Jesus answered them, "Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this sanctuary, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking about the sanctuary of his body. The Pharisees had a "slavish commitment to literal hermeneutics." Nobody is immune to the distortion of reading the Bible through their own biases. If you said, "we are biased," you would have no guilt. But since you said, "we have no bias," your guilt remains.
I've been in the Kingdom of God for 52 years now. Colossians 1:12-13 MEV *_giving thanks to the Father,_* who has enabled us to be partakers in the inheritance of the saints in light. [13] He has delivered us from the power of darkness and *_has transferred us into the kingdom of His dear Son,_*
Very well said - "the battleground is in hermeneutics". As Corey Marsh said, "Everything boils down to hermeneutics". Sounds like a conference on defending the historical-grammatical hermeneutic should be on the menu!
It is on the list of episodes to do one day! Maybe I’ll get to it sooner than later. I do have some other high priorities though. I definitely want to do this idea though!
Thanks for that. Those short interviews, it's a very fresh format 👍. I'm not a professional theologian, but a building Christian believer. It's motivating and encouraging to see questions and issues you had and studied in your daily walk of faith, other believers had also faced, and have been answered by the Lord in the same pattern. Of course, there are some technical words I don't know, but that will be my homework 😇. It would be a lot to add, but I'll end saying thank you again, and blessed be our Lord!
Thank you for the encouragement and sharing about your walk with Christ. Keep growing and loving to learn Gods word! Always good when there is homework involved 😊
Great question. Literalistic should mean, in most scenarios, in line with the human author’s intend. The reason that is such a crucial factor is because the author cannot say something that he did not mean (given the normal human rules of communication). It is what we would expect in any human communication experience. It is most faithful because less creativity is required. It’s just normal.
@@thebiblesojournerIn the spirit of understanding other views accurately: What foundational belief do you derive from the text that would have to change in order for you to change your mind about literalism?
@@jeffbarrett7497 for me it would be wise men are no longer wise men but fools and fools are no longer fools but wise men. From there I could part with literalism. I could part with worrying about whether or not you understand what I am saying. I could say to you, "make what I say mean whatever you want it to mean." The foundational text would be along the lines of these: These texts would have to change... Proverbs 4:7 - "Wisdom is the main thing. Therefore, get wisdom. And whatever else you get, get good sense." Ephesians 5:15 - "Be very careful, then, how you live-not as unwise but as wise." Matthew 7:24 - "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock." they would need to change to Proverbs 4:7 (Opposite) - "Folly is the main thing. Therefore, do not seek wisdom. And whatever else you do, do not seek good sense." Ephesians 5:15 (Opposite) - "Be very careless, then, how you live-not as wise but as unwise." Scripture could then become putty in my hands. I probably misunderstood you, but it was a good thought experiment.
@@TimeToFlushI think you understood me okay. That's basically what I'm asking for, some kind of clear exegesis by which a literalistic hermeneutic is required. To you answer I just say that there is a large gap between those verses on wisdom and a strict adherence to literalism. To me it looks like a gap big enough to fit a whole bunch of your own presumptions. Literalists oddly like to blame others if making the Bible say whatever they want it to say. Your reply is to me an example of keeping the Bible from saying what you don't want it to say. But I do appreciate the reply.
@@TimeToFlushTo give a few answers of my own: The passage from John where Jesus says "tear down this sanctuary and in three days I'll rebuild it." John says if the Jews that they, "did not understand that he was speaking of the temple of his body." Look at how Peter uses the floor story in both of his letters. Look at how Jesus was "the rock" according to Paul in 1 Corinthians. Look at how Hebrews 4 uses texts about literal land to talk about spiritual rest. When Paul quoted the saying, "Christ Jesus died to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost," was he teaching the literal doctrine that he is actually the worst sinner who ever lived, or is he teaching the wisdom that all believers ought to hold such an attitude about themselves? Those and many many more kinds of things would have to change for me to accept a literalistic hermeneutic.
Peter's " yeah, that's helpful" count on this video: about 8😂. Great video, I did not know some of the brothers you interviewed and I look forward to hearing the recordings.
I really enjoyed the conference this year and I loved this episode highlighting the conference. I agree that it would have been helpful to have traditional and progressive dispensationalists, maybe on a panel to discuss their differences. (Perhaps a good podcast for you to do). Always a great time at the conference and can't wait for next year. Love your podcast! Thanks Dr. Goeman.
