Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

all the charges of easy believism, once saved always saved. i say amen

both are true.

its easy to be saved

its as easy as:

drinking a glass of water:
John 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.

eating:
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.

entering through a door:
John 10:9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.

looking:
John 3:14-15 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of man be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.

I don't hold the position that the occupation of Palestine by Jewish individuals can be used to infer that the events of Matthew 24 are being fulfilled like many dispensationalists claim.

Especially since a "generation" is 40 years and Palestine has been occupied by Jews since 1948.

Some dispensationalists claim that the events of Matthew 24 would be fulfilled within one generation of 1948....it's already gone past that.

The events of Matthew 24 are NOT "being fulfilled" and that's not my position either (if you've read any of my millions of posts here, on CC, on this subject )... and a great many "dispensationalist" teachers see it the way I do as well (that Matt24 is not presently "being fulfilled" [but is ALL "future" / ALL "in the trib yrs" FOLLOWING our Rapture / ALL "future" to US])... one off the top of my head (who also sees it as I do [not that I learned it from him, but that we see it the same]) is Dr Stanley Toussaint [DTS] (if I am recalling correctly, and I think I am).

I'd suggest not tossing out the whole just because "many" see it in a wonky, screwed up, inaccurate way.

[I'd say THIS is the root of all the confusion on the subject, IMO, not what you suggested]



No, ALL "within" the future trib yrs [7-yrs; ALL "future" to the Rapture of "the Church WHICH IS HIS BODY" [wherein there is NO distinction, in our standing before God "IN CHRIST"; and to/of whom the Rapture SOLELY pertains]).

Matt24 is ALL "future" to our Rapture.

What?

Osas is dependent on being united with christ.. apart from which there is no salvation

Prophesy is a type of language used in the word

Allegory is another type

Prophesy can never be allerory, else prophesy is rendered useless

This is just a wild and baseless accusation. I am a Premillennial Dispensationalist, but I focus on the false teachings of alternative views, not on the individuals posting them. There is no profit in ad hominem attacks.

In any event Replacement Theology is indeed totally bogus. A proper understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant will lead to the conclusion that both the Church and Israel are separately included in that covenant.

Let's take one glaring example. Is this promise even remotely applicable to the Church, whose eternal home is the New Jerusalem?

GENESIS 15
18 In the same day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying, Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates:
19 The Kenites, and the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,
20 And the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Rephaims,
21 And the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.

So let's ask ourselves a few questions:

1. Who is this seed to whom the Land of Promise is given? Is it not the twelve tribes of Israel as detailed in Ezekiel 48? And is not the prophecy of Ezekiel revealing to us redeemed and restored Israel under Christ?

2. What are the boundaries of greater Israel in the future? "from the river of Egypt [the Nile] unto the great river, the river Euphrates". That is probably 10 times the land mass of Israel as it is at present. So only God can make this happen.

3. Where were these ten nations located? Were they not located in the land of Canaan (now known as Palestine), and were they not to be removed by Israel so that Israel would occupy this land of milk and honey?

The Abrahamic Covenant given in Genesis 15 was reiterated to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and the Land of Promise was always included in those iterations. But Replacement Theology seeks to nullify this promise, whereas Dispensationalism faithfully presents this as the future of redeemed and restored Israel. CASE CLOSED.

No, I mean that specific comment, underlined above. What do you mean by that?

Perhaps you don't understand my words because you don't understand what union with Christ teaches.

Union with Christ teaches that the believer is united with Christ, like a branch is joined to the vine, and as a result, produces spiritual fruit. Read John 15.

All Theological Camps Do The Same Thing... in a sense:


If we should try, for a moment, to be entirely honest, we'll arrive at the conclusion that all of the theological camps DO this same thing which is stated above.

All camps will say some things are literal, and some things are metaphor, and this will be all be relegated in a way that supports their view. All camps do this.

The only question is, which theological camp is actually correct... that is the real debate.


The Necessary Problem of Metaphor:

All language contains metaphor.
Metaphor is a common part, and a very large part, of all language.
So by sheer necessity, when deciphering language, we must always grapple with the issue of which things are metaphor and which things are not.

The different camps, because of differing views, WILL NATURALLY ascribe literalism and metaphor to different passages.

Since everyone does this, and it's a necessary endeavor that all camps have to engage in... we should probably not use this as an accusation. Any camp can easily use this to accuse any other camp.

