What is the Defining Mark of Dispensationalism? Hint: Not the Rapture or Seven Dispensations
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- In this video, Peter Goeman and Doug Bookman join forces (again) to analyze dispensationalism and identify the key component of the system. This is a part two episode of a general review of Al Mohler's interview of Daniel Hummel, concerning his book, "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism." However, this episode is not a response to the interview as much as a general overview of what dispensationalism actually is. There is a lot of confusion about what it is that makes or breaks dispensationalism. Bookman and Goeman propose that dispensationalism is identifiable primarily as a way of reading the Bible, not just a system of beliefs.
For part one, "What Does Al Mohler Think of Dispensationalism?": • What does Al Mohler th...
For another video interview with Mike Vlach dealing with dispensational hermeneutics: • Theological Systems an...
Was dispensationalism invented by Darby?: • Was Dispensationalism ...
Al Mohler Interviews Daniel Humel on history of dispensationalism: • ‘The Rise and Fall of ...
Discussion between Cory Marsh and Daniel Hummel: • History of Dispensatio...
#dispensationalism #hermeneutics #christian #theology #bible #rapture #covenanttheology
The Bible Sojourner Audio podcast: anchor.fm/the-...
More About the Host, Peter Goeman: petergoeman.com
6:15 this is why I, as a law student, am mystified by covenant eschatology. If, in the drafting of a contract, the identity of the parties change, or the consideration owed either party changes, there needs to be a new contract. If in the drafting of that second contract you place a contradictory title that reverses the identity, problems arise. God never confuses the issue-- just calvin (God bless his soteriology).
We apparently need more lawyers to read the Bible :)
I suspect that Calvin was not as intelligent as is said of him. I believe that the unified covenant concept was Roman Catholic not new to the Reformation. Calvin did not take to the essential dispensational motif which is necessary for understanding God's working. Calvin preferred the IMPOSED artificial concept of the unity of the gospel and its corollary progressive history of redemption. Also artificial. The Covenental concept seemed to fit with those ideas. But major fictional creativity was needed. Calvin was unable to recognize that this Covenant Theology changed the gospel from grace to works. The Roman Catholic presentation is subtle enough that not everyone sees the Trojan horse for its danger. The system obligates Jesus to obey the law to earn law righteousness to accomplish the earning of righteousness and eternal life for His elect. He vicariously obeys the law for our righteousness, thereby violating the Romans three "righteousness without the law" which is necessary to the gospel. Basic to Roman Catholicism is the law standard for righteousness. Calvin, a career Catholic had this philosophy so ingrained that he never questioned it. So so much of the Reformation was tainted by this bad blood which Calvin brought in with him. He never saw it. The Reformed creeds and confessions are full of this legal righteousness . An example, "the law is the rule of life for the believer". This will always be irreconcilable with Paul's "dead to the law". There will continue two paths of Christianity, never meeting. Calvin and the Reformation inherited the hate for Jews. I am now engaged in a losing dispute with Covenentalists who ,by presupposition which they refuse to identify, insist that the Romans 11:26 "all Israel will be saved" that this all Israel cannot be, must not be Jews. That Israel must be Gentiles in the Church. As I said it is deeply ingrained, unidentified presuppositional baggage.In ch. 11 Paul informs us that all of those Jews to comprise that all Israel are already elect!!! But Covenentalists insist that there are not enough Jews in the olive tree to people that 11:26 all Israel. So it must be Gentiles. It should be obvious that 11:26 tells us that they are not saved YET but are already elected and WILL be saved!! But they refuse to see this because that Israel MUST be Gentiles. Apriori.
@gerard4870, pleas see my response.
Excellet, super helpful. I was wondering, have you done a video on personal discipleship? I've heard you mention it a few times, but I've had troulbe finding good resources on what one-on-one discipleship should look like biblically and practically
Thanks for the encouragement! We have not done a video on discipleship yet, but I have it on my list. Maybe your encouragement will bump it up on the list a bit.
I’m new to your channel. I did not detect a hint of arrogance, meanness or snark. That seems to be hard to do when it comes to this subject. Well done gentlemen. Thank you.
Thanks, Carol. That is very encouraging to hear. We really want to model ourselves after Christ and try to be gentle and kind in how we speak of opposing views. We definitely do this imperfectly, but we are trying. We appreciate you taking the time to watch and make that comment.
The Old Covenant The New Covenant
1. Blood of Animals 1. Blood of Christ
2. Written on Stone 2. Written on Hearts
3. Shadow 3. Substance
4. Glorious 4. More Glorious
5. Had an End 5. Has no End
6. Law of Moses 6. Law of Messiah
7. Law of Works 7. Law of Faith
8. Law of Sin and Death 8. Law of Spirit of Life
9. Many Sacrifices 9. One Sacrifice
10. Powerless to Save 10. Power to Save
11. Annual Atonement 11. Eternal Atonement
12. Earthly Tabernacle 12. Heavenly Tabernacle
13. Ministry of Death 13. Ministry of Life
14. Outer Form - Flesh 14. Inner Reality - Spirit
15. Ministry of 15. Ministry of
Condemnation Reconciliation
Sadly this comment doesn’t format well on my phone. But I like it! Good comparison.
