During the past several months, I have often been asked why I embrace and espouse a Dispensational eschatology.  After all, shouldn’t I have moved beyond all that?  Well, rest assured I am not writing a formal apology of the Dispensational creed.  If I ever do, I imagine it will have to be “Ad Nationes” all over again.

   However, I agree that it is quite out of the ordinary for a former Hyper-Preterist to embrace a Dispensational scheme.  Most folks, when they leave Hyper-Preterism, endorse a more or less Partial Preterist system.  Having once accepted Preterism as valid, they can’t get out of the mindset which holds that Christ never spoke of His own second coming.  But I think He spoke quite often of His second coming.  That is what the Olivet Discourse is about!

   Once I left Hyper-Preterism I began studying the issues at stake.  If systematic Preterism is true, then 95% of what orthodox teachers have held for the past 2,000 years concerning the second coming is erroneous.    And this in the face of the fact that first-century Christians never saw in the destruction of the temple anything of eschatological significance. 

    That later ages should have more insight on the issues than those who lived through the events I soon recognized as an old error of the scholastics, who make their living confuting the theories of their predecessors.  It is according to this rationale that the teachings of both evolutionism and Higher Criticism function.  

   Having identified historicity as an important concern, and one not to be brushed aside, I started studying the church fathers.  It was a blessing to find that Hyper-Preterist interpretations were unknown to the early church.  This knowledge was like a shot in the arm.

   In commencing my studies, I was A-Millennial.  However, a reading of the fifth book of Irenaeus’s Against Heresies soon changed that.  I was significantly impressed by his arguments, and began to ponder whether or not A-Millennialism was the correct view.  Then I read Lactantius’s Divine Institutes. 

   Lactantius was a Pre-Millennialist who endorsed a literal interpretation of the Apocalyptic visions.  Now, as a former “spiritualizer,” I had been accustomed to think that the Scriptures could be made to mean anything at all.  Of course, the more you broaden the range of meaning, the more you increase the likelihood of a literal interpretation.  Really, why should the Word of God have a dozen different meanings, and yet never the plain and literal one?  All the Old Testament prophecies concerning Christ’s first advent were fulfilled to the letter.  Why not those involving the second advent?

    As my studies deepened I saw that the reason for most of the doctrinal confusion within the visible church was failure to let God speak for Himself.  This is the root cause of all the sects and divisions within Christendom. 

    As I continued reading from a Historic Pre-Millennial perspective, I became more and more dissatisfied with their interpretations.  However, I got the chance to read J.C. Ryle’s book entitled “Coming Events and Present Duties.”  Ryle’s writings, which endorse a “grammatical, contextual, historical” interpretive method, radically changed my thoughts on eschatology.  This was my first step toward a Dispensational view.

   I really began studying Dispensational eschatology, however, in an effort to learn more about the Millennium and its relation to the New Heavens and Earth.  Historic Pre-Millenialism showed a lack in this department, oftentimes confusing one economy with the other.  And so I began reading Dispensational commentaries in an effort to see whether a more systematic explanation was available.

   One book that was really helpful was E.W. Bullinger’s “Companion Bible,” which has since become my main study Bible.  Bullinger has had more impact on my theology than any other writer besides Irenaeus.  It was through studying his system that I recognized Dispensationalism as an effective tool for refuting Preterism.  It occurred to me for the first time, that the eschatological warfare currently being waged is really between the Preterist and Dispensational camps. 

     Full Preterism, as we know it today, was launched as an attempt to undermine and dismantle Dispensationalism.  And so I reasoned, why couldn’t Dispensationalism, properly systematized, fight back?  It struck me that my knowledge of Hyper-Preterism might be needed at some future time. 

   Having been a former Full Preterist, I knew, of course, that my switch to Dispensationalism would alienate me from a great many people.  It would bring upon me a measure of reproach and ostracism.  I knew I would be called “shallow,” “dull-witted,” and a number of other epithets.  I also realized that the world at large would consider me an enemy for affirming Israel’s future blessings.  These issues were all weighed out before I took the step which landed me where I am now. 

   However, despite all the collateral concerns, the matter really involves issues greater than historicity, canonicity, or exegesis.  I believe it involves the Divine attribute of faithfulness.  Does God keep the promises which He makes?

   Covenant theology teaches that promises made unconditionally to the nation of Israel were magically transferred to the church, and that the nation of Israel was cast off for their sins.  The Bible teaches, however, that Israel will be redeemed from sin, and restored to their land, at the second coming of Jesus Christ.  Between these views there is no compromise.  One must be right, the other wrong.

   Now, if we deny that these unfulfilled promises made to Israel still hold good, then we must also claim that God broke His word.  This a massive attack on the faithfulness of God.  We depend upon His faithfulness every time we quote John 10: 28-29. 

   If God broke His promises to Israel, then it is clear that He can also break the promises made to His church.  According to apostolic teaching, the wild olive branches stand on no surer ground than those which were broken off for their unbelief (Romans 11: 21).

   As my studies continued, I finally concluded that the debate between Preterism and Dispensational involves issues which cut to the very heart of the Gospel.  And so, after listening to both sides of the story, I decided to cast my lot with Dispensationalism.  That is where I stand.  There is no chance I’ll ever return to Preterism, for I believe it is a theology which makes the teachings of Scripture of none effect.  Dispensationalism, however, is an attempt to systematize teachings of Biblcal eschatology according to consistent hermeneutical principles.  In fact, it is this very consistency which leaves me to conclude that Dispensational theology is holding all the aces.