Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

[Josheb]

Can you provide explicit examples scripture explicitly using the word "trinity"

False equivalence. Text deleted by Mod: Disrespectful, Contentious. Why? Because not all silences are equal!!!. Comparing the non-existence of the word "dispensation" is not equivalent to the lack of the word "trinity."

And people who understand scripture and people who understand reason (logic) NEVER make the mistake you just made.

But we find this kind of response very common among Dispensational Premillennialists. The fact of the matter is a Trinitarian can provide scripture that exegetically, reasonably and rationally, proves the case for the use of the word "trinity," but it proves impossible to get a Dispensationalist to do the same. We cannot even get a Dispensationalist to say, "The word does not occur anywhere in the Bible the way Dispensational Premillennialists define the word." If we could find a Dispensationalist honest and forthcoming enough to respond factually without avoiding the question and its only answer then we might (maybe) be able to have a rational, exegetically sound, conversation about whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction.

• Dispies do not answer valid questions asked.
• Dispies do not answer valid questions asked when asked.
• Instead of answering valid questions when asked the Dispies obfuscates and otherwise avoids answering valid questions when asked.
• One tactic is to attempt to change the topic away from that of the question asked.
• Another tactic is to employ various fallacious responses, such as the non sequitur, the red herring, the false equivalence, the appeal to purity, etc.
• Another tactic is to attack the inquirer. This often involves the use of other fallacies as indirect methods of impugning the inquirer, such as the straw man, the appeal to purity, the questioning of the inquirer's salvation, and other avoidant and obfuscating tactics.

Proof, not merely evidence, of that list is contained right here in this thread. No one has to look any further than this thread to see the proof a Dispensational Premillennialist cannot/will not answer the most basic questions regarding Dispensational Premillennialism. It would be so much more conversationally functional to simply answer questions asked when asked, stay on topic, and move the conversation forward.

The only answer you should be posting at this point in the thread is an open, unqualified, acknowledgment the word "dispensation" does not occur in the Bible as a method of dividing scripture, combined with an equally unequivocal acknowledgment the Bible does not define the word "dispensation" the way Dispensational Premillennialism defines it. Everyone here will acknowledge the word exists in scripture. That is not a point in dispute. The point of dispute occurs because Dispensational Premillennialism makes more of the term than scripture does. The theology defines the word to fit itself and then uses that man-made definition to divide scripture in a discontinuous way that is radically different than historical orthodox Christian thought, doctrine, and practice.

No one can discuss any of this with you as long as you avoid the unqualified answer to, "Where does scripture itself use the word "dispensation" to divide itself using the definition Dispensational Premillennialism asserts?" Every poster here, including you, should be able to poiint to a post in this thread, where you have gone on record and acknowledged the fact - the fact of scripture - the fact the word is not used by God the way it is used by DPism. That hasn't happened. The only reason it has not happened is because you have deliberately attempted multiple digressions and diversions. Everyone else is still waiting on the opportunity to read an answer to the question asked.

After that foundation has been established, on the record, then we can discuss what it means for Dispensational Premillennialism moving forward from that fact relevant to the question asked in the title of this op. If you are not up to the task of methodically addressing the inquiry of this op then don't post. Please do not bring all the obfuscation common among DPers into the thread and muck up the discussion for everyone else.

• Does scripture use the term the way DPism asserts? No.
• Why then do DPers subscribe to a theology that is entirely inferential and never built on what is plainly stated?
• Why do DPism constantly violate its own hermeneutical standards?
• How is the uniform failure of DPism's predictive assertions a complete failure?
• How is it there is absolutely no in-house accountability in DPism when overtly blatant mistakes in teaching occur?
• How is DPers aren't better apologists but, instead, are prone to obfuscation and avoidant practices?
• How is it DPers do not live in a manner consistent with the teachings of DPism?

These are only a few of the questions you will be asked to addressed, one at a time, in logical order and logical manner, if and when you show up for the discussion of this op. No other theology does these things to the degree found within DPism. When these concerns are discussed honestly, in a forthcoming manner, the evidence provided by that honest and forthcoming conversation proves Dispensational Premillennialism is fiction. The theology either need to be radically reformed so it accurately reflects the whole of scripture, or it needs to be discarded in its entirety.