So we cannot simply say, "you differentiate literal and figurative in a way that supports your view, therefore you are wrong."
We cannot use this as an argument, because all camps do this.
Or to be more accurate: we CAN say this, but it doesn't constitute any kind of proof.
It simply isn't a proof.

What we have to do, is the painstaking work of addressing EACH INSTANCE, and then comparing it with the entire context, and then comparing it with various other passage all throughout scripture, and then going off on all of the different theological rabbit trails that support various views on all of these various places in scripture. That is how you have to argue these issues.

There are many in-house debates within christianity, which, although important, are simply argued to death.
I usually stay out of this one, not because it's unimportant, but because no one is really listening, lol.
I really just popped in to address this one little issue about metaphorical vs literal interpretation.

Conclusion:
1. It's healthy to POLITELY discuss and debate these kinds of doctrinal issues... regardless of how controversial they are.
2. However, accusing one camp of being wrong BECAUSE they "interpret some things as literal and some things as metaphor" is really not a good way to argue this topic, as ALL CAMPS do the same thing.
3. I am NOT suggesting any insincerity here; I'm not saying any camp is lying or has bad intentions.
4. But language always contains such a large degree of metaphor, that we MUST, by necessity, always address this issue of what is metaphor and what is not... and people with different views will naturally come to different conclusions.
People will view the metaphors differently; they will have differences.
5. To have a difference is not a proof of wrongness:
We have differences with people all the time, and we know that the mere existence of differences has no ability, in itself, to prove which person is right.
The existence of a difference, in itself, doesn't prove anything.
Therefore, the existence of difference about metaphor... doesn't, in itself, prove anything.
We must give evidence for our views... whatever camp we're in.
6. Finally: I'm not saying anyone has bad intentions, and I'm not saying all views are equal or true, I'm simply saying this: Not every type of argument is a valid argument, so let's debate well, and make good arguments.

Have fun everyone.

I'll try to stay out of here, lol.
.

I have no clue what you are trying to communicate.

My point is that Scripture uses figurative language in much of it. This figurative language must be interpreted. Much of it involves shadows and types. Interpreting figurative language is NOT using allegorical interpretation.

The attempt that is being made is to associate non-dispensationalist hermeneutics with Origen and the Roman Catholic church, and their use of allegorical interpretation. This is basically just a common dispensationalist slander.

They themselves will interpret figurative language when it suits them, and will claim to give the correct, literal interpretation when it suits them, and criticize any interpretation other than their own.

Additionally, Scripture does contain allegories, contrary to what John MacArthur said in a message. Galatians 4 and the allegory of Sarai and Hagar is interpreted by Paul as such, and he calls it an allegory. As great a teacher as John MacArthur is, he is blinded by his dispensationalist presuppositions.

I stated the truth

Prophesy is used to prove god is the one true god, he said in his book that if anyone prophesies and that prophesy does not occure, it is not from hod, he also said he as the one true god can prophesy events and those events come true, proving he is the one true god

If we make his prophesy and allegory, we can make him say anything, and he is no more a prophet then nostrodomus

By the way, I am not going to comment much on Matthew 24, but part of those events have been fulfilled in AD 70. Part have not, and some verses are talking about being swept away in judgment, not raptured away.

All unconditional promises God made will be fulfilled in the manner in which he intended. Period. God is totally faithful.

As I have said, though, there are questions about the nature of the promises that need to be asked and answered. Was a given promise unconditional? If it was conditional, did the Israelites fulfill the conditions? If it was unconditional, was it already fulfilled in some way? When it was (or is) fulfilled, did God fulfill it (or will he fulfill it) in an even more spectacular way than you may think? Additionally, is it fulfilled in Christ or the Church (remember, Jesus is a literal descendant of Abraham, and every believer is a spiritual descendant of Abraham too, so if it is fulfilled in them, then it is still fulfilled).

As an example, in Romans 4 it says Abraham is the heir of the entire world, and that his descendants are not only physical descendants but also spiritual descendants through being joined to Christ.

Therefore, this land promise is fulfilled in an even more spectacular way than dispensationalists can conceive apparently.

I know you don't care to discuss it (that's fine), I just wanna say, when it comes to "Matthew 24" (that portion of the Olivet Discourse), I disagree with your saying that it covers "both aspects" (again, I believe Matt24/Mk13 are describing the "far-future" events... and that one teacher I mentioned also views it this way, among many others), and here's somewhat of WHY I believe that (this I posted elsewhere earlier today, with slight modification for this post)...