Jesus is The Holy One Of Israel, if you abide in him, then you are of the Israel of God.
Absolutely! ✔️
Jesus is the creator. Jesus created zebras. I believe that I am a created being. Therefore perhaps I would seem to be a zebra.
I have appreciated these talks on dispensational views of the Bible.
And your encouragement is greatly appreciated 🙏
@@thebiblesojourner Throughout my dissertation of Jewish evangelism, I saw that replacement theologians and the parishioners following them could not see what we are doing as something other than a theological system. Its the mentality that we are coming from a theological system that most strongly hinders productive conversation between dispy and covey types, in my experience. I have found there is a kind of fear I encounter when I tell them to let go of the system and read the Scripture for merely what the language presents us with.
@@5crownsoutreach That is a helpful analysis.
I sense that dispensationalism is under an attack by creative novelists. They make accusations which are stunning in their novelty. They pretend that they are trying to guard the Gospel from strange dispensational ideas. They fear an attempt to fill the olive tree with unsaved Jews. They imagine that dispensationalists believe in the salvation of people "BY ETHNICITY". The particular ethnicity is never far from mention. Apparently, normal language usage is unfair to special theological groups who need allowances. Dispensationalism is offensive and tyrannical in the regard of this language bullying. But why should Israel be Israel, or Jews be more native to Israel than Gentiles? Patience has been strained in the extreme. Dispensationalism has had its day of language Nazism. Covenant Theology should now finally have its fair use of language.b
I really enjoyed and appreciated this, but it would have been really helpful to have some examples of a difference of opinions of scripture.
Yes! That’s a great idea. To keep the episode short enough we focused on the big picture issues, but that is where it is most important-looking at how different positions treat different texts.
This was worth watching. Thanks for your God-honoring content.
Thanks for sharing that. Praise God!
"Playing by the rules of human language." That's gold!
When the reformed tell me the Church is Israel, I always ask, "So, you are Zebulun?" "You are Naphtali?" The answer I get is always yes. I do that to point out the complete abandonment of language. They spiritualize. I appreciate the reformed that argue for spiritualizing over a literal hermeneutic.
It is important that different sides of the debate acknowledge what kind of hermeneutic and rules of interpretation we are following. That is so crucial for there to actually be progress in these discussions.
Do not forget that dispensationalism destroys who the bible teaches is the Anti-Christ, the one Martin Luther Identified!!!!!!
You can speak the same language without speaking the same language. 😅
Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?
(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)
The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?
1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:8.)
2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?
3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?
4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?
5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?
6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?
7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?
8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)
9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9) Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
10. Watch the RUclips video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.
Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:
“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.
Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.
John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…
"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”
John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)
What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?
(See what Joshua said about the Old Covenant land promise in Josh. 21:43.)
Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?
Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?
Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is it fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:18-24?
Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church, if the New Covenant is “everlasting” in Hebrews 13:20? (See also 2 Thess. 1:7-10) If the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant “obsolete” in Hebrews 8:6-13, why would God go back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
Read the recent book "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism", by Daniel G. Hummel.
All of this is shit, can i use a bad word the bible does, all of this is designed to eliminate the historical interpritation of prophesy, that is your answer!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Great stuff as usual. I'd be interested in a video that walks through some of the New Testament texts that the Covenantalist would use to prove that NT priority is correct. That is the Great Dividing line in this debate
You're right! That is such an important part of the discussion. That's one reason the book "Continuity and Discontinuity" is so helpful. It pits the two positions side by side in helpful scholarship. Many people would do well to read that book again today! But now days we need some videos where that is done too.
@@thebiblesojourner I read it back in seminary. Be great to work through it again. Thanks for the suggestion.
I've had some dialogue recently with a covenantalist friend and it's amazing how insignificant to him all the details are in the OT promises for Israel and it's because of the NT priority. It's hard to explain how the NT does indeed provide insights and further explanation and clarity to the OT passages but at the same time shouldn't allow for a complete reinterpretation of the OT texts (especially all the promises to Israel), but they wouldn't see it as reinterpretation but rather as the true interpretation or something like that.
@@Brian-tk5vt Well, we can't change peoples minds. But be patient and kind. That goes a long way to making people open to continue the conversation about it. And keep having those conversations :)
Thank you. I came edify by your explanation. I always said to my self words have a meaning and special as we go ready the Word of God, looking at the Greek and Hebrew which are more rich and have a great meaning to a word. Praise the Lord for your ministry. Grace and peace from our God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ!
