Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

John146 · Jan 8, 2020

John, there is twelve tribes of Israel. Those of them who believed in Jesus belong to the church. Those twelve tribes of Israel who do not believe in Jesus as their Messiah do not belong to the church, but continue under the covenant of the law which can never save them or anyone else. Currently, there is the unbelieving nation of Israel who are still looking for the Messiah's first appearing, not recognizing Jesus when He first appeared.

When the Lord appears to gather His church, which is made up of both Jew and Gentile, at that time according to His promise in John14:1-3, He will take the entire church back to the Father's house to those places that He went to prepare for us. Once that event takes place, those who will remain on the earth will be the unbelieving nation of Israel, the 144,000 from the twelve tribes of Israel who will recognize Jesus as their Messiah, the great number of white robed saints from every nation, tribe, people and language, which makes them all Gentiles and the rest of the unbelieving world, the wicked.

Revelation 12:1 and Genesis 37:9-10, identify the woman as Israel. After the abomination is set up, Israel will flee out into the wilderness to that place that God will have prepared for her to be cared for during that last 3 1/2 years leading up to Christ's return to the earth to end the age.

The 144,000 is not the church, but are exactly who the scripture says they are, which is 144,000 from each of the twelve tribes of Israel. This is not to be taken symbolically, but just as the scripture states. People interpret the thousand years in the same way, applying a symbolic meaning to meaning of a thousand years, instead of exactly what it says.

Agree with what you’re saying.
But when James addresses the twelve tribes, he is addressing the entire nation of Israel, saved and lost. Obviously, there are those in the audience that needed to receive the word and have their souls saved.

1:21 21 Wherefore lay apart all filthiness and superfluity of naughtiness, and receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls.

cv5 · Jan 8, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

Show me the Scriptures pertaining to the promise of eternal occupation of the land.

And, realizing that Abraham's promises have been expanded to all his spiritual descendants (which includes everyone united to Christ), and extended to the entire globe, show me how my position contradicts them.

Give me the Scriptures. Don't make vague references that circulate amongst you dispensationalists.

Matter of fact, give me just one at a time and we can start working through them one at a time.

Ask yourself before you give them, though...

1. Were these promises unconditional?
2. Were these promises to Abraham and his offspring, or were they to ancient Israel?
3. Is this offspring Christ?
4. Could these promises be fulfilled in the Church, which is the spiritual offspring of Abraham?
5. Will they be fulfilled in some grander way than initially promised?
6. Did Israel receive a fulfillment at some point in the past?

By the way, regarding "perpetual", the Hebrew word does not necessarily mean "forever".

Verses? More like chapters. I already posted two for starters Jer 30 & 31. These are boilerplate references to Israel and beyond all refutation.

TheDivineWatermark · Jan 8, 2020

cv5 said:

Right. That, and...

Matthew 25:31-34 -

"And when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit upon His throne of glory." [<--parallel with Matthew 19:28, and then that one is parallel with Luke 22:30,16,18 and then that passage is parallel with Matthew 26:29, saying also, "THAT DAY" and "new WITH [G3326 - 'accompanying'] you..." (etc, etc)]

What "throne" is THAT ^ ?

(This is "earthly"-located.)

[note: in Acts 3, Peter is NOT making the point that Jesus is presently seated on THAT ^ throne UP IN HEAVEN (as the "amill-teachings" insist)]

eternally-gratefull · Jan 9, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

1. God never promised them eternal occupation, he even told abraham, he would never occupy it, and that his descendants would have to wait 400 years, then (again) we have Lev 26, which gives instructions on what they need to do to occupy what it theirs and how they can be removed from their own land, then how they can be restored AFTER they were removed.
2. the eternal gift to all mankind was always promised through abraham, a different aspect of Gods covenant with him “in you (your seed) shall ALL the nations of the world be blessed..

one part speaks of eternal Salvation given to all men through Abraham’s seed (Christ)

the other parts speaks of a piece of real estate God would give to a particular seed (through Isaac and Jacob and his twelve sons) as an eternal inheritance here on earth.

your trying to i it the two. And make them one and the same promise, they are not., you are trying to “replace” the real estate gift, with the salvation gift given to all

thats called twisting the word of God and making God a liar who will not keep his promise, that’s dangerous!

