Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

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

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

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

Right. That, and...

Matthew 25:31-34 -

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

What "throne" is THAT ^ ?

(This is "earthly"-located.)



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know if they know themselves.

It probably depends on which one you ask.



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

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

Possibly.

You'll have to ask them though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the webpage with the notes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You did see this article I posted, right?

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

And TheDivineWatermark posted this earlier.

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

He refers to this webpage:

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

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

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

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

Hebrews 7:22 -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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