Six Problems Inherent in Dispensationalism, Part 2: The Resulting Hypocrisy

[Josheb]

Then you will remain ignorant.

Ad hominem noted......


...and once again the o is proved correct. You cannot claim to practice verses like Eph. 4:29, Phil. 2:3 and most of Proverbs 15 and then call people ignorant. It is hypocritical! Neither can you so quicky abandon the topic of this discussion: the claim to read scripture literally and make this about someone else's purported ignorance and maintain your own integrity. IT is hypocritical and absurd.

You're supposed to be proving Dispensational Premillennialism does NOT inherently lead to hypocrisy and isn't therefore absurd.


The facts remain, the apostasia of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 cannot me THE* physical spatial departure from the earth when read literally and my original question still remains unanswered. The proof of this fact was provided. Leading Dispensational Premillennialists were quoted stating that is a distinctive principle of Dispensational Premillennialism. Evidence from proponents, not critics, was provided. All you've been asked to do is acknowledge the facts in evidence.

Before we proceed any further with the rest of Post #4,
will you now plainly acknowledge that Dispensational Premillennialism does,
in fact,
teach scripture, especially prophecy, is to be read literally
as one of its core tenets?​

* I have amended my prior post to accurately reflect your non-literal reading of the verse.
.

 

[CrowCross]

Ad hominem noted......


...and once again the o is proved correct. You cannot claim to practice verses like Eph. 4:29, Phil. 2:3 and most of Proverbs 15 and then call people ignorant. It is hypocritical! Neither can you so quicky abandon the topic of this discussion: the claim to read scripture literally and make this about someone else's purported ignorance and maintain your own integrity. IT is hypocritical and absurd.

You're supposed to be proving Dispensational Premillennialism does NOT inherently lead to hypocrisy and isn't therefore absurd.

I have....2 Thes 2 is something you can't address. You just can't kick those verses aside. Those verse point to a pre-trib rapture.
The pre-trib rapture KILLS your entire eschatological view. I believe it's time for you to start over. Look up!

The facts remain, the apostasia of 2 Thessalonians 2:3 cannot me THE* physical spatial departure from the earth when read literally and my original question still remains unanswered. The proof of this fact was provided. Leading Dispensational Premillennialists were quoted stating that is a distinctive principle of Dispensational Premillennialism. Evidence from proponents, not critics, was provided. All you've been asked to do is acknowledge the facts in evidence.

Before we proceed any further with the rest of Post #4,
will you now plainly acknowledge that Dispensational Premillennialism does,
in fact,
teach scripture, especially prophecy, is to be read literally
as one of its core tenets?​

Most all of prophecy is literal. Or, should I say is presented as literal. There are times when "images" are presented such as a flood coming from the dragons mouth. Keep in mind what is mentioned will occur in a literal fashion or in a way in which we see the prophecy fulfilled in modern terms.

* I have amended my prior post to accurately reflect your non-literal reading of the verse.
.

 

[CrowCross]

Revelation 1:3
Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is at hand.

Notice I did not use the word "near." The Greek is "engys" which literally means "at hand" and the phrase "at hand" literally means "close in time, about to happen." So here we have an inspired writer of God's revelation explicitly stating what he is about to describe happening close in time, about to happen. That does not fit with Dispensational Premillennialism so the meaning of engys is changed. And just as you have done with the apostasia of 2 Thes. 2:3, there isn't a single example in the entire New Testament where engys is used to mean some period of time thousands of years later. Therefore, not only does the DPist change the meaning of the word engys in Revelation 1:3, but the meaning they give it nowhere else found in the entire New Testament.

It's pretty clear to me you don't understand the meaning....the tribulation hasn't occurred yet.

For example you posted...

Matthew 24:21-22
For then there will be a great tribulation, such as has not occurred since the beginning of the world until now, nor ever will. Unless those days had been cut short, no life would have been saved; but for the sake of the elect those days will be cut short.

The world has not seen such tribulation as described above. Do you know what that means? It hasn't happened yet.

 

[Arial]

Where is the contradiction?

For both of you....
2 Thes 2 starts out with.....1 Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to Him,.....which is a reference to the rapture.....the departure when we are gathered together....then the antichrist will be exposed.

