This can be applied to the church. The devil cannot defeat us, because he has already been defeated by the cross. Only the church can defeat itself, through petty fighting and name-calling. But ultimately even that’s not possible, because it is Christ who builds his church.

Following the example of Saint Benezet, this is a time to be bridge builders. That accepts the fact that there will always be those things that divide us. I like my dispensational friends; I like my Baptist friends, my Catholic friends. I have no interest in converting them to anything. They don’t have to “get” me (I don’t get myself most of the time, either). They help me see things differently. The bridges mean that on those things with which we can agree, we can fellowship and experience Christ’s presence “where two or more are gathered…”. We need to draw near to one another, without fearing that we’ll somehow lose our identities. That takes courage.

What I was more amused by, however, was the notion by the man (God bless him) that anything in either the physical appearance or liturgy of a church that harked back to earlier than last Tuesday was creeping Romanism and the path to perdition.

Actually, even having something along the lines of a liturgy was next-door to inviting the Pope to be your own personal Evil Overlord

Like Groundhog Day – come out, peer at your shadow, then scurry back to your burrow?

LOL

I was in a small church (not Plymouth Brethren, but similar) that strongly followed J.N. Darby’s and Scofield’s teachings. When I stopped meeting with them, and began to open up to teachings beyond dispensationalism, I felt that I could breathe again. It was as if I had been living by a tiny stagnant pond, and all of a sudden someone showed me the beautiful ocean.

Sorry, that comes across as putting the entire dispensationalist movement down, and that’s contrary to your own request. I’m not putting you down. I’m simply describing my own experience. But most of the dispensationalists I have known are very narrow and sectarian people. I’m curious if you are often treated improperly because you seem to have an open mind.

I don’t think your ideas about unity are “dangerous”, nor did I claim that. Of course I agree with you that all Christians should affirm the Creed. My argument is that unity can’t be achieved by ‘mere Christianity’, because ‘mere Christianity’ does not address the fundamental source of our disunity. As far as I can tell (though I may have missed it), you haven’t addressed that argument.

In the peace of Christ,

- Bryan

I’m offering this disclaimer because “dispensationalist” has become the latest group to make fun of, and examples like Roger Oakland reinforce the misconception that being a dispensationalist means I think everyone whose pastor didn’t go to Dallas Seminary doesn’t really understand the Bible.

I don’t really disagree with any of the critiques of Roger Oakland that anyone has offered; I just wanted to make sure you guys realize that not all dispensationalists are crazy. I grew up in a very strong dispensationalist church, then attended a predominantly dispensationalist college (that college, by the way, has been denounced as heretical by its denomination and others for being too emergent; and it is no less dispensationalist now than it was before the emergent developments), and then went to Dallas Theological Seminary (in case you’re not familiar with it, we basically invented dispensationalism). So while the jury is still out on my own personal beliefs concerning the rapture and other eschatological issues, I just want to make it clear that not everyone who calls themselves a dispensationalist is screaming “heretic” at the rest of the christian community. Some of them are. But not all.