ECT Dispensationalism As Separation Theology On Church and Israel
- Thread starter northwye
- Start date
Interplanner
Well-known member
Hi and it was just an OPENER for you !!
So if Israel does not inherit a Kingdom , then what is next afyter the Rom 11:25 ??
Is Rom 11:26 in your bible ??
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
It's not about the future. it is the definition of who is in 'all Israel': it is those who believe his Gospel was the crescendo of God's work through that people. Saved is never another Davidic theocracy in Romans. It is justification from our sins and it empowers the Jew-Gentile church (there is no other...).
There is no division of things in the NT where Jews are on earth and christians are in heaven, etc. Nada, zero, nil.
Hi and SHALL BE SAVED , THERE SHALL COME and SHALL TURN AWAY you did not comment on what Rom 11:26 really means , did you !!
Lets give all a CLUE , the following Greek words, are ALL IN THE Greek future tense , so explain that , if you can ??
Any time any one see's this phrase , IT IS WRITTEN that I have seen is always in the PREFECT TENSE , PASSIVE VOICE and in the INDICATIVE MOOD that is a FACT and all this means is that PRETERIKSM is wrong as are you !!
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
Hi , so just where is that verse that shows that , unless you can explain 1 Cor 15:11 ?
So you are AVOIDING Rom 11:26 , it figures !!
dan p
"Or, using the definition of churche or chirche somewhere around the time the New Testament was written, it could say "...after Christ ascended on high, he gave gifts to men, and those gifts are how the (house of a PAGAN LORD, THE CIRCLE or the Greek GODDESS CIRCE), was to move forward."
The above statement was said to be "like another direction."
I was applying the meaning of the word church, spelled chirche and later churche, before the 1611 King James version to this statement on the church "A dispensationalist might say of Ephesians 4: 10-12 that "After Christ ascended on high, he gave gifts to men, and those gifts are how the church was to move forward,"
Nang responded with "The last item describes the direction of history's latest eruption of paganism, manifesting as "Dispensationalism"
Her answer is a more subtle view on dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has been said to grow out of a form of humanism.
Yet the humanism that is behind dispensationalism is not secular humanism. Rather, dispensationalism claims to be fully Christian. It operates from a much broader form of humanism. John Darby, Edward Irving, C. I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer created a theology which Chafer admits was different from scripture.
Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447
Chafer, a founder of Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood.
This is why so many scriptures do not agree whith the basic doctrines of dispensationalism.
Dispensaationalism is a dialectic argument against the meaning of these New Testament scriptures: John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9
The reason why dispensationalism teaches doctrines different from these scriptures and others is because its founders and early explainers like Chafer did not begin from a full understanding of the Gospel of Christ, which Paul in Acts 20: 27 calls "all the counsel of God,." but from something else, their own viewpoints. We can call that a broader kind of humanism.
The above statement was said to be "like another direction."
I was applying the meaning of the word church, spelled chirche and later churche, before the 1611 King James version to this statement on the church "A dispensationalist might say of Ephesians 4: 10-12 that "After Christ ascended on high, he gave gifts to men, and those gifts are how the church was to move forward,"
Nang responded with "The last item describes the direction of history's latest eruption of paganism, manifesting as "Dispensationalism"
Her answer is a more subtle view on dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has been said to grow out of a form of humanism.
Yet the humanism that is behind dispensationalism is not secular humanism. Rather, dispensationalism claims to be fully Christian. It operates from a much broader form of humanism. John Darby, Edward Irving, C. I. Scofield and Lewis S. Chafer created a theology which Chafer admits was different from scripture.
Lewis S. Chafer said that dispensationalism has "...changed the Bible from being a mass of more or less conflicting
writings into a classified and easily assimilated revelation of both
the earthly and heavenly purposes of God, which reach on into eternity
to come.." Lewis. S. Chafer, ‘Dispensationalism,’ Bibliotheca Sacra, 93 (October 1936), 410, 416, 446-447
Chafer, a founder of Christian Zionism, following John Darby and C.I. Scofield, claimed the Bible is a mass or more or less conflicting writings and that dispensationalism or Christian Zionism makes the Bible more easily classified and assimilated, or more easily understood.
This is why so many scriptures do not agree whith the basic doctrines of dispensationalism.
