Okay, I thought the author's critique of Dispensationalism was fair enough, including both 'classic' and the revised "progressive' varieties. And, his reasons for rejecting Dispensationalism were accurate enough as well. It was smart to include a few examples of how the major proponents ignore CONTEXT and simply make assertions rather than offering their exegesis of a particular passage. This has always been the ground upon which I examine ALL claims of someone's beliefs.

My only criticism would be with the very last section where he briefly deals with Revelation 20. For some reason he chose not to use the same method he used throughout his article; exegetical error or non-existence of the passage but rather wrote that his objection to the Dispensational notion that the passage refers to a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, etc. was that it didn't mention certain things, e.g., the rebuilding of the Temple, reinstitution of animal sacrifices, etc. Hmmmmm, asserting that Revelation 20 should have those things if it was a literal description is no less the error of those who he was critiquing, i.e., eisogesis. Why MUST Revelation 20 include certain elements? Obviously, God didn't think it was necessary to give a full description for His purpose for including that section was something other than to give one. The reader's task is to learn what it was that God wanted to reveal to us.

Lastly, ALL Premillennialists have an insurmountable problem with Revelation 20 when they try to read it with their wooden 'literal' hermeneutical method. One cannot say that the '1000 years' is literal and consistently interpret the passage. For example, is the Devil (a spirit being) literally bound with a literal chain? and then thrown into a literal bottomless pit? And is there a literal Lake of Fire and brimstone? One cannot simply arbitrarily pick and choose what one wants to be literal or spiritual to make it fit with one's preconceived theology/ideas. nono

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]