No, I am showing you that Dispensationalism is not like Mormonism or any other that adds something to Scripture.
I mentioned multiple other "restored truth" or "progressive revelation" sects that began around that time of Darby and his particular progressive revelation of the day, all doing the same things as his sect. Those have nothing to do with some new prophet adding scriptures. Yet, you focus on Mormonism exclusively in your refutation of the facts I presented?
It has nothing to do with them having new scriptures and you don't. They both are about "progressive revelation", some add new material, others find the hidden truths that Christians didn't see before, because God wasn't ready for them to see what you have today. It's all very mythological in nature. It's all doing the exact same thing, with just different window dressings. But they are the same thing in essence, despite how they clothe themselves.
Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.
Yes it does add something to scripture. It adds a particular filter through which to read scripture, which changes the nature and meaning of what you read. It adds a theological tint that affects how you read scripture. It adds an idea that superimposes itself upon scripture.
As a rough example for comparison's sake, when reading the writings of the Apostle Paul and you encounter things he talks about Jesus, do you find yourself seeing Jesus in the gospels and tying the two together? Do you look at what Paul says, and then think of something the gospels say, and say to yourself, "Yes, that's what Paul was talking about."?
When a modern scholar approaches the writings of Paul, what they have to do is remove anything the gospels may have to say about it, and read Paul without any prior understanding of what the gospels say. Why? Because they were written after Paul, so Paul would not have had what they say as any influence on his thinking. The gospels add a different layer of perception about Jesus, that Paul did not have. You cannot read what Paul says, and assume that Paul thought the same way the later gospel writers thought.
Now in your methodology, which is a premodern methodology, you see the writings of the NT as a magical creation, that all is intended to be read as a whole, and all must fit together because God was the sole author of it. That's a mythological approach to one's reading of scripture. It hangs together on faith that is "must" all work together. This is what you do. This is what Darby did. This is a theological perspective, not a critical understanding of the source materials using the tools of modernity. It assumes it's all one picture. It begins with that presupposition.
But from a modern perspective, that presupposition does not fit the data when looked at through the lens of critical analysis. Yes, dispensationalism adds to the Bible this patenia of mythology that scripture as a consistent whole, and then from there it pieces together a map of what "God" is saying in it, like connecting the dots of the stars in the night sky to see a lion, or a scorpion, or a hunter. Now that the hunter in the sky, Orion, has been pointed out to you, it's all you see when you look at the sky. Your mind was conditioned by having that pattern presented to you, and "Now I see it too! It's really there!". But it really is not. It is just your mind you are seeing, not a hunter.
So it is when reading Paul. You have to read Paul without the benefit of the gospels, if you want to try to get to how Paul might have really thought about these things. It's the same thing with Darby or others finding "dispensations" in scripture. These are wholly superimposed patterns that they in their minds connected the dots like seeing constellations in the night sky. And they all started with the patentia of the theology that the Bible must be a whole, consistent, inerrant, infallible revelation from God. So, most certainly it adds to scripture. It adds this overlay that connects the dots for you magically.
Is the overlay wrong? Yes, from the perspective of critical analysis it is. It's a game of connect the dots. There is no big dipper in the sky. That exists in the mind. There is no dispensationalism in the Bible. That exists in the mind too. When viewed in a different light, that pattern doesn't exist. During the daylight, the big dipper isn't seen at all.
Yes, I reject your knowledge as it does not comply with the Bible. Just as you reject mine because it does.
My knowledge is consistent with the Bible, as understood through a critical lens. I do not reject yours because it "does", which is absurd to say. Why would I reject truth and facts? What I am saying, is I don't see it the way you do. I do not see it through that premodern set of eyes, without knowledge of what critical scholarship shows us about the nature of scripture. I don't reject scripture. I simply see a larger picture of it, which acknowledges how you see it, but does not accept that at face value as the single truth of it, as you do. I don't reject God, in my not seeing truth in the ways you do.
Notice how I don't say you reject God, yet you seem to want to say that about all other Christians who are not mythic-literal believers?
