Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

[TheDivineWatermark]

-
Revelation 13:15-18...and then Revelation 19:21

Don't forget, also in...

Revelation 16:2 -

"2 And the first departed and poured out his bowl into the earth, and an evil and grievous sore came upon the men having the mark of the beast and those worshiping its image."



EDIT: NVM, you were speaking of His [Jesus'] "return" rather... My apologies! Plz disregard!

 

[Gentle-Warrior]

-
Revelation 13:15-18...and then Revelation 19:21

Before I can respond to the scriptures you provided, I would like to know on what basis do you believe that the book of Revelation was written for the future? Do you know what kind of implications this speculative belief brings to the table? Out of the top of my head, I can bring at least three points that question such unscriptural belief.

 

[Nehemiah6]

I would like to know on what basis do you believe that the book of Revelation was written for the future

It should be obvious to anyone reading the book of Revelation that the bulk of the prophecies pertain to the future, extending all the way to the New Heavens and the New Earth. However if we want to be more precise here is what John was told by Christ:

Write the things which thou hast seen [PAST] , and the things which are [PRESENT], and the things which shall be hereafter [FUTURE] (Rev 1:19)

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ Yep, and also...

Revelation 17:8b -

"and those dwelling on the earth whose names are not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world will wonder, seeing the beast which was, and is not, and yet will/shall be."



[and 1:1 = 1:19c = 4:1... all regarding the "FUTURE" aspects of the Book, things which must come to pass "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]" (not things which would transpire over the course of some 2000 years, nor "immediately/soon [adverbs]" )]

 

[Gentle-Warrior]

It should be obvious to anyone reading the book of Revelation that the bulk of the prophecies pertain to the future, extending all the way to the New Heavens and the New Earth. However if we want to be more precise here is what John was told by Christ:

Write the things which thou hast seen [PAST] , and the things which are [PRESENT], and the things which shall be hereafter [FUTURE] (Rev 1:19)

Sorry, the 412-year-old KJV uses a term that doesn't read correctly in modern English. The wording is "a little while", a "short time", "the time is near", etc.

Revelation 1:1 (NASB95)
1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John."

Revelation 1:3 (NASB95)
3 "Blessed is he who reads and those who hear the words of the prophecy, and heed the things which are written in it; for the time is near."

Revelation 3:11 (NASB95)
11 "I am coming quickly; hold fast what you have, so that no one will take your crown."

Revelation 22:7 (NASB95)
7 “And behold, I am coming quickly. Blessed is he who heeds the words of the prophecy of this book.”

Revelation 22:10 (NASB95)
10 "And he said to me, “Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near."

Revelation 22:12 (NASB95)
12 “Behold, I am coming quickly, and My reward is with Me, to render to every man according to what he has done."

Not a word about the future, which in my understanding is nothing but pure speculation while the opposite is true. This book relates to events that were about to take place in a very little while. After all, you don't believe that God inspired a book that has been completely irrelevant for the last 2,000 years and counting, do you?

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

In Rev1:1 (22:6) the word is "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN; G5034]" (not "soon [adverb]" nor "near [adverb]"... we must stick with the wording given in those two verses and leave the other verses to say what THEY say [which are distinct from this!] )

Rev1:1 - https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/1-1.htm

Rev22:6 - https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/22-6.htm




[see also Rom16:20 - https://biblehub.com/text/romans/16-20.htm ; and Lk18:8 - https://biblehub.com/text/luke/18-8.htm "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"]

 

[Nehemiah6]

Sorry, the 412-year-old KJV uses a term that doesn't read correctly in modern English. The wording is "a little while" or a "short time", "the time is near", etc.

You are trying to correct the KJV but quoting THE WRONG VERSES! And you also think that a Bible which has stood the test of time for over 400 years is not worth bothering with! Amazing!

Since you are new to this forum, we can understand your presumptuousness. But since you claimed that Revelation has nothing to say about the future, let's get back to the correct verse -- Revelation 1:19 -- and see that it explicitly talks about the future. Indeed chapters 4-22 are almost exclusively about the future.

Greek Text
γραψον α ειδες, και α εισι, και α μελλει γινεσθαι μετα ταυτα·

Interlinear
Write therefore the things that you have seen, and the things that are, and the things that shall take place after these.

King James Bible
Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;

 

[iamsoandso]

Before I can respond to the scriptures you provided, I would like to know on what basis do you believe that the book of Revelation was written for the future? Do you know what kind of implications this speculative belief brings to the table? Out of the top of my head, I can bring at least three points that question such unscriptural belief.