It is intriguing to note that all interviewees essentially shared similar views, specifically regarding hermeneutics when posed with the elevator question. Thank you for this special episode, Prof.
Hey Dr. Goeman! Don’t know if this is better suited for an email… I’m on staff with a couple Progressive Covenantalists (amill) guys and we are reading through Ezekiel together - so you know that’s been fun! They don’t claim to be full replacement theologians. Do you have any helpful resources on a healthy conversation regarding progressive covenantalism? I just picked up Waymeyer’s Amil book that you recommended - so thank you for that!
I have noticed that those that proclaim this "system" must, for some reason, use insults when teaching. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes overt. Can someone explain how that fits in to this teaching?
Please show me the command in scripture where we must “protect” God’s character. God protects His own character by saying “who are you oh man?” “Protecting” God’s character leads to terrible hermeneutics because you fear the text and refuse to let God’s word say what it says.
Definitely need to be cautious not to approach scripture from the preconceived notion of what protects the character of God. Just let the text say what it says and that will give testimony to the character of God.
Do you have an example of this ever happening? I thought of these verses... Hebrews 11:6 ...he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. Ps 50:23 "He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; And to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God." Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia...a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. There seems to be a particular view of God (a high view) that is needed in order for one to come to Him. This seems right to me, even if I did not consult Scripture to affirm it. Don't you find it amazing that when it came to God revealing His character to man He chose the written word? Don't you find it amazing that when it came to protecting and preserving His character which that revelation revealed, He chose holy men who trembled at His word? There seems to be some circular reasoning going on there that I would not like to interrupt or drop down to my limited understanding. The mention of “terrible hermeneutics” as a result of “protecting God’s character” is a distraction from the real question, which is how we approach and interpret Scripture. The accusation about fearing the text diverts from a genuine discussion about sound hermeneutical principles and shifts the focus to alleged motivations or insecurities of interpreters, which is not relevant to evaluating the validity of their interpretations. Finally, to your question: Please show me the command in scripture where we must “protect” God’s character. The concept of protecting God's character is not explicitly stated in the Bible with a direct command. However, the Bible does encourage believers to honor, reverence, and obey God, which can be interpreted as upholding and reflecting His character in their lives. Here are a few examples: Exodus 20:2-3 - "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." This command emphasizes the need to put God first and not worship or serve other gods, thereby reflecting His uniqueness and supremacy. Matthew 22:37-39 - "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." Loving God with all that we are reflects and honors His character as the ultimate source of love, goodness, and truth. Romans 12:9 - "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good." This verse encourages believers to hate evil and cling to what is good, which can be seen as upholding and reflecting God's character, who is love (1 John 4:8) and hates what is evil (Psalm 45:7). While there isn't a specific command to "protect" God's character, the Bible consistently teaches that believers should live in a way that honors and reflects God's character through their actions, thoughts, and devotion.
Thank you. Yes, I found this episode to be very enjoyable and encouraging. I, like you, are looking forward to reading the presentation of the Active Obedience of Christ. I do hold to it as I hold to Covenant Theology but am a Premillenialist with a belief in a literal fulfillment of the promises of God to the nation of Israel. I did not know, if I understood you correctly, as you shared, that the belief of the Active Obedience of Christ is held by some dispensationalists. Is this the same as holding to a belief in the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ? I have read that some who hold to the Active Obedience of Christ believe it is necessary to understand how Christ in His human nature "qualified " Himself to be the Perfect Sacrifice. These proponents do not believe this Active Obedience is imputed to believers. (I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that Christ had to qualify Himself to be our Perfect Savior. I believe His sufferings and death paid the penalty for believers's sins, and that His Sinless Life of Perfect Obedience is imputed to those believers). I am hoping this paper may address this as well. Thank you again for posting those interviews. God bless you.
Would love that! That’s such a great idea. In fact, I would really like to do something similar at a conference that focuses on covenantalism sometime.
I was just thinking about how I wasn’t aware of any books written on the Trinity by a reputable dispensationalist. And I just heard about the Active Obedience of Christ so Jesse Randolph was checking all the boxes haha I love that what started as an elevator pitch to convince the Covenant theologian of the errors of CT ends up as a “your life depends on this” scenario 😂 I know I appreciate your time and effort putting this all together so thank you for it! I can’t wait to see these sessions!
