lol ... You know that you are winning the argument when the opponent resorts to claiming his opponent is unqualified to comment.
Exactly the response I was looking for. Now that the gauntlet has been thrown, lets discuss this in pure theological terms. Except, so far, what we know is that you place zero value on doctrinal consistency and are OK with abandoning doctrinal integrity. We also know that you consider each and every theologian prior to Darby as heretical and dead wrong concerning the doctrines of atonement, redemption, soteriology and eschatology - because Dispensationalism was invented in the mid 1800s and never has been accepted within orthodoxy.
This ought to be a quick.
what we know is that you place zero value on doctrinal consistency and are OK with abandoning doctrinal integrity.
lol ... ok ... Is there a question in there somewhere? What do you mean by doctrinal consistency? Doctrinal integrity? My guess is that any doctrine that doesnt hold your view is inconsistent ... so there is not much point.
We also know that you consider each and every theologian prior to Darby as heretical and dead wrong concerning the doctrines of atonement, redemption, soteriology and eschatology ...
You really are behind the rest of the class. Do you reject all theologians prior to Luther?
Perhaps you could educate me on how dispensationalism rejects the Biblical doctrine of atonement, redemption, and soteriology of theologians prior to Darby. Maybe just pick one ... for example, please expound on how modern dispensationalists reject the doctrine of soteriology as espoused by Calvin.
because Dispensationalism was invented in the mid 1800s
And by your logic you should adopt the doctrines of the RCC because Protestantism was invented a mere 500 years ago.
and never has been accepted within orthodoxy.
And apparently you have the corner on orthodoxy.
I think we are done here ...