Skip to main content

Opinion: How to Win Any Theological Argument With One Simple Phrase

The Ultimate Guide to Dispensational Defense: How to Defend Your Faith and Confuse Your Critics Quickly and Efficiently




Are you tired of losing arguments with your fellow Christians over eschatology, hermeneutics, or covenant theology? Do you wish you had a foolproof way to silence your opponents and prove your superior understanding of the Bible? Well, look no further than this one simple phrase: "You don't understand dispensationalism."

That's right, with this magic phrase, you can win any theological debate in seconds. Here's how it works:

- Step 1: Identify your opponent's position and label it as non-dispensational. It doesn't matter if they are amillennial, postmillennial, covenantal, or even dispensational themselves. Just say they are not.

- Step 2: Assert that their position is based on a faulty interpretation of Scripture that ignores the literal, grammatical-historical method and the distinction between Israel and the church.

- Step 3: When they try to challenge your assertion or ask for evidence, simply say "You don't understand dispensationalism." Repeat as many times as necessary until they give up or walk away.

That's it! You have successfully won the debate and demonstrated your superior knowledge of God's Word. Here are some examples of how to use this phrase in different scenarios:

- Scenario 1: Your opponent claims that the church has replaced Israel as God's chosen people and that the promises made to Abraham are fulfilled in Christ and his followers.

You: That's not what the Bible says. God has a distinct plan for Israel and the church. He will restore Israel to their land and fulfill all his promises to them in the future millennial kingdom.

Opponent: Where do you get that idea from? The New Testament clearly teaches that the church is the true Israel of God and that all who belong to Christ are Abraham's offspring and heirs of the promise.

You: You don't understand dispensationalism.

- Scenario 2: Your opponent claims that the book of Revelation is full of symbols and metaphors that should not be taken literally and that it describes events that have already happened or are happening now in the spiritual realm.

You: That's not what the Bible says. Revelation is a literal prophecy of future events that will happen before and during the tribulation period and the second coming of Christ. It should be interpreted literally unless there is a clear indication otherwise.

Opponent: How do you know that? How do you explain the seven-headed beast, the 144,000 sealed Jews, or the woman clothed with the sun? Do you really think those are literal descriptions of real things?

You: You don't understand dispensationalism.

- Scenario 3: Your opponent claims that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and that there is no difference between the gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles.

You: That's not what the Bible says. There are different dispensations or administrations of God's grace throughout history. The gospel preached by Jesus and the apostles was different from the gospel preached by Paul and us today. They had to repent and believe in the kingdom of God, while we have to believe in the death and resurrection of Christ.

Opponent: What are you talking about? The gospel is the same in every age. Jesus and Paul both taught that salvation is by grace through faith in Christ. There is no other name under heaven by which we must be saved.

You: You don't understand dispensationalism.

See how easy it is? With this phrase, you can avoid any serious engagement with your opponent's arguments and claim victory without breaking a sweat. Try it today and see for yourself how effective it is! And remember, if anyone questions your use of this phrase or asks you to explain what dispensationalism actually is, just say "You don't understand dispensationalism." Works every time! And for all the nay-sayers out there... 
You don't understand dispensationalism.

Related: "That's Not REAL Socialism Dispensationalism"

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Border Patrol Sends Steven Anderson to Armenia Over Misunderstanding

When Your Theological Flex Gets Lost in Translation Original image is Public Domain, courtesy of the United States Department of Homeland Security BORDER PATROL CHECKPOINT, AZ - In a bizarre twist of theological proportions, Pastor Steven Anderson's latest encounter with Border Patrol agents took an unexpected turn when he attempted to evangelize his way through a routine checkpoint. When asked about his citizenship, Anderson reportedly launched into an impromptu sermon, declaring, "I'm a citizen of Heaven, brother! Let me tell you about the Good News!" As the bemused agent tried to detain him, Anderson proclaimed, "You can't detain me! I'm free to believe because I'm Arminian!" The agent, mishearing the theological term, immediately sprang into action, shouting, "Armenian? We've got ourselves an illegal!" Chaos ensued as agents attempted to deport the protesting pastor to Armenia. "I said Arminian, not Armenian!" Anderson...

Pastor Jane's Inappropriate Relationships Spark Cheers of 'Yaaaaasss Queen' Amidst Ecclesiastical Double Standards

Breaking the Stained-Glass Ceiling: Pastor Jane's Scandalous Path to Feminist Icon Status In a groundbreaking moment for ecclesiastical equality, Pastor Jane Doe has become a beacon of feminist empowerment after being caught in a series of inappropriate relationships with male congregants. Her actions have sparked a wave of support, with many hailing her as a "Yaaaaasss Queen" for shattering the stained-glass ceiling. While male pastors have historically faced defrocking for similar indiscretions, Pastor Jane's case has been celebrated as a triumph of modern feminism. "Why should men have all the fun?" quipped one supporter, highlighting the double standards that have long plagued religious institutions. Critics, however, point to biblical texts that traditionally restrict the role of pastor to men and suggest women should remain silent in church. Yet, Pastor Jane's followers argue that these interpretations are outdated and patriarchal. "If she can...

Once Judeo-Christian Nation Watches Debate To Determine Which Immoral Reprobate Best Qualified to Lead

Nation’s Moral Compass Goes Haywire, Formally Resigns Following Debate Philadelphia - In a spectacle that could only be described as a divine comedy, the nation once hailed as a "Judeo-Christian" nation gathered to watch the presidential debate, eager to determine which immoral reprobate would best lead them forward. The candidates, both seasoned in the art of moral ambiguity, took the stage with the confidence of televangelists at a Sunday sermon.   As the candidates took the stage, the audience was treated to a spectacle reminiscent of a reality show, complete with mudslinging and moral gymnastics that would make even the most seasoned circus performer blush. One candidate, known for his "alternative facts," argued passionately that he had the best rallies in the history of political rallies, while another claimed to be “unburdened by the past” [but still current] administration’s numerous international scandals and blunders, promising that to fix everything she h...