and . . . you'd also be wrong too
But knowing the in's & out's of God's timing of eschatology
and whole scheme of things aren't a necessary part of salvation
are they? And how does that prove a nondispy is RIGHT either?
Also, there's evidence for dispensational views -
I hardly consider John MacArthur an ignorant heretic.
Can you explain Dispensationalism? -- John MacArthur
I'm somewhat dismayed by MacArthur's overly simplistic presentation of "dispensationalism".
First off there are a variety of views within dispensationalism. Some are more extreme than others.
Secondly I don't see the pre-trib view as necessarily dispensational, though it may have begun from dispensationalism.
Dispensationalism is more than simply believing that God is not finished with Israel. I do not believe God is finished with the natural nation of Israel, and I'm not dispensationalist.
Dispensationalism began as a reaction against replacement theology, and as such it originally focused heavily on the place of natural Israel within the prophetic scheme.
However, dispensationalism goes well beyond this and breaks history up into specific dispensations. The term dispensation could also be translated as "economy" and it is biblically used to refer to the manner in which God deals with mankind. Paul made the statement in the new testament that we are under the dispensation, or economy of grace.
Based on that simple statement dispensational theology built up an entire model of history in which there are numerous different dispensations and under each dispensation God deals differently with mankind.
This is simply not a biblically accurate view. The biblically accurate view is arranged around covenants not dispensations. Further covenants are not neatly bounded in time as dispensations supposedly are. Some covenants are specific to groups of people, others are general to mankind. Most of the covenants God made are still on going.
This also points out that though these covenants do impact our relationship with God, they are not all defining of God's dealings with mankind in the sense that dispensations are supposed to be.
The dispensational view has key differences that tend to build up and begin to affect major doctrinal issues.
On the more extreme end you will find dispensationalists who believe that there are literally two different gospels, one for Gentiles and one for Jews because the two groups are essentially handled under different dispensations. You will find some of these people claiming that certain books of the new testament apply only to the Jews, and others apply only to the Gentiles etc.
The most extreme I've run into claim that the gentile church dispensation didn't begin until Paul's conversion or baptism and as such everything in the gospels and in Acts which happens before Paul's conversion does not apply to gentile Christians.
People on this end of the dispensational spectrum deny baptism because the command to baptize came before Paul, and Paul made the statement that he did not baptize.
Another dispy view I've run across is that no one was born again or saved, including all the apostles, and all the people Jesus had baptized etc, until after Jesus was resurrected. Those I've met with this view tend to place the first born again experience in John 20.
The point being that this view point starts from an incorrect overview of scripture and history and from there the wrong belief and wrong understanding tends to cascade into other areas.
