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.

 

[CrowCross]

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

You have no support for that statement....."Dispensation regulation"???? What is that suppose to mean?

Let me say it again.....God doesn't require bull sacrifices anymore....because that was a previous dispensation.
I might add, Jesus fulfilled the law of the previous dispensation and started a new dispensation called the AGE of grace.....no more sacrifices.

 

[CrowCross]

Bingo my foot! What was the Law? A covenant relationship with God towards men. Not a dispensational relationship.

Beep..beep back the truck up. There is no such thing as a dispensational relationship. I have never claim there is one. STOP making the claim for me or else I'll have to put on my Mod Hat.

 

[CrowCross]

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.

LOL....the Uni's say the same thing about the trinity....it's a word not found in the bible and people have invented the fiction that Jesus is God.
Of course we know that's not true....sure dispensation is not a word used in the bible....no Strongs number...But, you sound like a Uni Cult member with your "demand" for the word to be in the bible rather than a description of an age and how God treated the people of that age.

BTW....how is that sacrifice working out for you?

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.

LOL....in this thread I presented Daniel 12.
There is also 2 Thes 2 as well as Rev 3....and other verses.
Lets not forget Jesus' first return in the clouds....and He's not riding a white horse.
Lets not forget Rev 8 hasn't happened yet.
Lets not forget some of the interpretation of the word "soon".... 5034. tachos
Lets not forget sacrificing bulls is no longer required.
Lets not forget the mention of the 3rd temple.

Look up!!!

....need more?

Somebody has fed you a load of misinterpretation.

 

[Arial]

Beep..beep back the truck up. There is no such thing as a dispensational relationship. I have never claim there is one. STOP making the claim for me or else I'll have to put on my Mod Hat.

I didn't make the claim for you. I said the opposite. Crow, you need to start really paying attention to what you are reading, What you have done is misrepresented what I said by making me to say something I did not. You have done exactly what you accused me of, and that I did not do. Here is what I said.

In dispensationalism, as the framework bias, there is no relationship between God and man.

That is exactly my point.

Redemption is a covenant. The covenant was made within the Godhead before creation.
The Bible is, from cover to cover, the story of Redemption playing out in time and history.
A covenant is a relationship, personal and real, between a greater party and a lesser party. God/man.
The Covenant of Redemption, through Christ, brings persons into that covenant relationship.
The Sinai covenant is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, but not the Covenant of Redemption itself. It serves a specific purpose in the forward movement of the Covenant of Redemption.

Without God provided covenant there is no relationship and there is no redemption.

There is no relationship in dispensations. No dispensational relationship.

Dispensations have nothing to do with redemption and therefore nothing to do with a means of Bible interpretation. It is an incorrect hermeneutic! Flawed to the core!

 

[Arial]

You have no support for that statement....."Dispensation regulation"???? What is that suppose to mean?

It means the covenant had laws. It wasn't the dispensation that had laws. It means your hermeneutic is ludicrous.

Let me say it again.....God doesn't require bull sacrifices anymore....because that was a previous dispensation.

It is just as stupid a remark this time as it was all the other times. The laws are connected to the covenant. How many times does God say when speaking of those laws, "This is the law of my covenant with you." And it never says "this is the law of this dispensation." In case it slipped your thought processes, laws also constitute a type of relationship----but alas, not a dispensation.

I might add, Jesus fulfilled the law of the previous dispensation and started a new dispensation called the AGE of grace

Oh, look what it says.

Heb 9:1-3 Now even the first covenant had regulations for worship and an earthly place of holiness, For a tent was prepared, the first section, in which were the lamp stand and the table and the bread of the Presence, It is called the Holy Place. Behind the second curtain was a second section called the Most Holy Place----

Matt 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

It turns out it was not the law of a dispensation that he kept, but the law of the covenant. Just because this is called the age of grace, which I do not because there is no age when grace is not extended towards mankind, does not mean that it is a new dispensation as that interpretation defines dispensation.

Now the facts of Covenant theology have been established throughout many posts, but so far you have not even attempted to prove their fallacy, and you have not proven your dispensational view to be fact. Are you planning on doing so?

.no more sacrifices.

Not according to MacArthur.

The Scripture: Ez 43: 19
"You shall give a young bull for a sin offering to the priests, the Levites who are of the seed of Zadok, who approach me to minister to me," says the Lord God.

MacArthur's study note: "Exact offerings in language just as literal as the descriptions given in Moses' day are also just as literal here.They are of a memorial nature; they are not efficacious anymore than OT sacrifices were, As OT sacrifices pointed forward to Christ's death, so these are tangible expressions, not competing with, but pointing back to the value of Christ's sacrifice, once for all (Heb 9:28; 10:10). God at that time endorsed OT offerings as tokens of forgiving and cleansing worshipers on the basis and credit of the Great Lamb they pointed to, who alone could take away sins (John 1:29). The tangible expressions of worship which the Israelites for so long will at least be offered acceptably, then with full understanding about the Lamb of God to whom they point."

Are you ever going to address that?

 

[Arial]

LOL....the Uni's say the same thing about the trinity....it's a word not found in the bible and people have invented the fiction that Jesus is God.
Of course we know that's not true....sure dispensation is not a word used in the bible....no Strongs number...But, you sound like a Uni Cult member with your "demand" for the word to be in the bible rather than a description of an age and how God treated the people of that age.

