Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?
- Thread starter UnitedWithChrist
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Ah ok..well...he was the first one I put on ignore here on the forums 
He thought I should be banned over amillennialism if I remember right. It could have been Reformed theology, but I"m pretty sure it was dispensationalism.
I was told by other members he's a bit peculiar. Some comment about Grape Nehi came up in regards to him in a private conversation.
Anyways I definitely believe God. I don't believe dispensationalism though. Like many things I've believed in the past, at the surface level it might sound coherent but once you dig into the arguments of the other side, the problems become obvious.
He thought I should be banned over amillennialism if I remember right. It could have been Reformed theology, but I"m pretty sure it was dispensationalism.
I was told by other members he's a bit peculiar. Some comment about Grape Nehi came up in regards to him in a private conversation.
Anyways I definitely believe God. I don't believe dispensationalism though. Like many things I've believed in the past, at the surface level it might sound coherent but once you dig into the arguments of the other side, the problems become obvious.
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?
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?
In Revelation 5:9, the already-raptured Church (represented by the "24 elders" on "24 thrones" wearing "stephanos/crowns" [note: Paul had said "IN THAT DAY"]) are SAYING "[hast redeemed] US..." and this is FOLLOWING (as I'd said) a "searching judgment" as indicated by the phrase "WAS FOUND" in 5:4 (a phrase ALSO used of Paul's arrest/trials and coming before their [the human] BEMA seat, in the latter part of Acts, as I've pointed out).
So, no. Not "AFTER" Rev5! (if you're speaking of "our Rapture")… it's already accomplished by that point.
-
1
- Show all
Correct.
My understanding is that dispensationalists point to the absence of the Church during Revelation 4-22 as an indication that the Church has already been raptured by that point.
I would have two problems with that:
1. I don't think Revelation is a linear sequence of events.
2. That only works you deny that the 144,000 are symbols of the Church. Additionally, there are other references I think relate to
the church, including the two witnesses. I would hold the view that the two witnesses are talking about the Church, who will
witness to the gospel, based on the two faithful churches of Revelation 2-3.
By the way, why can't the 24 elders be martyred saints in the first century? I don't see anything connecting them to the Church.
Additionally, when you say "represented by", are you employing symbolism? Are you saying those 24 elders are literally only 24 elders, or are you saying they are representative of the Church?
I'm honestly interested. If you say they are symbolic or representative of the Church, that seems like it would violate the dispensational hermeneutic. But, if you are saying they are actually 24 specific elders representing the Church, then you are being consistent.
My understanding is that dispensationalists point to the absence of the Church during Revelation 4-22 as an indication that the Church has already been raptured by that point.
I would have two problems with that:
1. I don't think Revelation is a linear sequence of events.
2. That only works you deny that the 144,000 are symbols of the Church. Additionally, there are other references I think relate to
the church, including the two witnesses. I would hold the view that the two witnesses are talking about the Church, who will
witness to the gospel, based on the two faithful churches of Revelation 2-3.
By the way, why can't the 24 elders be martyred saints in the first century? I don't see anything connecting them to the Church.
Additionally, when you say "represented by", are you employing symbolism? Are you saying those 24 elders are literally only 24 elders, or are you saying they are representative of the Church?
I'm honestly interested. If you say they are symbolic or representative of the Church, that seems like it would violate the dispensational hermeneutic. But, if you are saying they are actually 24 specific elders representing the Church, then you are being consistent.
I would offer. The tribe of Dan is missing because Dan which mean Jehovah has judged me is used to represent the letter of the law .The spirit of judgement. It is described as falling back or backward because of following after false prophecy, the false gospel as the poison or serpents .
Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.
The letter of the law signified by Dan will not be part of the new order. Judas was removed from the 12 to represent the same "spirit of judgement" falling backward the twelve apostles with the 12 tribes to represent the new testament believe as the bride of Christ was used as a eye witness to falling back in Judgement.