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

Melach said:

I don't know what covenant, if any, dispensationalists claim they are under.

I don't know if they know themselves.

It probably depends on which one you ask.

I can see why they think the way that they do, but it is bizarre.

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

presidente said:

How would you define 'dispensationalist' for the purpose of discussions of early church writers? My understanding is that the indications we have is that the earliest Christians we have information about believed Christ would set up his kingdom on earth. The apostles asked Jesus when he would restore the kingdom again to Israel. Christ told them it was not for them to know the times appointed by the father. Papias interpreted Revelation in a 'literal' way. If I recall correctly, others besides Papias who knew John may have interpret it the same way. Justin did, too, and said that Christians who were rightly minded agreed with him, but apparently not all agreed with him.

Dispensationalism makes the claim that Israel and the church are distinct in terms of God's plans for them. The early church fathers did not maintain this distinction. Some may have been millennialists but were not dispensationalists.

Dispensational scholars have made this claim, though, and it is incorrect.

The historic premillennialist could make this claim accurately, I think, but not the dispensationalist.

There is a book by Charles Hill called Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity which covers this. I have heard summary remarks referring to this work. I do not care enough to read it myself but perhaps you would. I might read it at some point, but I don't even seriously care about this issue. It isn't even a question in my mind whether dispensationalism is true, because I have a Christocentric view of Scripture and will not accept an Israel-centric view of Scripture.

So, to summarize, any attempt to read dispensationalism into the early church fathers is an error. It would be appropriate for the historic premillennialists to use early church fathers and their mixed opinions on this matter as support for their version of millennialism but not dispensationalists.

Again, you are assuming that what they thought was true was wrong. This is different from understanding wrongly. They grew in their understanding, but that doesn't mean their understanding after Christ opened their minds to understand the scriptures were wrong. And why would Jesus encourage them in their eschatology saying they do not know the times appointed by His Father if those times would never come at all?

Why believe in allegorical interpretations that go against the plain sense of the text as the ancient Hebrews and the apostles themselves understood the scriptures to mean?

You're making a claim that is unfounded. Dispensationalism views Scriptures in a way that is consistent with their worldview. Covenant theology views Scriptures in an organic way, where shadows and types from the Old Testament Scriptures point toward Christ and the New Covenant. They have a Christocentric hermeneutic, whereas dispensationalists have an Israel-centered hermeneutic.

And, if you call that allegorization, then you are simply drinking the dispensationalist Kool-aid. I can see the organic nature of Scripture using typology and symbols very clearly, and I know it is correct. Dispensational guys do not understand the organic flow of Scripture, and as a result, they end up "moralizing" rather than understanding the true intention.

Let me give you an example. David and Goliath...the dispensationalist reads this encounter, and his tendency is to put himself in David's place, and think that he must conquer all his enemies in the same faithful manner as David. The covenant theologian realizes that Jesus is the one who conquers his enemies and liberates his frightened, scared, faithless people. They have a Christocentric and Christ-honoring view of Scriptures that dispensationalists find to be untrue because there is no stated connection between David and Christ.

Of course, some dispensationalists are wising up and stealing these explanations from covenant theology guys, but if they are consistent with their own hermeneutic, they would not use these explanations. In fact, I have had well-educated dispensationalist pastors (one with a degree from Moody Bible Institute and a Master's Degree in Jewish Studies from somewhere else) tell me that I cannot reason typologically like this because Scripture doesn't specifically state this connection.

Luke 24 indicates that all Scripture somehow points toward Christ and that is the lense through which I view Scripture. I do not view Scripture through an Israel-centric lense.

Luke 24: 25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

I studied a smidgen of Hebrew. My bachelors is in Linguistics, which helps just a little detecting bunk when it comes to language arguments. I also want to see something credible if people start talking about Greek and Hebrew.

