a 35 or 38 hour flight. Got off the plane at seven o'clock in the morning to speak at a conference, there were 1600 pastors from central Asia, the first Central Asian Pastors Conference in history after the breakup of the Soviet Union. And I went there and I spoke for a week and they finally said to me, "When are you going to tell us the good part?"

I said, "Well what's the good part?"

They said, "We don't know about the future. We want to know about the future. Tell us about the future." They were in a very hopeless situation, having very little in life.


I said, "Sure, I'll take all day Friday, I'll tell you the future." So I just marched them through the order of the chronology of eschatology as it's laid out clearly both in the Old and the New Testament. And I finished, I had no idea what they believed...1600 pastors and leaders from central Asia. I never have even been there. And the group that led the conference came to me afterwards with smiles on their faces and said, "You believe exactly what we believe." This isn't something for people who have been highly educated, this is something for people who haven't been corrupted by education.

I was talking to one of our missionaries just this same week I gave this talk to the pastors, and he was coming back from China and he said, "There's only one view in the church in China and it's the pre-millennial view."

Brother, are you propagating Dispensational Premillennialism?

 

[dece870717]

Brother, are you propagating Dispensational Premillennialism?

I'm not really trying to propogate that view, I am more so trying to challenge others to look at their own views more objectively, tradition affects us all.

Dr. James White has come to my mind while thinking about all this, what I love about him is that he likes to read, listen, and tries to understand the best arguments for all positions; whether Muslim views, Mormon views , JW's, or differing views on Biblical doctrines, so as to not only make an informed decision about what is true and what is false but so he can make the best defense against or for whatever it may be.

I know Dr. James White is an amillennialist, but I also remember him saying something that applies to us all, and he understood he probably has one as well, he said, "We all have our blind spots." and used R.C. Sproul as an example because of Sprouls stance against presuppositional apologetics.

 

[arapahoepark]

I'm not really trying to propogate that view, I am more so trying to challenge others to look at their own views more objectively, tradition affects us all.

Dr. James White has come to my mind while thinking about all this, what I love about him is that he likes to read, listen, and tries to understand the best arguments for all positions; whether Muslim views, Mormon views , JW's, or differing views on Biblical doctrines, so as to not only make an informed decision about what is true and what is false but so he can make the best defense against or for whatever it may be.

I know Dr. James White is an amillennialist, but I also remember him saying something that applies to us all, and he understood he probably has one as well, he said, "We all have our blind spots." and used R.C. Sproul as an example because of Sprouls stance against presuppositional apologetics.

Being a former Dispensational premill I think I can say their blindspots have holes large enough to drive a semi through. If anyone is as reactionary toward listening to the other side it is dispensationalism.

 

[dece870717]

Being a former Dispensational premill I think I can say their blindspots have holes large enough to drive a semi through. If anyone is as reactionary toward listening to the other side it is dispensationalism.

The term "dispensationalism" seems to come with a lot of baggage (sort of like the word "Calvinism"), I would hold to Dr. MacArthur's view of dispensationalism (which is a word he doesn't like to use), which he explains a bit in this Q&A, https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/70-16/bible-questions-and-answers-part-44 if you just use the browser word find option and search for "dispensationalism" it should take you right to where the question is asked.

He also said something very interesting in this excerpt from https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/70-41/bible-questions-and-answers-part-65

"What happened was...an overcooked idea of eschatology got mingled with all these other dispensations that didn’t have what I would consider a biblical defense. So there was a rejection on the part of many in the reformed world of our eschatology, because it was connected to that dispensationalism."

I think there's some truth there, that an unbiblical kind of dispensationalism led those that are Reformed to reject premillennial eschatology.