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed. Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? ======= Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ? (Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30) The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations? 1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:8, 3:16.) 2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ? 3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds? 4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh? 5. Who is replacing the word “remnant” in Romans 9:27, with the word “nation”? 6. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers? 7. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"? 8. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost? 9. Based on Hebrews 12:18-24, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.) 10. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9) Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? 11. Watch the UA-cam video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church. Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology. Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:
“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.” Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107. Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.” Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323. John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated… "...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.” John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.) What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16? (See what Joshua said about the Old Covenant land promise in Josh. 21:43.) Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth? Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups? Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is it fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:18-24? Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church, if the New Covenant is “everlasting” in Hebrews 13:20? (See also 2 Thess. 1:7-10) If the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant “obsolete” in Hebrews 8:6-13, why would God go back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period? Read the recent book "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism", by Daniel G. Hummel.
Brilliant comprehensive comment, Thankyou! What do you think of this doco, "Marching to Zion"? ua-cam.com/video/vrUZ25D9MwQ/v-deo.htmlsi=Oma7KmOu0S_Px_tJ "Marching to Zion" doco. Shows Judaism and the modern State of Israel is not relevant any longer in Gods plan.
I would be more likely to watch your videos if those with other perspectives were not depicted as “not serious about the scriptures”, “do not love the scriptures”, “who wax nose the scriptures”.
Well, if you watch my other videos, I try not to use that kind of language. Alas, I can’t control the phrases used by every individual. But I think that’s probably par for the course on both sides of the aisle eh? Some people are more prone to use disparaging language.
I do not think God ever cancelled any of His covenants. The “New” covenant is a “better” covenant in that it is now written on hearts of flesh, not on stone. It makes a “better” atonement, in that whereas the Old could only atone for UNINTENTIONAL sins, the New can atone for ALL sins. I’m sure you theologically minded folks can write whole books on the “new improved” covenant that fit your theology, but I wouldn’t be able to understand them. The Old Covenant was only made with descendants of Abraham through Isaac AND with any Gentiles who identified with and joined themselves to those descendants (the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt obviously contained more Gentiles than 14:31 blood descendants of Abraham, if you do the obvious math.) The New was extended to ALL who would love God and keep His commandments (Rev. 14:12). (The Catholic Church and many of their Protestant daughters say you must break the commandments to prove you love God- they actually put people to death in times past for obeying the commandments.) So I wouldn’t say the Old was cancelled, I would say that it was Renewed with many amazing improvements added. I have no idea whether my take on all that makes me Reformed, Deformed or Conformed. I have been asked over the years which camp I’m in. My answer has always been that I think I’m in both camps. Both have things I agree with, both have things I disagree with. When in doubt, I always refer to my Bible. It adds a lot of clarity.
Haha, I love the Reformed, Deformed, or Conformed comment! Love your attitude and the way you desire to get the Scriptures right! May your tribe increase.
If you build a teaching on man, the early church fathers, what have you built? Rom 4:3 says count every man a liar only God true. Also if scripturally the majority has always been wrong should we trust man just because there might be more of them that believe a certain way? Lastly if there is no inspired writers nor inspired interpreters, then again what have you got building a teaching on what other uninspired men believed. With that said, for 1,500 years they were only Catholic, and Protestants today have over 30,000 different denominations. Because no one is inspired after the NT writers, again what have you built if you build a doctrine off of man. We can go at something from the side of weakness or from the side of strength. Scripture alone hermeneutically shows strength and clinging to men is the weakest stance we can make according to the Word. Notice the fulfilled camp always uses only scripture with hermeneutics and an open invitation to join in their discussions.
0:43 “God made promises and then chose not to keep those promises”. Covenant theology does not teach that! That is a straw man that dispensationalists continue to use. “43 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there.44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.” Josh 21:43-45 “21 You brought your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, with a strong hand and outstretched arm, and with great terror. 22 And you gave them this land, which you swore to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey. 23 And they entered and took possession of it. But they did not obey your voice or walk in your law. They did nothing of all you commanded them to do. Therefore you have made all this disaster come upon them.” Jer 32:21-23 “20 Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. They ate and drank and were happy. 21 Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.“ 1 Kings 4:20-21 56 “Blessed be the Lord who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant.” 1 Kings 8:56 8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.” Nehemiah 9:8 42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham, his servant. 43 So he brought his people out with joy, his chosen ones with singing. 44 And he gave them the lands of the nations, and they took possession of the fruit of the peoples’ toil, 45 that they might keep his statutes and observe his laws. Praise the LORD!” Psalm 105:42-45 19 And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance.” Acts 13:19 “ 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm, “‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’ Acts 13:32-33
I hold to covenant theology, but in all fairness , most who hold to CT believe that the promises given to the nation of Israel are fulfilled in Christ and transferred to His church. I understood the statement in the interview to be conveying this message. I could be wrong about the speaker's meaning. I also hold to a literal fulfillment to the nation of Israel of those promises.
