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.
I can think of some examples on this forum, but it is not fair to generalize. I've known many polite premillennial dispensationalists. The polite one's posts probably do not stand out in your memory for their politeness as much since that is to be expected.
Did you coin the term 'Separation Theology'? That was confusing to me because Darby was a pretrib dispensationalist, and I believe he taught 'separation from evil', though that could have been later terminology for the concept. That's different from the label...I am assuming...you are putting on straightforward interpretation of texts about Israel in the Old Testament.
A curse or an accusation, or was it both?
What about plans for nations? The Old Testament teaches about God making kingdoms and nations fall? Do you think He stopped doing that at the cross or the ascension or is He still sovereign over the nations?
If we read Romans we see that Israel rejecting truth and the truth going out to Gentiles was predicted in the Old Testament. God is using Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy. "I will provoke them to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger them"-- wrote Paul in Romans 10 quoting from the song of Moses. Right now, a remnant of the nation of Israel finds salvation through faith and the rest are blinded, as we see in Romans 11. Natural Israelites are 'natural branches' in the olive tree and Gentile converts to Christ are wild branches grafted in. The wild branches are not to boast that they were broken off that we might be grafted in, and there is a strong warning against that.
The blindness on Israel lasts until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. Then all Israel shall be saved. Paul writes that through our mercy, they might obtain mercy.
God made many promises to the nation of Israel that are to be fulfilled. Part of the way of restoring them is by provoking them to jealousy through Gentile conversion, which also plays a role in the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah inheriting the nations.
How is it possible to understand Romans without some sort of understanding of different categories of 'Jew' and 'Galatians.' The part about no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free in Galatians is about our status as being heirs according to the promise. Women no longer have to be a part of a household whose head gets circumcised to be in covenant through promises made to Abraham. Nor do slaves. But that does not mean gay marriage is okay or that wives do not submit to their husbands. Paul told slaves to submit to their masters. So there are distinctions recognized between these groups in other passages aside from being heirs according to the promise. Paul later wrote to the Corinthians that if one is circumcised not to seek to be uncircumcised and if one is uncircumcised not to seek to become circumcised.
Peter also offered 'men of Israel' salvation through Jesus that the time of restoration of all things may come and that He might send Jesus back.
Consider Acts 15.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Here we see that God is taking from among the Gentiles a people for himself. Consider the situation. These men were Jews who had been circumcised and were seeking to obey the law of Moses, debating whether Gentiles who believed in Jesus had to do the same. Such Gentiles who were circumcised were considered to have become a part of the nation of Israel. But James concludes from scripture that God was taking from among the Gentiles a people for himself.
In the eschatological future, Amos prophesied about Gentiles on whom the Lord's name would be called. In the time of James, and our time, God is still taking from the Gentiles, from the nation, a people for himself.
This is one of many prophecies like it, but consider this:
Isaiah 43:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
Would the audience have thought that the prophecy addressed to their people was really addressed to a group of mixed Jews and Gentiles, or those of ethnic descent whose ancestors were Jews but had not been circumcised for generations, and Gentiles? Would they have interpreted the land here to refer to some kind of allegory? Is there any evidence the apostles interpreted it this way?
After opening their minds to understand the scriptures, the apostles, in Acts 1, asked Jesus if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. He did not rebuke them for not understanding. He said that it was not for them to know the times appointed by His Father.
Did you coin the term 'Separation Theology'? That was confusing to me because Darby was a pretrib dispensationalist, and I believe he taught 'separation from evil', though that could have been later terminology for the concept. That's different from the label...I am assuming...you are putting on straightforward interpretation of texts about Israel in the Old Testament.
A curse or an accusation, or was it both?
What about plans for nations? The Old Testament teaches about God making kingdoms and nations fall? Do you think He stopped doing that at the cross or the ascension or is He still sovereign over the nations?
If we read Romans we see that Israel rejecting truth and the truth going out to Gentiles was predicted in the Old Testament. God is using Gentiles to provoke Israel to jealousy. "I will provoke them to jealousy by them that are no people, and by a foolish nation I will anger them"-- wrote Paul in Romans 10 quoting from the song of Moses. Right now, a remnant of the nation of Israel finds salvation through faith and the rest are blinded, as we see in Romans 11. Natural Israelites are 'natural branches' in the olive tree and Gentile converts to Christ are wild branches grafted in. The wild branches are not to boast that they were broken off that we might be grafted in, and there is a strong warning against that.