John 18:5-6 King James Version (KJV) They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Again to signify the letter of the law the spirit of judgment as a cleansing fire that washes away the sin of the daughter of Zion the bride of Christ.
Isaiah 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.
Same kind of spirit of judgement of falling backward used when God mocked those with stammering lips. Those who mocked the word of God as a sign against them
It was fulfilled by the prophecy spoken of Joel at Pentecost. God speaking in all the tongues of the world. A sign of unbelief to mankind as a whole.
Isaiah 28:13But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
Genesis 49:17 Dan shall be a serpent by the way, an adder in the path, that biteth the horse heels, so that his rider shall fall backward.
The letter of the law signified by Dan will not be part of the new order. Judas was removed from the 12 to represent the same "spirit of judgement" falling backward the twelve apostles with the 12 tribes to represent the new testament believe as the bride of Christ was used as a eye witness to falling back in Judgement.
John 18:5-6 King James Version (KJV) They answered him, Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus saith unto them, I am he. And Judas also, which betrayed him, stood with them. As soon then as he had said unto them, I am he, they went backward, and fell to the ground.
Again to signify the letter of the law the spirit of judgment as a cleansing fire that washes away the sin of the daughter of Zion the bride of Christ.
Isaiah 4:4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.
Same kind of spirit of judgement of falling backward used when God mocked those with stammering lips. Those who mocked the word of God as a sign against them
It was fulfilled by the prophecy spoken of Joel at Pentecost. God speaking in all the tongues of the world. A sign of unbelief to mankind as a whole.
Isaiah 28:13But the word of the Lord was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.
-
1
- Show all
L
Honestly I don't understand a lot of the things said in the book of Revelation. I do not completely understand what Jesus said. I know that some of what he was talking about has already happened in the years prior and culminating in the destruction of the temple in 70 ad.
I don't know when he will return, nor do I understand the millennial reign nor Satan being released to tempt man again and the end war. I know things look bad throughout the world. The modern world is engulfed in pernicious sin, violence, and plagues of all types. That there are evil hateful divisions among those that claim to believe, and even more so with those who despise those who believe.
I can only say with certainty that Christ said he would return and gather us to him, and that if it is not in my life time then upon my death I will be with him.
It's rather frightening for the generations to come if the Lord tarries much longer.
I don't know when he will return, nor do I understand the millennial reign nor Satan being released to tempt man again and the end war. I know things look bad throughout the world. The modern world is engulfed in pernicious sin, violence, and plagues of all types. That there are evil hateful divisions among those that claim to believe, and even more so with those who despise those who believe.
I can only say with certainty that Christ said he would return and gather us to him, and that if it is not in my life time then upon my death I will be with him.
It's rather frightening for the generations to come if the Lord tarries much longer.
-
2
- Show all
Dispensationalism is the most popular method of interpretation in the U.S. evangelical church. Chances are your pastor believes in dispensationalism if you are attending a conservative, non-Reformed church, especially Baptist or Pentecostal/charismatic churches.
Dispensationalism was made popular by J.N. Darby, CI Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, and Robert Saucy, among others.
Dispensationalism is full of misunderstandings and causes one to have a poor perception of the unity of Scripture. For example, many dispensational scholars and pastors question whether the Church is under the New Covenant.
Their main problem is that they radically separate Jews from Gentiles, and deny that there is one people of God. This is not consistent with Ephesians 2, which says that the Jew and Gentile are made "one man" in Christ.
For a good set of audios on the problems with dispensationalism, check out the thirteen-part audio series by Rob McKenzie, a former dispensationalist:
https://reformedforum.org/category/series/dispensationalism/
For a good set of audios on interpreting Scripture (hermeneutics), check out this series by Jonathan Landry Cruse on SermonAudio:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=kalamazoocpc&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Hermeneutics
A second view, in opposition to dispensationalism, is covenant theology. Those who believe in covenant theology are called covenantalists.
