Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I’m a Progressive Dispensationalist who is currently struggling with my Classical Dispensationalist brothers, with the “one people” controversy. Progressive rightly teach “Israel and the Church are one people of God, sharing in the forgiveness of sins through Christ and partaking of his indwelling Spirit, with his power for covenant faithfulness, though they are nevertheless distinguishable participants in the covenant that make up what is a unified people...they are indeed the united "people(s) of God", one by faith in Christ and common participation in the Spirit, and yet distinct insofar as God will yet restore Israel as a nation in his land.” Bruce Ware
The fact that there is one people of God (everybody who is saved) is pretty much indisputable. I don't know how to argue against that idea. But otoh the fact that there is one people of God doesn't in any particular way militate against Israel having a special destiny and special promises yet to come. We have to be able to hold two things in our heads at the same time. Again I challenge anyone who disagrees with Israel's future place in God's plan to read Romans 11 substituting the Church for all nouns and pronouns referring to Israel. You will recant if you listen to your self reading it.
Cory Marsh is a superb Theologian and has done the church a service in helping clear up mosconceptions and straw men of dispensationalism. Thank you for having him on.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
@@BishopEddie5443 It is an incredible leap to claim since a word appears in Scripture proves an entire theology must be correct. That is....wow. And then you JUDGE your brothers heart and motive? Double wow sir. Rom. 14:4 "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand." This verse applies to Christian brothers, both Covenantal and Dispy. We can critique theologies. We are NOT to critique other's hearts. That's God's job, not ours. But I would definitely say your judging men's hearts IS fruit of pride, sir.
You lack both understanding and integrity. This is why you can't receive dispensational truth. I judge as Apostle Paul instructed me to judge, Sir! 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.@@dubyag4124
As a former dispensationalist myself I do have to agree with one thing he says here: I have never during my 20 years of attending a dispensational Assembly of God church ever hear about multiple forms of Salvation or the returning of sacrifices in the millennium. Never did I hear anything like that. Nowadays I know that does exist in some dispensationalist circles, but it did not exist in any of the material I ever read (including any Rapture/end times themed books, etc, like Left Behind). That being said, I cannot take any dispensationalists seriously who continue to repeat the blatant lie that they take the Bible literally. They don't, because you can't take every single part of the Bible literally and come up with a consistent narrative, it just isn't possible. Probably the biggest one to highlight is the 70 weeks of Daniel. They always insist on inserting 2000+ years between the 69th and 70th week, meanwhile insisting separately that the "1000 years" of Revelation must be literal. This is the most blatant example that contradicts this narrative. The 70 weeks of Daniel doesn't even make sense unless we take to to mean a literal 490 years. Meanwhile, 1000 is used symbolically throughout the entire Bible. Some things in the Bible are symbolic and some aren't. We have to understand which ones are and which aren't and we shouldn't lie to ourselves that our particular system of beliefs is more literal (and therefore "more accurate") than another.
Can you point me to a verse or passage that uses 1000 as a mere symbol when it is used to describe the number of something? I know that the terms thousand and thousands is sometimes used symbolically, but I've yet to see an instance when a number used as a descriptor for an object, persons, or amount of time wasn't to be taken at face value.
The problem I had with Corey's statement about multiple ways of salvation is that that is exactly what was taught early on. The jews were saved by keeping the law, we're saved by grace. It didn't take long for the Dispys to start getting beat up on this, so it was changed - and correctly so. Today most Dispys do not teach there are two ways of salvation, to be fair. Likewise, to be fair, when I've heard people critique dispensationalism, they don't claim the Dispys say this now, they give the historic teaching, which was that. And I agree on the 70 wks. The "gap" is an absurdity. It's not there. The idea that at the beginning of Matt 10 Jesus is talking to the disciples, but by the time you get to vs 23 he's talking about a group in the undisclosed future... it's simply untenable. There are so many problems with it.
@@BossBattle21 Yes. Not only does the Father own the cattle on a thousand hills in psalms 50, but he curses to the 3rd and 4th generation, while his blessing is to the thousandth generation. The symbolism is his grace is much greater than his judgment. No one thinks the blessing is gonna last earthly for 30 or 40 thousand years as a generation is between that 30 and 40 years. In Revelation. 10 x 10 x 10 is 1000. 12 x 12 x 1000 equals 144,000. The symbolism is 1000 being perfection, large number by using 10^3 power. The number of the trinity. These are just a few usages of 1000 or numbers as a great or large number etc. Hope this helps.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
At roughly 44 minutes there is a problem with Dr Marsh’s position. The temple is not always the temple and Israel is not always Israel. This is explicit in the Bible so I’m curious what he means.
@@kingjames5527What temple was was the Lord Jesus speaking of in John 2, and what temple did the Jews think that He was speaking of? What is the cornerstone that God lays in Zion, and what building is built upon this cornerstone? This building, which is spoken of in both Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 2, is called "a holy temple in the Lord" in the former and "a spiritual house" in the latter (language which goes back to 2 Samuel 7, along with other OT passages). Is it correct that God does not dwell in temples made with human hands as the martyr of the Lord, Stephen, said during his trial (Acts 7); and as the apostle Paul declared (Acts 17)?
This was an awesome episode! Need more of this. I have stepped away from the pre-trib rapture a while back and lean more reformed but I love eschatology and I think the dispy position should get more acknowledgment.
George Mueller and JN Darby parted. One was open Brethren and the other exclusive Brethren. I was with the Open Brethren 8 years then our assembly split over the Lordship salvation controversy. One of our elders was a DTS grad. He introduced Zane Hodges take and response to John MacArthurs book. The assembly was small and it was difficult to hold together. People went to other congregations. Does anyone know if George Mueller held to dispensational teaching?
I wonder if my dispensational brother would take Paul’s words literally: if you are in Christ, you are the seeds of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I’ve never heard a dispensationalist NOT take those words of Paul literally, including myself. Using that verse is a MYTH against Dispies that is only repeated amongst Reformed brethren to each other. It doesn’t hold up on debate or serious dialogue. When you use that verse it is a red flag that you have some serious knowledge deficits on the subjects of: Abraham, Covenant, seed, Israel, etc… I’d recommend you learning about Dispensational theology on that particular subject before spreading poorly understood jargon.
@@BishopEddie5443 And what lusts are those??? You understand that accusing brethren without evidence is a sin?? I thought reformed types were big on Holy living? Your words are very unholy, as is your thinking. We don’t have a misunderstanding of those verses, you are just unacquainted with it. Talking about something you are ignorant of is the sin of presumption.
@@alexandernathanielruvalcab2411 You could’ve just explained what Paul is saying, rather you chose to attack me personally. So, what does it mean that we are the seeds of Abraham according to dispensationalism?