For now, would you please go on record and stated for the benefit of all the participants an acknowledgment scripture itself does not use the word "dispensation" to divide itself the way DPism defines the term? Would you then do us the respect of briefly posting a succinct explanation why you, or why you think other Dispies, subscribe to a theology that is solely and entirely inferential all the way down to its foundation, and choose to do so over the existence of other, more literal, more explicit alternatives (whatever they may be)?

 

[Arial]

I would think it would be rather obvious to you by now....WE DON'T DO BULL SACRIFICES BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE PREVIOUS....AGE.... DISPENSATION. Jesus came...died, rose again....remember. We are now in the age of grace. (near the end.)

And it has been said to you, every time you bring that up, that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were an integral part of the covenant, having nothing directly to do with a dispensation. It is the covenant that changed when Jesus fulfilled all the old covenant, not the dispensation. It was still the same "age". The "age" of fallen man, corrupted world. A person has to deliberately and arbitrarily divide things into distinct dispensations to arrive at their boundaries. To do that, and then use that as the tool to base interpretations on, distorts what the Bible is saying. It does so because it is not God who is naming the dispensations. It is misguided man who has millions of blind followers.

That will not change your mind, but that is irrelevant. Enough has been said about it. Do not come back here and keep doing the same things you were put on vacation for. That time was meant to be for introspection and coming to a willingness to abide by the rules and actually engage with the things that are presented by others in the thread.

 

[CrowCross]

And it has been said to you, every time you bring that up, that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant were an integral part of the covenant, having nothing directly to do with a dispensation.

it's something that was done....and because of Christ something that is not done now in this current dispensation of grace..

 

[CrowCross]

• Does scripture use the term the way DPism asserts? No.
• Why then do DPers subscribe to a theology that is entirely inferential and never built on what is plainly stated?
• Why do DPism constantly violate its own hermeneutical standards?
• How is the uniform failure of DPism's predictive assertions a complete failure?
• How is it there is absolutely no in-house accountability in DPism when overtly blatant mistakes in teaching occur?
• How is DPers aren't better apologists but, instead, are prone to obfuscation and avoidant practices?
• How is it DPers do not live in a manner consistent with the teachings of DPism?

When I read your questions I have to ask...what the heck are you talking about???? Why do I need to reply to your blatant misinformation???

 

[Arial]

it's something that was done....and because of Christ something that is not done now in this current dispensation of grace..

It was still the same "age". The "age" of fallen man, corrupted world. A person has to deliberately and arbitrarily divide things into distinct dispensations to arrive at their boundaries. To do that, and then use that as the tool to base interpretations on, distorts what the Bible is saying. It does so because it is not God who is naming the dispensations. It is misguided man who has millions of blind followers.

The above is what I said about it. Now, address that.

Who determines that a dispensation is delineated by what Christ has done and not done? And who determines the other dispensations that were, in dispensationalism, not associated with Christ but before him, and yet not the same dispensation as the covenant with Israel is said to be in. By your reasoning above, there should only be two dispensations.

Since the Bible does not declare it, and historically it was not even a declaration of traditional orthodoxy doctrines, who decided that there should be dispensations used in interpreting scripture, and who and when, did that person or persons decide what they were, and how?

A conversation entered into in good faith, will answer those questions with the aim of establishing that dispensationalism is fact. Since that is the question of the OP. And it is the position you are coming from.

We shall see what happens.

 

[Arial]

When I read your questions I have to ask...what the heck are you talking about???? Why do I need to reply to your blatant misinformation???

How do you know it is misinformation if you don't even know what he is talking about?

 

[Josheb]

When I read your questions I have to ask...what the heck are you talking about????

No you don't. That question is totally unnecessary to this op.

Why do I need to reply to your blatant misinformation???

It's not misinformation, and the reason why the question asked should be answered has already been posted multiple times.


This op asks whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction. The reason the question asked has to be answered is because there is a huge contradiction ate the very foundation of Dispensational Premillennialism: the dispensation. Scripture never uses the term to divide itself but DPism uses the dispensation to divide scripture and DPism does that eschewing the covenant, which is the word scripture uses to parse itself.