Thank you for your kind and encouraging words. Blessings to you!
I agree 100% that the Hermeneutical Approach is the key to everything....and if you were simply arguing Premillennialism vs A-millennialism or Postmillennialism then you'd have a very solid argument.
They use two totally different hermeneutical approaches.
However, I would submit that to suggest that dispensationalism is consistent in it's hermeneutical approach is to be (unintentionally) intellectually dishonest.
There's always going to be bias towards your current belief and it's easier to ignore words and phrases that contradict your belief and not even realize you're doing it.
For instance, John 14:3 says: "...I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also."
Every dispensationalist I've ever met instead reads it as if it says: "I will come again, and turn around and take you back to where I just came from"
If he returns to earth first, and then receives us to be where he is....that does not exegetically suggest him taking us back up to heaven.
Words mean things and grammatical structure means things. The only way to read into that something about Christ taking us to heaven is via eisegesis. (Reading into the scripture what you want it to say) rather than exegesis (Letting the passage read out it's own meaning)
An even bigger one, probably THE foundational verse for the pre-trib rapture is 1 Thessalonians 4:17.
First off one of the rules of historical grammatical exegesis is you have to read the entire passage in context.
You can't cherry pick one word out of one verse completely out of context with the surrounding verses.
The entire passage is 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 Where 13 and 18 are bookends where he starts by telling them that this passage is going to be about what happens to those who have already fallen asleep in Christ and they shouldn't be worried. He then explains why they shouldn't worry in the next 4 verses and then ties a bow on it with 18 and says..."therefore be comforted".
Verse 14 says that the Lord will bring the dead in Christ back with him.
"And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself, that where I am, there you may be also."
This is clearly about the return of the Lord. How else (and why else) could He bring others back with Him, unless he Himself is coming back?
Verse 15 he uses the words "the coming of the Lord" παρουσία (parousia) to describe what he's talking about. Incidentally that's the exact same words Jesus himself used in the Olivet Discourse in Matthew 24 to talk about his return.
So, that's two verses in a row that are talking about the return of the Lord. Hard to miss what this is talking about.
Verse 16 Just in case there's still a tinge of doubt about what he's talking about Paul says that: "The Lord Himself will descend from heaven"
That makes 3 verses in a row that either implicitly or explicitly talk about the return of the Lord.
Now the key verse that everyone wants to concentrate on is verse 17
"Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord."
We are told that because it says we are "caught up" which in Latin is Rapturo we are told this is a rapture of the church to heaven.
There's just one problem. The passage doesn't say anything about the church going to heaven!
It says we are "caught up" to "meet" the Lord in the "air".
Many people make it a point to show the Greek and say that the Latin word Rapturo where we get the word rapture, is just a translation from the Greek word: ἁρπάζω (harpazó)...which is the root word for the word Paul used in this passage: ἁρπαγησόμεθα (harpagēsometha)
However, it simply means "caught up" pretty much every English translation ever, translated that same word as "caught up", including Darby's own translation. There doesn't seem to be any controversy about whether that word means "caught up" or not, so I'm not sure what the point of going through the Greek is.
However, those same people neglect to go to the Greek for the words "air" and "meet". (Because it clearly says that's why and where we are caught up....to "meet the Lord in the air".
That word for air is simply ἀέρα (aera). It literally means the lower atmosphere air that we are breathing. It's never at any point translated anywhere in the Bible to suggest "heaven".
We are simply meeting the Lord in the air, in the context of his return to earth. (Which is very clear by the context of the 3 previous verses)
Let's look at that word: "meet": ἀπάντησιν (apantēsin)
"a meeting" It is used in the papyri of a newly arriving magistrate. "It seems that the special idea of the word was the official welcome of a newly arrived dignitary"
So, according to Vines expository dictionary of Biblical Greek this specific term is only used in the context of a delegation going out to welcome an arriving dignitary and escorting them back.
Think of the Palm Sunday procession where Jesus was returning to Jerusalem on the donkey and the crowds came outside the city and met him on the road and then had a huge celebration parade to celebrate the returning king and they literally escorted him all the way back inside the city.
That's the same picture here.
Yet, we are told that this passage has nothing to do with the return of the Lord that it's the rapture of the church to heaven. (Notice the word Church is never used, and the word "heaven" is only used once, to talk about where the Lord is returning FROM.)
This is textbook eisegesis.
The only things that are 100% clear that can be safely exegeted from this passage is:
1.) The Lord comes back and brings the souls of the dead in Christ back with him.
2.) He resurrects their bodies and then the rest of us go up and meet them in the air.
There's no reason to believe that we all stay suspended up in mid-air for eternity...so there are only two possibilities.
One has to make an assumption one way or the other.
