Fallen Christian leaders should not be cashing in on their infidelities.

A student of mine directed me to this podcast with @DemarsSean and @danielghummel. Great questions, great answers, great tone. A fair, nuanced historical perspective on the history of dispensationalism. I highly recommend it. Two very minor quibbles: 1) My “Fathers on the Future” book doesn’t intend to place any system of dispensationalism in the early church. My own lay-friendly account of the history of dispensationalism in my chapter in “Dispensationalism and the History of Redemption” makes it clear that the stable pattern of doctrines and interpretations that make up Dispensationalism only coalesce in the nineteenth century. As far as eschatology goes, earliest fathers are actually premillennial, futurist, and take many elements quite literally, and their view of the assumption of the church is not as clear as various advocates of any modern view wish it was. 2) At times in the interview there appears to be some equivocation between “historicist premillennialism” and “historic premillennialism.” These aren’t the same thing. Historicism is a view of Revelation as a kind of charitable map through church history as its prophecies progressively unfold, as opposed to, say, preterism and futurism. Historic premillennialism is the claim that the non-dispensational view of premillennialism is not the same as that of the early church, though the earliest premillennialists appear to have been primarily futurist in their view of Revelation (though, like most throughout church history, they expected the end was near). Besides these minor tweaks, which are very, very minor, I appreciated the @RoomForNuance_ discussion.