My words are HOLY! If you add ANY works to Paul's gospel of grace, then you have the wrong gospel! Non-dispies believe there is only ONE gospel, but we who rightly divide know that the gospel that Jesus preached in His earthly ministry is totally different from the one He commissioned Paul to preach to the gentiles. Learn from me son. lol Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.@@alexandernathanielruvalcab2411
I must take issue with a few things Corey said. What he's espousing is NOT unique to him. I'm not claiming he said that, I just wanted to say it just in case someone was thinking it. Actually, Dr. Thomas Ice did a series of lectures on this topic a number of years back. Next, he, like Ice, is searching for evidence of the position from history. No one has spent much time doing this before because, although you can argue that there are some random statements here and there throughout history which may or may not give credence to the position (or bits and pieces of it), no one had the understanding of it until Darby. We all know that. To make the claim that "It's not a hermeneutic," as Corey did, is rather bold, considering no one knew of it before the 1830s. (Yes. I know what he said, and acknowledged it already.) In the end, I see two major problems. He, like Dr. Ice, is arguably engaging in seeking history to anachronistically find support for their views - just like Rome does for their non-canonical doctrines. Lastly, the non-canonical genesis of the premillennial position should be the death knell for any position which is supposed to hold to Sola Scriptura. Just saying.
The charge of recency goes both ways. There is no systematic form of Covenant Theology prior to the WCF 17th c and, in seed form, the Heidelberg Catechism in the 16th c (a mere 150 or so years prior to Darby.) Also prior to Augustine, virtually every church father was chiliast / pre-mill.
@user-wn9uk4no8g Virtually every church father was premill is nonsense and you know it. Knock it off. Even Justin admitted as much, and how much earlier was he than Augustine again? Now, there is always development of doctrine, but to claim it was in "seed form" for 1830 years? I'm not buying. Even the Trinity. The council of nicaea. Palegius acknowledged that Christ is God... is his own strange, heretical way. But it wasn't something novel. As you're well aware, the church fathers are useful when checked with Scripture. Like all of us. But it's Scripture first. As a form of premillennialism, dispensationalism cannot exist without it. Agreed? So, and I've wanted answers to this forever, how can premillennialism be scriptural if it's not based on Scripture? The jews formed it prior to Christ using non-canonical texts. So, if premillennialism isn't based on God's Word, how can dispensationalism be?
The pre-millennial position is found all throughout the Bible and in the earliest Church fathers. It was the only only eschatology for 200 years. That's the death knell to all these other stupid heresies like amillennial and post-millennial delusions
Thanks to Cory for getting to "Biblical Theology" as "a" or "the" key to understanding these issues, rather than a social or philosophical way of thinking. Himmel's historical approach to "truth" seems relativistic, not based in revelation.
Amazing conversation. Daniel is very respectful with his objective factual responses while taking some critique from someone who is perhaps a little hurt by the recent eschatological change and backlash to dispensationalism by old Millennials, young Millennials, and everyone/anyone younger. Cory says "The method itself is what dispensationalism is based on -- not the person applying it." But unfortunately, this loosey-goosey way of exegeting is also what light, medium, and heavy charismatics use in their continuist hermeneutics. It's very unfortunate and feels weak. It's not that dispensationalism is wrong -- it's that the burden of proof feels sky high, hermeneutically speaking.
Yes, when I listen to these discussions (I am a pre-trib Rapturist who never talks about dispensations) I am appalled at the trend to allegorization in eschatology. 40 years ago I believed grammatical-historical interpretation was ascendant forever. Now I don't think that at all listen to all the VIP scholars drone on.
This was great, thank you! I was hoping it would have covered the evidence for dispensational thought and the times, people and places prior to 1800's. This is a very controversial topic among the 2 camps. Do you have another video that discusses this?
Love that intro song so much. Would love to hear you guys do something with Dr. Sam Waldron. I know that he is a busy guy because he is very involved in a seminary but he specializes in eschatology from an amillennial idealist perspective and always has a ton of wisdom. Especially in talking about the two age model.
@@eschatology_mattersoh nice! For sure wasn't expecting that answer. Now I'm all giddy. Sam Waldron has been such a help to me in shaping my eschatological views. He's like if John Madden was a theologian.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Dispensationalism: "Israel remains Israel" Romans 9:6 "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" Question for Corey: if the historical view highlights the "Fringe" voices, the question still stands: Why did the church by and large then gravitate to these "fringe" teachers and theology they promulgated? Great conversation! Thank you brothers.
It's amazing how people don't understand Romans 9:6 and the verses that follow. Both Isaac and Ishmael are the literal descendants and children of abraham. Paul's pointe at the seed and the promise would only be counted through one physical line. So his argument to the Jews it's going to require more than genealogy or descent to be acceptable to God. Thomas quote Romans 9:6 as if Paul was saying that the physical descendants of Abraham are not his children his preposterous and a big fat lie that contradicted what he said in verses 1 through 3
@@kingjames5527Except that "the children of the promise" spoken of in Romans 9 clearly refers to all believers in Christ Jesus, as is apparent just by reading the chapter itself, but is also paralleled in Galatians 4. As the apostle writes: "Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free."
False. Paul even tells you he's making an allegorical application of that story. The judaizers that were persecuting and harassing the Christians were not literal descendants of Ishmael. Your doctrine is a doofus doctrine
@@kingjames5527 No one said they were literal descendants of Ishmael. The point is that without from faith in Christ they would not be "the children of the promise," whereas in Romans 9 & Galatians 4 it is made clear that believers, i.e. Christians, are (these passages are connected, and both also link to Hebrews). Nor could those who are or were physical descendants that do not believe rightly be called Israel, as Rom. 9:6 states. At some point you have to deal with the text, because the Scripture here doesn't say "it will take more than physical descent to be acceptable to God," "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." The interpretation you propose is in contradiction to what the apostle states here, as well as the statements of the Lord in John 8.
@@kingjames5527 "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed." - Paul in Galatians calls those who are in Christ by faith "Abraham's seed." The focus is upon those who are "called," which have already been spoken of in the previous chapter as those whom God "foreknew," who are also called "God's elect." - Then this goes to Romans 9:24. Who is the "us" whom God "has called"? There is simply no way to limit the children of the promise spoken of here to only fleshly descendants of Abraham or Jacob, and the emphasis throughout is on those who have faith, the elect of God.
It’s been my observation that a major reason for the pre-trib rapture is the immanent return expectation in the New Testament. The pre-trib event is supposed to answer the historical-critical attack on scripture that says this expectation, taught by Jesus, and reflected by the Apostles was error. Any view that has ONE return of Christ after the tribulation removes the possibility of Christ coming “at any time” (whether pre-mil or amil). Thus, the one coming views can’t address the criticism that the first century expectation of Christ’s appearance is error. In fact, the only alternative to the pre-trib solution to this problem would be a partial-preterism, which explains the imminence of Christ’s coming by distinguishing the prophetic judgment coming of Jesus against Jerusalem (Mat 24:1-34), and the salvation of his church from their persecutors, from his future second coming (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 20:9-13). Is the “immanent expectation”issue an accurate assessment for one of the fundamental motivations for the pre-trib rapture? That is, as an apologetic against modernist critics of the Bible’s reliability? Are there some futurist (one comming) amils who address this immanency error criticism? Most that I have read oppose pre-trib and argue for one future coming on biblical grounds, but don’t address the modernist historical criticisms of the one coming view.
