Watch on waskommenmag.tumblr.com

This is a documentary on Pre-millenial Dispensationalist theology edited Derrick Sims. (He made the video to help his friend finish his masters in theology–Derrick is not a Christian, so don’t go attacking him if you disagree with the documentary.)

Premillenial Dispensationalism is, more or less, everything I fight against within Christianity. Interestingly, it seems like it’s usually the straw man that is attacked by non-believers, as well. It’s total garbage, and was invented a little more than a century ago. It has seeped into the consciousness of American Christianity on such a popular level that many people don’t know that there is about 1900 years of Church history before any of that crap was invented. Its unconditional support for Israel, its dominionist ideology which flouts any environmental concerns, its obsession with systematizing scripture into some coherent philosophy, its Pietist self-aggrandizement, and–as the documentary points out well–its reliance on Manichaeism to explain the nature of God and the world all evidence the fact that this understanding of the narrative of Scripture and salvation is nothing more than a dangerous heresy. 

A literal reading

The irony is that dispensationalists’ practice of interpreting all prophetic texts in a literalistic fashion amounts to a repudiations of the historic Protestant hermeneutic and the principle of the analogy of faith. If amillennialists adopt the New Testament writers’ interpretation of the Old Testament, are they not following the literal sense of Scripture, even if the New Testament writer universalizes something which was limited to Israel in the Old Testament? The dispensationalist’ literalistic reading of prophetic passages must not be confused with a literal reading. A literal reading–a reading that gets at the plain sense of the text–will allow the New Testament to interpret the Old. It is amillenarians, not dispensationalists, who interpret prophecy literally in that they follow the literal sense of how the writers of the New Testament interpret the Old Testament prophecy.

A Case for Amillennialism: Understanding the End Times, Dr. Kim Riddlebarger p. 40

“Rightly Dividing the World of Truth, 2 Timothy, 2:15” by C. Larkin, a Dispensationalist

Dispensationalist Means:

The label “dispensationalism” is derived from the idea that biblical history is best understood through division into a series of chronologically successive dispensations. The number of dispensations held are typically three, four, seven or eight. The three- and four-dispensation schemes are often referred to as minimalist, as they recognize the commonly held major breaks within Biblical history. The seven- and eight-dispensation schemes are often closely associated with the announcement or inauguration of certain Biblical covenants.

Key beliefs in regard to the Second Coming of Christ:

The coming of Christ will be instantaneous and worldwide.[42] “For as the lightning comes from the east and flashes to the west, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.” (Matthew 24:27)

The coming of Christ will be visible to all.[43] “Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.” (Matthew 24:30)

The coming of Christ will be audible.[44] “And He will send His angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.” (Matthew 24:31)

Sam Waldron Contra Barry Horner On “Racist” Hermeneutics & “Anti-Judaism”

External image
The guys at Reformed For His Glory blog post a lengthy quote by Sam Waldron from The Reformed Baptist Theological Review 2009 (107-112):

From Sam Waldron’s review of Barry Horner’s book Future Israel: Why Christians Anti-Judaism Must Be Challenged:

1. Racist Hermeneutics? The first thing that comes to mind when one reads these chapters is the surprise that hermeneutics could be Anti-Judiac. One naturally assumes that hermeneutics are, well, hermeneutics. People my disagree about hermeneutics, but not because they are racists. Nevertheless, Horner sees a race issue. Hermeneutics that leads to a denial of Israel’s distinctive territorial future are for him racially motivated. This is clear from what, I think, deserves to be called a kind of reverse racism that emerges in his language. He speaks of “Gentile logic” (181), “Gentile blindness and bias…proud Gentile ascendancy” (187), and “a shameful anti-Judaic attitude” (200).

This language seems “racist” in its own way. It conveys prejudice against Gentiles. It is like the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s rantings against “White America.” Should we conclude from such epithets that Gentiles are guilty (because they are Gentiles) of twisted logic and blind bias?

Read the rest or listen to readout [11 min.]

External image