To me this whole issue of Premill, Amil, Postmill has a lot in common with things like the Calvinism/Arminianism debate, Old Earth/Young Earth debate, and paedobaptism/believer baptism debate, and probably some other ones. I think so much of the conflict over those topics come from; emotional and/or rational unacceptability, tradition, and not correctly or deeply understanding one or both sides of a topic.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

, I would hold to Dr. MacArthur's view of dispensationalism (which is a word he doesn't like to use),

Daniel,

You have claimed the LBCF in your profile and claim to be a Reformed Baptist. How do you reconcile this with your statement that you hold to MacArthur's dispensationalism, which is contrary to what you have confessionally claimed?

No amount of effort can rehabilitate MacArthur's eschatological views to be acceptable to the confessional bases of this board.

 

[dece870717]

Daniel,

You have claimed the LBCF in your profile and claim to be a Reformed Baptist. How do you reconcile this with your statement that you hold to MacArthur's dispensationalism, which is contrary to what you have confessionally claimed?

No amount of effort can rehabilitate MacArthur's eschatological views to be acceptable to the confessional bases of this board.

I don't have a problem with it because MacArthur's view isn't really dispensationalism as most understand it to be, here's a 2-minute clip of MacArthur giving a summary of his "dispensational" view

it is hardly the dispensationalism that most dispensationalists hold to, you might as well not even call it dispensationalism because he removes himself from so much of what calls itself dispensational.

 

[Herald]

Daniel, in order to hold to an eschatological future for Israel a pre-wrath rapture must be part of the equation. MacArthur holds to a form of Progressive Dispensationalism that is more highly refined than most Progressive Dispensational views, but it is still Dispensationalism. I believe that John MacArthur is a blessing to Christ's church. He proclaims the Gospel in power and truth. He is not afraid to address the most controversial issues of our day from a biblical context. But yet, he has his blind spots, as do we all.

As a covenantal, Reformed Baptist, I agree with the implication of Patrick's question about being a Dispensationalist and claiming to subscribe to the 1689 LBCF. The two are not compatible. Have you done any serious study of the 1689 LBCF? If not, I highly recommend that you do. I can recommend some pertinent reading if you have not done so.

 

[Steve Curtis]

I find the fact that Christians in foreign countries that are not first taught/exposed to amillennial/covenantal/replacement theology type views often don't come to those views and end up premillennial when not exposed to outside influences, that is rather significant in my opinion.

Just because it was MacArthur's first time there, doesn't mean that there was no prior missions exposure! Someone brought the gospel to them (and to the church in China, et al), right? It didn't get proclaimed via an angelic host. So, just as you marvel at what you (and JM) consider to be the instinctive premillennial convictions of those brothers and sisters, I delight to encounter, in many places of the world, those who are equally convinced of a non- (or, at least, a less-) Dispensational hermeneutic, and find from the text (and, yes, from the influence of those who introduced the text to them), a more covenantal framework for their theology. In a small church from the jungles of Burma, for instance, I encountered a quite well-defined amillennial position, and they, similarly, could not point explicitly to any outside influence.

Note beside: John MacArthur is indeed a blessing to many (including me) and has done much good for the cause of Christ; however, he probably wouldn't be accepted as a member of this forum (without significant concessions by the moderators). His theology, as others have noted, simply does not accord with any of the Reformed confessions (though Calvinist, he may well be).

 

[dece870717]

Daniel, in order to hold to an eschatological future for Israel a pre-wrath rapture must be part of the equation. MacArthur holds to a form of Progressive Dispensationalism that is more highly refined than most Progressive Dispensational views, but it is still Dispensationalism. I believe that John MacArthur is a blessing to Christ's church. He proclaims the Gospel in power and truth. He is not afraid to address the most controversial issues of our day from a biblical context. But yet, he has his blind spots, as do we all.

As a covenantal, Reformed Baptist, I agree with the implication of Patrick's question about being a Dispensationalist and claiming to subscribe to the 1689 LBCF. The two are not compatible. Have you done any serious study of the 1689 LBCF? If not, I highly recommend that you do. I can recommend some pertinent reading if you have not done so.

