Amillennialists...Here's a chance to state your case.

For one thing, those who are dispensationalists, the main advantage is we can take the bible as what the words literally say, and not have to assume many things.

For one thing, those who are dispensationalists, the main advantage is we can take the bible as what the words literally say, and not have to assume many things.

No need for assumptions, just a good understanding of context and written expression, an only literal approach can cause a lot of problems imho.

WHEN THE PLAIN SENSE OF SCRIPTURE MAKES COMMON SENSE, SEEK NO OTHER SENSE; THEREFORE, TAKE EVERY WORD AT ITS PRIMARY, ORDINARY, USUAL, LITERAL MEANING UNLESS THE FACTS OF THE IMMEDIATE CONTEXT, STUDIED IN THE LIGHT OF RELATED PASSAGES AND AXIOMATIC AND FUNDAMENTAL TRUTHS INDICATE CLEARLY OTHERWISE.


A. SEEK THE PLAIN, LITERAL MEANING OF THE SCRIPTURES

1. The sum and substance of this most important rule is that one should take every statement of the Scriptures at its face value, if possible.
2. The following is an analysis of the adjectives "primary," "ordinary," and "usual."
3. "Primary" emphasizes the original, inherent idea in the term.
4. "Ordinary" and "usual" are practically synonyms, especially in this definition, "usual" being employed for the sake of emphasis.
5. "Literal" is used to emphasize the thought that every word must first be taken literally as expressing the exact thought of the author at the time when it was used; and one is not to go beyond the literal meaning of the Scriptures unless the facts of the context indicate a deeper, hidden or symbolic meaning.


B. SEEK THE FIGURATIVE MEANING ONLY WHEN THE FACTS
DEMAND SUCH AN INTERPRETATION

1. Modernism and rationalism are the logical outgrowth of forcing a figurative meaning upon a passage that is clearly literal, or vice versa.

C. STUDY EVERY STATEMENT OF THE SCRIPTURES IN CONTEXT
("A TEXT APART FROM ITS CONTEXT IS A PRETEXT")
Then study the facts of the context in the light of related passages and axiomatic fundamental truths. No prophecy of scripture is of private (special) interpretation (II Peter 1:20); The sum of thy word is truth (Psalm 119:160).

http://www.messianicassociation.org/ezine19-dc.hermeneutics.htm

Not, one verse in the entire bible that supports that kind of interpretation idea.

It reminded me of the fall no spiritual understanding .

Genesis3: 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

I have not found that prescription for rightly dividing the signified language of God .Its the prescription for the literalizer who invented dispensations to help keep things literal (walk by sight)

Revelation 1 King James Version (KJV) The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

If we would simple literalize everything then we could never find the spiritual meaning purposely hid like the pearl of great price in parable.

Without parables Christ spoke not .He has given on His 20/20 prescription so that we can find the spiritual meaning using the things seen the temporal .

Good example is when you see a word like "key" (the temporal literal ) . when using the prescribed hermeneutics we know it represents the gospel it has the power to unlock the gates of hell .Gates are used to represent the binds as if with a literal chain and a bottom less pit used to represent no end to the binding. The parble in Revelation 20 is filled with metaphors used to give us the signified language of God

Some of the tools below he has given us for rightly dividing parables so that we can find the signified spiritual understanding begin with the foundation of hermeneutics revel the unseen things of God the eternal, the faith principle..

2 Corinthians 4:1While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

Matthew 13:34All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them:

Mark 4:11And he said unto them, Unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that are without, all these things are done in parables:

I consider myself a dispy, just not the M.A.D. (Mid Acts Dispy) kind. It's also nice when we can prevent assuming things about others as well as Scripture.

I consider myself a dispy, just not the M.A.D. (Mid Acts Dispy) kind. It's also nice when we can prevent assuming things about others as well as Scripture.

Well are you an Acts 2 dispy, or Acts 28 dispy then?

From the way you concluded about Rahab, I would actually regard you as subscribing to covenant theology.

I'm a John 19 Dispy...
John 19:34 NKJV
[34] But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out.

Acts 20:28 KJV
[28] Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

I don't think there is such a group of dispensationalist, but if you want to think that way, you are free to do so.

Why? People have always been saved by faith apart from the works of the Law. See Hebrews 11.

Read it again, that is when the Church was purchased, the same one Jesus said He would build.
Matthew 16:18 KJV
[18] And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

I don't ascribe to Scofieldism if that is what you mean by Dispensational theology, rather my literal interpretation leads me to see a distinction between God's dealings with the Church and Israel.

Yes well let me know please when you see one of these arrive on the scene....


View attachment 199248

Exactly.....
For I tell you that Christ has become a servant of the Jews on behalf of God’s truth, so that the promises made to the patriarchs might be confirmed and, moreover, that the Gentiles might glorify God for his mercy.
Romans 15:12

Jew and Gentile placed on an equal footing, the literal fulfillment of Isaiah, which employs imagery to convey a temporal and spiritual reality.

No need for assumptions, just a good understanding of context and written expression, an only literal approach can cause a lot of problems imho.

I don't think there is such a group of dispensationalist, but if you want to think that way, you are free to do so.

One key difference in CT and dispy is that the latter take the bible at its literal meaning, taking note of context, while the former tend to allegorize scripture. So for example, when we encounter a passage like Hebrews 11:31

By faith the harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she had received the spies with peace.

Dispy would interpret that as Rahab did not perish because she showed her faith by receiving the spies with peace.

While CTs would say, that Rahab, like us, put her faith in Jesus's dbr, and she did not perish because of that.

There are 3 main groups of dispy that I am aware of.

Acts 2
Acts 9
Acts 28.

Ok, for salvation yes

What about the land promise

You people keep ignoring the land promise

The church was NOT promised anything concerning that particular part of the covenant. Why do you CONTINUE to say they have??

And why do we not live in peace in jerusalem as the promise stated we would if we followed God?