Here are some reasons why I am not a dispensationalist:
- Dispensationalism contains partial truths, and the worldview seems to be correct from a shallow level of study, but it has deeper, underlying presuppositions which are not true. For instance, the book of Revelation is not one sequential set of events, but is a series of visions that have overlapping content. Their understanding of end-time events relies on the "sequence of events" presupposition regarding Revelation. There are clearer Scriptures that refute their position within the Gospels and epistles, which portray a general judgment of all mankind occurring at Jesus' return. Interpretative gymnastics on clearer Scriptures are employed to insert a 1000 year period between the judgment at Jesus' return and the judgment at the end of the Millennium prescribed by their view of Revelation 20. An example is Matthew 25: 31-46, where Christ clearly portrayed the judgment of all nations to occur at his return.
- Dispensationalism assumes a period of time where the curse is partially, but not fully lifted, and that death continues to reign. Scripture teaches that at Christ's return, death is decisively defeated in the resurrection (1 Cor 15). Again, interpretative gymnastics are exercised in order to deny this truth.
- Dispensationalism is inconsistent with the concept of union with Christ. All believers, Jew and Gentile, are one in Christ, and are spiritual descendants of Abraham as a result. Christ was a physical descendant of Abraham, and the believer has been joined to him. As a result of this union, the believer becomes a descendant of Abraham, and inherits the blessings of Abraham in this way. See Ephesians 2, Romans 4, Galatians 3.
- Dispensationalists claim that covenantalists believe God doesn't keep his promises. This is a false claim. God keeps his promises. Period. End of sentence. One must ask these questions, though: 1) were these promises unconditional? 2) if the promises were conditional, did the person fulfill the conditions? 3) who were the promises actually made to; ancient Israel or one particular offspring of Abraham (Jesus)? 4) will these promises be fulfilled in some grander, spectacular way than originally given, and to an audience that is more universal than Abraham's physical descendants? 5) were these promises fulfilled at some point in ancient Israel's past, and does this fulfillment exhaust them? and 6) does the person understand the nature promises being discussed, or are they simply relying on what some other dispensationalist has taught them?
These would be the questions I ask myself as I am studying dispensationalist claims.
- Dispensationalism leads to a poor understanding of the unity of Scripture. The Old Testament can be properly characterized as "promise" and the New Testament can be properly characterized as "fulfillment". The Old Testament communicates and teaches about Christ and the New Covenant through shadows and types. Dispensationalism does not lend to a thorough Christocentric reading of the Old Testament. Instead, I believe their exegesis is Israel-centric.
- Dispensationalists tend to read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, and this is backwards. The New Testament is the clearer revelation which explains the Old Testament shadows and types. Shadows and types are only "fuzzy pictures" and not the fulfillment. The fulfillment is the higher revelation, and should govern the interpretation of the shadows and types.
- Dispensationalists frequently claim covenantalists employ allegories in the sense of the Roman Catholic quadriga method of interpretation, such as Origen. This is a false claim, and demonstrates that they do not understand the hermeneutics employed by covenantalists. They fail to understand that recognizing symbols and typology in Scripture is not "allegorizing Scripture". Additionally, they are very hypocritical in this regard because they recognize some symbols and shadows/types in their own interpretation. They seem to be unable to realize their own hypocrisy and biases. Like many misled individuals, they seem to believe they are the impartial interpreters of Scripture and the valiant defenders of the true faith.
- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists believe in "replacement theology", which they define as the belief that God replaced ancient Israel with the Church. This is a false claim. Covenant theology teaches that there is only one people of God, from Adam throughout all eternity, composed of all the people of God, whether Jew or Gentile. There was no "replacement"; true Israel has always been this one covenant people. Physical Israel was typological of Christ and the New Covenant, and in that sense, it is accurate that the Church fulfills the type of ancient Israel.
- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists are guilty of AntiSemitism. Since covenantalists believe that there is only one people of God, both Jew and Gentile, they have no rational basis for their Antisemitism claim.