You make 2 Thess say we leave before Christ returns.
1 Thess says we meet him in the air as he returns along with the resurrected saints, immediately, after the resurrected bodies of the saints meet him in the air. The implication is that we return with him, as there is nothing that says he comes part way down, we go part way up and hang there? for a thousand and seven years, while he comes the rest of the way down. Or that he returns three times.

 

[CrowCross]

You make 2 Thess say we leave before Christ returns.
1 Thess says we meet him in the air as he returns along with the resurrected saints, immediately, after the resurrected bodies of the saints meet him in the air. The implication is that we return with him, as there is nothing that says he comes part way down, we go part way up and hang there? for a thousand and seven years, while he comes the rest of the way down. Or that he returns three times.

2 Thes 2 mentions our being gathered together with Him. We depart prior to the anti-christ being revealed.

John 14:2 In My Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and welcome you into My presence, so that you also may be where I am.......We are gathered together at the gathering when we depart and go to the "rooms (mansion)".
After 7 years we then return with Jesus....after the marriage supper... Would you like to discuss Jesus not leaving on a white horse again?

 

[Josheb]

Where's the contradiction?

You make 2 Thess say we leave before Christ returns.

2 Thes 2 mentions our being gathered together with Him. We depart prior to the anti-christ being revealed.

@Arial, please do not let him take the discussion far afield or hijack this op. This thread is NOT about the particular doctrines of Dispensational Premillennialism. That op can be found HERE. @CrowCross has chosen to stake his dispute on the protest Dispensational Premillennialism does not teach scripture should be read literally (see Post #4). It has been proven DPism does teach literalism and it has been proven CrowCross does not read all of scripture literally. This is self-evident prima facie hypocrisy.

Which is what the op is about.

Please do not let him move the goalposts, change the subject, or hijack the op to make it about doctrine or comparative theology (see rule 3 of the tou). The same thing happened HERE, HERE, and HERE, and it is common practice for Dispensationalists to never resolve anything but to constantly move from one topic to another, from one verse to another, without ever resolving any of it. Crow's presence in this op occurs because an attempt was made to hijack another thread, and he was invited to bring he digression here rather than disrupt that thread. This is the Dispensationalists' method of operation, and it will happen here unless a conscious effort is made to stick to the specified topic of this op: the hypocrisy that results from teaching scripture should be read literally but not doing so with any degree of consistency. We've already witnessed how, when asked to acknowledge facts in evidence the response was ad hominem, obfuscation, and content another poster's purported ignorance. If it is insinuated you are ignorant, that risks sanctions. So, the next best thing is attempted = change the subject, corrupt the discussion with irrelevancies and never acknowledge and evidence or resolve any disparity (disparity between scripture and posts, not disparities between two posters).

Dispensationalism is overtly inconsistent in practice. To be hypocritical is to say one thing and do the opposite, or to assert a standard and then not practice it. This happens in multiple ways with Dispensational Premillennialism.

For example, one of the core tenets of Dispensationalism is the belief scripture should be read literally.........................................

This is not correct.

Yes, scripture should be taken literally....there will be a 1000 year reign of Christ in the prophetic future....but sometimes scripture should be taken as figurative or allegorically................

Yes, it is correct.

Post #4 argues against literalism while claiming literalism but that's a red herring because the salient point is that DPism teaches literalism, NOT his personal views on exegesis. In other words, from the very beginning of his participation in the thread the effort was made to obfuscate and digress. The lack of accountability is a huge problem inherent in Dispensational Premillennialism. Please do not let that happen here. We either let the dross sit as a witness to the veracity of the op, or we all collaborate to resolve the problem - the problem cited in this op; the problem of not actually practicing literalism, the problem of not living as if predictions are true, and the problem of hypocrisy resulted from these internal inconsistencies.

 

[Josheb]

I have....2 Thes 2 is something you can't address. You just can't kick those verses aside. Those verse point to a pre-trib rapture.
The pre-trib rapture KILLS your entire eschatological view. I believe it's time for you to start over. Look up!

Most all of prophecy is literal. Or, should I say is presented as literal. There are times when "images" are presented such as a flood coming from the dragons mouth. Keep in mind what is mentioned will occur in a literal fashion or in a way in which we see the prophecy fulfilled in modern terms.

