Then I suggest you take that up with the
Seminary he's been teaching in for many many years.
Cop out.
He's not here. This discussion is going on in this thread with these posters, not Vlach. If and when Vlach shows up I will gladly discuss the matter with him, quoting him from his own books, articles, and lectures (as well as Watts, Darby, Chafer, Ryrie, Walvoord, Ice, and others).
But I can already tell you that Vlach and the other authors acknowledge the history of Dispensationalism, the objections, and all the sharp edges.
Doubtful. He misrepresents the history often. All the leading Dispensationalists appeal to the ECFs' use of "dispensation," but any search of the ECFs' usage shows three facts: 1) they rarely use the term, 2) when they do use it they use it in context of the covenants and 3) they never use it hermeneutically as Dispensationalists do. Vlach (and others) misrepresent this. They do the same with premillennialism, claiming premillennialism has been around since the ECFs, which is true, BUT the Dispensational version did not. It was literally invented in the mid-1800s. Vlach knows there are problems and he knows the Progressive Dispensationalists (like Blaising, Bock, and Saucy) have been attempting to reconcile, work out, or remove them, and Vlach treats them as if they are traditional Dispensationalists when they are not.
I used to be Dispie. Didn't know there was any other way to think or believe. A friend showed me otherwise and DOVE into the history of eschatology (not just Dispensationalism). I've followed the evolution from the ECFs through Augustine, the Reformation, the Restoration Movement, etc. up through today. That's why I offered to post original source content.
It would be nice if the Amil and Postmil side did the same.
Well this apostmil can.
Your post is a red herring.
Because I'm Amil.