So essentially you're saying it's not possible to hold to a particular confession of faith unless you agree to 100% of it? I wouldn't be able to hold to any if that's the case.

 

[Steve Curtis]

So essentially you're saying it's not possible to hold to a particular confession of faith unless you agree to 100% of it?

Not necessarily 100%; however (at the very least) the essence, the underlying framework (for lack of a better word) of a confession is surely non-negotiable! The framework of Dispensationalism - even MacArthur's variety - is, quite simply, incompatible with the framework of the LBCF.

 

[dece870717]

Not necessarily 100%; however (at the very least) the essence, the underlying framework (for lack of a better word) of a confession is surely non-negotiable! The framework of Dispensationalism - even MacArthur's variety - is, quite simply, incompatible with the framework of the LBCF.

I have read through the LBCF, I have a little booklet with the whole thing but I'm a bit confused about what you mean by not agreeing with the essence. What I'm trying to understand is how is it that someone can agree to, let's say 95% of what a confessional says, but must abandon the confession altogether because of that dispensational view.

 

[dece870717]

All this makes me want to ask an important question, I'm a Baptist that holds to the doctrines of grace and believes that there is a future purpose for the ethnic people of Israel/Jews, now which confessional is compatible? Because if someone says none, then this is a very unrealistic kind of standard.

 

[Steve Curtis]

this is a very unrealistic kind of standard

It would help (me, at least) if you could flesh out this phrase. What do you mean by "unrealistic" and "standard"? Are you saying that it is not a "real" position, which denies a future purpose for ethnic Israel? Or that people believing so have a wrong "standard"? (If so, you will need to defend that position!)

 

[Herald]

So essentially you're saying it's not possible to hold to a particular confession of faith unless you agree to 100% of it? I wouldn't be able to hold to any if that's the case.

Daniel, it is relatively easy for a Calvinistic Baptist to claim fidelity with 1689 LBCF. Many do so without having studied the Baptist Confession. I am challenging you to study it. Here are some resources that you should avail yourself to:

A Reformed Baptist Manifesto

MacArthur's Millennial Manifesto

Modern Exposition 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith

There are Baptists and Presbyterians who take exceptions to certain parts of their respective confessions, but most do so after careful study of their confession. On first glance, it does not seem like you have performed an exhaustive study. My counsel is to do that study. I believe such a study will be rewarding. It will lead you to the primary text (the Bible) and expose you to some excellent theological minds. You will then be better prepared to take a stand on what you believe and what you do not believe.

 

[dece870717]

It would help (me, at least) if you could flesh out this phrase. What do you mean by "unrealistic" and "standard"? Are you saying that it is not a "real" position, which denies a future purpose for ethnic Israel? Or that people believing so have a wrong "standard"? (If so, you will need to defend that position!)

Well, what all of this sounds like to me is that since any dispensational view is "incompatible" with all Reformed confessionals, you therefore can't or shouldn't hold to any of the Reformed confessionals. That's what it comes across as to me. The standard is to be anti-dispensational, so the standard says you must hold to non-dispensational views, otherwise you are not really holding to whichever Reformed confessional.

Some of what I read in these comments sounds a little like tradition is the standard for some theology. Kind of like, "well, most of the men that made the confessionals were non-dispensatiinal" and therefore you must change your view.

A least that's how I'm understanding some of what I've read. This is rather an interesting conversation for me because I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that would like to discuss these things in my local church.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[arapahoepark]

Well, what all of this sounds like to me is that since any dispensational view is "incompatible" with all Reformed confessionals, you therefore can't or shouldn't hold to any of the Reformed confessionals. That's what it comes across as to me. The standard is to be anti-dispensational, so the standard says you must hold to non-dispensational views, otherwise you are not really holding to whichever Reformed confessional.

Some of what I read in these comments sounds a little like tradition is the standard for some theology. Kind of like, "well, most of the men that made the confessionals were non-dispensatiinal" and therefore you must change your view.