That is still not an answer to the question asked. The question is whether or not Dispensationalism teaches scripture should be read literally, not whether or not you think scripture should be read literally, not whether or not there exists symbolism in prophecy that shouldn't be read literally. You may well have a different viewpoint than all those men I quoted but that is not the question. The question is...


Will you now acknowledge Dispensationalism teaches the literal reading of scripture as a core tenet, as evidenced in Post #7?

 

[CrowCross]

@Arial, please do not let him take the discussion far afield or hijack this op. This thread is NOT about the particular doctrines of Dispensational Premillennialism. That op can be found HERE. @CrowCross has chosen to stake his dispute on the protest Dispensational Premillennialism does not teach scripture should be read literally (see Post #4). It has been proven DPism does teach literalism and it has been proven CrowCross does not read all of scripture literally. This is self-evident prima facie hypocrisy.

What I did was produce a verse that surrounded a subject that gives your anti-dispensational theology fits.


Basically you're in "CHECK"....You need to show how THE departure in a physical sense is not a good word to be used in 2 thes 2.

I understand you not wanting to change your eschatological viewpoint....

 

[CrowCross]

That is still not an answer to the question asked. The question is whether or not Dispensationalism teaches scripture should be read literally,

Yes, scripture should be read literally. Jesus really rose from the dead. God really made man from the dirt and not a process involving evolution. There really will be a pre-trib rapture. There literally will be a 1000 year reign of Christ after the 7 year tribulation.
Now, listen up....as I said to you before sometimes the prophetic message isn't presented as literal....stars will not fall from heaven to earth....Do I need to present that view to you again for a 3rd time?

not whether or not you think scripture should be read literally, not whether or not there exists symbolism in prophecy that shouldn't be read literally. You may well have a different viewpoint than all those men I quoted but that is not the question. The question is...


Will you now acknowledge Dispensationalism teaches the literal reading of scripture as a core tenet, as evidenced in Post #7?

A literal reading of the bible should be a core tenet of scripture for anyone. Even Dispensationalist.

Now I ask you....can apostasy in 2 Thes 2 be rendered as "departure"? Secondly can that departure be physical rather than spiritual?

 

[Josheb]

Yes, scripture should be read literally. Jesus really rose from the dead. God really made man from the dirt and not a process involving evolution. There really will be a pre-trib rapture. There literally will be a 1000 year reign of Christ after the 7 year tribulation.
Now, listen up....as I said to you before sometimes the prophetic message isn't presented as literal....stars will not fall from heaven to earth....Do I need to present that view to you again for a 3rd time?

A literal reading of the bible should be a core tenet of scripture for anyone. Even Dispensationalist.

Now I ask you....can apostasy in 2 Thes 2 be rendered as "departure"? Secondly can that departure be physical rather than spiritual?

Still not answering the question.


Does Dispensational Premillennialism teach the literal reading of scripture as a core tenet? Yes or no. One word post, please.

 

[CrowCross]

Still not answering the question.


Does Dispensational Premillennialism teach the literal reading of scripture as a core tenet? Yes or no. One word post, please.

I don't know. I did express my opinion. Can you not address that instead of beating around the bush?

I started a new thread here.

 

[Josheb]

I don't know.

You do know. I just provided all the proof ANYONE could possibly want or need in Post #7. All I am asking of you is to acknowledge the facts in evidence.

This is important because when the response is, "I don't know," after seeing the evidence that proves the op correct. Historic Premillennialism, Amillennialism, Postmillennialism, and Idealism do not have this problem. They may have other problems, but not this one. In addition to the hypocrisy inherent in teaching literalism but not practicing it consistently, and an unwillingness to face and acknowledge facts when presented, you were invited to discuss any of my ops and you came here willingly but you've refused to discuss the fact DPism teaches literalism as a core tenet. That too is hypocrisy.

I did express my opinion.

Your opinion was not requested., especially not at the expense of a simple acknowledgment of the facts in evidence.

Can you not address that instead of beating around the bush?

Yep, but you'll have to stop posting snotty comments like that one.

I started a new thread here.

Be right there but if I ask a question then I expect a timely answer to the question asked. I do not expect to have to ask the same question multiple times to get an answer. Neither do I expect you to be the only one who gets to ask questions while you never provide any parity.