Over the course of the next [however long it takes me to do this], I will be posting a series which will seek to show that the Christian believer who holds to a Dispensational hermeneutic is not relying on sola scriptura to interpret the Bible and is instead, just like the Romanist, Muslim, Arminian or Atheist, relying upon tradition and his own autonomy to interpret scripture.
Let me make it clear that I do not believe that our Dispensationalist friends are not brothers or sisters in Christ. Rather, I am writing this because I believe they are in Christ but whether due to poor teaching, tradition, or autonomous reasoning they’ve believed a lie.
Perhaps a better title for this series would be The Transcendental Argument for the existence of God in the context of Dispensationalism. My reason for saying this is because I am not so much arguing against Dispensationalism as I am arguing for Christian theism as a unit and showing how the system of Dispensationalism is not found in Christian theism.
This first post will mainly contain logiical arguments which show that Dispensationalism is not a part of Christian Theism. I plan, as the series progresses to explore and defend these arguments in greater detail by exploring and exegeting the relevant scriptural passages. Below, my arguments are listed for your perusal:
P. The intelligibility of experience presupposes Christian theism.
P. Dispensationalism is not Christian theism.
C: Not Dispensationalism.
P. Belief in falsehood presupposes human autonomy.
P. Dispensationalism is false.
C: Dispensationalism presupposes human autonomy.
P. Christian theism presupposes Sola Scriptura.
P. Dispensationalism is not taught in Scripture.
C: Dispensationalism is not Christian theism.
P. Christian theism presupposes not human autonomy.
P. Dispensationalism presupposes human autonomy.
C. Christian theism is not Dispensationalism.
I hope these posts will be helpful in bringing our Dispensationalist friends into a right understanding of Sola Scripture both in practice and in principle. I hope that these posts will be helpful for those whop are studying presuppositional argumentation to see that the transcendental argument is not simply for use against Atheists, but rather is capable of defending Christian theism against any error.
Note: I edited one of the arguments to correct the terminology the substance of the four arguments has not changed.