Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

Good day UnitedWithChrist!

Dispensationalism has two primary distinctives: 1) a consistently literal interpretation of Scripture, especially Bible prophecy, and 2) a view of the uniqueness of Israel as separate from the Church in God’s program.

Are you saying that you don't believe in the above?

Dispensationalists ignore the fact that Israel is typological of the Church.

And, they don't interpret literally in a consistent manner either. That is their claim, but it is a false claim. They have been claiming that for decades, but the reality is that they don't interpret literally in a consistent manner.

While claiming to interpret Scripture "literally", in reality what they are doing is interpreting Scripture in a manner that supports their doctrine, whether it makes sense or not.

Then, they accuse covenant theologians of allegorizing, when covenant theologians simply realize the typological nature of the given Scripture.

Regarding prophecy, their general claim is that the book of Revelation needs to be read as a sequence of events, but it is not...it is a series of visions with overlapping content, for the most part. For instance, it is easy to see that events applying to the return of Jesus are mentioned throughout the book.

For instance, Revelation 11:15ff is describing the return of Jesus, and Revelation 12:1-4 is describing the birth of Jesus, and Herod's attempt to destroy him.

The same pattern can be seen throughout the book, except for Rev 20-22.

The mistake dispensationalists make in regards to Revelation involves a failure to recognize the genre. It is apocalyptic literature, so it's going to use symbolism. Dispensationalists will recognize the symbolism only when it supports their doctrine, and they will accuse others of allegorization if they view the "literal" interpretation they employ as being inconsistent.

And, no, I don't recognize the nation of Israel as separate from the Church in God's program.

As I indicated by quoting Ephesians 2, the two (Gentile, Jew) have become one, and Gentiles have been brought near through the death of Christ.

Anyone with a decent understanding of Scripture understands union with Christ, and that the two, Jew and Gentile, have been made one man in Christ.

I believe, though, that a successful evangelization of Jews will likely occur just prior to the return of Christ. So, in that sense I believe that there will be a special work that God does amongst the Jews.

By the way, I don't think Revelation 7 is talking about a group of Jewish virgins, but is talking about the church redeemed through the tribulation. The Church is spiritual Israel.

Throughout Revelation, there is a pattern that is observed. John first sees something, and then he hears something that interprets what he sees. Or, he hears something, then he sees something that clarifies the meaning of what he heard.

In this case, he hears the reading of the names and numbers of Israel, and then he sees the multitude of those who have been redeemed by the LORD through the great tribulation.

This "seeing and hearing" or "hearing and seeing" hermeneutic is explained in GK Beale's shorter commentary on Revelation.

So, no, I do not believe in the "literalizing" hermeneutic of dispensationalists, because it really isn't taking Scripture in it's intended meaning. Additionally, they don't use it consistently themselves if using it would challenge their theology. They are inconsistent, but yelp at non-dispensationalists if they recognize typology.

Additionally, I'll challenge you regarding listening to the above audios.

I think that they explain dispensationalism well AND address some major issues with their methodology, including incidences where they don't even apply their own professed "consistently literal interpretation of Scripture".

I belonged to a cultic group as a young man, and came to understand how it employed inconsistent hermeneutics. I no longer believe their theology and am a normal evangelical Christian, but I am shocked that Christians, not cultists, accept a faulty hermeneutic too, and I believe dispensationalism is a widely accepted faulty hermeneutic.

So, to me it seems like dispensationalism is cultlike in some respects, yet they hold the basics of Christian doctrine. It is cultlike in the sense that adherents won't even question the inconsistencies within the system.

And, I'm really shocked that dispensationalists as whole don't believe that the New Covenant is in effect for the Church.

Here's an article by Wheatland Bible Chapel on this topic about whether the Church is under the New Covenant.

Notice that the answer is NO.