A least that's how I'm understanding some of what I've read. This is rather an interesting conversation for me because I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that would like to discuss these things in my local church.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

I would think that what you think we are getting at is substantially correct. I hope you can understand and hopefully you do not espouse the view I describe below. I have not yet watched the video, I will later but, I have heard MacArthur state that dispensationalism is basically seeing a difference between Israel and the church. And the former therefore, will play a prominent role in the end times with the church taken out of the way because only Israel is seen as God's chosen people (or not as in the case of Gundry's post trib dispensationalism). This is presumably followed by the millennium where the nation of ethnic Israel is restored to its land and its temple and remains distinct from the Gentile nations.
There are a great many Reformed who believe in a future for ethnic Israel, that they will embrace the Gospel of their own blood messiah. A few believed that they would go back to the land. Many are premills. I am not going after them. However, it is ludicrous to believe that the Old Testament Mosaic code with all its ceremonies, specifically for Israel again is to be reinstated. How that is not racist nor an afront to our Lord's work is beyond me. (Yet, covenant theologians are the ones routinely lambasted as racists for not believing in a 'special' future for Israel). A Good reading of the Old Testament Prophets in its context and particularly Hebrews should shake anyone of these views.
IN any case, the confessions (certain 1689 Federalists notwithstanding)following the Bible are clear, there has always been one people of God,
WCF Chapter XIX

Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[4] and partly, holding forth divers instructions of moral duties.[5] All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the New Testament.[6]

And Acts 7:38

37This is the same Moses who told the Israelites, ‘God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers.’ 38He was in the assembly in the wilderness with the angel who spoke to him on Mount Sinai, and with our fathers. And he received living words to pass on to us. 39But our fathers refused to obey him. Instead, they rejected him and in their hearts turned back to Egypt.…

I am intimately familiar with the newer dispensationalism (as opposed to the ones who posit 7 or so dispensations) having devoured many books on it and read every article at the Pre Trib Research center to battle what I ignorantly thought was liberal covenant theology. A good straightforward reading of the usual texts that Dispensationalists use to back up their views caused me to look into other views.

 

[TheOldCourse]

Well, what all of this sounds like to me is that since any dispensational view is "incompatible" with all Reformed confessionals, you therefore can't or shouldn't hold to any of the Reformed confessionals. That's what it comes across as to me. The standard is to be anti-dispensational, so the standard says you must hold to non-dispensational views, otherwise you are not really holding to whichever Reformed confessional.

Some of what I read in these comments sounds a little like tradition is the standard for some theology. Kind of like, "well, most of the men that made the confessionals were non-dispensatiinal" and therefore you must change your view.

A least that's how I'm understanding some of what I've read. This is rather an interesting conversation for me because I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that would like to discuss these things in my local church.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

Your first paragraph is basically accurate. Replace "dispensational" with "Arminian" and would your response be different? It's simply in the nature of doctrinal statements like confessions to stand opposed to competing doctrinal positions. You cannot hold to the Nicene Creed and be an Arian. You cannot hold to the Book of Concord and be Papist (or Reformed!). You cannot hold to the Westminster Confession and be Anglican (or Baptist!). Dispensationalism is a fundamental rejection of the covenant theology that undergirds all of the Reformed and Reformed Baptist confessions. It was developed in conscious opposition to the Reformed confessional perspective on redemptive history.

We don't hold confessions for the sake of tradition. We hold them because we believe them to accurately summarize the teachings of the Scripture. On the basis of this shared understanding of Biblical teaching this community was formed and is the condition of participation here. We certainly allow leeway for those who are new to Reformed theology to bring questions and learn as long as it is done humbly and with charity. Many of us have come from broad evangelicalism and dispensationalism ourselves and understand the challenge of wrestling with these things. Still, openly advocating a view that is counter-confessional is not tolerated.