@@rickcampanella4254, ah, is this passage evidence of a pre-trib rapture? You might ask yourself, so what was the “hour of trial” that was coming upon the Church of Philadelphia? And how were they spared from it? I would say that the risk of the churches in that area during the early part of the Jewish war would be the Roman identification of them as sympathizers with the Jewish enemy… But on account of their profession of Jesus and the persecution they received from the synagogue in that city. They were spared any trouble during the war. In fact, those in the synagogue would end up confessing that the warnings they were given about the coming fall of the temple were true. This is exactly what Rev. 3:9 predicts would happen.
See the contributors to "Forsaking Israel" with the subtitle of "How it Happened And Why it Matters" by Kress Biblical Resources publication. Thank you.
It's not emposed on scripture it is scripture. Some books in the new testament are describing what happened in the old testament. Past present and future rightly dividing.
Might there be other NT verses that lead to other answers? I think a verse-by-verse study of Romans 11 certainly suggests that Israel, as a nation, has not been abandoned and is beloved by God for the fathers’ sake. I think it’s virtually impossible to make Romans 11 say what covenant theologians insist that it means. In fact, I would suggest that Romans 9-11 is making precisely the opposite point from covenant theology. That may, of course, mean that the NT is not precisely consistent on this topic. In some cases, the church is referred to as the Israel of God, and at other times it lays out a future for the nation of Israel more consistent with OT promises to the nation where it returns, repents, and is saved en masse.
When Paul was speaking in Romans the "nation of Israel" was still in existence. It had not been destroyed by the Roman Army. In the late 60s AD, the Romans were on a mission to put down the Jewish revolt in all the cities they controlled. Jewish people either resisted, complied, or fled to Jerusalem which was a heavily fortified city. The walls of Jerusalem were huge! Titus took control of the legions and continued to battle the Jews. On April 14th, 70, Titus and the Roman army marched on Jerusalem. It was the three days before Passover. Practicing Jews would have traveled to Jerusalem thus sealing their doom in the city. Christians in Jerusalem had been warned to leave if they saw the army surround the city. Luke 21:20-24. Which they did. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 states "...of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." So who are the real Jews? What does the Bible say are true Jews? Romans 2:28-29.There is only one people of God. His chosen ones. 1 Peter 2:4-10. I would encourage you to read the history Steven preaches to the high priest in Acts 7 then look up the star of Rephan. Also, if you look at Joshua 21:43 and 23:14-16. I do believe all nations will bow to Christ before His return. Psalm 110: 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:23-26. Christ is ruling from heaven. Matt 28:18; 1 Pet 3:22; Romans 1; Heb 12:1-2. A good book that compares scriptures in the OT and NT is "The Church is Israel Now" by Charles D. Provan.@@toddstevens9667
That has to do with the Israelites that are the elect as well as the grafted in Gentiles (ie there is neither Jew nor Greek). Not every single Israelite so as to refer to National Israel. But you can’t read it through dispensational lenses. “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring,” Romans 9:6-7 ESV “As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” Romans 9:25-26 ESV
@@joelcarter9550 But the problem blew with that is chapter 11 which makes a very clear distinction between the church and national Israel. And it specifically says that all national Israel will be saved after the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in. It is very specific. And that is the conclusion of the argument that started in 9:6. It’s almost impossible to understand without dispensational lenses, I’m afraid. But, once again, I don’t think the NT is consistent on this issue. I think there are places that certainly seem to argue that the church has replaced national Israel, and others that clearly suggest otherwise. I think it depends on the particular point the author is trying to make. And as humans, we get fixated on one side of the argument and ignore the other side (or explain it away, or take it out of context). But anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
@@toddstevens9667I respectfully disagree with you. Romans 11:26 in the Greek make it evidently clear that Gentiles being grafted in has something to do with all of Israel being saved. Notice the “so then” all Israel is saved, and no “and then” all Israel will be saved.
I get a real kick out of people who are against dispensationalism when the word dispensation is found in the scriptures. Rightly dividing the word of God is important to know who it is taking to and who it applies to. Here is just one example David in the psalms prayed for the Lord to not take his Holy Spirit from him. Nobody that has been born again should ever pray that prayer because we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Now I am not saying not to ask for the fullness of the Holy Spirit but simply that we are his and he will never leave us or forsake us because when he purchases us with his own blood that is when the Holy spirit takes residence in the believer. No one in the Old Testament was born again. This also isn’t to say that everyone who believes in dispensationalism is always rightly dividing the word of truth. The Kingdom of heaven is not the same as the Kingdom of God. One is physical and one is spiritual. The bible says the kingdom of God dwelleth in you. It’s not Christs Physical Kingdom that dwells in us but his spiritual kingdom through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are not baptized unto John’s baptism. Our baptism is not to make our way strait because the kingdom of heaven is at hand. You read in the book of Mathew if thy right hand offends thee cut it off or if thy right eye offends thee pluck it out it is better to have one hand than two to be cast into hell fire. Now if you think this applies to you then tell me where are all the one-eyed Christians or one-handed ones? don’t spiritualize this brother he is talking about swift judgment when he sets up his earthly kingdom. Need more proof? If thou say unto thy brother Raca thou shall be in danger of the council. WHAT COUNCIL? DONT, YOU DARE SPIRITUALISE THIS TO FIT YOUR OWN NARATIVE! But if thou say to thy brother thou fool, thou shall be in danger of hell fire. Swift judgement carried out by the Lord Jesus when he set up rulers and councils to carry out his judgments when he sits on his throne in Jerusalem. This may apply to us in principal but when it is that specific it doesn’t apply to us doctrinally at all. It is talking about a different time period a different dispensation. If you find it in the bible it didn't start with any man.
No one is against the word "dispensation", they are against the very questionable teachings that go by the label "dispensationalism". Likewise, one isn't against Jehovah if they oppose Jehovah's Witnesses, or opposed to the Bible if they reject the Satanic Bible or any other silly word game we can play. Now if the dispy system could be found in scripture, that's another matter.
I’ll give it to scholarly dispensationalists that they don’t teach multiple ways of salvation, but there are far too many people in their pews that believe that.
Cory lost me (respect-wise) when he said that "dispensationalism is not a hermeneutic". The funny thing is that Dispensationalism is not really about dispensations... even though "they" like to play that shell game. Dispensationalism is in fact a very tight cohesive (incorrect) set of biblical hermeneutics; period. To state that Dispensationalism is NOT a hermeneutic is disingenuous; in fact, its an out-right lie. The most damaging thing about Dispensationalism (besides denying the person and work of Christ) is that it completely changes biblical hermeneutics... including the distinction of the kingdom of God vs the kingdom of heaven, Israel vs the Church, the Rapture (and associated nonsense malarky) and the interpretation (incorrect literalism) that misinterprets the words of Jesus and the Apostles regarding Israel to be strictly "literal" and in the future!. Of course Dispensationalism is a hermetic! Mark H. Harris M.A.T.S.; M.Div; (Bethel Seminary, 2014) marcus
Oh dear. Not sure what you were taught in seminary or where your bias is, but the claim that dispensationalists “denying the person and work of Christ” makes me seriously question who you’ve been taught by and anything you say on the subject. And I think all covenant theology adherents would agree to that. Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel both acknowledge that some of the most significant contributions to orthodox Protestant doctrine have been from dispensationalists. Dispensationalism is a systematic theology, just as covenant theology is. Their hermeneutic tends to be the literal (normative) historical grammatical approach while covalent theology typically ranges between literal and allegorical, depending on genre of literature. The literal historical grammatical takes literal but also recognizes symbolism and figures of speech, aiming to get the literal concept behind the symbolism. Please do not let biased emotions run amuck. It discredits both you and your institution.