And, the guy who wrote the article tells the reader, whom he anticipates to be a pastor or teacher, to avoid telling the ordinary layman about this.

http://www.wheatlandbiblechapel.org...eftis-the-church-under-the-new-covenant-59834

I wonder how many dispensational teachers are avoiding telling folks that this is the logical conclusion of dispensationalism.

Again, I'm shocked that educated dispensationalists teach this.

OK. I will therefore answer my own question.
Yes. Unconditional fulfillment yet future.
The Church is not Israel and Israel is not the Church. They are distinct yet will enjoy the same Kingdom and Messiah Jesus.

I know that's what dispensationalists believe. I suggest listening to the audios I have posted the links to.

As well, I suggest reading the Wheatland Bible Chapel link that claims the New Covenant isn't for the Church.

By the way, if one simply understands that the believer is a descendant of Abraham through union with Christ, that makes sense of the NT and the promises of God in that regard.

My guess is virtually no dispensationalist will listen to those audios, though. They are trapped in their theology like I was trapped in the cult I belonged to, as a young man. I would not have entertained the possibility I was wrong, and I doubt that dispensationalists are any better off in terms of being prideful about their alleged understanding.

The good thing is that it's not a salvation issue, though. Certain elements of the cultic teaching defintely had far more repercussions than dispensationalism.

Nope. The correct view extinguishes all of the smoldering wicks of prophecy. There are no loose ends in a PROPER understanding dispensation, covenants, prophecy and Gods plan that He made from eternity past.

So simple a 10 yo child could understand it. Conflating and confusing seems to be quite the pastime for many.....

Is that why Jesus still hasn’t returned despite decades of claims from dispensationalists since Israel became a nation?

By the way this claim that the Church is not under the New Covenant removed every shred of credibility dispie theology has in my eyes. I don’t think most dispies themselves know about this.

It also occurs to me that dispensationalists have an Israel-centric view of the Bible rather than a Christocentric view of the Bible.

They also look forward to the rapture, not the second advent, our blessed hope.

The nation Israel and the church are two separate entities. The church is made up of both Jew and Gentiles, The nation Israel/the woman of Rev.12, are those who did not and do not recognize Jesus as their Messiah.

The church is not Israel.

I stand by a literal interpretation, unless the plain literal sense does not make sense.

It is because they misunderstand and misinterpret what those other scriptures are saying. And then they write books and gain followers of that teaching. The only time that Jesus is going to return to the earth, is after the 7th bowl has been poured out, which completes God's wrath and not before.

The above is a perfect example of misinterpreting what the context is saying. Below is the scripture:

"Then the seventh angel sounded his trumpet, and loud voices called out in heaven: 'The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ, and He will reign forever and ever.' ”

The verse above is not saying that at the sounding of the seventh trumpet that Jesus is returning to the earth to end the age, but is apart of the process of the authority over the kingdoms of the world reverting back from Satan to God and mankind. For in Luke 4:5-6 Satan showed Jesus all the kingdoms of the world and said if you will bow down and worship me, they and all their glory will all be yours. The results of the seventh trumpet and third woe, is Satan and his angels being cast out of heaven, which will be a woe to the inhabitants of the earth during that last 3 1/2 years. As previously stated, Jesus does not return to the earth until after the seventh bowl has been poured out.

In addition, Rev.12:1-4 is also misinterpreted as the male child symbolically representing Jesus. The events of Rev.12 are future events. The woman clothed with sun, with the moon under her feet and wearing a crown of twelves stars, is representing the unbelieving nation of Israel, which is identified in Genesis 37:9-10 from Joseph's dream.

Sun = Jacob
Moon = Wife/wives
Eleven Stars = Eleven of the twelve sons/tribes of Israel, with Joseph being the twelfth star.

The woman as a whole = Unbelieving Israel

Jesus does not fit the criteria as being the male child:

Jesus = crucified, buried, resurrected and ascended to the right hand of the Father

Male Child = Caught up to God and His throne before the dragon/Satan can kill it.