 

[dece870717]

Your first paragraph is basically accurate. Replace "dispensational" with "Arminian" and would your response be different? It's simply in the nature of doctrinal statements like confessions to stand opposed to competing doctrinal positions. You cannot hold to the Nicene Creed and be an Arian. You cannot hold to the Book of Concord and be Papist (or Reformed!). You cannot hold to the Westminster Confession and be Anglican (or Baptist!). Dispensationalism is a fundamental rejection of the covenant theology that undergirds all of the Reformed and Reformed Baptist confessions. It was developed in conscious opposition to the Reformed confessional perspective on redemptive history.

We don't hold confessions for the sake of tradition. We hold them because we believe them to accurately summarize the teachings of the Scripture. On the basis of this shared understanding of Biblical teaching this community was formed and is the condition of participation here. We certainly allow leeway for those who are new to Reformed theology to bring questions and learn as long as it is done humbly and with charity. Many of us have come from broad evangelicalism and dispensationalism ourselves and understand the challenge of wrestling with these things. Still, openly advocating a view that is counter-confessional is not tolerated.

Thank you for this, this is the kind of clarity and explanation I was looking for.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[TheOldCourse]

Thank you for this, this is the kind of clarity and explanation I was looking for.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

You're welcome, and I hope you still find us a welcoming community here and continue to study and reflect on these matters! Free free to ask any questions you may have, although perhaps it would be better in another thread so that this one isn't too far derailed. As I said, I would venture that the majority of us here have seriously wrestled with this topic at some point in our lives.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Thank you for this, this is the kind of clarity and explanation I was looking for.

Have the corrections offered in the thread moved you to begin reconsidering your views?

 

[dece870717]

Have the corrections offered in the thread moved you to begin reconsidering your views?

Sort of, I still have many questions and issues with the Amil/covenant view to get sorted out before I would change my mind. That sermon series from Dr. MacArthur has given me many points to deal with, presuppositions appear to be at play in this topic and so I'm looking more in-depth into this topic so as to find who's standard of interpretation is correct.

And certain other things, like the very existence of the Jews and the Jews back in their own land, prospering even, despite all the enemies on all sides, and then hearing some Amil people saying that those facts have no significance, I have trouble with that.

Or the issue I see with the Amil/covenant belief that the Church gets all the promises yet none of the promised curses, I see a kind of selectivity in dealing with OT texts.

So there are many things for me to deal with/get sorted out, but I look forward to being challenged on my position and challenging others to defend the opposing position.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

 

[Dachaser]

With all due respect to Dr. MacArthur, I have his study Bible in hard copy and in the great app from Grace To You on my phone. I refer to his study notes a fair amount as long as it has nothing to do with eschatology. I'm confused enough already, but I'm sure I'm not pre-mill.

Depending on what type of Reformed you are, you would benefit most from his views not related to Eschatological.

 

[Dachaser]

Sort of, I still have many questions and issues with the Amil/covenant view to get sorted out before I would change my mind. That sermon series from Dr. MacArthur has given me many points to deal with, presuppositions appear to be at play in this topic and so I'm looking more in-depth into this topic so as to find who's standard of interpretation is correct.

And certain other things, like the very existence of the Jews and the Jews back in their own land, prospering even, despite all the enemies on all sides, and then hearing some Amil people saying that those facts have no significance, I have trouble with that.

Or the issue I see with the Amil/covenant belief that the Church gets all the promises yet none of the promised curses, I see a kind of selectivity in dealing with OT texts.

So there are many things for me to deal with/get sorted out, but I look forward to being challenged on my position and challenging others to defend the opposing position.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

I still see a preMil kingdom age here upon the earth instituted by Jesus at His second coming, as believe the OT Prophets saw an earthly kingdom age in view, when Messiah set up the full kingdom of God here upon the earth, with no more wars/diseases/all worshipping the King.

 

[JimmyH]

Depending on what type of Reformed you are, you would benefit most from his views not related to Eschatological.

