Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

[CrowCross]

Ignored due to its irrelevance and utterly fallacious nature other than to note the post is an example of the fictional nature inherent in Dispensational Premillennialism. You cannot claim something you have yet to prove. You haven't proven ANY dispensation exists in scripture, so it is irrational to claim something is dispensational in the absence of any proven dispensation. It is profoundly irrational to even attempt that nonsense once you've gone on record acknowledging scripture itself does not parse itself based on the word, let alone the word extra-biblically defined.

All you have done is display indoctrination.

We're asking you to provide proof of the foundational elements justifying, legitimating the indoctrination of what, so far, is proving to be a wholly unscriptural, inference-only, doctrine.


The reason I don't sacrifice bulls is because Jesus is the only sacrifice anyone ever needed, even in the supposed dispensation that Dispensationalists cannot prove using scripture alone is a dispensation. The very mention of bull sacrifices disputes the discontinuity Dispensational Premillennialism claims exists in scripture. By making that appeal Post 35 undermined its own position because the New Testament tells us the blood of animals never took away sin. Animal sacrifices foreshadowed Christ and this is one of the many ways continuity is explicitly established by scripture itself. DPism openly favors discontinuity over continuity.

You're also dodging my inquiries in favor of rhetorical nonsense.

Dispensational Premillennialism ignores what is explicitly stated and infers something not stated. Why believe any theology that does this?

They say when you are digging a hole and can't get out.....STOP DIGGING.

God doesn't require bull sacrifices anymore....because that was a previous dispensation.

 

[CrowCross]

The reason the Isrealites sacrificed bulls was because they were under the Law that Jesus would come to fulfill so that temporary covering for sin was not necessary.

BINGO!!!! That was a differrent dispensation. {Edit by mod. Violation of rules 2.1 and 2.2}

 

[Arial]

They say when you are digging a hole and can't get out.....STOP DIGGING.

God doesn't require bull sacrifices anymore....because that was a previous dispensation.

No. Because it was part of a previous covenant. It was a covenant regulation, not a dispensation regulation. The Sinai COVENANT.

 

[Arial]

BINGO!!!! That was a differrent dispensation. {Edit by mod. Violation of rules 2.1 and 2.2}

Bingo my foot! What was the Law? A covenant relationship with God towards men. Not a dispensational relationship. In dispensationalism, as the framework bias, there is no relationship between God and man. In the Old Covenant that relationship is as a father to a son (child). It is the same relationship, Father to child, in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant did not provide eternal life. The New Covenant does. The Bible is not titled "The Old Dispensations" and the "New Dispensation" and it does not have a third section titled "The Third Dispensation" (thousand year reign), and a "Fourth Dispensation" being the new heaven and the new earth. Maybe you could even jog another one in there known as the Dispensation of The Tribulation. At least be consistent and honest about it.

 

[Arial]

BINGO!!!! That was a differrent dispensation. {Edit by mod. Violation of rules 2.1 and 2.2}

Deal with the reasoning given in the post. Prove it wrong if it is. Here it is. Post #39 so you can quote me before you refute me.

The reason the Isrealites sacrificed bulls was because they were under the Law that Jesus would come to fulfill so that temporary covering for sin was not necessary. It had nothing to do with what dispensation it was in. Can't you see that interpreting it as a dispensation, a way in which God was dealing with man in that "age", completely separates it from the covenant Jesus fulfilled, and the new he mediates? It is as though the word of God becomes a story about "ages" instead of one continuous story of God redeeming---and that through covenant. It is as though each "dispensation" is its own book. It own separate story.

And while you are at it, answer the questions asked in post #39 and MacArthrur's quote in post #38 that was taken from the OP. Even if you can't prove your points, at least make a show of good faith by making an honest attempt to refute what others say instead of ignoring it. You will get no where but making warnings and edits necessary, until you do that instead of what always, without fail, happens when trying to discuss this issue with a dippsy. They get angry and start making things personal. Loosing all self control.

 

[Arial]

You're asking the wrong person. I don't find dispensationalism defensible. But I expect they would use 1 Peter 2:9-10 as further description of the difference between Israel and the rest of us.

That is what I was getting at so that I could show it was invalid. The claim is that Peter is writing to Jewish believers only.

1 Peter 1: 1-2 Peter, an apostles of Jesus Christ, to those who are elect exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, in the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and for the sprinkling with his blood.

Though there were certainly Jews among those who received this letter, to assume that they were all Jews does not align with the geographical area addressed, or some of the things Peter said. Also it would be an indication that the Jews were separating themselves from Gentile believers.

Geographically, they are in Pagan territory. Both Jewish and Pagan practices are being addressed. Peter would not like referred to the Jewish inheritance of the Law and oracles as "the futile ways inherited from your forefathers" (1:18) and the sins listed in 4:3 "sensuality, passions, drunkenness, orgies, drinking partiesm and lawless idolatry" are typically pagan sins associated with their worship of idols.

Not to mention that verse 10 clearly stated "once you were not a people but now you are God's people---" would not apply to Jews. And in verses 11 he refers to his recipients as sojourners and exiles. It is what all believers are, not just the Jewish dispersion. And it is the body of believers that Peter calls a "holy nation", a "chosen race", a "royal priesthood", a "people for his own possession".

So I ask, how can the dispensationalist miss that? Not that I am asking you again to answer that. I am just adding exclamation marks to my puzzlement. Then again, to even add to my dilemma, Calvin missed it too.

 

[Josheb]

God doesn't require bull sacrifices anymore....because that was a previous dispensation.

So, you say but do not prove.

Q: Where is the explicit example of scripture dividing itself using the word "dispensation" as Dispensationalism defines the term?
A: Nowhere. It does not exist. Dispensational Premillennialism invents the fiction and then its adherents mock anyone who asks for proof.


You, as the sole advocate for Dispensational Premillennialism currently in this thread, are supposed to be proving DPism is a fact, not fiction. As someone else has already previously stated, merely posting a claim does not make it true. You claiming something is a dispensation does not make it true, especially since you have yet to prove any Dispensationalist-defined dispensation exists in scripture.