View attachment 204055

lol, then look at it as if I am young and I don't know if it is or not and I'm just reading through CC trying to figure it out. Then brake it down to the two and on one side some say it's future and on the other side they say it's past tense fulfilled(what your saying).

Now so if your saying it's past tense fulfilled is it not reasonable for me or any one who doesn't know to ask the ones saying it was fulfilled, "by whom and when"? If you think about it your the one who is saying it is fulfilled right? Do you know by who and when it was fulfilled?

 

[Gentle-Warrior]

In Rev1:1 (22:6) the word is "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN; G5034]" (not "soon [adverb]" nor "near [adverb]"... we must stick with the wording given in those two verses and leave the other verses to say what THEY say [which are distinct from this!] )

Rev1:1 - https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/1-1.htm

Rev22:6 - https://biblehub.com/text/revelation/22-6.htm

[see also Rom16:20 - https://biblehub.com/text/romans/16-20.htm ; and Lk18:8 - https://biblehub.com/text/luke/18-8.htm "IN QUICKNESS [NOUN]"]

I believe I already gave you scriptures that made my point very clearly. If you wish to disregard what I said, I'm not going to read what you posted.

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

^ I take it that you do not grasp the Rev1:1[22:6]/1:19c/4:1 connection, which places the "things which MUST COME TO PASS in QUICKNESS [NOUN]" into the far-future (the specific, limited, [trib] years [7-yrs] leading UP TO His Second Coming to the earth); but danced all around these verses instead (and mis-translated 1:1, to boot). Believe what you will. Your points remain unconvincing to me.




[and that's aside from the point being made in 17:8b, as well, as I pointed out]

 

[TheDivineWatermark]

All you're doing is lumping a bunch of verses together that sound similar, to you...

 

[iamsoandso]

All you're doing is lumping a bunch of verses together that sound similar, to you...

And the question I am asking should be ask every time someone say's "it's all fulfilled in the past". After all neophytes like me who are in Sunday school classes all over the world should not be seen out of order in asking anyone saying something was fulfilled aleady how and when. It's simple they say "it's fulfilled" so it should be said by whom,when and how by those who say it is past tense.

 

[Gentle-Warrior]

lol, then look at it as if I am young and I don't know if it is or not and I'm just reading through CC trying to figure it out. Then brake it down to the two and on one side some say it's future and on the other side they say it's past tense fulfilled(what your saying).

Now so if your saying it's past tense fulfilled is it not reasonable for me or any one who doesn't know to ask the ones saying it was fulfilled, "by whom and when"? If you think about it your the one who is saying it is fulfilled right? Do you know by who and when it was fulfilled?

lol, then look at it as if I am young and I don't know if it is or not and I'm just reading through CC trying to figure it out. Then brake it down to the two and on one side some say it's future and on the other side they say it's past tense fulfilled(what your saying).

Now so if your saying it's past tense fulfilled is it not reasonable for me or any one who doesn't know to ask the ones saying it was fulfilled, "by whom and when"? If you think about it your the one who is saying it is fulfilled right? Do you know by who and when it was fulfilled?

I wished I could help you to think clearer and according to what the scriptures reveal to us. For example, if the book of Revelation was written for an intergalactic time of the future, we would have a problem because we would've had to admit that God gave us a book that has been irrelevant for the last 2,000 years and continues to be.

On the other hand, if God intended for the 1st-century church to get a very important message across, we would need to find out what it was.

I provided scripture that indicates the time of the fulfillment of these scriptures was around the corner (Rev. 1:1, 3, 3:11, 22:7, 10, 12), so we should understand that nowhere in the book of Revelation we read that this book was written for the far future because that alone would sound completely incongruent if we understood that God did not give John to write a book that meant nothing to the recipients of his book.

On the other hand, every other book written in the Bible was written to either a people, a church or a particular person of the past, e.g., the book of Exodus, the book of Ephesians, the book Philemon, etc., are some examples, so that fact alone should not deter us from understanding that the book of Revelation is no different than the rest, after all, it was written 2,000 years ago to the seven churches of Asia Minor.

Does it make sense?

 

[iamsoandso]

I wished I could help you to think clearer and according to what the scriptures reveal to us. For example, if the book of Revelation was written for an intergalactic time of the future, we would have a problem because we would've had to admit that God gave us a book that has been irrelevant for the last 2,000 years and continues to be.

On the other hand, if God intended for the 1st-century church to get a very important message across, we would need to find out what it was.

I provided scripture that indicates the time of the fulfillment of these scriptures was around the corner (Rev. 1:1, 3, 3:11, 22:7, 10, 12), so we should understand that nowhere in the book of Revelation we read that this book was written for the far future because that alone would sound completely incongruent if we understood that God did not give John to write a book that meant nothing to the recipients of his book.