1.) Either Christ continues his return and after meeting him in the air we all return with him. (Just as he said we would at the end of the previous chapter)
"...at the coming of our Lord Jesus with all His saints."
1 Thessalonians 3:13
Also notice he also uses the Greek word παρουσία (parousia) here...in case we are tempted to believe he's talking about something else.
OR
2.) Christ changes his mind about returning. Does a U-turn and takes us up to heaven with him (as well as the dead in Christ which apparently came back with him for no reason at all)
In context (and especially if you look at the original Greek) this is clearly about the return of the Lord, NOT the rapture of the church to heaven.
It's actually almost narcissistic to take a passage that is so clearly talking about the return of the Lord and change it to be about OUR departure.
Well, one of the reasons it is significant to make a distinction is because there are covenant theologians that embrace premillennialism. It is a literal hermeneutic that avoids the conflation of the church and Israel. That is a key, defining mark of dispensationalism. Not all historic premillennialist have seen a distinction between the church and Israel. So it doesn’t just relate to the tribulation or the rapture. In fact, I would say that it does not relate to the rapture at all!
Call me Basher.
To be a BibleBasher is to be like King David. Whome you all know well.
I was called a BibleBasher by an atheist on RUclips and i was so honored! I figured they referenced bible thumper but with a big KICK added to it! I was stoked and i adopted that name real fast. I dont actually qualify as a thumper though,but full of faith anyhow.
There it is.
Welcome :)
God fulfilled his promise to Abraham that he would be the father of many nations (ethnos).
While I believe that literal interpretation of the Bible is an essential element of dispensational thought, I think the essence of dispensationalism is the fact that God deals with mankind in different ways at different times. Most significantly, Israel failed to accept Jesus as their Messiah, and that God gave to our apostle Paul, the dispensation of the grace of God for all men. Justification by grace through faith alone; apart from Israel, apart from the law, apart from works. God made promises to Israel of land, nation, blessings and seed (king). He has not kept those promises yet, but he will... with the promised kingdom on earth.
Thanks for sharing your perspective on that! I like the thought. My only problem with it is that, technically, I think everyone would probably agree that God deals with mankind in different ways at different times. In fact, Covenant Theologians are the ones who have talked about that most. So in that sense, everyone is a dispensationalist. So it seems we need a way to differentiate from covenant theology. Dispensations did become a defining feature early in the system, but only because of the sharp distinctions that were made. At least that is how it seems to me.
In my word search on "covenant*", it seems to indicate that covenants are between God and his chosen people, Israel, not any gentiles! How do covenant theology believers get beyond this?
If you don't rightly divide and know what dispensation you're in, then you'll mix law with grace and have neither
When I got born again 18 years ago the Holy Spirit told me to read the Bible every day, which I have done. On 3/16/2017 the Lord gave me my first rapture dream and told me to start doing videos and it included that I needed to warn about divorce and remarriage is adultery. I expect the rapture is any day. I never heard of dispensationalism, Darby or replacement theology until I came to RUclips. I know the church is not Israel, and I have a born again Jewish friend in Israel, and she cannot find a church there because of divorce AND remarriage adultery and they don't believe in the pre-Tribulation rapture. She has had her own rapture dreams too. My most recent one was December 7 and is on my channel. Maranatha.
Thanks for stopping by and commenting on the videos. Your desire to let Scripture speak and guide on every issue is such a blessing. May God continue to guide you through His word.
I’m just curious: what theology textbook do you guys use in your theology classes?
For systematic theology, MacArthur/Mayhue. And in some classes the profs use the systematic by Wayne Grudem.
I wish this conversation was more useful for non-Dispensational believers. I came here going, “awesome what is the key distinctions?”
Then I hear the key distinction is we read the Bible correctly and everyone else is morally wrong for intentionally reading it wrong.
This is not helpful.
Well, your comment kind of illustrates the problem. The goal of the conversation was to stress that human beings communicate in a specific way, according to the normal rules of language. Dispensationalism is an attempt to mirror that in our Bible reading. Obviously we believe that is the correct approach to reading Scripture, otherwise we wouldn’t advocate it. But what you “heard” was not according to our authorial intent, which might illustrate a problem in your hermeneutic. I would even advocate non dispensationalists like Walt Kaiser and Moises Silva or Hays and Duvall who make similar claims for why we must read the Bible that way. You can agree with the defining mark of dispensationalism and not be a dispensationalist, but you can’t be a dispensationalist without agreeing.
@@thebiblesojourner brother please understand I have no problem with you thinking you are correct in your hermeneutics I hope that is true for everyone.
The problem I see is that the distinction you mark for Dispensational beliefs is not much of a distinction. A distinction should be something the other side would generally agree with as a distinction. The other side doesn’t believe they are changing the meaning of words without any connection between the words.