The word "harpazo" translated as "caught up" is the same word used for those who are still alive at the time of the resurrection will be changed and "caught up" which is defined as "force suddenly exercised, a snatching away, being caught up." Jesus did not escape the dragon by being snatched up, where the male child is.

Also, we are told in Rev.12:9 and 20:2, that "the dragon is that ancient serpent called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world. He was hurled to the earth, and his angels with him." Therefore, dragon cannot be Herod. That verse is not referring to Jesus escaping from Herod, but is referring to what is going to happen at the sounding of the seventh trumpet to the woman, Satan, his angels and the Male child during the middle of that last seven years. So, who is the Male child?

It is important to understand what is meant by the woman/Israel giving birth to a male child. This is one of those scriptures where the plain literal sense does not make good sense and therefore must be interpreted symbolically.

The woman/Israel giving birth to a male child, is referring to the 144,000 who will come out of unbelieving Israel (gives birth to) who will recognize Jesus as their Messiah. In Rev.14, it is said of the 144,000, that "These are the ones who have not been defiled with women, for they are virgins." That these 144,000 are said to have not been defiled with women, would infer that they are all males, ergo, male child.

The male child is a collective name symbolically representing the 144,000 who will be sealed in the beginning of the seven years who will be caught up to God and His throne in the middle of the seven years.

Provide some examples and I can explain them to you.

The book of Revelation should be read in the literal sense unless the context demands a symbolic one. We don't interpret it to support our doctrine, but what the context demands. What you're doing is believing and adopting the false teachings of men.

The fact that Israel IS in the land should be a wake up call.
But...this is much more compelling...

Luke 1:26

"Now in the sixth month the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee, named Nazareth, to a virgin betrothed to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. And he came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee. But she was greatly troubled at the saying, and cast in her mind what manner of salutation this might be. And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end."

If you want to say that this is speaking to the Church, you are in for quite an uphill battle. But worse....doing so is brazen heresy.

Absolutely not true. Legitimate dispensationalism (so-called) will understand and embrace the clear teaching of Scripture.
And the clear teaching is the prophetic parallel courses of Israel and the Church. This of course requires the inclusion of a pre-trib rapture as well as a pre-millennial doctrine, without which the entire scaffolding of prophetic fulfillment crashes to the ground.

There's no such separation,, what there is are those who said let us make an image of the beast that was,was not yet is and then took the beast that was put in the pit in ad70(Revelation 17:8), and set it back up in 1948(Let us make an image of the beast,,,Rev. 13:14) and worshiped it's image and so you think you will be raptured while instead you will be left behind to suffer the wrath because you worshiped(worked for) it's image.

The Israel on the maps of man today is nothing more than the stagine grounds for the fulfillment of prophecy.

The Issrael of our Father is comprised of all who believe Him… It capital will be the New Jerusalem come down...….……...It's in the Book.

No, this is simply dispensationalist propaganda.

And, it mainly comes from individuals who haven't studied the other options such as amillennialism.

In fact, Revelation is not the straight sequence of events like dispies teach. As I have demonstrated, it is a series of visions that have overlapping content. It is easy to see that there are multiple times that the events accompanying Christ's return are mentioned, including Revelation 11 and 19.

Jesus is already ruling over the earth from heaven.

He will rule on earth as well, when he returns, but that's simply a change in location and a more intense rule.

He will rule over all the earth in the eternal state, too.

His rule won't just be over the house of Jacob; it will be over all mankind.

Dispensationalism is so limited in terms of it's scope, because they are Israel-centric and not Christ-centric.

This isn't even worth reading.

Revelation 12:1-4 is describing the birth of Jesus, and Satan's attempt to destroy him through the human instrument of Herod.

It is as plain as the nose on your face, yet dispensationalists cannot see it because it does not fit their theology. They are thoroughly deceived by false teachings.

