Dispensational eschatology is an incorrect hermeneutic

It seems I may need to change what I claimed I would argue in round 1 based on my opponent's points. Before defending it from why Pro claims it is inconsistent I shall present my case for why it's rather necessary in apologetic's as I think I can do that at the same time as explaining just what dispensationalism is as a foundation for theological thinking. 1) It's need in apologetic's, and what it is: If you are a new comer to this controversy and did not even no what dispensationalism is or the common eschatology those who think of the bible periods in terms of dispensations view, you would still not know just from reading my opponents argument. I'm not even sure my opponent really wants to argue anything about dispensationalism being wrong now but rather pre-tribulation premillinialism as incorrect witch I am more than willing to do, but let's not call it a debate over dispensationalism effect on that eschatology unless we connect the dots as to why viewing history in dispensations led to that. What if a case could be made all dispensation thinkers abandon that theology when they deal with eschatology? That would of course be bad for there credibility as theologians but could you still blame the viewing of the bible in dispensations as the cause of that? There are bad theologians existing out there defending near all the beliefs there is to be had, so I think not. Dispensationalism is no more than a teaching about how god deals with man differently though-out time. On this sight while arguing with atheist I have repeatedly needed to refer back to that as a fact. For example the favored accusation of "thought shall stone gays" is quoted to make numerous cases to not believe in the bible that I just don't have room to list them. But I answer all there concerns about god making that commandment for his people back then is that that was a community commandment, specific to the time and the people. Some commands are tailored to fit all, some though can mean something for only individuals, (god ordered Abraham to sacrifice his child, orders all others to shun people who do that for there god). If the case is made there is individual specific commands, then expect community ones too. Dispensationism comes into play here because God is eternally just, but justice itself is not something that is eternally the same is it? What justice is often related to the context of the situation (those change as time goes on). So God no longer has us stone gays because that is no longer just for reasons only he knows fully. We might not understand completely why as he does, but we do know he is dealing with us differently than he did to Israel back in mosaic days. Without drawing on saying god deals in dispensations, how am I to argue that there are only 10 commandments and not over 600? Argue that NT does not contradict OT, but that some of those particular commands no longer apply while others do? Supersessionism is just not an option for me, OT is going to remain an important part of my bible cause I know God left it there for good reason. 2) Pro say's this thinking leads to inconsistency in eschatology, but did not point out how for me to argue against. He simply gave a general accusation against what he see's the theologians themselves (ad-hominen) tend to do as far as he has observed. Interpreting with wooden literalism were its not warranted. Even if true, this fallacy actually has nothing to do with dispensationalism or pre-tribulation premillinialism. All those who attempt to interpret the prophetic scriptures are liable to make this kind of mistake. I recently read a similar accusation made by a pre-tribulation premillinialist (John MacArther) that it is the preterist who do this, making all scripture meaninglessly metaphoric so that they may read one particular verse with wooden literalism where in MacArther's words ‘is not warranted' So I say let us not just accuse each other of being wooden in the wrong cases and meaninglessly metaphoric in others, but actually give the reasoning behind why these cases are wrongly being taken the plain way they are stated, or wrongly ‘spiritualized'. In any case there is nothing inconsistent about how pre-tribulation premillinialist got their conclusions on the matter. There is plenty of scripture just littering the NT that make it clear Christ could return at any time ‘like a thief in the night'. And there are plenty enough to give us an idea that in some sense we could define the tribulation as a time period of some sort. So doesn't that make one question if you really could expect Christ to come today? How can you if you can always go ‘well he cant come today because the Great Tribulation has yet to occur, that must happen first'. Well then that's more like saying he can only come in the next 7 years at any time right? Pre-tribulation premillinialism reconciles these two abrasive teachings though in that Christ comes BEFORE the tribulation for the church during the rapture. If you take the rapture out of being before the tribulation on your end of day's chronology you have the problem of not being able to truly say Jesus could come back at any time, there will be so many signs that you will know 7 years ahead of time when he is going to come. 3) makes unfounded claims: It seems pro's case he gave for why the claims are unfounded is ‘its reflected by every other view of eschatology takes a preterist view on the matter' (paraphrased for space) Well, I hardly think every other view of eschatology thinks the prophecies are of past events, but even if enough of all other views are, it does not follow that the dispensationalist claim is unfounded. Before asking if there founded claims we should first ask what are the claims supposed to be founded in. considering that my opponent and I are both brothers in Christ I think for this debate we can agree that eschatology claims are considered ‘founded' if there founded in scripture. And the claims Pro contends are as founded in scripture as any other views of end times are. Here are some of the scriptures this stuff comes from;. http://www.biblegateway.com... (will put more next round, out of space this one; the passage I gave in here answers the dealing with Israel differently than we the rest of the church) 4) Unorthodox I respect what you mean to say by the importance of it being orthodox now. from your description of its role in theology your speaking of one the 4 point of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral in all its fullest glory, the source for theology of Tradition. I argue against its use in this case however using another of the 4 points, Experience. The Experience of the church, of we the body of Christ has increased considerably since earlier times. We face a different world with different theological challenges than they did. Paul thought in his day that Christ would come in his lifetime, he didn't have the knowledge that we do that 2000 years has already passed with the world as bad as it ever has been if not more so while still waiting on our saviors return. So our theology has had to take a different tone since his day. Besides that, Darby is quickly becoming a 'giant of the faith as his views are catching like wildfire. He has been dead since before I was born and Mega-Evangilist like Hagee, Falwell, Graham, or MacArther have drawn from his Dispensational teaching. Tim LaHay's has probably affected the public understanding of 'end times' than anyone else alive and His Books are very much dispensationalist. So among the living those you would call the giants of the faith it is becoming very 'orthodox' and 'mainstream' only time will tell if in the future this theological shift will remain and it's proponents be counted among the dead giants of faith for more than 100