On the other hand, every other book written in the Bible was written to either a people, a church or a particular person of the past, e.g., the book of Exodus, the book of Ephesians, the book Philemon, etc., are some examples, so that fact alone should not deter us from understanding that the book of Revelation is no different than the rest, after all, it was written 2,000 years ago to the seven churches of Asia Minor.

Does it make sense?

View attachment 204066

You still did not say who it was who fulfilled the Scriptures I ask about. It would seem logical I think many would agree that if someone thinks they were fulfilled as peterism teaches then they would state who did,how they did and when. I apologize if the question I ask seems an conundrum but should I ask those who taught you they were fulfilled? It seems as if you were taught they were without asking who taught you this by whom,how and when is why I ask.

 

[garee]

Or rightly dividing means dividing between earthly shadows and the heavenly fulfillment - Flesh descendants of Israel and spiritual descendants of Israel..... this is where the whole dispensational heresy comes from. They can't rightly divide between the two.

Yes its the parables we are to rightly divide. They give the other understanding hid as shadows. The prescription for rightly diving parables (2 Corinthians 4:18)

Not time periods a tradition of a literalist. Christ works to purify the hearts of men by a work of his faith( hearing God). Its all one time period "under the sun".

 

[Gentle-Warrior]

You still did not say who it was who fulfilled the Scriptures I ask about. It would seem logical I think many would agree that if someone thinks they were fulfilled as peterism teaches then they would state who did,how they did and when. I apologize if the question I ask seems an conundrum but should I ask those who taught you they were fulfilled? It seems as if you were taught they were without asking who taught you this by whom,how and when is why I ask.

I'm not going to explain my beliefs to someone who is not interested in understanding the principles that I use to believe that Revelation is not about a book of the end-times, but a book that presents us with a whole new picture of the supremacy of Christ over all the powers of hell and the final judgment of the harlot: Physical and ungodly OT Israel.

 

[Absolutely]

I wished I could help you to think clearer and according to what the scriptures reveal to us. For example, if the book of Revelation was written for an intergalactic time of the future, we would have a problem because we would've had to admit that God gave us a book that has been irrelevant for the last 2,000 years and continues to be.

On the other hand, if God intended for the 1st-century church to get a very important message across, we would need to find out what it was.

I provided scripture that indicates the time of the fulfillment of these scriptures was around the corner (Rev. 1:1, 3, 3:11, 22:7, 10, 12), so we should understand that nowhere in the book of Revelation we read that this book was written for the far future because that alone would sound completely incongruent if we understood that God did not give John to write a book that meant nothing to the recipients of his book.

On the other hand, every other book written in the Bible was written to either a people, a church or a particular person of the past, e.g., the book of Exodus, the book of Ephesians, the book Philemon, etc., are some examples, so that fact alone should not deter us from understanding that the book of Revelation is no different than the rest, after all, it was written 2,000 years ago to the seven churches of Asia Minor.

Does it make sense?

View attachment 204066

Interesting that all your sentences teaching us the dynamics of the bible fail to mention who wrote it , and where it came from.

Btw imsoandso is a brilliant man of God.
Rare to find his depth and revelation.

 

[Absolutely]

I'm not going to explain my beliefs to someone who is not interested in understanding the principles that I use to believe that Revelation is not about a book of the end-times, but a book that presents us with a whole new picture of the supremacy of Christ over all the powers of hell and the final judgment of the harlot: Physical and ungodly OT Israel.

View attachment 204084

it is a forum
He politely asked you a relevant question.
You either dont know or are being obtuse.
I am guessing you dont know

 

[Gentle-Warrior]

Interesting that all your sentences teaching us the dynamics of the bible fail to mention who wrote it , and where it came from.

Btw imsoandso is a brilliant man of God.
Rare to find his depth and revelation.

That's ridiculous. We all know that John wrote Revelation by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Are you looking for silly excuses?

Revelation 1:1–2 (NASB95)
1 "The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave Him to show to His bond-servants, the things which must soon take place; and He sent and communicated it by His angel to His bond-servant John,
2 who testified to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw."

I have read Revelation about 200 times, day in and day out. What about you?

 

[iamsoandso]

I'm not going to explain my beliefs to someone who is not interested in understanding the principles that I use to believe that Revelation is not about a book of the end-times, but a book that presents us with a whole new picture of the supremacy of Christ over all the powers of hell and the final judgment of the harlot: Physical and ungodly OT Israel.

View attachment 204084

I've ask one preterist after the next and none of them could answer either if that make you feel better.