I would also suggest to folks that they listen to this message on interpreting the Bible. Dispensationalists are extremely self-righteous about their method of interpreting the Bible, claiming they are the "biblicists" and everyone else interprets wrongly. I don't find their claims to be credible, and this misinterpretation of Rev 12:1-4 is a plain example.

Here's the whole series on hermeneutics:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....SpeakerOnly=true&includekeywords=&ExactVerse=


Here's a few on typology and the literal sense of the Bible:

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1011181544239
https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1023181335337

I am amazed that dispensationalists try to twist Revelation 12:1-4 into something other than Christ, his birth, and exaltation. It is PLAINLY talking about these events. Additionally, it describes how the "woman" fled to the wilderness, which is exactly what the Jewish Church did in AD67, upon divine warning, just prior to the invasion of the Roman army into Jerusalem.

But, if they held that position, they would not be dispensationalists.

Thanks for bringing this up, though..it deepens my conviction that true Israel is the Church, because it describes the connection very well

And, now I understand the fervent rejection of dispensationalists in regards to Revelation 12:1-4 and the relationship between Israel and the Church.

I want people to notice this.

Dispensationalists CONSTANTLY claim that they are the ones who have the correct interpretation of Scripture, therefore their theology is correct.

They claim that they interpret the bible LITERALLY and that others do not. But, the reality is that they interpret Scripture through their worldview.

That is exactly what I did as a cultist. The cult I belonged to claimed that their doctrine was bulletproof. And, it made sense through their Bizarro interpretative lense. However, their lense was distorted, and their teachings were false.

People think that cults simply make up stuff. Some do. But, other cults impose their interpretative lense upon Scripture, distorting it here and there in order to conform Scripture according to their narrative.

I basically had to be re-educated in order to see where the problems were. Dispensationalists are better off than the cult I belonged to, because their deviations are not central issues. However, they are still facing the same issues.

By the way, I've been a premillennial guy the vast majority of my life. Even the cult was premillennial. It was only in the last five years that I adopted amillennialism, and that is because the Gospels and epistles describe the judgment of the righteous and unrighteous as occurring at the same time. There is no 1000 year gap in between.

Additionally, 1 Corinthians 15 describes the defeat of death at the return of Jesus, when the resurrection occurs. If you believe in millennialism, you have to believe there is this world where the curse is mostly defeated, but death still occurs. Therefore, it's some kind of half-way state. I don't think 1 Corinthians 15 allows for that.

I have seen the attempts of various individuals on this forum to insert a gap into those Scriptures. I am not persuaded by their attempts. Nor do I think they are credible, and that their level of Greek proficiency allows for such analysis by them.

I have never been a dispensationalist, although I have attended dispensationalist churches. In fact, I have been attending one the last five years, but I will likely leave it because I don't want to deal with this sort of nonsense. If I wanted to teach Sunday School, my guess is that this issue would come up, and I'm not going to teach a theology I don't agree with. Unfortunately there are few amillennial churches in my area with Reformed teachings on salvation so that's another issue.

Anyways, I want you to note how well Revelation 12:1-4 describes the birth of Christ, his ascension, and the fleeing of the woman (the Church) into the wilderness. This is an unquestioned historical fact. The church fled Jerusalem, likely upon a divine warning by God issued in AD 67 just prior to the encampment of Roman soldiers around Jerusalem. Between AD67-70, Jerusalem was besieged and the Temple was destroyed. I believe about 150,000 Jews were either killed or enslaved at that time.

I am positive Revelation 12:1-4 is describing this event. But, if it is describing this event, there is a link between Israel and the Church, and if that is so, then dispensationalism is proven wrong. That is why the dispensationalist will not accept this interpretation. It would mean the end of dispensationalism if it is true.

So I can't be fooled into believing dispensationalism.

But, I couldn't anyways because I know that through union with Christ, the church is spiritual Israel. They become Abraham's descendants.

If he is indeed ruling over the earth now, you will see a wolf lying down with a. Lamb Isaiah 11:6

Unless it’s all spiritual to you too