- Dispensationalists often attempt to associate covenantalists with Roman Catholicism. Cults often use this technique to discredit evangelical Christians as a whole, and dispensationalists use it to discredit covenantalists in a similar manner. Cultic behavior amongst evangelicals, who claim to be brothers, is not ethical.
- Dispensationalists often claim that covenantalists live immoral lives, because they are not living in anticipation of the Rapture. The reality is that all Christians know that they are not guaranteed the next minute of life, so the timing of a Rapture is not relevant regardless of either position. In fact, I would argue that morality is more emphasized in the covenantalist camp than dispensationalism, due to antinomian tendencies. As an example, CI Scofield experienced extreme alcohol, marital, and childrearing problems.
Please note that I realize some dispensationalists do not agree with the misrepresentations of their colleagues. However, there is a strong tendency in the dispensationalist camp to make these sorts of claims.
Dispensationalism was made popular by J.N. Darby, CI Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, Charles Ryrie, Dwight Pentecost, and Robert Saucy, among others.
Dispensationalism is full of misunderstandings and causes one to have a poor perception of the unity of Scripture. For example, many dispensational scholars and pastors question whether the Church is under the New Covenant.
Their main problem is that they radically separate Jews from Gentiles, and deny that there is one people of God. This is not consistent with Ephesians 2, which says that the Jew and Gentile are made "one man" in Christ.
For a good set of audios on the problems with dispensationalism, check out the thirteen-part audio series by Rob McKenzie, a former dispensationalist:
https://reformedforum.org/category/series/dispensationalism/
For a good set of audios on interpreting Scripture (hermeneutics), check out this series by Jonathan Landry Cruse on SermonAudio:
https://www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?sourceOnly=true&currSection=sermonssource&keyword=kalamazoocpc&subsetcat=series&subsetitem=Hermeneutics
A second view, in opposition to dispensationalism, is covenant theology. Those who believe in covenant theology are called covenantalists.
Here are some reasons why I am not a dispensationalist:
- Dispensationalism contains partial truths, and the worldview seems to be correct from a shallow level of study, but it has deeper, underlying presuppositions which are not true. For instance, the book of Revelation is not one sequential set of events, but is a series of visions that have overlapping content. Their understanding of end-time events relies on the "sequence of events" presupposition regarding Revelation. There are clearer Scriptures that refute their position within the Gospels and epistles, which portray a general judgment of all mankind occurring at Jesus' return. Interpretative gymnastics on clearer Scriptures are employed to insert a 1000 year period between the judgment at Jesus' return and the judgment at the end of the Millennium prescribed by their view of Revelation 20. An example is Matthew 25: 31-46, where Christ clearly portrayed the judgment of all nations to occur at his return.
- Dispensationalism assumes a period of time where the curse is partially, but not fully lifted, and that death continues to reign. Scripture teaches that at Christ's return, death is decisively defeated in the resurrection (1 Cor 15). Again, interpretative gymnastics are exercised in order to deny this truth.
- Dispensationalism is inconsistent with the concept of union with Christ. All believers, Jew and Gentile, are one in Christ, and are spiritual descendants of Abraham as a result. Christ was a physical descendant of Abraham, and the believer has been joined to him. As a result of this union, the believer becomes a descendant of Abraham, and inherits the blessings of Abraham in this way. See Ephesians 2, Romans 4, Galatians 3.
- Dispensationalists claim that covenantalists believe God doesn't keep his promises. This is a false claim. God keeps his promises. Period. End of sentence. One must ask these questions, though: 1) were these promises unconditional? 2) if the promises were conditional, did the person fulfill the conditions? 3) who were the promises actually made to; ancient Israel or one particular offspring of Abraham (Jesus)? 4) will these promises be fulfilled in some grander, spectacular way than originally given, and to an audience that is more universal than Abraham's physical descendants? 5) were these promises fulfilled at some point in ancient Israel's past, and does this fulfillment exhaust them? and 6) does the person understand the nature promises being discussed, or are they simply relying on what some other dispensationalist has taught them?
These would be the questions I ask myself as I am studying dispensationalist claims.