@@davidbausch6245 , you are not correct. Dispensationalism is a Christian heresy. The reason it violates (denies) the person and work of Christ is because of what Dispensationalists call, "rightly dividing the word of truth".... dividing the passages that only apply only to Israel, and those that apply to the Church. And what they mean by that is only applying much of the New Testament (most of the synoptics) to the Jews (Israel) in the future in the millennial kingdom. they claim that much of the New Testament (even the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount) do not apply to the Church. They deny that these passages apply to the Church today. This denies the person and work of Christ; period. Much of the Church today is rejecting Dispensationalism as heresy. I'll leave it to you to discover who and where. Dispensationalism must die as a biblical hermeneutical system. The system is not only heresy, it has only been an active system in theology (in the Church) since 1830... never before in Church history, anywhere, ever before 1830 was Dispensationalism taught, believed, nor applied. The Bible can never mean what the Bible never meant. marcus
Dispensationalism is based on a hermeneutic (Literal Grammatical Historical). To call it a hermeneutic is to confuse categories. It's rather absurd in fact.
@ZacharyKlein , wrong-headed. "Dispensationalism" is an error-prone system of biblical hermeneutics, codified in the C.I. Scofield reference Bible. marcus
@@markh.harris9271 Hermeneutic is a method of text interpretation. To call Dispensationalism - a theological system - a hermeneutic is like calling an automobile a tire. Dispensationalism *has* a hermeneutic, as does every theology.
Is a background of shelves full of books as an assumed resume of sorts seems to be a trend that has caught on. I think Dr. Heiser is one of the few exceptions.
That term so-called experts needs to GO... throw it out. I'm so tired of hearing that! There are plenty of people that have been reading and studying the Bible that are not. Your so-called experts that understand it very well. Just take Jesus's words as truth. Take him at his word and you'll understand the Truth.
It's already been 75 years since Israel became a nation. What is Cody's definition of a generation? Also, there were many heresies that can be traced way back, some that mirror even what Jehovah witnesses believe, the only criteria that matters is does a system conform to scripture? Church Fathers, and early extra biblical writings while interesting, are not inspired either.
Paul spoke of two dispensations in Ephesians one being the dispensation of the fullness of times ..we are currently in the grace age mystery period .which Paul wrote about .
Being on the fringes of popular scholarship is the right place to be when the majority is wrong, as they often have been about critical issues in the past.
This guy defending Dispensationalism is delusional when he says it is not a hermeneutic or soteriology. Truly ridiculous. The fact that he is a traditional Dispensationalist should make any student of eschatology distrust anything this guy has to say.
Read Romans 11 substituting "The Church" for every time Israel or a pronoun antecedent referring to Israel occurs. It will change your theology. Let the Bible speak.
Dispensationalism is the only way to view the Scripture in a way that allows the text to speak directly into theology, rather than the theological system dictating what the Scripture should say, i.e. rewriting the Bible.
I'm hoping this was sarcasm. Everyone has to assume certain requirements or rules when they come to the text. Literalistic. First instance. Two peoples of God. New Testament determines Old Testament. Always physical over any type of spiritual. There are many different assumptions people have when coming to the text.
It is a man-made framework that definitely colors one’s interpretation of the Bible, and one that a person is taught and would not come to by simply reading the Bible. Many dispensationalists ironically have bought the narrative it “interprets the Bible literally”.
Is the Bible centered around the Jews or Christ Jesus and the fall and redemption of man? The promise of redemption was given many times for 2,000 years before Moses before there was an Israel. jesuit Manual lacunza created dispensationalism in the late 1700’s under a false pen name.
Dispyism started with the roman catholic Jesuit Manual Lacunza in the late 1700’s writing under a false pen name Josephat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew--all false. it never existed before as a theology. Darby merely systematized it. Both Irving and Darby started cults also and 100 more cults evolved out of thus an end time doctrine of demons and a Judaization of the church in America which feeds zionism and genocide and the only reason we are seeing that right now and one of the reasons we got fight unjustified wars in the middle east.
The perplexing thing is Jesus will reign in Jerusalem physically on David's throne. Right next door will be a temple where people are going to make pilgrimages( annually?) To sacrifice animals in celebration of Jesus's victory over sin and death.(huh?) I think this idea was the final nail in the coffin for me re dispensationalism. And shows a very low view of the Lord's Supper. Apparently the animal sacrifices will be like communion😮. As voddie bauchan calls it....blasphemy.
Wow! Human beings who disagree talking calmly and kindly to each other! Thank you very much.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
Can you please do this again but with a covenantalist who can come at this from a theological approach?
Marsh did absolutely incredible! very clear and distinct. Glad Daniel admitted that he made mistakes on misrepresenting certain views.
I’m a Progressive Dispensationalist who is currently struggling with my Classical Dispensationalist brothers, with the “one people” controversy.
Progressive rightly teach
“Israel and the Church are one people of God, sharing in the forgiveness of sins through Christ and partaking of his indwelling Spirit, with his power for covenant faithfulness, though they are nevertheless distinguishable participants in the covenant that make up what is a unified people...they are indeed the united "people(s) of God", one by faith in Christ and common participation in the Spirit, and yet distinct insofar as God will yet restore Israel as a nation in his land.”
Bruce Ware
The fact that there is one people of God (everybody who is saved) is pretty much indisputable. I don't know how to argue against that idea. But otoh the fact that there is one people of God doesn't in any particular way militate against Israel having a special destiny and special promises yet to come. We have to be able to hold two things in our heads at the same time. Again I challenge anyone who disagrees with Israel's future place in God's plan to read Romans 11 substituting the Church for all nouns and pronouns referring to Israel. You will recant if you listen to your self reading it.
Cory Marsh is a superb Theologian and has done the church a service in helping clear up mosconceptions and straw men of dispensationalism. Thank you for having him on.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
@@BishopEddie5443 It is an incredible leap to claim since a word appears in Scripture proves an entire theology must be correct. That is....wow. And then you JUDGE your brothers heart and motive? Double wow sir.
Rom. 14:4 "Who are you to judge someone else’s servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand."
This verse applies to Christian brothers, both Covenantal and Dispy. We can critique theologies. We are NOT to critique other's hearts. That's God's job, not ours. But I would definitely say your judging men's hearts IS fruit of pride, sir.
You lack both understanding and integrity. This is why you can't receive dispensational truth. I judge as Apostle Paul instructed me to judge, Sir! 1 Corinthians 5:12-13 For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person. 1 Corinthians 2:15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.@@dubyag4124
As a former dispensationalist myself I do have to agree with one thing he says here:
I have never during my 20 years of attending a dispensational Assembly of God church ever hear about multiple forms of Salvation or the returning of sacrifices in the millennium. Never did I hear anything like that.
