Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

Which promises haven't been fulfilled yet?

I quoted Scriptures to prove that they were fulfilled in Joshua's day.

Abraham is actually heir of the entire earth.

I am going to present a section of a paper by The Cincinnati Church regarding Scofield's claim claiming Israel never possessed the Promised Land:

{beginning of quote}

In comments on Deuteronomy 30, the Scofield footnote says: “The Palestinian Covenant gives the conditions under which Israel entered the land of promise. It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land.” On this note the New Scofield and the original agree. Now compare this footnote with the pure text of God’s word.

“So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.” (JOS 11:23)

“And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” (JOS 21:43-45)

“Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:” (NEH 9:7-8)

These passages conclusively affirm that Israel has possessed the whole land under the Abrahamic Covenant. Nehemiah plainly declares that God has performed His words in covenanting with Abraham to give the land of Canaan to his seed. The Scofield footnote plainly denies these declarations of God regarding Israel’s possession of the whole land.

{end of quote}

Here is the source:

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

I don't hold their theology, but am simply using their website because it's easier than gathering the Scriptures myself. These are points that have been brought to my attention from other sources.

Please note that my position is that true Israel will possess the entire earth, and this is based on Romans 4...Abraham and all his spiritual descendants. What ancient Israel had as a type will be possessed by true Israel, united in Christ, in fulfillment.

You can disagree all you want, though. I don't think I'm going to convince dispensationalists on these points.

Correct. Abraham and his spiritual seed will possess the entire world. See Romans 4.

And, Jesus is the Davidic King who will rule throughout eternity. He is the Son of Man/Son of God that fulfills the Davidic Covenant.

In fact, he is now sitting on David's throne ruling over all from heaven. The fullest consummation awaits His return and the New Heavens and New Earth.

I don't have any issue with that.

God fulfilled the land promises to ancient Israel as I have indicated using this summary by Cincinnati Church:

{quote}

In comments on Deuteronomy 30, the Scofield footnote says: “The Palestinian Covenant gives the conditions under which Israel entered the land of promise. It is important to see that the nation has never as yet taken the land under the unconditional Abrahamic Covenant, nor has it ever possessed the whole land.” On this note the New Scofield and the original agree. Now compare this footnote with the pure text of God’s word.

“So Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the LORD said unto Moses; and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes. And the land rested from war.” (JOS 11:23)

“And the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which he sware to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein. And the LORD gave them rest round about, according to all that he sware unto their fathers: and there stood not a man of all their enemies before them; the LORD delivered all their enemies into their hand. There failed not ought of any good thing which the LORD had spoken unto the house of Israel; all came to pass.” (JOS 21:43-45)

“Thou art the LORD the God, who didst choose Abram, and broughtest him forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and gavest him the name of Abraham; And foundest his heart faithful before thee, and madest a covenant with him to give the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, and the Perizzites, and the Jebusites, and the Girgashites, to give it, I say, to his seed, and hast performed thy words; for thou art righteous:” (NEH 9:7-8)

These passages conclusively affirm that Israel has possessed the whole land under the Abrahamic Covenant. Nehemiah plainly declares that God has performed His words in covenanting with Abraham to give the land of Canaan to his seed. The Scofield footnote plainly denies these declarations of God regarding Israel’s possession of the whole land.

{quote}

Israel received the Promised Land then.

And, Abrahams descendants, the true Israel, will receive the entire globe in the New Heavens and New Earth (Romans 4) when Jesus returns.

That was easy!

By the way, dispensationalism has an issue if Jesus is not sitting on the throne of David now.

Is that their claim?

Because, if it is, the Davidic Covenant has failed. God said that Israel would never cease to have a descendant of David sitting on the throne. So, if Jesus isn't sitting on the throne of David now in heaven, the Davidic Covenant has failed.

But..it hasn't failed because that is exactly where he is at. If there was any gap between David and the current time, then the Davidic Covenant failed.

Here's the Got Questions article on this (by the way they are dispensational..I like everything else about them except eschatology):

{quote}

Question: "What is the Davidic covenant?"

Answer: The Davidic Covenant refers to God’s promises to David through Nathan the prophet and is found in 2 Samuel 7 and later summarized in 1 Chronicles 17:11–14 and 2 Chronicles 6:16. This is an unconditional covenant made between God and David through which God promises David and Israel that the Messiah (Jesus Christ) would come from the lineage of David and the tribe of Judah and would establish a kingdom that would endure forever. The Davidic Covenant is unconditional because God does not place any conditions of obedience upon its fulfillment. The surety of the promises made rests solely on God’s faithfulness and does not depend at all on David or Israel’s obedience.

The Davidic Covenant centers on several key promises that are made to David. First, God reaffirms the promise of the land that He made in the first two covenants with Israel (the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants). This promise is seen in 2 Samuel 7:10, “I will provide a place for my people Israel and will plant them so that they can have a home of their own and no longer be disturbed. Wicked people will not oppress them anymore.” God then promises that David’s son will succeed him as king of Israel and that this son (Solomon) would build the temple. This promise is seen in 2 Samuel 7:12–13, " I will raise up your offspring to succeed you, your own flesh and blood, and I will establish his kingdom. He is the one who will build a house for my Name.”

But then the promise continues and expands: “I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever” (verse 13), and “Your house and your kingdom will endure forever before me; your throne will be established forever” (verse 16). What began as a promise that David’s son Solomon would be blessed and build the temple turns into something different—the promise of an everlasting kingdom. Another Son of David would rule forever and build a lasting House. This is a reference to the Messiah, Jesus Christ, called the Son of David in Matthew 21:9.

The promise that David’s “house,” “kingdom,” and “throne” will be established forever is significant because it shows that the Messiah will come from the lineage of David and that He will establish a kingdom from which He will reign. The covenant is summarized by the words “house,” promising a dynasty in the lineage of David; “kingdom,” referring to a people who are governed by a king; “throne,” emphasizing the authority of the king’s rule; and “forever,” emphasizing the eternal and unconditional nature of this promise to David and Israel.

Other references to the Davidic Covenant are found in Jeremiah 23:5; 30:9; Isaiah 9:7; 11:1; Luke 1:32, 69; Acts 13:34; and Revelation 3:7.

{end quote}

https://www.gotquestions.org/Davidic-covenant.html

So, my question to you is, under dispensationalism, who is sitting on the Davidic throne? And, how long will he be on the throne?

If you say, Jesus, we are in agreement.

If you say, no one, we are not in agreement. If you say, no one, and David will sit on it, then I don't agree. I know where you're getting the verses from, and I know how your dispensational hermeneutic demands that you say David if you are inconsistent, but you can't have it both ways

You see, the prophets say David will sit on this throne, but it is really talking about Jesus. I suppose that one causes dispensationalists to blow a fuse.

Why couldn't this be future, His second advent? Paul says that Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father making intercession for the saints.

If He's ruling right now, He's doing a poor job with all the wickedness in the world. In His return, He will rule with a rod of iron as judge of the earth and will literally restore the promised kingdom to Israel.

The reality is that he is ruling, and since you aren't conducting his job performance review, I doubt your assessment bothers him much. He's working things to their best conclusion despite how it appears.


Matthew 28:18-20 18 And Jesus came and said to them, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.”
(ESV)

Ephesians 1:20-23 20 that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, 21 far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. 22 And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church, 23 which is his body, the fullness of him who fills all in all. (ESV)

Notice he has already been seated above all rule and authority and power and dominion. Notice the past tenses.

Hebrews 10:12-13 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. (ESV)

"right hand" means that he is at the position of power and authority.

Acts 2:33-36 33 Being therefore exalted at the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, he has poured out this that you yourselves are seeing and hearing. 34 For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he himself says, “‘The Lord said to my Lord, “Sit at my right hand, 35 until I make your enemies your footstool.”’ 36 Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.” (ESV)

Notice that he is already LORD. He is ruling from heaven, and also guiding his church through the Spirit, who mediates his presence in believers.

Whether evil still exists is irrelevant. He is in the process of putting his enemies under his feet. You may not like how he is doing his job, but that's irrelevant. If he destroyed all evil, he would have destroyed you and me.

By the way, if you're going to claim Christ isn't reigning because evil still exists, then you still have a problem because, unless you deny the sovereignty of God, he is in control.

An eternal promise continues forever it never stops

That’s your issue. You want us to think that because God gave them all it’s a done deal. It’s not.

Forever means forever, you can not change that

lev 26 is Gods warning about what will happen if they disobey concerning the law (mosaic covenant) which God has and is today enforcing
it does not detract from the truth that the promise is forever. In fact it says even after God destroys land and scatters them. Like he did in AD 70. If they repent. He will restor them
this promise is valid today. You not liking it does not mean it is no longer valid

Again eternal is eternal
God has fulfilled, is fulfilling, and will continue to fulfill forever

Evidently you cannot grasp all of biblical prophecy in its fullness.
Jerimiah ch 30 and 31 pertain to Israel. Care to deny it? Be my guest I am waiting.
You might as well show us how Ezekiel's prophecies are only directed to the Church as well.

So God kicked Israel to the curb is what you are saying?

Which Israel?

He fulfilled his obligations to them, or will fulfill them.

The issue is, what were the obligations? And, did they fulfill their responsibilities?

Were they promised to the physical nation, or to Abraham and his spiritual offspring?

God doesn't break promises.

By the way, I think you guys have an Israel-centric view of Scripture, rather than a Christ-centric view of Scripture.

OK, so are you in the camp that claims the New Covenant isn't for the Church, and is only for Israel?

I was telling my dispensationalist friend about that teaching, and he doesn't believe that educated dispensationalists believe that.

if Jeremiah 31:31 is only about israel what covenant are you in? that and hebrews is only time new covenant is mentioned. gentiles have no covenant?

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.

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".

Many educated dispensationalists are claiming that..they don't believe the Church is under the New Covenant.

It's amazing.

See this:

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


Note at the bottom that the author tells those reading his papers that he recommends they do not bring this teaching up to the ordinary layman.

I think it is because they will see all the implications of dispensationalism and be turned away from it.

tell me what covenant do they say they are under then? what covenant are gentiles in?

the stupid article doesnt say. this man is absolutely ignorant

he wrote: "It tells us the Church is “brought nigh” by the blood of Christ, despite our prior alienation and lack of Covenant standing as Gentiles. We (believing Gentiles and Jews) are brought nigh, but it never says we are now under a covenant:

Wherefore remember, that ye … were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: but now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

Conclusion. Is the Church Under the New Covenant? No."

lolz after reading that hes like nope..

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.

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?

Show you some evidence other than the passage that states it?

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.