- Dispensationalism leads to a poor understanding of the unity of Scripture. The Old Testament can be properly characterized as "promise" and the New Testament can be properly characterized as "fulfillment". The Old Testament communicates and teaches about Christ and the New Covenant through shadows and types. Dispensationalism does not lend to a thorough Christocentric reading of the Old Testament. Instead, I believe their exegesis is Israel-centric.
- Dispensationalists tend to read the New Testament in light of the Old Testament, and this is backwards. The New Testament is the clearer revelation which explains the Old Testament shadows and types. Shadows and types are only "fuzzy pictures" and not the fulfillment. The fulfillment is the higher revelation, and should govern the interpretation of the shadows and types.
- Dispensationalists frequently claim covenantalists employ allegories in the sense of the Roman Catholic quadriga method of interpretation, such as Origen. This is a false claim, and demonstrates that they do not understand the hermeneutics employed by covenantalists. They fail to understand that recognizing symbols and typology in Scripture is not "allegorizing Scripture". Additionally, they are very hypocritical in this regard because they recognize some symbols and shadows/types in their own interpretation. They seem to be unable to realize their own hypocrisy and biases. Like many misled individuals, they seem to believe they are the impartial interpreters of Scripture and the valiant defenders of the true faith.
- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists believe in "replacement theology", which they define as the belief that God replaced ancient Israel with the Church. This is a false claim. Covenant theology teaches that there is only one people of God, from Adam throughout all eternity, composed of all the people of God, whether Jew or Gentile. There was no "replacement"; true Israel has always been this one covenant people. Physical Israel was typological of Christ and the New Covenant, and in that sense, it is accurate that the Church fulfills the type of ancient Israel.
- Dispensationalists often claim covenantalists are guilty of AntiSemitism. Since covenantalists believe that there is only one people of God, both Jew and Gentile, they have no rational basis for their Antisemitism claim.
- Dispensationalists often attempt to associate covenantalists with Roman Catholicism. Cults often use this technique to discredit evangelical Christians as a whole, and dispensationalists use it to discredit covenantalists in a similar manner. Cultic behavior amongst evangelicals, who claim to be brothers, is not ethical.
- Dispensationalists often claim that covenantalists live immoral lives, because they are not living in anticipation of the Rapture. The reality is that all Christians know that they are not guaranteed the next minute of life, so the timing of a Rapture is not relevant regardless of either position. In fact, I would argue that morality is more emphasized in the covenantalist camp than dispensationalism, due to antinomian tendencies. As an example, CI Scofield experienced extreme alcohol, marital, and childrearing problems.
Please note that I realize some dispensationalists do not agree with the misrepresentations of their colleagues. However, there is a strong tendency in the dispensationalist camp to make these sorts of claims.
I agree with all those things. And those don't require tons of charts to explain like the dispensationalist belief system
You could say the whole book of Revelation is one continual parable .In the opening verse the kind of hermeneutics is declared as signified .
Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV)1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
I'm not sure about the particular verse you are referencing...seems like I read something about this verse indicating that symbolism is to be recognized in the book.
However, it's pretty obvious since the whole book is full of symbols.
It should not surprise anyone that 144,000 (12x12x1000) or 1000 years can refer to a symbolic meaning.
But, dispensationalists don't allow that when it doesn't fit their theology.
Another example of this relates to the cubic dimensions of the New Jerusalem. I am convicted it relates to the Most Holy Place, and indicates that God's manifest presence will be evidenced on the earth, similar to the Garden of Eden and the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Temple..but convincing most dispensationalists that this is the meaning (and not a literal cube jutting out beyond our atmosphere and covering a sixth of the earth) is a challenge
However, it's pretty obvious since the whole book is full of symbols.
It should not surprise anyone that 144,000 (12x12x1000) or 1000 years can refer to a symbolic meaning.
But, dispensationalists don't allow that when it doesn't fit their theology.