BTW....how is that sacrifice working out for you?

MOD HAT: Crow the next time you post something like this, and also the next time you completely bypass a question deflecting always from the topic, refusing to answer, refusing to engage with what others post, you will be getting a three day vacation. I post this publicly because all private warnings and edits are also wasted on you. You continue to do as you please with no regard for respect or decency.

Learn how to post according to the rules, and how to post in good faith. The rules will define that for you.

 

[CrowCross]

I didn't make the claim for you. I said the opposite. Crow, you need to start really paying attention to what you are reading, What you have done is misrepresented what I said by making me to say something I did not. You have done exactly what you accused me of, and that I did not do. Here is what I said.

That is exactly my point.

Redemption is a covenant. The covenant was made within the Godhead before creation.
The Bible is, from cover to cover, the story of Redemption playing out in time and history.
A covenant is a relationship, personal and real, between a greater party and a lesser party. God/man.
The Covenant of Redemption, through Christ, brings persons into that covenant relationship.
The Sinai covenant is a part of the Covenant of Redemption, but not the Covenant of Redemption itself. It serves a specific purpose in the forward movement of the Covenant of Redemption.

Without God provided covenant there is no relationship and there is no redemption.

There is no relationship in dispensations. No dispensational relationship.

Dispensations have nothing to do with redemption and therefore nothing to do with a means of Bible interpretation. It is an incorrect hermeneutic! Flawed to the core!

I'll allow you to be wrong.

How your bull sacrifice doing?

 

[makesends]

MOD HAT: Crow the next time you post something like this, and also the next time you completely bypass a question deflecting always from the topic, refusing to answer, refusing to engage with what others post, you will be getting a three day vacation. I post this publicly because all private warnings and edits are also wasted on you. You continue to do as you please with no regard for respect or decency.

Learn how to post according to the rules, and how to post in good faith. The rules will define that for you.

I'll allow you to be wrong.

How your bull sacrifice doing?

"people have invented the fiction that Jesus is God"

Crow are you actually saying that Jesus is not God?

 

[Arial]

I'll allow you to be wrong.

How your bull sacrifice doing?

Why are you harping on something that has already been dealt with three or four times? What does bull sacrifices have to do with whether or not Dispensationalism is fact or fiction? Why was the post you quoted not dealt with? Why did you not even make any attempt to show it wasn't valid since you claim it was wrong?

Enjoy your vacation.

 

[Josheb]

LOL....the Uni's say the same thing about the trinity....it's a word not found in the bible and people have invented the fiction that Jesus is God.
Of course we know that's not true....sure dispensation is not a word used in the bible....no Strongs number...But, you sound like a Uni Cult member with your "demand" for the word to be in the bible rather than a description of an age and how God treated the people of that age.

BTW....how is that sacrifice working out for you?

LOL....in this thread I presented Daniel 12.
There is also 2 Thes 2 as well as Rev 3....and other verses.
Lets not forget Jesus' first return in the clouds....and He's not riding a white horse.
Lets not forget Rev 8 hasn't happened yet.
Lets not forget some of the interpretation of the word "soon".... 5034. tachos
Lets not forget sacrificing bulls is no longer required.
Lets not forget the mention of the 3rd temple.

Look up!!!

....need more?

Somebody has fed you a load of misinterpretation.

Not an answer to the question asked.

Can you provide explicit examples scripture explicitly using the word "dispensation" to divide itself? If not, then why should anyone subscribe to a theology that is built entirely and solely on man-made inference and man-made definitions?


This is all that is currently asked of you

 

[EarlyActs]

Arial wrote:
It turns out it was not the law of a dispensation that he kept, but the law of the covenant. Just because this is called the age of grace, which I do not because there is no age when grace is not extended towards mankind, does not mean that it is a new dispensation as that interpretation defines dispensation.

There was a dispensation or type-of-management for Israel that treated the Law as if it could earn something. When Paul refers to this in Gal 3-4, I'm not even sure he meant the Law time period itself, but may have meant the IT period. The same question is approached when Rom 9 moves into ch 10. "They followed the Law as if it were by works." That would mean they went against the facts, and weren't supposed to (this supports what Arial just said about grace for ever).

I find that R9-10 is quite current, because of the current description that 'they have a zeal for the law, but it is misinformed.' That doesn't sound like Moses and his audience back then. And of course, 'Christ is the fulfillment of the law for righteousness to all...' is absolutely current.

The other thing about Gal 3 that draws on the IT period is the double fault by the Judaizers of v15: they void and replace the Promise to the nations by the Law. I don't see where this was happening in the original Law-giving generation. It is an IT and NT period issue. Paul was of course 'big' on the Promise to the nations being 'through the Gospel'--the phrase that is key in Gal 3 as well as Eph 3:5-6. Given 430 years before the Law, it's not dependent at all on Law observance, like the Judaizers wanted to believe.

 

[CrowCross]

Why are you harping on something that has already been dealt with three or four times? What does bull sacrifices have to do with whether or not Dispensationalism is fact or fiction?

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.)

 

[CrowCross]

Not an answer to the question asked.

Can you provide explicit examples scripture explicitly using the word "dispensation" to divide itself? If not, then why should anyone subscribe to a theology that is built entirely and solely on man-made inference and man-made definitions?


This is all that is currently asked of you

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