Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 19, 2022 6:39:00 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 6:39:00 GMT -8

Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8 JDS said:

My response to this line;
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology

Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed.

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states such a thing?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly marks those changes in "operative principle"?

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 19, 2022 8:13:00 GMT -8 makesends likes this

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 8:13:00 GMT -8

Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8 JDS said:

My response to this line;
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology

This does not mean that God has changed the principle of his salvation. Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith.

That is simply not true in Dispensational Premillennialism. I will address this in greater detail in a separate op, but this matter of salvation is one of the core doctrines of Christianity compromised by Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists teach a two-method soteriology! There are two, not one means of salvation. They protest this criticism declaring they teach salvation by grace but the details of DPism prove exactly the oppositie and in every defense I have ever read they ignore what I'm about to post.

Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith, but that's not what you just posted. Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith and it teaches anyone can come to salvation at any time, even Jews. That is the part they get correct. BUT.... the eschatology of Dispensationalism teaches a series of events MUST and will occur prior to Christ coming to live on earth and rule and thereby bring the Jews to salvation. The list of events varies from dispensationalist to dispensationalist but among the events they say must occur is 1) the establishment of a new state of Israel (which they believe was accomplished in 1948), 2) the restoration of the geographic boundaries of Israel, 3) the rebuilding of the stone temple, 4) the reconstitution of the Levitical priesthood, 5) the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, 6) the re-establishment of the Mosaic Law, 7) the tribulation and its faithful survival. There are other events, such as the events involving the lawless man, the AoD, and the antichrist but those are not viewed as events the Jews enact.

Here's why this is a problem soteriologically: if a Jew in Israel must first have a country established, land secured, a temple built, returning priesthood, animal sacrifices, and follow the law in order to be brought to salvation in Christ then that is a works-based salvation!

The New Testament teaches vigorously against this.

No one needs to be a member of any earthly nation to be saved. No one needs to have a temple built to be saved. No one needs a priest or a dead animal to be saved. Not Jews, not Israelis, not Gentiles, not anyone.

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith.

Not according to Dispensationalism.

According to Dispensationalism, there is a salvation that is possible simply by grace through faith.... but there is also a salvation available for the Jews living in the last days dispensation requiring a series of events before salvation comes to them, and that is NOT something Christianity has always taught soteriologically. It is a works based soteriology.

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith.

No, this is completely incorrect.

Salvation has always been BY grace.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, for works.

Salvation by grace.
Salvation through faith.
Created in Christ for good works God has planned in advance for us to perform.

Ephesians 2:4-10

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

By grace, through faith, for works.

THAT is Christian soteriology. THAT is what salvation has ALWAYS been.

Dispensationalists get this wrong quite often. You have just demonstrated one of the many problems in Dispensationalism - once again! It wasn't intended. It just came out unawares in the defense of Dispensationalism. Justification by faith is conflated with salvation by faith, when the two are not identical.

So, we see Dispensationalism teaches bad soteriology in at least three different ways. It is a new and radically different theology. Not only is it new, and not only is it different, but it is irreconcilable with historical Christianity. The Dispensational Premillennialist eschatology ends up creating conflicts with long held and well-established soteriology of salvation by grace alone.

civic
Global Moderator

Posts: 1,176

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 19, 2022 8:17:04 GMT -8

Quote

Post by civic on Oct 19, 2022 8:17:04 GMT -8

Oct 19, 2022 8:13:00 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8 JDS said:

My response to this line;
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology

This does not mean that God has changed the principle of his salvation. Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith.

That is simply not true in Dispensational Premillennialism. I will address this in greater detail in a separate op, but this matter of salvation is one of the core doctrines of Christianity compromised by Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists teach a two-method soteriology! There are two, not one means of salvation. They protest this criticism declaring they teach salvation by grace but the details of DPism prove exactly the oppositie and in every defense I have ever read they ignore what I'm about to post.

Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith, but that's not what you just posted. Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith and it teaches anyone can come to salvation at any time, even Jews. That is the part they get correct. BUT.... the eschatology of Dispensationalism teaches a series of events MUST and will occur prior to Christ coming to live on earth and rule and thereby bring the Jews to salvation. The list of events varies from dispensationalist to dispensationalist but among the events they say must occur is 1) the establishment of a new state of Israel (which they believe was accomplished in 1948), 2) the restoration of the geographic boundaries of Israel, 3) the rebuilding of the stone temple, 4) the reconstitution of the Levitical priesthood, 5) the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, 6) the re-establishment of the Mosaic Law, 7) the tribulation and its faithful survival. There are other events, such as the events involving the lawless man, the AoD, and the antichrist but those are not viewed as events the Jews enact.

Here's why this is a problem soteriologically: if a Jew in Israel must first have a country established, land secured, a temple built, returning priesthood, animal sacrifices, and follow the law in order to be brought to salvation in Christ then that is a works-based salvation!

The New Testament teaches vigorously against this.

No one needs to be a member of any earthly nation to be saved. No one needs to have a temple built to be saved. No one needs a priest or a dead animal to be saved. Not Jews, not Israelis, not Gentiles, not anyone.

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith.

Not according to Dispensationalism.

According to Dispensationalism, there is a salvation that is possible simply by grace through faith.... but there is also a salvation available for the Jews living in the last days dispensation requiring a series of events before salvation comes to them, and that is NOT something Christianity has always taught soteriologically. It is a works based soteriology.

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith.

No, this is completely incorrect.

Salvation has always been BY grace.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, for works.

Salvation by grace.
Salvation through faith.
Created in Christ for good works God has planned in advance for us to perform.

Ephesians 2:4-10

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

By grace, through faith, for works.

THAT is Christian soteriology. THAT is what salvation has ALWAYS been.

Dispensationalists get this wrong quite often. You have just demonstrated one of the many problems in Dispensationalism - once again! It wasn't intended. It just came out unawares in the defense of Dispensationalism. Justification by faith is conflated with salvation by faith, when the two are not identical.