Then, we should both know that it is unwise to use linguistic arguments if you don't have a good background in Greek/Hebrew, and that a good background is not just a few years in seminary (although that's better than nothing it doesn't make one an expert). The cult I followed as a young man had a leader that used very bad linguistic arguments to promote his false theology. Unfortunately, even Christians use such bad arguments based on credentials they don't possess. In fact, one of my best friends knows a little Greek/Hebrew and gives that impression to members of his church sometimes. I think it's unwise myself. James White mentioned that Christians often claim knowledge of Greek/Hebrew when they don't know much more than simple word studies they've conducted using Strong's Concordance (which is an outdated primitive tool anyways)

There's one guy on here who tries that with me but I just ignore him. He never gets to the point anyways I'm sure he means well, but his posts give me a headache.

But I don't think you've used linguistic arguments so I shouldn't have mentioned anything about that.

See above remarks in blue. If you want to continue conversation, perhaps you can focus only on Matthew 25 and not multiple issues, as it is harder for me to focus if there are six or seven different issues in the same post. Plus, the responses get too long and there is a limit in terms of the number of characters allowed.

Melach · Jan 9, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

i will never stop until i find out what covenant they are under. there is no other covenant to be under. maybe they are part of abrahamic covenant through faith like in galatians? maybe thats it.

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

presidente said:

How would you define 'dispensationalist' for the purpose of discussions of early church writers? My understanding is that the indications we have is that the earliest Christians we have information about believed Christ would set up his kingdom on earth. The apostles asked Jesus when he would restore the kingdom again to Israel. Christ told them it was not for them to know the times appointed by the father. Papias interpreted Revelation in a 'literal' way. If I recall correctly, others besides Papias who knew John may have interpret it the same way. Justin did, too, and said that Christians who were rightly minded agreed with him, but apparently not all agreed with him.

Dispensationalism makes the claim that Israel and the church are distinct in terms of God's plans for them. The early church fathers did not maintain this distinction. Some may have been millennialists but were not dispensationalists.Dispensational scholars have made this claim, though, and it is incorrect.
The historic premillennialist could make this claim accurately, I think, but not the dispensationalist.

There is a book by Charles Hill called Regnum Caelorum: Patterns of Millennial Thought in Early Christianity which covers this. I have heard summary remarks referring to this work. I do not care enough to read it myself but perhaps you would. I might read it at some point, but I don't even seriously care about this issue. It isn't even a question in my mind whether dispensationalism is true, because I have a Christocentric view of Scripture and will not accept an Israel-centric view of Scripture.

So, to summarize, any attempt to read dispensationalism into the early church fathers is an error. It would be appropriate for the historic premillennialists to use early church fathers and their mixed opinions on this matter as support for their version of millennialism but not dispensationalists.

Again, you are assuming that what they thought was true was wrong. This is different from understanding wrongly. They grew in their understanding, but that doesn't mean their understanding after Christ opened their minds to understand the scriptures were wrong. And why would Jesus encourage them in their eschatology saying they do not know the times appointed by His Father if those times would never come at all?

Why believe in allegorical interpretations that go against the plain sense of the text as the ancient Hebrews and the apostles themselves understood the scriptures to mean?

You're making a claim that is unfounded. Dispensationalism views Scriptures in a way that is consistent with their worldview. Covenant theology views Scriptures in an organic way, where shadows and types from the Old Testament Scriptures point toward Christ and the New Covenant. They have a Christocentric hermeneutic, whereas dispensationalists have an Israel-centered hermeneutic.

And, if you call that allegorization, then you are simply drinking the dispensationalist Kool-aid. I can see the organic nature of Scripture using typology and symbols very clearly, and I know it is correct. Dispensational guys do not understand the organic flow of Scripture, and as a result, they end up "moralizing" rather than understanding the true intention.

What they are trying to do is infer that covenant theologians are using Roman Catholic methods of interpreting Scripture, developed by men like Origen, in order to interpret Scripture. Recognizing symbols and shadows/types is not allegorization in the sense that Origen and subsequent Roman Catholic scholars employed. In fact, I'd say if you don't understand symbols and shadows/types your understanding of Scripture is very poor. And, to be honest, dispensationalists are being deceitful little wenches when they claim that they don't employ typology and recognize some shadows/types (although they certainly don't understand how to use them very well). They use them, but they use them when they want to, and in a manner consistent with their own worldview.