Nothing you or anyone else has said has threatened my faith.
Oh, I absolutely do not believe this. Why else do you reject modern scholarship and science? It certainly isn't because you yourself are qualified as a specialist in those fields and find flaws with their methodologies. A reject of it comes from a motivation to preserve what you have believed, and that motivation arises because these are viewed as threats to your beliefs. I guarantee it.
You certainly haven't produced any threat to Scripture.
The fact that you called this Christian scholars unbelievers and rejectors of God, proves you view them as a threat. It also proves where you are at in your faith. Read Romans 14
You haven't produced any threat to the Dispensational understanding of Scripture.
I have produced a clear challenge to it. That you refuse to acknowledge anything I am saying, and instead saying things like I reject scripture, I reject knowledge, I reject God, others who are modernist and postmodernist in approach are not true Christians, and the like, proves very much that you feel threatened by it. These are things that a frightened person resorts to in order to not consider what others are saying. A
See, to you the Bible is a 'heap of writings'. To Darby, Scofield, and other Dispensationalists, and Christians, the Bible is the Word of God.
And this is exactly the point I just made above. Modernity removes that mythological patenia in examining the nature and content of scriptures. It's not a values thing. It's simply an approach to knowledge and understanding. I embrace that because it helps create a better, more encompassing understanding of truth.
When I say a "heap of writings", that is correct. The Bible is a compiled collection of dispearate writings over long periods of time. A heap, is simply the raw materials that one starts with in order to create and make useful things out of them. Theology is a shaping of that raw material into some useful application for the need at that time. This is why you see changes in how people think about God and the scripture throughout history. Truth is adaptive. It's not a "progressive revelation". Rather, it is a "adaptive" revelation. That means, it lends itself a raw material to be shaped and molded however it needs to be to meet the current needs.
What you are seeing as a linear progressive revelation from God, I see as an evolving, adaptive interpretation by humans in evolving social and cultural and economic circumstances. We are both seeing God, but though very different lenses. What I am expressing, shows what it looks like through a post-postmodern lens. It is still Christian faith, regardless.
What does matter the most however, is not whether one believes it's a consistent revealed whole, or not as a Christian. What matters is how we treat those who see truth and reality differently than us. What matters is the nature of love. Read Romans 14.
You haven't provided anything to indicate Dispensationalism is not true. What you have displayed is the reason why you cannot understand the Bible.
I could say you don't understand the Bible because you don't know how it was constructed, nor much about anything at a deeper academic level. However, you understand it through the set of eyes you have at this point in your life. You understand it, as best you can given the set of eyes you are using.
Yes, I understand the Bible. I understand it from the mythic-literal perspective, as that is what I learned and was taught as a student of scripture in my college days. I understand your doctrines and theologies quite well in fact. But I also have an understanding that you do not, and one that you appear opposed to considering because it would mean to you that what you believe isn't true.
I can truly say, I do understand how you read the Bible. But you cannot say the same of me. You do not understand that, as it's nothing you're allowing yourself to be exposed to.
My beliefs need to be based upon Scripture.
Mine don't. Mine need to be based on knowledge and truth, and experience. They need to be informed by practice, and a wide range of as many perspectives as possible to prevent a myoptic, rigid and stifling perspective that leads to pride and self-righteous attitudes about me being right and everyone else being wrong. That leads to spiritual disease, where the Christian makes himself judge of all others.
I certainly find truth in scripture, but I also open my eyes to let light shine in upon it from many perspectives. You limit that exposure to what seem to amount to blinders on a horse, limiting what is allowed to be seen. I find that approach as a Christian, to be fear-based. "Don't listen to others, they could be the devil speaking!".
I am willing to debate any who, on the basis of Scripture, believe I am mistaken.
I believe you have a limited perspective on what the truth of scripture is. "Mistaken" is not a word I would use. Closed off from other perspectives is where I would say you are mistaken. I think it is in fact a mistake to reject knowledge that challenges your faith.
continued.....