So, we see Dispensationalism teaches bad soteriology in at least three different ways. It is a new and radically different theology. Not only is it new, and not only is it different, but it is irreconcilable with historical Christianity. The Dispensational Premillennialist eschatology ends up creating conflicts with long held and well-established soteriology of salvation by grace alone.

John MacArthur is a pre mil dispensationalist and is a reformed Calvinist . So there are exceptions to the rule

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 19, 2022 9:08:23 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 9:08:23 GMT -8

Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8 JDS said:

Salvation has always been, and will always be, by faith. For example, God justified those during the days after the fall by their willingness to bring a blood sacrifice to God.

Got scripture for that?

The doing of the thing God required was a demonstration and evidence of their faith that God would save them, although the salvation was wrought in the heart. Just because the sinners under that economy of God in those days brought a sacrifice did not mean they were justified. It is all about the attitude of the heart. Certainly, no one who refused to bring the required blood sacrifice was justified. It would be easy to rule them out.

Yes, faithfulness is evidence of faith. However, you've just contradicted yourself. Yes. You've just said, "God justified those during the days after the fall..." and then also stated those who did not bring sacrifices were justified. That's not faith. That's works. Whether doing or not-doing that is a matter of works, or performance.

The true understanding is that the blood of animals NEVER took away sin and salvation was ALWAYS by grace through faith. Faith is belief. Faithfulness is works.

God could have chosen anyone and commanded them to do anything. He could have chosen the Lower Slobovians and asked them to dance in bare feet while wearing purple polka-dotted gloves on their heads covered in mashed dates for justification. It would never have been their Slobovian lineage, their bare feet, the gloves, the dance, the dates, or any of it by which they were saved or justified. They would always have been saved BY grace and justified by faith.

Saved by grace.
Saved through faith.
Justified by faith.

That is Biblical soteriology. LITERALLY.

No dispensations required. No dispensations are ever stated in the scriptures themselves. Just one more of many examples how Dispensationalism is a new and radically different theology.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 19, 2022 11:06:48 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 11:06:48 GMT -8

Oct 19, 2022 8:17:04 GMT -8 civic said:

Oct 19, 2022 8:13:00 GMT -8 @josheb said:

That is simply not true in Dispensational Premillennialism. I will address this in greater detail in a separate op, but this matter of salvation is one of the core doctrines of Christianity compromised by Dispensationalism. Dispensationalists teach a two-method soteriology! There are two, not one means of salvation. They protest this criticism declaring they teach salvation by grace but the details of DPism prove exactly the oppositie and in every defense I have ever read they ignore what I'm about to post.

Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith, but that's not what you just posted. Dispensationalism does teach classic Reformed, Protestant soteriology of saved by grace, through faith and it teaches anyone can come to salvation at any time, even Jews. That is the part they get correct. BUT.... the eschatology of Dispensationalism teaches a series of events MUST and will occur prior to Christ coming to live on earth and rule and thereby bring the Jews to salvation. The list of events varies from dispensationalist to dispensationalist but among the events they say must occur is 1) the establishment of a new state of Israel (which they believe was accomplished in 1948), 2) the restoration of the geographic boundaries of Israel, 3) the rebuilding of the stone temple, 4) the reconstitution of the Levitical priesthood, 5) the reinstitution of animal sacrifices, 6) the re-establishment of the Mosaic Law, 7) the tribulation and its faithful survival. There are other events, such as the events involving the lawless man, the AoD, and the antichrist but those are not viewed as events the Jews enact.

Here's why this is a problem soteriologically: if a Jew in Israel must first have a country established, land secured, a temple built, returning priesthood, animal sacrifices, and follow the law in order to be brought to salvation in Christ then that is a works-based salvation!

The New Testament teaches vigorously against this.

No one needs to be a member of any earthly nation to be saved. No one needs to have a temple built to be saved. No one needs a priest or a dead animal to be saved. Not Jews, not Israelis, not Gentiles, not anyone.
Not according to Dispensationalism.

According to Dispensationalism, there is a salvation that is possible simply by grace through faith.... but there is also a salvation available for the Jews living in the last days dispensation requiring a series of events before salvation comes to them, and that is NOT something Christianity has always taught soteriologically. It is a works based soteriology.
No, this is completely incorrect.

Salvation has always been BY grace.

Salvation is by grace, through faith, for works.

Salvation by grace.
Salvation through faith.
Created in Christ for good works God has planned in advance for us to perform.

Ephesians 2:4-10

But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

By grace, through faith, for works.

THAT is Christian soteriology. THAT is what salvation has ALWAYS been.

Dispensationalists get this wrong quite often. You have just demonstrated one of the many problems in Dispensationalism - once again! It wasn't intended. It just came out unawares in the defense of Dispensationalism. Justification by faith is conflated with salvation by faith, when the two are not identical.

So, we see Dispensationalism teaches bad soteriology in at least three different ways. It is a new and radically different theology. Not only is it new, and not only is it different, but it is irreconcilable with historical Christianity. The Dispensational Premillennialist eschatology ends up creating conflicts with long held and well-established soteriology of salvation by grace alone.

John MacArthur is a pre mil dispensationalist and is a reformed Calvinist. So there are exceptions to the rule

Sound reasoning and sound arguments are never formed by exceptions to the rule. That appeal is the antithesis of reason and as such is rejected because of its inherently fallacious nature.

The rare occasion where someone holding Calvinist soteriology also holding Dispensationalist eschatology does not prove my posts incorrect. It proves only that some diversity exists and there are a few outliers that happen to be hybrids. On any and all occasions where what I just posted is embraced by a Dispensationalist it simply means the Dispensationalist is not wholly Dispensationalist. It does not mean they are Reformed Calvinist. As you say, he is the exception to the rule, NOT the rule.

So how about staying on topic and sticking to the rule of Dispensationalism as Dispensationalists teach Dispensationalism, not those outside the rule?