The blindness on Israel lasts until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. Then all Israel shall be saved. Paul writes that through our mercy, they might obtain mercy.
God made many promises to the nation of Israel that are to be fulfilled. Part of the way of restoring them is by provoking them to jealousy through Gentile conversion, which also plays a role in the Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah inheriting the nations.
How is it possible to understand Romans without some sort of understanding of different categories of 'Jew' and 'Galatians.' The part about no Jew nor Greek, male nor female, slave nor free in Galatians is about our status as being heirs according to the promise. Women no longer have to be a part of a household whose head gets circumcised to be in covenant through promises made to Abraham. Nor do slaves. But that does not mean gay marriage is okay or that wives do not submit to their husbands. Paul told slaves to submit to their masters. So there are distinctions recognized between these groups in other passages aside from being heirs according to the promise. Paul later wrote to the Corinthians that if one is circumcised not to seek to be uncircumcised and if one is uncircumcised not to seek to become circumcised.
Peter also offered 'men of Israel' salvation through Jesus that the time of restoration of all things may come and that He might send Jesus back.
Consider Acts 15.
13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:
14 Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name.
15 And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written,
16 After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up:
17 That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.
Here we see that God is taking from among the Gentiles a people for himself. Consider the situation. These men were Jews who had been circumcised and were seeking to obey the law of Moses, debating whether Gentiles who believed in Jesus had to do the same. Such Gentiles who were circumcised were considered to have become a part of the nation of Israel. But James concludes from scripture that God was taking from among the Gentiles a people for himself.
In the eschatological future, Amos prophesied about Gentiles on whom the Lord's name would be called. In the time of James, and our time, God is still taking from the Gentiles, from the nation, a people for himself.
This is one of many prophecies like it, but consider this:
Isaiah 43:5-6 King James Version (KJV)
5 Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;
6 I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;
Would the audience have thought that the prophecy addressed to their people was really addressed to a group of mixed Jews and Gentiles, or those of ethnic descent whose ancestors were Jews but had not been circumcised for generations, and Gentiles? Would they have interpreted the land here to refer to some kind of allegory? Is there any evidence the apostles interpreted it this way?
After opening their minds to understand the scriptures, the apostles, in Acts 1, asked Jesus if He would at that time restore the kingdom to Israel. He did not rebuke them for not understanding. He said that it was not for them to know the times appointed by His Father.
-
1
- Show all
I have a slightly different view from that of Ahwatukee... [re: "the man child" / "the male [G730; v.13]" (Rev12)]
But let me ask you a couple of questions.
Who do you believe Micah 5:3 is talking about? (We know, and likely agree, that Micah 5:2 is speaking of the birth of Jesus... I believe Micah 5:3 is speaking of something DISTINCT FROM THAT and that this verse's "UNTIL" correlates with the "TILL/UNTILs" of other such [related] passages [which speak to that which is yet "future"]). How do you see v.3?
Second question. Have you seen my posts re: the "SEQUENCE" issues in Matt22:7 [re: the 70ad events] and then v.8 ["THEN SAITH HE to his servants" which then FOLLOWS the 70ad events (in the same way that the "SEQUENCE" issues of Lk21:12 speaks of, in relation [time-wise] to "the beginning of birth pangs"/equivalent the SEALS)]...? Just wondering.
[<--added the "smiley" so you won't think me nasty and vile ]
But let me ask you a couple of questions.
Who do you believe Micah 5:3 is talking about? (We know, and likely agree, that Micah 5:2 is speaking of the birth of Jesus... I believe Micah 5:3 is speaking of something DISTINCT FROM THAT and that this verse's "UNTIL" correlates with the "TILL/UNTILs" of other such [related] passages [which speak to that which is yet "future"]). How do you see v.3?