Dispensaationalism is a dialectic argument against the meaning of these New Testament scriptures: John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9
The reason why dispensationalism teaches doctrines different from these scriptures and others is because its founders and early explainers like Chafer did not begin from a full understanding of the Gospel of Christ, which Paul in Acts 20: 27 calls "all the counsel of God,." but from something else, their own viewpoints. We can call that a broader kind of humanism.
Last edited:
The writers that you quoted are not inspired writers BUT the bible in its original autographs are !!
Dispensationalism is BIBLE DOCTRINE whether you like it or NOT an will never DISPROVE IT !!
So what does Acts 20:27 , then mean ??
dan p
Interplanner
Well-known member
No, Dan, you'd have to define D'ism and prove it, never the other way around. Go ahead and give it a try. Best if you use Acts 13's sermon because it is the official apostle statement on the meaning, scope, destiny, history, legacy and objective of Israel.
On the subject of dispensationalism being separation theology, separating the elect of God into different groups which are different identities, several of the following scriptures teach unity of the elect of God, not separation, or the scriptures in some way support that unity.
John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9.
John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4 say there is one group of God's people, not Old Covenant Israel and the Church.
Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 teach that those of the elect whose bloodline is from Abraham are no different in Christ from those of the elect not from Abraham's bloodline.
Romans 2: 28-29 supports the unity of the elect because it says now a spiritual Jew is not defined by his physical bloodline, but a Jew is defined now by the circumcision of his heart, in the Spirit, which unifies the elect.
Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20 say that the elect are Israel, while the people of the flesh, of the chosen bloodline who are not the children of the promise (the elect) are not God's people, and that those of the chosen people bloodline who rejected Christ were cut off. There is one redeemed Israel (Luke 1: 68), not Old Covenant Israel and the Church.
Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29 support the unity of the elect by saying the chosen people physical bloodline now goes to Christ alone and he made the physical bloodline from Abraham into a spiritual line from Abraham. Christ no longer divides the elect by a physical bloodline, as dispensationalism continues to do.
II Corinthians 3: 6-11 and Hebrews 10: 9 say that the Old Covenant was done away. so that in the New Covenant Old Covenant Israel is not a people of God.
Luke 1: 68-69 should be added to the list above, because it says Christ redeemed his people, and has created a pathway to salvation for us. And Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 teach that those of the elect whose bloodline is from Abraham are no different in Christ from those of the elect not from Abraham's bloodline. So "us" in Luke 1: 69 is everyone.
Dispensationalists, with their peculiar literalist of or the letter"Hermeneutic" might say that Luke 1: 68 does not say that Christ redeemed Israel, and in fact it turns out that he redeemed Israel by redeeming a remnant of Israel (Romans 11: 1-5), and not the multitude. The wording of Luke 1: 68 is "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel: for he has visited and redeemed his people." Dispensationalists might claim that because it does not say in an explicit way that God redeemed Israel, that he did not redeem Israel.
John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4, Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28, Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8, Romans 11: 17-20, II Corinthians 3: 6-11, Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29, Galatians 4: 24-26, and Hebrews 10: 9.
John 10: 16, Romans 12: 4-5, Ephesians 4: 4 say there is one group of God's people, not Old Covenant Israel and the Church.
Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 teach that those of the elect whose bloodline is from Abraham are no different in Christ from those of the elect not from Abraham's bloodline.
Romans 2: 28-29 supports the unity of the elect because it says now a spiritual Jew is not defined by his physical bloodline, but a Jew is defined now by the circumcision of his heart, in the Spirit, which unifies the elect.
Romans 9: 6-8 and Romans 11: 17-20 say that the elect are Israel, while the people of the flesh, of the chosen bloodline who are not the children of the promise (the elect) are not God's people, and that those of the chosen people bloodline who rejected Christ were cut off. There is one redeemed Israel (Luke 1: 68), not Old Covenant Israel and the Church.
Galatians 3: 3, 16-17, 27-29 support the unity of the elect by saying the chosen people physical bloodline now goes to Christ alone and he made the physical bloodline from Abraham into a spiritual line from Abraham. Christ no longer divides the elect by a physical bloodline, as dispensationalism continues to do.
II Corinthians 3: 6-11 and Hebrews 10: 9 say that the Old Covenant was done away. so that in the New Covenant Old Covenant Israel is not a people of God.