Let me give you an example. David and Goliath...the dispensationalist reads this encounter, and his tendency is to put himself in David's place, and think that he must conquer all his enemies in the same faithful manner as David. The covenant theologian realizes that Jesus is the one who conquers his enemies and liberates his frightened, scared, faithless people. They have a Christocentric and Christ-honoring view of Scriptures that dispensationalists find to be untrue because there is no stated connection between David and Christ.

Of course, some dispensationalists are wising up and stealing these explanations from covenant theology guys, but if they are consistent with their own hermeneutic, they would not use these explanations. In fact, I have had well-educated dispensationalist pastors (one with a degree from Moody Bible Institute and a Master's Degree in Jewish Studies from somewhere else) tell me that I cannot reason typologically like this because Scripture doesn't specifically state this connection.

Luke 24 indicates that all Scripture somehow points toward Christ and that is the lense through which I view Scripture. I do not view Scripture through an Israel-centric lense.

Luke 24: 25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?” 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

I studied a smidgen of Hebrew. My bachelors is in Linguistics, which helps just a little detecting bunk when it comes to language arguments. I also want to see something credible if people start talking about Greek and Hebrew.

Then, we should both know that it is unwise to use linguistic arguments if you don't have a good background in Greek/Hebrew, and that a good background is not just a few years in seminary (although that's better than nothing it doesn't make one an expert). The cult I followed as a young man had a leader that used very bad linguistic arguments to promote his false theology. Unfortunately, even Christians use such bad arguments based on credentials they don't possess. In fact, one of my best friends knows a little Greek/Hebrew and gives that impression to members of his church sometimes. I think it's unwise myself. James White mentioned that Christians often claim knowledge of Greek/Hebrew when they don't know much more than simple word studies they've conducted using Strong's Concordance (which is an outdated primitive tool anyways). Sometimes cultists test the professed language knowledge that apologists have, and find out that the Christian knows almost nothing about Greek or Hebrew despite their claim.

There's one guy on here who tries that with me but I just ignore him. He rarely gets to the point anyways I'm sure he means well, but his posts give me a headache.

See above remarks in blue. If you want to continue conversation, perhaps you can focus only on Matthew 25 and not multiple issues, as it is harder for me to focus if there are six or seven different issues in the same post. Plus, the responses get too long and there is a limit in terms of the number of characters allowed. I wish we had about twice as much characters as what is allowed. I'm sure that would cause problems with storage space or something though.

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

Melach said:

Possibly.

You'll have to ask them though.

It probably depends on what school of dispensationalism they belong to...

Darby/Scofield
Lewis Sperry Chafer
Chafer's disciples (Ryrie, Pentecost)
Progressive Dispensationalists

Each of these different schools of dispensationalism answers questions in different ways.

For instance, Scofield directly said that salvation was by legal obedience in his Scofield Study Bible. Dispensationalists will often claim that he didn't say that, but you can check it out yourself and see that he did say that.

It is on his notes related to John 1:17, and you can look these notes up yourself online.

1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

grace
Grace. Summary:
(1) Grace is "the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man. . . not by works of righteousness which we have done" Titus 3:4 Titus 3:5 .
It is, therefore, constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man, as, under grace, he gives righteousness to man Romans 3:21 Romans 3:22 ; 8:4 ; Philemon 3:9 . Law is connected with Moses and works; grace with Christ and faith ; John 1:17 ; Romans 10:4-10 . Law blesses the good; grace saves the bad ; Exodus 19:5 ; Ephesians 2:1-9 . Law demands that blessings be earned; grace is a free gift ; Deuteronomy 28:1-6 ; Ephesians 2:8 ; Romans 4:4 Romans 4:5 .
(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Romans 3:24-26 Romans 4:24 Romans 4:25 . The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, ; John 1:12 John 1:13 ; 3:36 ; Matthew 21:37 ; 22:24 ; John 15:22 John 15:25 ; Hebrews 1:2 ; 1 John 5:10-12 . The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27 . The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" (See Scofield "2 Timothy 3:1") 2 Timothy 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.
(3) Grace has a twofold manifestation: in salvation Romans 3:24 and in the walk and service of the saved Romans 6:15 .
See, for the other six dispensations:
Innocence, (See Scofield "Genesis 1:28")
Conscience, (See Scofield "Genesis 3:23")
Human Government, (See Scofield "Genesis 8:21")
Promise, (See Scofield "Genesis 12:1")
Law, (See Scofield "Exodus 19:8")
Kingdom, (See Scofield "Ephesians 1:10")