@@jburghau dispensationalists believe that the land promises in the Abrahamic covenant have not yet been fulfilled. They claim it will be fulfilled in the future, which is the purpose of the “millennial kingdom”.
Jesus answered them, "Destroy this sanctuary, and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews then said, "It took forty-six years to build this sanctuary, and will you raise it up in three days?" But he was speaking about the sanctuary of his body.
The Pharisees had a "slavish commitment to literal hermeneutics."
Nobody is immune to the distortion of reading the Bible through their own biases. If you said, "we are biased," you would have no guilt. But since you said, "we have no bias," your guilt remains.
I've been in the Kingdom of God for 52 years now.
Colossians 1:12-13 MEV
*_giving thanks to the Father,_* who has enabled us to be partakers in the inheritance of the saints in light.
[13] He has delivered us from the power of darkness and *_has transferred us into the kingdom of His dear Son,_*
Amen! May more and more be added to the kingdom!
Very well said - "the battleground is in hermeneutics". As Corey Marsh said, "Everything boils down to hermeneutics". Sounds like a conference on defending the historical-grammatical hermeneutic should be on the menu!
Now that’s a great idea!
How about an episode contrasting classic dispensationalism and progressive dispensationalism.
It is on the list of episodes to do one day! Maybe I’ll get to it sooner than later. I do have some other high priorities though. I definitely want to do this idea though!
Thanks for that. Those short interviews, it's a very fresh format 👍. I'm not a professional theologian, but a building Christian believer. It's motivating and encouraging to see questions and issues you had and studied in your daily walk of faith, other believers had also faced, and have been answered by the Lord in the same pattern. Of course, there are some technical words I don't know, but that will be my homework 😇. It would be a lot to add, but I'll end saying thank you again, and blessed be our Lord!
Thank you for the encouragement and sharing about your walk with Christ. Keep growing and loving to learn Gods word! Always good when there is homework involved 😊
I hold to covenant theology and confused as to why “literalistic” is always the most faithful interpretation.
Great question. Literalistic should mean, in most scenarios, in line with the human author’s intend. The reason that is such a crucial factor is because the author cannot say something that he did not mean (given the normal human rules of communication). It is what we would expect in any human communication experience. It is most faithful because less creativity is required. It’s just normal.
@@thebiblesojournerIn the spirit of understanding other views accurately: What foundational belief do you derive from the text that would have to change in order for you to change your mind about literalism?
@@jeffbarrett7497 for me it would be wise men are no longer wise men but fools and fools are no longer fools but wise men. From there I could part with literalism. I could part with worrying about whether or not you understand what I am saying. I could say to you, "make what I say mean whatever you want it to mean."
The foundational text would be along the lines of these: These texts would have to change...
Proverbs 4:7 - "Wisdom is the main thing. Therefore, get wisdom. And whatever else you get, get good sense."
Ephesians 5:15 - "Be very careful, then, how you live-not as unwise but as wise."
Matthew 7:24 - "Therefore, everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock."
they would need to change to
Proverbs 4:7 (Opposite) - "Folly is the main thing. Therefore, do not seek wisdom. And whatever else you do, do not seek good sense."
Ephesians 5:15 (Opposite) - "Be very careless, then, how you live-not as wise but as unwise."
Scripture could then become putty in my hands.
I probably misunderstood you, but it was a good thought experiment.
@@TimeToFlushI think you understood me okay. That's basically what I'm asking for, some kind of clear exegesis by which a literalistic hermeneutic is required.
To you answer I just say that there is a large gap between those verses on wisdom and a strict adherence to literalism. To me it looks like a gap big enough to fit a whole bunch of your own presumptions.
Literalists oddly like to blame others if making the Bible say whatever they want it to say. Your reply is to me an example of keeping the Bible from saying what you don't want it to say.
But I do appreciate the reply.
@@TimeToFlushTo give a few answers of my own:
The passage from John where Jesus says "tear down this sanctuary and in three days I'll rebuild it." John says if the Jews that they, "did not understand that he was speaking of the temple of his body."
