"Always avoid annoying alliteration." That was one of my grammar rules. But it popped into my head, and I decided to make it the title of the thread. I make no apologies for being pre-trib, pre-mil. But that is always associated with dispensationalist theology, and I wasn't sure where I stood on it, because I honestly don't know much about it. It is brought up by a poster here in a negative fashion, always associated with the parenthetical church idea. Well, I don't believe in the parenthetical church (defined as the current church is just a parenthesis between God's working with Israel - feel free to help define this as well as the current subject), and I assumed that if it was associated with dispensationalist theology then I wasn't a dispensationalist, either. So I started studying. Turns out, they aren't correlated at all. You can be one and not the other. It's like saying "I don't like apples, and there's a such thing as apple pie. So I don't like pie." So, studying up on dispensationalist theology, as near as I can tell, there's nothing wrong with it. Or right with it. It's basically an object lesson to show the different ways in which God has interacted with man throughout History. It's not a doctrine, or even a standard. It's an observation. Even the most hardcore antidispensationalist would have to agree that there are at least two dispensations; law and grace. It's a non-issue to me. Believe it or not. In fact, it's not even something to believe or not. It's kind of like arguing the trinity, and getting mad when someone uses a different way of explaining it (which has happened here on the board). Feel free to disagree, and by all means discuss it. While the parenthetical church was brought up in my OP, I'd appreciate it if it was only brought up for further clarification or identification of a correlation, rather than as a discussion on it's own merit. I'd like to keep the thread more focused on dispensationalist theology.