Second question. Have you seen my posts re: the "SEQUENCE" issues in Matt22:7 [re: the 70ad events] and then v.8 ["THEN SAITH HE to his servants" which then FOLLOWS the 70ad events (in the same way that the "SEQUENCE" issues of Lk21:12 speaks of, in relation [time-wise] to "the beginning of birth pangs"/equivalent the SEALS)]...? Just wondering.
[<--added the "smiley" so you won't think me nasty and vile ]
The only thing you've proved is that dispensationalists apply their version of the "literal hermeneutic" inconsistently.
It is literal when they say it's literal, and symbolic when they say it is symbolic.
Yet, if someone else disagrees with them, then they have a hissy fit and accuse them of "allegorizing" or "spiritualizing" when this person is simply recognizing a symbol or a type.
And, dispensationalists are very self righteous about this. In essence, they are claiming they, and they only, have the right understanding of the Bible because they are the faithful interpreters of the Bible.
I mentioned in another place that MacArthur claims that there are no allegories in Scripture. He is saying this because dispensationalists call typology and recognizing symbols "allegorizing" or "spiritualizing".
However, Galatians 4 represents one allegory, concerning Hagar and Sarah. So, I am wondering what planet he is living on, where an allegory isn't an allegory.
But, more importantly, dispensationalists have been taught to identify any other interpretation as "allegorization" if someone else recognizes a symbol or a type.
And, the implication is that if someone else recognizes a symbol or a type, they are "allegorizing" and following Roman Catholic hermeneutics.
By the way, folks, if you don't believe me, listen to some dispensationalists. It's their constant claim. Ryrie, Pentecost, and others have made this claim toward covenant theologians.
It is literal when they say it's literal, and symbolic when they say it is symbolic.
Yet, if someone else disagrees with them, then they have a hissy fit and accuse them of "allegorizing" or "spiritualizing" when this person is simply recognizing a symbol or a type.
And, dispensationalists are very self righteous about this. In essence, they are claiming they, and they only, have the right understanding of the Bible because they are the faithful interpreters of the Bible.
I mentioned in another place that MacArthur claims that there are no allegories in Scripture. He is saying this because dispensationalists call typology and recognizing symbols "allegorizing" or "spiritualizing".
However, Galatians 4 represents one allegory, concerning Hagar and Sarah. So, I am wondering what planet he is living on, where an allegory isn't an allegory.
But, more importantly, dispensationalists have been taught to identify any other interpretation as "allegorization" if someone else recognizes a symbol or a type.
And, the implication is that if someone else recognizes a symbol or a type, they are "allegorizing" and following Roman Catholic hermeneutics.
By the way, folks, if you don't believe me, listen to some dispensationalists. It's their constant claim. Ryrie, Pentecost, and others have made this claim toward covenant theologians.
Regardless, it's irrelevant to my major point. So, while I'm convinced that old Israel is being represented here, and then new Israel, as the woman, it's not crucial to my major point.
My point is that Revelation is not written as one sequential narrative from Rev 4-22 like dispensationalists claim.
And, this is proven by the references to the second coming of Christ in Rev 11:15-19 and the birth and exaltation of Christ in Rev 12:1-6.
That cannot be denied.
The dispensationalist idea that Revelation is written in a sequential manner is faulty. And, it is largely what their narrative is based on.
There are other references to the return of Jesus prior to Rev. 19 as well.
Revelation is a series of visions with overlapping content. The events of the Church age take the Church from a state of blemish (reflected by Rev 2-3 letters) to a glorious state (reflected in the New Jerusalem in Rev 21-22).
It also teaches that God exacts revenge upon the enemies of his people, and that these enemies are: first, Satan; second, angelic agents; and third, human agents. God ultimately vindicates his people against their enemies, and exacts vengeance for the blood these wicked beings have caused to be shed.
It also portrays that God is ultimately in control, and he causes these events to work toward the sanctification and glorification of his church.
No "pin the tail on the antiChrist" for this guy. I spent years listening to that nonsense in cultic and dispensationalist groups. Do you know that virtually every pope AND president has been identified as the antiChrist by various dispensationalists?
I don't read the Bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the other anymore
My point is that Revelation is not written as one sequential narrative from Rev 4-22 like dispensationalists claim.
And, this is proven by the references to the second coming of Christ in Rev 11:15-19 and the birth and exaltation of Christ in Rev 12:1-6.