My proposal would be defining a distinction by, 2 naming distinct theological perspectives like Israel and the church being distinctly separate in God’s overall plan.
Or 2 closer to what you are saying in the video Dispensational hermeneutics does not include the apostles changing or “deepening” words or concepts in the Old Testament. If that is wrong please correct me. Most of the other side justifies the concept changes like the modern church being spiritual Israel in the apostles writings. I also said deepening because I think the other side wouldn’t say change but would say something like deepening.
@@hixadam1 I hear you, brother. Perhaps it is a matter of doing a better job of putting the correct title with the video, etc. Because I would label what you are talking about as essentials of the system itself, but not the defining mark. The way myself (and most dispensationalists) would view the "system" is by being "anti-system" (if that makes sense). We elevate hermeneutics as the most important foundational issue--interpreting in a grammatical, historical, literal (authorial) way. Then, the outflow of doing that consistently would be a premill position and a church/Israel distinction.
One thing I struggle with (just being candid), is that although I normally would agree with the statement you gave -- "A distinction should be something the other side would generally agree with as a distinction" -- I'm not sure that would happen too regularly in this discussion of dispensationalism. Most people regularly mislabel and mischaracterize dispensationalism. In fact, since you are pursuing learning about this subject, I imagine you have come across a lot of people saying things about dispensationalism that I would totally reject!
By the way, I've written two blog posts on the definition of dispensationalism you might find helpful: petergoeman.com/beliefs-dont-define-dispensationalism/
Appreciate your genuine pursuit of definition.
@@thebiblesojourner I appreciate the blog. Although I’m not Dispensational I do recognize gross mischaracterizations. The worst is two ways of salvation which I’ve never actually known a person to believe.
Thanks for the response I generally really like your channel as a grounded approach.
@@hixadam1 A pleasure to interact with you. In many ways, I enjoy non-dispensationalists who are charitable and engaging more than those who agree with me. It encourages me to see others who disagree with me but love the Lord as much or more than I do. And it challenges me to get back into the Word to challenge my interpretations. So, thanks!
Nothing physical brings forth spiritual life.
*One* ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, *and also for the stranger* that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.
{Numbers 15:15}
Hebron therefore became *the inheritance of Caleb* the son of Jephunneh *the Kenezite* unto this day, *because that he wholly followed the LORD God of Israel*
{Joshua 14:14}
-- Caleb was not born out of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Gen 15:18-19)
Of *the tribe of Judah* Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
{Numbers 13:6}
-- Not even carrying a patriarchal name is exclusively of Hebrew ethnicity.
Exactly.
Thanks for the encouragement!
Everything God gave to the commonwealth of Israel was conditional. See blessings and curses.
You nailed it! ✔️
There is no salvation by ethnicities.
Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father.
100% agreed. Can you point me to who is saying this so I can join in refuting this idea?
@@thebiblesojourner
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from *the commonwealth of Israel* and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
For he is our peace, *who hath made both one* and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances;
[not the ten commandments] for to make in himself of twain *one new man* so making peace;
And that he might *reconcile both unto God in one body* by the cross, *having slain the enmity* thereby:
{Ephesians 2:11-16}
To deny this is to stay at enmity.
There is the salvation OF ethnicity though. Amos 9, zechariah 14, to name a couple.
@@gerard4870
*One* ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, *and also for the stranger* that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be before the LORD.
{Numbers 15:15}
Hebron therefore became *the inheritance of Caleb* the son of Jephunneh *the Kenezite* unto this day, *because that he wholly followed the LORD God of Israel*
{Joshua 14:14}
-- Caleb was not born out of the twelve tribes of Israel. (Gen 15:18-19)
Of *the tribe of Judah* Caleb the son of Jephunneh.
{Numbers 13:6}
-- Not even carrying a patriarchal name is exclusively of Hebrew ethnicity.
@@thebiblesojourner I am running into people who's main point is that dispensationalists should not pack the olive tree with unsaved Jews. What?.???Apparently this passes as logic among many anti-disp. Preachers.
As for pretribulation rapture, you have the letters to the churches, then John gets called by a trumpet voice that says, "Come up, hither." John then says he was immediately in the spirit, changed in the twinkling of an eye. In one of the song books, the Bible says, better it is to be told to come up hither.
You're right. The pre-Tribulation rapture is our Blessed Hope and could happen any day. John 14:1-4, 1 Thessalonians 4, 1 Corinthians 15, Revelation 3:10-11, Titus 2:11-15, Luke 21:28, 36, Matthew 25:1-13, Matthew 24:42-44. It's clearly pre-Tribulation, and my channel has been telling people about it for almost seven years. Many people have had rapture dreams like me too- Acts 2:17-18. Maranatha.
@@WalkingbytheSpiritAlways pre trib rapture is a myth, 1 thessalonians is not talking about that
it's pretty obvious that believers will suffer a tribulation from the world...