Luke 1: 68-69 should be added to the list above, because it says Christ redeemed his people, and has created a pathway to salvation for us. And Romans 10: 12, Galatians 3: 28 teach that those of the elect whose bloodline is from Abraham are no different in Christ from those of the elect not from Abraham's bloodline. So "us" in Luke 1: 69 is everyone.
Dispensationalists, with their peculiar literalist of or the letter"Hermeneutic" might say that Luke 1: 68 does not say that Christ redeemed Israel, and in fact it turns out that he redeemed Israel by redeeming a remnant of Israel (Romans 11: 1-5), and not the multitude. The wording of Luke 1: 68 is "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel: for he has visited and redeemed his people." Dispensationalists might claim that because it does not say in an explicit way that God redeemed Israel, that he did not redeem Israel.
Last edited:
Interplanner
Well-known member
Unfortunately, they will say there are "no" Scriptures here!
I don't know how to get them to turn the corner of separation vs unity. They are tone deaf about unity.
SaulToPaul 2
Well-known member
We are all about the Unity provided by the seven ones of Ephesians.
Unity at the expense of these is no unity at all, but rather dilution of truth.
Hi and I have posted it many times , BUT you AVOID what OIKONOMIA /dispemsation means in Rom 16:25 , Eph 3:2 and Col 1:25 and 26 !!
OIKONOMIA is in the bible and you will NEVER understand it , because you are FALLEN from GRACE and are ACCURSED as Gal 5:4 and Gal 1:8 and can not deal with these verse !!
You must have a hard time sleeping as these verses course through , what you call your MIND !!
dan p
Last edited:
The topic of this thread is that dispensationalism as a theology separates Old Covenant Israel from the Church, and separates the elect of the chosen people bloodline from the elect of the "Church," which is the meeting, the assembly or congregation of redeemed Israel(see Tyndale's translation of ekklesia consistently).
But the dispensationalists have to sidestep this topic focused upon their separation theology when faced with the scriptures discussed on this thread - see post number 31. So there is an attempt to change the topic to what oikonomia means for dispensationalists. Again, this is the dialectic and getting into a dialogue with a dialectic mind just leads to more and more dialectic and few if any insights and new information about scripture.
But the dispensationalists have to sidestep this topic focused upon their separation theology when faced with the scriptures discussed on this thread - see post number 31. So there is an attempt to change the topic to what oikonomia means for dispensationalists. Again, this is the dialectic and getting into a dialogue with a dialectic mind just leads to more and more dialectic and few if any insights and new information about scripture.
God gave Paul the job of leading people to spiritual renewal in Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ has the supernatural ability as well as the intention to carry out this spiritual renewal, working through a small remnant. And so in a larger remnant, that plan of spiritual renewing will be carried out. Through Jesus Christ a unity will be achieved in him. All the elect of God become unified.
"Wherof I am made a minister according to the ordinance of God which ordinance was given me unto you ward to fulfill ye word of God
26 that mystery hidden since the world began and since ye beginning of generations: but now is opened to his saints,
27 to whom God would make known the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles which riches is Christ in you the hope of glory." Colossians 1: 25-27, Tyndale New Testament in modern English spelling
The purpose of the ordinance of God given to Paul was Christ in you, which is the hope of glory, not Christ "among" us, but him, his Spirit, in us.
For οικονομιαν, oikonomian, in Colossians 1: 25 the Wycliffe Bible of 1395, translated from Jerome's Latin, has "dispensacioun."
"Of which Y Poul am maad mynystre bi the dispensacioun of God, that is youun to me in you," Tyndale broke with the Catholic English New Testament of Wycliffe which has dispensacioun. Remember that Tyndale also broke with the older Catholic English New Testament of Wycliffe on the translation of ekklesia. Wycliffe used chirche for the Greek ekklesia, but Tyndale consistently used congregation, except for Acts 19: 37 where he used churche, a pagan place of worship.
"Wherof I am made a minister according to the ordinance of God which ordinance was given me unto you ward to fulfill ye word of God
26 that mystery hidden since the world began and since ye beginning of generations: but now is opened to his saints,
27 to whom God would make known the glorious riches of this mystery among the Gentiles which riches is Christ in you the hope of glory." Colossians 1: 25-27, Tyndale New Testament in modern English spelling
The purpose of the ordinance of God given to Paul was Christ in you, which is the hope of glory, not Christ "among" us, but him, his Spirit, in us.