Nowadays I know that does exist in some dispensationalist circles, but it did not exist in any of the material I ever read (including any Rapture/end times themed books, etc, like Left Behind).
That being said, I cannot take any dispensationalists seriously who continue to repeat the blatant lie that they take the Bible literally. They don't, because you can't take every single part of the Bible literally and come up with a consistent narrative, it just isn't possible.
Probably the biggest one to highlight is the 70 weeks of Daniel. They always insist on inserting 2000+ years between the 69th and 70th week, meanwhile insisting separately that the "1000 years" of Revelation must be literal. This is the most blatant example that contradicts this narrative.
The 70 weeks of Daniel doesn't even make sense unless we take to to mean a literal 490 years. Meanwhile, 1000 is used symbolically throughout the entire Bible.
Some things in the Bible are symbolic and some aren't. We have to understand which ones are and which aren't and we shouldn't lie to ourselves that our particular system of beliefs is more literal (and therefore "more accurate") than another.
Can you point me to a verse or passage that uses 1000 as a mere symbol when it is used to describe the number of something?
I know that the terms thousand and thousands is sometimes used symbolically, but I've yet to see an instance when a number used as a descriptor for an object, persons, or amount of time wasn't to be taken at face value.
@@BossBattle21
Ps 50:10. There's one verse.
The problem I had with Corey's statement about multiple ways of salvation is that that is exactly what was taught early on. The jews were saved by keeping the law, we're saved by grace. It didn't take long for the Dispys to start getting beat up on this, so it was changed - and correctly so. Today most Dispys do not teach there are two ways of salvation, to be fair. Likewise, to be fair, when I've heard people critique dispensationalism, they don't claim the Dispys say this now, they give the historic teaching, which was that.
And I agree on the 70 wks. The "gap" is an absurdity. It's not there. The idea that at the beginning of Matt 10 Jesus is talking to the disciples, but by the time you get to vs 23 he's talking about a group in the undisclosed future... it's simply untenable. There are so many problems with it.
@@BossBattle21 Yes. Not only does the Father own the cattle on a thousand hills in psalms 50, but he curses to the 3rd and 4th generation, while his blessing is to the thousandth generation. The symbolism is his grace is much greater than his judgment.
No one thinks the blessing is gonna last earthly for 30 or 40 thousand years as a generation is between that 30 and 40 years.
In Revelation. 10 x 10 x 10 is 1000.
12 x 12 x 1000 equals 144,000.
The symbolism is 1000 being perfection, large number by using
10^3 power. The number of the trinity.
These are just a few usages of 1000 or numbers as a great or large number etc.
Hope this helps.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
At roughly 44 minutes there is a problem with Dr Marsh’s position. The temple is not always the temple and Israel is not always Israel. This is explicit in the Bible so I’m curious what he means.
No it isn't
@@kingjames5527What temple was was the Lord Jesus speaking of in John 2, and what temple did the Jews think that He was speaking of? What is the cornerstone that God lays in Zion, and what building is built upon this cornerstone? This building, which is spoken of in both Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 2, is called "a holy temple in the Lord" in the former and "a spiritual house" in the latter (language which goes back to 2 Samuel 7, along with other OT passages). Is it correct that God does not dwell in temples made with human hands as the martyr of the Lord, Stephen, said during his trial (Acts 7); and as the apostle Paul declared (Acts 17)?
Very helpful discussion! Would love to see more interactions between articulate dispensationalists and the other schools of eschatology
Very informative, Thanks 👍🏽
This was an awesome episode! Need more of this. I have stepped away from the pre-trib rapture a while back and lean more reformed but I love eschatology and I think the dispy position should get more acknowledgment.
Why, do you think it's true?
Is there an order to biblical prophecy?
George Mueller and JN Darby parted. One was open Brethren and the other exclusive Brethren. I was with the Open Brethren 8 years then our assembly split over the Lordship salvation controversy. One of our elders was a DTS grad. He introduced Zane Hodges take and response to John MacArthurs book. The assembly was small and it was difficult to hold together. People went to other congregations. Does anyone know if George Mueller held to dispensational teaching?
He held to something akin to a progressive dispensationalist. Kind of like a post trib dispensationalist.
I wonder if my dispensational brother would take Paul’s words literally: if you are in Christ, you are the seeds of Abraham, heirs according to the promise.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
I’ve never heard a dispensationalist NOT take those words of Paul literally, including myself. Using that verse is a MYTH against Dispies that is only repeated amongst Reformed brethren to each other. It doesn’t hold up on debate or serious dialogue.
When you use that verse it is a red flag that you have some serious knowledge deficits on the subjects of: Abraham, Covenant, seed, Israel, etc…
I’d recommend you learning about Dispensational theology on that particular subject before spreading poorly understood jargon.
@@BishopEddie5443
And what lusts are those??? You understand that accusing brethren without evidence is a sin?? I thought reformed types were big on Holy living?
Your words are very unholy, as is your thinking.
We don’t have a misunderstanding of those verses, you are just unacquainted with it. Talking about something you are ignorant of is the sin of presumption.
@@alexandernathanielruvalcab2411 You could’ve just explained what Paul is saying, rather you chose to attack me personally. So, what does it mean that we are the seeds of Abraham according to dispensationalism?
My words are HOLY! If you add ANY works to Paul's gospel of grace, then you have the wrong gospel! Non-dispies believe there is only ONE gospel, but we who rightly divide know that the gospel that Jesus preached in His earthly ministry is totally different from the one He commissioned Paul to preach to the gentiles. Learn from me son. lol Galatians 1:6-9 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.@@alexandernathanielruvalcab2411
Excellent and enjoyable discussion.
I must take issue with a few things Corey said.
What he's espousing is NOT unique to him. I'm not claiming he said that, I just wanted to say it just in case someone was thinking it.
Actually, Dr. Thomas Ice did a series of lectures on this topic a number of years back.
Next, he, like Ice, is searching for evidence of the position from history. No one has spent much time doing this before because, although you can argue that there are some random statements here and there throughout history which may or may not give credence to the position (or bits and pieces of it), no one had the understanding of it until Darby. We all know that.
To make the claim that "It's not a hermeneutic," as Corey did, is rather bold, considering no one knew of it before the 1830s. (Yes. I know what he said, and acknowledged it already.)
In the end, I see two major problems. He, like Dr. Ice, is arguably engaging in seeking history to anachronistically find support for their views - just like Rome does for their non-canonical doctrines.
Lastly, the non-canonical genesis of the premillennial position should be the death knell for any position which is supposed to hold to Sola Scriptura. Just saying.
The charge of recency goes both ways. There is no systematic form of Covenant Theology prior to the WCF 17th c and, in seed form, the Heidelberg Catechism in the 16th c (a mere 150 or so years prior to Darby.) Also prior to Augustine, virtually every church father was chiliast / pre-mill.
