Recent Posts

Ditto . Plus Jesus pretty much debunked the theory when He said in the resurrection we will be like the angels - no marriage , no relations with your former wife like there was here on earth 

Ok, then. You obviously intended the op to not be whether or not your position on the identity of the 'sons of God' is correct, but the subsequent implications of the text assuming your position is correct. 

So, I'm willing to go there; please pardon the interruption. ASSUMING that they were angels, what is your thesis? Proceed, please, because I don't see where to go from the clue you present us. 

so I preach cynicism!Which is not preaching at all.   Its just a knee jerk response when one can not comprehend something for themself.

You say some disagree. Disagree about what? That it is talking about angels? Or something else? 

It doesn't say angels. In fact, the incongruities your questions demonstrate are a good reason to think it was not talking about angels. 

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.