prospects bright? Will it continue to offer solid theological alternatives and timely proclamations
within the evangelical orbit as we face the rapidly multiplying theological options of the times?
Can it serve as a stabilizing force in evangelicalism? Will it fragment and lose cohesiveness as a
historical movement? Will it be "left behind?" As a dispensationalist I am a biblical futurist and
not a historicist, so I refuse to make any predictions! But we can all ask the question about our
future as a movement, both historically and theologically. I am grateful that John Master has ably
led us in the discussion today to get us going.
in accurate understanding of some basic biblical truths and the need to advance in biblical studies
in areas where we need to do more work. The reason that this is so important to mention is
attitudes about doctrinal development sometimes skew the theological results. The issue is not
whether development takes place. It is the nature and direction of the development that is the
issue. Development is not necessarily progress. Current directions portray dissatisfaction with
many recent developments within biblical studies. There is no reason to doubt that the next
generation of dispensationalists may look with some disapproval at current trends in biblical
studies.
doctrinal development. To say it in a balanced way, dispensationalists must avoid the extremes
of moving with the flow on one hand and adhering rigidly to tradition on the other. Such balance,
as we all know, is tricky business. I applaud John for trying.
convinced entirely of the details of his view on the timing of fulfillment of the New Covenant
and its relation to the Church (it is the Lord's Supper passages and 2 Corinthians 3 that give me
pause), I do not believe it is necessary to hold that the Church partakes in any direct covenantal
way in the New Covenant blessings in order to make sense of the biblical passages. Furthermore,
it seems to me that the exegetical argument of the book of Hebrews as to the superiority of the
New Covenant to the Old does not rise or fall based upon the Church's identification within
various passages in the book. In this much, I think I am in agreement with John. Just as
progressive dispensationalists have highlighted in some ways a return to the Christological focus
of the premillennialism of the Niagara Conference for some issues, maybe we need to go back
further in time for insights from the dispensational tradition on the New Covenant. Perhaps the
early Darbyite approach (which on my reading is far from the two New Covenants approach of
specific with an implication of such pendulum swings in history, it may not make any more sense to conclude that
the rise of modern dispensationalism is substantially the result of the methodology of Scottish Common Sense
Realism than it does to credit John Calvin with the invention of Augustinian views of predestination.