Look at how Peter uses the floor story in both of his letters.
Look at how Jesus was "the rock" according to Paul in 1 Corinthians.
Look at how Hebrews 4 uses texts about literal land to talk about spiritual rest.
When Paul quoted the saying, "Christ Jesus died to save sinners, among whom I am the foremost," was he teaching the literal doctrine that he is actually the worst sinner who ever lived, or is he teaching the wisdom that all believers ought to hold such an attitude about themselves?
Those and many many more kinds of things would have to change for me to accept a literalistic hermeneutic.
Please put a link on your UA-cam channel when the conference sessions are available!
I definitely will!
Peter's " yeah, that's helpful" count on this video: about 8😂. Great video, I did not know some of the brothers you interviewed and I look forward to hearing the recordings.
Glad you enjoyed it! There were some people at the conference I was not familiar with myself so it was great making some new friends.
I really enjoyed the conference this year and I loved this episode highlighting the conference. I agree that it would have been helpful to have traditional and progressive dispensationalists, maybe on a panel to discuss their differences. (Perhaps a good podcast for you to do). Always a great time at the conference and can't wait for next year. Love your podcast! Thanks Dr. Goeman.
You are a blessing and an encouragement, Chris. Blessings to you!
It is intriguing to note that all interviewees essentially shared similar views, specifically regarding hermeneutics when posed with the elevator question. Thank you for this special episode, Prof.
That is a good observation. It is remarkable connection between those who presented.
Hey Dr. Goeman! Don’t know if this is better suited for an email…
I’m on staff with a couple Progressive Covenantalists (amill) guys and we are reading through Ezekiel together - so you know that’s been fun! They don’t claim to be full replacement theologians. Do you have any helpful resources on a healthy conversation regarding progressive covenantalism? I just picked up Waymeyer’s Amil book that you recommended - so thank you for that!
Why is it that Dispensationalists so thoroughly misrepresent others' theology?
I don’t think it’s a unique problem to dispensationalism 🤣
@thebiblesojourner I never claimed it was. However, Baptists and Roman Catholics seem most apt to misrepresenting others' theology.
I have noticed that those that proclaim this "system" must, for some reason, use insults when teaching. Sometimes it is subtle and sometimes overt. Can someone explain how that fits in to this teaching?
Excellent!
Thanks my friend!
Please show me the command in scripture where we must “protect” God’s character.
God protects His own character by saying “who are you oh man?”
“Protecting” God’s character leads to terrible hermeneutics because you fear the text and refuse to let God’s word say what it says.
Definitely need to be cautious not to approach scripture from the preconceived notion of what protects the character of God. Just let the text say what it says and that will give testimony to the character of God.
Do you have an example of this ever happening? I thought of these verses...
Hebrews 11:6 ...he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.
Ps 50:23 "He who offers a sacrifice of thanksgiving honors Me; And to him who orders his way aright I shall show the salvation of God."
Acts 16:14 A woman named Lydia...a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul.
There seems to be a particular view of God (a high view) that is needed in order for one to come to Him. This seems right to me, even if I did not consult Scripture to affirm it. Don't you find it amazing that when it came to God revealing His character to man He chose the written word? Don't you find it amazing that when it came to protecting and preserving His character which that revelation revealed, He chose holy men who trembled at His word? There seems to be some circular reasoning going on there that I would not like to interrupt or drop down to my limited understanding.
The mention of “terrible hermeneutics” as a result of “protecting God’s character” is a distraction from the real question, which is how we approach and interpret Scripture. The accusation about fearing the text diverts from a genuine discussion about sound hermeneutical principles and shifts the focus to alleged motivations or insecurities of interpreters, which is not relevant to evaluating the validity of their interpretations.
Finally, to your question: Please show me the command in scripture where we must “protect” God’s character.
The concept of protecting God's character is not explicitly stated in the Bible with a direct command. However, the Bible does encourage believers to honor, reverence, and obey God, which can be interpreted as upholding and reflecting His character in their lives. Here are a few examples:
Exodus 20:2-3 - "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me."
This command emphasizes the need to put God first and not worship or serve other gods, thereby reflecting His uniqueness and supremacy.
Matthew 22:37-39 - "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment."
Loving God with all that we are reflects and honors His character as the ultimate source of love, goodness, and truth.