So I give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you for the information. I ask you to prove me wrong.

We're now four pages of posts into this thread and the very first question asked in this discussion of this op's inquiry has yet to be answered.


Where does scripture divide itself using the word dispensation ad DPism defines the word? If there were an answer to that question we should have read it back on the first page. It's a valid and very relevant question so I will extend you the benefit of the doubt and be patient in hopes an answer will eventually be posted before another four pages of post come and go.

 

[CrowCross]

The above is what I said about it. Now, address that.

Who determines that a dispensation is delineated by what Christ has done and not done?

It's bigger thanthat. It's also pre and post flood.

Who determines it? It's a way of dividing up how God has related to man. As my example....we no longr need to sacrifice bulls.
This also answers what you wrote below.

And who determines the other dispensations that were, in dispensationalism, not associated with Christ but before him, and yet not the same dispensation as the covenant with Israel is said to be in. By your reasoning above, there should only be two dispensations.

Since the Bible does not declare it, and historically it was not even a declaration of traditional orthodoxy doctrines, who decided that there should be dispensations used in interpreting scripture, and who and when, did that person or persons decide what they were, and how?

A conversation entered into in good faith, will answer those questions with the aim of establishing that dispensationalism is fact. Since that is the question of the OP. And it is the position you are coming from.

We shall see what happens.

 

[CrowCross]

How do you know it is misinformation if you don't even know what he is talking about?

Because what has been written by Josheb isn't accurate. Pretty much strawman stuff that doesn't require an answer.

 

[CrowCross]

No you don't. That question is totally unnecessary to this op.

It's not misinformation, and the reason why the question asked should be answered has already been posted multiple times.


This op asks whether or not Dispensational Premillennialism is fact or fiction. The reason the question asked has to be answered is because there is a huge contradiction ate the very foundation of Dispensational Premillennialism: the dispensation. Scripture never uses the term to divide itself but DPism uses the dispensation to divide scripture and DPism does that eschewing the covenant, which is the word scripture uses to parse itself.

You've been answered numerous times.
I've shown you with the missing white horse.
We are not destined to wrath and will be delivered from the wrath to come.
I

So I give you the benefit of the doubt and ask you for the information. I ask you to prove me wrong.

We're now four pages of posts into this thread and the very first question asked in this discussion of this op's inquiry has yet to be answered.


Where does scripture divide itself using the word dispensation ad DPism defines the word? If there were an answer to that question we should have read it back on the first page. It's a valid and very relevant question so I will extend you the benefit of the doubt and be patient in hopes an answer will eventually be posted before another four pages of post come and go.

The word trinity isn't in the bible. Like dispensation it's a term to describe. There are many examples of words we have assigned to describe events in the bible that are not used in the bible. Antediluvian is another word not mentioned in the bible yet is a term used to reference the pre-flood world..
I fail to see how you can't grasp that concept.

 

[Arial]

Because what has been written by Josheb isn't accurate. Pretty much strawman stuff that doesn't require an answer.

If you are going to prove it isn't accurate, then it requires an answer. Just saying it isn't accurate is no good for anyone, certainly not your own case.

It has been determined at this point that you cannot prove your case, it is simply what you want to believe, so will believe it. It has been determined that you are not willing to listen to or consider, or even actually find the "fault" in any other belief system with you own, but to simply say everyone is wrong but you.

Therefore that should end the discussion as far as you are concerned.

 

[Josheb]

I fail to see how you can't grasp that concept.

And I fail to grasp how it is you cannot keep the posts about the posts and repeatedly feel compelled to post personal, derisive, insinuations that have absolutely nothing to do with the discussion of this op...... other than that is what DPers do. Just answer the questions asked, and address the op-relevant content, and keep personal comments to yourself (in compliance with the TOS, please).

The word trinity isn't in the bible. Like dispensation it's a term to describe. There are many examples of words we have assigned to describe events in the bible that are not used in the bible. Antediluvian is another word not mentioned in the bible yet is a term used to reference the pre-flood world..
I fail to see how you can't grasp that concept.