Another example of this relates to the cubic dimensions of the New Jerusalem. I am convicted it relates to the Most Holy Place, and indicates that God's manifest presence will be evidenced on the earth, similar to the Garden of Eden and the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Temple..but convincing most dispensationalists that this is the meaning (and not a literal cube jutting out beyond our atmosphere and covering a sixth of the earth) is a challenge
I'm not sure about the particular verse you are referencing...seems like I read something about this verse indicating that symbolism is to be recognized in the book.
However, it's pretty obvious since the whole book is full of symbols.
It should not surprise anyone that 144,000 (12x12x1000) or 1000 years can refer to a symbolic meaning.
But, dispensationalists don't allow that when it doesn't fit their theology.
Another example of this relates to the cubic dimensions of the New Jerusalem. I am convicted it relates to the Most Holy Place, and indicates that God's manifest presence will be evidenced on the earth, similar to the Garden of Eden and the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Temple..but convincing most dispensationalists that this is the meaning (and not a literal cube jutting out beyond our atmosphere and covering a sixth of the earth) is a challenge
However, it's pretty obvious since the whole book is full of symbols.
It should not surprise anyone that 144,000 (12x12x1000) or 1000 years can refer to a symbolic meaning.
But, dispensationalists don't allow that when it doesn't fit their theology.
Another example of this relates to the cubic dimensions of the New Jerusalem. I am convicted it relates to the Most Holy Place, and indicates that God's manifest presence will be evidenced on the earth, similar to the Garden of Eden and the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Temple..but convincing most dispensationalists that this is the meaning (and not a literal cube jutting out beyond our atmosphere and covering a sixth of the earth) is a challenge
For the cause of Christ
Roger
Actually the Bible itself does not allow for such a cavalier handling of Scripture. God says what He means, and means what He says. While there may be metaphors in the Bible, when numbers are stated, then they must be accepted as numbers.
Christians should understand that it was from within the Roman Catholic Church that all the misinterpretations first arose. It was people like Origen and Augustine who allegorized Scripture to fit their theology.
Christians should understand that it was from within the Roman Catholic Church that all the misinterpretations first arose. It was people like Origen and Augustine who allegorized Scripture to fit their theology.
I hate to rain on a parade, but I think this whole thread got off on unsound footing. Since when was separation theology an excusive distinctive of dispensationalism in the first place? (It isn't).
"...you would likely find that Premillennial Dispensationalists are the most nasty, in terms of insults."
Good grief! How subjective can one get???? I can hardly believe my eyes. It is a sad day at CC when nutty statements like this get any traction whatsoever.
"...you would likely find that Premillennial Dispensationalists are the most nasty, in terms of insults."
Good grief! How subjective can one get???? I can hardly believe my eyes. It is a sad day at CC when nutty statements like this get any traction whatsoever.
-
1
- Show all
My major point was this...the claim that dispensationalists make is that covenantalists believe in "replacement theology". This claim is repeated continually.
The reality is this: covenantalists believe that there is only one people of God, both Jew and Gentile, and that true Israel is the Church. Dispensationalists teach that Israel and the Church are two separate entities, and that God has two separate plans for Israel and the Church.
So, in my opinion, their view can properly be called "separation theology". It is just as valid as their label of "replacement theology".
Regarding the nastiness of dispensationalists, common claims are that covenantalists are racist (antiSemitic) and are akin to Roman Catholicism. I think that's pretty nasty actually. Additionally, they attempt to relate understanding figurative languages and shadows/types with "allegorization of Scripture", again, attempting to tie this to Roman Catholicism.
The claim regarding Roman Catholicism is a common claim that is made by cults.
This sort of behavior is common fare for dispensationalists. I've seen it on here, and I've observed it on various conferences by reputable dispensational scholars. Quotes from prominent evangelical scholars reveal the same attitude.
To be honest, I'm convinced dispensationalism is cultic in its behavior, as their behavior strongly resembles the behavior of the cult I was raised in. And, not many folks here would address this sort of behavior because the vast majority are dispensational themselves. They may not understand the term, but they've been taught by dispensationalists and reflect the same underlying theology in their remarks.