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 19, 2022 11:40:19 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 11:40:19 GMT -8

Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8 JDS said:

Now watch what God says about Abel, and by extension, all who lived under this same economy.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
2 For by it the elders obtained a good report.
3 Through faith we understand that the [ages] were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
4 By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.

STOP: On what principle and by what action did God testify that Abel was righteous, according to the text? The offering of the blood sacrifices was that by which he obtain witness that he was righteous?

None!

Not a single word in Hebrews 11:1-4 states Abel was righteous by the offering of blood sacrifices. By faith Abel was deemed or "witnessed" righteous. Do not conflate Abel's condition with God's witness. Try not reading that verse as,

"By the sacrifices of animals faithful Abel was deemed righteous,"

and try reading it as,

"By faith Abel was deemed righteous, because his faith was observed by his faithfulness, his offering a more excellent sacrifice,"

And do it because that second reading in consistent with the entire message of whole scripture.

Genesis 15:6
Then [Abram] believed in the LORD; and [God] credited it to him as righteousness.

Habakkuk 2:4
Behold, as for the proud one, bis soul is not right within him; but the righteous will live by his faith.

Romans 1:16-17
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, first to the Jew, then to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith for faith, as it is written, “The righteous shall live by faith.”

No dispensation. The righteousness revealed by the gospel has always existed. It is "from faith to faith," first for the Jews and then to the Gentile, and NOT different from one dispensation to another.

Romans 3:21-26

But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Galatians 3:10-11

For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.”

Hebrews 11:39-40

And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they would not be made perfect.

No dispensations. All sinned. None actually righteous. Deemed righteous only BY grace THROUGH faith in Christ. No distinction. Every single person mentioned in Hebrews 11 should have their record understood through what Paul wrote. From the begging all the way through the end it is those who live by faith that are deemed righteous, NOT those who kill animals, leave their home, or obey a set of laws. Those are all works. Faithfulness is not faith. We are saved through faith, not by faithfulness.

And before any dissent is attempted. understand the larger meaning of the dissent because what you're supposed to be proving is that Dispensationalism is not new and different. You took this role upon yourself. Each and every post in which new and different views in defense of Dispensationalism are asserted it proves the op correct. Notice another thing, too, because the literal reading of scripture was asserted, but an abject failure to do so was just demonstrated for all to read. Hebrews 11:4 does not literally state Abel was witnessed as righteous because of his sacrifice and nowhere is there any mention of any dispensation, or that God was changing any "operative principle of his divine dealing with men" in those verses. That is not a literal reading of the text.

Last Edit: Oct 19, 2022 11:58:22 GMT -8 by Deleted

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 19, 2022 11:55:10 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2022 11:55:10 GMT -8

Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8 JDS said:

Do you not see that righteousness is imputed by the faith

Yes, I do.

However, that is not a point in dispute. Because it is not a point in dispute being treated as if that's not the case, the effort is a red herring. The salient point is that Dispensationalists simultaneously teach righteousness is imputed by faith AND " God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed," when the whole truth of whole scripture is there is only one means of righteousness and justification from the beginning of scripture all the way through to its end: faith in Christ.

Not multiple dispensations.

Anti dispensationalists not only greatly err, but they stand in opposition to the teaching of rightly dividing the wonderful and faithful scriptures of God. I call on all men who are anti dispensational to reason and apply biblical logic to your arguments.

Not a word of which has been proven. In point of fact, the evidence in these posts proves the op correct. The newness of Dispensationalism was denied so a pile of evidence from both inside and outside of Dispensationalism was provided to prove the dissent incorrect. The claim of literal reading of scripture was asserted (because that's what Dispensationalism teaches), but the facts in evidence show scripture isn't read literally and the idea of God changing His "operative principle" is nowhere to be found in a literal reading of scripture. The failure in "rightly dividing" is occurring on the Dispensationalist side of this conversation and that proves the op correct again. Then there's the red herring of appealing to others to reason through scripture. It's another red herring.

You're supposed to be proving Dispensational Premillennialism is not a new and different theology, not trying to change the subject.

Anti dispensationalists not only greatly err, but they stand in opposition to the teaching of rightly dividing the wonderful and faithful scriptures of God. I call on all men who are anti dispensational to reason and apply biblical logic to your arguments.

Start your own op.

This op is about the problem with Dispensationalism being new and different theology. This op is NOT about anti-dispensationalists. Take a break or walk away if you can't stay on topic.

JDS
New Member

Posts: 48

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 8:07:37 GMT -8

Quote

Post by JDS on Oct 20, 2022 8:07:37 GMT -8

Oct 19, 2022 6:39:00 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 17, 2022 7:20:06 GMT -8 JDS said:

My response to this line;
Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology

Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed.

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states such a thing?
Have you got scriptures that explicitly marks those changes in "operative principle"?

I do. God is a dispensationalist. You need to come to grips with this. Dispensationalism is not a novel view and it is not just a current teaching of God. It was introduced by God in the very beginning of human history. Here is a verse that says he changed his operative principle, which was dealing with mankind who did not have any sin. However, because he had no sin did not prove his allegiance to God and when tested, he proved that under such a test he exercised his own will over the will of God. What was the will of God. Simple. Do not eat the fruit from the one tree in the garden. The circumstances with his wife, whom he loved, persuaded him to knowingly and with purpose and forethought, choose to disobey God, which is the first and introductory sin into the human experience. This sin caused immediate death to Adam. Following is my verse;
Genesis 3:8

And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

Death in the scriptures is defined by separation. Spiritual death is defined by the absence of the presence of God. Adam and God had enjoyed sweet fellowship in the garden before he sinned. Now, not so. No man in the condition of the separated Adam will ever be able to stand in the presence of God. What Adam lost there that day must be renewed. Adam lost the image of God that day and by that one act. That image, which is trinitarian and glorious, must be renewed before anyone can see God. Four thousand years of OT history was the preparation for the one man, the second man, the Last Adam, who has the power to do it. His name is Jesus Christ, and get this, he is said to be in the "express" image of God in Hebrews 1:2. Follow me on this.

