Dispensational eschatology is an incorrect hermeneutic

I appreciate the comments made by my opponent in the last round. He raises some good points. I would remind my opponent that the title of the debate is "Dispensational Eschatology is an Incorrect Hermeneutic." Thus, the debate is aptly titled to refer to the eschatology that stems from dispensationalism, and not dispensationalism itself as a system. The assumption is made that the prospective opponent understands what Dispensationalism is, and, therefore, it is redundant to define it. Yet the eschatology that stems from dispensationalism shows that "wisdom is known of her children." A bad tree bears bad fruit, so to speak. Since Dispensationalism is best known for its unique eschatology, I think it reflects as well on the system as a whole. Secondly, One does not need Dispensationalism to substantiate the arguments given by Marauder as pertaining to how God deals somewhat differently at times with different people. God's actions toward man are based on His sovereignty and His covenants with them, not any dispensation. For example, Marauder states: "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." But this is precisely because these commandments were a part of the Old Covenant made with Israel! The fact that they no longer apply, is not because of any dispensation. The New Testament is clear that the Old Covenant system was passing away, and therefore the economy of Israel, it's covenant and sacrificial system came to an end. Hebrews 8:13 "By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and outdated will soon disappear." Romans 10:4 "Christ is the culmination of the law so that there may be righteousness for everyone who believes." Thirdly, Marauder in this same line of reasoning states: "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" I would reply that since absolute justice is a quality possesed by God, (God is just in all His ways), then that justice cannot change for God cannot change. God's justice is absolute, not subjective. God no longer has us "stone gays" because the sovereign purpose for that has been fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Once again, this is based on a change of covenants, not a change in dispensations. It's not mysterious at all, but clearly explained for us. Fourthly, my opponent makes reference to my remarks about the often "wooden literal" interpretations of Dispensationalists: "All those who attempt to interpret the prophetic scriptures are liable to make this kind of mistake." Yet that is the point. Dispensationalists insist upon "making this mistake" the "Golden Rule of interpretation." [1] Yet I think dispensationalism leads us to believe there are lines drawn in history where they aren't warranted. For example, Dispensationalism says that the dispensation of Promise, such as those promises made to Abraham, ended with the dispensation of the Law. However, Paul plainly states in Galatians 3:19, "Why, then, was the law given at all? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator." Paul states that the Law was ADDED to the promise. Nothing came to an end! My opponent's arguments are all based on the premise that Dispensationalism is the only thing that can explain why the Law no longer applies to us as Christians, and why it applies differently than it did originally to unbelievers. Yet that is the crux of the Apostles' teaching (without dispensationalism). It is due to a change in covenants. Furthermore, no one in Covenant theology considers the Old Covenant as no longer necessary. Rather it is viewed in its proper role of being fulfilled. -> "Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law." (Romans 3:31) Fifthly, my opponent contends for the Dispensational Rapture, (which is the only view that divides the Second Coming into two distinct parts): "(The Rapture is necessary because) there will be so many signs (pointing to the second coming) that you will know 7 years ahead of time when he is going to come." This is a fallacy of necessity. Since Dispensationalism places the Great Tribulation as a future 7 year period of time in which God must deal separately with Israel in the absence of the (supposedly) Gentile Church, there must be inserted a way for the Church to be moved out of the way. This argument of where to place the Rapture is only found within dispensationalism itself. Most other forms that believe in the imminent return of Christ understand that no rapture theory is necessary because there is no "Great tribulation" to look for. Indeed all scriptures that deal with the return of Christ are crystal clear that His coming is accompanied by the end of the age and the final judgment. There is no foundation for a "secret" coming of Christ. Think about it. Why do dispensationalists need a Rapture? To escape a future tribulation. Yet they have to come up with a Rapture precisely because they incorrectly futurize the tribulation! It's like saying that one must buy a lifetime supply of buckets to deal with creating an unneccessary leak! Fix the leak and the buckets are unnecessary! Lastly, my opponent claims the following: "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." This is the nature of Dispensationalism to classify revelation as being progressive. Yet the Scripture testifies that we should "contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints." (Jude 1:3) The argument that Paul believed Jesus would come in his lifetime is unsupportable, unless one understands that the coming that Paul spoke of most often was not THE coming of Christ, but A coming of Christ in judgment upon Israel. I would like to address the issue of the Apostle Paul being ignorant of the plan of Christ in the next round if time and space warrant. At any rate, I am enjoying this debate and hope that my opponent doesn't think my tone too aggressive or offensive. If I am not mistaken, I am allowed to ask my opponent three questions in this round, so here they are: 1. Who was the book of Revelation written to? (Revelation 1:4) 2. What was the purpose of it being written? (Revelation 1:1,3) 3. What were the purposes for the 70 weeks of Daniel? (Daniel 9:24) 1. Understanding Bible Prophecy for Yourself - Tim LaHaye p.14