Here's the webpage with the notes:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/john/john-1.html

Here's a webpage with some problems in Scofield dispensationalism:

https://cincinnatichurch.net/scofields-notes-versus-the-word-of-God

I don't think many would hold this form of classical dispensationalism, therefore criticisms of Scofield would not have much impact on them. I also found out that Scofield was an alcoholic and left one of his wives because of that....personally I do look at the morality of the teacher when deciding whether he is worth reading, but others would say it is irrelevant.

I think my first nice Bible was a Scofield, though..it had a really nice cover, wide margins, and great paper. I wrote a bunch of notes in the margins related to the bad teachings of the cult I belonged to back then, so I burned it when I left the cult. Scofield taught the Gap Theory, which claims that the earth was populated with animals and angels prior to the creation that we read about in Genesis. That was part of the teachings of the cult, too. So, I suppose I thought it was a pretty good study bible back then

cv5 · Jan 9, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

Possibly.

You'll have to ask them though.

It probably depends on what school of dispensationalism they belong to...

Darby/Scofield
Lewis Sperry Chafer
Chafer's disciples (Ryrie, Pentecost)
Progressive Dispensationalists

Each of these different schools of dispensationalism answers questions in different ways.

For instance, Scofield directly said that salvation was by legal obedience in his Scofield Study Bible. Dispensationalists will often claim that he didn't say that, but you can check it out yourself and see that he did say that.

It is on his notes related to John 1:17, and you can look these notes up yourself online.

1:17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

grace

Grace. Summary:

(1) Grace is "the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man. . . not by works of righteousness which we have done" Titus 3:4 Titus 3:5 .

It is, therefore, constantly set in contrast to law, under which God demands righteousness from man, as, under grace, he gives righteousness to man Romans 3:21 Romans 3:22 ; 8:4 ; Philemon 3:9 . Law is connected with Moses and works; grace with Christ and faith ; John 1:17 ; Romans 10:4-10 . Law blesses the good; grace saves the bad ; Exodus 19:5 ; Ephesians 2:1-9 . Law demands that blessings be earned; grace is a free gift ; Deuteronomy 28:1-6 ; Ephesians 2:8 ; Romans 4:4 Romans 4:5 .

(2) As a dispensation, grace begins with the death and resurrection of Christ Romans 3:24-26 Romans 4:24 Romans 4:25 . The point of testing is no longer legal obedience as the condition of salvation, but acceptance or rejection of Christ, with good works as a fruit of salvation, ; John 1:12 John 1:13 ; 3:36 ; Matthew 21:37 ; 22:24 ; John 15:22 John 15:25 ; Hebrews 1:2 ; 1 John 5:10-12 . The immediate result of this testing was the rejection of Christ by the Jews, and His crucifixion by Jew and Gentile Acts 4:27 . The predicted end of the testing of man under grace is the apostasy of the professing church: See "Apostasy" (See Scofield "2 Timothy 3:1") 2 Timothy 3:1-8 and the resultant apocalyptic judgments.

(3) Grace has a twofold manifestation: in salvation Romans 3:24 and in the walk and service of the saved Romans 6:15 .

See, for the other six dispensations:

Innocence, (See Scofield "Genesis 1:28")

Conscience, (See Scofield "Genesis 3:23")

Human Government, (See Scofield "Genesis 8:21")

Promise, (See Scofield "Genesis 12:1")

Law, (See Scofield "Exodus 19:8")

Kingdom, (See Scofield "Ephesians 1:10")

Here's the webpage with the notes:

https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/scofield-reference-notes/john/john-1.html

Here's a webpage with some problems in Scofield dispensationalism:

https://cincinnatichurch.net/scofields-notes-versus-the-word-of-God

I don't think many would hold this form of classical dispensationalism, therefore criticisms of Scofield would not have much impact on them. I also found out that Scofield was an alcoholic and left one of his wives because of that....personally I do look at the morality of the teacher when deciding whether he is worth reading, but others would say it is irrelevant.

