Why do Dispensationalists teach Separation Theology?

Do you really think Hitler had a religious motivation for Nazi Germany? If so, I think you are deluded.

He wanted to seize the property of Jewish individuals, plus he needed a scapegoat.

More dispensationalist propaganda. It is just an attempt to paint non-dispensationalists as anti-Semites.

A few things I can think of:

- accusations that others are not watchful because they don't believe in an imminent return of Jesus
- accusations that others are anti-Semites
- accusations that others may not be Christians
- a disjointed view of the Bible because their view is not organic

You get accusations from all sorts of Christians for all sorts of things, not exclusively a dispey problem.

The main problem with folks in Christianity is, they dont interpret the Bible 100% similar to me. If they did, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in!
I suggest everyone starts GETTING IN LINE in Christian love and charity and starts to agree.

Nah.

Have you seen my numerous posts on:

--1Cor15:24's "THEN [G1534 - eita] the end"... "THEN [G1534]" here being a SEQUENCE word only, with NO time-element attached... IOW, the FIRST TWO items LISTED are some 2000 yrs apart; thus it is NO PROBLEM AT ALL for the NEXT TWO items LISTED here, being 1000 yrs apart

--the parallel TIMING of Rev19:19,21/16:14-16/20:5 with Isaiah 24:21-22[23] and the FIRST of its TWO "PUNISH" words (and separated by A TIME PERIOD following, before the SECOND of the TWO "PUNISH" words is carried out [the ultimate carrying out of the sentence, at the GWTj point in time])--so this is CONSISTENT with the Rev19-20 passage, not that Rev20 is the ONLY passage we derive info from! [consistent also with MUCH which is stated in the Gospels and even in Daniel 7:27[25] "the greatness of the kingdom UNDER the whole heaven" [not "UP IN Heaven" or the like], and what Peter was conveying in Acts 3 [esp 3:21], and what Rev19:15b is saying "He SHALL [future] shepherd [the nations]..." from that point-in-time in the chronology [which is His "RETURN," just like in Lk19:12,15,17,19 and Lk12:36-37,38,40,42-44, and the parallels to these...])

--1Cor15:23's [re: resurrection] "EACH [G1538 - Hekastos ]" meaning "of more than two" (so that, "EACH *IN HIS OWN ORDER*" speak to the fact that there doesn't remain only ONE, but a SEQUENCE); and Rev20:6's "having A PART in" [the first resurrection, "the resurrection OF LIFE"... and how the "2W" are resurrected at the "6th Trumpet/2nd Woe" time slot, well before the end of the trib, when some suggest ALL are "resurrected" [I am pre-trib, by the way, for the readers])... and so much more could be said (but few read long, detailed posts, so there's that )

Have you read my many posts on how:

--1 Thessalonians 5:9-10 (v.10 esp) has the SAME TWO Grk words as in verse 6?

--so that, verse 10 is saying (in view of what v.6 just said), "[Who died for us] THAT whether we may WATCH OR whether we may SLEEP [<--SAME TWO WORDS as in verse 6! (and "sleep" here being DISTINCT from the "sleep" of the prev CHPT!)], we should live together WITH [G4862 - UNION-with] Him"



[this ^ (about "our Rapture") is set in contrast to the points being made in the Olivet Discourse and related passages which are in regard to His Second Coming to the earth--so that it is "post-tribbers" who wrongly threaten "the Church which is His body" of such "warnings" [i.e. MIS-APPLIED]... and perhaps those "pre-tribbers" who are not well-taught or who pick up such notions from "post-tribbers" [etc], who improperly apply the various passages... (or, I guess I could ALSO mention, those who disregard Paul's epistles altogether as authoritative--I know some who do throw his writings under the bus, due to their not grasping these purposeful DISTINCTIONS )]

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. Matt 18:9

People who claim to be against dispensationalism don't like this passage. They spiritualize it and interpret it allegorically, "Gotta love that gimmick"

Tell me which gimmick is worse?

Okay, thanks. Yeah, all of us have to sometimes chuck things that haven't fully aligned with scripture.

I could agree (pretty much) if you'd say the "hour" refers to the second half (per Rev13:5-7),

... but I believe he ARRIVES on the scene at the START of the trib [7-yrs], as I said, at SEAL #1 (the rider on the white horse [anti-christ/pseudo-christ] with a bow [very often representing "deception"]) per Rev6:2 (with all the parallels I listed that connect with this point in the chronology, like 2Th2:8a/9a/3b/Dan27a[26] ["FOR ONE WEEK [7-yrs]"]; and 1Th5:2-3 [INITIAL 'birth PANG [SINGULAR]"] and Matt24:4/Mk13:5 [G5100 - tis - 'A CERTAIN ONE'], in the FIRST of many more "birth pangs [plural]" that follow on from there). When he will (once Jesus OPENS the first SEAL) "went forth conquering and to conquer" at the START of it (which word [Grk word], by the way, we see him doing in the LATER 11:7 and 13:7 passages)

Then nor are mine or yours. How simple it would be to make an issue of one of our positions but whose would we begin with? You suggest only the Scriptures but for that were are thankful to have, but then that's because they were quoted by those Apostolic fathers and then those after them.