Yes, and I do read him if it is unrelated to prophecy and eschatology. I am basically amill at present which I define as the Kingdom beginning with our Lord's ministry. The millennium being symbolic, and not a literal thousand years. I refrain from reading him on prophecy and eschatology because I don't feel I'm advanced enough in my studies of same to avoid being confused or misled.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, and I do read him if it is unrelated to prophecy and eschatology. I am basically amill at present which I define as the Kingdom beginning with our Lord's ministry. The millennium being symbolic, and not a literal thousand years. I refrain from reading him on prophecy and eschatology because I don't feel I'm advanced enough in my studies of same to avoid being confused or misled.

He is very good for theology, as long as realize where he is coming from how he views the scriptures.

 

[Ben Zartman]

Well, what all of this sounds like to me is that since any dispensational view is "incompatible" with all Reformed confessionals, you therefore can't or shouldn't hold to any of the Reformed confessionals. That's what it comes across as to me. The standard is to be anti-dispensational, so the standard says you must hold to non-dispensational views, otherwise you are not really holding to whichever Reformed confessional.

Some of what I read in these comments sounds a little like tradition is the standard for some theology. Kind of like, "well, most of the men that made the confessionals were non-dispensatiinal" and therefore you must change your view.

A least that's how I'm understanding some of what I've read. This is rather an interesting conversation for me because I would be hard-pressed to find anyone that would like to discuss these things in my local church.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

With apologies for jumping in late...
Because the dispensational view is incompatible with any Reformed confession, it follows that you should ditch the dispensational view and become fully reformed. Dispensationalism has implications far beyond eschatology: it attacks the Biblical truth that there is one people of God, that the moral law is binding to all ages, that many of the great and precious promises given in the OT are for us today, now--not for some mythical future physical kingdom centered on a patch of Palestinian soil--but for us to be comforted with and to believe now. The dispensationalist takes God's "I have graven you on the palms of my hands," statement made in Isaiah and says: that's not for us! that's for Future Israel! What wickedness to try and take God's words of comfort away from His people. And what about Jeremiah 31? and Ezekiel 36? They would take those away from Christians today as well.
In their endless chopping up of God's glorious redemptive plan, the dispensationalists do great violence to truth, to God, and to His word. It is truly an abysmal system. Flee from it, brother: it will bring you nothing but confusion.

 

[Dachaser]

With apologies for jumping in late...
Because the dispensational view is incompatible with any Reformed confession, it follows that you should ditch the dispensational view and become fully reformed. Dispensationalism has implications far beyond eschatology: it attacks the Biblical truth that there is one people of God, that the moral law is binding to all ages, that many of the great and precious promises given in the OT are for us today, now--not for some mythical future physical kingdom centered on a patch of Palestinian soil--but for us to be comforted with and to believe now. The dispensationalist takes God's "I have graven you on the palms of my hands," statement made in Isaiah and says: that's not for us! that's for Future Israel! What wickedness to try and take God's words of comfort away from His people. And what about Jeremiah 31? and Ezekiel 36? They would take those away from Christians today as well.
In their endless chopping up of God's glorious redemptive plan, the dispensationalists do great violence to truth, to God, and to His word. It is truly an abysmal system. Flee from it, brother: it will bring you nothing but confusion.

They would still have very good teachings on things such as trinity, the scriptures, the Cross of Christ, resurrection etc.

 

[Ben Zartman]

They would still have very good teachings on things such as trinity, the scriptures, the Cross of Christ, resurrection etc.

Must we look to flagrant Dispensationalists for material on those things? Surely there are reformed writers who deal with these topics, and need not have so much rubbish filtered out. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

 

[Dachaser]

Must we look to flagrant Dispensationalists for material on those things? Surely there are reformed writers who deal with these topics, and need not have so much rubbish filtered out. A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump.

I am willing to learn from anyone whose had valid and sound theology, and just filter out where in my opinion they are in error.