@user-wn9uk4no8g
Virtually every church father was premill is nonsense and you know it. Knock it off. Even Justin admitted as much, and how much earlier was he than Augustine again?
Now, there is always development of doctrine, but to claim it was in "seed form" for 1830 years? I'm not buying. Even the Trinity. The council of nicaea. Palegius acknowledged that Christ is God... is his own strange, heretical way. But it wasn't something novel.
As you're well aware, the church fathers are useful when checked with Scripture. Like all of us. But it's Scripture first.
As a form of premillennialism, dispensationalism cannot exist without it. Agreed? So, and I've wanted answers to this forever, how can premillennialism be scriptural if it's not based on Scripture? The jews formed it prior to Christ using non-canonical texts. So, if premillennialism isn't based on God's Word, how can dispensationalism be?
The pre-millennial position is found all throughout the Bible and in the earliest Church fathers. It was the only only eschatology for 200 years. That's the death knell to all these other stupid heresies like amillennial and post-millennial delusions
Are you saved and will you always be saved?
Thanks to Cory for getting to "Biblical Theology" as "a" or "the" key to understanding these issues, rather than a social or philosophical way of thinking. Himmel's historical approach to "truth" seems relativistic, not based in revelation.
I like how he connects Dispensational thought with the lie of free grace. The Bible clearly states to count the cost of converting to Christianity.
Amazing conversation. Daniel is very respectful with his objective factual responses while taking some critique from someone who is perhaps a little hurt by the recent eschatological change and backlash to dispensationalism by old Millennials, young Millennials, and everyone/anyone younger. Cory says "The method itself is what dispensationalism is based on -- not the person applying it." But unfortunately, this loosey-goosey way of exegeting is also what light, medium, and heavy charismatics use in their continuist hermeneutics. It's very unfortunate and feels weak. It's not that dispensationalism is wrong -- it's that the burden of proof feels sky high, hermeneutically speaking.
Yes, when I listen to these discussions (I am a pre-trib Rapturist who never talks about dispensations) I am appalled at the trend to allegorization in eschatology. 40 years ago I believed grammatical-historical interpretation was ascendant forever. Now I don't think that at all listen to all the VIP scholars drone on.
This was great, thank you! I was hoping it would have covered the evidence for dispensational thought and the times, people and places prior to 1800's. This is a very controversial topic among the 2 camps. Do you have another video that discusses this?
ruclips.net/video/4HkPrUKhPug/видео.htmlsi=RtDITJaUpjAU-bSY
That's what the book "Discovering Dispensationalism" is for. It was released recently.
Yes, I felt that this video didn’t really get into the meat of things…
Love that intro song so much. Would love to hear you guys do something with Dr. Sam Waldron. I know that he is a busy guy because he is very involved in a seminary but he specializes in eschatology from an amillennial idealist perspective and always has a ton of wisdom. Especially in talking about the two age model.
Its in the works. Look for it this fall
@@eschatology_mattersoh nice! For sure wasn't expecting that answer. Now I'm all giddy. Sam Waldron has been such a help to me in shaping my eschatological views. He's like if John Madden was a theologian.
Ephesians 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: They reject the word dispensation entirely, even though it is found at least 4 times in the KJV along with many other allusions to the word dispensation. They are heaping to themselves teachers according to their own lusts. 2 Timothy 4:3-4 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
It just means a time period
Dispensationalism: "Israel remains Israel"
Romans 9:6 "Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel"
Question for Corey: if the historical view highlights the "Fringe" voices, the question still stands: Why did the church by and large then gravitate to these "fringe" teachers and theology they promulgated?
Great conversation! Thank you brothers.
It's amazing how people don't understand Romans 9:6 and the verses that follow. Both Isaac and Ishmael are the literal descendants and children of abraham. Paul's pointe at the seed and the promise would only be counted through one physical line. So his argument to the Jews it's going to require more than genealogy or descent to be acceptable to God.
Thomas quote Romans 9:6 as if Paul was saying that the physical descendants of Abraham are not his children his preposterous and a big fat lie that contradicted what he said in verses 1 through 3
@@kingjames5527Except that "the children of the promise" spoken of in Romans 9 clearly refers to all believers in Christ Jesus, as is apparent just by reading the chapter itself, but is also paralleled in Galatians 4. As the apostle writes:
"Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise. But, as he who was born according to the flesh then persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, even so it is now. Nevertheless what does the Scripture say? 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman but of the free."
False. Paul even tells you he's making an allegorical application of that story. The judaizers that were persecuting and harassing the Christians were not literal descendants of Ishmael. Your doctrine is a doofus doctrine
@@kingjames5527 No one said they were literal descendants of Ishmael. The point is that without from faith in Christ they would not be "the children of the promise," whereas in Romans 9 & Galatians 4 it is made clear that believers, i.e. Christians, are (these passages are connected, and both also link to Hebrews). Nor could those who are or were physical descendants that do not believe rightly be called Israel, as Rom. 9:6 states. At some point you have to deal with the text, because the Scripture here doesn't say "it will take more than physical descent to be acceptable to God," "they are not all Israel, which are of Israel." The interpretation you propose is in contradiction to what the apostle states here, as well as the statements of the Lord in John 8.
@@kingjames5527 "Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed."
- Paul in Galatians calls those who are in Christ by faith "Abraham's seed." The focus is upon those who are "called," which have already been spoken of in the previous chapter as those whom God "foreknew," who are also called "God's elect."
- Then this goes to Romans 9:24. Who is the "us" whom God "has called"? There is simply no way to limit the children of the promise spoken of here to only fleshly descendants of Abraham or Jacob, and the emphasis throughout is on those who have faith, the elect of God.
It’s been my observation that a major reason for the pre-trib rapture is the immanent return expectation in the New Testament. The pre-trib event is supposed to answer the historical-critical attack on scripture that says this expectation, taught by Jesus, and reflected by the Apostles was error.
Any view that has ONE return of Christ after the tribulation removes the possibility of Christ coming “at any time” (whether pre-mil or amil). Thus, the one coming views can’t address the criticism that the first century expectation of Christ’s appearance is error.
In fact, the only alternative to the pre-trib solution to this problem would be a partial-preterism, which explains the imminence of Christ’s coming by distinguishing the prophetic judgment coming of Jesus against Jerusalem (Mat 24:1-34), and the salvation of his church from their persecutors, from his future second coming (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 20:9-13).
Is the “immanent expectation”issue an accurate assessment for one of the fundamental motivations for the pre-trib rapture? That is, as an apologetic against modernist critics of the Bible’s reliability?
Are there some futurist (one comming) amils who address this immanency error criticism? Most that I have read oppose pre-trib and argue for one future coming on biblical grounds, but don’t address the modernist historical criticisms of the one coming view.
Rev.3:10
@@rickcampanella4254, ah, is this passage evidence of a pre-trib rapture? You might ask yourself, so what was the “hour of trial” that was coming upon the Church of Philadelphia? And how were they spared from it?
I would say that the risk of the churches in that area during the early part of the Jewish war would be the Roman identification of them as sympathizers with the Jewish enemy…
But on account of their profession of Jesus and the persecution they received from the synagogue in that city. They were spared any trouble during the war.