The reasons:


The info surrounding "the beginning of birth PANGS" reveals a SEQUENCE:

Luke 21 has the "BoBPs" coming AFTER the 70ad events with its [own set of] "SEE-then-FLEE";

whereas Matthew 24 has the "BoBPs" taking place BEFORE its [later, sequentially] "SEE-then-FLEE".


The "BoBPs" ^ are the same identical things in all 3 chpts (Matt24:4-8, Mk13:5-8, Lk21:8-11);

but the SEQUENCE is distinct, thus proving that the "SEE-then-FLEEs" are wholly distinct events at wholly distinct time frames...


(one "SEE-then-FLEE" in the events surrounding 70ad [vv.12-24a]; the other "SEE-then-FLEE" in the events occurring in the midst/middle of the [far-future] specific, limited [7-yr] tribulation period which time period will START with 2Th2:8a/9a [its BEGINNING ('man of sin be revealed')], continue to unfold until 2Th2:4 [its MIDDLE], and then further onto its 2Th2:8b conclusion [its END]; just like Dan9:27[26] shows BEGINNING, MIDDLE, END; and just like the "Beg-Mid-End" shown in Rev6:2/Rev13:5/Rev19:19,21[<--this 19:19,21 point-in-time, being parallel with Isa24:21-22(23)'s FIRST of TWO "PUNISH" words (@ His 2nd Coming to the earth), followed by a "time-period" when thereafter the SECOND of the TWO "PUNISH" words will be carried out (GWTj), showing the MK following the first of these two]; The MATT/MK parts of the Olivet Discourse are both "far-future," and describe "the BoBPs" [aka the "SEALS" of Rev6] and that which FOLLOWS them [the rest of the 7-yr period leading UP TO His 2nd Coming to the earth FOR the EARTHLY MK]).

The 70ad events result in their [that is, Israel] "be led away captive into all the nations" per Lk21:24b (and Jerusalem trodden down of the Gentiles, UNTIL" [to end of trib, Rev11:2]); whereas the Matthew 24 passage shows its "end" to be their being gathered together ['one BY one'] by angels He shall SEND to do so, to worship the Lord in the holy mount AT JERUSALEM (comp. Matt24:29-31 with Isa27:12-13 [@ "the GREAT trumpet" (not at our Rapture)]).

Verse 32 of Lk21, where it says, "TILL ALL be fulfilled," necessarily INCLUDES that which v.24 had just said, which was, "and [they] shall be led away captive into all the nations: and Jerusalem shall be trodden down of the Gentiles, UNTIL the TIMES of the Gentiles be fulfilled." ['the TIMES of the Gentiles' referring to that which started in 606/605bc, involves Neb's dream/statue/image, with Neb as "head of gold," and represents "Gentile domination over Israel" (not "the Church age"; and is DISTINCT from the phrase "the FULNESS of the Gentiles"]).



Any viewpoint that disregards timing-clues (-wordings) [Amill-teachings and Preterism do this, big time! ] is missing the sense, and coming to entirely different conclusions from what was being conveyed.


NOTHING in Matt/Mk's portion of the Olivet Discourse is covering the subject of "the Church which is His body" or our "Rapture"; but covering the subject of what takes place FOLLOWING our Rapture, and speaks to the promised and prophesied EARTHLY Millennial Kingdom, and the specific, limited, future time period that leads UP TO that (7-yrs' worth; i.e. the tribulation period, or "70th Week"). Lk covers both the 70ad events, and the far-future events (which are future to our Rapture, as I said).

OK perhaps I'll read this detail sometime, but I don't believe in a "rapture" in the sense of the Church bailing out and letting the Jews take a beating.

I am getting so many replies on this thread that it's hard to keep up. I like you even though you're a dispensationalist, though

Dialog away! OSAS is considered by some as a derogatory term for eternal security, but it doesn't bother me at all. because I know it's true.

That old adage of "truth hurts" applies with the .replacement theologists.

Yeah i do not think this either. In fact scripture teaches otherwise, it is the believers who take the beating

Right, there's a lot of martyrdom going on in Revelation, for the witness of the word of God.

But, my understanding is that the pretribulation rapture is a necessary component of dispensationalism. I haven't encountered a dispensationalist who doesn't believe in a pretribulation rapture.

OK perhaps I'll read this detail sometime, but I don't believe in a "rapture" in the sense of the Church bailing out and letting the Jews take a beating.