Well, I should say the majority of American evangelicals...international evangelicals know that dispensationalism has issues so they have shied away from it. It's mostly an American peculiarity.
The reality is this: covenantalists believe that there is only one people of God, both Jew and Gentile, and that true Israel is the Church. Dispensationalists teach that Israel and the Church are two separate entities, and that God has two separate plans for Israel and the Church.
So, in my opinion, their view can properly be called "separation theology". It is just as valid as their label of "replacement theology".
Regarding the nastiness of dispensationalists, common claims are that covenantalists are racist (antiSemitic) and are akin to Roman Catholicism. I think that's pretty nasty actually. Additionally, they attempt to relate understanding figurative languages and shadows/types with "allegorization of Scripture", again, attempting to tie this to Roman Catholicism.
The claim regarding Roman Catholicism is a common claim that is made by cults.
This sort of behavior is common fare for dispensationalists. I've seen it on here, and I've observed it on various conferences by reputable dispensational scholars. Quotes from prominent evangelical scholars reveal the same attitude.
To be honest, I'm convinced dispensationalism is cultic in its behavior, as their behavior strongly resembles the behavior of the cult I was raised in. And, not many folks here would address this sort of behavior because the vast majority are dispensational themselves. They may not understand the term, but they've been taught by dispensationalists and reflect the same underlying theology in their remarks.
Well, I should say the majority of American evangelicals...international evangelicals know that dispensationalism has issues so they have shied away from it. It's mostly an American peculiarity.
-
1
- Show all
I'm not sure about the particular verse you are referencing...seems like I read something about this verse indicating that symbolism is to be recognized in the book.
However, it's pretty obvious since the whole book is full of symbols.
It should not surprise anyone that 144,000 (12x12x1000) or 1000 years can refer to a symbolic meaning.
But, dispensationalists don't allow that when it doesn't fit their theology.
Another example of this relates to the cubic dimensions of the New Jerusalem. I am convicted it relates to the Most Holy Place, and indicates that God's manifest presence will be evidenced on the earth, similar to the Garden of Eden and the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Temple..but convincing most dispensationalists that this is the meaning (and not a literal cube jutting out beyond our atmosphere and covering a sixth of the earth) is a challenge
However, it's pretty obvious since the whole book is full of symbols.
It should not surprise anyone that 144,000 (12x12x1000) or 1000 years can refer to a symbolic meaning.
But, dispensationalists don't allow that when it doesn't fit their theology.
Another example of this relates to the cubic dimensions of the New Jerusalem. I am convicted it relates to the Most Holy Place, and indicates that God's manifest presence will be evidenced on the earth, similar to the Garden of Eden and the Most Holy Place of the Tabernacle/Temple..but convincing most dispensationalists that this is the meaning (and not a literal cube jutting out beyond our atmosphere and covering a sixth of the earth) is a challenge
Literalizing the signified language of parables as the true source of faith. Like the number no man count. . 144,000 (all of the redeemed the bride) Or the number 666. literalizing it as a literal sign they seek after to avoid . An sign and wonder, or sign as a wonder seekers walking after the temporal .
Not walking by faith the unseen eternal .
Mathew 13 speaks to that. In reading and hearing they hear not and see not the gospel understanding.
Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, "neither do they understand". And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive: Mathew 13
All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.Mathew 13:34-35
More bafflegab. Does the word "concise" mean anything to you? What about "brevity"? "Coherent" perhaps?
You really need to take a class in basic English. So much of your contribution on this site is essentially meaningless (and ignored by most) because of your consistently poor grammar and sentence structure. I don't tell you this to criticize you personally, but to encourage you to better yourself, so that you may be a blessing to others.
You really need to take a class in basic English. So much of your contribution on this site is essentially meaningless (and ignored by most) because of your consistently poor grammar and sentence structure. I don't tell you this to criticize you personally, but to encourage you to better yourself, so that you may be a blessing to others.