That cannot be denied.
The dispensationalist idea that Revelation is written in a sequential manner is faulty. And, it is largely what their narrative is based on.
There are other references to the return of Jesus prior to Rev. 19 as well.
Revelation is a series of visions with overlapping content. The events of the Church age take the Church from a state of blemish (reflected by Rev 2-3 letters) to a glorious state (reflected in the New Jerusalem in Rev 21-22).
It also teaches that God exacts revenge upon the enemies of his people, and that these enemies are: first, Satan; second, angelic agents; and third, human agents. God ultimately vindicates his people against their enemies, and exacts vengeance for the blood these wicked beings have caused to be shed.
It also portrays that God is ultimately in control, and he causes these events to work toward the sanctification and glorification of his church.
No "pin the tail on the antiChrist" for this guy. I spent years listening to that nonsense in cultic and dispensationalist groups. Do you know that virtually every pope AND president has been identified as the antiChrist by various dispensationalists?
I don't read the Bible in one hand, and the newspaper in the other anymore
Furthermore, the Church is nowhere to be found from Rev ch 6 all the way until you get to Rev ch 19 if my memory serves correctly. The Church is gone and raptured before the opening of the first seal in Rev ch 6 which initiates the time of Gods Wrath, that which the Bride, the Church, is saved from ever experiencing.
You've written quite a bit here and it is hard for me to focus upon it.
Firstly, I don't have any issue with a large influx of Jews that will respond in faith at some point prior to Christ's return. So, that is how I view Romans 11.
Secondly, my position is that through union with Christ, there is only one man, not two, according to Ephesians 2.
Thirdly, my position is that the redeemed will inherit the entire globe, per Romans 4. Whether literal physical Israelites inherit the portion of land promised to Abraham in the OT only is not an issue with me. Romans 4 says that all the spiritual descendants of Israel will inherit the entire globe.
Fourthly, I don't believe in a literal Millennium, but view the Millennium mentioned in Revelation 20 as the church age. One reason is that I don't think Revelation is written in a sequential manner like dispensationalists claim. Another reason is that, if it is written in a sequential manner, then you have a battle between Christ and nations before the Millennium, and after the Millennium. I don't think that is coherent, and I believe they are the same battle. A third reason is that if you hold to the dispensational understanding, you must accept that the Millennium is a space of time where the curse is mostly lifted, but not totally lifted, and death continues to occur during this time period. However, Scripture (particularly 1 Cor 15) indicates that death is defeated at the resurrection, which occurs when Jesus returns. A fourth reason is that the Gospels and apostolic writings indicate that Jesus destroys the wicked and rewards the righteous with eternal life upon his return, not afterwards.
Fifthly, regarding Acts 1:8, the disciples did not have a correct understanding of many things, so this idea that the kingdom was going to be only an Israelite kingdom wasn't a correct understanding. It wasn't until later that they understood Gentiles would be added to the people of God, for example. If you are claiming that the disciples had a perfect understanding on this matter, then I would challenge your claim, because they didn't even know that Gentiles would be added to the people of God yet. If Jesus left them without that knowledge, then why would you think they would know how their kingdom expectations were incorrect?
Sixthly, do you realize that dispensationalists separate Christ's teachings into two different gospels? They claim that there is a "gospel of the Cross" and a "gospel of the Kingdom" (the earthly Jewish kingdom). I was shocked to see that in a book by Renault Showers called "There Really Is a Difference!". He is one of their primary gurus.
Firstly, I don't have any issue with a large influx of Jews that will respond in faith at some point prior to Christ's return. So, that is how I view Romans 11.
Secondly, my position is that through union with Christ, there is only one man, not two, according to Ephesians 2.
Thirdly, my position is that the redeemed will inherit the entire globe, per Romans 4. Whether literal physical Israelites inherit the portion of land promised to Abraham in the OT only is not an issue with me. Romans 4 says that all the spiritual descendants of Israel will inherit the entire globe.
