http://www.christianforums.com/t2012929-how-many-new-covenants-a-reformed-look-at-a-dispensational-error.html
After reading the thread above, actually just the OP, this question came to mind:
Is one of the fallouts of the dispensational view of scripture interpretation, all the conflict that arises from within the church over the word "all"? In other words, can universalism, which seems to be rearing its ugly head and gaining more ground over our brethren, be a result of the "literal" interpretation of scripture?
Now, I know that ai + on = always be. That is rejected/denied by universalists. Many universalists state that we must read the bible plainly, so they assume "all will be saved" means literally every person.
I'd love to hear your thoughts or ideas on this topic.
After reading the thread above, actually just the OP, this question came to mind:
Is one of the fallouts of the dispensational view of scripture interpretation, all the conflict that arises from within the church over the word "all"? In other words, can universalism, which seems to be rearing its ugly head and gaining more ground over our brethren, be a result of the "literal" interpretation of scripture?
Now, I know that ai + on = always be. That is rejected/denied by universalists. Many universalists state that we must read the bible plainly, so they assume "all will be saved" means literally every person.
I'd love to hear your thoughts or ideas on this topic.