In fact, those in the synagogue would end up confessing that the warnings they were given about the coming fall of the temple were true. This is exactly what Rev. 3:9 predicts would happen.
See the contributors to "Forsaking Israel" with the subtitle of "How it Happened And Why it Matters" by Kress Biblical Resources publication. Thank you.
So many words so little content. No respect for the time of the viewer. Not sure it's worth 2 hrs for so little.
It's not emposed on scripture it is scripture. Some books in the new testament are describing what happened in the old testament. Past present and future rightly dividing.
Darby was Sola Scriptora. He got it from the scriptures rightly divided
Who is Israel based on Scripture alone? Gal 3:7, 9, 29; Gal 6:15-16; Romans 2:29, 4:12, 9:6-8: Phil 3:3
Might there be other NT verses that lead to other answers? I think a verse-by-verse study of Romans 11 certainly suggests that Israel, as a nation, has not been abandoned and is beloved by God for the fathers’ sake. I think it’s virtually impossible to make Romans 11 say what covenant theologians insist that it means. In fact, I would suggest that Romans 9-11 is making precisely the opposite point from covenant theology. That may, of course, mean that the NT is not precisely consistent on this topic. In some cases, the church is referred to as the Israel of God, and at other times it lays out a future for the nation of Israel more consistent with OT promises to the nation where it returns, repents, and is saved en masse.
When Paul was speaking in Romans the "nation of Israel" was still in existence. It had not been destroyed by the Roman Army. In the late 60s AD, the Romans were on a mission to put down the Jewish revolt in all the cities they controlled. Jewish people either resisted, complied, or fled to Jerusalem which was a heavily fortified city. The walls of Jerusalem were huge! Titus took control of the legions and continued to battle the Jews. On April 14th, 70, Titus and the Roman army marched on Jerusalem. It was the three days before Passover. Practicing Jews would have traveled to Jerusalem thus sealing their doom in the city. Christians in Jerusalem had been warned to leave if they saw the army surround the city. Luke 21:20-24. Which they did. Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 states "...of those who say that they are Jews and are not, but are a synagogue of Satan." So who are the real Jews? What does the Bible say are true Jews? Romans 2:28-29.There is only one people of God. His chosen ones. 1 Peter 2:4-10. I would encourage you to read the history Steven preaches to the high priest in Acts 7 then look up the star of Rephan. Also, if you look at Joshua 21:43 and 23:14-16. I do believe all nations will bow to Christ before His return. Psalm 110: 1-2; 1 Cor. 15:23-26. Christ is ruling from heaven. Matt 28:18; 1 Pet 3:22; Romans 1; Heb 12:1-2. A good book that compares scriptures in the OT and NT is "The Church is Israel Now" by Charles D. Provan.@@toddstevens9667
That has to do with the Israelites that are the elect as well as the grafted in Gentiles (ie there is neither Jew nor Greek). Not every single Israelite so as to refer to National Israel. But you can’t read it through dispensational lenses.
“But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel, and not all are children of Abraham because they are his offspring,” Romans 9:6-7 ESV
“As indeed he says in Hosea, “Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” “And in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ there they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’” Romans 9:25-26 ESV
@@joelcarter9550 But the problem blew with that is chapter 11 which makes a very clear distinction between the church and national Israel. And it specifically says that all national Israel will be saved after the fullness of the Gentiles be brought in. It is very specific. And that is the conclusion of the argument that started in 9:6. It’s almost impossible to understand without dispensational lenses, I’m afraid. But, once again, I don’t think the NT is consistent on this issue. I think there are places that certainly seem to argue that the church has replaced national Israel, and others that clearly suggest otherwise. I think it depends on the particular point the author is trying to make. And as humans, we get fixated on one side of the argument and ignore the other side (or explain it away, or take it out of context). But anyway, thanks for your thoughts.
@@toddstevens9667I respectfully disagree with you. Romans 11:26 in the Greek make it evidently clear that Gentiles being grafted in has something to do with all of Israel being saved. Notice the “so then” all Israel is saved, and no “and then” all Israel will be saved.
The Father's heart is grieved by sons who place their faith in ~isms and ~ologies.
Clarence Larkin look him up
Just read Paul's gospels, spread the good news, and get a hobby or something.
I get a real kick out of people who are against dispensationalism when the word dispensation is found in the scriptures. Rightly dividing the word of God is important to know who it is taking to and who it applies to. Here is just one example David in the psalms prayed for the Lord to not take his Holy Spirit from him. Nobody that has been born again should ever pray that prayer because we are sealed by the Holy Spirit until the day of redemption. Now I am not saying not to ask for the fullness of the Holy Spirit but simply that we are his and he will never leave us or forsake us because when he purchases us with his own blood that is when the Holy spirit takes residence in the believer. No one in the Old Testament was born again. This also isn’t to say that everyone who believes in dispensationalism is always rightly dividing the word of truth. The Kingdom of heaven is not the same as the Kingdom of God. One is physical and one is spiritual. The bible says the kingdom of God dwelleth in you. It’s not Christs Physical Kingdom that dwells in us but his spiritual kingdom through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. We are not baptized unto John’s baptism. Our baptism is not to make our way strait because the kingdom of heaven is at hand. You read in the book of Mathew if thy right hand offends thee cut it off or if thy right eye offends thee pluck it out it is better to have one hand than two to be cast into hell fire. Now if you think this applies to you then tell me where are all the one-eyed Christians or one-handed ones? don’t spiritualize this brother he is talking about swift judgment when he sets up his earthly kingdom. Need more proof? If thou say unto thy brother Raca thou shall be in danger of the council. WHAT COUNCIL? DONT, YOU DARE SPIRITUALISE THIS TO FIT YOUR OWN NARATIVE! But if thou say to thy brother thou fool, thou shall be in danger of hell fire. Swift judgement carried out by the Lord Jesus when he set up rulers and councils to carry out his judgments when he sits on his throne in Jerusalem. This may apply to us in principal but when it is that specific it doesn’t apply to us doctrinally at all. It is talking about a different time period a different dispensation. If you find it in the bible it didn't start with any man.
No one is against the word "dispensation", they are against the very questionable teachings that go by the label "dispensationalism". Likewise, one isn't against Jehovah if they oppose Jehovah's Witnesses, or opposed to the Bible if they reject the Satanic Bible or any other silly word game we can play. Now if the dispy system could be found in scripture, that's another matter.
You think you are the expert on dispensationalism you don't nothing to bad you wrote a book against the Bible 😅
I’ll give it to scholarly dispensationalists that they don’t teach multiple ways of salvation, but there are far too many people in their pews that believe that.
Look up Gene Kim and Robert Breaker
Scripture is the history of dispensations
Cory lost me (respect-wise) when he said that "dispensationalism is not a hermeneutic".
The funny thing is that Dispensationalism is not really about dispensations... even though "they" like to play that shell game. Dispensationalism is in fact a very tight cohesive (incorrect) set of biblical hermeneutics; period.