I think my first nice Bible was a Scofield, though..it had a really nice cover, wide margins, and great paper. I wrote a bunch of notes in the margins related to the bad teachings of the cult I belonged to back then, so I burned it when I left the cult. Scofield taught the Gap Theory, which claims that the earth was populated with animals and angels prior to the creation that we read about in Genesis. That was part of the teachings of the cult, too. So, I suppose I thought it was a pretty good study bible back then

You narrowmindedly assume 4 categories. Absolutey ridculous, and I fall into none of them.

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

cv5 said:

I'm not claiming they are collectively exhaustive categories. In fact, I'd say it's hard to generalize in the dispensational camp as there are so many different understandings. It is hard as nailing jello to the wall to find out what an individual believes.

In many cases, I think they just hold dispensationalism because they belong to a church that teaches it. Most probably don't even know there are different views. I've talked to a Sunday School teacher from a Pentecostal church who is a chaplain and he didn't even know what dispensationalism was. When I talked to him about the details, he had some vague idea that he believed it because he recognized "pretribulation rapture".

By the way, according to ex dispensationalists, some of the "progressive dispensationalists" are almost like covenantalists.

In order to have any type of discussion in a group, though, some generalization is handy.

All of them have an Israel-centric view of Scripture, though. And, the covenantalists have a Christ-centered view of Scripture. As a result of their Israel-centric view of Scripture, they do not understand the New Covenant very well.

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

Melach said:

You did see this article I posted, right?

http://www.wheatlandbiblechapel.org...DKIZqbBOaPBezBETCrzrdfiUVRCzNQqUKkzIJbV51qm7g

And TheDivineWatermark posted this earlier.

https://christianchat.com/bible-dis...ionalist-delusions.186731/page-9#post-4124754

He refers to this webpage:

https://drreluctant.wordpress.com/2019/12/30/my-take-on-the-new-covenant-pt-1/

Note that there are different positions, but the fact that they question whether the New Covenant is effective for the Church is indicative of a problem with dispensationalism. Their separation of the Church from Israel is the source of their dual treatments. There are all kinds of issues like this, for instance, some of them believe that there are two separate gospels: the gospel of the Jewish Kingdom and the gospel of the Cross. And, these are not simply oddballs within dispensationalism. Renault Showers, who is well-respected, holds this dual kingdom position.

Nehemiah6 · Jan 9, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

More nonsense from an anti-Dispensationalist. And you call it a fact. Where did you get this idea that Dispensationalism questions whether the New Covenant is for the Church? And don't confuse Hyper-Dispensationalism with Dispenationalism.

TheDivineWatermark · Jan 9, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

Just poppin in here to emphasize (what I'd tacked at the bottom):

Hebrews 7:22 -

"By so much also, Jesus has become the guarantee [/a surety] of a better covenant."

Nehemiah6 · Jan 9, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

It is very clear in the Bible that the Church is NOT Israel, and Israel is NOT the Church.

Here is one of the clearest proofs that God sees redeemed Israel as a separate entity from the Church:

ISRAEL (a microcosm)
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel... And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.(Rev 7:4; 14:1)

THE CHURCH
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands (Rev 7:9)

So if you do not believe this very basic truth, you don't really believe God.

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

TheDivineWatermark said:

OK..so what's your position on whether the Church is under the New Covenant? And why do you think some dispies deny that the Church is under the New Covenant?

By the way, my position is the Mosaic Covenant is typological of the New Covenant. It isn't exactly Presbyterian covenant theology, but is called 1689 Federalism.

Their view is that the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant are both the covenant of grace, only under different administrations.

My position would be that the Mosaic Covenant was typological, and pointed back to Eden, and forward to the New Covenant and the New Heavens/New Earth/New Jerusalem.

