Dispensationalism is not the Gospel. How did being a dispie keep you from being saved?
Combined with the rampant conceptualized Trinity doctrine that ISN'T the Trinity doctrine for a majority, Dispensationalism minimizes the actual ontological Gospel in favor of Naturalism. It blinds the heart to literality being spiritual AND natural rather than just natural.
Dispensationalism buries the ontological Gospel, just like the perverted conceptual Trinity buries the truth of Theology Proper. That combo left me lost without Christ for 28 years. But I don't expect you to understand because you're still "in" that system.
What gospel did you believe back then?
The same one you espouse by elpis (hope/trust) rather than pistis (faith); which makes true faith look like arrogance.
And since faith is a hypostasis (substance), there very assuredly are false and true substances regardless of how John wants to bogusly make light of it in his egomania.
What gospel do you now believe that we do not?
That by faith I've heard God's Rhema, and my hypostasis is translated into the prosopon of Christ and engrafted into the hypostasis of God.
It's the difference between hope and faith; and it's the difference between being IN Christ and just putting new wine in old wineskins.
In old wineskins, one is continuously doing to become and be. It's works, even though it looks like faith.
What is it about dispensationalism specifically that somehow negates the Gospel?
It negates the prosopon of Christ as the fulfillment of all Old Covenant typology and prophecy. It makes a piece of geological dirt into a future promised land for a false claimant group of pseudo-heirs that weren't even eligible to inherit Canaan.
It also negates the Church, reducing the Bride to a secondary importance to an ethnicity or religious system that is extinct.
And BTW...your history only tells us what you no longer are. It tells us nothing of now.
All I did was attempt to answer your question, which was for you to test me to decide and declare credibility. But it was really just a means of impugning credibility because I don't share your dogma.
Another thing, PPS.
Having taken time to digest (as best I can) your posts, it seems that all you're really doing, whether you realize it or not, is re-presenting old, well-established Identificational/Positional truths, or some aspects of them.
Yes, it can easily seem so. Identity and Postition are near-miss attempts at addressing ontology. They're just labels instead actually "being". And that too often is "being" as a verb rather than resting in Christ, which is just "doing".
You don't even realize that what you think is NOT doing IS doing. That doesn't mean you don't have elpis, which now saves you. But it isn't pistis (faith).
The problem is this: the goal of all honest communication - especially of God's Word - is to relate to everyone you can;
Not necessarily, that's absurd. Jesus Himself spoke in parables, and Paul says things hard to understand, according to Peter.
NOT to put up a wall of words that you know your readers don't know.
I use an economy of maybe a dozen primary Greek words, along with words from the English language. The problem is every bit as much others' lack of meaningful vocabulary in their own first language, coupled with a laziness of digging past initial shallow perceptions and concepts.
And the hugest factor is that others have embraced the devices of Satan, including doctrine. Devices is noema, which is concepts of the mind. Everyone has concepts of the mind about everything, and little of it is God's Rhema. (Rhema is the most important AND least-understood and misrepresented term in the history of mankind.)
What you present here, however much truth it may contain, you post with a needlessly amped vocabulary so that it will appear to be something novel.
Nope. I use a modest economy of about 12 of the 5600+ Greek words used in the New Testament. It's not my fault so few choose to know any definitions rather than presuming English concepts are accurate. They seldom are.
Conceptually, it isn't novel.
And that's the problem. Everything in the low-context English language is concepts (logos) determining content (rhema). You don't even know how that has inherently patterned your thought. You can't even examine it.
It very certainly is, though I wouldn't use the term "novel". There's a difference between reasoning with the human logos and yielding that logos to hear God's Rhema. But those would have to be defined, and that takes a bit. It's very difficult online unless someone is actually wanting to know, rather just finding out about another concept that they want to shoot down from their own cognitive dissonance.
Terminologically, you've chosen to make it pointlessly dense.
Odd that you'd think Greek terms like hypostasis and prosopon are myh choice to make something dense, or that those terms are pointless. The reason it all seems so is because you've been reading books to find identity instead of searching scriptural lexicography for ontology.