Fourthly, I don't believe in a literal Millennium, but view the Millennium mentioned in Revelation 20 as the church age. One reason is that I don't think Revelation is written in a sequential manner like dispensationalists claim. Another reason is that, if it is written in a sequential manner, then you have a battle between Christ and nations before the Millennium, and after the Millennium. I don't think that is coherent, and I believe they are the same battle. A third reason is that if you hold to the dispensational understanding, you must accept that the Millennium is a space of time where the curse is mostly lifted, but not totally lifted, and death continues to occur during this time period. However, Scripture (particularly 1 Cor 15) indicates that death is defeated at the resurrection, which occurs when Jesus returns. A fourth reason is that the Gospels and apostolic writings indicate that Jesus destroys the wicked and rewards the righteous with eternal life upon his return, not afterwards.
Fifthly, regarding Acts 1:8, the disciples did not have a correct understanding of many things, so this idea that the kingdom was going to be only an Israelite kingdom wasn't a correct understanding. It wasn't until later that they understood Gentiles would be added to the people of God, for example. If you are claiming that the disciples had a perfect understanding on this matter, then I would challenge your claim, because they didn't even know that Gentiles would be added to the people of God yet. If Jesus left them without that knowledge, then why would you think they would know how their kingdom expectations were incorrect?
Sixthly, do you realize that dispensationalists separate Christ's teachings into two different gospels? They claim that there is a "gospel of the Cross" and a "gospel of the Kingdom" (the earthly Jewish kingdom). I was shocked to see that in a book by Renault Showers called "There Really Is a Difference!". He is one of their primary gurus.
Your claim is based on dispensationalism.
For instance, I believe the 144,000 in Rev 7 are spiritual Israel, the Church.
This is based on the "look and hear" hermeneutic where John sees something, then hears the explanation from the angel or some other figure.
In this case, he sees 144,000 (and by the way this group does not align with the 12 tribes of Israel perfectly...it is omitting Dan for example) and then he hears them being described as a great multitude of redeemed individuals from every nation.
But, since that violates the dispensational narrative, you will have another interpretation of that.
For instance, I believe the 144,000 in Rev 7 are spiritual Israel, the Church.
This is based on the "look and hear" hermeneutic where John sees something, then hears the explanation from the angel or some other figure.
In this case, he sees 144,000 (and by the way this group does not align with the 12 tribes of Israel perfectly...it is omitting Dan for example) and then he hears them being described as a great multitude of redeemed individuals from every nation.
But, since that violates the dispensational narrative, you will have another interpretation of that.
Concerning the term "Separation Theology" that is my term in response to their term "Replacement Theology".
They claim that non-dispensationalists believe the Church has replaced Israel. We don't believe that; we believe Israel was the type, and the Church is the fulfillment.
My term of "Separation theology" is meant to be a response to their claim that they separate Jews from Gentiles within the one people of God, and it is based on Ephesians 2 which says there is only one man now, and all are part of the commonwealth of Israel. The church is spiritual Israel and is composed of both Jew and Gentile.
-
1
- Show all
God's provision for sin was animal sacrifices.
Just their faith would bring about salvation? What about following the law? If a Jew did not follow the law, they were cut off from the nation of Israel. As long as someone had faith in some future deliverance, that was good enough? That's not our gospel. Our gospel is specific in trusting the d,b,r of Jesus. This was a mystery until after the resurrection.
-
1
- Show all
Your claim is based on dispensationalism.
For instance, I believe the 144,000 in Rev 7 are spiritual Israel, the Church.
This is based on the "look and hear" hermeneutic where John sees something, then hears the explanation from the angel or some other figure.
In this case, he sees 144,000 (and by the way this group does not align with the 12 tribes of Israel perfectly...it is omitting Dan for example) and then he hears them being described as a great multitude of redeemed individuals from every nation.
But, since that violates the dispensational narrative, you will have another interpretation of that.
For instance, I believe the 144,000 in Rev 7 are spiritual Israel, the Church.
This is based on the "look and hear" hermeneutic where John sees something, then hears the explanation from the angel or some other figure.
In this case, he sees 144,000 (and by the way this group does not align with the 12 tribes of Israel perfectly...it is omitting Dan for example) and then he hears them being described as a great multitude of redeemed individuals from every nation.
But, since that violates the dispensational narrative, you will have another interpretation of that.
