Dispensation Premillennialism: Fact or Fiction?

[Josheb]

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

False equivalence. That request is a fallacious response. People think appeals to the Trinity are rational rebuttals, but they are not. They are stupid, foolish, ignorant, utterly fallacious avoidant responses. 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.