Very well done. The comments from everyone are thought-out and expressed well, but even more striking to me is the kindness and grace which every one displayed while responding. I had watched this video for a few minutes, then I went back and watched the entire interview with Dr. Hummel before returning to this one. To be honest, some of the comments - and especially the attitude from Dr. Mohler - ruffled my feathers more than once. However, when I came back here to finish watching, everyone's attitudes while addressing the interview with Dr. Hummel was the gentle but firm reprimand I needed to adjust my own attitude. Thank you, Dr. Weaver!
Thank you for the kind words @karenjames2910. We are pleased that you found it to be a clear, appropriate, and kind response. I must confess, many of us had the same response you did, and we too had to work through our initial frustration and make sure we did not respond in kind.
Thanks, Ya'll. I really appreciate your input on dispensationalism. I am, by the way, one of the older dispensationalists at 69 years old. Maranatha Ya'll!
These scholars do a great job sifting through the rhetoric from Hummel and Mohler that proves to have no evidence behind it. Very professional critique, gentlemen. Blessings.
Watch the UA-cam video titled "Genesis of Dispensational Theology", if you want to see the original source of the doctrine in black and white. It came from Edward Irving's English translation of the book "Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty", written by a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest named Manuel Lacunza. Irving taught the doctrine at the Albury Prophetic Conferences starting about 1826. John Nelson Darby taught the doctrine at the Powerscourt Prophetic Conferences a few years later. After Irving died in 1834 Darby became the chief salesman of the doctrine and brought it to the U.S. about the time of the Civil War.
Brilliant ❤ thank you for bringing together such a glittering array of distinguished dispensational protagonists. Believe me it is a real blessing to have such clear and concise analysis of such clumsy sloppy works of disparity against dispensationalism. A 54 year old surviving Brethren boy here in the UK grateful to have been raised with such blessed truths so many are unwittingly ignorant of. Please keepnio the good work more more more ❤🙏💪
Please be so kind as to tell me what they actually said ,which would leave an impartial person convinced of ther view? They said absolutely nothing of any substance?
Dr Hummel actually said in his book that Darby was quite the theologian. I don’t know if anyone cares to do a deeper dive into his assertions before the critiques. Maybe somebody could read his book! He had an interview on the podcast, eschatology matters, and he was on with a guy who was dispensational and they had a very gracious exchange. Nobody was attacking either one. They were very scholarly and fair with each other. Wouldn’t it be awesome if we could have a conversation with those we disagree with in a gracious manner.
Hello @jillbaxter9513. I (Paul Weaver) have read Daniel Hummel's book twice. I have listened to about 6 podcast interviews he has been on (including the one you reference), and I also have been on a podcast with him (see link below). So, I think I have a good understanding of what he is saying and the way he is saying it. Additionally, the interview you are commenting on here is more about the disparaging comments of Albert Mohler, than the contents of the book itself. It seems that Al Mohler took Daniel's book further than Daniel intended. I am not sure if you watch the video or not. I would encourage you to do so. ua-cam.com/video/1v5cfTTWcf0/v-deo.html&ab_channel=DallasTheologicalSeminary
What an incredible discussion! I find it fascinating that Dispensationalism flourished in the churches without the need to be taught in an academic setting. I appreciate the editing the video together to make it more succinct.
Thanks @JohnDHernandez for the kind words! We are pleased that you found this conversation helpful. I agree with you, it is fascinating that people trained to not be dispensationalists in their seminary training (Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, W.A. Criswell) would all independently come a dispensational perspective.
Dispensationalism thrived because there was never challenge to it. In circles such as the one I was raised in there were never any opposing views expressed because to express an opposing view to views such as a pre trib rapture or the church as Israel even to this day will be dismissed and accused as a false teacher or heretic. They have so married these secondary views to Salvation that no one dares to challenge them. It is not that it has thrived it is that all opposition is silenced through intimidation, maybe not intentional but still damaging to spiritual development. Most people raised under dispensationalism don't even realize they have been taught the bible through a filter or that there are other views. If they are aware they don't bother to learn about them because it is impressed upon them that they are all heresy. Let me guess there are no opposing views on this panel. I actually thought they were far too gracious to dispensationalists in the Al Mohler podcast.
S. Louis Johnson, an esteemed professor at DTS, was a friend and preached at my home assembly in Toronto many times both on Calvinism and dispensational truth.
Dr. Weaver, thank you for the thoughtful, helpful, and clarifying responses to Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel. From my humble vantage point, you and your panel accomplished at least two things in an exemplary fashion. First, you established the contemporary vitality of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has not died, nor is dispensationalism on death's doorstep. Indeed, it appears that it has only continued to grow in popularity within the past fifty years. I attend a pastor's fellowship in northern Maine, and we all hold a dispensationalist system. Admittedly, we are not a large group, but that has more to do with our geographical location (isolation?) rather than a perceived waning in the popularity of dispensationalism. Second, I believe you and your panel provided an excellent example of what it looks like to hold, and humbly defend theologically different systems while intentionally maintaining the loving and respectful unity of the body of Christ.
Hello @michaelwinningham6166, thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. We are pleased that you found this video both truthful and respectful. I (Paul Weaver) lived up in Schroon Lake, NY for 5 years, and sadly never made it up to Maine. I regret that! I am sure it is a beautiful countryside.
Thank You all for this video response. The anti dispensationalists have been adept at propagating their views on social mddia and You tube so many young people are being duped by these hatchet job critiques and think now that dispensationalism is a dangerous thing. They need a lot more content like this to balance things out. Please keep it up.
@steveluibrand7174 thank you for your kind words in regards to our presentation. We do want to share what we believe to be the best understanding of Scripture, and as you indicate, these aren't trivial matters, and dispensationalism is not a "heresy" to be shunned. Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (and everything in between) does impact how you understand the whole grand narrative of Scripture and interpret so many passages of Scripture. And, we do need able defenders, even, and especially when individuals try to minimize and disparage our views.
Dispensationalism is a dangerous thing.!!!! Ask the the Jews and everybody else living in Israel at the present time if they feel good about 2/3s of them perishing in an Armageddon kind of war!!!!! Dispensationalism demands the Jews go thru the wrath of God in our future!!!!! Only problem!!!!! Matt.24 is over!!!! Never gonna happen again Matt.24:21!!!!!! The futurists have been chucking O.T. and 1st century events out into our future for almost 200 years. Thought you otta know!!!!!!
What would you suggest these people are doing? Take a look at Matthew 24:36-41 and tell us that is the days of Noah who remained and who was taken. it is obvious in the days of Noah that it was the unrighteous who was taken. How does that fit with what dispensationalists teach about rapture theology?
Hello @@geraldpolmateer3255. I (Paul Weaver) teach a course on the Gospels and I treat Matthew 24-25 in depth. You are right, this passage is not a reference to the rapture. Anyone who says it is, I think, is mistaken. This passage is a reference to the second advent of Christ. The wicked are taken to judgment, and the righteous remain to enter the kingdom. This is in contrast to the rapture passages like 1 Thess. 4:13-18 and John 14:1-6, which indicate the righteous are taken and the wicked are left behind. The inability to combine these passages with Matt. 24 (among others) is one of the reasons that we see a distinction between these two events (rapture vs. 2nd advent). If you are interested in learning more you can watch our 2 part series on the rapture - ua-cam.com/video/TLPwPZHXkns/v-deo.html&ab_channel=BibleandTheologyMatters
Teaching stories as the Bible does helps to prevent complex theological systems because they are stories and stories are remembered by oral learners. Biblical theology helps to prevent the errors that can occur in systematic theology.
@@RNLWW That’s the opposite of my experience. I found conflict and contradiction everywhere until I finally stumbled upon dispensationalism just four or five years ago. What conflicts have you identified in dispensationalism?
@@christopherlees1134 Sorry for the confusion. I agree that disp made everything make much more sense. It was the teachings from pastors whom I believe held to the Acts 2 position that didn’t make sense to me. They said they were dispensationalists, but still applied the Hebrew Scriptures to us, for example. They really didn’t preach too differently from the covenant theologians.
@@RNLWW Well said, and I agree with that 100%. I have a friend, a pastor, who is Acts 2 and I can't get him to see it any other way, yet he is a proud dispensationalist. I am Acts 9 or Mid-Acts. I think Paul was the first in the Body of Christ. He was given the Mystery of the Fellowship to preach to the Gentiles, for sure. Acts 2 guys point to Cornielius and say he was the first Gentile saved into the Church, but I think he was saved into the Kingdom Church.
@@christopherlees1134 Yes, I agree with you. If you look at what Peter told Cornelius, he told him to “work righteousness.” That is not our gospel. He did not mention salvation by grace through faith alone. I don’t see our gospel annotated in Acts until Acts 13:38-39. Among the mid-Acts folks, I still find they try to force square things into round holes, like forcing Paul’s law and Jewish statements onto the body of Christ. He has a lot of Jewish stuff in there because many in his audience were Jewish (as we learn in Acts). Makes sense that there was a period of overlap when the national kingdom gospel was going to the Jews while also the individual gospel of grace was going to all. I think the kingdom offer existed from Pentecost until AD70, a diminishing of Israel (Rom 11) as opposed to a sharp cut off. That would account for a lot of things Paul wrote. Dr. White in his verse-by-verse studies has some very good points about rightly dividing Paul. 💡
I leaf dispensationalism for it is contrary to what the Bible teaches. For example, as what I heard from many pastors that we are now in the dispensation of grace, but when I come in Romans 4 where Paul says that Abraham and David were justified through faith is not the same as what dispensationalist pastors and theologians have claimed. So this means to me that there is no such thing as we are now in the "dispensation of grace." According to Paul in Romans 4, Abraham and David were saved by grace long long time ago.
James 2 clarifies. Neither were “saved” like we are saved. They were not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. They were not sealed until the day of judgment. They were not born again or regenerate. They were not granted the remission of sins. Their salvation was not like ours. And because we see that difference, we identify a different dispensation than we now experience. All people for all time were offered and some received grace. But ours, today, is by faith alone and no mixture of works, which you cannot say is true of Abraham or David.
You mean that thier salvation was not by grace? If so they were saved by work? And that's not biblical, for nothing in the Bible that fallen man was saved by work. Read Hebrews 3:7- 6:4 that the Holy Spirit was at work for the salvation of those who come to faith from the time of exodus untill now. So there is no such thing as we are now in the dispensation of grace. Saving grace through Jesus Christ was offered beginning at the fall of man in the garden (see Gen. 3:15), until this time and the time to come.
@@scott-teaches-bible James 2 does not speak that Abraham was counted righteous before God for what he had done, for Gen. 15:1-6 comes first before Gen. 22. So to James he is simply telling us that saving faith must do good works as proof of it, this means good works are the fruits of God's saving grace. Daniel Wallace rightly says on James 2, "Salvation is by faith alone, but faith alone is not alone". Therefore James 2 is not a valid proof that the salvation of the Old Testament believers were not the same as ours today.
Thanks for doing this. I got so ticked off watching that Mohler show, for exactly the points you're bringing up, that I couldn't finish watching it. It's nice to know that the stuff said in that interview is not just going to slip by without any rebuttal. Thanks.
Thanks for the kind feedback. I know that this interview got the blood boiling of a lot of people, for good reason, ours included - which, in our opinions, warranted a rebuttal.
I am happy to come across this conversation. It allows me to think I may not be so stupid after all. Perhaps many of my teachers were not all false teachers afterall.
@1995dodgetruck you are not stupid, and anyone who makes you feel that way, is not a person under whom you want to study the Word. We need to read Scripture using the natural laws of communication that God created. God has chosen to reveal Himself to us, and has chosen to do so in an understandable way.
....I sat under a pastor for several years who was promoted as the ducks nuts preacher in our church network. On the surface he spoke really well, articulate, intelligent and well read. But us more mature believers could see some serious problems with his theology. I get the impression that he filtered the text through the lens of people like NT Wright, Francis Collins and he promoted The Bible Project. In the end no matter how learned someone is, their qualifications and success is not the bench mark of the standard of truth and Wright, Collins and The Bible Project has too many red flags.
Hello men. I have a great amount of respect for your work in the gospel. Please arrange a debate between the most accomplished of dispensationalists with the covenant theologians. It would be worth it.
This video was probably the best I have seen on this subject so far. I'm now 69 years old, and I have been a believer and a dispensationalist since I was 16. I'm still somewhat surprised to see that most of the anti-dispensationalists claim we believe things which we don't! An earlier comment poster here stated that we believe the method of salvation is different for each dispensation. That is not true. The Anti-D's keep bringing up the poorly worded and not properly edited Old Scofield note at John 1:17. Yes, that note is a mistake and contradicts other known writings of C. I. Scofield. They also do not acknowledge that most of the early American dispensationalists came from a Reformed (Presbyterian) background! I am a fan of the teaching ministry of the late S. Lewis Johnson, his writings and lectures can be downloaded in PDF form. He has a great lecture on Dispensational teaching and even refers to himself as a "light" dispensationalist.
I come from a background of dispensationalism and looking back and to the present it is very typical of D's to misrepresent covenant theologians, and all opposing views too.
@gregb6469 I noticed you deleted your previous comment. In that post you deleted, you wrote, "If dispensationalism is true, why did no one notice it was in Scripture until the mid-1800s?" I responded, "@gregb6469 thank you for your question. If you genuinely want the answer, you can listen to the video from 8:24-12:48." If you are serious about your questions, please watch the video and interact with the substance of it. Thanks!
A more edifying discussion would have been a representative from both sides of the question respectfully discussing the topic. This seems more like 9 guys piling on someone who is not there to defend their position, and the reasons for it.
We were responding to the falsehoods and mischaracterizations that were made. Anyone can review Mohler and Hummel's comments, and ours (as they are included in the video), and determine which is accurate.
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you expect non-dispensationalists to defend dispensationalism? I would not expect a panel defending Covenant Theology to have dispensationalists among them.
I am a dispensationalist who attends a PCA church which espouses covenant theology. The question I always ask is 'what difference does it make' in terms of my walk with Christ? I am not persuaded that it does make a difference. Am I wrong?
@solideomusical As to what difference acceptance of dispensationalism should make in terms of the Christian life, I request that you consider both the analogies in Romans 7:1-6 and Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:1-7 and 4:21 and 5:1-6. My basic concept here is that Paul is using two socially understood experiences as analogous to a dispensational change which God effected IN THE LIVES of saints, through the effects possible only through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Both of these analogies depend on recognition of a basic change made available only after the resurrection of Jesus. In Romans 7 , applied, we have previous marriage to Jesus under law, but then after His death the wife (saints,corporately) married another "to Him Who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God". The problem is still believing that we are still married to Christ under law. If we hold to a theological system which ignores or denies such change then we might not be fully fruitful unto God. The Galatians analogy borrows from a Greek upper class custom which you might read toward the end of Plato's Lysis (a Socratic dialogue)( A long and boring read.). The custom involves a teenage boy from a very rich family, of ruling class potential. The boy is in line to be very rich and powerful. But, according to custom, he now has control of nothing. He is not even allowed to drive his father's chariot or choose horses to ride. He admits that he would even be limited in the kitchen. Instead he is SUBSERVIENT to household slaves appointed to teach him and oversee every detail of his life. That's how Plato wrote it. Paul takes this as the service to God of saints under law. Galatians 3:23 But before the faith came ( the gospel-after Christ's resurrection) we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster (paidagogos. same word used by Plato) unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that the faith (the gospel) is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 4:1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child (the underage boy) differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; (this refers to the inheritance that the boy is sure to have when he comes of age). 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father. The next verses show a very crucial change, from being true children of God to being SONS. The time appointed was the death burial and resurrection . So as the Greek boy was truly the son already, by birth, he was NOT RECOGNIZED AS SON. The rubber meets the road practically in Gal. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be no entangled again with the yoke of bondage. The Greek boy, at maturity now rules his former paidagogos. He dare not answer any more to them. You need to seriously read these Romans and Galatians texts. You will need to read them many times until it becomes clear. I needed to study these texts for months. The urgent lesson is that we each must answer to Jesus personally. I must answer for myself, with no dispensationalists to fall back on. You also, alone. No excuses. I don't care what other dispensationalists say or teach or believe. I study the Bible. Trying to get better at Greek (at 76 in three weeks). Please consider Romans 7:4 that we might bring forth fruit unto God. Jesus will inventory our fruit unto God. But Paul here emphasizes that fruit depends on living in conscious acknowledgement to this dispensational change, as explained by these two analogies. I could go on, but you need to study. I don't tailor my understanding to what these guys say. I will answer to my Lord according to what the Bible says. Back at Phila. College of Bible in '73 I hated Dispensationalism. I set out to prove my prof. to be wrong. After months of intense study.....oops! What I have written seems weird. But look for someone else who understands these texts as well. Keep your nose in the Bible.
