Some readers will find this to be of interest and possibly
beneficial to their own understanding.
Recently I was asked to comment on both Dispensationalism
and Futurism. Here's my unpolished response.
I am an ex- Dispensational Futurist. I grew up under that
system, so I know it well.
Covenant Theology is the usual contrast to Dispensationalism
but it must be understood there are many strains and variations. It's an
umbrella term, as Dispensationalism itself is. Few today hold to the
Dispensationalism system taught in the old Scofield Bible. Most (Ryrie, Bock
etc...) have modified it to some degree. In terms of an overarching structure
to the Bible I would definitely lean toward the Covenantal side of the scale.
But there are definitely versions of Covenant Theology which I would reject.
That said, I would also emphasize the more
Redemptive-Historical understanding of theology as opposed to the Systematic.
And though many Reformed folks try to synthesize the two, the Systematic
usually wins in the end.
I have no idea how familiar you are with this stuff, so I
don't know if I'm telling you anything new, speaking over your head, or telling
you what you already know. I'm just kind of throwing out some thoughts about
where I'm coming from.
Futurism usually refers to a specific way of reading the
book of Revelation. Preterism and Idealism are the other main options. A school
called Historicism seems to be making a comeback.
I'm definitely in the Idealist camp when it comes to
Revelation. I don't believe it's all fulfilled in the future... most Dispensationalists
believe the seven churches represent 'ages' and that we're in the Laodicean
Church Age. They believe Rev. 4 represents the Rapture and that 4-19
encapsulate (more or less) the 7 year tribulation.
Preterists of course believe all of it up to about Chapter
18 was fulfilled by AD 70. There are also Hyper-Preterists but they're quite
rare.
Historicists believe Revelation offers a symbolic record of Church
history that finds it fulfillment in Charlemagne, the rise of Islam, the
Reformation etc...
Idealism believes that it's symbolic and presents a
multi-perspectival (repeating visions)* view of history and the spiritual war
that takes place between the 1st and 2nd Comings of
Christ. Thus it's fully applicable whether you live in the year 114 or 2014.
In terms of the millennium of Revelation 20, I'm an
Amillennialist. If you're unfamiliar with that I seem to recall Wikipedia
provides a decent summary. It's a very misunderstood position. We're not
rejecting the idea of the millennium. We're rejecting the idea that the
millennium represents a temporal, physical, geo-political/cultural kingdom. We
insist the Kingdom is in heaven itself and it manifests itself on earth in
spiritual terms... not visible or discernible to the unregenerate.
All Dispensationalists are of course Premillennialists but
their version differs from the Historic Premillennialism found among some of
the Church Fathers. The Dispensational school which arose in the 19th
century holds to the Rapture (as an event usually distinct from the 2nd
Coming) then divides into Pre-, Mid-, Pre-Wrath and Post-Tribulational camps.
The real heart and soul of the system is the idea that God
has two separate people and two separate plans for them... Jewish Israel and
the Gentile Church. When I realized that doctrine was not what the New
Testament taught the system began to implode. Without that key premise, the
whole eschatological system that goes with it... literally evaporates. Their
understanding of Daniel 9 which is so key to their understanding of Israel, the
Church and their idea of the end times is simply eradicated.
So to answer your question, I'm not a Dispensationalist but
grew up in that system. It was very difficult to break away from it. Very
emotional. But after learning of its history and studying out the issue, in
particular the key planks upon which it stands and its hermeneutical
inconsistency I was forced to abandon it.
Hope that helps.
*I am using the term multi-perspectival as synonymous with Progressive Parallelism. I'm not referring to the hermeneutic advocated by Frame and Poythress.