Romans 12:9 - "Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good."
This verse encourages believers to hate evil and cling to what is good, which can be seen as upholding and reflecting God's character, who is love (1 John 4:8) and hates what is evil (Psalm 45:7).
While there isn't a specific command to "protect" God's character, the Bible consistently teaches that believers should live in a way that honors and reflects God's character through their actions, thoughts, and devotion.
Is Irwin Lutzer in the Traditional camp or Progressive camp?
That’s a good question. I’m not sure. I think he would likely be more traditional given his association with Moody.
Thank you. Yes, I found this episode to be very enjoyable and encouraging.
I, like you, are looking forward to reading the presentation of the Active Obedience of Christ.
I do hold to it as I hold to Covenant Theology but am a Premillenialist with a belief in a literal fulfillment of the promises of God to the nation of Israel.
I did not know, if I understood you correctly, as you shared, that the belief of the Active Obedience of Christ is held by some dispensationalists. Is this the same as holding to a belief in the Imputation of the Active Obedience of Christ? I have read that some who hold to the Active Obedience of Christ believe it is necessary to understand how Christ in His human nature "qualified " Himself to be the Perfect Sacrifice. These proponents do not believe this Active Obedience is imputed to believers. (I do not believe that the Scriptures teach that Christ had to qualify Himself to be our Perfect Savior. I believe His sufferings and death paid the penalty for believers's sins, and that His Sinless Life of Perfect Obedience is imputed to those believers).
I am hoping this paper may address this as well.
Thank you again for posting those interviews.
God bless you.
In the interest of fairness and balance you should ask the Covenanter the same elevator question.
Would love that! That’s such a great idea. In fact, I would really like to do something similar at a conference that focuses on covenantalism sometime.
I was just thinking about how I wasn’t aware of any books written on the Trinity by a reputable dispensationalist.
And I just heard about the Active Obedience of Christ so Jesse Randolph was checking all the boxes haha
I love that what started as an elevator pitch to convince the Covenant theologian of the errors of CT ends up as a “your life depends on this” scenario 😂
I know I appreciate your time and effort putting this all together so thank you for it! I can’t wait to see these sessions!
One could say the elevator pitch “escalated” quickly… *runs for cover*
Gen 12:3 And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
Gal 3:8 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
If the New Covenant is "everlasting" in Hebrews 13:20 and the Old Covenant is "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, why would any Christian believe God is going back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
=======
Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?
(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)
The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?
1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:8, 3:16.)
2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?
3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?
4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?
5. Who is replacing the word “remnant” in Romans 9:27, with the word “nation”?
6. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?
7. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?
8. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?
9. Based on Hebrews 12:18-24, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)
10. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9) Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
11. Watch the UA-cam video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.
Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:
“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.
Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.
John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…
"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”
John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)
What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?
(See what Joshua said about the Old Covenant land promise in Josh. 21:43.)
Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?
Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?
Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is it fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:18-24?
Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church, if the New Covenant is “everlasting” in Hebrews 13:20? (See also 2 Thess. 1:7-10) If the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant “obsolete” in Hebrews 8:6-13, why would God go back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
Read the recent book "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism", by Daniel G. Hummel.
Is this just a ready to go word doc on your computer 🤣? I have read Hummels book and enjoyed it.
Brilliant comprehensive comment, Thankyou!
What do you think of this doco, "Marching to Zion"?
ua-cam.com/video/vrUZ25D9MwQ/v-deo.htmlsi=Oma7KmOu0S_Px_tJ
"Marching to Zion" doco. Shows Judaism and the modern State of Israel is not relevant any longer in Gods plan.
I would be more likely to watch your videos if those with other perspectives were not depicted as “not serious about the scriptures”, “do not love the scriptures”, “who wax nose the scriptures”.
To add another “their house of cards collapses”.
Well, if you watch my other videos, I try not to use that kind of language. Alas, I can’t control the phrases used by every individual. But I think that’s probably par for the course on both sides of the aisle eh? Some people are more prone to use disparaging language.
@@thebiblesojourner That is good to hear. I am sure I have been guilty as well.
I do not think God ever cancelled any of His covenants. The “New” covenant is a “better” covenant in that it is now written on hearts of flesh, not on stone. It makes a “better” atonement, in that whereas the Old could only atone for UNINTENTIONAL sins, the New can atone for ALL sins. I’m sure you theologically minded folks can write whole books on the “new improved” covenant that fit your theology, but I wouldn’t be able to understand them.