To state that Dispensationalism is NOT a hermeneutic is disingenuous; in fact, its an out-right lie. The most damaging thing about Dispensationalism (besides denying the person and work of Christ) is that it completely changes biblical hermeneutics... including the distinction of the kingdom of God vs the kingdom of heaven, Israel vs the Church, the Rapture (and associated nonsense malarky) and the interpretation (incorrect literalism) that misinterprets the words of Jesus and the Apostles regarding Israel to be strictly "literal" and in the future!.
Of course Dispensationalism is a hermetic!
Mark H. Harris M.A.T.S.; M.Div; (Bethel Seminary, 2014)
marcus
Oh dear. Not sure what you were taught in seminary or where your bias is, but the claim that dispensationalists “denying the person and work of Christ” makes me seriously question who you’ve been taught by and anything you say on the subject. And I think all covenant theology adherents would agree to that. Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel both acknowledge that some of the most significant contributions to orthodox Protestant doctrine have been from dispensationalists.
Dispensationalism is a systematic theology, just as covenant theology is. Their hermeneutic tends to be the literal (normative) historical grammatical approach while covalent theology typically ranges between literal and allegorical, depending on genre of literature.
The literal historical grammatical takes literal but also recognizes symbolism and figures of speech, aiming to get the literal concept behind the symbolism.
Please do not let biased emotions run amuck. It discredits both you and your institution.
@@davidbausch6245 , you are not correct.
Dispensationalism is a Christian heresy.
The reason it violates (denies) the person and work of Christ is because of what Dispensationalists call, "rightly dividing the word of truth".... dividing the passages that only apply only to Israel, and those that apply to the Church. And what they mean by that is only applying much of the New Testament (most of the synoptics) to the Jews (Israel) in the future in the millennial kingdom. they claim that much of the New Testament (even the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount) do not apply to the Church. They deny that these passages apply to the Church today. This denies the person and work of Christ; period.
Much of the Church today is rejecting Dispensationalism as heresy. I'll leave it to you to discover who and where.
Dispensationalism must die as a biblical hermeneutical system. The system is not only heresy, it has only been an active system in theology (in the Church) since 1830... never before in Church history, anywhere, ever before 1830 was Dispensationalism taught, believed, nor applied.
The Bible can never mean what the Bible never meant.
marcus
Dispensationalism is based on a hermeneutic (Literal Grammatical Historical). To call it a hermeneutic is to confuse categories. It's rather absurd in fact.
@ZacharyKlein , wrong-headed.
"Dispensationalism" is an error-prone system of biblical hermeneutics, codified in the C.I. Scofield reference Bible.
marcus
@@markh.harris9271 Hermeneutic is a method of text interpretation. To call Dispensationalism - a theological system - a hermeneutic is like calling an automobile a tire. Dispensationalism *has* a hermeneutic, as does every theology.
Is a background of shelves full of books as an assumed resume of sorts seems to be a trend that has caught on. I think Dr. Heiser is one of the few exceptions.
I was craving for you brothers to get to Mid-Acts dispensationalism.
That term so-called experts needs to GO... throw it out. I'm so tired of hearing that!
There are plenty of people that have been reading and studying the Bible that are not. Your so-called experts that understand it very well. Just take Jesus's words as truth. Take him at his word and you'll understand the Truth.
Why we gotta wait till 7pm tonight???
I only had to wait till 4
It's already been 75 years since Israel became a nation. What is Cody's definition of a generation? Also, there were many heresies that can be traced way back, some that mirror even what Jehovah witnesses believe, the only criteria that matters is does a system conform to scripture? Church Fathers, and early extra biblical writings while interesting, are not inspired either.
Cory Marsh es un digno representante del dispensacionalismo. 👍👍
If you take the word I out of this discussion the video would be cut in half.
#DispensationalismisDead
We can only hope lol
@@SemperReformanda17 how ironic “truth in love”
Sorry not true.
@@CoryMarsh-o4g What's ironic about what I said? It's a false, man-made doctrinal system. I said it in love, although I chuckled a bit.
@@CoryMarsh-o4gwe lovingly want dispys to come to the truth 😊
how can one be interested in DTS dispensationalism and not focus on progressive dispi.?
Paul spoke of two dispensations in Ephesians one being the dispensation of the fullness of times ..we are currently in the grace age mystery period .which Paul wrote about .
Being on the fringes of popular scholarship is the right place to be when the majority is wrong, as they often have been about critical issues in the past.
Most American Evangelicals have no idea that historic Christianity is amillennial.
Most people who mention the popularity of Amill across church history never mention the fact that it had been mandated.
...or that amil is a newer term and that before about 100 years ago, people didn't really distinguish amil from postmil.
Most proponents of amillennialism don't realize that the first church authors, if we know their eschatology, were premillennial.
Apostolic father Papias and early church father Irenaeus enter the chat.
@@D12Min Nobody has heard from them for years.- Yogi Berra.
This guy defending Dispensationalism is delusional when he says it is not a hermeneutic or soteriology. Truly ridiculous. The fact that he is a traditional Dispensationalist should make any student of eschatology distrust anything this guy has to say.
@Cory Marsh: the golden Era of dispensationalism will be during the Millennial Kingdom.
Read Romans 11 substituting "The Church" for every time Israel or a pronoun antecedent referring to Israel occurs. It will change your theology. Let the Bible speak.
Research the history of what ever denomination you're in.
For the Al!
No the rainbow means this
Dispensationalism is the only way to view the Scripture in a way that allows the text to speak directly into theology, rather than the theological system dictating what the Scripture should say, i.e. rewriting the Bible.
I'm hoping this was sarcasm. Everyone has to assume certain requirements or rules when they come to the text.
Literalistic. First instance. Two peoples of God. New Testament determines Old Testament. Always physical over any type of spiritual. There are many different assumptions people have when coming to the text.
It is a man-made framework that definitely colors one’s interpretation of the Bible, and one that a person is taught and would not come to by simply reading the Bible. Many dispensationalists ironically have bought the narrative it “interprets the Bible literally”.
Is the Bible centered around the Jews or Christ Jesus and the fall and redemption of man? The promise of redemption was given many times for 2,000 years before Moses before there was an Israel. jesuit Manual lacunza created dispensationalism in the late 1700’s under a false pen name.
Dispyism started with the roman catholic Jesuit Manual Lacunza in the late 1700’s writing under a false pen name Josephat Ben Ezra, a converted Jew--all false. it never existed before as a theology. Darby merely systematized it. Both Irving and Darby started cults also and 100 more cults evolved out of thus an end time doctrine of demons and a Judaization of the church in America which feeds zionism and genocide and the only reason we are seeing that right now and one of the reasons we got fight unjustified wars in the middle east.
The perplexing thing is Jesus will reign in Jerusalem physically on David's throne. Right next door will be a temple where people are going to make pilgrimages( annually?) To sacrifice animals in celebration of Jesus's victory over sin and death.(huh?) I think this idea was the final nail in the coffin for me re dispensationalism. And shows a very low view of the Lord's Supper. Apparently the animal sacrifices will be like communion😮. As voddie bauchan calls it....blasphemy.
lol
Get to the point
False doctrine
True doctrine
@williambillycraig1057 prove it