I was not the one who brought the matter of Dispensationalism into this thread
. I simply replied to what YOU introduced, and my criticisms do not attack anyone. Furthermore, my criticisms of Dispensationalism are easily verified - as the other poster has testified - so they are not unfounded or unwarranted AND I directly tied those criticism to the topic of this op, the matter of how sound doctrine is reached. My exploiting the example provided by this op is not personal. Anyone writing an op on how doctrine is formed who demonstrates the problem to be solved creates an object lesson that everyone should recognize. The mention of Dispensationalism
as the means to sound doctrine was NOT mine. That is self-evident from a plain reading of the thread, easily and objectively verifiable by all. Protests don't change the facts in evidence.
The recent digression occurred in collaboration with the shared interests of two posters directly tied to the subject of obtaining sound doctrine. While the dissent is understandable, it is unfounded. No rules were broken in either of my posts on Dispensationalism
because the matter had already been introduced! I was simply keeping the posts about the posts and not the posters.
The best play here is to show how Dispensationalism
necessarily leads to sound doctrine. If it lies with Dispensationalism to do so then I encourage the effort. I'll read the case, affirm that which bears consistency with scripture, inquire about that which is either unclear or I don't understand, and refute all that does not bear consistency with whole scripture.
That is what I do, and this thread bears witness to that method. Make the case.
A polite and respectful, reasonable and rational, cogent and coherent topical case of well-rendered scripture...is not evident in this op...
...but the oportunity to do so still avails itself.
Make the case.
I used the word dispensation in a sentence in reference to a verse that also uses the word. The best play here would be to quit stalking, libeling and harassing me. /quote]Got anything op-relevant to post?
The facts in evidence are there are several verses posted using the word "dispensation" and none of them prompted my post about Dispensationalism. The posts show it was the non-scripture comment, "
The Torah and the Gospel of the kingdom are incorporated into Paul`s gospel. It is the contract that is in force for this dispensation."
That is not scripture; it's an extra-biblical comment. Misrepresenting the progress of the thread does not change the facts in evidence. Now
forum rule 1d is being violated
again. Unnecessarily. I've not been libelous, stalking or trolling. I've rarely mentioned any poster. Go re-read through the thread and verify that fact. Sadly, the opposite cannot be said. If the posts are kept about the posts, there will not be any problems. This is your op. If you don't want the thread to be about Dispensationalism, then all those posts defending Dispensationalism were unnecessary and self-sabotaging. What will happen to the thread if I start replying to all those posts on Dispensationalism? If any chance of dialogue with me is truly gone then there is no warrant for any your posts to me. Silence would show integrity.
This op is about where we get doctrine (and how we measure doctrines formed after the canon of scripture was closed. I have
commended the topic and the effort. My critique is valid and nothing posted so far proves otherwise. Ad hominems, red herrings, straw men, and plying the victim do not change the facts in evidence. There are very real flaws in this op and the correction of my critique can either be received, refuted, or ignored. This is an international internet forum in which anyone can post. The wonderful thing about these discussion boards si that anyone can assert any position desired, and everyone else gets to decide what to bring to bear upon it. Any author of any op can choose whether or not to respond to others, when to respond, how to respond to others, and whether to respond at all. That's how these things work, especially when well moderated.
I will continue to reply to this op as much and as long as I like because this op is flawed in ways that may mislead others and it should not sit without correction. It is not personal and all the rhetoric about libel and stalking and trolling adds to the problem to be solved. The discussion of forming sound doctrine can be rejoined or not. Off-topic comments will be ignored. Violations of the rules will continue to be reported.
So.....
anything op-relevant to post, or not?
To review:
1) The intent of the op is commendable, and the topic is an important one. This is unabashedly affirmed. However, the execution is flawed.
