PreMillennial Math

Charles Ryrie defined Dispensationalism by the following three precepts:

• A clear distinction between God's program for Israel and God's program for the Church.

• A consistent and regular use of a literal principle of interpretation.

• The understanding of the purpose of God as His own glory rather than the salvation of mankind.

It is the second principle above, the principle of literal bible interpretation, that Dispensationalists use to defend their belief in a literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth (Revelation 20:4-6). It is on this basis that they level their most strident attack at differing eschatological views. Those who would deny the literal 1000 year reign of Christ on earth are accused of "not believing the bible" and "over spiritualizing the text of scripture to conform to their system." At first blush this would seem to be quite a forceful argument. It strongly implies that Dispensationalism stands in the purity of literalism, and that all other viewpoints spiritualize the bible to the point of unbelief. But does this strict literalism hold up under close scrutiny? Or is Dispensationalism guilty of precisely the same "spiritualization" of time in interpreting the text of scripture?  

Purgatory?

In a recent internet dialog with a Roman Catholic, I was asked to give an example of where the Roman Catholic Church's (RCC) tradition was not in keeping with the testimony of scripture. There are numerous examples in RCC doctrine from which to choose, but the first that came to mind was that of purgatory. Given that I was repeatedly pointed to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) as an explanation of what this RC believed, I thought it might be beneficial to provide a critical commentary regarding that teaching.  You will find the CCC's statement on purgatory below, with teth's commentary in blue. I have embedded the footnotes directly below text for easy reference.

Right Division: A Key Concept in Understanding the Scriptures

"Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, 

rightly dividing the word of truth." (II Tim 2:15)

One of the fundamentals of the Christian faith is that the word of God must be rightly divided to be properly understood. This means understanding each passage so that it reconciles with the immediate context (line upon line) as well as the over-all biblical context (precept upon precept). Only when the meaning of a passage is reconciled to both considerations is it rightly divided. 

Apart from a right division, the bible's statements regarding the various facets of a number of biblical topics would be flatly contradictory. Right division resolves the "contradictions" that arise out of plain meaningism and establishes God's people in the bedrock truths of the Christian faith.

Calvinism is a Red Herring

red herring (n) - the invoking of "Calvinism" in any theological discourse.

Having scoured the internet for several years as a means of gaining a broader understanding of the popular theological notions found in modern Christendom, I have arrived at a very solid conclusion: Calvinism is a Red Herring. In fact I would make that even stronger. I would go so far as to declare that this conclusion is utterly unassailable. I submit for your consideration the follow reasons:

John Piper - Jesus Doesn't Love Everybody the Same

NeoCalvinism is the increasingly popular form of evangelical irrationalism that embraces both God’s sovereignty and man’s responsibility in the matter of eternal salvation.  Stated another way, this system simultaneously embraces both particular redemption and the well-meant offer of salvation to all of humanity (WMO).  Since these two precepts are so evidently contradictory, NeoCalvinism attempts to reconcile the two by positing that God has two types of love – love for the sheep and love for everyone else.   Rather than reconciling the two, two loves theology ends up undermining the WMO.  We have recently posted an article dealing with the irrationalism upon which MacArthur’s Two Loves of God theology is founded.  In the following video, we find John Piper grappling with the same issue.  Our analysis seeks to draw out the irrationalism in this system by highlighting the ramifications of these statements on particular redemption and the WMO.

How PBs Differ from the American Baptist Association (ABA)

Primitive Baptists are often asked how they differ from other Baptist groups.  While there are many doctrinal issues on which we agree with our ABA brethren, this brief post endeavors to demonstrate our doctrinal differences with the American Baptist Association (ABA) by focusing attention on the aspects of their doctrinal statement we believe to be at great variance with the teaching of the scriptures.

How PBs Differ from the Southern Baptist Convention

Primitive Baptists are often asked how they differ from other Baptist groups.  While there are many doctrinal issues on which we agree with our brethren in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), this brief post endeavors to demonstrate our doctrinal differences with the SBC by focusing attention on the aspects of their doctrinal statement we believe to be at great variance with the teaching of the scriptures.