Rapture dreams mean nothing, I had a dream Jesus came down to earth and walked around and barely anyone recognized Him in my town...
there is no rapture, Jesus is coming here
@@WalkingbytheSpiritAlways
No it's not!
Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious *appearing* of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;
{Titus 2:13}
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto *the resurrection of life* and they that have done evil, unto *the resurrection of damnation*
{John 5:29}
And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, *both* of *the just and unjust*
{Acts 24:15}
*But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished* This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such *the second death* hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
{Revelation 20:5-6}
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and ("""a thousand years""") some to shame and everlasting contempt.
{Daniel 12:2}
The globalists at the "World Economic Forum" have said by 2030 you will own nothing, and you will be "happy". Meanwhile many in the modern Church claim we do not need to be concerned about global government. The truth is found below.
What does an understanding of the New Covenant do to the Pretrib Rapture doctrine?
Since the New Covenant is “everlasting” in Hebrews 13:20, how is the New Covenant Church age going to end seven years before the Second Coming of Christ? Why would anyone think God is going back to the Old Covenant system now made “obsolete” by the New Covenant in Hebrews 8:13? We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, modern Dispensational Theology falls apart, and the pretrib removal of the Church falls with it.
The Capitol "C" Church, as we use the word today, is not found in the entire Book of Revelation. Individual church bodies in ancient Asia Minor are found. In Revelation 12:11 we find those under the blood of the Lamb. A person cannot be under the blood of the Lamb and not be a part of the New Covenant Church of Jesus Christ. Verse 12 of this passage proves at least part of the tribulation period is the wrath of Satan upon the people of God.
Rev 12:11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
Rev 12:12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
"It may come as a surprise to most pre-Trib prophecy students that the post-Trib position (in its primitive form) is the oldest point of view."
(The quotation above is from the book "Will You Escape The Tribulation? RAPTURE [Under Attack]", by Tim LaHaye, copyright 1998, Page 197.) Tim LaHaye was co-author of the “Left Behind” books and movies which have convinced millions of modern Christians that the Church age ends seven years before the Second Coming of Christ. Recently, Pastor Matt Furse of Mountain View Baptist Church in Custer, S.D. has written a book titled “Which One Is Right?’, which reveals the recent history of the pretrib rapture doctrine, and the fact it does not agree with what is written in the King James Bible.
The gathering of the Church is described at the end of 1 Thess. Chapter 4, and the timing of the event is found in chapter 5. The word “But” in the first verse of chapter 5 connects the two chapters, and the words “we” and “sleep” in verse 10 of chapter 5 prove the two chapters are connected.
The Greek words for “wrath” and “tribulation” are not the same word, as proven by the verse below.
Rev 1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Watch the RUclips video “Pretribulation Paradox” by former pretrib believer skydiver626.
@@larrybedouin2921 but you must deal with the event described in 1Thess four. Forget the word rapture. But that event cannot be ignored.
If the plain sense, makes sense, don't look for another sense, lest you wind up with nonsense.
For the pre-trib rapture there is a flash of light and dead bodies (Luke 17:24, 37; Matt 24:27-28). We leave our bodies on earth. Our body will not disappear.
1 Thes 4:13-17 is the second coming with the only resurrection for the saints on the last day, last trump (John 6:39-54, 11:24, Rev 20:4-6, 1 Cor 15:52).
"If the plain sense, makes sense, don't look for another sense, lest you wind up with nonsense." -- I like that axiom! I think that is so crucial to biblical interpretation.
@@thebiblesojourner Me too! I got it from Ron Rhodes. Maranatha! Thanks for the video.
If dispensationalism is simply a method of approaching Scripture, then it isn't really helpful to compare it to Covenant Theology which is the result of a different approach.
What is the Theology of Dispensationalism? What does the method yield and how does it impact my understanding of the family, the Church, and the world.
Covenant Theology has a unifying worldview, but what is the equivalent on the Dispensationalist side?
There are Calvinist dispensationalism, your appeal to reformed epistemology/Van Till, etc would still apply. Their view of the sovereignty of God and nature of man would be the same.
You missed their entire point. Take the Bible at face value and let the chips fall where they will. Dispensationalists don’t need to impose a conclusion onto the text.
@@carolbarlow8896 , I didn't miss their point. I'm asking them to do a part three: Give me a Dispensational Systematic Theology and show me how it affects all areas of life.
Doug Wilson does that on the Covenantal side (Coherent Systematics with very practical application). Just asking for the Dispy side to do the same.
Thoughts?
It is still helpful to compare to covenant theology (CT) since CT uses a different hermeneutic when approaching Scripture. Although there is some variation (as within all systems), CT often utilizes a NT priority approach to Scripture (rather than arguing for authorial intent of OT passages).
It is valid, as you ask, to see what theological positions derive from trying to take Scripture in the natural sense that the human author intended. But because we live in a fallen world different people will apply the rules with biases and imperfections and flaws. The important takeaway (and one that hopefully will be the big takeaway from an episode like this) is that we need to all agree on what we are TRYING to accomplish--trying to discern the literal, grammatical, historical meaning of the text that coincides with the author's intent. Once we all agree that's what we're going toward, we can debate individual passages and evaluate whether our systems are doing that or not.
The difference with CT is that CT starts with systematic presuppositions of Covenant of Grace, Covenant of Works, etc. It is difficult to talk about things the same way because many CT refuse to be going toward the same thing that dispensationalists are on a presuppositional level.
Also, really appreciate your thoughtful interaction 👍
The gospel taught by Peter and the Lord in his earthly ministry was without the cross. Nobody could be saved in Matthew-John by the gospel of the cross, which is the only gospel that brings salvation to all men today.
Today, preaching the gospel without the cross is vain (1 Cor 1:17-18). There are other gospels in the Bible given to Israel that are without the cross. They would not be vain according to God’s promises to Israel, but they need to be rightly divided from the gospel that saves into the church.
God is not bringing in his kingdom to Israel today, but he is ministering the good news of Christ crucified and resurrected for the sins of all men. A gospel without the cross is no gospel to lost sinners. The only gospel that saves today requires the cross of Christ.
Just for clarification, are you saying Israel does not need the message of the cross? Sorry I am tired today and wasn’t quite following what you meant.
Thanks.
Of course! Thanks for watching.
23:58 wow. Maybe the jews' hermaneutic eliminates their own identity in calvins eschatology. Ironic.
Dispensations Happen
If you are not firm on your doctrine on the Pre Tribulational Snatching Up, then I am not interested in your doctrine of Premillennialism.
What does that even mean? We are both pretribulational… did you watch the video?
TEACHER! PROFESSOR! HELP!
What about when the text refers to Israel as a people and other times refers to Israel as the actual land? Israel is the people and the land? Does that mean that....the church isn't in fact included in the prophecies for Israel?
Does that mean we'd have to be Jewish to get to heaven? Or wed have to be in the land of Israel to be included in the prophecies?
Is the promised land heaven? Or just the country of Israel?
SO MANY QUESTIONS
Israel doesn't believe in Jesus though right? Sooooo this is all before Jesus......is that how they were going to get to heaven before Jesus came? Is that why they had to be the nation of Israel? Then Jesus came and made it so we can all be friends, on their way to heaven, right? But do you get to heaven if you're Jewish? Or only if you're Christian?
This is why context is so important. It is usually quite simple to discern whether Israel refers to the people or to the land. In fact, many times it is specifically referred to as the "land of Israel" to avoid confusion. As far as the Church's relationship to the prophecies, the New Testament helps us understand that the Gentiles have been grafted into the New Covenant promises. Even the OT talks about the blessings given to Gentile nations. The key is to remember that there are discussions that refer ONLY to Israel, and the Church is NOT to be equated with the nation of Israel. Just like males are not to be equated with females (although we are all equal under God).
The current nation of Israel is under God's judgment for rebellion and rejection of the Messiah. That will continue until they repent and turn to Him (Zech 12:10). God has granted eternal life to all who exercise faith in Him. This has been the case since before Israel, and continues to be true today. Gentile or Jew doesn't matter in Christ. We all believe in the Messiah through faith. Unbelievers (Jew or Gentile) will not inherit eternal life. One's ethnicity has no bearing on their eternal status before God. Only by faith can one come to eternal life. However, the prophets speak of a time when Israel as a nation will wholesale turn to the Lord and the Lord will restore to them prominence among the nations.
Take a look at a very overlooked passage: Romans 9:6b. Also, note that the writer to the Hebrews treats the "rest" (aka, the land) as a type of ceasing from works, i.e., dead works of sin. Could not care less about the "land", which will disappear with the establishment of a new heaven and a new earth. Let's leave the Jewish fables and concentrate on Ephesians 2-3. While certainly natural Israel was the apple of His eye prior to the enactment and establishment of the new covenant, the Church, comprising believing Jews and Gentiles is His bride/body, the fulfillment of Him who fills all in all.
@@georgefisher8610 ok. Ephesians 2:3? I know that one well. Guilty. Guilty .
@biblebasher9364 Bro, by "Ephesians 2-3, I was not citing chapter 2 verse 3. I would have indicated that conventionally ,viz., Ephesians 2:3. What I was referring to was chapters 2 & 3 wherein Paul "redefines" or "updates" what comprises the Israel of God. Believing Gentiles are graft in among believing Jews... now feoow citizens of the commonwealth of Israel. Fellow heirs, fellow partakers, fellow members of the body. Unbelieving Jews, due to their unbelief, have been cut off. In fact, Paul equates them to sons of the bondwoman (present Jerusalem)... and please note the "punchline" of the allegory in Galatians 4, viz., verse 30, which falls neatly in with Romans 4:14... ONLY if faith is void and the promise of none effect are those of the Law (in context of Romans ch 2 thru chapter 4, Israelite after the flesh).
A novel dispensational movement has foolishly replaced Christ with a reemerged national Israel as the sacred centrepiece of redemptive history. ✔️
Whoever argues that Christ is replaced by Israel should be cursed. But I have never seen anyone do that. I fear you are making a rhetorical point that doesn’t apply to any actual viewpoints.
@@thebiblesojourner In spite of rudely claiming that I’m ‘cursed’, I stand firmly behind my assessment of a very novel dispensational movement. ✔️
@@dougbell9543 You misunderstood my comment. I was agreeing with your statement 🙂Anyone who replaces Christ with Israel should be cursed because that is a different Gospel. That was what Paul said. But I just don't know anyone who does that. So, you are not cursed unless you believe some other gospel. Happy to clarify.
@@thebiblesojourner Thank you ever so much for that kindly clarification. ✔️
@@dougbell9543you poor suffering soul. He never hinted that YOU, the barer of this bad news,are acursed. I t never needed clarification. You could be helpful by helping him to listen to such a video or read such a presentation.
the separation of the church and Israel, that is the entire foundation of dispensationalism
I’m tempted to agree, yet I would phrase it like this: dispensational hermeneutics leads to the unavoidable conclusion that the church and Israel are distinct. I would agree that every dispensationalists would see a distinction, but I think the foundation is the way one reads the Bible which then leads to the conclusion of distinction.
@@thebiblesojourner in my opinion, a hermeneutic that leads to a separation of the church and Israel in the Bible is ignoring the apostles interpretation of the old testament, who can claim they know more than the people who learned everything about Jesus from His own lips?
I hear ya, and that’s a common thought. But I would counter by asking where does Jesus or the Apostles say that Israel no longer has their promises? Romans 11 and Acts 1:6 seem to indicate continuation of the promises.
@@thebiblesojourner
It starts with a false presupposition.
What where they chosen for? For serve unto God, they where never chosen for salvation which is by faith, and now trough faith in Jesus Christ.
Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For *they are not all Israel* which are of Israel:
*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.
{Romans 9:6-8}
Now we, [Galatians] brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that was born after the Spirit, even so it is now.
{Galatians 4:28-29}
For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and
upon *the Israel of God*
{Galatians 6:15-16}
@@thebiblesojournerI have interacted with you before on a different video (though I'm not sure if my last comment there was hit by filters or you chose not to respond/did not see the comment).
Anyway, I read through this interaction and could not help but notice that you did not actually engage with what Tom wrote: "...a hermeneutic that leads to a separation of the church and Israel in the Bible is ignoring the apostles interpretation of the old testament..."
Since Tom did not provide an example I thought I would:
1 Peter 2:9
But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light;
Exodus 19:6
And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel.
Addendum: Peter makes this statement concerning those who believe in The Lord Jesus (2:7), who have been born again through the word of God (1:23).
I think we make big mistakes when we study theological things boxed in using traditional terms that are more man made than Biblical.
In the Old Testament the King had to study the Bible himself. Why? To remove ethno-centrism...or at least try.
Today, we stumble over terms, stereo-typing people and views that are based on sound work, but the term is old(er).
For instance, IF we read Romans 9-11 from the Apostles Bible a whole lot of churches would awaken to things prophetic, getting un-glued from bad assumptions from history. Augustine was wrong, Constantine was wrong...Luther was wrong about Romans 9-11.
Condemning something because we don't understand the word, or the word is old or stereo-typed, should be a red flag.
Weak time in Theology 2023. Gross ignorance and popularity has infected the halls of once sound churches and minds...and nations...and Christianity.
Christianity 2023...way upside down over the wrong things.
Agreed, 2023 has revealed a very weak Christianity because it has largely become divorced from Scripture. We need to take great care to let the text speak for itself and interpret passages grammatically, contextually, and in line with the author's intent.
"Augustine was wrong, Constantine was wrong...Luther was wrong about Romans 9-11"
im glad you came along centuries later to finally tell us all what the real interpretation is....
@@tomtemple69 exactly. That is the mission of Evangelicals to share the message from the Apostles, from the Apostles Bible.
Replacement theology is man made.
Ronans 11 is quite clear and the anti-Semitic theology of Rome is worthless.
@@rlu1956 so God keeps a covenant around when He replaces it with a newer better one?
@@rlu1956 "replacement theology" is the favorite dispensational boogeyman, its like the leftist calling everyone a sexist or bigot for disagreeing with their nonsense