[The Theophilus]

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.

So your a priori position is that ALL of Christendom before Darby had it ALL wrong about eschatology, the doctrines of redemption, the Church, the Atonement, and, depending on which of the several variants of Dispensationalism you subscribe to, the doctrines of Grace. YOU are projecting that unless people agree with YOU, they are wrong.

Here is a random example of Dispensationalism's doctrinal inconsistency: Restoration of Temple Sacrifices. It is impossible for a Dispensationalist to recognize the final work of Christ on the cross and simultaneously say that Jesus Christ will be administering blood animal sacrifices in a temple made of human hands in the new earthly Jerusalem. So pick one, was His death and resurrection the final and perfect sacrifice, or is exactly one thousand years of future animal sacrifices administered by Jesus Christ in the [glorified] flesh the way to atone for sins?

Let's start there.

[dartuser]

So your a priori position is that ALL of Christendom before Darby had it ALL wrong about eschatology, the doctrines of redemption, the Church, the Atonement, and, depending on which of the several variants of Dispensationalism you subscribe to, the doctrines of Grace

Never said anything even remotely like that.

It is impossible for a Dispensationalist to recognize the final work of Christ on the cross and simultaneously say that Jesus Christ will be administering blood animal sacrifices in a temple made of human hands in the new earthly Jerusalem.

What exactly is your beef? The passages in Ezekiel 40+ (which we dispenstationalists interpret literally) which speak of making atonement?