For οικονομιαν, oikonomian, in Colossians 1: 25 the Wycliffe Bible of 1395, translated from Jerome's Latin, has "dispensacioun."
"Of which Y Poul am maad mynystre bi the dispensacioun of God, that is youun to me in you," Tyndale broke with the Catholic English New Testament of Wycliffe which has dispensacioun. Remember that Tyndale also broke with the older Catholic English New Testament of Wycliffe on the translation of ekklesia. Wycliffe used chirche for the Greek ekklesia, but Tyndale consistently used congregation, except for Acts 19: 37 where he used churche, a pagan place of worship.
Last edited:
You can't touch STP, biblically, Nag.You venture into the ring with him, and end up bloodied, in a heap,slumped, on the matt, waiting for the devil, and his Calvinist drones, to re-pump you, re-energize you, with more deceit, hypocrisy, and sophistry, and serpent like slickness.
My evidence? You.
I Timothy 6: 20-21 says in the Tyndale New Testament, "O Timothy save that which is given ye to keep and avoid ungodly vanities of voices and oppositions of science falsely so called
21 which science while some professed they have erred as concerning the faith. Grace be with the Amen."
Tyndale translates γνωσεως, or gnosis, as science, but it should be translated as knowledge.
The key part in Greek says "και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως,or "and anti-thesis of falsely called knowledge."
αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis, is a technical term in the early Greek philosophy of the διαλεκτική, or dialectic, before the time of Christ.
In the dialectic, there is a direct opposition between the thesis and the anti-thesis, or a strong division between the thesis and the anti-thesis. In the conflict between the false prophets (Matthew 24: 5, 11, 24, II Peter 2: 1-3) and a small remnant who have a love for the Truth,the false prophets try to overthrow the thesis, which is the Truth of Christ's Gospel, with another Gospel, which in the dialectic is the anti-thesis. The false prophets operate through deception. Deceive is a word which is used of false prophets in Matthew 4,5, 11 and 24.
Two interesting instances of the dialectic in Scripture are in Genesis 3: 1-6 and in the dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees in John Chapter 8.
In Satan's use of the dialectic against Eve in Genesis 3: 2-6, "And the woman said unto the serpent of the fruit of the trees in the garden we may eat
3 but of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden (said God) see that ye eat not and see that ye touch it not: lest ye die.
4 Then said the Serpent unto the woman: trust ye shall not die:
5 But God doth know that whensoever ye should eat of it your eyes should be opened and ye should be as God and know both good and evil."
6 And the woman saw that it was a good tree to eat of and lusted unto the eyes and a pleasant tree for to make wise. And took of the fruit of it and ate and gave unto her husband also with her and he ate."
Note that the Serpent is teaching doctrine in direct opposition to that taught by God. Eve said God told them not to eat of the fruit of one tree and if they did so they would die. But the Serpent contradicted this and offered his own doctrine totally different from that of God.
In teaching false doctrine to Eve, the Serpent is the first false prophet. He is also the first user of the dialectic to attempt to overthrow the thesis or Truth of God by an anti-thesis used in a deceptive way.
Look at John 8: 31-33, 44, 52-53, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him. If ye continue in my word then are ye my very disciples
32 and shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him: We be Abraham's seed and were never bound to any man: why sayest thou then ye shall be made free..............Ye are of your Father the devil and the lusts of your Father ye will follow. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie then speaketh he of his own. For he is a liar and the Father therof.............Then said the Jews to him: Now know we that thou hast the devil. Abraham is dead and also the Prophets: and yet thou sayest if a man keep my saying he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater then our father Abraham which is dead? and the Prophets are deed. Whom makest thou thy self?"
The Pharisees were making an argument in direct opposition to what Christ was teaching. They were using the dialectic to try to overthrow the absolute truth of Christ's doctrines by use of an anti-thesis, which was their own doctrines, There were acting in the role of the false prophet.
The pathway to salvation seen in Luke 1: 68-69 is not through arguing in direct opposition to Christ's Gospel, trying to create another Gospel (II Corinthians 11: 4, Galatians 1: 6-9). But the path to salvation is through complete agreement in faith with the doctrines of Christ as the Thesis, spoken in a didactic way and not in the language of the dialectic, involving deception.