He 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high:

What made the lowly Jesus different from other Jews of his day? It was not his looks because his looks were common to all other Jews. Check this out.

Isa 53:1 Who hath believed our report? and to whom is the arm of the Lord revealed?
2 For he shall grow up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground: he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him.
3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

He was a common looking man but he was different. He is the only man before or since that was born physically of God. He is the ONLY begotten Son of God. But, where was the difference. It was in his trinitarian nature. He had both the human and the divine nature.
What gave him the divine nature if he had a physical body and a soul like us? here is your answer from the words of John the Baptist.

Jn 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.
32 And what he hath seen and heard, that he testifieth; and no man receiveth his testimony.
33 He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true.
34 For he whom God hath sent speaketh the words of God: for God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.
35 The Father loveth the Son, and hath given all things into his hand.
36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jesus Christ possessed the Spirit in his body from conception. The Spirit of God is the Life of God and Jesus is God and man at the same time, but he lived and was righteous by the power of the Spirit who was in him.

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

This is what is not in us, LIFE. The presence of God. This is the reason Jesus came into the world. So we might have life, his life. The Spirit of God, but first those sins must be washed off of each of us and we must be forgiven and clean.
The gift of God is eternal life. The Spirit is life Rom (8:10). Jesus Christ our Lord poured out his life on the cross and died for us, both spiritually and physically and suffered the awfulness of separation from God, the very meaning of death, and took our punishment for our sins in his own body on the cross. This is a tremendous truth. But God raised him from the dead, by the power of the Spirit.

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he (God the Father) that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

The different principles of divine dealing with men while he is revealing his person and character and his ways to men is all preparatory to the work of Jesus Christ in redemption. What dispensationlism does not mean is that one principle of divine dealing with men excludes all other principles while the one is in force. There are many "pivot points" in Gods revelation and we do well to take heed of those changes when God makes them.

Josheb, I do not think you can win this debate because you do not believe the words of the scriptures. You believe the books you read.

Let me add here that God is renewing the trinitarian image in us through Jesus Christ. Look at this:

17 Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.
18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

Since the Spirit of God flows through Jesus Christ and he was the ONLY begotten Son of the Father, he died both spiritually and physically and when he was resurrected, this is said about him, and you need to take heed lest your theology misrepresents our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ.

Romans 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures)
3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;
4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
5 By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name:

Son of God from the resurrection! Look.
Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:
15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.
18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the FIRSTBORN from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

He is the beginning of the church at his resurrection, the head, and all those in the church will have the image of God, the trinity, soul, body, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in it. They will get the Spirit and be immersed by the Spirit into the body by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is his death, burial, and resurrection. Now, watch this;

Rom 8:28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.

He is not the only begotten son at this birth, but the FIRST begotten son from the dead.

Now, Jesus Christ has saved us believers and thank you Lord. But he has not given us our glorious bodies yet and will not until his house is full and then we will be glorified all at the same instant. We will have a body just like his glorious body. We have the earnest (down payment, so to speak) on our complete salvation. The glorification of our body and the body of Christ is what we are waiting on with great anticipation now.

I will return later and edit this some more with even greater news from above.

Now one must look at what Jesus Christ has accomplished in his death and resurrection. I want you to look at this and consider it logically and reasonably. I will make this case.

There were only two individual men in the 4000 years of the OT who were called the "son" of God. The first man was Adam. See here:

Luke 3:37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Luke 1:35
And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

There are three ways that a man became the son of God in scripture.
1) By creation - Adam Only - OT - life to death
2) By physical Birth - Jesus Only - OT - life to death
3) By spiritual birth (Being born again) Jesus the firstborn - NT - death to life

What did all three have in common? They had the Spirit of God indwelling their bodies.

Here is some very good news about sonship.

John 1:4 In him was life;

11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

This is simply speaking of the new birth which is accomplished by receiving the Spirit of Christ in his name.

Rom 8:14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Here is the logic I want you to see dispensationally.

No one in the 4000 years before Jesus came to die for us and wash away our sins and give us his Spirit could be a son of God. He could not be a tripartite person, soul, body, and the indwelling Spirit of Christ. Why, if for no other logical reason? because Jesus is THE FIRSTBORN SON OF GOD FROM THE DEAD. He is not preeminent according to your theology. The OT believers were justified by faith in what God said to them, but they were not born again. The second birth is a NT doctrine and is accomplished by Jesus Christ in his death, burial, and resurrection.

If you guys cannot even see this tremendous truth there is little chance for you to see the truth anywhere in scripture.

Last Edit: Oct 20, 2022 10:50:15 GMT -8 by JDS

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 10:12:20 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2022 10:12:20 GMT -8

Oct 20, 2022 8:07:37 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 19, 2022 6:39:00 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states such a thing?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly marks those changes in "operative principle"?

I do. God is a dispensationalist. You need to come to grips with this...

Whether God is a dispensationalist or not is not the question at hand, and no, I do not need to "come to grips" with the nonsense being posted.

God being dispensationalist does not make Dispensational Premillennialism correct. God being a covenant maker does not make Covenant Theology correct. What you just argued is called a false-cause fallacy. What you have also done is completely ignore the questions asked and failed to answer them. I asked for explicit statements from scripture. You were asked for explicit statements in scripture proving the claim, "Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed," and you've completely failed. What you've done is make an inferential case, not an explicit case. Or to put it more accurately, what you've done is make a case of Dispensationalism built on a false cause fallacy that then treats scripture inferentially when what was requested was explicit statements.

You need to come to grips with this.

So let's try it again.

Can you provide explicit statements from scripture proving, "Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed"?

Explicit statements, JDS.

Not inference, JDS.

I ask the questions I as for a reason. We should ALL be starting with what is plainly stated in scripture. It's not a this-theology versus that-theology thing. This is all the more important anytime to posters who claim to read scripture literally are trading posts. You've repeatedly claimed to read scripture literally but you just post at least SEVEN passages from the Bible that were not read literally!!!!! Aside from the fact we should all start first and foremost with what is plainly, explicitly stated in scripture AND anyone claiming to be a literalist must read scripture literally with at least some modicum of consistency (you've got a 100% fail-rate in this thread), you chose to participate in this op to defend Dispensationalism and the most basic questions are not being answer!

Where does scripture explicitly state "God has changed his operating principles"?

Do not assume changes His operating principles. Do not infer it. Show me the scripture explicitly stating, "God has changed his operating principles"?

That is what you claimed. Where does scripture explicitly state such a thing?

Where does scripture explicitly mark those "changes in operating principles"?

Do not assume those changes are marked. Do not infer those changes are marked. Show me the scripture where God explicitly marks those changes and calls them "dispensations."

There is also another reason why you should just answer the questions asked and do it directly. One of my other ops criticizing Dispensationalism will be about how Dispensationalists handle critiques of Dispensationalism and how the commonly occurring responses reveal more problems within Dispensationalism besides its newness and radically different nature. I'm going to use this thread as evidence in another op. It would be BEST if my questions were answered directly, in the very next post. It would be BEST if my questions were answered in the very next post with a plain and simple, "There are no explicit statements, Josh," AND you do so without the lame appeal to "There's no explicit mention of the Trinity in scripture, either," because this op is not about the Trinity.

This op is about the newness and radically different nature of Dispensational Premillennialism.

The FACT is there are no specific, explicit, mentions of dispensations in the Bible. The words, "dispensation," or "economy," or "stewardship," or "administration," do occur in the Bible.

NO ONE HAS EVER DISPUTED THAT!!!

The Greek word, "oikinomia," and no one denies its existence in scripture. The problem is that Dispensationalism, is a theology that developed by an inferential use of "administration" where none is actually explicitly stated in scripture. The subscriber to Covenant Theology can at least point to scripture that explicitly states, "This is a covenant...." The Covenantalist cannot provide an explicit scripture stating, "covenant of grace," so I want you to understand I'm not picking on you. I am asking you to man up and show up for this conversation.

Show me the explicit scriptures stating God changes His operating principles and then show me the scriptures explicitly marking those changes as dispensations.

Or be honest, forthcoming, and collaborative, and say, "There are no such explicit statements in scripture stating either thing."

Then, maybe, we discuss how, where, and when the inferential treatment of these ideas developed..... because they are NOT explicitly stated in scripture.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 10:33:36 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2022 10:33:36 GMT -8

Oct 20, 2022 8:07:37 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 19, 2022 6:39:00 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states such a thing?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly marks those changes in "operative principle"?

Josheb, I do not think you can win this debate because you do not believe the words of the scriptures. You believe the books you read.

I read my Bible plenty. I read my Bible every day. I've read the Bible from beginning to end more than a dozen time AND I've done so as written AND in chronological order. The attempt at ad hominem is lame. You can either answer the questions asked, or not.

Where is the scripture explicitly stating God changes His operating principles and where are the scriptures explicitly marking those changes as dispensations?

That is all that was asked of you. I have read my Bible enough to know the word "oikonomia" occurs in the Bible and I can tell you where every single explicit mention of "oikonomia," "administration," "stewardship," "economy," "management," and "dispensation," occur in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. I have read my Bible enough to know God does NOT explicitly mark his changes as "dispensations." I am asking you to either acknowledge that fact or prove me wrong, and you are not doing your part.

Responses like, "you can't win this debate," or wretched tou-violating personal attacks like, "you do not believe the words of scripture," have no place in this thread, and they do not answer the questions asked. You can either provide explicit scripture and prove you believe the words actually stated in scripture or you cannot. If you do it again I will ignore all the rest of your posts in this thread.

If such things exist, then you should be able to provide at least one verse in the Bible that explicitly states, "God changes his operating principles," AND you should be able to provide at least one verse for each of the seven dispensations in Dispensationalism where the scriptures themselves explicitly mark those changes as dispensations. And if you cannot do that, JDS, then just say so.

Where is the scripture explicitly stating God changes His operating principles?

Where are the scriptures explicitly marking those changes as dispensations?

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 10:50:42 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2022 10:50:42 GMT -8

Oct 20, 2022 8:07:37 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 19, 2022 6:39:00 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states such a thing?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly marks those changes in "operative principle"?

I do. God is a dispensationalist. You need to come to grips with this. Dispensationalism is not a novel view and it is not just a current teaching of God. It was introduced by God in the very beginning of human history. Here is a verse that says he changed his operative principle, which was dealing with mankind who did not have any sin. However, because he had no sin did not prove his allegiance to God and when tested, he proved that under such a test he exercised his own will over the will of God. What was the will of God. Simple. Do not eat the fruit from the one tree in the garden. The circumstances with his wife, whom he loved, persuaded him to knowingly and with purpose and forethought, choose to disobey God, which is the first and introductory sin into the human experience. This sin caused immediate death to Adam. Following is my verse;

Genesis 3:8

And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden.

Death in the scriptures is defined by separation. Spiritual death is defined by the absence of the presence of God. Adam and God had enjoyed sweet fellowship in the garden before he sinned. Now, not so. No man in the condition of the separated Adam will ever be able to stand in the presence of God. What Adam lost there that day must be renewed. Adam lost the image of God that day and by that one act. That image, which is trinitarian and glorious, must be renewed before anyone can see God. Four thousand years of OT history was the preparation for the one man, the second man, the Last Adam, who has the power to do it. His name is Jesus Christ, and get this, he is said to be in the "express" image of God in Hebrews 1:2. Follow me on this.

No, I am not going to follow you in any of that because it has nothing to do with the questions asked you.

What made the lowly Jesus different from other Jews of his day? It was not his looks because his looks were common to all other Jews. Check this out.

Nope. Not checking it out because it has absolutely nothing to do with what was asked. It does not answer the questions asked.

He was a common looking man but he was different. He is the only man before or since that was born physically of God. He is the ONLY begotten Son of God. But, where was the difference. It was in his trinitarian nature. He had both the human and the divine nature.
What gave him the divine nature if he had a physical body and a soul like us? here is your answer from the words of John the Baptist.

Immaterial. Does not answer the questions asked.

Jesus Christ possessed the Spirit in his body from conception. The Spirit of God is the Life of God and Jesus is God and man at the same time, but he lived and was righteous by the power of the Spirit who was in him.

Does not answer the questions

This is what is not in us, LIFE. The presence of God. This is the reason Jesus came into the world. So we might have life, his life. The Spirit of God, but first those sins must be washed off of each of us and we must be forgiven and clean.

The gift of God is eternal life. The Spirit is life Rom (8:10). Jesus Christ our Lord poured out his life on the cross and died for us, both spiritually and physically and suffered the awfulness of separation from God, the very meaning of death, and took our punishment for our sins in his own body on the cross. This is a tremendous truth. But God raised him from the dead, by the power of the Spirit.

Irrelevant. It does not answer the questions asked.

The different principles of divine dealing with men while he is revealing his person and character and his ways to men is all preparatory to the work of Jesus Christ in redemption. What dispensationlism does not mean is that one principle of divine dealing with men excludes all other principles while the one is in force. There are many "pivot points" in Gods revelation and we do well to take heed of those changes when God makes them.

Perhaps but you're still not answering the questions asked. What you are doing is show how little you actually read scripture literally

. You're also dodging the questions and trying to change the subject.

No one has said Dispensationalism doesn't come from scripture. It doesn't come from a proper use of scripture but that is no the subjet fo this op. You're arguing for something not relevant to this op. THIS op is about the newness and difference of Dispensationalism, not how Dispensationalists develop Dispesationalism from scripture. You are wasting everyone's time.

Josheb, I do not think you can win this debate because you do not believe the words of the scriptures. You believe the books you read.

As I mentioned earlier, the ad hominem does not answer the question asked and if you post another personal attack then I will report your posts and then ignore them.

Stick to the topic of this op and please keep the posts about the posts, not the posters.

Let me add here that God is renewing the trinitarian image in us through Jesus Christ. Look at this:

Nope. Not loking at it because it does not answer the questions asked and you'll get no collaboration from me with your attempts to hijack this op or change its topic in any way.

Since the Spirit of God flows through Jesus Christ and he was the ONLY begotten Son of the Father, he died both spiritually and physically and when he was resurrected, this is said about him, and you need to take heed lest your theology misrepresents our wonderful Lord Jesus Christ.

Irrelevant. It does not answer the questions asked.

Son of God from the resurrection! Look.

Yay! Praise God!

But not an answer to the questions asked.

He is the beginning of the church at his resurrection, the head, and all those in the church will have the image of God, the trinity, soul, body, and the Holy Spirit dwelling in it. They will get the Spirit and be immersed by the Spirit into the body by believing the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is his death, burial, and resurrection. Now, watch this;

Nope, not watching any of it because none of it answers the questions asked.

He is not the only begotten son at this birth, but the FIRST begotten son from the dead.

Still not answers to the questions asked.
Now, Jesus Christ has saved us believers and thank you Lord. But he has not given us our glorious bodies yet and will not until his house is full and then we will be glorified all at the same instant. We will have a body just like his glorious body. We have the earnest (down payment, so to speak) on our complete salvation. The glorification of our body and the body of Christ is what we are waiting on with great anticipation now.

I will return later and edit this some more with even greater news from above.

PLEASE DO NOT BOTHER TO RETURN IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ASKED.

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states God changes His operative principles?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly mark those changes in operative principle as "dispensations"?

Last Edit: Oct 20, 2022 14:39:02 GMT -8 by Deleted

JDS
New Member

Posts: 48

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 11:45:16 GMT -8

Quote

Post by JDS on Oct 20, 2022 11:45:16 GMT -8

Oct 20, 2022 10:12:20 GMT -8 @josheb said:

Oct 20, 2022 8:07:37 GMT -8 JDS said:

I do. God is a dispensationalist. You need to come to grips with this...

Whether God is a dispensationalist or not is not the question at hand, and no, I do not need to "come to grips" with the nonsense being posted.

God being dispensationalist does not make Dispensational Premillennialism correct. God being a covenant maker does not make Covenant Theology correct. What you just argued is called a false-cause fallacy. What you have also done is completely ignore the questions asked and failed to answer them. I asked for explicit statements from scripture. You were asked for explicit statements in scripture proving the claim, "Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed," and you've completely failed. What you've done is make an inferential case, not an explicit case. Or to put it more accurately, what you've done is make a case of Dispensationalism built on a false cause fallacy that then treats scripture inferentially when what was requested was explicit statements.

You need to come to grips with this.

So let's try it again.

Can you provide explicit statements from scripture proving, "Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed"?

Explicit statements, JDS.

Not inference, JDS.

I ask the questions I as for a reason. We should ALL be starting with what is plainly stated in scripture. It's not a this-theology versus that-theology thing. This is all the more important anytime to posters who claim to read scripture literally are trading posts. You've repeatedly claimed to read scripture literally but you just post at least SEVEN passages from the Bible that were not read literally!!!!! Aside from the fact we should all start first and foremost with what is plainly, explicitly stated in scripture AND anyone claiming to be a literalist must read scripture literally with at least some modicum of consistency (you've got a 100% fail-rate in this thread), you chose to participate in this op to defend Dispensationalism and the most basic questions are not being answer!

Where does scripture explicitly state "God has changed his operating principles"?

Do not assume changes His operating principles. Do not infer it. Show me the scripture explicitly stating, "God has changed his operating principles"?

That is what you claimed. Where does scripture explicitly state such a thing?

Where does scripture explicitly mark those "changes in operating principles"?

Do not assume those changes are marked. Do not infer those changes are marked. Show me the scripture where God explicitly marks those changes and calls them "dispensations."

There is also another reason why you should just answer the questions asked and do it directly. One of my other ops criticizing Dispensationalism will be about how Dispensationalists handle critiques of Dispensationalism and how the commonly occurring responses reveal more problems within Dispensationalism besides its newness and radically different nature. I'm going to use this thread as evidence in another op. It would be BEST if my questions were answered directly, in the very next post. It would be BEST if my questions were answered in the very next post with a plain and simple, "There are no explicit statements, Josh," AND you do so without the lame appeal to "There's no explicit mention of the Trinity in scripture, either," because this op is not about the Trinity.

This op is about the newness and radically different nature of Dispensational Premillennialism.

The FACT is there are no specific, explicit, mentions of dispensations in the Bible. The words, "dispensation," or "economy," or "stewardship," or "administration," do occur in the Bible.

NO ONE HAS EVER DISPUTED THAT!!!

The Greek word, "oikinomia," and no one denies its existence in scripture. The problem is that Dispensationalism, is a theology that developed by an inferential use of "administration" where none is actually explicitly stated in scripture. The subscriber to Covenant Theology can at least point to scripture that explicitly states, "This is a covenant...." The Covenantalist cannot provide an explicit scripture stating, "covenant of grace," so I want you to understand I'm not picking on you. I am asking you to man up and show up for this conversation.

Show me the explicit scriptures stating God changes His operating principles and then show me the scriptures explicitly marking those changes as dispensations.

Or be honest, forthcoming, and collaborative, and say, "There are no such explicit statements in scripture stating either thing."

Then, maybe, we discuss how, where, and when the inferential treatment of these ideas developed..... because they are NOT explicitly stated in scripture.

It is more than obvious for the beginning student of scripture that God did not deal with Adam as an innocent sinless son after he sinned in the garden. He kicked him out of the garden, for crying out loud. The garden is where God lived. Adam was not bringing animal sacrifices while he was in the garden. The next controversy was not over what trees to eat from, but if there is now a way to approach God and not hide from him and what is an acceptable sacrifice. We learn this from the controversy between Cain and Abel. Once again we learn that someone gets separated from the presence of God because they exerted their own will over the expressed will of God. See for yourself.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Whether God is a dispensationalist or not is not the question at hand, and no, I do not need to "come to grips" with the nonsense being posted.

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology

I addressed this fallacy about dispensationalism. Dispensationalism just states that God deals with men under different principles at different times and those changes are dramatic enough to spot them. That is the evidence for dispensationalism from the very beginning. In this dispensation there was no death penalty from God concerning capital crimes.Cain killed his brother and God let him go free. In Exodus 4, God waited in the way for Moses to kill him because he had not circumcised his son. That is different.

It is not my fault if you cannot see the progression of God's revelation of himself and his ways through history as he dealt with men.

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 14:37:33 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2022 14:37:33 GMT -8

Oct 20, 2022 11:45:16 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 20, 2022 10:12:20 GMT -8 @josheb said:

It is more than obvious for the beginning student of scripture that God did not deal with Adam as an innocent sinless son after he sinned in the garden. He kicked him out of the garden, for crying out loud. The garden is where God lived. Adam was not bringing animal sacrifices while he was in the garden. The next controversy was not over what trees to eat from, but if there is now a way to approach God and not hide from him and what is an acceptable sacrifice. We learn this from the controversy between Cain and Abel. Once again we learn that someone gets separated from the presence of God because they exerted their own will over the expressed will of God. See for yourself.

16 And Cain went out from the presence of the Lord, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.

Whether God is a dispensationalist or not is not the question at hand, and no, I do not need to "come to grips" with the nonsense being posted.

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology

I addressed this fallacy about dispensationalism. Dispensationalism just states that God deals with men under different principles at different times and those changes are dramatic enough to spot them.

That is simply not true.

If all that Dispensationalism stated was God deals with men differently under different principles and those differences are "dramatic" enough to "spot" that might be acceptable, but that is not "just" what Dispensationalism states. That is not a full disclosure of what Dispensationalism states.

What Dispensationalism states is...

God deals with humans differently, different ways at different times,
These different ways of dealing are called dispensations,
There are seven different dispensations,
The seven dispensations are those of Innocence, Conscience, Government, Promise, Law, Grace, Kingdom*
The dispensations are discontinuous, there may be some overlap, but they are distinct from and unrelated to one another,
Israel and the Church are unrelated,
God has two plans in creation, one for Israel and another for the Church,
There is only one covenant, and that covenant is the one God made with Israel,
Ecclesiology and eschatology are preeminent doctrines,
The grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the chief hermeneutical method,
Scripture must be read literally,
There will be a rapture in which all Christians will be removed from earth so as to escape the great tribulation,
Another temple of stone will be built, animal sacrifices will begin anew, and Israel will get back all its land,
Jesus will live on earth for a little 1000 years,
The Jews will come to Christ as a consequence of Jesus' return,
Jesus' millennial reign will not endure. Nor will it be effective. In the end humanity will again rebel.

That's not all that Dispensationalism states, but that list will do to prove the point. Dispensationalism states dispensations exist. Dispensationalism states the dispensations exist AND Dispensationalism labels the dispensations in spite of the fact scripture itself does not. Dispensationalism labels the dispensations even though scripture nevers does so while claiming to read scripture literally. And they do this oblivious to the huge inconsistencies inherent therein. Nowhere does scripture state there is an age or dispensation of innocence, or that God dealt differently with humanity during that dispensation or that He changed His "operative principles." NONE of that is stated in scripture. ALL of that is due solely to a Dispensationally inferential reading of scripture. The above list may be unknown to you. but those are things Dispensationalism states, and I can provide proof to that effect.

But most importantly, the questions I asked have still not been answered. If scripture literally states such things and you and I read scripture literally then these should be easily answered questions and there is no cause for further delay in answering the questions asked.

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states God changes His operative principles?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly mark those changes in operative principle as "dispensations"?

*The labels and number may vary, but those are the standard listing.

Last Edit: Oct 20, 2022 14:38:16 GMT -8 by Deleted

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 14:46:06 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2022 14:46:06 GMT -8

Oct 20, 2022 11:45:16 GMT -8 JDS said:

Oct 20, 2022 10:12:20 GMT -8 @josheb said:

I addressed this fallacy about dispensationalism. Dispensationalism just states that God deals with men under different principles at different times and those changes are dramatic enough to spot them. That is the evidence for dispensationalism from the very beginning. In this dispensation there was no death penalty from God concerning capital crimes. Cain killed his brother and God let him go free. In Exodus 4, God waited in the way for Moses to kill him because he had not circumcised his son. That is different.

That is not an answer to the questions asked.

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states God changes His operative principles?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly mark those changes in operative principle as "dispensations"?

It is not my fault if you cannot see the progression of God's revelation of himself and his ways through history as he dealt with men.

LOL!!!

I never said I could not see a progression of God's revelation of Himself and His ways through history. Nice ad hominemic red herring move of the goal posts. It is your fault you're not answering the questions asked. No one is stopping you from doing so but you. That is your fault. Now, can you and will you please, politely, respectfully, succinctly, concisely, directly answer the questions asked, or not?

Have you got a scripture that explicitly states God changes His operative principles?

Have you got scriptures that explicitly mark those changes in operative principle as "dispensations"?

Last Edit: Oct 20, 2022 14:46:25 GMT -8 by Deleted

Deleted
Deleted Member

Posts: 0

Dispensationalism is a New and Radically Different Theology Oct 20, 2022 14:52:34 GMT -8

Quote

Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2022 14:52:34 GMT -8

Since my brother in Christ proves incapable of answering the questions asked I am going to move on with other matters supporting this op's position Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) is a new and radically different theology. But first let me summarize some of what transpired between JDS and I because it provides evidence pertaining to how Dispensationalists handle their own theology and defend it when one single, simple point about Dispensationalism is made: it's newness and radical difference.

Before I do so, let me express sincere appreciation for JDS' willingness to dissent from the op and defend that dissent. Objectively speaking, the dissent fails hugely, but I genuinely appreciate the effort if for no other reason than no one contributed.

First, in the original response to this op, the third post in this thread, the newness and difference of DPism was disputed. As a consequence of that dissent I provided quotes from several different sources, most of them leading Dispensationalist writing about Dispensationalism's origins, to prove the position of the op correct and the dissent incorrect.

That evidence has been ignored.

Instead, the response was, "You have quoted everybody but God. Some of these fellows don't know any more about it than you."

The fact the evidence was posted, and ignored, was also noted and that too has been ignored. What should have happened was an agreement with the facts of history: as a theology Dispensationalism is an invention of the 19th century developed by one man, John Darby. While there are some variations within Dispensationalism and some of its theological roots lie in people living just before Darby (like Watts), the theology and its methods were in fact developed and formalized by John Darby.

Second, the posts an attempt was made to conflate the existence of the word "dispensation," or "oikonomia" with the much larger theology of Dispensationalism. This is fallacious argument called a construction area, or a false cause error. The argument being, "Because the Bible mentions "dispensation" the development of an entire theology built on that mention if valid. The Bible mentions the words, "hate," "divorce," and "wrath," too but that does not mean an entire theology or a separate hermeneutic based on the word is valid. As I noted in comparison, the word "covenant" can be found throughout the Bible (unlike "dispensation") but that doesn't mean a theology of such should be developed, or that Covenant Theology is valid for doing so. Conflating the word "dispensation" with the theology of Dispensationalism is irrational. The entire argument is fallacious.

Next came the attempt to move the topic away from Dispensationalism and make the conversation about Calvinists and their biases even though nothing about any theology other than Dispensationalism, its newness and difference, had been posted. I had to wade through non sequiturs like appeals to helping me, accusations I don't read my Bible, pleas to read it the way he does, and a pile of simply irrelevant content about the devil being an adversary, religious teachings, the Trinity, etc. All of that content was red herring.

Perhaps most substantively to this op is the statement asserted in direct defense against this op, "Dispensationalists teaches that God has changed his operative principle of his divine dealing with men as history has progressed." This is NOT a point in dispute! I completely agree with my brother here. Dispensationalism does teach God changed His "operative principles." The problem arose when I asked for scripture explicitly stating such things. JDS claims to be someone who reads the Bible literally. Good. Me too! If the Bible literally states something explicitly then two guys relying on a literal reading of scripture and what it explicitly states ought to be able to find common ground. Sadly, that didn't happen. It didn't happen because there is no report in the entire Bible explicitly stating God changes His principles and there are no explicitly stated markers marking the changes as dispensations.

We should have been able to agree on that.

Had that agreement happened I would then have asked about the inferential nature of Dispensationalism, where the inferential reading of scripture began, and why it is he as a literalist became persuaded by something that isn't very literal or explicit.

Then, after so much subterfuge. more non sequiturs were posted. This op is fairly monolithic, plain and simple. I assert Dispensational Premillennialism is a new and radically different theology. It is much different from its predecessors of Historic Premillennialism and Covenant Theology and while Darby may have been addressing concerns that arose in the generation preceding him ALL the leading Dispensationalists agree Darby is the guy who originated and formalized the theology, we in modernity know as Dispensational Premillennialism. It simply did not exist prior to the 19th century. Talk of dispensations existed. Talk of a premillennial position existed. Neither of those facts mean Dispensational Premillennialism existed and we should be on alert for people who try make the fallacious use of those facts a justification for their theology.

Last Edit: Oct 20, 2022 15:26:56 GMT -8 by Deleted