I am not a "Darby" dispensationalist, but use the dispensation thinking as an outline, a guide just as I use other tools.
What I find disturbs me concerning eschatology is that the wholesale rejection of a millennial reign and coupled with the dismissal of events that lead up to that reign as described by both the prophets and illustrated by the Revelation is just foolishness.
I can understand that thinking from folks prior to the 1900's because they really had no frame of reference for the events (beyond the plagues) that would ravage the world. And as my grandfather (born in 1884 and graduate of Southern Seminary) expressed, there was a certain allegiance and loyalty to the centuries of teaching.
But, frankly, the rejection of the clear statements of Scriptures given concerning a millennial reign should be considered as vile as one rejecting the crucifixion, the virgin birth, the resurrection...
It is a matter of taking the Scriptures as validly presenting historical facts in a manner that may seem impossible at the time, but in fact, happen.
For example:
What is more unbelievable that a dead person causing themselves to become alive again?
Or, what is more unbelievable than a maiden (virgin) conceiving a baby?
Or, what is more unbelievable than blood and death of one man can redeem others?
Or, what is more unbelievable than a fish swallowing a man and the man living for three days undigested to be barfed up and preach in a large city?
Or, even that from nothing God created everything?
Yet, on the BB we have folks who actually would discard one of the most clearly stated events of all Scriptures - the millennial reign.
Yet, these are the same folks who would stand firmly on the last judgement, the lake of fire, the new heaven and earth?
Such inconsistency is just intolerable for me to find tolerable.
What I find disturbs me concerning eschatology is that the wholesale rejection of a millennial reign and coupled with the dismissal of events that lead up to that reign as described by both the prophets and illustrated by the Revelation is just foolishness.
I can understand that thinking from folks prior to the 1900's because they really had no frame of reference for the events (beyond the plagues) that would ravage the world. And as my grandfather (born in 1884 and graduate of Southern Seminary) expressed, there was a certain allegiance and loyalty to the centuries of teaching.
But, frankly, the rejection of the clear statements of Scriptures given concerning a millennial reign should be considered as vile as one rejecting the crucifixion, the virgin birth, the resurrection...
It is a matter of taking the Scriptures as validly presenting historical facts in a manner that may seem impossible at the time, but in fact, happen.
For example:
What is more unbelievable that a dead person causing themselves to become alive again?
Or, what is more unbelievable than a maiden (virgin) conceiving a baby?
Or, what is more unbelievable than blood and death of one man can redeem others?
Or, what is more unbelievable than a fish swallowing a man and the man living for three days undigested to be barfed up and preach in a large city?
Or, even that from nothing God created everything?
Yet, on the BB we have folks who actually would discard one of the most clearly stated events of all Scriptures - the millennial reign.
Yet, these are the same folks who would stand firmly on the last judgement, the lake of fire, the new heaven and earth?
Such inconsistency is just intolerable for me to find tolerable.