Dispensationalism has been revised twice since Clarence Larkin. Why? Imagine the oral learners of the early church trying to memorize Darbyism. Imagine how many in Hebrews 11 could tell the stories of those mentioned "by faith . . ." Yet, the early church knew the stories. What happened? Jesus referred to people like Daniel, Noah, and others. How many in churches today would know what Jesus was talking about. It would be nice if dispensationalists would use a literal approach to the 24:36-41. They need to notice who was left and who was taken in the days of Noah.
The contributors never indicated it was "established" by Martin Luther. Maybe "reclaimed" or "rediscovered." But all contributors would believe that Justification by Faith was clearly taught in Ephesians and elsewhere.
Rom10:19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says: “I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation, I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.” Rom 11: 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? :23 for God is able to graft them (the nation) in again. Acts 15: 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, [a]acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had [c]become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written: 16 ‘After this I will return And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down; Roms 11: 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own [f]opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
I expect some push back but that's OK. Not only is dispensationalism new, it's evolved, and changed since Darby first introduced it. A simply reading of those supporting it over the last 200 years makes this point obvious. I won't go over the specifics scripturally those problems, but I will say that a main point is that D says the Bible must be read literally at all times, except when there are obvious problems and then D says it must be read metaphorically. This book didn't cause me to reject D. I did that a long time ago when it simply didn't line up with what the Bible says plainly. Perhaps you have a point about ad homonym attacks. I would call it church history of the men who preached D, but you are free to call it personal. Noteworthy is Scofield who was indeed a genuine scoundrel which even D experts can't deny. A secondary reason, which you did address was D's complexity. As far as I know only the Catholic Catechism is more complicated. I hope I didn't hurt anybody's feelings. I would have said the same thing to a string theorist, many who have dedicated their whole life to that flawed theory. I'm sure many of the scholars on your panel have held their position for a lifetime and I don't expect them to change, anymore than I would expect the Catholic clergy to change their position. IMHO
Unfortunately, you have given a very bad mischaracterized, and caricatured view of Dispensationalism. I won't take the time to respond to your points because they have been responded to many times, in many books by dispensationalists. It is essential to accurately and carefully understand and describe the views of those we disagree with and especially those we critique.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I think you proved my point for me. You are putting the burden on me to dig through your archives and read D books so I can convince myself that you are right. The conclusions of dispensational writings will obviously agree with what you are asserting so what would be the point? For example, would a book on string theory give an unbiased view if string theory is correct? Very unlikely.
@@stevelenores5637 No, I am saying, you haven't tried to understand what we are saying, and it doesn't appear that you care. So, I am not going to waist either of our time responding with a thorough answer. If you are interested, my UA-cam channel has the answers. But I encourage you to be more charitable in your engagement because we are both brothers in Christ.
Sounds like you guys are admitting a guru is needed to understand things. I thought dispensationalism was so easy to understand that i never gave it another thought. When I learned exegesis, it makes no sense. It makes the Jewish people God and everything centered around them and dozens of passages that need erased put of the Bible for it to work. Can someone send me Ryrie’s four page paper? I would like to sift through it and see if he leaves out a lot of Bible to make it work.
Well being someone who grew up with parents and grandparents who taught dispensationalism both in church and at a seminary level (my grandparents own a seminary), yes it was very confusing and convoluted to understand. Thank God I now hold to covenant reformed theology as it explains the Bible much more faithfully and clearly.
Dispensational theology is definitely a better system as compared to covenant theology. I agree with the more consistent hermeneutics of dispensational theology as against that of covenant theology which allegorises or spiritualises the prophetic messages of the Bible especially those concerning Israel. Literal hermeneutics is definitely a better way to understand the Bible as intended by God.
If you and I were present during the original reading of John’s letter to the churches in Asia Minor, we would have understood it. As such we would have assumed the genre and been familiar with the apocalyptic language. In other words, the allegorical language would have made perfect sense to 1st century hearers because it was written to them.
Most of us have read and taught through Hebrews and Galatians on many occasions - I teach through them both in my seminary courses at least three times a year. And, I would completely disagree with your statement (which should not be surprising to you). Such a statement is very simplistic and demeaning.
@BibleandTheologyMatters but you are reading and teaching them through a dispensational lens. What about the authors intent and the original context? You have to make the bible say things it doesn't and ignore what it does to make it fit dispensationalist framework.
The Explanatory Power and Ease of understanding with visual aid is why Dispensationalism has dominated American Christian Interpretation. Also the Current Situation of Israel is the Elephant in the room, that is being displayed on the World stage is Impossible to agnore
Israel, modern national Israel, is not the Israel of God, and is not Israel after the Spirit. All the promises to physical Israel have been fulfilled, including the coming of Messiah.
Modern day Unbelieving Israel has been Gaslighted by a Satanic Secret Society who are pretending to be Genetic Jews but they are NOT. Nope Physical Israel did NOT Inheritant the Land Promised by God a UNCONDITIONAL Covenant to Abraham Physical Seed, the Church does NOT replace Israel, God will go back to dealing with Unbelieving Israelites when the Church age is complete at (the Rapture)
Im not a higher educated person but in my teens in the 80s I had a lot of questions about the Middle East. I coverted from atheism to believing Genesis as historical in March/April 1993 but did not become born again until October 1993. In those several months in 1993 those questions I had in the 1980s began to get answered as I got my nose into Biblical prophecy and that was in what I became to under as Dispensational Pre-millenialism Eschatology framework. I have friends who have beliefs that are preterist, amillenial and post-millennial and they seem to struggle making sense of the age we live in.
" Dispensational Pre-millenialism Eschatology" ??? what??? oh i do not understand anything here.. i suppose i'll have to repeat this video over and over and really focus...
The two covenants are not matters of time but conition of the heart , and Christ has one bride not two full stop . Please go back and read the bible not footnotes added to a bible to teach zionism it is a different gospel Paul would be horrified 😢😢😢
The apostle Paul called the church the body of Christ and was the only apostle to do so , Israel as the bride, I personally take Paul's instruction on this matter
Thanks Bryan for your kind feedback. I am glad that you found it helpful. When there are so many issues threatening conservative evangelicalism (like attacks on inerrancy, biblical view of gender / anthropology, and more) it is sad that many have chosen to focus their attention on dispensationalism, which is a serious attempt (and accurate I might add) to carefully understand and interpret God's plans and purposes for humanity as recorded in Scripture.
There are many people who need hope for the heart. Especially when the night is long they need hope in the night. It is good to have someone people can call on to point them to biblical truth. Keep up the good work.@@BibleandTheologyMatters
@@BryanTripp Your sense of humor hasn't changed in 20 years :). Let me know if you ever are back in the Dallas area! We can go work the phones at Hope for the Heart again, like old times. :)
It's unfortunate that you have been attacked. I was raised in a dispensational system and to the present day I hear dispensational preachers attack, demean and misrepresent opposing views and never challenged or critiques.
I haven't taken Mohler seriously since his stances going back a few years to the social justice movement's impact on his and other evangelicals positions. He hides behind obfuscation and rhetoric, and was promptly called out by Phil Johnson. No surprise he said what he said about dispensationalism, I watched that interview even before seeing this response video. Not sure why people are so impressed with his views
I'm with you concerning Mohler. He has allowed much wokeness at his seminary, yet act like it isn't there. A lot of bad stuff has went on there, such as the dismissal of Dr. Russel Fuller. Also, many have pointed out that he leads from behind.
Thank you for this counterbalance to the claims of the book. On the At The Table podcast you mentioned Michael Horton had recently spoken about and put in print a notion of a place for Israel. I was very intrigued by that given my previous understanding of Horton’s position. Could you direct me to the source of what you were referencing there as I’d love to read it. Thanks!
Hello @relientkgeek. Thanks for your kind words. As to Michael Horton. I don't recall if I said "put in print," but I did mention that he stated that, in my company, that there may be a place for a future ethnic Israel. I was shocked, but it was during a presentation that he gave virtually to a group of DTS faculty. Last year the biblical studies division was reading and discussing the book "Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies." That book included four contributors - Michael Horton represented Covenant Theology. We had each contributor present their views. Again, he made the statement that there might be a place for ethnic Israel in the future, but he did not elaborate any further. So, I am not sure that he has ever put that in print, but I do have about 30 witnesses :).
Thanks you for this response to a video which i admit left me troubled. Regardless of what we call our theology, I believe the simple reading of Scripture is generally best. God tells us what He wants us to know and what He doesn't say, we can trust to Him. At about minute 49-50 in the previous video Dr. Mohler says when he was a teenager, a good dispensationalist confused him saying, " no one knows the date or the hour, but we are responsible to know the times and the seasons." It sounds good if you are trying to discredit a dispensational view, but would be even better if he actually found biblical support for his view. He NEVER quotes the Bible in the entire interview, but in this particular situation, a plain reading of the Bible says we can't know the hour, but we CAN see the signs. How does he miss that? Or does he ignore it to further his viewpoint? Thanks again.
They raked Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel over the coals. Well, done. Thank you all for defending the truth and giving God glory. I just wish this panel was a couple of hours longer.
Thanks for posting this response. I just finished the Mohler video and it’s important to avoid “one hand clapping,” so thank you for providing another hand. I find your dispensationalism definition interesting. Nothing seems distinct except “the plain reading of scripture.” Can you define “plain” reading? Do you mean: -“free from metaphor, imagery, or typology”, -“clear; not difficult to understand,” -“does not require other scripture for clarity.” Or maybe all/none of these? And how does “plain” separate itself from the other views by your definition?
Thanks for your kind feedback. As far as my definition of dispensationalism, I do try to focus on the main point - it is an understanding of human history recorded in the Scripture (not an imposed system), and it utilizes a normal, plain reading of Scripture. By plain, we emphasize what we believe to be the natural reading of the Scripture - the original intention of the author, which certainly includes figurative language, symbols, and metaphors (as our every day language incorporates). What did Abraham understand when he was told that his descendants would receive a land ... and that they would be as numerous as the sand on the seashore and stars in the sky? Did he understand it to be an unconditional covenant made to him or could it be transferred to another people group, (the church)? What my hermeneutic does not include, is utilizing a typological method or allegorical method that in our estimation is not divinely intended and cannot be successfully validated from the Scripture itself. There are certainly types in the Old Testament (i.e. Melchizedek, passover, etc.) but those I would argue are clearly identified by the biblical authors. When it comes to symbols in prophetic literature, we believe those symbols have literal referents. Sometimes those literal referents are even articulated by the text - "the seven lamp stands are the seven churches." (Rev. 1:20). It is not as one commentator on Revelation said that the book of Revelation was just "A beautiful poem of good defeating evil." Thanks again for your thoughts and questions.
@ Thank you for your response. I’m sure you are busy, so I really appreciate you taking the time to answer! If I may, I still struggle to see this definition make dispensationalism distinct. Many of the other views would say they utilize an understanding of human history through the “natural” reading of scripture (I don’t think anyone would claim an “unnatural” reading,) yet they are not dispensationalist. Although it seems that more passages are taken in their non-typological/non-spiritual sense, this does not always happen with dispensationalism. Maybe there are specific passages viewed in a plain reading that make Dispensationalism distinct?
Below is my current understanding. Feel free to read, but feel no obligation to respond as I know you may not have time to respond to every random UA-camr lol I grew up in dispensationalism and have struggled to understand how the NT authors connect Jesus to prophecies in the OT. For reference: Matt 1 : 23 with Isaiah 7:14 Matt 2 : 15 with Hosea 11:1 Matt 2 : 17-18 with Jeremiah 31:15 John 12 : 41 with Isaiah 6:9 Galatians 4(:27) with Isaiah 54:1 Etc., and many many more. the NT writers see Jesus in the OT where I cannot with a dispensational lens. It seems when Jesus says He came to fill-full the law and the prophets, the NT writers see the whole story pointing to Him. Regarding ethnic Israel, it seems they were given full access to some promises, but in disobedience they failed to step into it (see Joshua 21 : 43-45 regarding the land.) Yet, He remains faithful when we are not, and every member of ethnic Israel still has opportunity to step into Jesus’ fulfillment of the promises “if they do not continue in unbelief” (Rom 11:23). Now IN JESUS “every promise is yes,” for both Jew and Greek. Together, we seek Jesus’ rule as disciples and long for his coming. It seems dispensationalism rejects the typology/fulfillment of Jesus as faithful Israel. This is not an uncommon typology supported in the NT, so I often wonder why it’s rejected. If you have any resources you recommend on this topic I’d appreciate it! I never want to stop refining my understanding, and dialogue with faithful believers of a different perspective is valuable.
Here is an interesting video clip that I just stumbled across - a round table event moderated by R.C Sproul where R.C. Sproul Jr. states that there was a time when virtually only dispensationalists believed in the Bible. What a remarkable admission: ua-cam.com/video/aSI4_T7tVKo/v-deo.html&ab_channel=DoctrinalWatchdog
I'm sorry guys but dispensationalism is not conceived of God but by man. Much learning makes us stupid. Besides why does it matter what we think about dispensationalism. Are you saying, if we don't believe in the concept of dispensationalism, we are not saved?
No one is saying that Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology is a matter of salvation. It is not a fundamental of the faith or a test of Orthodoxy. However, your position drastically impacts your understanding of the Grand Narrative of Scripture and the interpretation of MANY key passages of Scripture. So, it is a worthy of our careful study. And, we need to be gracious with those who have a different interpretation than we do. This is part of the point of this discussion.
Very very very good.what I would really appreciate is a written copy of this particular program. This program in written form will serve the evangelical Christian world. Thank you
Hello Linda, I wish that we had the time and ability to transcript our podcasts, but right now, it is just my wife and I (Paul Weaver) doing all the work for this channel along with my full-time professorial responsibilities. I do hope, as the page grows, and donations are given, that I can employ someone part time (or recruit volunteers) who can do this kind of thing. Thanks for your interest!
Im very new to the faith (4 years), and I find myself on a constant path towards biblical truth. Through my seeking I've come across Dispensationalism and most all of what I've been learning rings true to me and is much easier to understand. Certain scripture that seemed contradictory, no longer is an issue. I have one question/issue I hope to gain some insight. Can Jews who become messianic or gain a belief in our Lord Jesus Christ be a part of the body of Christ or the Church? It's hard for me to think that God would keep the Church salvation separate entirely from Jews who believe in Jesus.
Can jews who become Messianic be part of the body of christ ? 1Pe 2:5 ISV you, too, as living stones, are building yourselves up into a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, so that you may offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus, the Messiah.
Hello @mungiesilvers5544! I am so pleased that you became a follower of Christ 4 years ago! Obviously, I agree that I believe that dispensationalism provides the best explanation of the grand narrative of Scripture starting in Genesis 1 through Revelation 22. To answer your question, yes - Jewish people in the current age, who place their faith in the Jesus for salvation are a part of the church (see Ephesians 2:11-22). Having said that, we do believe that while in this era, God is saving a remnant (Paul was one of them; see Romans 11:1), in the future, a huge amount of Jewish people will become believers in Christ, so much so that Paul says, "All Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:25-26). We believe this will occur during the tribulation period, and just prior to the establishment of the Kingdom on Earth - the Millennium (1,000 year reign of Christ - see Revelation 20). One of my former professors at Dallas Theological Seminary - Dr. Thomas Constable provides free electronic commentaries on every book of the Bible. I think you will find them very helpful - planobiblechapel.org/constable-notes/
@@mchristr Yes, to be a follower of Yahweh in the Old Testament you had to for all practical purposes to become Jewish. However, in the New Testament, you no longer became a part of a nation of people but a gathering of believers, the church. This seems to make the point, that what is going on in the Old Testament is very different than what is happening during the church age (dare I say dispensation :)).