The Old Covenant was only made with descendants of Abraham through Isaac AND with any Gentiles who identified with and joined themselves to those descendants (the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt obviously contained more Gentiles than 14:31 blood descendants of Abraham, if you do the obvious math.) The New was extended to ALL who would love God and keep His commandments (Rev. 14:12). (The Catholic Church and many of their Protestant daughters say you must break the commandments to prove you love God- they actually put people to death in times past for obeying the commandments.) So I wouldn’t say the Old was cancelled, I would say that it was Renewed with many amazing improvements added.
I have no idea whether my take on all that makes me Reformed, Deformed or Conformed. I have been asked over the years which camp I’m in. My answer has always been that I think I’m in both camps. Both have things I agree with, both have things I disagree with. When in doubt, I always refer to my Bible. It adds a lot of clarity.
Haha, I love the Reformed, Deformed, or Conformed comment! Love your attitude and the way you desire to get the Scriptures right! May your tribe increase.
When you understand the Mysteries in the NT, you have all the evidence to prove Dispensationalisn to be the correct of Eschatology.
Rom. 1625-26.
If you build a teaching on man, the early church fathers, what have you built? Rom 4:3 says count every man a liar only God true. Also if scripturally the majority has always been wrong should we trust man just because there might be more of them that believe a certain way?
Lastly if there is no inspired writers nor inspired interpreters, then again what have you got building a teaching on what other uninspired men believed. With that said, for 1,500 years they were only Catholic, and Protestants today have over 30,000 different denominations. Because no one is inspired after the NT writers, again what have you built if you build a doctrine off of man.
We can go at something from the side of weakness or from the side of strength. Scripture alone hermeneutically shows strength and clinging to men is the weakest stance we can make according to the Word.
Notice the fulfilled camp always uses only scripture with hermeneutics and an open invitation to join in their discussions.
0:43 “God made promises and then chose not to keep those promises”. Covenant theology does not teach that! That is a straw man that dispensationalists continue to use.
“43 Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. And they took possession of it, and they settled there.44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass.”
Josh 21:43-45
“21 You brought your people Israel out of the land of Egypt with signs and wonders, with a strong hand and outstretched arm, and with great terror. 22 And you gave them this land, which you swore to their fathers to give them, a land flowing with milk and honey. 23 And they entered and took possession of it. But they did not obey your voice or walk in your law. They did nothing of all you commanded them to do. Therefore you have made all this disaster come upon them.”
Jer 32:21-23
“20 Judah and Israel were as many as the sand by the sea. They ate and drank and were happy. 21 Solomon ruled over all the kingdoms from the Euphrates to the land of the Philistines and to the border of Egypt. They brought tribute and served Solomon all the days of his life.“
1 Kings 4:20-21
56 “Blessed be the Lord who has given rest to his people Israel, according to all that he promised. Not one word has failed of all his good promise, which he spoke by Moses his servant.”
1 Kings 8:56
8 You found his heart faithful before you, and made with him the covenant to give to his offspring the land of the Canaanite, the Hittite, the Amorite, the Perizzite, the Jebusite, and the Girgashite. And you have kept your promise, for you are righteous.”
Nehemiah 9:8
42 For he remembered his holy promise, and Abraham, his servant. 43 So he brought his people out with joy, his chosen ones with singing. 44 And he gave them the lands of the nations, and they took possession of the fruit of the peoples’ toil, 45 that they might keep his statutes and observe his laws. Praise the LORD!”
Psalm 105:42-45
19 And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance.”
Acts 13:19
“ 32 And we bring you the good news that what God promised to the fathers, 33 this he has fulfilled to us their children by raising Jesus, as also it is written in the second Psalm,
“‘You are my Son, today I have begotten you.’
Acts 13:32-33
Thank you for proving the video correct.
@@theocratickingdom30 explain please
I hold to covenant theology, but in all fairness , most who hold to CT believe that the promises given to the nation of Israel are fulfilled in Christ and transferred to His church.
I understood the statement in the interview to be conveying this message. I could be wrong about the speaker's meaning.
I also hold to a literal fulfillment to the nation of Israel of those promises.
@@jburghau dispensationalists believe that the land promises in the Abrahamic covenant have not yet been fulfilled. They claim it will be fulfilled in the future, which is the purpose of the “millennial kingdom”.
@@jburghauHave you seen the doco "Marching to Zion"?