In view of some of the comments about demythologizing dispensationalism, I thought I'd take the discussion a step further. Bearing the name dispensationalist is frequently an ignoble burden; however, once the demythologizing (continuing the metaphor) is complete and we arrive at the original "kerygma" (the core, if you will) I am left with a distinction between Israel and the Church. Now I admit, the line is frequently blurry and even disappears from time to time, but I still see a distinction. I also still see a future for national Israel (as I understand it, the primary thing that would distinguish me from a covenant premill position), particularly as I read through Romans 9-11. It is for this reason that I consider myself a (progressive) dispensationalist. Now, having said this, I am more than willing to reconsider the data (and in fact, I am currently doing exactly that); it wasn't that long ago that I would have considered myself a revised dispensationalist. I'm still holding out hope that I may be on a slippery slope :-)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment