Dispensationalists Practice Inconsistently

Are you arguing that the dispensational divisions in scripture are non existent because they are not clearly defined by the word "dispensation" in the text? That seems to be your argument. If it is so then certainly your systematic theology that you subscribe to will fail for the same reason. The divisions in the scriptures are present whether one uses the word dispensation to describe it or chooses some other word. The truth does not change. There are pivot points in the history of humanity that are clearly orchestrated by God to advance his purpose of redemption through Jesus Christ, the God man, and to make his ways known to us. I remind you that Jesus Christ did not appear on the earth until the very end days of the 4th millennium of human history, and his salvation, which is defined by the scriptures as his Spirit, which was sent down from heaven in the beginning of the 5th millennium, to eternally indwell those who will believe his gospel by faith, he having shed his blood to wash away our sins, the very cause of our separation from God.

If you are teaching that Old Testament saints, from whatever era, were "saved' from their sins before God's sacrifice of his son and the shedding of his blood on the cross of Calvary, and that there is no difference from then and now, then you have misunderstood the entire message of the scriptures and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Of course your argument against the historical divisions is not a comparison of this study against the scriptures to prove it is untrue and inconsistent, but a comparison of the teaching of rightly dividing the truth with the so-called "church fathers" whom you have named in your comments. You have included heretics in your list, such as Augustine, the "father of the Catholic Church."

Dispensationalism, as a system of study, follows the logic of the revelation of God given to us in the wonderful scriptures. The truths given in these scriptures are often hidden by the very fact that time and circumstances must change and progress before they can be fully understood and appreciated. (see note 1 below). According to God in 1 Corinthians chapter 2, two things are essential to understand the deep things of God (he calls these deep things "mysteries" of the faith). The first thing is to be saved by believing the very simple gospel of Jesus Christ. According to Jesus Christ this gospel is so simple a little child can understand it and be saved by it. A saved person has the Holy Spirit indwelling him and is our guide into truth. Second, he must have the words that God has chosen to reveal these great truths because these truths are conveyed through words over the course of all time and are dependent upon consistency all along the way.

Note 1:
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
4 To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,
5 Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:
8 Whom having not seen, ye love; in whom, though now ye see him not, yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory:

Now Get This statement:

9 Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls
10 Of which salvation the prophets have enquired and searched diligently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you:
11 Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.
12 Unto whom it was revealed, that not unto themselves, but unto us they did minister the things, which are now reported unto you by them that have preached the gospel unto you with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven; which things the angels desire to look into.
13 Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the revelation of Jesus Christ;

I don't know how closely anyone reads these statements but they will instruct us. The OT prophets of Israel wrote about both comings of Jesus Christ but they could not understand this time of grace between his two comings  because it was not given to them. It caused both the men who wrote the prophesies and angels to desire to know about this time of grace. When Peter wrote this letter in the mid 60's of the first century AD, the ministry of the NT apostles and prophets had been going on since 30 AD. Hosea may have asked God how he will call these people "not my people" and then say "ye are the children of the living God? Who could have know back then because the blanks were not filled in. Fulfilled prophesy in time filled in the blanks.

Hosea1:4

Rom 9:17

1 Peter 2:2


All these verses I have quoted pertains to these OT prophesies of Hosea concerning these 10 tribes of Israel, a nation, that was driven off their land by the Assyrians in 722 BC and in whom these prophecies that were not understood by prophets or angels were fulfilled through Jesus Christ and his grace and mercy to them. These were Abraham's physical seed through Jacob. Now the gracious and merciful God was giving them salvation individually when they would put their trust in Jesus Christ, his son, and making them who would believe the children of God. 

Carefully reading the scriptures and believing what we read is how dispensationalists approach the scriptures. At least I am speaking for myself as a dispensationalist. The Jewish Christian epistles are written by Jews to Jews. 

Ga 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
10 Only they would that we should remember the poor; the same which I also was forward to do.

No, that is not my argument.... so this protest is a red herring. 

Tu quo que is a fallacious argument, and I haven't asserted any systematic theology) that's another red herring).

No, they are not. The divisions that exist are best understood by the labels scripture itself provides and not by those invented by one man 18 centuries after the fact..... especially since not a single adherent to the model can shows scripture making such distinction AND scripture itself provides a continuity that is denied in Dispensationalism.


Every single bit of it is evidence of inconsistency.

Dispensationalism has yet to be proven true and it has 200 years of 100% fail rate in its teaching and teachers.

Every single bit of it is evidence of inconsistency.

Yes, but nowhere does scripture call them dispensations, both of you have had plenty of opportunity in this thread and every other thread in which I've broached the point and you've failed to do so. Instead, as I have already mentioned, the typical response is the non sequitur, "Just because it is not explicitly labeled does not mean it's not true," sometimes accompanied by the false equivalence appeal to the Trinity. Scripture calls then something else and scripture provides continuity from one "pivot point" to another and for all of them collectively that are denied in Dispensationalism (I'll say more about that in my op on how Dispensationalism compromises core doctrines of the faith). 

Every single bit of it is evidence of inconsistency. 
And I remind you he was foreknown before the earth was made, with God as God in the beginning, the gospel was preached to Abraham and David, and Jesus was revealed in those last days. This (and more in scripture) is evidence of continuity Dispensationalism denies and a plan that existed for all humanity long before a single Jew ever drew breath and before Israel was born or existed as a nation. There has never been a time when Jesus was not the life, the resurrection, the only way to the Father and King of all kings and Lord of all lords.

This too is evidence of Dispensationalists' inconsistency.
I am not teaching anything. The failure of you two Dispensationalists to understand this and the recurring difficulty of Dispensationalists to stay on topic in any thread, not just individual attempts at changing the topic here are....

...evidence of inconsistency! 
 That is sorta true. The system of study to which any theology adheres is called a hermeneutic, and the Dispensational hermeneutic was described in the opening post. Aside from the fact you're unnecessarily repeating content already posted for the benefit of ALL, the problem being addressed in this op is the inconsistency with which Dispensationalists practice Dispensationalism and Dispensationalist Christianity.



We're not going to go off-topic and discuss, "Dispensationalism, as a system of study..." in any way that is not related to the inconsistent practice.
No, it does not follow the logic of the revelation of God given to us in the wonderful scriptures. 

Dispensationalists claim dispensationalism follows the logic of God, but the truth is Dispensationalism follows the invented logic of one man, John Darby. Dispensationalism and Dispensationalists frequently deny what God gave to us in His wonderful scriptures. Dispensationalism ignores the God-given labels for the "pivot points," and replaces God's labels with an abuse of one single, proof-texted, word based predominantly on Darby's view. It denies the continuity scripture explicitly asserts from beginning to end. It is NOT God's logic.

Every single bit of it is evidence of inconsistency. 
No, we're not going to do that here in this op. You don't get to come into this op and hijack it with your own agenda. You will either address the clear inconsistency of Dispensationalists evidenced in these posts or your posts will be ignored. 





Dispensationalists practice inconsistently.

Dispensationalists do not practice Dispensational Premillennialism (or Christianity) consistently.

The follow a system of study invented by one man and claim it is something God says in His word even though not a single Dispensationalist can prove God ever dividing history into dispensations. Both the labels God uses, and the continuity God asserted are denied in Dispensationalism and Dispensationalists alternately defend this Dispensationalism denial and acknowledge the labels and continuity God Himself asserts. The Dispensational hermeneutic in literally invented (a hybrid compiling of various of sometimes disparate positions within Christianity) that Dispensationalists don't practice very consistently. The most obvious example is the claim of reading scripture literally but the abject failure to do so consistently. The literal denial of God's literal labels and literally asserted continuity is literally one such example of a failure to read scripture literally . Dispensationalism's roots in Darby are often inconsistently denied despite the consistent testimonial witness of leading Dispensationalists over the last 150 years. Dispensationalism was built on two main concepts: 1) the church is in need of restoration because it is corrupt and 2) the apocalypse. Dispensationalists explicitly acknowledge Dispensationalism is a theology that deliberately moves away from an emphasis on Christology and soteriology to an emphasis on ecclesiology and eschatology, and its views of both are radically different than most of what Christianity has held true for 2000 years. As a consequence of the emphasis on end times and the apocalypse Dispensational Premillennialism has birthed generation after generation of false teachers who constantly make predictions that never come true, and no one does anything to correct those false teachers or amend Dispensationalism to prevent future false teachers. No other theology has either of those two problems. The Dispensationalist view of end times abuses the classic definition of imminence and creates a works-based soteriology and most Dispensationalists are oblivious to how that's the case. Dispensationalists are supposedly about truth but there's no truth in those beliefs or those practices and when these problems are pointed out red herrings, non sequiturs, ad hominem, tu quoque, straw men, and other fallacious responses are deployed. The problem of inconsistency is never addressed. There are MANY problems in the views and practices I've just listed (and the list is not exhaustive) but the most basic problem within it all is the simple problem of inconsistency. If a Christian is going to willfully subscribe to a particular theology, they ought to do so with some modicum of consistency observable by all. Alternatively, any theology that is not practicable with some modicum of consistency is a theology that ought to either be amended or discarded.

Some of these problems have happened right here in this very thread!

Every single bit of it is evidence of inconsistency.




I will address other problems within Dispensational Premillennialism in separate ops. I will provide evidence for every single topic in each separate op. This op is specifically, explicitly, and solely about Dispensationalists practicing inconsistently. Nothing more. Nothing else. Every poster interested in discussing that topic is invited to do so as long as that happens with manners, respect, and op-relevant topical content.

Everything else shows the inconsistency about which this op speaks.

And.....

.....plenty of evidence of inconsistency has already been provided by the Dispensationalists in this thread. I can provide more but I should not have to do so given what the Dispensationalists in this thread have already brought to the op demonstrating the problem. Given this evidence the only questions that should remain are, Is there an observable willingness to look at the recurring problem of inconsistency? Is there an observable willingness to acknowledge the facts in evidence? Is there an observable willingness to make changes where warranted?

As I said before in an earlier post: the best play here for any Dispensationalist is to post with integrity and consistency! That alone disproves the op.

For at least one Dispensationalist .


But, hey, that's a good enough start. I'll take it. And I will give anyone who can pull that off unabashed credit for doing so.

Not being able to answer a simple question like that speaks volumes. 

Especially when it nails the problem some here have been having with your leaving ambiguous what the real problem is.

Once that ambiguity was gone?   Then you could be addressed accordingly.  It seems you were simply broad brushing and rejecting the concept because of some who abused the teaching.   The concept of Dispensational ism is sound.  How its implemented can be wrong.

Now if you are of a dominion theology way of thinking? That will explain why a sound rendition of Dispensationalism would be seen as threat.  And, only seeking for excuses to reject it. 



.

Have you anything specifically relevant to this op to post?

I have his work and Walvoords