Great. Halfway there. Now please show me where the Bible itself divides itself using the concept "dispensation" as Dispensationalism defines the term. Dispensational Premillennialism claims that in order for the Bible to be correctly understood, it should be divided up into dispensations. It defines the dispensations in a very specific way and teaches that definition is how best to understand scripture. Have I misrepresented Dispensational Premillennialism saying that? No! This is the foundation of all DPism. Chafer (the founder of DTS, and his successor, Ryrie, defined a "dispensation" as "a stewardship administration" that "involves responsibility, accountability, and faithfulness on the part of the steward." Scofield defined the term as "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God." Ryrie further states a dispensation "is primarily a stewardship arrangement and not a period of time," and he explicitly states "'age' and 'stewardship' are not synonymous in meaning." Thomas Ice asserts Ryrie's teaching, "The verb oikonoméô refers to a manager of a household....... dispensation means to manage or administer the affairs of a household." Ryrie further states, "there is no question the Bible uses the word 'dispensation' in exactly the same way the dispensationalist does."

And it is that last statement I am asking you about.

Where does the Bible divide itself up using the word/term/concept dispensation the way dispensationalism defines it?

Everything else Dispensationalism teaches is built on this foundation. If that foundation has no veracity, then everything built on it also lacks veracity. I will most definitely cover many other very real, valid problems within Dispensational Premillennialism, but I am taking these matters one at a time, patiently and kindly giving you the benefit of the doubt even as you make snide, snotty, derisive off-topic comments and delay answers to some of the most important questions regarding DPism. YOU are the representative Dispy in this thread. YOU voluntarily entered the discussion. No one is making you be here and no one is making you post things against your will. YOU will either rise to the occasion and answer the questions asked to the best of your ability or you will not. You'll either offer cogent discourse, or you won't. Right now, all that is being asked of you is to answer this one question. It is a question firmly rooted in the teachings of Dispensational Premillennialism. The man I quoted above are used by Walvoord, Ice, Vlach, and other leading Dispensational Premillennialism teachers. I have NOT quote mined these men, nor misrepresented them in any way. I will get to the specific of the Dispensationalist definition of a dispensation once there is a record of you answering the current question.

Where does the Bible divide itself up
using the word/term/concept dispensation
the way dispensationalism defines the term?​

It has already been established the word is not used. This question pertains to the way DPism defines the word. This question has to do with DPism's claim the Bible uses the term the same way Dispensational Premillennialism defines the word. I have just posted proof of DPism's teaching. You are now being asked to provide scriptural proof of that claim.

I hope an answer to that question is forthcoming without further delay.







Note: You were not derided in any way for the answer provided to whether or not the word "dispensation" is used in scripture. The answer is accepted as your answer because that is the correct answer (mostly). The word "dispensation" is not found in scripture. Had you said that four pages ago we wouldn't still be debating the matter. We'd be much further along. Just answer the questions asked and move the discussion along.
.

 

[Arial]

Who determines it? It's a way of dividing up how God has related to man. As my example....we no longr need to sacrifice bulls.
This also answers what you wrote below.

Answering the question of who, by saying what it is, is avoiding answering the question. It answers none of what I wrote because it does not even engage with what I wrote. Here it is again. Post #65

Who determines that a dispensation is delineated by what Christ has done and not done? And who determines the other dispensations that were, in dispensationalism, not associated with Christ but before him, and yet not the same dispensation as the covenant with Israel is said to be in. By your reasoning above, there should only be two dispensations.

Since the Bible does not declare it, and historically it was not even a declaration of traditional orthodoxy doctrines, who decided that there should be dispensations used in interpreting scripture, and who and when, did that person or persons decide what they were, and how?

A conversation entered into in good faith, will answer those questions with the aim of establishing that dispensationalism is fact. Since that is the question of the OP. And it is the position you are coming from.

We shall see what happens.

Notice each question asks WHO? Surely you know that when someone asks "who?" they are asking for a name. There had to be a first "who" that determined the Bible must be divided into dispensations instead of the very clear distinction that the Bible itself makes.