@@mchristr Yes, one is DEFINATELY simpler than two. So, let's apply that system to the "sheep" and "goats" or the "wheat" and "tares" and everyone goes into glory. It doesn't work like that. But all sons of God have but one Father. The early church struggled with this issue, and we see the result in Acts 15:20, when those Jews in Jerusalem pronounce what the Gentile believers are supposed to follow, "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
As what Happens with many other doctrines, there's seems to be support for both sides in some principles and they seems weak in others. But I think they are all brothers with different views of a complicated theme.
Thank you for such a respectful and honouring presentation of your views. Bless you guys. I don’t believe the dispensationalist eschatology but it was helpful to hear more about it and I am curious about the idea of a future corporate salvation of Israel.
@philm457 thank you for your kind words. We do seek to read and interpret the Covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, New Covenant) as the original receivers of those covenants would have understood them. It seems to us that these covenants are unconditional and eternal, and that these covenants must fulfilled in the way, and to whom, they were promised by God. That doesn't mean that God didn't have a plan for us Gentiles. Indeed the Abrahamic covenant indicates that "all nations will be blessed" because of Abraham and his descendants (and the Messiah who would come from Him). If you are interested, our series on Matthew that has come out the last two weeks, and one to be released next week will be helpful for you to understand our beliefs in this regard.
Neither Dispensationalism or Covenant theology are purely biblical, and I believe that this is the problem. This forum seems like a circling of the wagons as the system is falling apart. What we need is the. Fresh air of New Covenant Theology.
Hello @All-Things_New, I appreciate your thoughts. Of course, we would respectfully disagree. I do not believe that the "system" is falling apart. Actually, I prefer not to discuss it as a "system" but rather as an understanding of Human History as recorded in the Bible (Past, Present, and Future) using the natural laws of communication - Historical, Grammatical, Literal Approach. By the way, New Covenant Theology is no longer the newest kid on the block, Progressive Covenantalism is. Ultimately, the question must be, what understanding of Human History best reflects the Biblical record - and I think Traditional Dispensationalism is that. Our discussion was simply pointing out the false statements, and misrepresentations found in this interview.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters Hi, thanks for responding! I believe that both "Progressive Covenentalism" and "Progressive Dispensationalism" are admissions that the truth really does lie between these extremes and the beautiful biblical balance is to be found in New Covenant Theology. NCT rejects the idea that God has two people, and it also rejects the idea that there is a so called "Covenant of Grace " and a previous and manufactured "covenant of works"; neither of which are to be found in Scripture. Rather (I'm sure I dont have to explain to such well informed folks) NCT sees that Jesus Christ is the centre of all of God's purposes, (Rom_11:36) For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Thus all of the Old Covenant becomes shadow in the light of His glory, and neither Jew nor Greek etc are anything, but rather a New Man; ONE body in Christ. A New Creation; a New Heaven, and New Earth, all a New Covenant, making the Old redundant and passe. Behold I make "All Things NEW" Just my thoughts.
Amen. The following proves you are correct. New Covenant Whole Gospel: Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? 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. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below. Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? 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? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? 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? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. 1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him. Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters The following proves "New Covenant Theology" was never the "new" kid on the block. Based on what is recorded below it is over 2,000 years old. The New Covenant was promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, long before the New Testament was recorded. .Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah- Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you. 1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." 2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH- Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance. Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel. (NKJV)
This reminds me of story about how a religious organization persecuted a man preaching and teaching a truth foreign to their century's old doctrine. This morning my subscription delivered this episode of Through the Bible with Les Feldick. Book 40-2-1. In my opinion the covid experience epitomizes and defines the essence of educated scholarly experts. The conversation here is well and good but not earth shaking. I hope everyone can agree there is but One Truth, with billions of ambassadors. Where you buy, and what type of meat you eat, from the 42,000 stores that sell it doesn't matter as long as you get the protein in you. As long as it isn't over processed. How can a personal relationship with God be someone else's business? God is the only expert in this world. God Bless all in Christ Jesus.
@1mulekicker you are right that there are fundamentals of the faith, and there are secondary issues. This is a secondary issue, but does impact our understanding of many passages of Scripture, and the whole grand narrative of Scripture. So, it is important to think through and come to a biblical conviction. It is also important to be loving and gracious in one's interactions.
I was censored and suspended last week on a Gospel Facebook group regarding pagan Christmas holiday observance for asking chapter and verse condemning the practice. It was quickly defined as hate speech. 547K followers slamming the only Federal/State legal Christian holiday. I guess that was not my group. You can't prove a point if you can't talk. Your video here is very good. Lucky we are under Grace and Paul was committed to revealing the mysteries to his last breath. @@BibleandTheologyMatters
Neither Dispensationalism (Darby) nor Calvinism (Mohler) are of the faith delivered once for all. Both come from Man and not from God. Therefor both are to be rejected as heresies (false doctrines that serve only divide the Body of Christ).
"Heresy" is not an accusation that you should throw around lightly. A heretic is outside of Christian orthodoxy, which neither dispensationalism nor Calvinism is.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters As I pointed out the word transliterated as heresy refers to parties, sects or divisions. I don't give a hoot about your theological definitions.
As a nonseminarian, i am often taken aback when those who hear my views characterize me as calvinist, premill dispensational, when i have simplytried to read the word in a way that does not turn gentiles into jews, does not turn the promises of God ( the ordinances of day and night, of the seasons, of the waters) into almost-not quite covenants, does not gut or ignore zephaniah, zecharia, Jeremiah isaiah Ezekiel, and does not fail to honor matthew 25, and does not ignore romans 11, or turn revelations into recapitulations. I have a hard time isolating a pretrib rapture from a general 2nd coming, but everything else is grade school analysis. Works just fine. Still can't figure out limited atonement, but am willing to bow my brain to the schoolmen on that, or just leave it to him who judges justly.
I think you guys need to do a little bit more research on Al Mohler It is connection to Ernie Reisinger, The Founders, and their Presbyterian sponsors. For a man who claims to be a premillennialist, his actions and associations do a lot to benefit the reform Baptist and Presbyterian position, which are decidedly dominionist, and preterist. Remember, It was his church down in Palm springs, and his pastor who spent decades creating the reform Baptist denomination, and then immediately moving to Florida to join the Southern Baptists, with a very clear agenda to convert them toward the Reformed Baptist position. He may have started with the Calvinist roots of the SBC, but it is naive to think that that was their entire goal. And it is equally naive to think that Al Mohler, who' single-handedly infiltrated and Calvinized Southern Baptist Seminary, is a neutral agent in that program.
While on vacation I visited a Calvary Chapel for Sunday worship. Their doctrinal essentials were posted on a wall, the final item being the belief in a tribulational/rapture eschatology. In other words, for me to be a member of that fellowship I would have to subscribe to this distinctive. Therein lies one of the problems with contemporary dispensationalism, namely the ignorance of other orthodox positions.
While pretribulationalism is not a test of Orthodoxy (nor is modes of baptism, views on spiritual gifts, etc.) every church and ministry has to determine what they are going to include as primary and secondary issues in their statement of faith. Calvary Chapel (of which I am not a member nor even a defender) is not saying that pre-tribulationalsim is a test of Orthodoxy, but this is what they believe and are going to teach from the pulpit. I think I would want to know what the church stood on such issues before I joined.
In the chronology of events, which comes first ? (1) Mat.28.1 ¶In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre. 2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. (2) Jhn.20.1 ¶The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre. 2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. Let's zoom in (1) Mat.28.1...as it began to dawn... (2) Jhn.20.1...when it was yet dark... I'am confident that a 10y.o knows that "when it was yet dark ", comes before "as it began to dawn." Jhn.20.1-2 Paraphrased. Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb when it is dark, and the tomb is empty, she hasn't seen any angels or a resurrected Measiah. Iam positive that you need a body in the tomb at sunrise to have a Easter Sunday Sunrise Resurrection. Mat.12.40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. Mat.16.21¶From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Three days, three nights, raised on the third day. Very specific, only works one way. Jhn.12.1¶Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead. 2There they made him a supper; Exo.12.1¶And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying, 2This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you. 3Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house: 6And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening. When it is dark, begins the 15th, Passover. The first meal of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Passover meal (sedar) The 10th-14th are "preparation days" The 10th-15th is six days. Let's subtract six days from the 15th day of the month. Brings us to the 9th day of the month. He travels from Bethpage to Bethany (other three Gospels) and they prepare for him a supper. He travels, they prepare supper. This is not a Sabbath day, this is Friday the 9th, that evening begins the weekly Sabbath the 10th, they have a Sabbath night supper. Because Saturday is the Sabbath, the 10th, he rides into town on Sunday the 11th. Wednesday is the 14th, the day Israel sacrificed the Passover Lamb of God, Saturday is the 17th, He comes out of the tomb just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath, the third day. Mat.27.52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, 53And came out of the graves AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Aka 24 elders) These are the (G536first fruits) can be the offering or the one presenting the offering. The reader has to decide. Lev.23.9¶And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 10Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest: 11And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it. In this scenario Messiah is the High Priest. Messiah was resurrected just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath the 17th, the First Born from the dead. The first fruits were resurrected by the Messiah after sundown "the morrow after the sabbath", Sunday the 18th. Do you know what I can not find in Scripture anywhere ? The first Sunday after the first fullmoon after the spring equinox. Second Witness Luke.24.21 b 21But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and (b) beside all this, to day is the third day SINCE these things were done. G575 SINCE, transliterated apo, to separate, especially in composition. Literally separate the first day of the week from the day of crucifixion with three days , makes Sunday the fourth day and Wednesday the day of crucifixion Good Works Eph.2.10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. What are these "good works" that God had before ordained, that we should walk in them? Let's do a quick word study on the word "WALK" Exodus 18:20 KJV - And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must WALK, and the work that they must do. Leviticus 18:3 KJV - After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye WALK in their ordinances. Leviticus 18:4 KJV - Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to WALK therein: I am the LORD your God. Deuteronomy 5:33 KJV - Ye shall WALK in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess. Deuteronomy 8:6 KJV - Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to fear him. Leviticus 20:23 KJV - And ye shall not WALK in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them. Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV - Ye shall WALK after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him. Deuteronomy 19:9 KJV - If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to WALK ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three: Deuteronomy 10:12 KJV - And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to WALK in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul, Deuteronomy 26:17 KJV - Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to WALK in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice: Deuteronomy 29:19 KJV - And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I WALK in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst: Deuteronomy 28:9 KJV - The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and WALK in his ways. Deuteronomy 30.16In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it. This is only a partial list. Again, I believe a 10y.o could pick up on this . Do you know what's going on ? A Strong Delusion, brought on by the teaching of the traditions of men, as if they were the Word of God, and prefering the lie to the Truth. The Lie, the Council of Nicaea. The Truth, the Counsel of God, Gen-Rev. Anti-christ is also anti-Commandments of God, anti Feasts of the LORD. The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, He who was, who is, and who is to come. Walk in His ways , you will be blessed when you come in, blessed when you go out.
Dr Weaver, Thank you so much for this rebuttal. The news of the Demise of dispensationalism is greatly exaggerated to be sure 😀 I did have one question, there was a multi-volume book on Dispensationalism that was mentioned a couple of times by the speakers that I had not heard of(and I went to DTS back in the days of Walvoord!). Could you share that book title with me? Thanks!
Hello @aldersgatelives9841 thanks for the kind words and positive feedback. A book that has been published recently that includes several different contributors is called "Discovering Dispensationalism: Tracing the Development of Dispensational Thought From the First to the Twenty-First Century" It is edited by Cory Marsh and James Fazio - faculty of Southern California Seminary - David Jeremiah is the Chancellor.
Thanks for the content. I enjoy thinking in public but was very discouraged by the subject podcast and appreciate voices. The last comment about publishing probably makes the most sense and a fear the growth or domination of the covenant theology is leading the SBC and others down another dark path that they didn’t learn from their mistakes.
That is a lot of PHD’s and yet no exegesis proves dispensationalism. If Daniel 9:24-27 is wrong the rest is. If grammar is wrong and the antecedent to the word ‘he’ in verse 27 and the Messiah is turned into a future antichrist, something is seriously wrong. Dispensationalists have several things wrong just in these four verses. I encourage every academic on this video to read the whole chapter nine of Daniel and think things through and nit remove one word from the text or add one word or add one presupposition to the context. The first PHD was wrong on the history of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism goes further back than Darby. It goes back to Roman Catholic Jesuit Manual Lacunza in the late 1700’s. Irving brought it into the church in 1817. Ken Gentry debunks the late date of Revelation also. I encourage everyone to read or listen to his thesis. I have asked many dispensationalists to give me verses in context that are clear and not add one thing to the text. I asked many famous teachers of it. They could not give me one. I was taught dispensationalism in 1985. I never gave it any thought until ten or so years ago. I started taking every main verse read it several times slowly and meditated on the context to find I had to eisogete every passage to hold onto dispensationalism. I just couldn’t do it anymore.
Hello, there. Are you saying that you do not this as a reference to the Antichrist: "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate..."? Can you please share more of your understanding? The text is certainly referring to the Antichrist. Also, the Bible is already dispensed in its layout, as this is how God reveals His Word. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little..." (Isaiah 28:10). Studying is necessary, and the Holy Spirit is the best teacher. He will walk you through His Word, if you ask. He can also show you to sound teachers. God wants us to understand His Word; He also wants us to be thorough disciples and study it.
@@AskBibleNotes hello, can I ask what Bible version you are reading? Also, do you understand the difference between exegesis and eisogesis when it comes to Biblical,interpretation? Most people don’t. Maybe you are an exception. If reading a Textus Receptus translation into English, there is nothing in that passage in the original Hebrew teaching two temples being built in one and a half verses. Some people are reading paraphrase Bibles and that is basically reading a ONE PERSON commentary on what they think the scriptures are teaching. You must remember Daniel prophesied this before the second temple was in existence. He was still in Babylon. One must read it in that context. I have about 200 lengthy articles on end times over a ten year span of constant studying. I am actually not teaching anything new pre-1830. The only difference between guys like Matthew Henry, John Gill, Clark and others than my writings is I bring apologetics into HOW I teach, the same way I do if showing an atheist, mormon or anyone else the problems in their belief system. There are over 12 logical fallacies that contradict scripture in the dispensational theology system. You only need one to disprove any teaching. I was tied it in 1985 in Bible school and never tested it to scripture until about 10 years ago.
No one is speaking a language that is easy to understand everybody is not a college scholar, so can you use words? We can understand what you're saying????
Dispensational ideas are well before Nicea. Polycarp and Irenaeus had a Dispensational Pre-millenial framework and that is how the structure of the Bible work. The Millennium is still yet to come and clearly there is a plan involving Israel, which is why it's there today.
@@sacredcowtipper1378 Truly, a King James Bible is sufficient. Comparing scripture with scripture, and letting the Bible interpret the Bible avoids eisegetical trip-ups. The Bible is one complete body of work, without errors (the KJV). If you approach the Word by reading it plain on its face, in context, the themes make themselves apparent. You wouldn't need to force or spiritualize anything. I thank God He made His Word plain enough to understand in English. Again, the Holy Spirit is the best teacher; ask Him to help.
I think it would be best if you guys actually used the bible to prove your doctrine . As in study to show thy self approved and rightly dividong the word of truth
@bornagaincarpenter This video was to respond to the mischaracterizations and falsehoods leveled against us by Mohler and Hummel. We have many other videos on our UA-cam channel that provide an exposition of the various texts and an explanation of dispensationalism. I refer you to them. What you are asking for is not the purpose of this particular video, but as I already stated, if you are genuinely interested, I encourage you to watch the episodes on Dispensationalism with Dr. Elliot Johnson and the episode on the Grand Narrative of Scripture with Dr. Scott Keen.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I didn't ask anything. What does the bible actually say regarding the doctrine of dispensationalism? The rest does not matter. Instead of defending your self use the bible
Dr Gunn just made his case around 20 mins in that Covenant Theology is contrary to that of Dispensational covenant theology. For those who are of the reformed position, how do you handle this along with your creeds?