To become saved in response to His offer of grace, is to become one with Christ, whose glory is made manifest in the third part of Zechariah 13:9 which is preserved. The Spirit of the Lord inside one leads him or her into unity with Christ, not in direct opposition to his doctrines, which is death.
The third part of Zechariah 13:8-9 is Life and not Death and Hell, as spiritual states. Christ is life itself.
"In him was life; and the life was the light of men." John 1:4
21 which science while some professed they have erred as concerning the faith. Grace be with the Amen."
Tyndale translates γνωσεως, or gnosis, as science, but it should be translated as knowledge.
The key part in Greek says "και αντιθεσεις της ψευδωνυμου γνωσεως,or "and anti-thesis of falsely called knowledge."
αντιθεσεις, or anti-thesis, is a technical term in the early Greek philosophy of the διαλεκτική, or dialectic, before the time of Christ.
In the dialectic, there is a direct opposition between the thesis and the anti-thesis, or a strong division between the thesis and the anti-thesis. In the conflict between the false prophets (Matthew 24: 5, 11, 24, II Peter 2: 1-3) and a small remnant who have a love for the Truth,the false prophets try to overthrow the thesis, which is the Truth of Christ's Gospel, with another Gospel, which in the dialectic is the anti-thesis. The false prophets operate through deception. Deceive is a word which is used of false prophets in Matthew 4,5, 11 and 24.
Two interesting instances of the dialectic in Scripture are in Genesis 3: 1-6 and in the dialogue between Christ and the Pharisees in John Chapter 8.
In Satan's use of the dialectic against Eve in Genesis 3: 2-6, "And the woman said unto the serpent of the fruit of the trees in the garden we may eat
3 but of the fruit of the tree that is in the middle of the garden (said God) see that ye eat not and see that ye touch it not: lest ye die.
4 Then said the Serpent unto the woman: trust ye shall not die:
5 But God doth know that whensoever ye should eat of it your eyes should be opened and ye should be as God and know both good and evil."
6 And the woman saw that it was a good tree to eat of and lusted unto the eyes and a pleasant tree for to make wise. And took of the fruit of it and ate and gave unto her husband also with her and he ate."
Note that the Serpent is teaching doctrine in direct opposition to that taught by God. Eve said God told them not to eat of the fruit of one tree and if they did so they would die. But the Serpent contradicted this and offered his own doctrine totally different from that of God.
In teaching false doctrine to Eve, the Serpent is the first false prophet. He is also the first user of the dialectic to attempt to overthrow the thesis or Truth of God by an anti-thesis used in a deceptive way.
Look at John 8: 31-33, 44, 52-53, "Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him. If ye continue in my word then are ye my very disciples
32 and shall know the truth: and the truth shall make you free.
33 They answered him: We be Abraham's seed and were never bound to any man: why sayest thou then ye shall be made free..............Ye are of your Father the devil and the lusts of your Father ye will follow. He was a murderer from the beginning and abode not in the truth because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie then speaketh he of his own. For he is a liar and the Father therof.............Then said the Jews to him: Now know we that thou hast the devil. Abraham is dead and also the Prophets: and yet thou sayest if a man keep my saying he shall never taste of death.
53 Art thou greater then our father Abraham which is dead? and the Prophets are deed. Whom makest thou thy self?"
The Pharisees were making an argument in direct opposition to what Christ was teaching. They were using the dialectic to try to overthrow the absolute truth of Christ's doctrines by use of an anti-thesis, which was their own doctrines, There were acting in the role of the false prophet.
The pathway to salvation seen in Luke 1: 68-69 is not through arguing in direct opposition to Christ's Gospel, trying to create another Gospel (II Corinthians 11: 4, Galatians 1: 6-9). But the path to salvation is through complete agreement in faith with the doctrines of Christ as the Thesis, spoken in a didactic way and not in the language of the dialectic, involving deception.
To become saved in response to His offer of grace, is to become one with Christ, whose glory is made manifest in the third part of Zechariah 13:9 which is preserved. The Spirit of the Lord inside one leads him or her into unity with Christ, not in direct opposition to his doctrines, which is death.
The third part of Zechariah 13:8-9 is Life and not Death and Hell, as spiritual states. Christ is life itself.
"In him was life; and the life was the light of men." John 1:4
Last edited: