Getting into studying Covenant theology really helped me reconcile and connect all the dots of how everything works together through redemptive history. I deep dived into reformed theology a little over a year ago, and grasped allot on a surface level right away.. but then getting down to the why and how it all works absolutely together covenant theology was the only way I could reconcile it.
@@THEOCASTI am so grateful for how God has used you and is continuing to use you in such a great way. Because you are like a life saver. When you're lost in the ocean, thank you so much.
I recently have come back to Jesus and I have been Following folks like Voddie, MacArthur, Washer, Justin Peters on RUclips that lead me to you. I have been looking for a church here in Asheville NC and now I think I found one that I plan to visit on Easter at covenant Baptist church.
I agree totally with your explanation of the law/gospel distinction, and your thoughts on easy believism and lordship salvation. As a dispensationalist, I’m not sure how you are coming up with the fact that dispensationalists are against the law gospel distinction. The more I listen to this podcast, the more of a dispensationalist I become.
Same with me. I hear their concerns about works and pietism and lack of assurance… and I think the dispensational view of scripture solves all those things.
I read Ryrie Dispensationalism and understood that I was not, was never and never would be a dispensationalist. I agreed with the Covenant and Reformed theologians he was disputing. Dispensationalism leads to OT antinomianism and a NT legalism.
Dispensationalism is not biblical. It’s started only about 200 years ago. Early church don’t recognize it because the scripture was never intended to be dissected in literal sense. There’s a reason why God let certain things to be mysterious in the scripture.
One factual correction. Darby did not deny imputed righteousness as claimed in this video. He simply denied that the believer's righteousness in Christ is based on Christ's obedience to the law (active obedience). Rather He believed (as I do) that righteousness is imputed based on Christ's sacrificial death. I've never ready Darby before, but I was suspicious when I heard this claim, so I just googled it and found this quote instantly. "Now I believe and bless God for the truth that Christ is our righteousness and that by His obedience we are made righteous. It is the settled peace of my soul, as I trust it is of the author's. The important point here is the contrast between the death and sufferings of Christ, as winning our forgiveness, and His obedience as our justifying righteousness; what is sometimes called His active and passive obedience." J. N. Darby in The Righteousness of God
We are not made righteous. That is a Catholic ideology. We ARE declared righteous because the BLOOD of Christ is my righteousness. I will be made righteous altogether upon my glorification upon death. Since, the Blood is always applied, I am declared righteous. My being made righteous took place in eternity past, however this is effectual upon my death and new life.
@davidgobart3849 1 Corinthians 5:21 in the KJB which is 250 years before Darby. In fact, we are "made righteous " in the Wycliffe English translation which is 250 years older than the KJB. And we ARE as in present tense, made righteous.
Thanks, I just made a similar comment without mentioning Darby. But I requested another video to withdraw their false accusations against Darby that claimed that he agreed with the Catholics but disagreed with the Reformers in denying graciously imputed righteousness. Google supplied Darby's published paper on Righteousness. Darby strongly disagreed with the Catholics and he affirmed graciously imputed righteousness but NOT BY THE VICARIOUS LAW OBEDIENCE OF JESUS. Come on guys. Some honesty please.
@jimharris8099 I know he didn't invent Dispensationalism. It's in the KJB which is 250 years before Darby. It's in the Wycliffe English translation which is 250 years before the KJB. I'm pretty sure I already pointed that out. I think if people (even Dispensationalist) understood what the Dispensation of Grace is, no one would deny it. But most Dispensationalist would have to give up way too much wrong doctrine to really understand Dispensationalism.
I am a KJV only, dispensational, independent baptist and I really enjoy your podcasts. Obviously I don't agree with a number of things but your honesty and spirit are commendable. Thank you!
@@LiveforChrist123 you're way too late for that discussion. You also chose a poor forum to bring it up to me. We don't have the time or space here for me to give the reasons I am what I am.
As a dispensationalist, the only thing the news is for(rarely do I pay attention) is to learn of events. They may or not be prophetic but really prophesy is for us and non-believers to see after how God has given us the beginning from the end (or the other way...).
Listened to the first 30 in of you saying over and over what you're gonna talk about but I don't have the patience to keep waiting. Wish yall the best.
Watch Andy Woods Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology and you'll understand all the problems with Covenant Theology. I'd put a link to it but You Tube doesn't like it.
I grew up as a Dispensationalist. "God's Chosen People..." and all that. As such, whenever I used to read the New Testament, I would insert various parenthetical phrases in my reading. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father, except through Me (except the Jews)". "He who has the Son has the Father, and he who does not have the Son, does not have the Father (except the Jews)". ...and on and on. As a Dispy, you always view Jesus as the undercard before the big show at the end (Armageddon and the eventual salvation of Israel) which I think explains why Dispies are so pro-war, pro-Israel (the modern state that hates Jesus), and come awfully close to worshipping Jews, no matter what they are doing. My challenge to any Dispensationalist is to read the New Testament with the idea of the Jews being out of favor and the primary satanic influence on earth, which is how the church viewed them for almost 1800 years. The NT reads much, much more smoothly and there is no need for parenthetical caveats to otherwise very clear teaching. If not, then please explain The Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12).
Great explanation. Seeing how pro-Israel a lot of the church is has made me really start to lean more covenantal. It’s almost like the belief is that the Jews don’t need Jesus as much as we do. It’s really bizarre to me. Covenantal theology just makes much more sense to me.
I would challenge the way you look at things ! now when christ says no one comes to the father except me it is a fact because he is God ! no way for the jews to not ! as you say except for the jews! no one can possibly because Jesus is God !!!! next issue is the jews / israel of today was given over to blindness by God it is God who blinded them it is Gods fault then they reject the gospel they are in a God ordained state of blindness until the fullness of the gentiles come in ! Gods plan and doing and not for you to say what and how he can show mercy on who he pleases how he pleases!!! Rom 11:11 and rom 11:25
You are describing "replacement theology," the error that caused the church in Germany to stay silent during the Holocaust. Dispensational hermeneutic takes text literally and does not allegorize passages that are intended to be taken literally. The reason the church doubted literal interpretation of promises and prophesy was that without a state of Israel (did not exist from 70 AD to 1948AD), they did not take God at his word. It is much easier to see the literal fulfilment will come true now that God has restored the Jewish nation and the many prophesies are coming true before our very eyes. I would highly encourage you to look into Dr. Andy Woods who has excellent teaching on these subjects.
@@kevinmorris4517 I have never said anything about replacement! read romans 11 there has always been a remanent of believing Israel, the nation as a whole was given over to blindness UNTIL the fullness of the gentiles come in , the word until means there will be a time where they will no longer be blind , it has nothing to do with when they became a nation according to u.n scattered Israel is given over to blindness, until!
What a waste of time. I really wanted to know the difference and I spent 40 minutes on word salad. You said nothing clearly. You didn’t articulate either side well. 😢
One of the ways to identify heresy is to ask one question. Was the doctrine that is being taught found in Church history as a common and universal belief in all times and places? You won't hear Protestants talking about this test because most of what Protestants believe is not found in the confessions of the first millennium of Christianity. Covenant theology is a perfect example of how the Reformation made up new theological ideas based on false foundational doctrines. The first thing I would point out is that the Reformers went with Augustine for the most part. They ignored the vast amount of writings and Chruch Councils which determined essential dogmas of the Church. The people who met at Church councils thought that they had the authority to bind people to what these councils taught. They didn't believe that inspiration only flowed through the written text. They believed that the Holy Spirit guided the Church which is also how they put together a standard canon. Which the Protestants rejected. Protestants adopted the Masoretic Text; The Masoretic Text being adopted by unbelieving Jews in the Rabbinic tradition. The Rabbi's didn't like the fact that the church fathers were using the Deuterocanon to show that Christ was the Messiah. The Deuterocanon also teaches that the Church was the new kingdom which replaced the Old Covenant. If the Reformers had not thrown out the Deuterocanon they could have avoided Dispensationalism altogether. Jesus said that the Kingdom would be taken away from the Jews and given to a new kingdom. This belief has been taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church for 2000 years. They have always taught that they are the kingdom which replaced the Jewish covenant. This is not a convenient fact since it excludes Protestant church's as being churches at all. Protestant Churches don't have the necessary elements that define a church in any historical sense. Covenant theology is false for many reasons. It's rooted in Anselm's satisfaction theory. Which is the false Latin idea of God's justice. The Latin teaching says that God is bound by necessity to punish you for every sin. God has no other choice. Every sin must have a payback to God. Because His honor and holiness have been offended. In this system your sin is an infinite offense and there is no way you can pay back God. In this conception of justice God is the cosmic debt collector. This is in contradiction to the historic teaching of the church that God is not bound by necessity. If God were bound by necessity, He would be bound by something greater than Himself. The ancient church taught the freedom and liberty of God. God is free to show mercy and free to judge. They also taught that God is predisposed to mercy over justice. The next domino in Covenant theology is the Calvinist view of Adam before the fall. Calvinist hold to a Pelagian view of Adam before he sinned. Adam had the ability to not sin before the fall. After the fall, the ability to not sin is replaced with inability. Now all of Adams posterity is predisposed to sin constantly. If you read Martin Luther, he basically defines Adams posterity as being in a state of sin. Sin for many of the Reformers was a state of nature. Luther is so extreme he falls into Manicheanism in his writings. Luther and Calvin define sin as a state of being and not an individual decision of will. This is due to the doctrine that Adam's guilt is passed down so that all men are born with the wrath of God against them, and the just deserts of hell. But the ancient church taught that sin has no existence in itself. It is not a state of nature but an individual choice. This is why the New Testament defines sin as an act of will against Gods moral law. Sin was defined in the early church as the will moving away from good. Sin is nothing more than a blameful choice. If sin is a state of nature, then Christ in His incarnation would have been born in a state of sin, since He took his human nature from Mary. There is no such thing as a sin nature. We are not guilty for Adams sin. What Adam passes down to us is the propensity to sin. Which is called concupiscence. The propensity to sin, which is the blameful passions, are not the same thing as the choice to sin. The Reformers got this wrong. They defined concupiscence as sin. Which is why so many Calvinists fall into Manicheanism. If you say that concupiscence is a state of nature and not an individual choice, then you are a Manichean. Augustine misinterpreted Roman 5:12 to say we were IN Adam as an architype. According to Augustine, when Adam fell his nature was corrupted. Since we are all perfect copies of the first man, we have imputed guilt passed down to us. This is where you can see that Augustine had not been able to work through Platonic ideas from his past. Platonism smashes NATURE into PERSON. In Platonism NATURE and PERSON are the same thing. Which means for the Calvinist that when Adams sinned his whole make up as a human being was corrupted. If NATURE and PERSON are distinct, and two parts of a whole human being, then corruption or concupiscence can be passed down but not guilt. Guilt comes from each person making personal individual choices. Before Augustine the church taught that we are not guilty for Adams sin, but we bare the consequence of Adams sin. Because the Reformers followed Augustine, they fell into Neo-Platonism. Ezekiel, 18:20 lays out the standard for guilt. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him". For this reason, guilt is individual and not corporate. We are not guilty for Adams sin. Covenant theology falls into error because it is rooted in these false presuppositions. In Covenant theology Adam breaks the covenant or works. Which is the Pelagian view that Adam could have gained salvation if he had fulfilled the law. Adam could have done this by grace. By disobeying he imputes guilt to his posterity. Christ then comes in the incarnation to fulfill the Law in his human nature as the second Adam. By fulfilling the Law Christ then pays the debt to the Father by his penal payment and all those who believe in Christ then have their spiritual bank accounts filled up and they are declared righteous. Covenant theology is rooted in Christological heresy. Christ did not need to gain righteousness because He was God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity. He already possessed all of God's righteousness in Himself. Furthermore, there is no way that a human creature could pay back God for anything. God does not need anything from creatures. The human nature that Christ assumed from Mary was consubstantial with us. Christ assumed a human Nature that was subject to death. He did this so that he could glorify human nature and restore and heal it by raising it from the dead. The central consequential effect of the fall was death. Not imputed guilt. Death produced sin. "Sin reigned in death" Romans 5:14. "The sting of death is sin" 1 Cor 15:56. When Paul describes his struggle with sin, he says in Romans "Who will deliver me from this body which is infected by death?" By defeating death in human Nature Christ removes the power of sin and Satan's power in our being united to Him by the sacramental life. NOTE: If Christ tasted death for all men in His human Nature, then all men are resurrected on the basis of Christ assuming universal human nature. Which means that Christ death and resurrection was not just for the elect. All men have eternal life for this reason. But they will all be raised either to eternal bliss or eternal torments. For this reason, Limited Atonement is a heresy. This is in contradiction to Covenant theology. Calvinism teaches that Jesus paid back the Father. Which is to be anti-Trinitarian. God does not need anything from creatures. Calvinism also teaches that Christ became literal sin. Which is very different from what you find in Church history. The patristic teaching is that Christ became as one who is cursed. But Christ could never be cursed because He was God. The Reformed teaching is that Christ took the wrath of God on Himself for the elect. This also causes many problems for Trinitarian theology. Which is why so many Calvinists are Nestorians. They believe that it was the human person Jesus who experienced the wrath, not the divine Person of the Son. But Nestorianism is condemned by the Chruch at the Second Council which said "there was only one Person in the hypostatic union of two Natures. There was no human person in Christ." There is so much more to say on this topic. I am not a Calvinist. But I was for 25 years. I thank God every day he delivered me from Calvinism. I reject the false doctrines of the Deformed Faith.
25:45. This is my biggest problem with dispensationalism and what really bothered me when I started to really dive into the Bible on my own. As both of you have said, Christ is all over the Old Testament.
I have grown up in church. Father is a Pastor, grandfather was a Pastor. I have been in continual Bible study throughout my life. I, like many others, tend to study the portions which my church culture tends to emphasize. In my ignorance, I have spend much of my life, wrongly believing that the Temple Sacrificial system was largely about atonement for sin. This simply is not the case. Most temple sacrifices have nothing to do with atoning for sin. But many Christian are ignorant of this, leading many to think the reinstatement of the temple obscures the Atonement of Christ. This simply is not the case.
@@wbdangelos8393 I am waiting for this: "It shall come to pass in the latter days that the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it, 3 and many peoples shall come, and say: “Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, that he may teach us his ways and that we may walk in his paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law,[a] and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. 4 He shall judge between the nations, and shall decide disputes for many peoples; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore."
Covenant theology sounds like the same competitive, power hierarchy that corrupted the Jewish synagogues and the Catholic Church where you are saved through faith in Jesus BUT your loyalty, depth of faith, salvation etc. is contingent on your work against sin. Like your salvation is judged on a sliding scale based on how well you handle sin and stick to the rules. It sets up a system of competition between people, and between the churches, that is fueled by the fear of losing one's salvation and pride in one's own abilities to combat sin. People can't seem to conceive the idea that they don't deserve to be saved, no matter how hard they work. Works and their selfless sacrifice are expressions of worship, gratitude, loyalty, service and faith that the Holy Spirit is doing in you and through you. When works become a proof of faith, or a measurement of how close or far you are from Jesus, you're saying that you have the power to interpret what works are good, how valuable they are, how much is required and what God's plan is and should be. God uses my sin and my struggles all the time to teach me about Him and myself. I am saved through Jesus and made clean by HIM and HIS work on the cross. I had nothing to do with it except to accept His unbelievable, unearned gift of grace and have faith in Him as the only way to redemption. He made me a promise and sent the Holy Spirit as my helper to battle my sinful nature while I'm still stuck in this fallen world. When I sin, He doesn't abandon me but helps me more because He loves me. I have no fear. Christ already paid for my sins knowing everything I've ever done and will do in the future and still chose to suffer the cross to save me. No Pope or Pastor or Rabbi or Mother Theresa or Christian keeping score on each other, is more saved or more worthy or more loved by Jesus than I am. Jesus saved me, continues to save me and I can rely on Him to always save me...because He promised and I have faith in HIM, not me.❤
Holy cow, I can only read the first part of that absolute wall of text, but it's absolutely at the opposite. Dispensationalism is precisely from the people who denied Christ at the time and still do, as a power grab. It is the S of S grasping for their earthly throne back, the modern Pharisees. It's the oldest heresy dating back to even Jesus himself fighting it, the most widespread, the one with the most text devoted against it in NT, and the one most harshly spoken against.
I usually can't say these words without my comments getting completely zapped, and that should tell you exactly who's running things, but it's zxxxism which is the heresy of jxxxxization.
As a dispensationalist, I appreciated the graciousness with which you two approached it. Though I would say that your understanding of it is somewhat stereotypical and only partially correct, it was good that you did not slam it as being ‘heresy’ or ‘unorthodox’. Both covenant theology and dispensationalism are orthodox understandings of Scripture. Depending on how one interprets Scripture, one will hold to covenant theology, classic dispensationalism, or some other ‘system’. I appreciate your clarity on the law, the gospel, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, etc. Keep up the excellent podcasts.
My issue with 98% of dispensational pastors is THEY. pretend that premillennial dispensationalism is the only eschatology. It's like being color blind to the color green.
For me Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism are two tools that are used to rightly divide the scriptures. Just like Calvinism, and Fundamentalism, Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are not monolithic. It seems from what was said about Dispensationalism in the beginning of the video is more in line with replacement theology.
Thank you for this. Had to stop at 19:21 for an appointment, but I'm open to rejecting dispensationalism, but (as you have said here) the issue of Israel. It is hard to see the restoration of Israel as not being in the path of some sort of prophetic fulfilment... Question: What are we to think about the Temple Faithful who are determined to rebuild the temple? I fully expect the temple to be rebuilt by unbelieving Jews, and that as the majority Gentiles stop believing, the majority of Jews will put their faith in Christ. It is hard to imagine that the current existence of the state of Israel has no spiritual expression in eschatology. It may not, but it is hard to think it does not. Yet, I have a hard time with my own dispensational circles that see mortals dwelling with immortals during the Millennium, and the 144,000 being Jewish evangelists, the size of the New Jerusalem looking like a cube 1/4 size of the earth--strange things like these.... Can you elaborate on this?
Maybe I can help. Start with Joshua 22: 43-45 - what exactly land promises and promises to vanquish enemies did God not Fullfill? You keep talking about a "restoration of isreal"? What exactly is that? Isn't it the Coming of the Messiah that was promised? Isn't Jesus that Massiah? Many Gentiles have already forgotten Jesus, there has been a huge falling away since the "age of enlightment" (ironically named). And of course many Jews have come to Christ over the years. As far as all the "Kingdom Come" stuff: What did Christ say when the lawyers asked him about it? They asked "If you are the Messiah where is the Kingdom?!" What did he answer? He said is it was "in your midts, it is not a kingdom you can observe with your eyes" . What did Jesus Tell Pilate when he asked about if he was a King? Didn;t Jesus say "My Kingdom is not of this earth?" The major problme here is the literal views of very symbolic phrophecy. As far as the 144,000 - remember : there are Christain Jews of every tribe. Jews started the Church, All the disiples were Jews, the 3000 that converted on the day of pentacost were mostly Jews. It was not until later did gentiles join the church. In short ther eis not a seperation of "the church" and Isreal- Isreal /is/ the Church. It became so when Christ jesus - The Messiah of Jewsish prophecy- fullfiled all the promises God made to the ppl of Isreal.
The works vs grace distinction is the only thing dispensationalism (heresy of neojudaization) gets right and it can't be more clear: Law vs gospel Second death vs eternal life Promises of the flesh vs the spirit. Lineage vs born anew in Christ. Law in stone vs that on our hearts. The ministry of/that brings only death vs the ministry of life. The distinction is made by text and Jesus.
God's eternal plan was salvation through Christ's redeeming sacrifice for those he has chosen. In the NT, those elected will believe in Jesus, in the OT, those elected were of Israel. And then there's NInevah. Both rely on God's promise that He has a plan to reconcile us to Him. Would that be covenant or dispensation theology? Great video guys.
Can you explain the "active" part about Christs work? That sounds like the SDA view(I am in SDA church though not 100% with all doctrines.) . Thank you for your work. The difference is a little like a red/blue thing but it seems the more deeply one understands the less differentiated we are...
I see the disagreement in earlier comments, and your video just popped up for the first time in my recommended videos. I appreciate your tone and teaching style to, but I am neither dispensationalist or calvinist, both have flaws and positives. I do have strong reservations that people read modern America and modern Israel into scripture. that is an awful mistake. My main concern is when teachings of man supercede scripture. therefore, I appreciated the first 10 minutes or so and agree that can be learned from simple reading of scripture. Jesus is the point of the whole of the Bible and clearly if we are going to be good Bereans, we will study TNK and the Gospels! Jesus exactly and precisely fulfilled, the whole of the Law. keep up the good work and keep learning.
What is the main purpose of the Bible? "To Glorify God" is a bit vague and not how I would answer the question. I would quote Zechariah from Luke 1 "That we may serve [God]... in holiness and rightousness".
Failure to pay attention to verb tense in Romans can destroy sound exegesis. "...WILL BE justified..." (Rom. 2:13) vs. "There IS none righteous..." (Rom. 3:10). You attempt to apply the law of non-contradiction, but fail to recognize the lack of temporal pairity. What was that quote about being mocked by children?
What I find truly astounding about covenant theology is that it teaches that the Law of Moses was part of the covenant of grace. It’s no wonder that legalism and pietism and requiring works are so rampant in reformed circles.
@@josiahstallings359 Yes, of course. But biblical grace is not simply graciousness. If I lose my job and a business owner gives me a job, that is a gracious gift. But that gift still requires that I show up to work each day to earn a wage. Biblical grace, is when God gives us a gift (righteousness/salvation) for free, regardless of our labor. Rom 4:4-5 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness...
1689 Federalism and Progressive Covenantalism do not see the Law of Moses as Cov of Grace. Both see the CoG as the New Covenant. With the promise of the Covenant of Grace revealed so that OT believers could draw against that promise.
The Body of Christ Church are not part of Israel's new covenant. In fact, Israel isn't even apart of their new covenant yet. They don't get their new covenant until Christ returns to earth. The Body of Christ Church is not included in Israel's covenant. That misunderstanding comes from not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. It comes from not understand Paul's Dispensation of Grace for the Gentiles.
@@bugsocsollie1694 So why did some Jews already get Grace and found the Church? (Mary, Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, all the martyrs the 3000 at the day of Pentacost) but every other Jew has to wait till the Return of Christ to get grace? I never understood this?
Not really understanding the shot at Zane Hodges and "easy believing." What exactly is the difference between what you teach and faith in the Christ for everlasting life? Listening to your law/gospel distinction episode with remnant radio i thought we were pretty much on the same page.
I thought the grammatical historical approach to interpreting scripture was preferred in the reformed camp. You guys seemed to criticize it. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Thank you for the good work brothers ,,, if I may offer my humble opinion nevertheless, there are so many interruptions of one by the other, or both speaking at the same time ...
I’m trying to decipher all of this. So far, from what I can tell. On paper, Covenant theology and Dispensationalism are both wrong. I’m tired of being labeled as one or the other when I barely understand what either one actually means. Isaiah says that Israel will become a nation in a day. That happened. Revelation says Jesus will come back and reign a thousand years, that hasn’t happened yet. God made an everlasting Covenant with Abraham that extends through his Son Jesus. We are all saved by grace and by the blood of Christ Jew or Gentile. So I think everyone needs to stop ignoring scripture, stop adding to the scriptures. Just because something is directly implied doesn’t mean that something else is indirectly implied . That’s what I think is the problem. Who can say, “this is what God meant to say…” just let Gods word speak. Covenant theology and dispensationalism are man made words with man made ideas. Just let the Bible speak for itself
As a dispensationalist(stopped to comment and continue on) I believe the water flowing into the valley of the dead. Sea will bring about its recovery as the text clearly states.
Calling the covenants by different names, do we still recognize that all the covenants display Gods Grace and are not without Grace. Some of the covenants reveal Gods Grace more fully, that’s true but even as we see the covenant of Works, was it not Grace that we were created to walk in the cool of the day with our God.
Can I ask one Q … What is the meaning or point behind the x4 scriptures on dispensations in scripture I’m not a dispensationalist but trying to comprehend how those scriptures fit in and have been expanded on or taken out of context or used in wrong way by the dispensationalists & hyper dispies
Im confused, there is no way I'm reading all those measurements in the Torah, for the sanctuary, then reading the end of Ezekiel, and think the measurements for the temple mean nothing...
Do you believe that Jesus is the way the truth & the life & that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus? Do believe if a new temple is built in Jerusalem & animal sacrifice reinstituted that people will be saved through those practices?
@sgabig yes Jesus is the way. And if the the people of Israel need a temple to wake them up to the reality of Christ, who am I say anything about that. What I do know? But Scripture does talk about thier return. Romans 11:1-2 ESV - I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? Romans 11:12 ESV - Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean! Romans 11:15 ESV - For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?
You guys talk quite a bit about the "third use of the law" and how it is "a guide for living". Are you saying the Holy Spirit needs help in His guiding of the believer? When exactly is the Gentile invited to/introduced to the Jewish law? (pre-conversion, at conversion, or post-conversion)
They're using the phrase in precisely the same way Lutherans and others of the Reformed faith used it. If you search for "third use of the law" you'll receive your answer, but it's a teaching in of itself. They've discussed it in more depth in other videos.
The believer has the law put in their minds and written on their hearts. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's connected with "sanctify them by The truth, They Word is truth". The way it's put in our minds and on our hearts is by hearing it. It's ever with us. I'd say in this context, it's conversion and post conversion.
I do not see such a distinction between the O. & N. Testament's... though the OT shows in retrospect how (in a general sense) Jesus is THE main character and is everywhere as He said
I believe anyone that understands Pauls biblical dispensation of grace knows that God gave this to Paul and Darby had nothing to do with it. Before anyone can even start talking about this false covenant theology they have to address when Acts 2 Jews sins are blotted out. Read Acts 2 through Acts 3:19-21. This group of jews don’t have their sins blotted out till after the tribulation. There is nobody in the body of Christ without his sins blotted out Col 2:9-14. Acts 2 through Acts 3:19-21 is all about Israel and it tells when their sins are blotted out after the tribulation. That is still Gods plan. Acts 2:5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (These were all scattered jews coming back from all nations for the feast days to worship. There’s not a gentile in site for this unless he was a proselyte which means he converted to a jew.) There is no way anyone can say they aren’t just following tradition or believe their whole KJB and not realize what’s happening hear. These kingdom jews don’t have their sins blotted out till after the tribulation Acts 3:19-21. The body of Christ is comlete in Him, all sins are already forgiven and the law gone Col 2:9-14. This issue alone is enough to stop any bible believer saying the kingdom of heaven program and the dispensation of grace are the same. This is just basic right division. Hebrews 8:7-13 backs this up. The new covenant is to Israel after those days which is tribulation. Look at everything said there. Israel is still in a fallen position today. They are definitely not the head as the Bible says they will be. Israel has not received this covenant yet. They only have less than 1/50th of the land promised in Gen 15:18. Israel has to go through Jacobs trouble before they ever get the new covenant. Thats biblical 101 not modern religious nonsense.
Another division that reformed theology (Calvinism) brings to the body of Christ. 1. Presuming that dispensationalists aren't interested in theology is just that; a presumption at best; a judgment at worst. 2. Another presumption--that Christ must be assumed to be preached in every book of the bible. This is how Covenant Theology imposes its theology over scripture rather than letting scripture interpret scripture 3. There are only 2 Covenants - 1. The law of moses 2. The covenant of Jesus 4. The 4 gospels record Jesus as a prophet of the first covenant. 5. There's no covenant of works recorded in scripture. Adam made no covenant with the Father. Works never has and never will provide salvation for man. This theology is a convoluted mess that just confuses scripture and the simplicity of the gospel.
Paul after seeing and hearing Jesus on high uses the word dispensation in his writings to the various churches. Not the word covenant. ( KJV) (Note: In Heb the author unknown, and not to a specific church)
You miss understand when you say or think that the implication is that Jesus fits into a dispensation. John 1. All those who died prior the Christ’s advent were in the grave, and not in the presence of the Father because the atonement hadn’t happened yet. They were in Abraham’s bosom. Then when Jesus after his death descended he took those souls captive up to heaven because they were now fit for being in the Father’s presence with Christ being cleansed by his blood. This reality alone show distinction between these two time periods we call dispensations.
I spent thirty years in baptist and messianic ministry. I studied Greek and Hebrew But it wasn't till I did a verse by verse study of the book of Isaiah comparing Scofield commentary with John Calvin commentary that I committed to dispensationalism. Calvin tied himself up in knots trying to spiritualize the promises for Israel and give them to the church while conveniently giving Israels curses to the Jews.
Why are do many preachers want to disagree with each other to clarify the gospel? Why do pastors not all speak the same thing and believe the same thing? It is mass confusion to the hearer.
As a 1689 federalist myself, would love to know why you gentlemen didn’t go the progressive covenantalist route (given that’s the favored ‘via media’ between covenantal and dispensational theologies these days). Love the content over all!
Drop everything and go to the original ancient first unbroken Orthodox church(I’d recommend Greek but there are others of course). Learn the history and ask yourself “am I in the church that Christ started or am I in something man made?”
I honestly didn't see any clear distinctions between covenant theology and dispensationalism in this broadcast. I can clearly that both dispensentionalist and covenant theologians agree with most of what was stated here. I'm sorry to say that dispensationalism and covenant theology differences were not clearly presented, especially from a dispensational perspective. Where was the "vs." presented?
In a dispensationalist understanding it is a very technical way of reading the bible. By its very nature one can place Christ in a dispensation, having revealed himself 'different' at 'different times' depending upon God's dealings during that dispensation.
I don’t totally understand your rejection of covenant theology. Many covenant teachers, including John Calvin and RC Sproul, taught that national Israel will be grafted back in.
"In our opinion..." I agree with you, but stop with all the disclaimers. It's not your opinion, it's the text that claims it. Dispensationalism is inconsistent and disjointed. Its literal where symbolic and symbolic where literal.
I used to be like you. Dogmatic and arrogant, saying my interpretation of scripture is right and everyone else is wrong. But the more I study scripture, the more humble I get because the more I understand I don’t know. Both sides have great men of God. Both side have strong and weak points. Both sides have verses that point to their beliefs and both sides have verse that seem to contradict. We are humans, and humans are prone to error. How dare someone be so arrogant and without grace. Hope you get more Jesus.
@@jpughinreallifeHow amazing to see a self-proclaimed humble person condemn another as arrogant for doing precisely what you do back to them in your response. They don’t agree with you, so you call them arrogant and yourself humble and then snidely and condescendingly hope they “get more Jesus.” (Presumably as much Jesus as you have.)
Covenant adherents just haven't thought things through completely. Read in 1 Chronicles where David set up a massive organization to minister in the temple. Priests, doorkeepers, musicians, servants, bakers, handymen, fire keepers, etc... When Jesus returns to rule, what city will He rule from? Jerusalem. When He resides in Jerusalem, where will He live? The Temple. Will the Temple be a micro-house or will it be a massive administrative center? It will be huge! Will Jesus reign alone from an office, or will He have a large staff? Massive. When He and His myriad of ministers, servants, messengers, and attendants eats, what will they consume? Food sacrificed and carefully prepared for them. Will this food be catered out from McDonalds? No. Who will be among the staff that serves and ministers to the Lord and His staff. Jews will be among the main preparers of this food, done in accordance with Biblical prescriptions. Pots will say, "Holy to the Lord." Jews will also be among His leadership and administrative staff as well. The temple and any sacrifices made will have real world, practical use, while at the same time commemorating the Law and how Jesus was the fulfillment of the law at the same time. Nobody believes that sheep will save anybody, but they will be on the menu!
with all love and respect if prophecy is the foretelling of future events and these events are written in the bible but as they happen you read about them in the newspaper, how else would you "watch" for christ except by watching what is happening in the world and comparing it to what the bible says is going to happen? as I study eschatology I realized that this idea that we shouldn't look at what is happening in the world never mattered much at all, unless you are the people living in the end time. again respectfully, it sounds as if you are scoffing at those who keep an eye on what the UN is doing, or what is happening withe the red heifers and how that could affect a peace agreement, that if you are watching, could end up being 7 years and dividing the land of israel as in joel. if al this happens and you are not watching, what happens to you and those who follow you?
There are a few words - that we proclaim and use. Spurgeon would refer to it as vommit! Authority of scripture, or sufficiency of scriptute The Word of God. Hermeneutics How do we get past the 9 suggestions ...? Or known as The ten commandments or the Ten Words Decalog specifically to the seventh and God calling it His Holy day ... over and over and over even writing it in stone twice? We have made grace cheap, the gospel is free but not cheap, God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. There has always been grace - but we confuse God's grace, we have lost the reverence for The Lord, and obedience is called self righteousness.
I believe both of you are good theologians and truly have studied and believe what you hold to. However I have to point out that covenant theology ultimately must impose its view on the text. Covenant theology comes from reading the new testament and then imposing its view on the old testament. If you read the bible from genesis to revelation, You would not get covenant theology. While christ is the grand Story, The view of the old testament is not about jesus, It is about god working out his redemptive plan. The new testament is god revealing his better redemptive plan in christ. Well dispensational theology is not close to perfect, I believe it is trying harder to simply read the text and not impose a conceptual viewpoint on it.
They are both lacking in how they are usually applied in that they both break up human history into different epics when the entire theme and purpose of the Bible is to show God choosing, revealing Himself to, and saving people to His glory. It seems to me that CT is just DT that corrects the fallacious interpretation of 1 Cor 9 and Eph 3. They both fail to deal with the Law properly.
There’s so much vying for peoples time just start the debate you talk and talk and talk and frankly, I forget what the talk gonna be about make your program to the point immediately and you will have a better program, you don’t need to apologize for what you believe!
Although I do appreciate the intention of what I think you are talking about. I do love these brothers. And it's kind of like when you go to a brother's house and you don't go immediately into like doctrine, you know? Fellowship, first you know?
Not directed at anyone. At a certain point all of us have to admit that the 3 frameworks all fall apart and all of them cause confusion. This is what happens when man defines a new framework and/or some new category. Man then follows this new framework and brings the scripture into it. Again, not directed at anyone. I'm just a nobody who heard the gospel message as-is and fell in love with the Word. Never needed and still don't need a man made creed nor confession. I already drowned in all that when I was born into Roman Catholicism. 😉
Off the bat, it's evident you guys don't understand dispensationalism. In the most simplest terms, dispensations are the periods of time, ie. pre-flood, post flood etc etc when God changes the "house rules'" for how mankind interacts with Him and each other. The rules for living a life of faith and how that is express to God have changed. For example in this current dispensation called the Church age, Christ is our sacrificial lamb who died and was buried and rose from the dead once and for all. We do not bring an animal to an alter for the shedding of blood as an act of worship. That was for Israel who were under the dispensation or period of time when the Mosaic Law was in effect. The main distinction is, the Church and Israel are not the same in the Bible, and that Israel did not forfeit God's eternal promises. 25% of scripture is prophecy and speaks of a future for the nation of Israel. Romans 9-11, Paul makes it clear that there is a future for Israel and her redemption. Covenantal believers and teachers understand prophecy as allegory and spiritual symbolism. Some scripture is that, but not all are that. Ezekiel 38, Zechariah 12, to only name a couple of OT prophets, talks about the future events facing the nation of Israel. Any theology that replaces Israel with the Church is on shaky ground at best, and at worst it's saying that God does't keep his word. Yikes!
Romans 9-11 makes it crystal, CRYSTAL clear that only a REMNANT of National Israel would be saved “AT THAT PRESENT TIME” and the rest remained blind and were broken off the tree. They can be grafted back in only through Christ. All promises to the Israelites through Abraham have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ who is “The Seed”.
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8, KJV) 18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you (1 Peter 1:18-20, ESV) I just don’t think these verses flow with a dispensational hermeneutic. Christ was the eternal lamb of God. He’s not simply fit in for a particular dispensation. The moment Adam sinned, Christ was sufficient for his sin. The universe was created with Christ being the propitiation for the elect. Covenant theology in its most basic ideas does not deny that there was progressive revelation. Which means man was held accountable to as much revelation as they received in time. But that does not mean Christ was not the means by which man was justified from the moment of the first sin. For an example, though Abraham did not know the name of Christ, Christ was the means by which Abraham was counted righteous in God’s economy illustrated perfectly in Roman’s. Also covenant theology can leave room for a future for Israel. Just as there are varying views of dispensationalism there are different views on covenant theology. Covenant theology does not equal replacement theology. Those are two different theological subsystems. However, I will challenge you to think of Scripture not how the small _a_ author means the passage, but how the Big A Author (Holy Spirit) intends the passage especially pertaining to the OT. For an example, is Hosea 11:1 speaking of Israel or Christ? That’s a trick question because it’s both. The small a thought it was Israel, but the big A knew it was Christ as seen in Matthew 2:14-15. The NT is the definitive interpretation of the OT not the other way around. Just a challenge brother. God bless.
Whereas in the Old Testament the Israelites were God’s chosen people, now all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are God’s chosen people. Israel is not more chosen/redeemed than any of the redeemed who are gentiles. All of God’s true children are part of the Church broadly speaking. In that context the Church has taken the place of Old Testament Israel. It also includes all Israelites who are God’s children. Sorry for being repetitive.
But by your framework, God changes his mind about how he interacts with Humans. What's to stop him from changing his mind now and changing how salvation works? From a reformed standpoint Dispensationalism says that God doesn't keep his word
What's this about Mt. Hermon where the angels came down? Someone has been browsing the texts penned during the "silent years" between the Testaments. Be careful or you'll have to drop Covenant Theology in favor of Divine Council Theology 😜
Your concern about end times prophecy, third temple, sacrifices, misrepresents dispensationalist belief. It doesn't touch soteriology. If those things are literally happening or going to happen, they don't do change the Gospel. It sounds like virtually everything you affirm, would also be affirmed by dispensationalists.
Why would God enter into a covenant with Adam to obey the law and "earn" glorification when God knew with absolute certainty that no man - NONE - can keep the law? Jesus kept the law because he was God incarnate. Adam was not God... he was just an ordinary man. Maybe Satan was working on Adam for a long time and we just aren't told about it, but according to Genesis, Adam failed the first time he faced temptation from the serpent.
1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; and Isaiah 26:19-21 all speak of a resurrection regarding his people.
Isaiah specifically states that the resurrection he refers to takes place *_BEFORE_* (and because) the Lord is about to pour out his indignation upon the inhabitants of the earth.
Each refers to his people meeting God in heaven. Isaiah says they are invited to “come”. 1 Thessalonians 4 says they are “caught up”. 1 Corinthians 15 says that in order to inherit the kingdom of God we must be changed from mortal to immortal. Darby didn’t invent anything. Corinthians and Thessalonians were written 2000 years ago. Isaiah wrote his prophecy 2700 years ago. It was always there, we were just too blind or dense to realize it. For that, we can be forgiven. However, to keep holding to the ‘John Darby invented blah blah blah’ narrative after hearing the truth indicates a love of the lie. Reject that baloney and those who insist on selling it as steak.
It seems, you will agree, that God was not working toward saving Pharaoh. The text clearly expresses God's intention to harden his heart to present more dramatic opportunity to demonstrate His power in order that His Name would be declared. This is toward glorification of God as superior to salvation. When Israel sinned and got taken by the nations, by judgement, yet God later punished those nations for their pride, again that His Name would be glorified. Again, no salvation. God's election by grace for salvation is not all inclusive, yet God gets praise for the glory of His grace. All of the powers wonder at the grace of God for saving those sinners whom He does save. But most are not saved. The glory of God is again the higher value.Jesus is to be praised as Lord to the glory of God by all, even those not saved. So I choose Dispensationalism for its sharper choice in the metric measured in the Bible.
![YoungBoy Never Broke Again - Missing Everything [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dTYeMZGzOzw/mqdefault.jpg)
Getting into studying Covenant theology really helped me reconcile and connect all the dots of how everything works together through redemptive history. I deep dived into reformed theology a little over a year ago, and grasped allot on a surface level right away.. but then getting down to the why and how it all works absolutely together covenant theology was the only way I could reconcile it.
Watch other vids from this guy, they are down right ignorantly scary to say the least!!
Thanks for the discussion, guys. Always a blessing to listen to your talks while at the office on Wednesday mornings.
Our pleasure!
@@THEOCASTI am so grateful for how God has used you and is continuing to use you in such a great way. Because you are like a life saver. When you're lost in the ocean, thank you so much.
I recently have come back to Jesus and I have been Following folks like Voddie, MacArthur, Washer, Justin Peters on RUclips that lead me to you. I have been looking for a church here in Asheville NC and now I think I found one that I plan to visit on Easter at covenant Baptist church.
As a new Christian of about 2 years I naturally came to this type of thology. I think its an advantage of not goriwing up in the church.
I agree totally with your explanation of the law/gospel distinction, and your thoughts on easy believism and lordship salvation. As a dispensationalist, I’m not sure how you are coming up with the fact that dispensationalists are against the law gospel distinction. The more I listen to this podcast, the more of a dispensationalist I become.
Same with me. I hear their concerns about works and pietism and lack of assurance… and I think the dispensational view of scripture solves all those things.
I agree. I don’t see how dispensationalism precludes a proper understanding of law and gospel.
I read Ryrie Dispensationalism and understood that I was not, was never and never would be a dispensationalist. I agreed with the Covenant and Reformed theologians he was disputing.
Dispensationalism leads to OT antinomianism and a NT legalism.
Dispensationalism is not biblical. It’s started only about 200 years ago. Early church don’t recognize it because the scripture was never intended to be dissected in literal sense. There’s a reason why God let certain things to be mysterious in the scripture.
@@erico6117 there are dispensational writings as early as 300 ad.
Thank you brothers for that edifying discussion. I am, by God's grace, also a Covenantal Reformed Baptist. May God continue to bless your ministry.
One factual correction. Darby did not deny imputed righteousness as claimed in this video. He simply denied that the believer's righteousness in Christ is based on Christ's obedience to the law (active obedience). Rather He believed (as I do) that righteousness is imputed based on Christ's sacrificial death.
I've never ready Darby before, but I was suspicious when I heard this claim, so I just googled it and found this quote instantly.
"Now I believe and bless God for the truth that Christ is our righteousness and that by His obedience we are made righteous. It is the settled peace of my soul, as I trust it is of the author's. The important point here is the contrast between the death and sufferings of Christ, as winning our forgiveness, and His obedience as our justifying righteousness; what is sometimes called His active and passive obedience."
J. N. Darby in The Righteousness of God
We are not made righteous. That is a Catholic ideology. We ARE declared righteous because the BLOOD of Christ is my righteousness. I will be made righteous altogether upon my glorification upon death. Since, the Blood is always applied, I am declared righteous. My being made righteous took place in eternity past, however this is effectual upon my death and new life.
@davidgobart3849 1 Corinthians 5:21 in the KJB which is 250 years before Darby. In fact, we are "made righteous " in the Wycliffe English translation which is 250 years older than the KJB. And we ARE as in present tense, made righteous.
Thanks, I just made a similar comment without mentioning Darby. But I requested another video to withdraw their false accusations against Darby that claimed that he agreed with the Catholics but disagreed with the Reformers in denying graciously imputed righteousness. Google supplied Darby's published paper on Righteousness. Darby strongly disagreed with the Catholics and he affirmed graciously imputed righteousness but NOT BY THE VICARIOUS LAW OBEDIENCE OF JESUS. Come on guys. Some honesty please.
J.N. Darby didn't "invent" dispensationism. Read Ryrie's book Dispensationism you might have a better understanding.
@jimharris8099 I know he didn't invent Dispensationalism. It's in the KJB which is 250 years before Darby. It's in the Wycliffe English translation which is 250 years before the KJB. I'm pretty sure I already pointed that out. I think if people (even Dispensationalist) understood what the Dispensation of Grace is, no one would deny it. But most Dispensationalist would have to give up way too much wrong doctrine to really understand Dispensationalism.
I am a KJV only, dispensational, independent baptist and I really enjoy your podcasts. Obviously I don't agree with a number of things but your honesty and spirit are commendable. Thank you!
My friend, KJV onlyism is not the way to go
@@LiveforChrist123 you're way too late for that discussion. You also chose a poor forum to bring it up to me. We don't have the time or space here for me to give the reasons I am what I am.
I think you should only read it from the original papyri
@@Faithful247 oh yeah. That makes perfect sense.
@@joeywampler298 im free to discuss in any other platform if you are ok with that
As a dispensationalist, the only thing the news is for(rarely do I pay attention) is to learn of events. They may or not be prophetic but really prophesy is for us and non-believers to see after how God has given us the beginning from the end (or the other way...).
God is the same yesterday ,today, and forever
Listened to the first 30 in of you saying over and over what you're gonna talk about but I don't have the patience to keep waiting. Wish yall the best.
Enjoyed as always!!! Thank you both
Thanks again!
Watch Andy Woods Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology and you'll understand all the problems with Covenant Theology. I'd put a link to it but You Tube doesn't like it.
I grew up as a Dispensationalist. "God's Chosen People..." and all that. As such, whenever I used to read the New Testament, I would insert various parenthetical phrases in my reading. "I am the way, the truth, and the life. Nobody comes to the Father, except through Me (except the Jews)". "He who has the Son has the Father, and he who does not have the Son, does not have the Father (except the Jews)". ...and on and on.
As a Dispy, you always view Jesus as the undercard before the big show at the end (Armageddon and the eventual salvation of Israel) which I think explains why Dispies are so pro-war, pro-Israel (the modern state that hates Jesus), and come awfully close to worshipping Jews, no matter what they are doing.
My challenge to any Dispensationalist is to read the New Testament with the idea of the Jews being out of favor and the primary satanic influence on earth, which is how the church viewed them for almost 1800 years. The NT reads much, much more smoothly and there is no need for parenthetical caveats to otherwise very clear teaching.
If not, then please explain The Parable of the Tenants (Mark 12).
Great explanation.
Seeing how pro-Israel a lot of the church is has made me really start to lean more covenantal. It’s almost like the belief is that the Jews don’t need Jesus as much as we do. It’s really bizarre to me.
Covenantal theology just makes much more sense to me.
I would challenge the way you look at things ! now when christ says no one comes to the father except me it is a fact because he is God ! no way for the jews to not ! as you say except for the jews! no one can possibly because Jesus is God !!!! next issue is the jews / israel of today was given over to blindness by God it is God who blinded them it is Gods fault then they reject the gospel they are in a God ordained state of blindness until the fullness of the gentiles come in ! Gods plan and doing and not for you to say what and how he can show mercy on who he pleases how he pleases!!! Rom 11:11 and rom 11:25
You are describing "replacement theology," the error that caused the church in Germany to stay silent during the Holocaust. Dispensational hermeneutic takes text literally and does not allegorize passages that are intended to be taken literally. The reason the church doubted literal interpretation of promises and prophesy was that without a state of Israel (did not exist from 70 AD to 1948AD), they did not take God at his word. It is much easier to see the literal fulfilment will come true now that God has restored the Jewish nation and the many prophesies are coming true before our very eyes. I would highly encourage you to look into Dr. Andy Woods who has excellent teaching on these subjects.
@@kevinmorris4517 I have never said anything about replacement! read romans 11 there has always been a remanent of believing Israel, the nation as a whole was given over to blindness UNTIL the fullness of the gentiles come in , the word until means there will be a time where they will no longer be blind , it has nothing to do with when they became a nation according to u.n
scattered Israel is given over to blindness,
until!
That's not what dispensationalists believe at all. Your just as confused as these 2 men are.
everything in the old testament points to christ with types and shadows
What a waste of time. I really wanted to know the difference and I spent 40 minutes on word salad. You said nothing clearly. You didn’t articulate either side well. 😢
Thank you for that comment ,I thought I was the only one confused.
Thanks for saving me the time
One of the ways to identify heresy is to ask one question. Was the doctrine that is being taught found in Church history as a common and universal belief in all times and places? You won't hear Protestants talking about this test because most of what Protestants believe is not found in the confessions of the first millennium of Christianity. Covenant theology is a perfect example of how the Reformation made up new theological ideas based on false foundational doctrines.
The first thing I would point out is that the Reformers went with Augustine for the most part. They ignored the vast amount of writings and Chruch Councils which determined essential dogmas of the Church. The people who met at Church councils thought that they had the authority to bind people to what these councils taught. They didn't believe that inspiration only flowed through the written text. They believed that the Holy Spirit guided the Church which is also how they put together a standard canon. Which the Protestants rejected.
Protestants adopted the Masoretic Text; The Masoretic Text being adopted by unbelieving Jews in the Rabbinic tradition. The Rabbi's didn't like the fact that the church fathers were using the Deuterocanon to show that Christ was the Messiah. The Deuterocanon also teaches that the Church was the new kingdom which replaced the Old Covenant. If the Reformers had not thrown out the Deuterocanon they could have avoided Dispensationalism altogether. Jesus said that the Kingdom would be taken away from the Jews and given to a new kingdom. This belief has been taught by the Eastern Orthodox Church for 2000 years. They have always taught that they are the kingdom which replaced the Jewish covenant. This is not a convenient fact since it excludes Protestant church's as being churches at all. Protestant Churches don't have the necessary elements that define a church in any historical sense.
Covenant theology is false for many reasons. It's rooted in Anselm's satisfaction theory. Which is the false Latin idea of God's justice. The Latin teaching says that God is bound by necessity to punish you for every sin. God has no other choice. Every sin must have a payback to God. Because His honor and holiness have been offended. In this system your sin is an infinite offense and there is no way you can pay back God. In this conception of justice God is the cosmic debt collector. This is in contradiction to the historic teaching of the church that God is not bound by necessity. If God were bound by necessity, He would be bound by something greater than Himself. The ancient church taught the freedom and liberty of God. God is free to show mercy and free to judge. They also taught that God is predisposed to mercy over justice.
The next domino in Covenant theology is the Calvinist view of Adam before the fall. Calvinist hold to a Pelagian view of Adam before he sinned. Adam had the ability to not sin before the fall. After the fall, the ability to not sin is replaced with inability. Now all of Adams posterity is predisposed to sin constantly. If you read Martin Luther, he basically defines Adams posterity as being in a state of sin. Sin for many of the Reformers was a state of nature. Luther is so extreme he falls into Manicheanism in his writings. Luther and Calvin define sin as a state of being and not an individual decision of will. This is due to the doctrine that Adam's guilt is passed down so that all men are born with the wrath of God against them, and the just deserts of hell.
But the ancient church taught that sin has no existence in itself. It is not a state of nature but an individual choice. This is why the New Testament defines sin as an act of will against Gods moral law. Sin was defined in the early church as the will moving away from good. Sin is nothing more than a blameful choice. If sin is a state of nature, then Christ in His incarnation would have been born in a state of sin, since He took his human nature from Mary. There is no such thing as a sin nature. We are not guilty for Adams sin. What Adam passes down to us is the propensity to sin. Which is called concupiscence. The propensity to sin, which is the blameful passions, are not the same thing as the choice to sin. The Reformers got this wrong. They defined concupiscence as sin. Which is why so many Calvinists fall into Manicheanism. If you say that concupiscence is a state of nature and not an individual choice, then you are a Manichean.
Augustine misinterpreted Roman 5:12 to say we were IN Adam as an architype. According to Augustine, when Adam fell his nature was corrupted. Since we are all perfect copies of the first man, we have imputed guilt passed down to us. This is where you can see that Augustine had not been able to work through Platonic ideas from his past.
Platonism smashes NATURE into PERSON. In Platonism NATURE and PERSON are the same thing. Which means for the Calvinist that when Adams sinned his whole make up as a human being was corrupted. If NATURE and PERSON are distinct, and two parts of a whole human being, then corruption or concupiscence can be passed down but not guilt. Guilt comes from each person making personal individual choices.
Before Augustine the church taught that we are not guilty for Adams sin, but we bare the consequence of Adams sin. Because the Reformers followed Augustine, they fell into Neo-Platonism. Ezekiel, 18:20 lays out the standard for guilt. "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him". For this reason, guilt is individual and not corporate. We are not guilty for Adams sin.
Covenant theology falls into error because it is rooted in these false presuppositions. In Covenant theology Adam breaks the covenant or works. Which is the Pelagian view that Adam could have gained salvation if he had fulfilled the law. Adam could have done this by grace. By disobeying he imputes guilt to his posterity. Christ then comes in the incarnation to fulfill the Law in his human nature as the second Adam. By fulfilling the Law Christ then pays the debt to the Father by his penal payment and all those who believe in Christ then have their spiritual bank accounts filled up and they are declared righteous.
Covenant theology is rooted in Christological heresy. Christ did not need to gain righteousness because He was God the Son, Second Person of the Trinity. He already possessed all of God's righteousness in Himself. Furthermore, there is no way that a human creature could pay back God for anything. God does not need anything from creatures. The human nature that Christ assumed from Mary was consubstantial with us. Christ assumed a human Nature that was subject to death. He did this so that he could glorify human nature and restore and heal it by raising it from the dead.
The central consequential effect of the fall was death. Not imputed guilt. Death produced sin. "Sin reigned in death" Romans 5:14. "The sting of death is sin" 1 Cor 15:56. When Paul describes his struggle with sin, he says in Romans "Who will deliver me from this body which is infected by death?" By defeating death in human Nature Christ removes the power of sin and Satan's power in our being united to Him by the sacramental life. NOTE: If Christ tasted death for all men in His human Nature, then all men are resurrected on the basis of Christ assuming universal human nature. Which means that Christ death and resurrection was not just for the elect. All men have eternal life for this reason. But they will all be raised either to eternal bliss or eternal torments. For this reason, Limited Atonement is a heresy.
This is in contradiction to Covenant theology. Calvinism teaches that Jesus paid back the Father. Which is to be anti-Trinitarian. God does not need anything from creatures. Calvinism also teaches that Christ became literal sin. Which is very different from what you find in Church history. The patristic teaching is that Christ became as one who is cursed. But Christ could never be cursed because He was God. The Reformed teaching is that Christ took the wrath of God on Himself for the elect. This also causes many problems for Trinitarian theology. Which is why so many Calvinists are Nestorians. They believe that it was the human person Jesus who experienced the wrath, not the divine Person of the Son. But Nestorianism is condemned by the Chruch at the Second Council which said "there was only one Person in the hypostatic union of two Natures. There was no human person in Christ."
There is so much more to say on this topic. I am not a Calvinist. But I was for 25 years. I thank God every day he delivered me from Calvinism. I reject the false doctrines of the Deformed Faith.
25:45. This is my biggest problem with dispensationalism and what really bothered me when I started to really dive into the Bible on my own. As both of you have said, Christ is all over the Old Testament.
keep your eyes on Jesus!
I have grown up in church. Father is a Pastor, grandfather was a Pastor. I have been in continual Bible study throughout my life. I, like many others, tend to study the portions which my church culture tends to emphasize. In my ignorance, I have spend much of my life, wrongly believing that the Temple Sacrificial system was largely about atonement for sin. This simply is not the case. Most temple sacrifices have nothing to do with atoning for sin. But many Christian are ignorant of this, leading many to think the reinstatement of the temple obscures the Atonement of Christ. This simply is not the case.
Are you awaiting a third temple? You'll never see one. Never was one prophesied and never will one be needed. Amos 3:7
@@wbdangelos8393 I am waiting for this:
"It shall come to pass in the latter days
that the mountain of the house of the Lord
shall be established as the highest of the mountains,
and shall be lifted up above the hills;
and all the nations shall flow to it,
3 and many peoples shall come, and say:
“Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord,
to the house of the God of Jacob,
that he may teach us his ways
and that we may walk in his paths.”
For out of Zion shall go forth the law,[a]
and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.
4 He shall judge between the nations,
and shall decide disputes for many peoples;
and they shall beat their swords into plowshares,
and their spears into pruning hooks;
nation shall not lift up sword against nation,
neither shall they learn war anymore."
Covenant theology sounds like the same competitive, power hierarchy that corrupted the Jewish synagogues and the Catholic Church where you are saved through faith in Jesus BUT your loyalty, depth of faith, salvation etc. is contingent on your work against sin. Like your salvation is judged on a sliding scale based on how well you handle sin and stick to the rules. It sets up a system of competition between people, and between the churches, that is fueled by the fear of losing one's salvation and pride in one's own abilities to combat sin.
People can't seem to conceive the idea that they don't deserve to be saved, no matter how hard they work. Works and their selfless sacrifice are expressions of worship, gratitude, loyalty, service and faith that the Holy Spirit is doing in you and through you. When works become a proof of faith, or a measurement of how close or far you are from Jesus, you're saying that you have the power to interpret what works are good, how valuable they are, how much is required and what God's plan is and should be.
God uses my sin and my struggles all the time to teach me about Him and myself.
I am saved through Jesus and made clean by HIM and HIS work on the cross. I had nothing to do with it except to accept His unbelievable, unearned gift of grace and have faith in Him as the only way to redemption. He made me a promise and sent the Holy Spirit as my helper to battle my sinful nature while I'm still stuck in this fallen world. When I sin, He doesn't abandon me but helps me more because He loves me. I have no fear. Christ already paid for my sins knowing everything I've ever done and will do in the future and still chose to suffer the cross to save me. No Pope or Pastor or Rabbi or Mother Theresa or Christian keeping score on each other, is more saved or more worthy or more loved by Jesus than I am.
Jesus saved me, continues to save me and I can rely on Him to always save me...because He promised and I have faith in HIM, not me.❤
Holy cow, I can only read the first part of that absolute wall of text, but it's absolutely at the opposite. Dispensationalism is precisely from the people who denied Christ at the time and still do, as a power grab.
It is the S of S grasping for their earthly throne back, the modern Pharisees. It's the oldest heresy dating back to even Jesus himself fighting it, the most widespread, the one with the most text devoted against it in NT, and the one most harshly spoken against.
I usually can't say these words without my comments getting completely zapped, and that should tell you exactly who's running things, but it's zxxxism which is the heresy of jxxxxization.
As a dispensationalist, I appreciated the graciousness with which you two approached it. Though I would say that your understanding of it is somewhat stereotypical and only partially correct, it was good that you did not slam it as being ‘heresy’ or ‘unorthodox’. Both covenant theology and dispensationalism are orthodox understandings of Scripture.
Depending on how one interprets Scripture, one will hold to covenant theology, classic dispensationalism, or some other ‘system’.
I appreciate your clarity on the law, the gospel, the imputation of the righteousness of Christ, etc. Keep up the excellent podcasts.
My issue with 98% of dispensational pastors is THEY. pretend that premillennial dispensationalism is the only eschatology. It's like being color blind to the color green.
For me Covenant Theology, and Dispensationalism are two tools that are used to rightly divide the scriptures. Just like Calvinism, and Fundamentalism, Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism are not monolithic. It seems from what was said about Dispensationalism in the beginning of the video is more in line with replacement theology.
Understanding the Old through the lens of the New; Christ, the one plan for all.
Thank you for this. Had to stop at 19:21 for an appointment, but I'm open to rejecting dispensationalism, but (as you have said here) the issue of Israel. It is hard to see the restoration of Israel as not being in the path of some sort of prophetic fulfilment... Question: What are we to think about the Temple Faithful who are determined to rebuild the temple? I fully expect the temple to be rebuilt by unbelieving Jews, and that as the majority Gentiles stop believing, the majority of Jews will put their faith in Christ. It is hard to imagine that the current existence of the state of Israel has no spiritual expression in eschatology. It may not, but it is hard to think it does not. Yet, I have a hard time with my own dispensational circles that see mortals dwelling with immortals during the Millennium, and the 144,000 being Jewish evangelists, the size of the New Jerusalem looking like a cube 1/4 size of the earth--strange things like these.... Can you elaborate on this?
Maybe I can help. Start with Joshua 22: 43-45 - what exactly land promises and promises to vanquish enemies did God not Fullfill? You keep talking about a "restoration of isreal"? What exactly is that? Isn't it the Coming of the Messiah that was promised? Isn't Jesus that Massiah? Many Gentiles have already forgotten Jesus, there has been a huge falling away since the "age of enlightment" (ironically named). And of course many Jews have come to Christ over the years. As far as all the "Kingdom Come" stuff: What did Christ say when the lawyers asked him about it? They asked "If you are the Messiah where is the Kingdom?!" What did he answer? He said is it was "in your midts, it is not a kingdom you can observe with your eyes" . What did Jesus Tell Pilate when he asked about if he was a King? Didn;t Jesus say "My Kingdom is not of this earth?" The major problme here is the literal views of very symbolic phrophecy. As far as the 144,000 - remember : there are Christain Jews of every tribe. Jews started the Church, All the disiples were Jews, the 3000 that converted on the day of pentacost were mostly Jews. It was not until later did gentiles join the church. In short ther eis not a seperation of "the church" and Isreal- Isreal /is/ the Church. It became so when Christ jesus - The Messiah of Jewsish prophecy- fullfiled all the promises God made to the ppl of Isreal.
Have you heard of the theory of the city of Jerusalem being the harlot described in Revelation?
@@shayalynn I would think that was obvious. This is the term God constantly refered to it as through his Prophets all through the Old Testement.
Thank you so much. Keep up the good work.
The works vs grace distinction is the only thing dispensationalism (heresy of neojudaization) gets right and it can't be more clear:
Law vs gospel
Second death vs eternal life
Promises of the flesh vs the spirit.
Lineage vs born anew in Christ.
Law in stone vs that on our hearts.
The ministry of/that brings only death vs the ministry of life.
The distinction is made by text and Jesus.
I teach dispensational theology. This was interesting.
I don’t know how you get that dispensationalists don’t see gospel in OT and law in NT 😳🤔
God's eternal plan was salvation through Christ's redeeming sacrifice for those he has chosen. In the NT, those elected will believe in Jesus, in the OT, those elected were of Israel. And then there's NInevah. Both rely on God's promise that He has a plan to reconcile us to Him. Would that be covenant or dispensation theology? Great video guys.
Having an understanding of Federal headship and also vice regency.
Why label ourselves? Just be a student of Christ and His Word. I believe we cause more confusion and can overwhelm people with "headiness."
Can you explain the "active" part about Christs work? That sounds like the SDA view(I am in SDA church though not 100% with all doctrines.) . Thank you for your work. The difference is a little like a red/blue thing but it seems the more deeply one understands the less differentiated we are...
I see the disagreement in earlier comments, and your video just popped up for the first time in my recommended videos. I appreciate your tone and teaching style to, but I am neither dispensationalist or calvinist, both have flaws and positives. I do have strong reservations that people read modern America and modern Israel into scripture. that is an awful mistake. My main concern is when teachings of man supercede scripture. therefore, I appreciated the first 10 minutes or so and agree that can be learned from simple reading of scripture. Jesus is the point of the whole of the Bible and clearly if we are going to be good Bereans, we will study TNK and the Gospels! Jesus exactly and precisely fulfilled, the whole of the Law. keep up the good work and keep learning.
The active obedience of Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit?
What is the main purpose of the Bible? "To Glorify God" is a bit vague and not how I would answer the question. I would quote Zechariah from Luke 1 "That we may serve [God]... in holiness and rightousness".
i believe the explanation is found in the latter part of romans chapter 11
Failure to pay attention to verb tense in Romans can destroy sound exegesis. "...WILL BE justified..." (Rom. 2:13) vs. "There IS none righteous..." (Rom. 3:10). You attempt to apply the law of non-contradiction, but fail to recognize the lack of temporal pairity. What was that quote about being mocked by children?
What I find truly astounding about covenant theology is that it teaches that the Law of Moses was part of the covenant of grace. It’s no wonder that legalism and pietism and requiring works are so rampant in reformed circles.
I get where you are coming from but would you not consider humanity receiving Gods Law to be a gracious gift from God?
@@josiahstallings359 Yes, of course. But biblical grace is not simply graciousness. If I lose my job and a business owner gives me a job, that is a gracious gift. But that gift still requires that I show up to work each day to earn a wage. Biblical grace, is when God gives us a gift (righteousness/salvation) for free, regardless of our labor.
Rom 4:4-5 Now to him who works, the wages are not counted as grace but as debt. But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness...
1689 Federalism and Progressive Covenantalism do not see the Law of Moses as Cov of Grace. Both see the CoG as the New Covenant. With the promise of the Covenant of Grace revealed so that OT believers could draw against that promise.
The Body of Christ Church are not part of Israel's new covenant. In fact, Israel isn't even apart of their new covenant yet. They don't get their new covenant until Christ returns to earth. The Body of Christ Church is not included in Israel's covenant. That misunderstanding comes from not rightly dividing the Word of Truth. It comes from not understand Paul's Dispensation of Grace for the Gentiles.
@@bugsocsollie1694 So why did some Jews already get Grace and found the Church? (Mary, Paul, Peter, James, John, Matthew, all the martyrs the 3000 at the day of Pentacost) but every other Jew has to wait till the Return of Christ to get grace? I never understood this?
Hebrews 8:13
In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old.
Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.
Not really understanding the shot at Zane Hodges and "easy believing." What exactly is the difference between what you teach and faith in the Christ for everlasting life? Listening to your law/gospel distinction episode with remnant radio i thought we were pretty much on the same page.
I thought the grammatical historical approach to interpreting scripture was preferred in the reformed camp. You guys seemed to criticize it. Correct me if I’m wrong.
Thank you for the good work brothers ,,, if I may offer my humble opinion nevertheless, there are so many interruptions of one by the other, or both speaking at the same time ...
Which version of the bible dors covenant theology usually use?
The law Gospel distinction and the 1st & 2nd Adam part... wasn't that what Steven was preaching?
I’m trying to decipher all of this. So far, from what I can tell. On paper, Covenant theology and Dispensationalism are both wrong. I’m tired of being labeled as one or the other when I barely understand what either one actually means. Isaiah says that Israel will become a nation in a day. That happened. Revelation says Jesus will come back and reign a thousand years, that hasn’t happened yet. God made an everlasting Covenant with Abraham that extends through his Son Jesus. We are all saved by grace and by the blood of Christ Jew or Gentile.
So I think everyone needs to stop ignoring scripture, stop adding to the scriptures. Just because something is directly implied doesn’t mean that something else is indirectly implied . That’s what I think is the problem. Who can say, “this is what God meant to say…” just let Gods word speak. Covenant theology and dispensationalism are man made words with man made ideas. Just let the Bible speak for itself
As a dispensationalist(stopped to comment and continue on) I believe the water flowing into the valley of the dead. Sea will bring about its recovery as the text clearly states.
Calling the covenants by different names, do we still recognize that all the covenants display Gods Grace and are not without Grace. Some of the covenants reveal Gods Grace more fully, that’s true but even as we see the covenant of Works, was it not Grace that we were created to walk in the cool of the day with our God.
Can I ask one Q …
What is the meaning or point behind the x4 scriptures on dispensations in scripture
I’m not a dispensationalist but trying to comprehend how those scriptures fit in and have been expanded on or taken out of context or used in wrong way by the dispensationalists & hyper dispies
❤ excellent
How can I find a church that teaches this way. It seems like dispensationalism is rampant.
Bible is a love story showing how Jesus ...
Im confused, there is no way I'm reading all those measurements in the Torah, for the sanctuary, then reading the end of Ezekiel, and think the measurements for the temple mean nothing...
Do you believe that Jesus is the way the truth & the life & that no one can come to the Father except through Jesus? Do believe if a new temple is built in Jerusalem & animal sacrifice reinstituted that people will be saved through those practices?
@sgabig yes Jesus is the way. And if the the people of Israel need a temple to wake them up to the reality of Christ, who am I say anything about that. What I do know? But Scripture does talk about thier return.
Romans 11:1-2 ESV - I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham, a member of the tribe of Benjamin. God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel?
Romans 11:12 ESV - Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion mean!
Romans 11:15 ESV - For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead?
You guys talk quite a bit about the "third use of the law" and how it is "a guide for living". Are you saying the Holy Spirit needs help in His guiding of the believer? When exactly is the Gentile invited to/introduced to the Jewish law? (pre-conversion, at conversion, or post-conversion)
They're using the phrase in precisely the same way Lutherans and others of the Reformed faith used it. If you search for "third use of the law" you'll receive your answer, but it's a teaching in of itself. They've discussed it in more depth in other videos.
The believer has the law put in their minds and written on their hearts. That doesn't happen in a vacuum. It's connected with "sanctify them by The truth, They Word is truth". The way it's put in our minds and on our hearts is by hearing it. It's ever with us. I'd say in this context, it's conversion and post conversion.
I do not see such a distinction between the O. & N. Testament's... though the OT shows in retrospect how (in a general sense) Jesus is THE main character and is everywhere as He said
I believe anyone that understands Pauls biblical dispensation of grace knows that God gave this to Paul and Darby had nothing to do with it. Before anyone can even start talking about this false covenant theology they have to address when Acts 2 Jews sins are blotted out. Read Acts 2 through Acts 3:19-21. This group of jews don’t have their sins blotted out till after the tribulation. There is nobody in the body of Christ without his sins blotted out Col 2:9-14. Acts 2 through Acts 3:19-21 is all about Israel and it tells when their sins are blotted out after the tribulation. That is still Gods plan. Acts 2:5And there were dwelling at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of every nation under heaven. (These were all scattered jews coming back from all nations for the feast days to worship. There’s not a gentile in site for this unless he was a proselyte which means he converted to a jew.) There is no way anyone can say they aren’t just following tradition or believe their whole KJB and not realize what’s happening hear. These kingdom jews don’t have their sins blotted out till after the tribulation Acts 3:19-21. The body of Christ is comlete in Him, all sins are already forgiven and the law gone Col 2:9-14.
This issue alone is enough to stop any bible believer saying the kingdom of heaven program and the dispensation of grace are the same.
This is just basic right division. Hebrews 8:7-13 backs this up. The new covenant is to Israel after those days which is tribulation. Look at everything said there. Israel is still in a fallen position today. They are definitely not the head as the Bible says they will be. Israel has not received this covenant yet. They only have less than 1/50th of the land promised in Gen 15:18. Israel has to go through Jacobs trouble before they ever get the new covenant. Thats biblical 101 not modern religious nonsense.
Agreed on the Adam covenant issue...
Another division that reformed theology (Calvinism) brings to the body of Christ.
1. Presuming that dispensationalists aren't interested in theology is just that; a presumption at best; a judgment at worst.
2. Another presumption--that Christ must be assumed to be preached in every book of the bible. This is how Covenant Theology imposes its theology over scripture rather than letting scripture interpret scripture
3. There are only 2 Covenants - 1. The law of moses 2. The covenant of Jesus
4. The 4 gospels record Jesus as a prophet of the first covenant.
5. There's no covenant of works recorded in scripture. Adam made no covenant with the Father. Works never has and never will provide salvation for man.
This theology is a convoluted mess that just confuses scripture and the simplicity of the gospel.
Paul after seeing and hearing Jesus on high uses the word dispensation in his writings to the various churches. Not the word covenant. ( KJV) (Note: In Heb the author unknown, and not to a specific church)
That's weak
You miss understand when you say or think that the implication is that Jesus fits into a dispensation. John 1.
All those who died prior the Christ’s advent were in the grave, and not in the presence of the Father because the atonement hadn’t happened yet. They were in Abraham’s bosom. Then when Jesus after his death descended he took those souls captive up to heaven because they were now fit for being in the Father’s presence with Christ being cleansed by his blood. This reality alone show distinction between these two time periods we call dispensations.
I spent thirty years in baptist and messianic ministry. I studied Greek and Hebrew But it wasn't till I did a verse by verse study of the book of Isaiah comparing Scofield commentary with John Calvin commentary that I committed to dispensationalism. Calvin tied himself up in knots trying to spiritualize the promises for Israel and give them to the church while conveniently giving Israels curses to the Jews.
Discussion starts at 12 minutes
Why are do many preachers want to disagree with each other to clarify the gospel? Why do pastors not all speak the same thing and believe the same thing? It is mass confusion to the hearer.
Are all of the promises for the Jewish people fulfilled?
LAST Adam, not second Adam
As a 1689 federalist myself, would love to know why you gentlemen didn’t go the progressive covenantalist route (given that’s the favored ‘via media’ between covenantal and dispensational theologies these days). Love the content over all!
Thanks!
Please do "nerd out"!:), it's the only way to reach a biblical hermeneutic ...
Drop everything and go to the original ancient first unbroken Orthodox church(I’d recommend Greek but there are others of course). Learn the history and ask yourself “am I in the church that Christ started or am I in something man made?”
The new is in the old concealed. The old is in the new revealed.
The new is in the old contained. The old is in the new explained.
I honestly didn't see any clear distinctions between covenant theology and dispensationalism in this broadcast. I can clearly that both dispensentionalist and covenant theologians agree with most of what was stated here. I'm sorry to say that dispensationalism and covenant theology differences were not clearly presented, especially from a dispensational perspective. Where was the "vs." presented?
As a dispensationalist I don't know where you get this idea that the entire Bible is not about Jesus; your statement about dispensational beliefs.
In a dispensationalist understanding it is a very technical way of reading the bible. By its very nature one can place Christ in a dispensation, having revealed himself 'different' at 'different times' depending upon God's dealings during that dispensation.
the law points to a need for christ
Tell me why jacob and Joseph wanted their bodies buried in Canaan if there is no future for them on this earth
Heard a lot about you guys. First time watching/listening - good stuff. I will say that guy on left interrupted guy on right too much.
You title it "vs" and it took just over 12 mins to actually get on topic. Being on subjet will greatly improve you listenership...
Their numbers in “listenership” are doing pretty darn well. Maybe you need to learn patience OR might wanna learn to use a fast forward button 😃
The problem is you don't know how to rightly divide past present and future.
I don’t totally understand your rejection of covenant theology. Many covenant teachers, including John Calvin and RC Sproul, taught that national Israel will be grafted back in.
The Bible and life experiences never made sense till I became a Calvinist
The video promised a comparison but delivered a rambling and vague conversation. Use sources and quotes next time.
Like with Calvinism and Arminianism, covenant theology and dispensationalism are both wrong. There are basic interpretations that refute both systems.
"In our opinion..." I agree with you, but stop with all the disclaimers. It's not your opinion, it's the text that claims it. Dispensationalism is inconsistent and disjointed. Its literal where symbolic and symbolic where literal.
Yeah I wish they would just stop assuring us that they love their dispensationalist brothers, and just own it.
I used to be like you. Dogmatic and arrogant, saying my interpretation of scripture is right and everyone else is wrong. But the more I study scripture, the more humble I get because the more I understand I don’t know. Both sides have great men of God. Both side have strong and weak points. Both sides have verses that point to their beliefs and both sides have verse that seem to contradict. We are humans, and humans are prone to error. How dare someone be so arrogant and without grace. Hope you get more Jesus.
@@jpughinreallifeHow amazing to see a self-proclaimed humble person condemn another as arrogant for doing precisely what you do back to them in your response. They don’t agree with you, so you call them arrogant and yourself humble and then snidely and condescendingly hope they “get more Jesus.” (Presumably as much Jesus as you have.)
Covenant adherents just haven't thought things through completely. Read in 1 Chronicles where David set up a massive organization to minister in the temple. Priests, doorkeepers, musicians, servants, bakers, handymen, fire keepers, etc... When Jesus returns to rule, what city will He rule from? Jerusalem. When He resides in Jerusalem, where will He live? The Temple. Will the Temple be a micro-house or will it be a massive administrative center? It will be huge! Will Jesus reign alone from an office, or will He have a large staff? Massive. When He and His myriad of ministers, servants, messengers, and attendants eats, what will they consume? Food sacrificed and carefully prepared for them. Will this food be catered out from McDonalds? No. Who will be among the staff that serves and ministers to the Lord and His staff. Jews will be among the main preparers of this food, done in accordance with Biblical prescriptions. Pots will say, "Holy to the Lord." Jews will also be among His leadership and administrative staff as well. The temple and any sacrifices made will have real world, practical use, while at the same time commemorating the Law and how Jesus was the fulfillment of the law at the same time. Nobody believes that sheep will save anybody, but they will be on the menu!
with all love and respect if prophecy is the foretelling of future events and these events are written in the bible but as they happen you read about them in the newspaper, how else would you "watch" for christ except by watching what is happening in the world and comparing it to what the bible says is going to happen? as I study eschatology I realized that this idea that we shouldn't look at what is happening in the world never mattered much at all, unless you are the people living in the end time. again respectfully, it sounds as if you are scoffing at those who keep an eye on what the UN is doing, or what is happening withe the red heifers and how that could affect a peace agreement, that if you are watching, could end up being 7 years and dividing the land of israel as in joel. if al this happens and you are not watching, what happens to you and those who follow you?
There are a few words - that we proclaim and use. Spurgeon would refer to it as vommit!
Authority of scripture, or sufficiency of scriptute
The Word of God.
Hermeneutics
How do we get past the 9 suggestions ...?
Or known as The ten commandments or the Ten Words Decalog specifically to the seventh and God calling it His Holy day ... over and over and over even writing it in stone twice?
We have made grace cheap, the gospel is free but not cheap, God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. There has always been grace - but we confuse God's grace, we have lost the reverence for The Lord, and obedience is called self righteousness.
I believe both of you are good theologians and truly have studied and believe what you hold to. However I have to point out that covenant theology ultimately must impose its view on the text. Covenant theology comes from reading the new testament and then imposing its view on the old testament. If you read the bible from genesis to revelation, You would not get covenant theology. While christ is the grand Story, The view of the old testament is not about jesus, It is about god working out his redemptive plan. The new testament is god revealing his better redemptive plan in christ. Well dispensational theology is not close to perfect, I believe it is trying harder to simply read the text and not impose a conceptual viewpoint on it.
They are both lacking in how they are usually applied in that they both break up human history into different epics when the entire theme and purpose of the Bible is to show God choosing, revealing Himself to, and saving people to His glory. It seems to me that CT is just DT that corrects the fallacious interpretation of 1 Cor 9 and Eph 3. They both fail to deal with the Law properly.
There’s so much vying for peoples time just start the debate you talk and talk and talk and frankly, I forget what the talk gonna be about make your program to the point immediately and you will have a better program, you don’t need to apologize for what you believe!
Although I do appreciate the intention of what I think you are talking about. I do love these brothers. And it's kind of like when you go to a brother's house and you don't go immediately into like doctrine, you know? Fellowship, first you know?
Covenant theology is reformed theology but not sound theology theology
Not directed at anyone. At a certain point all of us have to admit that the 3 frameworks all fall apart and all of them cause confusion.
This is what happens when man defines a new framework and/or some new category. Man then follows this new framework and brings the scripture into it.
Again, not directed at anyone. I'm just a nobody who heard the gospel message as-is and fell in love with the Word. Never needed and still don't need a man made creed nor confession. I already drowned in all that when I was born into Roman Catholicism. 😉
Is it true that God sends people to hell for not believing in something that they are incapable of believing in?
What if your wrong? Are yall Calvinism?
All reformed Christians are Calvinist
Off the bat, it's evident you guys don't understand dispensationalism. In the most simplest terms, dispensations are the periods of time, ie. pre-flood, post flood etc etc when God changes the "house rules'" for how mankind interacts with Him and each other. The rules for living a life of faith and how that is express to God have changed. For example in this current dispensation called the Church age, Christ is our sacrificial lamb who died and was buried and rose from the dead once and for all. We do not bring an animal to an alter for the shedding of blood as an act of worship. That was for Israel who were under the dispensation or period of time when the Mosaic Law was in effect. The main distinction is, the Church and Israel are not the same in the Bible, and that Israel did not forfeit God's eternal promises. 25% of scripture is prophecy and speaks of a future for the nation of Israel. Romans 9-11, Paul makes it clear that there is a future for Israel and her redemption. Covenantal believers and teachers understand prophecy as allegory and spiritual symbolism. Some scripture is that, but not all are that. Ezekiel 38, Zechariah 12, to only name a couple of OT prophets, talks about the future events facing the nation of Israel. Any theology that replaces Israel with the Church is on shaky ground at best, and at worst it's saying that God does't keep his word. Yikes!
I think u Do not understand what the Word of GOD says
Romans 9-11 makes it crystal, CRYSTAL clear that only a REMNANT of National Israel would be saved “AT THAT PRESENT TIME” and the rest remained blind and were broken off the tree. They can be grafted back in only through Christ. All promises to the Israelites through Abraham have been fulfilled in Jesus Christ who is “The Seed”.
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Revelation 13:8, KJV)
18 knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,
19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot.
20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you (1 Peter 1:18-20, ESV)
I just don’t think these verses flow with a dispensational hermeneutic. Christ was the eternal lamb of God. He’s not simply fit in for a particular dispensation. The moment Adam sinned, Christ was sufficient for his sin. The universe was created with Christ being the propitiation for the elect. Covenant theology in its most basic ideas does not deny that there was progressive revelation. Which means man was held accountable to as much revelation as they received in time. But that does not mean Christ was not the means by which man was justified from the moment of the first sin. For an example, though Abraham did not know the name of Christ, Christ was the means by which Abraham was counted righteous in God’s economy illustrated perfectly in Roman’s. Also covenant theology can leave room for a future for Israel. Just as there are varying views of dispensationalism there are different views on covenant theology. Covenant theology does not equal replacement theology. Those are two different theological subsystems. However, I will challenge you to think of Scripture not how the small _a_ author means the passage, but how the Big A Author (Holy Spirit) intends the passage especially pertaining to the OT. For an example, is Hosea 11:1 speaking of Israel or Christ? That’s a trick question because it’s both. The small a thought it was Israel, but the big A knew it was Christ as seen in Matthew 2:14-15. The NT is the definitive interpretation of the OT not the other way around. Just a challenge brother. God bless.
Whereas in the Old Testament the Israelites were God’s chosen people, now all who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are God’s chosen people. Israel is not more chosen/redeemed than any of the redeemed who are gentiles. All of God’s true children are part of the Church broadly speaking. In that context the Church has taken the place of Old Testament Israel. It also includes all Israelites who are God’s children. Sorry for being repetitive.
But by your framework, God changes his mind about how he interacts with Humans. What's to stop him from changing his mind now and changing how salvation works? From a reformed standpoint Dispensationalism says that God doesn't keep his word
What's this about Mt. Hermon where the angels came down? Someone has been browsing the texts penned during the "silent years" between the Testaments. Be careful or you'll have to drop Covenant Theology in favor of Divine Council Theology 😜
Your concern about end times prophecy, third temple, sacrifices, misrepresents dispensationalist belief. It doesn't touch soteriology. If those things are literally happening or going to happen, they don't do change the Gospel.
It sounds like virtually everything you affirm, would also be affirmed by dispensationalists.
It seems these labels are incredibly limiting! Your definitions are way off, in my experience
Why would God enter into a covenant with Adam to obey the law and "earn" glorification when God knew with absolute certainty that no man - NONE - can keep the law? Jesus kept the law because he was God incarnate. Adam was not God... he was just an ordinary man. Maybe Satan was working on Adam for a long time and we just aren't told about it, but according to Genesis, Adam failed the first time he faced temptation from the serpent.
1 Corinthians 15:52; 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17; and Isaiah 26:19-21 all speak of a resurrection regarding his people.
Isaiah specifically states that the resurrection he refers to takes place *_BEFORE_* (and because) the Lord is about to pour out his indignation upon the inhabitants of the earth.
Each refers to his people meeting God in heaven. Isaiah says they are invited to “come”. 1 Thessalonians 4 says they are “caught up”. 1 Corinthians 15 says that in order to inherit the kingdom of God we must be changed from mortal to immortal.
Darby didn’t invent anything. Corinthians and Thessalonians were written 2000 years ago. Isaiah wrote his prophecy 2700 years ago. It was always there, we were just too blind or dense to realize it. For that, we can be forgiven.
However, to keep holding to the ‘John Darby invented blah blah blah’ narrative after hearing the truth indicates a love of the lie. Reject that baloney and those who insist on selling it as steak.
Hmmm, so im a dispensationalist you say? 😮
Yes. Their lack of understanding Dispensations, makes me even more Dispensational, maybe even Hyper Dispensationalist.
It seems, you will agree, that God was not working toward saving Pharaoh. The text clearly expresses God's intention to harden his heart to present more dramatic opportunity to demonstrate His power in order that His Name would be declared. This is toward glorification of God as superior to salvation. When Israel sinned and got taken by the nations, by judgement, yet God later punished those nations for their pride, again that His Name would be glorified. Again, no salvation. God's election by grace for salvation is not all inclusive, yet God gets praise for the glory of His grace. All of the powers wonder at the grace of God for saving those sinners whom He does save. But most are not saved. The glory of God is again the higher value.Jesus is to be praised as Lord to the glory of God by all, even those not saved. So I choose Dispensationalism for its sharper choice in the metric measured in the Bible.