TheDivineWatermark · Jan 9, 2020

Nehemiah6 said:

I also see a distinction between those [two distinct groups] in Revelation 7; but I do not see the second group (the "a great multitude... of all the nations" "coming out of THE GREAT tribulation") to be [identified as] "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" for two reasons... the later verses align with Isaiah 49:10 (an earthly MK verse and context [i.e. their destination location]) and the fact that it says of them "they serve Him day AND NIGHT in His temple" v.15 (whereas in the NJ "there is no night there" Rev21:25). I believe this is why it is imperative to trace out all three: "the Jews, the Gentiles [/'Greeks,' per one verse speaking on this], and the Church of God"

(…again, Eph1:10 is not speaking of "in this present age [singular]"... but it also shows the distinction "BOTH WHICH are in heaven, AND WHICH are on earth" -- i.e. the glory of God in two spheres/realms [which I just pointed out in the above paragraph also])

[p.s. I agree that the Church which is His body is NOT Israel, they are distinct]

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

TheDivineWatermark said:

If you're claiming that the 144,000 are physical Israelites, then how do you account for the missing tribe of Dan?

And, how do you account for both Manasseh and Joseph being included?

I think there's something different about this Israel and it is because it is the Church, and not Israel.

Again, I would point toward the hermeneutic of "hearing" and "seeing", or vice versa. Often the symbol appears in a visual form, and the explanation is given in an auditory form, or vice versa, within the book of Revelation.

First John hears something, then he sees something. The hearing explains the seeing. Or, the opposite. He sees something, then he hears something that interprets what he saw.

Additionally, I don't believe a highly symbolic book like Revelation should be read in the literalistic manner that dispensationalists claim to utilize (which, as I have mentioned, they use when it is consistent with their doctrine, and abandon when it is not).

So, it is perfectly appropriate to view the 144,000 as the Church, rather than a group of virgin Jewish preachers.

And, it is the job of the Church to proclaim the Gospel.

Well, in your worldview, the church has done flown away by that point, even though Revelation has not recorded this alleged departure

That's another question I would have..it seems like such an important event as the pretribulation rapture would have been recorded, in line with the rest of the end time events, if this is a factual teaching. Where is it? Isn't it supposed to occur after Revelation 5?

The claim is that the Church isn't mentioned from Revelation 6 forward..however, this view presupposes that the 144,000 are not the Church, and that the offspring of the woman are not the Church. Of course, if you refuse to consider the symbols of the Church, you will claim the Church is not present after Revelation 5.

UnitedWithChrist · Jan 9, 2020

TheDivineWatermark said:

By the way, I don't know who said this:

ISRAEL (a microcosm)
And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel... And I looked, and, lo, a Lamb stood on the mount Zion, and with him an hundred forty and four thousand, having his Father's name written in their foreheads.(Rev 7:4; 14:1)
THE CHURCH
After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands (Rev 7:9)

I have some folks on ignore so if they were expecting a reply from me, it won't come. Once their rudeness level gets to a certain point, I just filter them. It could be someone who isn't rude, though, and I just missed it.

cv5 · Jan 9, 2020

UnitedWithChrist said:

I'm not claiming they are collectively exhaustive categories. In fact, I'd say it's hard to generalize in the dispensational camp as there are so many different understandings. It is hard as nailing jello to the wall to find out what an individual believes.

In many cases, I think they just hold dispensationalism because they belong to a church that teaches it. Most probably don't even know there are different views. I've talked to a Sunday School teacher from a Pentecostal church who is a chaplain and he didn't even know what dispensationalism was. When I talked to him about the details, he had some vague idea that he believed it because he recognized "pretribulation rapture".

By the way, according to ex dispensationalists, some of the "progressive dispensationalists" are almost like covenantalists.

In order to have any type of discussion in a group, though, some generalization is handy.

All of them have an Israel-centric view of Scripture, though. And, the covenantalists have a Christ-centered view of Scripture. As a result of their Israel-centric view of Scripture, they do not understand the New Covenant very well.

I am undoubtedly a covenantal dispensationalist. Pre-trib and premillenial too.

Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

eternally-gratefull

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member