Old Testament (covenant)
New Testament (covenant)

 

[CrowCross]

Answering the question of who, by saying what it is, is avoiding answering the question. It answers none of what I wrote because it does not even engage with what I wrote. Here it is again. Post #65


Notice each question asks WHO? Surely you know that when someone asks "who?" they are asking for a name. There had to be a first "who" that determined the Bible must be divided into dispensations instead of the very clear distinction that the Bible itself makes.

Old Testament (covenant)
New Testament (covenant)

Let me ask you again...it's pretty simple....does your church still sacrifice

 

[Arial]

Let me ask you again...it's pretty simple....does your church still sacrifice

It is a stupid question. Don't ask it again. The stupidity of the question has been graciously responded to and the reason why we don't----which has nothing to do with dispensations, and everything to do with covenant, more than once, and each time, the only response is to ask the question again. That becomes more than just a stupid question.

It shows an unwillingness to engage in discussion with humility, respect and peace. Not only does that violate a forum rule, but it violates the very precepts of God for the Christian (Eph 4:2; Rom 12:18; Matt 7:112; 1 Cor 13:1-13).

It serves to derail meaningful theological discussion. It uses speech that incites needless conflict, fosters resentment, seeks to stir up strife among believers, exaggerates and distorts another member's words in order to discredit them or to win an argument. Also in violation of the rules. And you continue to do so in every post, even though you have been warned, had posts deleted for the infractions, and even give a three day ban.

2. Respectful Discourse​

2.1. All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace (Eph 4:2; Rom 12:18; Matt 7:12; 1 Cor 13:1-13). Discussions should be constructive, seeking to edify rather than tear down. Approach discussions with a willingness to listen, a readiness to learn, and a heart that seeks to edify fellow believers in unity with Christ Jesus.


2.2. Address the issue, topic, or argument, not the person. Such things as inflammatory or marginalizing language, divisiveness, misquoting, misrepresenting, trolling, and personal attacks (including belittling, insulting, falsely accusing, or making assumptions about the character, motives, or faith of other members) are strictly prohibited. It only serves to derail meaningful theological discussion. Avoid speech that incites needless conflict, fosters resentment, seeks to stir up strife among believers, or exaggerates or distorts another member's words in order to discredit them or to win an argument. When quoting or summarizing another member’s position, do so honestly, in context, and preferably with a citation to ensure that their views are represented accurately and fairly. Aim to promote unity in Christ while allowing for meaningful debate, speaking the truth in love and humility, recognizing that all wisdom and understanding comes from God (cf. Rule 2.1).

 

[CrowCross]

It is a stupid question.

2.1. All members must engage in discussions with humility, respect, and peace

Soooooooooooooo Arial called my question stupid. Where is the respect?

 

[Josheb]

Let me ask you again...it's pretty simple....does your church still sacrifice

No, neither of our congregations (there's only one Church) sacrifice animals.

A church not sacrificing does not prove the existence or the absence of a dispensation. It proves the cessation of a Christologically foreshadowing religious practice that was fulfilled by Jesus. Thinking the end of animal sacrifices is necessarily and unavoidably proof of a dispensation is a false-cause fallacy. An absence of one thing does not cause the existence of another. The fact is scripture never calls the animal sacrifices (nor the period of time in which they occur) a dispensation. That is an invention of Dispensational Premillennialism. It is a red hering you've employed to avoid answering whether or not the Bible ever uses DP-defined dispensations to divide itself.

The appeal to animal sacrifices is a fiction of Dispensational Premillennialism.
The lack of animal sacrifices being proof of dispensations is a fiction of Dispensational Premillennialism.

Dispensational Premillennialism is a fictional theology.


The same is true of the "haha" emoji response to post 72. It is a fiction. It's not an answer to the question asked. Can you, or can you not, provide proof the scriptures use the definition of a "dispensation," a word we all agree is never used in scripture as a means of dividing itself, can you provide proof scripture uses that definition to parse itself and parse itself in a discontinuous manner? Take a day or two and ask your pastor, your elders, your fellow Dispensationalists. Go over to some of the DP boards in other forums and ask them this question (be prepared for when they post ad hominem, change the subject, and attempt to shift the onus). Get any and all the help you need. Join the Pre-Trib Research Center and message them, asking this question. Ask your buddy Thomas Ice. Get what help you can muster but please do not avoid answering the question asked.