The 144,000 is a metaphor to represent an unknown.It represents the whole church made up of many lively stones that form the spiritual unseen house of God as the chaste virgin bride. She as the "mother of us all" is revealed in different parables.
We walk by faith the unseen eternal not after the temporal what the eyes see. There we can see its the end of time the Sun and moon the temporal times keeps under her feet also called under the Sun, therefore having no authority . .Twelve stars representing all who have been born again
Revelation 12 King James Version (KJV)And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars: And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
Josef was given a similar parable .God using Josef just as he used Rebekah comparing the spiritual eternal understanding, to the spiritual or faith to faith.
Genesis 37:10 And he told it to his father, and to his brethren: and his father rebuked him, and said unto him, What is this dream that thou hast dreamed? Shall I and thy mother and thy brethren indeed come to bow down ourselves to thee to the earth?
Genesis 24:60 And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed (Christ) possess the gate of those which hate them.
Your claim is based on dispensationalism.
For instance, I believe the 144,000 in Rev 7 are spiritual Israel, the Church.
This is based on the "look and hear" hermeneutic where John sees something, then hears the explanation from the angel or some other figure.
In this case, he sees 144,000 (and by the way this group does not align with the 12 tribes of Israel perfectly...it is omitting Dan for example) and then he hears them being described as a great multitude of redeemed individuals from every nation.
But, since that violates the dispensational narrative, you will have another interpretation of that.
For instance, I believe the 144,000 in Rev 7 are spiritual Israel, the Church.
This is based on the "look and hear" hermeneutic where John sees something, then hears the explanation from the angel or some other figure.
In this case, he sees 144,000 (and by the way this group does not align with the 12 tribes of Israel perfectly...it is omitting Dan for example) and then he hears them being described as a great multitude of redeemed individuals from every nation.
But, since that violates the dispensational narrative, you will have another interpretation of that.
The Church is gone by Rev ch 6. Go ahead and try and find the Greek term "Church" after Ch 4. Not to be found.
In I Corinthians 15, they that experience the resurrection are 'they that are his at His coming.' Revelation does not have everyone resurrected at the same time, and I understand you would take such things more allegorically.
We'd have to discuss each passage.
So basically, you would say that you understand aspects of the role of Israel eschatology better than the apostles, and that your approach to eschatology depends on your having knowledge the apostles did not. Why would Jesus affirm their belief about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel by telling them it was not for them to know the times or seasons that were appointed by His Father if they were wrong? Why not just interpret scriptures about the restoration of Israel in a straightforward way like this passage indicates the apostles and also Christ did?
Also, the Lord Jesus had already told them to make disciples of all nations. But they had to work out the details of what would happen. Jesus had opened up their minds to understand the scriptures. So why should we assume what understanding they had was wrong, even if they had to grow into a fuller understanding of how the major points of it would come to pass?
There are a wide array of views under the broad tent of dispensationalism. There are also those that hold to what I would call hyperdispensational views of multiple gospels.
If you read about very early Christian views of eschatology, they believed that Christ would set up an actual kingdom on earth. For example, like Justin who wrote of the prophets being in Jerusalem in the eschatological future.
We'd have to discuss each passage.
So basically, you would say that you understand aspects of the role of Israel eschatology better than the apostles, and that your approach to eschatology depends on your having knowledge the apostles did not. Why would Jesus affirm their belief about the restoration of the kingdom to Israel by telling them it was not for them to know the times or seasons that were appointed by His Father if they were wrong? Why not just interpret scriptures about the restoration of Israel in a straightforward way like this passage indicates the apostles and also Christ did?
Also, the Lord Jesus had already told them to make disciples of all nations. But they had to work out the details of what would happen. Jesus had opened up their minds to understand the scriptures. So why should we assume what understanding they had was wrong, even if they had to grow into a fuller understanding of how the major points of it would come to pass?
There are a wide array of views under the broad tent of dispensationalism. There are also those that hold to what I would call hyperdispensational views of multiple gospels.
If you read about very early Christian views of eschatology, they believed that Christ would set up an actual kingdom on earth. For example, like Justin who wrote of the prophets being in Jerusalem in the eschatological future.
-
2
- Show all