Ephesians 2:11-22 is a text that I have wanted to write on for some time. I believe it is necessary to address a common text used by Covenantalists to argue against Dispensationalism. I believe that Covenantalists have glossed over the details of the texts in an attempt to blur together Israel and the Church. This analysis of the text hopes to bring together and weave the concept of the new position given to the Gentiles.
If you’re a Dispensationalist, like me, then I am sure you’re beginning to become all too familiar with common misconceptions/myths leveled against our theology. It seems nowadays that all I do on social media is correct misconceptions about our position.
In this blog article I will attempt to once and for all correct several misconceptions that the opposition makes about our theology.
I have the opportunity to feature an article written by my brother Nehemiah Ryan called: “An Evaluation of Non-Dispensational Hermeneutical Presuppositions.”
“I could never be a Dispensational Premillennialist because they are pessimistic/defeatists who have a negative view of reality, they don’t want to be involved in society, they are just waiting around for the rapture. I’d rather be an optimist believing in victory not defeat.”
Sound familiar? It sure does for me. I have heard and read these sorts of claims online for the last year or so since the resurgence of Postmillennialism. However, are these claims justified? Do these claims truly reflect the reality of Dispensational theology? Are Dispensationalists pessimists in the way that they are portrayed? I hope that my article will challenge the claims of the Postmillennialist and will provide further insight into why we believe what we do.
Recently, I was listening to Apologia Radio and one interesting subject came up: Engaging Christian Gnosticism. I was quite intrigued, so I listened. Jeff Durbin and Luke Pierson had on their program guest Andrew Sandlin who spoke about Gnosticism. Unfortunately, around the 34-minute mark, Sandlin clearly linked elements of Gnosticism with Dispensationalism. Not only has Sandlin come on the air to speak about this, but he has also written about this on his website in a blog titled Escapist Theology, and there he has also linked Dispensationalism with Gnostic Escapism. It always surprises me that statements of this nature can be made with little to no evidence to support them. In this blog, we will look to see if the claims are at all warranted.
It is common to see Romans 4:13 used as a proof text to negate the land promises that were made in the Old Testament to Israel. It is my intention here to show that these promises were not altered, universalized, spiritualized into something new by Paul, but rather that Paul is merely connecting what was promised to Abraham initially in the covenant.
The topic of the rapture is one of the most hotly contested topics in modern times. It can excite those who are seeking for imminent return of the Lord prior to Daniel’s 70th week and it can anger those who believe that the doctrine of the pretribulational rapture is merely a modern fantasy invented by “escapists” and “pessimists”.
It is my desire here to present a cumulative case for the pretribulational rapture. Let me state at the outset that no single text of scripture validates a doctrine. We should not be looking for a singular verse to validate a premise, but rather at what totascriptura says. If, we are to take the whole Word of God seriously, then we wouldn’t expect a singular verse to say something like, “the rapture occurs before Daniel’s 70th week”, but rather that all the evidence points us to a clear conclusion. Pretribulationalism isn’t built off of a singular proof-text, and therefore I won’t be using an isolated text to argue for pretribulationalism. I will demonstrate based upon totascriptura that the evidence best leads to a rapture that is a.) distinct from the second coming, and b.) before the tribulation (i.e. Daniel’s 70th week).
Here is my exegetical analysis of Romans 11:1-36. It is my hope to demonstrate the future plan of God regarding ethnic Israel, and that God has not and will not forget about them. Ethnic Israel still has a future in God’s decree, and this passage breaks down that plan.
Here is my revised exegetical analysis of Revelation 1-22. My exegetical analysis is a clear defence of the “Dispensational Futuristic Premillennial” stance. I have attempted to address some of the contention that the Idealists, Historicists, and Preterist’s have mentioned (though it may not be completely exhaustive).
