Even though Historical Pre-Mil is not the same as Dispensational Pre-Mil, the “age argument” issue still stands. It still seems that can’t be used unless one is willing to abandon Protestant soteriology on the same grounds.

I think as theologians who strive to be biblicists (in the best sense of the term) I don’t think historical theology (which the age argument is) should serve as anything more than as a reference point and sometimes predict trajectories – but can never be considered to inform or even confirm biblical theology.

Food for thought.

Dave

I apologize for making it sound as if I thought you were intending to be condescending. I guess it is a question as to whether something can actually be condescending if that isn’t the intent – and probably not – so I should withdraw that.

And my intent was only to comment on the matter of this passage being noted as “the death knell” for dispensationalism – and I think we would both agree that this is neither the only nor final word on the matter. Apart from your personal journey, which I appreciate and respect, I guess I would suggest that it is at least an unfortunate choice of words and out-of-context (which I know you didn’t intend) is arguably somewhat misleading.

I do find it interesting that one of the first cards that is inevitably played by almost everyone is the one concerning the relative “youth” of dispensationalism. That is a two-edged sword that has no inherent validity and worse, puts Covenant, Amil and even Protestant theology as a whole on its own chopping block – for there was a time when they were younger than dispensational theology is now. One could ask why it took so long to discover it. If this were a valid argument, then the youth of the doctrine of justification by faith alone doctrine could certainly have been legitimately used at the Council of Trent. However, in this case, a doctrine that had been largely lost for centuries was “rediscovered” and found to be biblical – even though it was formally condemned as heretical by the older, established church.

Of all the arguments, this historical / philosophical one is most assuredly among the weakest.

Whether or not one agrees with the conclusions, at the very least it should be conceded that there is a biblical case to be made for pre-millennialism – which would mean then that dispensational theology was not really young theology, but rather rejuvenated theology.

And isn’t it at least a bit condescending to present a very well-known passage as the death knell for dispensationalism and use that passage to dismiss thousands of pages of scholarly biblical exegesis?

Dave James
The Alliance for Biblical Integrity