2) This op
demonstrates the problem to be solved by practicing the very problems it seeks to correct. The problem of inferential reading is evidenced in the opening statements of the op because claims about a passage of five verses are made that aren't actually found in those verses. This very same methodology is one of the ways
unsound doctrine occurs: the reading into scripture things it does not actually state. Acts 20:26-30 is NOT a passage "
that establishes the epistles of Paul as the doctrine that the saved must adhere to." That is objectively verifiable by simply reading the text of scripture. It was quoted in the op!
3) Paul does not have a special doctrine or a gospel all his own. Paul doesn't have any doctrine that isn't consistent with and informed by the whole of scripture. He's never contrary to the whole of scripture, and any implication otherwise is bad doctrine. Paul is not the only measure of doctrines that came after his time and that mistake also evidences the problem to be solved.
4) NONE of the scriptures provided ever mention the word "doctrine." If the forming of doctrine is to be based on scripture, then some scripture on doctrine is necessary and that's missing in this op. This mistake is also objectively verifiable and not something up for dispute. The appropriate response is something like, "My bad. Thanks for pointing these things out. I appreciate the sharpening and the inclusion of scripture that helps accomplish that goal."
5) The statement, "
The Torah and the Gospel of the kingdom are incorporated into Paul`s gospel. It is the contract that is in force for this dispensation." is an extrabiblical doctrine. It is also a deeply flawed extra-biblical doctrine. The gospel of the kingdom and Paul's gospel are not two different things that can be "incorporated." Paul's own writings show the Torah
and the rest of the Tanakh are a completely consistent expression of the gospel. Jesus himself plainly stated all the law, the prophets, and the psalms testify about him (Lk. 24:44).
That is doctrine. Straight out of scripture without any added interpretation and no need for Paul. Paul's mentions of "
dispensation" had to do with "
the fullness of time," (Eph. 1:10) not just making the gospel known. The
gospel of grace (Eph. 3:2) is not limited to Paul; it runs from beginning to end through the entirety of God's word.
6) Dispensationalism is an extra-biblical theology with many incorrect doctrines that was literally
invented almost two millennia after the canon of scripture was closed. Any use of the theology as the basis for "
Where we get or doctrine" is likely to be just as flawed. If that's not germane to this op, then my comments can be ignored accordingly.
7) Content containing ad hominem, red herrings, straw men, appeals to anecdotal personal experience, non sequiturs, and other off-topic comments never prove sound doctrine, and they have no place in the discussion of this op (or any other discussion in this forum).
8) Sound doctrine is built upon scripture working from what is plainly and explicitly stated in scripture through the connections scripture makes with itself about itself. Any inferences made come first directly from scripture, not extra-biblical sources.
That was the practice of the New Testament writers.
That is what should be replicated on all post-canonical effort to obtain sound doctrine no matter the century in which we live.
I'm happy to clarify, answer inquiries, or consider alternatives. Questions, affirmations, and/or disagreement should be op-relevant. If there is no disagreement with those eight points then, "Amen!" is appropriate. Either way the directives of scripture like
Ephesians 4:29,
Philippians 2:3,
Colossians 3:8,
Colossians 4:6, and
Proverbs 15 are the standard to be pursued.
Anything op-relevant to post?
I don’t see any problems with presenting other views . I also have several books that present other positions well like the meaning of the millennium by clause , the blessed hope by Ladd and a couple others 
. I simply replied to what YOU introduced, and my criticisms do not attack anyone. Furthermore, my criticisms of Dispensationalism are easily verified - as the other poster has testified - so they are not unfounded or unwarranted AND I directly tied those criticism to the topic of this op, the matter of how sound doctrine is reached. My exploiting the example provided by this op is not personal. Anyone writing an op on how doctrine is formed who demonstrates the problem to be solved creates an object lesson that everyone should recognize. The mention of Dispensationalism as the means to sound doctrine was NOT mine. That is self-evident from a plain reading of the thread, easily and objectively verifiable by all. Protests don't change the facts in evidence.