Where does the Bible explicitly divide itself up using the word/term/concept dispensation the way dispensationalism defines the term?

.

 

[Josheb]

Soooooooooooooo Arial called my question stupid. Where is the respect?

There is a fundamental difference between calling a question stupid and calling a person stupid. The question is stupid and being honest about that fact is respectful. Perhaps a better word, like foolish, or fallacious, would be accurate and better serve the discussion so this type of posting does not occur again but the fact is the disrespect came when that nonsense was posted. This thread is filled with disrespectful avoidance of cogent discourse. Since Post #2, nearly every post defending DPism has been disrespectful to everyone else here. Most of them have been foolishness.

A history of pre-Darby advocates says nothing about the factualness of Dispensational Premillennialism!!! Not a single defense of DPism has been on topic unless it specficially answered a question asked or addressed a posted comment. You haven't been on topic once in this thread began. Posts 2, 4, 9k 15-17, 22-23, 27, and most of the others have been disrespectful by not responding cogently to any queries of op-relevant commentary. Nearly very single post is disrespectful and in spite of that fact a great deal of patience, forbearance, and hope has been extended, trusting at least a modicum of these posts will answer questions asked when asked and comment cogently on relevant commentary without further obfuscation. Aside from the fact the history of pre-trib advocates says nothing about the factualness of DPism, a prime example of this disrespect is observable in the responses to the question,


Where does the Bible explicitly divide itself up using the word/term/concept dispensation the way dispensationalism defines the term?


Lots of posts in response, but none of them actually answer the question asked. That is disrespect. Stop posturing about any speck in someone else's eye and remove the log in your own. Respect would be posting an honest answer to the specific question asked in a forthcoming answer that keeps the posts about the posts, not the posters. Try it and see if the back and forth does not instantly improve. See if the posts are received with appreciation, expressions of gratitude, and observe how they instantly further the discussion of this op's inquiry.


Where does the Bible explicitly divide itself up using the word/term/concept dispensation the way dispensationalism defines the term?


Show some respect for others. Just answer the question asked.

 

[Arial]

Soooooooooooooo Arial called my question stupid. Where is the respect?

To recognize that a question is stupid when it is, especially when it has been asked and answered-----with respect----a half a dozen times, is not disrespecting the person asking the question, but the question itself.

What is disrespectful of a person, is asking the same question over and over when it has been answered, thereby dismissing that person's answer as having no value whatsoever. That is intentional devaluation of a person.

It is also intensely disrespectful to keep breaking the rule that requires a poster to engage with the posts and not the poster, as the post above does once again.

 

[Josheb]

Daniel speaks of a resurrection where not ALL people are resurrected. You need to ponder why.

Perhaps, but that does not prove Dispensational Premillennialism is fact. What it proves is Daniel understood the Christological significance of the revelation God provided. What it proves is continuity between Old and New, continuity DPism commonly rejects.

DO YOU SACRIFICE BULLS? Of course not. Why? Because it was a previous dispensation. come on yet?

No, the answer to "Why?" is because that particular religious requirement foreshadowed Jesus and Jesus has satisfied that ritual. Jesus's satisfying that ritual is proof of continuity between Old and New, not proof of a dispensation. Why did you believe the person who told you the cessation of sacrifices was proof of a dispensation? They were inventing fiction. They were adding to scripture. They were adding man-made invention to scripture, and they were adding man-made invention to scripture in will neglect of what scripture states about the end of sacrifices. Why is it Dispensationalists don't know the historical, orthodox answer to the question asked? Because Dispensational Premillennialism ignores what Christianity has always taught. It teaches its own inventions, not orthodoxy. It defends the practice by claiming there were people before Darby who believed A, B, or C and they try to change the subject away from what scripture itself plainly teaches in favor of the diversions (like pre-tribulationalism).

We answer and address your inquiries. How about showing us the same respect.


Where does the Bible explicitly divide itself up using the word/term/concept dispensation the way dispensationalism defines the term?


.