Identity is labeling. It's doing. Ontology is being, and not as a verb. It's the rest in Christ without works, but it inevitably produces the works OF faith.
Anything else is just putting new wine in old wineskins.
That's sheer arrogance and, in my opinion, shows LESS reverence for God's Word than FOR it.
But your opinion is noema, a concept of the mind. I present lexical truth. We aren't each doing the same thing, though you and most presume so. This isn't a war of opinions.
You're darkening counsel with vain philosophy.
LOL. No. That would be the noema (concepts of the mind). You still haven't uncovered the script-flip of Satan with his devices.
Please recall that you indicated you got your view of identity from reading books. Not from lexicography for scripture, but from books by a human author. And identity isn't ontology.
You don't. It's not.
Because everyone on this board understands little of what you post, myself included, and very, very few here are truly stupid.
It's not a matter of stupid. It's a matter of no being ignorant of Satan's devices. Language itself is the problem, and it's left you with a human logos of concepts that self-manufactures content from multiple contexts. It's the structure of language itself that Satan uses, and you're unaware of how.
Most here are very intelligent, Christian or not.
So now it's about human intelligence? No. The fact that few understand underscores what I'm saying. You're just on the other side of the fence.
That's why I spend 60 hours each week teaching others. They start right where you are. And within 2-6 hours, they see both sides of the fence and won't go back.
It's not some secret knowledge. It's just epignosis knowledge instead gnosis knowledge. Love abounds in the former; the latter puffs up.
So there's a communication problem here, and it's all on your end...
Nope. The receivers are on another channel because of the devices of Satan. Even for those with elpis that saves them. Anything to prevent faith coming by hearing the Rhema. That's Satan's agenda.
Nope. You've been subverted by the devices of Satan through language. You can't even examine it yourself because it began gestationally and in the sub-cognitive limbic system. Now it's the foundation for your rational reasoning, which is neither.
Because that's your hook: baffle them, impress them, flatter them, intrigue them, then draw them after yourself.
Nope. I've heard it many times, though. It's gnosis puffing up at epignosis, presuming the latter is puffed up. It's somewhat maddening, but one gets used to it to a degree.
Anyway, the affinity you saw, or thought you saw, between us early on, I think I can explain that. By God's grace I (and a few others here) have some understanding of the fathomless truth of the believer's position and identity in Christ.
Barely. From a distance. Not ontologically at all.
I've read works by many Identification/Positional authors for some years, and the main one in the last 50 years was Miles Stanford. There were many before him, but he collated much of their writings and condensed them into very approachable formats (as approachable as possible for such deep Biblical truths). He did not obfuscate with incomprehensibly dense verbiage in order to appear smart. As you do.
Yeah, and Stanford presents a pseudo-treatment and substitute. It's not identity, it's ontology. But now you've been further programmed by a human author, just like Dispies are by human doctrine.
The best part? Stanford was a die-hard dispensationalist.
No doubt. And that would be part of the irony. An author dilutes ontology to identity, and you believe that non-canonical writing with it being enforced by joint Dispensationalism belief.
Enough for now, I got to finish my coffee and get ready for work.
Enjoy both.
I'm sorry you thought you could save me from the dual evils of dispensationlism and trinitarianism that were forced upon you as a child.
I have no Messiah complex, and you weren't a focus of any kind of any such efforts. I just stand for truth, and some listen.
I'm sorry you won't be able to make me another of your flock of disciples.
I don't have a flock. I serve others in the Body, which is the flock of the Great Shepherd.
And I don't need you. See how that works?
You'll just have to trust Christ for me, to either save me or to have me cast into the Lake of Fire for not repenting of my dispie/trin ways.
Umm... salvation is not predicated upon works, so it will be according to whether you have faith or not. And repentance is from sin (the noun, the condition), not from sins (the individual acts). I see you still cling to a law-based form of repeated repentance. That's common among the indoctrinated.
Either way, you have nothing to offer that I don't already have.
You're not in the prosopon of Christ, instead putting new wine in old wineskins. But I'm not offering anything.
Exactly as Paul foretold.
Dispensationalism is a part of what Paul foretold. But you can't see that with that veil.