But I do agree in you assessment that the further away from the ones set over the Churches by the Apostles the further we drift into our own opinions and whether they are just as valuable. So did you disagree with something that one of them in the links I gave wrote, you didn't specify any that you found?

Neither. I just think all study of biblical prophecy should be limited to only texts that are found into what is recognized in the Bibles most of us have lest we might fall into the heresy's like the RCC did so long ago. I really like General William Booth of the Salvation Armys' opinions as well as Dr. Walter Martin of the Christian Research Institutes. However I only consider it their opinions and not doctrine. Revelations is the end of valid doctrinal works till Jesus returns.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members The Bible most of Christians would have is?

I do not see Matthew 23"39 as saying that they Will say that.. Jesus was going to leave them as He was later raised up into heaven.. Indeed some of those Jews did come to believe Jesus and where indwelled by Gods Holy Spirit and Jesus was with them.. But for most they would never come to aknowledge Jesus and LORD and be saved.. Maybe in the end days some Jews will be moved to believe Jesus but i do not see that as something that will happen to all Jews..

Amen, its like the story of Joseph, which was a type of Christ.

First coming, his brothers did not recognize him

2nd coming, all recognized him

Most will be terrified.

I think they will mostly weep from realizing how blind they were to reject him as their Messiah, but Jesus will then clear the tears away from their eyes.

This is a very revealing statement since it claims that the Millennium is a human invention. And to introduce the element of luck is even more egregious.

But anyone who sincerely approaches the Bible as the Word of God, and accepts what its written in its plain literal sense (unless a metaphor is clearly evident) will believe the passage quoted below without any doubts. And what we see in Revelation 20 is cold, sober, factual, reality -- no metaphors or fantasies. But a marvelous truth nonetheless.

REVELATION 20
1 And I saw an angel come down from heaven, having the key of the bottomless pit and a great chain in his hand.
2 And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,
3 And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season.
4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.
5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.
6 Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
7 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison,
8 And shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

God the Holy Spirit has seen fit to repeat "a (the) thousand years" (Greek chilia ete) SIX TIMES in seven verses. That in itself is remarkable, since God anticipated the skepticism of many of those who claim to believe His Word.

Unless a person has been indoctrinated and brainwashed into believing that the future Millennium is not real, this passage is sufficient evidence to prove that you are wrong. So unless you have ANOTHER SCRIPTURE which refutes the Millennium, all you have is your erroneous opinion.

If we cannot believe this then how can we claim to believe the Gospel?

By the way, dispensationalism has a whole lot of underlying beliefs that I deny.

Here's an article by Ligon Duncan comparing dispensationalism with covenant theology. I don't think I agree with every single one of the points on the article, but it's close enough for comparison.

I am not into covenant theology precisely; I hold a view called 1689 Federalism. However, covenant theology is close to what I would believe comparatively.

Here's the article.

https://www.the-highway.com/dispensationalism_Duncan.html

One question I always want to ask those who are CTs.

The covenant of redemption: where the trinity of God made a pact to save mankind before Adam was created. How did they ever come to that conclusion?

^ [re: Post #496 by UWC] I'm not going to read the article at link, but I had been planning to put this quote I'd come across recently... by one I've quoted from before:

[quoting]

[Paul Martin Henebury said (July 28, 2019)]: "I shall respond by proving that covenant theology DOES teach two ways of salvation, and I shall quote my authorities."

[end quoting]

I was wondering if perhaps your article endeavors to make such a point regarding "dispensationalists" (as is often suggested, but not true).

Revelation is apocalyptic genre. Numbers are used to convey meaning. For instance, the number "seven" is repeatedly used to indicate completion or fullness.

The numbers 144,000 (12x12x1000) 1260 days, 42 months, etcetera, are used in a similar manner. Each of these numbers have meaning.

Dispensationalists attempt to apply their faulty hermeneutic involving literalizing everything to a book which is plainly in a different genre.

Let me give you another example. in Revelation 21, dispensationalists propose there will be a literal cube that would stick way out into the atmosphere on the New Earth.

It's obvious to me that the typology relates to the Holy of Holies, and this reference is symbolic of God's manifest presence extending throughout all of the New Earth, in fact throughout all of creation.

However, if an individual proposes such an interpretation, then they cry foul because it violates their hermeneutic..especially if there is something about the interpretation that would challenge dispensationalism.

By the way, you didn't mention this, but I have heard dispensationalists claim that some early church fathers believed in chiliasm..therefore that justifies dispensationalism. No, this does not follow. Some early church fathers did believe in a literal millennium, but the same ones categorically denied any type of separate path for Jews. So, they did not believe in dispensationalism. I would say they were closer to historic premillennialists.

Personally I have no great issue with historic premillennialism, but dispensationalism is an entirely different, confused animal.

Jesus was the lamb slain before the foundation of the earth. This implies that it was foreordained that the Father would send the Son prior to the creation of mankind. Find the Scripture