@@BibleandTheologyMatters maybe my terms are unknown to you. Federal Headship or simply, covenant theology is not compatible with dispensationalism. You cannot hold both together. Pick one or the other.
@@patricklyons8023 dispensation theology is more about covenant than it is about the end times. It is a theology of covenant first which interprets how one sees the eschaton
One thing I seeing being missed by everyone, is that the concept that the CARNAL stories in Genesis - AND THE PROPHETS are telling a SPIRITUAL truth. For example, the PROMISED LAND and the PROMISED SEED. Noah's Ark. Jonah. Joseph and his BRETHREN.
And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.
No, but that would be nice if it did. Here is a good video by Dr. Michael Vlach on the 4 ways "seed of Abraham" is used in Scripture in its various literal and figurative uses. ua-cam.com/video/jpne06TuOJI/v-deo.html
Concerning dispensationalism and pre-tribulation rapture: John 6:40 “EVERYONE who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at THE LAST DAY.” 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen [b]asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God **will bring with Him** those who [c]sleep in Jesus.(NOT THOSE WHO WERE RAPTURED 7 YEARS PRIOR/which wouldn’t make sense anyway considering this is the gathering of The Church that’s being described) 15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until THE COMING of the Lord will by no means precede those who are [d]asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the TRUMPET of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words. 2 Thessalonians 1 4so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and [a]tribulations that you endure, 5which is manifest[b] evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with [c]tribulation those who trouble you, 7and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who [d]believe, because our testimony among you was believed. 1 Corinthians 15:51-54 Behold, I tell you a [m]mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed- 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMPET. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”(1 Corinthians 15:22-28) Colossians 3:3-4) Scripture says death is the final enemy that will be defeated, so this verse (1 Corinthians 15:51-54) has to be talking about what happens at the very end of time. 2 Thessalonians 2 Now, brethren, concerning **the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him**, we ask you, 2not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for **that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of [b]sin is revealed**, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.(Satan will be worshipped by false believers who did not receive a love of the truth, this is the falling away/strong delusion) 5Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7For **the [d]mystery of lawlessness is already at work**; only [e]He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of **His coming**(Paul says we are gathered at His coming). 9The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Revelation 13:5-8 5And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to [c]continue for forty-two months. 6Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. 7**It was granted to him to make war with THE SAINTS and to overcome them**. And authority was given him over every [d]tribe, tongue, and nation. 8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. (Verse 7 makes it very clear that the Antichrist will attack the true church/believers, which means the rapture could not have happened yet, and Christians will have to endure the tribulation.) 1 Thessalonians 5 1But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. 5You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. 6Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be [a]sober. 2 Peter 3 7But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and [b]perdition of ungodly men. 8But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. The Day of the Lord 10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [d]burned up. 11Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells. Be Steadfast 14Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
These passages when taken together, read carefully, and understood properly absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt refute the false doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture, as well as mid acts hyper dispensationalism by virtue of it being hinged on the rapture doctrine to make sense. At the Last trumpet, On the last day, when the dead in Christ arise, then we who are alive and remain will be gathered, at His coming/The coming/when He comes. No more days or trumpets can come after this. It is judgement day, the end of the tribulation and of time itself. The church was God’s plan for Israel all along. The true spiritual Israel IS the church-the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and his Seed(which is Christ). There is not a single sentence in all of scripture that supports the idea that there are two separate peoples of God with two separate gospels, two separate hopes and final destinations. The New Jerusalem IS the heavenly dwelling place for believers, built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone-on NO OTHER FOUNDATION can one build. The Bride enters the marriage covenant, becomes the wife and the two become ONE FLESH. This is a great MYSTERY, but I speak of CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. When Paul exclaims “Christ is the HEAD of the church”, it implies marriage. “His BODY, the church” implies marriage. Colossians 1 15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence. Reconciled in Christ 19For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross. 21And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight- 23if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister. Sacrificial Service for Christ 24I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, 25of which I became a minister according to the [g]stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, 26the [h]mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: [i]which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. 29To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.
I believe in dispensationalists, Calvin basically ignored Romans chapter 11, dispensation of time is definitely found in scripture, I personally liked Larkin's Charts 👍... J. D. Pentecost 👍
@@BibleandTheologyMatters my trade in life was that of a brickmasons, the first time I heard the gospel and understood it was on TV... The pastor was Charles Stanley, I had grown up in church and been convicted of my sin for many years but didn't understand what Christ was expecting of me, Dr Stanley explained it in a way I had never heard, the Truth about Sin, Salvation and redemption, I started studying eschatology immediately and the Lord impressed upon my heart, for one to become wise, he must first become a fool... In other words he basically told me I needed a clean slate to be able to understand the vast area of information... I'm still learning to this day, I've subbed the channel and added it to my learning experience, God Bless and thanks for responding 👍
@@SkunkWorksRifle Thanks for sharing your personal story of God's grace! Thanks for subscribing and we pray that you (and many others) will find this channel and these resources helpful!
If these gentlemen had been conducting a defence they would have been stopped by the presiding officer in mid sentence on the sole grounds of their collective contributions being void for vagueness.
Is there a difference between traditional and classical dispensationalism or is it just a matter of different labels for the same thing differentiating it from progressive dispensationalism?
Great questions @friedert976. Paul Weaver here. Before the arrival of "Progressive Dispensationalism," there was no need to use distinct categories of dispensationalists. You were either a dispensationalist or not. The title of "Classical Dispensationalism" is now used to refer to the Scofield/Chafer era, which is another reason why this conversation with Mohler and Hummel is misleading. They seem to use the term "Classical" even though they are talking about Traditional Dispensationalism. The term "Classical Dispensationalism" is not used by many any longer. Having said that, most Traditional Dispensationalists would say that there is not a substantial enough difference between "Classical" and "Traditional" dispensationalism to have two separate categories. To add another twist, progressive dispensationalists (Bock and Blaising) created a title for Traditional Dispensationalists - "revised" dispensationalism, to say that Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, etc. revised dispensationalism from what Chafer believed, and that they (progressive dispensationalism) are just making additional "revisions" following the model of Ryrie. The term "revised dispensationalism" was used for a polemical reason. I do not accept that term, because it frames the debate. Traditional Dispensationalists typically argue that there is not a substantial hermeneutical difference between "classical" and "Traditional/revised" dispensationalists, but the "complementary hermeneutic" of progressive dispensationalism introduces a significant change, that does warrant a different category/distinction. See Dr. Joseph Parle's - "Dispensational Development and Departure: Comparing Classical, Essentialist, and Progressive Dispensational Models."
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my question. Very helpful indeed. Greeting from a convinced traditional dispensationalist in Germany. -Frieder
I am happy and not surprised that Dispensation/Ages is legitimate... That Moses and The Prophets, Jesus and The Apostles, Paul and Church Fathers got it right.
The main problem with dispensationalism is its claim that men are saved in different ways at different times throughout history. This is the basis of the so-called dispensations and the system cannot exist without this claim. The problem is that Hebrews 11:6 puts a screeching halt to this and resoundingly refutes it. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." So there is no "other" plan of salvation during another dispensation. Another feature overlooked by the adherents of dispensationalism is its claim that certain prophetic events are yet to be fulfilled in the future which implies that Jesus cannot return at this very moment because these so-called events have not yet taken place. Some dispensational teachers have recognized these problems and are trying to distance themselves from these heretical views by contradicting Darby. And many dispensational teachers contradict each other to the point of violent accusations.
@@randylplampin1326 this is a complete falsehood. We do NOT believe in more than one way of salvation. This betrays the fact that you haven’t read dispensationalist writings - just repeating talking points by Covenant Theologians who have also repeated these same false statements. We believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith. You should really try reading a few dispensationalists rather than repeating a falsehood that has been as Ryrie has said, answered more times “than a drippy faucet.”
If you do not believe in Darby's claim that "men are saved in different ways at different times," then you are not a dispensationalist. You might be something else, but not a dispensationalist.
@@randylplampin1326 I am sorry but you are just clearly wrong on this. If you want to really know what traditional dispensationalists believe (that is my position), I would encourage you to reach Charles Ryrie's book entitled simply Dispensationalism. In fact, he even has a section that addresses this false claim made by non-dispensationalists.
Thank you for being concerned. I do not need to know traditional dispensationalism because over fifty years ago I was a staunch believer in Darby and his sidekick Scofield. After certain facts were pointed out to me I had to be intellectually honest and abandon this newfangled invention. Should you decide to free yourself, I must warn you that you will pass a period of perhaps one year completely disoriented and grasping for "theological straws," to borrow a phrase. But you will survive and get over this episode and on to a much higher understanding of scriptures and God's plan for you. Read "Dispensationalism in America," by KRAUS. And give God a chance.
Pastors need commentaries, and OT and NT theology books, that are written by Bible scholars holding to a dispensational understanding of Scripture. In what I have seen there are very, very few of them.
You should try our 7 volume survey series - Learn the Word. All the contributors are dispensationalists. www.amazon.com/stores/Paul-D.-Weaver/author/B00RBQEPOS?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true
Darby was a narcissist who rejected church hierarchy yet spawn off his own denomination with himself the leader with the mindset of “I’m right you’re wrong.”
@@كلامهذهالحياة 1 - There is numerous affirmations of church hierarchy in the New Testament which includes special offices, authority, and being ordained for those offices. Here is but a small list (I’m using KJV): Elders - 1 Peter 5:1, Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 5:17, Acts 14:23 Pastors - Ephesians 4:11 Bishops - 1 Tim 3:1, Phillipians 1:1 Peter as leader - Acts 15 (James addresses Peter as authoritative), Galatians 1-2
@@كلامهذهالحياة 2 - Always arguing with people, believing in your always right and everyone else is wrong, and calling them horrible names whenever they disagree with anything you think is a big red flag of narcissism. Darby was notorious for this. I can share you quotes and references to his biography, letters, and other historians.
@@iraqiimmigrant2908 I do have most of His writings and read His bio, never found anything of what you are talking about. In the end it might be right, we all fall short sometimes in our Christian conduct. But that does not mean that he was one of the most influential christians in history, at least in my life through His writings.
I think the majority of dispensational Christians do not know the word "dispensationalism" although they would agree with its core teachings and approach to biblical interpretation. From this perspective, dispensationalism's influence goes far beyond those in academia or those capable of producing podcasts discussing dispensationalism. For example, the Calvary Chapel movement is very influential and largely dispensational. To just name one name, Pastor Jack Hibbs has a large following and is strongly dispensational. My concern is that perhaps the author, Dr. Hummel, has had limited exposure to the true influence and significance of dispensationalism at the church level (outside academia) and yet has written and spoken on the subject as if he is an expert.
In the interview, and in the book, Hummel made several very obvious inaccuracies that shows he did not truly understand us. I think he has learned a lot after it was published, when he received significant criticism. But, at this point, it is too late, he continued to promulgated inaccuracies - some old ones that have been rebutted multiple times.
With all due respect to you gentleman, I’m not sure if either side is having a good faith discussion…. 1. Anyone who says anyone believes “replacement” is being disingenuous. It’s not a charitable way of their reading of the olive tree in Romans. 2. In defense of the comment about dispensationalism being complicated, I can give you a few examples where it makes me stumble: A. Simple reading of Galatians 3 says all in Christ are the seed of Abraham. Michael J Vlach tells you “actually, seed could mean 1 of 4 things in the Bible” B. Gospel doesn’t mean gospel if it’s the kingdom. Some will even try to say kingdom of God is not the Kingdom of Heaven to get around uncomfortable verses, or that Paul and Peter have different gospels (not universal among dispys I know, but this isn’t a stretch from the line of the thinking, it’s actually logical how hyper dispys get there) C. Matthew 25 says we’ll be judged based on how we treat the “least of these”… very convicting verse for all Christians historically. Ryrie study notes says “actually this verse is talking about how those left behind in the rapture will be judged based on how they treat Jews in the 7 year tribulation” D. Futurist eschatological reading of Daniel’s 70 weeks with a 2,000 year gap inserted seems more complicated than reading it as messianic on a “determined” timeline. E. “Once alienated from the commonwealth of Israel but made nigh in the blood of Christ” (Eph 2) actually means still technically distinct from Israel, but I guess you need the right hermeneutic to get that. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but I’m not even a covenant theology guy. I’m just frustrated that I read scripture and it seems like there is a plain message for the layman, and “theology” types are telling me it’s actually way more complicated than that. I hope that makes sense, and all the best.
Btw, I’m not looking for responses to those verses, I am aware of the long winded explanations. I’m just making the point that no one, I mean no one, really seems to be offering the plain face reading. Just my experience though.
The key is reading the progress of revelation, beginning in Genesis. Putting ourselves in the shoes of the original recipients of the Covenants (Abraham, David, etc.) and the prophetic Scriptures (those in captivity, etc.). If you are willing to do that, and follow the progress of revelation, I think these difficult passages can make perfect sense.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I don’t know if that flies with your system either. Are we to believe if we put ourselves in Ezekiel’s shoes, he thought he was writing about a third temple?
Loved the interaction and comments made in this interview. As a simple listener, I think it doesn’t matter how new or old a theological concept is. The Holy Spirit doesn's stop bring more truth to us from the Bible. I think the most important thing is that we should be able to trace back any theological concept to the Bible. Simplicity doesn’t seem to be a criterion. Any Bible doctrine can be simple and complex at the same time. I would say, clarity should be a criterion, in a sense that any theological concept must be clearly taught in the Bible and secondly, not to come in contradiction with the Bible truth that was already established. Bible harmony is extremely important. I always struggled to understand how Jesus can teach the Secret Rapture towards the end of Matthew 24 (verses 40 and 41) while in the previous verses He talks about signs in sun, moon starts and heavenly bodies and a loud trumpet. His coming according to verse 27 should be like the lightning that comes from the east and it’s visible even in the west. Those two concepts are not in harmony. Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Apostle Paul talks about similar loud events in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. Nothing secret about that. So, I believe that Bible harmony is essential in all old or new teachings.
Hello @michaelmohanu939, thank you for your kind words and interaction. I (Paul Weaver) hope to release an episode soon, the 9 reasons that I hold to a Pre-Tribulational rapture. One of the many reasons is that, the description of Christ's 2nd advent - return to earth (Olivet Mountain) in Zechariah 14, Revelation 19 seems to be different in nature and purpose than what is described in John 14:1-3 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18. When we compare these passages (amongst others), I conclude along with other pre-tribulationalists that they must be describing two phases of Christ's 2nd Advent - one for the saints (1 Thess. 4; John 14), and one coming with the saints to establish the kingdom and judge the wicked (Matt. 24; Zech 14; Rev. 19). That is one of my nine reasons.
I am not a dispensationalist and the Mohler interview was disappointing to me because it did not touch exactly the points these gentlemen point out i.e why is the literal grammatical interpretation something that needs to be used correctly and in the context of the scripture. Again these men did not convince me, but at least they made a good case.
At 11:11 you all argue that Irenaeus has the dispensational view “except the pre-tribulation rapture.” But is it not the pre-tribulation rapture which is the aspect of dispensationalism which is new and the most controversial aspect of dispensationalism? It sounds like there is no disagreement about the history of the teaching, but just whether new is bad. I would point out that a major reason for the pre-trib rapture is the immanent return expectation of the church. The pre-trib event is supposed to answer the historical-critical attack on scripture. Any view that has ONE return of Christ after the tribulation removes the possibility of Christ coming “at any time” (whether pre-mil or amil). Thus, the one coming views are subject to the criticism that the first century expectation of Christ’s appearance is error. In fact, the only alternative to the pre-trib solution to this problem would be a partial-preterism, which explains the imminence of Christ’s coming by distinguishing the prophetic judgment coming of Jesus against Jerusalem (Mat 24:1-34), and the salvation of his church from their persecutors, from his future second coming (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 20:9-13). Is the “immanent expectation”issue an accurate assessment for one of the fundamental motivations for the pre-trib rapture? That is, as an apologetic against modernist critics of the Bible’s reliability?
@jrhemmerich you do not have to be a pre-tribulationalist to be a dispensationalist. There are mid-trib, pre-wrath, partial, and probably even post-tribulationalists who would regard themselves as dispensationalists. Although, pre-tribulationalists (of which I am one) believe in the imminent return of Christ, you can also believe in imminence of Christ if you do not hold to a literal tribulation but do hold to a premillennial return of Christ. Pre-tribulationalism from my vantage point is not motivated by "defending against a historical-critical attack," but rather trying to read and interpret passages like Zech. 14; Rev. 19; Matt. 24 as the original readers would have understood them, and understanding John 14 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18 as the original readers would have understood them. When we read all of these passages, they seem incompatible in the second Advent without a rapture preceeding it followed by a passing of some time. And, we find a partial-preterist view very lacking in many ways, including, and especially the dating of the book of Revelation.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters, Thanks for the reply and input. The variety of rapture views is a worthy point. I would say that they all characteristically separate the return of Christ into two stages. And this would be one of the primary characteristics of dispensational eschatology (the other two being the Church age as a parenthesis, and the restoration of Israel to the center of God's dealings with the world). I did not mean to imply that defending against the historical critical attack was a bad thing or an alternative to exegetical reasons. I actually think such a defense is a positive point for a pretrib rapture. Certainly, immanency is one of several reasons that D. Pentecost puts forward in his book Things to Come. And it is actually a reason against the mid-trib and pre-wrath views as these views locate certain texts in a place where they can't easily be separated from the return of Christ. So, I would favor the pre-trib view as helpful in explaining the Apostles’ language about an immanent appearing of the Lord (2 Tim. 4:1, 8, 1 Jn. 2:18, 28). I find any view that supports the veracity of scripture to be worth considering. But on the pre-millennial view there are difficulties with the passages you cite, as to whether the rapture can be separated from the return of the Lord. The cloud coming in Mat. 24:29-31 is supposed to happen "immediately after the tribulation" (not before). 1 Thess. 4:13-18 seems directly tied to 1 Cor. 15:24, 51-58, which occurs at the "end" of the kingdom age when death is totally defeated, and so this would be part of the general resurrection at the end of the millennial kingdom. But, alternatively, 1 Thess. 4:13-18 might be connected with Mat. 24:31. In either case, it’s not a pre-tribulation event. The resurrection at Christ's "coming" (1 Cor. 15:23) would seem to fit with the first resurrection (Rev. 20:3-4) at the beginning of the millennium. So, on the pre-mil paradigm, it’s hard to find a pre-tribulation rapture. Certainly, there are odd texts that stick out like John 14 and generic promises that believers are not destined for wrath but salvation (1 Thess. 5:9-10), but these don't directly establish the pre-trib view, but can only be used to augment and fill this view out once it is established by other passages. Zech 14 could be associated with Christ's coming at the beginning of the millennium in Rev. 19 (though it could also be associated with Rev. 20:9 and Ezek. 38), but if so, is that not Christ's premillennial coming in deliverance of faithful Israel, not the pre-trib rapture? Altogether, while I see the rationale for an immanent appearing of the Lord in the NT, I don't see the exegetical teaching of a pre-trib rapture. Are there other passages or something that I'm missing? Thanks again for your insights.
Even if dispensationalism or even the Rapture is seen by some as ‘new’ schools of thought, even though they aren’t, what’s wrong with that ? What did God say to Daniel 12:9 ? “He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.” In other words, these mysteries, which in Biblical terms is something known but not yet seen, a truth undiscoverable except by revelation, long hid, now made manifest. Thus there are many aspects of the Bible which come to the forefront as knowledge increases, or as prophecy reveals itself. Things become clearer as time goes forth. Covenant Theology just doesn’t work when one compares God’s plan for Israel with His plan for the Church.
@@benjaminbelcher2739The Great Commission, rapture, the marriage supper of The Lamb, Return with Christ and the Millennial reign of Christ to rule over the nations. And of course we have the New Heaven and New Earth.
@@benjaminbelcher2739: What a question! The Church is the Body of Christ. Currently the Head and the Body are separated. The Head is in heaven, the Body is on earth. So the next step is to unite Head and Body. This will happen between heaven and earth, in the clouds. And then: Ephesians 2:6-7: 6 And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: 7 That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Can someone tell me when John had his vision in Revelation, how did he know he was seeing exactly 1,000 years passing by? Did an Angel or the Lord tell him he was witnessing 1,000 years ? Or is the argument that the Holy Spirit inspired him to write 1,000 years. Also, when it is written that God has no problem cutting off the old branches and grafting the new ones in…are you saying that God will graft the branches that he cut off back in? Are you saying that for thousands of years since the New Testament was written that God has been sending the old branches to hell, but in the future God will graft them back in and stop sending them to hell? So millennial reign Jews get to go to heaven, but the millions before them have to go to hell?
@@nathanhornok 1. Only the non-Christian Jews can claim to be Israel, which, of course, is an ancestor from the family line of Jacob, as well as those who convert to Judaism. Those who convert to Judaism are considered to be a Jew. They are the only ones who can claim the name Israel. 2. Christians are NOT Israel. ESPECIALLY GENTILE Christians. Why? The Promised Seed is: a. Isaac b. JESUS (Galatians 3:16) a. The Family line of Jews/Judaism = Abraham, Isaac, Jacob but... b. The Family line of Christians = Abraham, JESUS, YOU. You belong to Jesus, not Jacob (Israel). Having said that, the PROMISED LAND is... a. A small piece of real estate in the middle east for the JEWS/JUDAISM b. Eternal Life in Heaven for Christians In short, there is no such thing as the church being Israel. The church is the church, and they get heaven; Israel is Israel, and they get a small piece of real estate in the middle east.
@@chapmaned24 "Only the non-Christian Jews can claim to be Israel" So when a Jew becomes a Christian today, he stops being Israel? Is he part of the "branch grafted back into the tree" whose root is Israel, but then again is not Israel because he joined the church. Is he still entitled to the tiny piece of land in the middle east? So is it like a partial prosperity gospel for messianic Jews, but not a prosperity gospel for every other Christian? Is he Israel but his Christian children are not Israel unless they keep marrying messianic Jews, or non-messianic Jews? Does the tiny piece of land belong to them even if they don't live there? And as a gentile Christian, my family line is to Jesus and then directly to Abraham because Jesus was not a descendant of Jacob? Do I have this all sorted out? Basically God is obligated to keep His promise of a tiny piece of land to descendants of Jacob as long as they keep rejecting His son, so that someday they'll stop rejecting His son once there is no Church around to preach His son as Messiah, then He'll actually give them the land forever to fulfill all those old testament prophecies about getting the land and Zion forever, but it won't really be forever cause at the end of 1,000 years the whole will be destroyed anyway? I think its starting to make sense.
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? 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?
Hello @davmatheophilus159, thanks for your comment. I am sure that you are aware that most Old Testament saints did not expect 2 advents of Christ. Yet, later progressive revelation makes that very apparent that in his first advent he came as a suffering servant and in his second advent he will return as a conquering king. Dispensationalists do not use the language of "third coming," but rather two phases of the 2nd advent. The first aspect/phased - the rapture involves meeting the Lord in the air (John 14:1-6; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), the second aspect, is a return to the Olivet Mountain (Zechariah 14:1-5; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Rev 19-21). The first aspect comes for the saints, the second with the saints (see same passages listed above). The first delivers the church from wrath, the second delivers Tribulation saints who endured wrath. The first phase is imminent, the second is preceded by signs. The first phase, Satan continues his influence on earth, in the second he is cast into the bottomless pit. So, the dispensationalist is seeking to grapple with these important passages, and we recognize that these events cannot be fulfilled by one phase of the 2nd advent.
@@davmatheophilus159what is most important is how you can harmonize the passages listed above. In my estimation, you cannot, unless there are two phases. Just as there are two comings, and only one was expected until later progressive revelation revealed that the Messiah would come as a suffering servant in His first advent and conquering king in His second.
@BibleandTheologyMatters The most important idea is that the Lord will return. Any division arising from dogmatic, bombastic assertions one knows exactly how all the details will take place, is just wrong.
Where is the hermeneutical and exegetical evidence for dispensationalism? How do you deal with the time statements? How do you apply interpretive frames regarding literalism and figurative language to the biblical text? Do you use audience relevance and context in your dispensational interpretation?
Frankly, many of you made similar mistakes to Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel. For example, when Dr. Hummel was asked for a definition he didn't really give one, he gave characteristics instead. You noted that, but then kept referring to it as a definition and treating it as a definition. For example he listed free grace as a characteristic which, it is even if it is not universal are necessarily part of a definition. Further, when one of you offered a definition it was sufficiently vague to the point that it could have easily been understood as a definition of any systematic theology including covenant theology. The only thing in the definition that limited it to dispensationalism was the claim of a "literal" hermeneutic, but depending on what is meant by "literal" that may not even limit the definition to dispensationalism. Some of your critiques of Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel's approach were warranted. Some of their arguments weren't actually arguments or did not warrant the conclusion that dispensationalism is wrong. On that we agree. Dispensationalism in genera and all of you in particular claim that a plain reading of Scripture will conclude with a dispensational perspective, but it is exactly that (a plain reading of Scripture) that led me away from dispensationalism. While I do not ascribe to covenant theology as much as a progressive covenantalism, my plain reading of Scripture has led me to believe dispensationalism is wrong. Ladd's book, The Blessed Hope, was helpful to me and Hummel's book, so far, has been helpful as well. But I have read Ryrie's book "Dispensationalism", Blaising's "Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church", and a host of others. Lastly, I've always found the use of the word "replacement theology" rather odd coming from dispensationalists. Yet, they are virtually the only ones who use the term. It is dispensationalists who literally believe Israel has been replaced with the church during the church age. Please stop using that term, it is not reflective of what most covenant theologians believe. In fact, most of them would probably use a term closer to "fulfillment theology" to describe what they believe. Your use of this term is uncharitable and misleading. I do appreciate your respectfulness towards Mohler in your conversation.
The phrase “fulfillment theology” sounds more friendly than “replacement theology,” but using it is making a distinction without a difference. They still believe that God has substituted the Nation of Israel with the Gentile Church. And that belief is the reason why they cannot take end time prophecies literally. But it's all unfolding literally today, so Israel shall start building a new temple, then rapture his church within 3.5 years.
@@biblehistoryscience3530 frankly, you are just wrong. It isn't about sounding friendly. There is a difference between "replacement theology," which is a term very few people accept as a label for themselves, and fulfillment theology. Furthermore, it is uncharitable and in bad faith to use language in a manner that misrepresents another's view. There are several views on Israel's role in the end times and simply grouping all but your view under one term, "replacement theology" is overly simplistic and unfair to those views.
@johnbyrne9601 Some in the early church saw that God had allowed Rome to conquer the nation and scatter the Israelites. Meanwhile, he was working through the church, so it seemed to them that the church had replaced Israel. But God working through the church until the rapture is not mutually exclusive with God sending revival to Israel after his Gentile bride comes home. And you can call it a spiritual continuation, but that description alone ignores the conclusion that God is therefore supposedly finished with national Israel.
@@biblehistoryscience3530 I understand what dispensational premillennialism believes. That is not the issue. I'm not calling anything a "spiritual continuation." As you described, dispensational premillennialism it occurs to me that "replacement theology" might more accurately describe your view than it does mine. I am not covenantal and there are more views than just strict dispensationalism and covenantalism. I am probably best described as a progressive covenantalist/historic premillennialist. While my view regarding Israel doesn't agree with yours, it also isn't replacement theology. "Replacement theology" is a term that for the most part is misused to describe views that do not hold to what the term seems to describe. It is rarely a helpful term.
@@johnbyrne9601 , Whether you believe in it or not, the debate is about Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology, which many people call Replacement Theology because it teaches that the church now holds the special relationship with God once held by Israel. They don't like the term because of the Antisemitic implications, but “replace” is the correct word for the idea that God permanently substituted the church for Israel in this relationship. In Rom 11, Paul warned against such hubris that the church had replaced Israel. He vehemently rejected claims that Israel had fallen from grace. Paul said that God had mostly hardened Israel UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. The church gets raptured, then God will send a revival to Israel, and the great tribulation will start.
That is true. If you are interested in the reasoning, rather than assume it fits Hummel's narrative, here is an insider's perspective with a very honest and objective view. facebook.com/share/p/efX1jQHMYA2EhEZQ/
Its sad that we all got to tear each other apart. I don't know but would believe some of these men are disagreement with each other. Any form of systematic theology under mines the nature of God. God knows we all do our best to find the truths contained in His word written to the simplest of all who spend the time and effort to read it.
Very well done. The comments from everyone are thought-out and expressed well, but even more striking to me is the kindness and grace which every one displayed while responding. I had watched this video for a few minutes, then I went back and watched the entire interview with Dr. Hummel before returning to this one. To be honest, some of the comments - and especially the attitude from Dr. Mohler - ruffled my feathers more than once. However, when I came back here to finish watching, everyone's attitudes while addressing the interview with Dr. Hummel was the gentle but firm reprimand I needed to adjust my own attitude. Thank you, Dr. Weaver!
Thank you for the kind words @karenjames2910. We are pleased that you found it to be a clear, appropriate, and kind response. I must confess, many of us had the same response you did, and we too had to work through our initial frustration and make sure we did not respond in kind.
An incredibly thorough, respectful, and needed response to an admittedly frustrating initial podcast. Thank you.
Thank you for your kind words. I am pleased that you found it thorough and respectful. That was our aim. And yes, it was very frustrating too :(.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I don't apply names or titles to Bible doctrine. I'm just waiting for the Rapture.
Thanks, Ya'll. I really appreciate your input on dispensationalism. I am, by the way, one of the older dispensationalists at 69 years old. Maranatha Ya'll!
Thanks for kind feedback. We are glad you found it beneficial.
I'm an older dispensationalist than you. 😂 I am an old Plymouth Brethren.
These scholars do a great job sifting through the rhetoric from Hummel and Mohler that proves to have no evidence behind it. Very professional critique, gentlemen. Blessings.
Thanks @5crownsministries for your kind feedback.
Watch the UA-cam video titled "Genesis of Dispensational Theology", if you want to see the original source of the doctrine in black and white. It came from Edward Irving's English translation of the book "Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty", written by a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest named Manuel Lacunza. Irving taught the doctrine at the Albury Prophetic Conferences starting about 1826. John Nelson Darby taught the doctrine at the Powerscourt Prophetic Conferences a few years later. After Irving died in 1834 Darby became the chief salesman of the doctrine and brought it to the U.S. about the time of the Civil War.
Brilliant ❤ thank you for bringing together such a glittering array of distinguished dispensational protagonists. Believe me it is a real blessing to have such clear and concise analysis of such clumsy sloppy works of disparity against dispensationalism.
A 54 year old surviving Brethren boy here in the UK grateful to have been raised with such blessed truths so many are unwittingly ignorant of.
Please keepnio the good work more more more ❤🙏💪
Thank you for the kind words. We are glad that you found it to be a clear and concise analysis.
Please be so kind as to tell me what they actually said ,which would leave an impartial person convinced of ther view?
They said absolutely nothing of any substance?
Dr Hummel actually said in his book that Darby was quite the theologian. I don’t know if anyone cares to do a deeper dive into his assertions before the critiques. Maybe somebody could read his book! He had an interview on the podcast, eschatology matters, and he was on with a guy who was dispensational and they had a very gracious exchange. Nobody was attacking either one. They were very scholarly and fair with each other. Wouldn’t it be awesome if we could have a conversation with those we disagree with in a gracious manner.
Hello @jillbaxter9513. I (Paul Weaver) have read Daniel Hummel's book twice. I have listened to about 6 podcast interviews he has been on (including the one you reference), and I also have been on a podcast with him (see link below). So, I think I have a good understanding of what he is saying and the way he is saying it. Additionally, the interview you are commenting on here is more about the disparaging comments of Albert Mohler, than the contents of the book itself. It seems that Al Mohler took Daniel's book further than Daniel intended. I am not sure if you watch the video or not. I would encourage you to do so. ua-cam.com/video/1v5cfTTWcf0/v-deo.html&ab_channel=DallasTheologicalSeminary
Well done. Thank you to all who took part in this discussion.
Thank you for your kind words!
What an incredible discussion! I find it fascinating that Dispensationalism flourished in the churches without the need to be taught in an academic setting. I appreciate the editing the video together to make it more succinct.
Thanks @JohnDHernandez for the kind words! We are pleased that you found this conversation helpful. I agree with you, it is fascinating that people trained to not be dispensationalists in their seminary training (Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Jerry Vines, W.A. Criswell) would all independently come a dispensational perspective.
Dispensationalism spread and flourished among the churches as a direct result of the introduction of the Scofield Bible. ✔️
Dispensationalism thrived because there was never challenge to it. In circles such as the one I was raised in there were never any opposing views expressed because to express an opposing view to views such as a pre trib rapture or the church as Israel even to this day will be dismissed and accused as a false teacher or heretic. They have so married these secondary views to Salvation that no one dares to challenge them. It is not that it has thrived it is that all opposition is silenced through intimidation, maybe not intentional but still damaging to spiritual development. Most people raised under dispensationalism don't even realize they have been taught the bible through a filter or that there are other views. If they are aware they don't bother to learn about them because it is impressed upon them that they are all heresy. Let me guess there are no opposing views on this panel. I actually thought they were far too gracious to dispensationalists in the Al Mohler podcast.
@@DeltaDawn77agreed
S. Louis Johnson, an esteemed professor at DTS, was a friend and preached at my home assembly in Toronto many times both on Calvinism and dispensational truth.
S. Lewis Johnson was indeed a respected dispensational theologian and professor.
Dr. Weaver, thank you for the thoughtful, helpful, and clarifying responses to Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel. From my humble vantage point, you and your panel accomplished at least two things in an exemplary fashion. First, you established the contemporary vitality of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism has not died, nor is dispensationalism on death's doorstep. Indeed, it appears that it has only continued to grow in popularity within the past fifty years. I attend a pastor's fellowship in northern Maine, and we all hold a dispensationalist system. Admittedly, we are not a large group, but that has more to do with our geographical location (isolation?) rather than a perceived waning in the popularity of dispensationalism. Second, I believe you and your panel provided an excellent example of what it looks like to hold, and humbly defend theologically different systems while intentionally maintaining the loving and respectful unity of the body of Christ.
Hello @michaelwinningham6166, thank you for your kind and thoughtful words. We are pleased that you found this video both truthful and respectful. I (Paul Weaver) lived up in Schroon Lake, NY for 5 years, and sadly never made it up to Maine. I regret that! I am sure it is a beautiful countryside.
Thank you for the discussion, as a layman I had listened to the review of Dr. Hummel's book and enjoyed your explanations and comments.
Glad it was helpful! Thanks for your feedback!
Thank You all for this video response. The anti dispensationalists have been adept at propagating their views on social mddia and You tube so many young people are being duped by these hatchet job critiques and think now that dispensationalism is a dangerous thing. They need a lot more content like this to balance things out. Please keep it up.
@steveluibrand7174 thank you for your kind words in regards to our presentation. We do want to share what we believe to be the best understanding of Scripture, and as you indicate, these aren't trivial matters, and dispensationalism is not a "heresy" to be shunned. Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology (and everything in between) does impact how you understand the whole grand narrative of Scripture and interpret so many passages of Scripture. And, we do need able defenders, even, and especially when individuals try to minimize and disparage our views.
Dispensationalism is a dangerous thing.!!!! Ask the the Jews and everybody else living in Israel at the present time if they feel good about 2/3s of them perishing in an Armageddon kind of war!!!!! Dispensationalism demands the Jews go thru the wrath of God in our future!!!!! Only problem!!!!! Matt.24 is over!!!! Never gonna happen again Matt.24:21!!!!!! The futurists have been chucking O.T. and 1st century events out into our future for almost 200 years. Thought you otta know!!!!!!
What would you suggest these people are doing? Take a look at Matthew 24:36-41 and tell us that is the days of Noah who remained and who was taken. it is obvious in the days of Noah that it was the unrighteous who was taken. How does that fit with what dispensationalists teach about rapture theology?
Hello @@geraldpolmateer3255. I (Paul Weaver) teach a course on the Gospels and I treat Matthew 24-25 in depth. You are right, this passage is not a reference to the rapture. Anyone who says it is, I think, is mistaken. This passage is a reference to the second advent of Christ. The wicked are taken to judgment, and the righteous remain to enter the kingdom. This is in contrast to the rapture passages like 1 Thess. 4:13-18 and John 14:1-6, which indicate the righteous are taken and the wicked are left behind. The inability to combine these passages with Matt. 24 (among others) is one of the reasons that we see a distinction between these two events (rapture vs. 2nd advent). If you are interested in learning more you can watch our 2 part series on the rapture - ua-cam.com/video/TLPwPZHXkns/v-deo.html&ab_channel=BibleandTheologyMatters
Teaching stories as the Bible does helps to prevent complex theological systems because they are stories and stories are remembered by oral learners. Biblical theology helps to prevent the errors that can occur in systematic theology.
I really enjoyed this discussion! I wish Paul Weaver would do a show on the best books to read about dispensationalism.
Check out Randy White Ministries. I find so many conflicts within dispensationalism, but his perspective seems to correct them.
@@RNLWW That’s the opposite of my experience. I found conflict and contradiction everywhere until I finally stumbled upon dispensationalism just four or five years ago. What conflicts have you identified in dispensationalism?
@@christopherlees1134 Sorry for the confusion. I agree that disp made everything make much more sense. It was the teachings from pastors whom I believe held to the Acts 2 position that didn’t make sense to me. They said they were dispensationalists, but still applied the Hebrew Scriptures to us, for example. They really didn’t preach too differently from the covenant theologians.
@@RNLWW Well said, and I agree with that 100%. I have a friend, a pastor, who is Acts 2 and I can't get him to see it any other way, yet he is a proud dispensationalist. I am Acts 9 or Mid-Acts. I think Paul was the first in the Body of Christ. He was given the Mystery of the Fellowship to preach to the Gentiles, for sure. Acts 2 guys point to Cornielius and say he was the first Gentile saved into the Church, but I think he was saved into the Kingdom Church.
@@christopherlees1134 Yes, I agree with you. If you look at what Peter told Cornelius, he told him to “work righteousness.” That is not our gospel. He did not mention salvation by grace through faith alone.
I don’t see our gospel annotated in Acts until Acts 13:38-39.
Among the mid-Acts folks, I still find they try to force square things into round holes, like forcing Paul’s law and Jewish statements onto the body of Christ. He has a lot of Jewish stuff in there because many in his audience were Jewish (as we learn in Acts). Makes sense that there was a period of overlap when the national kingdom gospel was going to the Jews while also the individual gospel of grace was going to all. I think the kingdom offer existed from Pentecost until AD70, a diminishing of Israel (Rom 11) as opposed to a sharp cut off. That would account for a lot of things Paul wrote.
Dr. White in his verse-by-verse studies has some very good points about rightly dividing Paul. 💡
This is a great video! Thank you to all who participated to provide clarity on this important issue.
Thank you for your kind feedback. We are glad that you found it helpful.
I leaf dispensationalism for it is contrary to what the Bible teaches. For example, as what I heard from many pastors that we are now in the dispensation of grace, but when I come in Romans 4 where Paul says that Abraham and David were justified through faith is not the same as what dispensationalist pastors and theologians have claimed. So this means to me that there is no such thing as we are now in the "dispensation of grace." According to Paul in Romans 4, Abraham and David were saved by grace long long time ago.
James 2 clarifies. Neither were “saved” like we are saved. They were not indwelled by the Holy Spirit. They were not sealed until the day of judgment. They were not born again or regenerate. They were not granted the remission of sins. Their salvation was not like ours. And because we see that difference, we identify a different dispensation than we now experience. All people for all time were offered and some received grace. But ours, today, is by faith alone and no mixture of works, which you cannot say is true of Abraham or David.
You mean that thier salvation was not by grace? If so they were saved by work? And that's not biblical, for nothing in the Bible that fallen man was saved by work. Read Hebrews 3:7- 6:4 that the Holy Spirit was at work for the salvation of those who come to faith from the time of exodus untill now. So there is no such thing as we are now in the dispensation of grace. Saving grace through Jesus Christ was offered beginning at the fall of man in the garden (see Gen. 3:15), until this time and the time to come.
@@scott-teaches-bible James 2 does not speak that Abraham was counted righteous before God for what he had done, for Gen. 15:1-6 comes first before Gen. 22. So to James he is simply telling us that saving faith must do good works as proof of it, this means good works are the fruits of God's saving grace. Daniel Wallace rightly says on James 2, "Salvation is by faith alone, but faith alone is not alone". Therefore James 2 is not a valid proof that the salvation of the Old Testament believers were not the same as ours today.
@@scott-teaches-bibleno on has ever been saved by faith plus works. Not what James 2 teaches. That is heresy. Be careful!
Justified by faith is not being saved as a lost man. Justified is present tense and is about a saved man walking by faith.
Thanks for doing this. I got so ticked off watching that Mohler show, for exactly the points you're bringing up, that I couldn't finish watching it. It's nice to know that the stuff said in that interview is not just going to slip by without any rebuttal. Thanks.
Thanks for the kind feedback. I know that this interview got the blood boiling of a lot of people, for good reason, ours included - which, in our opinions, warranted a rebuttal.
I am happy to come across this conversation. It allows me to think I may not be so stupid after all. Perhaps many of my teachers were not all false teachers afterall.
@1995dodgetruck you are not stupid, and anyone who makes you feel that way, is not a person under whom you want to study the Word. We need to read Scripture using the natural laws of communication that God created. God has chosen to reveal Himself to us, and has chosen to do so in an understandable way.
....I sat under a pastor for several years who was promoted as the ducks nuts preacher in our church network. On the surface he spoke really well, articulate, intelligent and well read. But us more mature believers could see some serious problems with his theology. I get the impression that he filtered the text through the lens of people like NT Wright, Francis Collins and he promoted The Bible Project. In the end no matter how learned someone is, their qualifications and success is not the bench mark of the standard of truth and Wright, Collins and The Bible Project has too many red flags.
Hello men. I have a great amount of respect for your work in the gospel. Please arrange a debate between the most accomplished of dispensationalists with the covenant theologians. It would be worth it.
This video was probably the best I have seen on this subject so far. I'm now 69 years old, and I have been a believer and a dispensationalist since I was 16. I'm still somewhat surprised to see that most of the anti-dispensationalists claim we believe things which we don't! An earlier comment poster here stated that we believe the method of salvation is different for each dispensation. That is not true. The Anti-D's keep bringing up the poorly worded and not properly edited Old Scofield note at John 1:17. Yes, that note is a mistake and contradicts other known writings of C. I. Scofield.
They also do not acknowledge that most of the early American dispensationalists came from a Reformed (Presbyterian) background!
I am a fan of the teaching ministry of the late S. Lewis Johnson, his writings and lectures can be downloaded in PDF form. He has a great lecture on Dispensational teaching and even refers to himself as a "light" dispensationalist.
I come from a background of dispensationalism and looking back and to the present it is very typical of D's to misrepresent covenant theologians, and all opposing views too.
I liked Dr. Stallard's comment that dispensationalism has always been more of a movement of churches than the academy (seminary).
@gregb6469 I noticed you deleted your previous comment. In that post you deleted, you wrote, "If dispensationalism is true, why did no one notice it was in Scripture until the mid-1800s?" I responded, "@gregb6469 thank you for your question. If you genuinely want the answer, you can listen to the video from 8:24-12:48." If you are serious about your questions, please watch the video and interact with the substance of it. Thanks!
A more edifying discussion would have been a representative from both sides of the question respectfully discussing the topic. This seems more like 9 guys piling on someone who is not there to defend their position, and the reasons for it.
You mean like Albert Mohler did, right?
We were responding to the falsehoods and mischaracterizations that were made. Anyone can review Mohler and Hummel's comments, and ours (as they are included in the video), and determine which is accurate.
Truth is constantly under attack and suppression in this corrupt world. God bless these truth tellers.
Everybody here defending dispensationalism is a dispensationalitst. 😃
I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Do you expect non-dispensationalists to defend dispensationalism? I would not expect a panel defending Covenant Theology to have dispensationalists among them.
I am a dispensationalist who attends a PCA church which espouses covenant theology. The question I always ask is 'what difference does it make' in terms of my walk with Christ?
I am not persuaded that it does make a difference. Am I wrong?
@solideomusical As to what difference acceptance of dispensationalism should make in terms of the Christian life, I request that you consider both the analogies in Romans 7:1-6 and Galatians 3:23-29 and 4:1-7 and 4:21 and 5:1-6. My basic concept here is that Paul is using two socially understood experiences as analogous to a dispensational change which God effected IN THE LIVES of saints, through the effects possible only through the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Both of these analogies depend on recognition of a basic change made available only after the resurrection of Jesus. In Romans 7 , applied, we have previous marriage to Jesus under law, but then after His death the wife (saints,corporately) married another "to Him Who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God". The problem is still believing that we are still married to Christ under law. If we hold to a theological system which ignores or denies such change then we might not be fully fruitful unto God. The Galatians analogy borrows from a Greek upper class custom which you might read toward the end of Plato's Lysis (a Socratic dialogue)( A long and boring read.). The custom involves a teenage boy from a very rich family, of ruling class potential. The boy is in line to be very rich and powerful. But, according to custom, he now has control of nothing. He is not even allowed to drive his father's chariot or choose horses to ride. He admits that he would even be limited in the kitchen. Instead he is SUBSERVIENT to household slaves appointed to teach him and oversee every detail of his life. That's how Plato wrote it. Paul takes this as the service to God of saints under law. Galatians 3:23 But before the faith came ( the gospel-after Christ's resurrection) we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed. 24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster (paidagogos. same word used by Plato) unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that the faith (the gospel) is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. 4:1 Now I say that the heir, as long as he is a child (the underage boy) differeth nothing from a servant, though he be lord of all; (this refers to the inheritance that the boy is sure to have when he comes of age). 2 But is under tutors and governors until the time appointed by the father. The next verses show a very crucial change, from being true children of God to being SONS. The time appointed was the death burial and resurrection . So as the Greek boy was truly the son already, by birth, he was NOT RECOGNIZED AS SON. The rubber meets the road practically in Gal. 5:1 Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, and be no entangled again with the yoke of bondage. The Greek boy, at maturity now rules his former paidagogos. He dare not answer any more to them. You need to seriously read these Romans and Galatians texts. You will need to read them many times until it becomes clear. I needed to study these texts for months. The urgent lesson is that we each must answer to Jesus personally. I must answer for myself, with no dispensationalists to fall back on. You also, alone. No excuses. I don't care what other dispensationalists say or teach or believe. I study the Bible. Trying to get better at Greek (at 76 in three weeks). Please consider Romans 7:4 that we might bring forth fruit unto God. Jesus will inventory our fruit unto God. But Paul here emphasizes that fruit depends on living in conscious acknowledgement to this dispensational change, as explained by these two analogies. I could go on, but you need to study. I don't tailor my understanding to what these guys say. I will answer to my Lord according to what the Bible says. Back at Phila. College of Bible in '73 I hated Dispensationalism. I set out to prove my prof. to be wrong. After months of intense study.....oops! What I have written seems weird. But look for someone else who understands these texts as well. Keep your nose in the Bible.
@solideomusical. I should mention that I was for decades a member of Tenth Presbyterian Church in Philly ( Dr. James Boice).
Dispensationalism has been revised twice since Clarence Larkin. Why? Imagine the oral learners of the early church trying to memorize Darbyism. Imagine how many in Hebrews 11 could tell the stories of those mentioned "by faith . . ." Yet, the early church knew the stories. What happened? Jesus referred to people like Daniel, Noah, and others. How many in churches today would know what Jesus was talking about. It would be nice if dispensationalists would use a literal approach to the 24:36-41. They need to notice who was left and who was taken in the days of Noah.
I am very much encouraged by this podcast. I am a dispensationalist unashamedly.
Thanks for your kind feedback. We are pleased that you found it beneficial!
Justification by faith was not established by Martin Luther, have you not read Ephesians 2?
The contributors never indicated it was "established" by Martin Luther. Maybe "reclaimed" or "rediscovered." But all contributors would believe that Justification by Faith was clearly taught in Ephesians and elsewhere.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I apologize if I misheard, but I would agree with what you stated.
Where do u think Luther got it. He studied the bible.
Strong content here. Good work, Dr. Weaver, stay at it! Convincing arguments ...
Thanks for the kind words @ppettit!
New Testament Christians are the oldest Christians with the original doctrine.
Rom10:19 But I say, did Israel not know? First Moses says:
“I will provoke you to jealousy by those who are not a nation,
I will move you to anger by a foolish nation.”
Rom 11: 11 I say then, have they stumbled that they should fall? Certainly not! But through their fall, to provoke them to jealousy, salvation has come to the Gentiles. 15 For if their being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? :23 for God is able to graft them (the nation) in again.
Acts 15: 6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, [a]acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had [c]become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
Roms 11: 25 For I do not desire, brethren, that you should be ignorant of this mystery, lest you should be wise in your own [f]opinion, that blindness in part has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in.
I expect some push back but that's OK. Not only is dispensationalism new, it's evolved, and changed since Darby first introduced it. A simply reading of those supporting it over the last 200 years makes this point obvious. I won't go over the specifics scripturally those problems, but I will say that a main point is that D says the Bible must be read literally at all times, except when there are obvious problems and then D says it must be read metaphorically.
This book didn't cause me to reject D. I did that a long time ago when it simply didn't line up with what the Bible says plainly. Perhaps you have a point about ad homonym attacks. I would call it church history of the men who preached D, but you are free to call it personal. Noteworthy is Scofield who was indeed a genuine scoundrel which even D experts can't deny.
A secondary reason, which you did address was D's complexity. As far as I know only the Catholic Catechism is more complicated.
I hope I didn't hurt anybody's feelings. I would have said the same thing to a string theorist, many who have dedicated their whole life to that flawed theory. I'm sure many of the scholars on your panel have held their position for a lifetime and I don't expect them to change, anymore than I would expect the Catholic clergy to change their position. IMHO
Unfortunately, you have given a very bad mischaracterized, and caricatured view of Dispensationalism. I won't take the time to respond to your points because they have been responded to many times, in many books by dispensationalists. It is essential to accurately and carefully understand and describe the views of those we disagree with and especially those we critique.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I think you proved my point for me. You are putting the burden on me to dig through your archives and read D books so I can convince myself that you are right. The conclusions of dispensational writings will obviously agree with what you are asserting so what would be the point? For example, would a book on string theory give an unbiased view if string theory is correct? Very unlikely.
@@stevelenores5637 No, I am saying, you haven't tried to understand what we are saying, and it doesn't appear that you care. So, I am not going to waist either of our time responding with a thorough answer. If you are interested, my UA-cam channel has the answers. But I encourage you to be more charitable in your engagement because we are both brothers in Christ.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters That is fair. Go in peace.
Sounds like you guys are admitting a guru is needed to understand things. I thought dispensationalism was so easy to understand that i never gave it another thought. When I learned exegesis, it makes no sense. It makes the Jewish people God and everything centered around them and dozens of passages that need erased put of the Bible for it to work. Can someone send me Ryrie’s four page paper? I would like to sift through it and see if he leaves out a lot of Bible to make it work.
Well being someone who grew up with parents and grandparents who taught dispensationalism both in church and at a seminary level (my grandparents own a seminary), yes it was very confusing and convoluted to understand. Thank God I now hold to covenant reformed theology as it explains the Bible much more faithfully and clearly.
Dispensational theology is definitely a better system as compared to covenant theology. I agree with the more consistent hermeneutics of dispensational theology as against that of covenant theology which allegorises or spiritualises the prophetic messages of the Bible especially those concerning Israel. Literal hermeneutics is definitely a better way to understand the Bible as intended by God.
If you and I were present during the original reading of John’s letter to the churches in Asia Minor, we would have understood it. As such we would have assumed the genre and been familiar with the apocalyptic language. In other words, the allegorical language would have made perfect sense to 1st century hearers because it was written to them.
Could you explain how didp. Thelogy hermeneutics work. Thank you
Consistent hermeneutics? Seriously?
Close readings of Hebrews and Galatians defeat dispensationalism. Please, brothers.
Most of us have read and taught through Hebrews and Galatians on many occasions - I teach through them both in my seminary courses at least three times a year. And, I would completely disagree with your statement (which should not be surprising to you). Such a statement is very simplistic and demeaning.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters it is a befuddling difference of opinion, but you’re right - I must respect it nonetheless for the glory of God!!
@BibleandTheologyMatters but you are reading and teaching them through a dispensational lens. What about the authors intent and the original context? You have to make the bible say things it doesn't and ignore what it does to make it fit dispensationalist framework.
The Explanatory Power and Ease of understanding with visual aid is why Dispensationalism has dominated American Christian Interpretation.
Also the Current Situation of Israel is the Elephant in the room, that is being displayed on the World stage is Impossible to agnore
Israel, modern national Israel, is not the Israel of God, and is not Israel after the Spirit. All the promises to physical Israel have been fulfilled, including the coming of Messiah.
Modern day Unbelieving Israel has been Gaslighted by a Satanic Secret Society who are pretending to be Genetic Jews but they are NOT.
Nope Physical Israel did NOT Inheritant the Land Promised by God a UNCONDITIONAL Covenant to Abraham Physical Seed, the Church does NOT replace Israel, God will go back to dealing with Unbelieving Israelites when the Church age is complete at (the Rapture)
Im not a higher educated person but in my teens in the 80s I had a lot of questions about the Middle East. I coverted from atheism to believing Genesis as historical in March/April 1993 but did not become born again until October 1993.
In those several months in 1993 those questions I had in the 1980s began to get answered as I got my nose into Biblical prophecy and that was in what I became to under as Dispensational Pre-millenialism Eschatology framework.
I have friends who have beliefs that are preterist, amillenial and post-millennial and they seem to struggle making sense of the age we live in.
" Dispensational Pre-millenialism Eschatology" ??? what??? oh i do not understand anything here.. i suppose i'll have to repeat this video over and over and really focus...
@@FrankAllen-fx2hw ....also helpful..... ua-cam.com/video/INKubom7tdg/v-deo.htmlsi=2Y0xGgy-8WU1GOym
The two covenants are not matters of time but conition of the heart , and Christ has one bride not two full stop . Please go back and read the bible not footnotes added to a bible to teach zionism it is a different gospel Paul would be horrified 😢😢😢
The apostle Paul called the church the body of Christ and was the only apostle to do so , Israel as the bride, I personally take Paul's instruction on this matter
Nowhere in scripture do I find that the church has a covenant with God
Thank you for this podcast. As a pastor, I have been attacked for my dispensational viewpoint, and watching this podcast is good and encouraging.
Thanks Bryan for your kind feedback. I am glad that you found it helpful. When there are so many issues threatening conservative evangelicalism (like attacks on inerrancy, biblical view of gender / anthropology, and more) it is sad that many have chosen to focus their attention on dispensationalism, which is a serious attempt (and accurate I might add) to carefully understand and interpret God's plans and purposes for humanity as recorded in Scripture.
There are many people who need hope for the heart. Especially when the night is long they need hope in the night. It is good to have someone people can call on to point them to biblical truth. Keep up the good work.@@BibleandTheologyMatters
@@BryanTripp Your sense of humor hasn't changed in 20 years :). Let me know if you ever are back in the Dallas area! We can go work the phones at Hope for the Heart again, like old times. :)
It's unfortunate that you have been attacked. I was raised in a dispensational system and to the present day I hear dispensational preachers attack, demean and misrepresent opposing views and never challenged or critiques.
I haven't taken Mohler seriously since his stances going back a few years to the social justice movement's impact on his and other evangelicals positions. He hides behind obfuscation and rhetoric, and was promptly called out by Phil Johnson. No surprise he said what he said about dispensationalism, I watched that interview even before seeing this response video. Not sure why people are so impressed with his views
I'm with you concerning Mohler. He has allowed much wokeness at his seminary, yet act like it isn't there. A lot of bad stuff has went on there, such as the dismissal of Dr. Russel Fuller. Also, many have pointed out that he leads from behind.
Thank you for this counterbalance to the claims of the book. On the At The Table podcast you mentioned Michael Horton had recently spoken about and put in print a notion of a place for Israel. I was very intrigued by that given my previous understanding of Horton’s position. Could you direct me to the source of what you were referencing there as I’d love to read it. Thanks!
Hello @relientkgeek. Thanks for your kind words. As to Michael Horton. I don't recall if I said "put in print," but I did mention that he stated that, in my company, that there may be a place for a future ethnic Israel. I was shocked, but it was during a presentation that he gave virtually to a group of DTS faculty. Last year the biblical studies division was reading and discussing the book "Covenantal and Dispensational Theologies." That book included four contributors - Michael Horton represented Covenant Theology. We had each contributor present their views. Again, he made the statement that there might be a place for ethnic Israel in the future, but he did not elaborate any further. So, I am not sure that he has ever put that in print, but I do have about 30 witnesses :).
Thanks you for this response to a video which i admit left me troubled. Regardless of what we call our theology, I believe the simple reading of Scripture is generally best. God tells us what He wants us to know and what He doesn't say, we can trust to Him. At about minute 49-50 in the previous video Dr. Mohler says when he was a teenager, a good dispensationalist confused him saying, " no one knows the date or the hour, but we are responsible to know the times and the seasons." It sounds good if you are trying to discredit a dispensational view, but would be even better if he actually found biblical support for his view. He NEVER quotes the Bible in the entire interview, but in this particular situation, a plain reading of the Bible says we can't know the hour, but we CAN see the signs. How does he miss that? Or does he ignore it to further his viewpoint? Thanks again.
They raked Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel over the coals. Well, done. Thank you all for defending the truth and giving God glory. I just wish this panel was a couple of hours longer.
Thanks for posting this response. I just finished the Mohler video and it’s important to avoid “one hand clapping,” so thank you for providing another hand.
I find your dispensationalism definition interesting. Nothing seems distinct except “the plain reading of scripture.”
Can you define “plain” reading? Do you mean:
-“free from metaphor, imagery, or typology”,
-“clear; not difficult to understand,”
-“does not require other scripture for clarity.”
Or maybe all/none of these?
And how does “plain” separate itself from the other views by your definition?
Thanks for your kind feedback. As far as my definition of dispensationalism, I do try to focus on the main point - it is an understanding of human history recorded in the Scripture (not an imposed system), and it utilizes a normal, plain reading of Scripture. By plain, we emphasize what we believe to be the natural reading of the Scripture - the original intention of the author, which certainly includes figurative language, symbols, and metaphors (as our every day language incorporates). What did Abraham understand when he was told that his descendants would receive a land ... and that they would be as numerous as the sand on the seashore and stars in the sky? Did he understand it to be an unconditional covenant made to him or could it be transferred to another people group, (the church)? What my hermeneutic does not include, is utilizing a typological method or allegorical method that in our estimation is not divinely intended and cannot be successfully validated from the Scripture itself. There are certainly types in the Old Testament (i.e. Melchizedek, passover, etc.) but those I would argue are clearly identified by the biblical authors. When it comes to symbols in prophetic literature, we believe those symbols have literal referents. Sometimes those literal referents are even articulated by the text - "the seven lamp stands are the seven churches." (Rev. 1:20). It is not as one commentator on Revelation said that the book of Revelation was just "A beautiful poem of good defeating evil." Thanks again for your thoughts and questions.
@ Thank you for your response. I’m sure you are busy, so I really appreciate you taking the time to answer!
If I may, I still struggle to see this definition make dispensationalism distinct. Many of the other views would say they utilize an understanding of human history through the “natural” reading of scripture (I don’t think anyone would claim an “unnatural” reading,) yet they are not dispensationalist. Although it seems that more passages are taken in their non-typological/non-spiritual sense, this does not always happen with dispensationalism.
Maybe there are specific passages viewed in a plain reading that make Dispensationalism distinct?
Below is my current understanding. Feel free to read, but feel no obligation to respond as I know you may not have time to respond to every random UA-camr lol
I grew up in dispensationalism and have struggled to understand how the NT authors connect Jesus to prophecies in the OT. For reference:
Matt 1 : 23 with Isaiah 7:14
Matt 2 : 15 with Hosea 11:1
Matt 2 : 17-18 with Jeremiah 31:15
John 12 : 41 with Isaiah 6:9
Galatians 4(:27) with Isaiah 54:1
Etc., and many many more.
the NT writers see Jesus in the OT where I cannot with a dispensational lens. It seems when Jesus says He came to fill-full the law and the prophets, the NT writers see the whole story pointing to Him.
Regarding ethnic Israel, it seems they were given full access to some promises, but in disobedience they failed to step into it (see Joshua 21 : 43-45 regarding the land.) Yet, He remains faithful when we are not, and every member of ethnic Israel still has opportunity to step into Jesus’ fulfillment of the promises “if they do not continue in unbelief” (Rom 11:23).
Now IN JESUS “every promise is yes,” for both Jew and Greek. Together, we seek Jesus’ rule as disciples and long for his coming.
It seems dispensationalism rejects the typology/fulfillment of Jesus as faithful Israel. This is not an uncommon typology supported in the NT, so I often wonder why it’s rejected.
If you have any resources you recommend on this topic I’d appreciate it! I never want to stop refining my understanding, and dialogue with faithful believers of a different perspective is valuable.
Here is an interesting video clip that I just stumbled across - a round table event moderated by R.C Sproul where R.C. Sproul Jr. states that there was a time when virtually only dispensationalists believed in the Bible. What a remarkable admission: ua-cam.com/video/aSI4_T7tVKo/v-deo.html&ab_channel=DoctrinalWatchdog
I'm sorry guys but dispensationalism is not conceived of God but by man. Much learning makes us stupid. Besides why does it matter what we think about dispensationalism. Are you saying, if we don't believe in the concept of dispensationalism, we are not saved?
No one is saying that Dispensationalism or Covenant Theology is a matter of salvation. It is not a fundamental of the faith or a test of Orthodoxy. However, your position drastically impacts your understanding of the Grand Narrative of Scripture and the interpretation of MANY key passages of Scripture. So, it is a worthy of our careful study. And, we need to be gracious with those who have a different interpretation than we do. This is part of the point of this discussion.
Very very very good.what I would really appreciate is a written copy of this particular program. This program in written form will serve the evangelical Christian world. Thank you
Hello Linda, I wish that we had the time and ability to transcript our podcasts, but right now, it is just my wife and I (Paul Weaver) doing all the work for this channel along with my full-time professorial responsibilities. I do hope, as the page grows, and donations are given, that I can employ someone part time (or recruit volunteers) who can do this kind of thing. Thanks for your interest!
Im very new to the faith (4 years), and I find myself on a constant path towards biblical truth. Through my seeking I've come across Dispensationalism and most all of what I've been learning rings true to me and is much easier to understand. Certain scripture that seemed contradictory, no longer is an issue. I have one question/issue I hope to gain some insight. Can Jews who become messianic or gain a belief in our Lord Jesus Christ be a part of the body of Christ or the Church? It's hard for me to think that God would keep the Church salvation separate entirely from Jews who believe in Jesus.
Can jews who become Messianic be part of the body of christ ?
1Pe 2:5 ISV you, too, as living stones, are building yourselves up into a spiritual house and a holy priesthood, so that you may offer spiritual sacrifices that are acceptable to God through Jesus, the Messiah.
Hello @mungiesilvers5544! I am so pleased that you became a follower of Christ 4 years ago! Obviously, I agree that I believe that dispensationalism provides the best explanation of the grand narrative of Scripture starting in Genesis 1 through Revelation 22. To answer your question, yes - Jewish people in the current age, who place their faith in the Jesus for salvation are a part of the church (see Ephesians 2:11-22). Having said that, we do believe that while in this era, God is saving a remnant (Paul was one of them; see Romans 11:1), in the future, a huge amount of Jewish people will become believers in Christ, so much so that Paul says, "All Israel will be saved" (Romans 11:25-26). We believe this will occur during the tribulation period, and just prior to the establishment of the Kingdom on Earth - the Millennium (1,000 year reign of Christ - see Revelation 20). One of my former professors at Dallas Theological Seminary - Dr. Thomas Constable provides free electronic commentaries on every book of the Bible. I think you will find them very helpful - planobiblechapel.org/constable-notes/
Has God always had just one people (Jews and proselytes together) or more than one people (Jews, Gentiles, etc.)? One is clearly simpler than two.
@@mchristr Yes, to be a follower of Yahweh in the Old Testament you had to for all practical purposes to become Jewish. However, in the New Testament, you no longer became a part of a nation of people but a gathering of believers, the church. This seems to make the point, that what is going on in the Old Testament is very different than what is happening during the church age (dare I say dispensation :)).
@@mchristr Yes, one is DEFINATELY simpler than two. So, let's apply that system to the "sheep" and "goats" or the "wheat" and "tares" and everyone goes into glory. It doesn't work like that. But all sons of God have but one Father. The early church struggled with this issue, and we see the result in Acts 15:20, when those Jews in Jerusalem pronounce what the Gentile believers are supposed to follow, "But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood."
As what Happens with many other doctrines, there's seems to be support for both sides in some principles and they seems weak in others. But I think they are all brothers with different views of a complicated theme.
I haven't heard one scripture yet!!!!!!!
Thank you for such a respectful and honouring presentation of your views. Bless you guys. I don’t believe the dispensationalist eschatology but it was helpful to hear more about it and I am curious about the idea of a future corporate salvation of Israel.
@philm457 thank you for your kind words. We do seek to read and interpret the Covenants (Abrahamic, Davidic, New Covenant) as the original receivers of those covenants would have understood them. It seems to us that these covenants are unconditional and eternal, and that these covenants must fulfilled in the way, and to whom, they were promised by God. That doesn't mean that God didn't have a plan for us Gentiles. Indeed the Abrahamic covenant indicates that "all nations will be blessed" because of Abraham and his descendants (and the Messiah who would come from Him). If you are interested, our series on Matthew that has come out the last two weeks, and one to be released next week will be helpful for you to understand our beliefs in this regard.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters Thanks for your response. I’ll definitely check out your series on Matthew. It sounds ideal.
Neither Dispensationalism or Covenant theology are purely biblical, and I believe that this is the problem. This forum seems like a circling of the wagons as the system is falling apart. What we need is the. Fresh air of New Covenant Theology.
Hello @All-Things_New, I appreciate your thoughts. Of course, we would respectfully disagree. I do not believe that the "system" is falling apart. Actually, I prefer not to discuss it as a "system" but rather as an understanding of Human History as recorded in the Bible (Past, Present, and Future) using the natural laws of communication - Historical, Grammatical, Literal Approach. By the way, New Covenant Theology is no longer the newest kid on the block, Progressive Covenantalism is. Ultimately, the question must be, what understanding of Human History best reflects the Biblical record - and I think Traditional Dispensationalism is that. Our discussion was simply pointing out the false statements, and misrepresentations found in this interview.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters Hi, thanks for responding! I believe that both "Progressive Covenentalism" and "Progressive Dispensationalism" are admissions that the truth really does lie between these extremes and the beautiful biblical balance is to be found in New Covenant Theology. NCT rejects the idea that God has two people, and it also rejects the idea that there is a so called "Covenant of Grace " and a previous and manufactured "covenant of works"; neither of which are to be found in Scripture. Rather (I'm sure I dont have to explain to such well informed folks) NCT sees that Jesus Christ is the centre of all of God's purposes, (Rom_11:36) For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen." Thus all of the Old Covenant becomes shadow in the light of His glory, and neither Jew nor Greek etc are anything, but rather a New Man; ONE body in Christ. A New Creation; a New Heaven, and New Earth, all a New Covenant, making the Old redundant and passe. Behold I make "All Things NEW" Just my thoughts.
Amen. The following proves you are correct.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? 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. What brings all local churches together into one Body under the blood of Christ? The answer is found below.
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? 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? What did Paul say about Genesis 12:3 in Galatians 3:8, 3:16? 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?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
The following verses prove the Holy Spirit is the master teacher for those now in the New Covenant.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Mar 1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Act 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
@@SpotterVideo excellent comments.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters The following proves "New Covenant Theology" was never the "new" kid on the block. Based on what is recorded below it is over 2,000 years old. The New Covenant was promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34, long before the New Testament was recorded.
.Jer_31:31 "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-
Mat_26:28 For this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
Mar_14:24 And He said to them, "This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many.
Luk_22:20 Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.
1Co_11:25 In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me."
2Co_3:6 who also made us sufficient as ministers of the new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life.
Heb_8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "BEHOLD, THE DAYS ARE COMING, SAYS THE LORD, WHEN I WILL MAKE A NEW COVENANT WITH THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL AND WITH THE HOUSE OF JUDAH-
Heb_8:13 In that He says, "A NEW COVENANT," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
Heb_9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.
Heb_12:24 to Jesus the Mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling that speaks better things than that of Abel.
(NKJV)
This reminds me of story about how a religious organization persecuted a man preaching and teaching a truth foreign to their century's old doctrine. This morning my subscription delivered this episode of Through the Bible with Les Feldick. Book 40-2-1. In my opinion the covid experience epitomizes and defines the essence of educated scholarly experts. The conversation here is well and good but not earth shaking. I hope everyone can agree there is but One Truth, with billions of ambassadors. Where you buy, and what type of meat you eat, from the 42,000 stores that sell it doesn't matter as long as you get the protein in you. As long as it isn't over processed. How can a personal relationship with God be someone else's business? God is the only expert in this world. God Bless all in Christ Jesus.
@1mulekicker you are right that there are fundamentals of the faith, and there are secondary issues. This is a secondary issue, but does impact our understanding of many passages of Scripture, and the whole grand narrative of Scripture. So, it is important to think through and come to a biblical conviction. It is also important to be loving and gracious in one's interactions.
I was censored and suspended last week on a Gospel Facebook group regarding pagan Christmas holiday observance for asking chapter and verse condemning the practice. It was quickly defined as hate speech. 547K followers slamming the only Federal/State legal Christian holiday. I guess that was not my group. You can't prove a point if you can't talk. Your video here is very good. Lucky we are under Grace and Paul was committed to revealing the mysteries to his last breath. @@BibleandTheologyMatters
Neither Dispensationalism (Darby) nor Calvinism (Mohler) are of the faith delivered once for all. Both come from Man and not from God. Therefor both are to be rejected as heresies (false doctrines that serve only divide the Body of Christ).
"Heresy" is not an accusation that you should throw around lightly. A heretic is outside of Christian orthodoxy, which neither dispensationalism nor Calvinism is.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters As I pointed out the word transliterated as heresy refers to parties, sects or divisions. I don't give a hoot about your theological definitions.
As a nonseminarian, i am often taken aback when those who hear my views characterize me as calvinist, premill dispensational, when i have simplytried to read the word in a way that does not turn gentiles into jews, does not turn the promises of God ( the ordinances of day and night, of the seasons, of the waters) into almost-not quite covenants, does not gut or ignore zephaniah, zecharia, Jeremiah isaiah Ezekiel, and does not fail to honor matthew 25, and does not ignore romans 11, or turn revelations into recapitulations. I have a hard time isolating a pretrib rapture from a general 2nd coming, but everything else is grade school analysis. Works just fine. Still can't figure out limited atonement, but am willing to bow my brain to the schoolmen on that, or just leave it to him who judges justly.
Yeah, but al and friend didn't either, so, y'know, don't worry. If you want to go israel-free eschaton, no body's stopping you.
I believe in pre dispensationliasm
I think you guys need to do a little bit more research on Al Mohler It is connection to Ernie Reisinger, The Founders, and their Presbyterian sponsors.
For a man who claims to be a premillennialist, his actions and associations do a lot to benefit the reform Baptist and Presbyterian position, which are decidedly dominionist, and preterist.
Remember, It was his church down in Palm springs, and his pastor who spent decades creating the reform Baptist denomination, and then immediately moving to Florida to join the Southern Baptists, with a very clear agenda to convert them toward the Reformed Baptist position. He may have started with the Calvinist roots of the SBC, but it is naive to think that that was their entire goal. And it is equally naive to think that Al Mohler, who' single-handedly infiltrated and Calvinized Southern Baptist Seminary, is a neutral agent in that program.
Well done! One of your best episodes.
Thanks Pastor Pitman! I do believe that Mohler's uncharitable approach in this interview struck a lot of nerves.
While on vacation I visited a Calvary Chapel for Sunday worship. Their doctrinal essentials were posted on a wall, the final item being the belief in a tribulational/rapture eschatology. In other words, for me to be a member of that fellowship I would have to subscribe to this distinctive. Therein lies one of the problems with contemporary dispensationalism, namely the ignorance of other orthodox positions.
While pretribulationalism is not a test of Orthodoxy (nor is modes of baptism, views on spiritual gifts, etc.) every church and ministry has to determine what they are going to include as primary and secondary issues in their statement of faith. Calvary Chapel (of which I am not a member nor even a defender) is not saying that pre-tribulationalsim is a test of Orthodoxy, but this is what they believe and are going to teach from the pulpit. I think I would want to know what the church stood on such issues before I joined.
Thanks for this podcast! I really enjoyed it.
Thanks @ChristopherRoberson, we are glad you found it helpful!
In the chronology of events, which comes first ?
(1)
Mat.28.1 ¶In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
2And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it.
(2)
Jhn.20.1 ¶The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
2Then she runneth, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple, whom Jesus loved, and saith unto them, They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him.
Let's zoom in
(1) Mat.28.1...as it began to dawn...
(2) Jhn.20.1...when it was yet dark...
I'am confident that a 10y.o knows that "when it was yet dark ", comes before "as it began to dawn."
Jhn.20.1-2 Paraphrased. Mary Magdalene arrives at the tomb when it is dark, and the tomb is empty, she hasn't seen any angels or a resurrected Measiah.
Iam positive that you need a body in the tomb at sunrise to have a Easter Sunday Sunrise Resurrection.
Mat.12.40For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.
Mat.16.21¶From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.
Three days, three nights, raised on the third day.
Very specific, only works one way.
Jhn.12.1¶Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
2There they made him a supper;
Exo.12.1¶And the LORD spake unto Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying,
2This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.
3Speak ye unto all the congregation of Israel, saying, In the tenth day of this month they shall take to them every man a lamb, according to the house of their fathers, a lamb for an house:
6And ye shall keep it up until the fourteenth day of the same month: and the whole assembly of the congregation of Israel shall kill it in the evening.
When it is dark, begins the 15th, Passover. The first meal of the Feast of Unleavened Bread is the Passover meal (sedar)
The 10th-14th are "preparation days"
The 10th-15th is six days.
Let's subtract six days from the 15th day of the month. Brings us to the 9th day of the month.
He travels from Bethpage to Bethany (other three Gospels) and they prepare for him a supper. He travels, they prepare supper. This is not a Sabbath day, this is Friday the 9th, that evening begins the weekly Sabbath the 10th, they have a Sabbath night supper. Because Saturday is the Sabbath, the 10th, he rides into town on Sunday the 11th.
Wednesday is the 14th, the day Israel sacrificed the Passover Lamb of God, Saturday is the 17th, He comes out of the tomb just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath, the third day.
Mat.27.52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53And came out of the graves AFTER HIS RESURRECTION, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. (Aka 24 elders)
These are the (G536first fruits) can be the offering or the one presenting the offering. The reader has to decide.
Lev.23.9¶And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
10Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When ye be come into the land which I give unto you, and shall reap the harvest thereof, then ye shall bring a sheaf of the firstfruits of your harvest unto the priest:
11And he shall wave the sheaf before the LORD, to be accepted for you: on the morrow after the sabbath the priest shall wave it.
In this scenario Messiah is the High Priest.
Messiah was resurrected just before sundown on the weekly Sabbath the 17th, the First Born from the dead. The first fruits were resurrected by the Messiah after sundown "the morrow after the sabbath", Sunday the 18th.
Do you know what I can not find in Scripture anywhere ?
The first Sunday after the first fullmoon after the spring equinox.
Second Witness
Luke.24.21 b
21But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel: and (b) beside all this, to day is the third day SINCE these things were done.
G575 SINCE, transliterated apo, to separate, especially in composition. Literally separate the first day of the week from the day of crucifixion with three days , makes Sunday the fourth day and Wednesday the day of crucifixion
Good Works
Eph.2.10
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
What are these "good works" that God had before ordained, that we should walk in them?
Let's do a quick word study on the word "WALK"
Exodus 18:20 KJV - And thou shalt teach them ordinances and laws, and shalt shew them the way wherein they must WALK, and the work that they must do.
Leviticus 18:3 KJV - After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do: and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do: neither shall ye WALK in their ordinances.
Leviticus 18:4 KJV - Ye shall do my judgments, and keep mine ordinances, to WALK therein: I am the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 5:33 KJV - Ye shall WALK in all the ways which the LORD your God hath commanded you, that ye may live, and that it may be well with you, and that ye may prolong your days in the land which ye shall possess.
Deuteronomy 8:6 KJV - Therefore thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to fear him.
Leviticus 20:23 KJV - And ye shall not WALK in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.
Deuteronomy 13:4 KJV - Ye shall WALK after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
Deuteronomy 19:9 KJV - If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the LORD thy God, and to WALK ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:
Deuteronomy 10:12 KJV - And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to WALK in all his ways, and to love him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul,
Deuteronomy 26:17 KJV - Thou hast avouched the LORD this day to be thy God, and to WALK in his ways, and to keep his statutes, and his commandments, and his judgments, and to hearken unto his voice:
Deuteronomy 29:19 KJV - And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I WALK in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:
Deuteronomy 28:9 KJV - The LORD shall establish thee an holy people unto himself, as he hath sworn unto thee, if thou shalt keep the commandments of the LORD thy God, and WALK in his ways.
Deuteronomy 30.16In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to WALK in his ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
This is only a partial list.
Again, I believe a 10y.o could pick up on this .
Do you know what's going on ?
A Strong Delusion, brought on by the teaching of the traditions of men, as if they were the Word of God, and prefering the lie to the Truth.
The Lie, the Council of Nicaea.
The Truth, the Counsel of God, Gen-Rev.
Anti-christ is also anti-Commandments of God, anti Feasts of the LORD.
The same yesterday, today, and tomorrow, He who was, who is, and who is to come.
Walk in His ways , you will be blessed when you come in, blessed when you go out.
Dr Weaver, Thank you so much for this rebuttal. The news of the Demise of dispensationalism is greatly exaggerated to be sure 😀 I did have one question, there was a multi-volume book on Dispensationalism that was mentioned a couple of times by the speakers that I had not heard of(and I went to DTS back in the days of Walvoord!). Could you share that book title with me? Thanks!
Hello @aldersgatelives9841 thanks for the kind words and positive feedback. A book that has been published recently that includes several different contributors is called "Discovering Dispensationalism: Tracing the Development of Dispensational Thought From the First to the Twenty-First Century" It is edited by Cory Marsh and James Fazio - faculty of Southern California Seminary - David Jeremiah is the Chancellor.
Thanks for the content. I enjoy thinking in public but was very discouraged by the subject podcast and appreciate voices. The last comment about publishing probably makes the most sense and a fear the growth or domination of the covenant theology is leading the SBC and others down another dark path that they didn’t learn from their mistakes.
That is a lot of PHD’s and yet no exegesis proves dispensationalism. If Daniel 9:24-27 is wrong the rest is. If grammar is wrong and the antecedent to the word ‘he’ in verse 27 and the Messiah is turned into a future antichrist, something is seriously wrong. Dispensationalists have several things wrong just in these four verses. I encourage every academic on this video to read the whole chapter nine of Daniel and think things through and nit remove one word from the text or add one word or add one presupposition to the context. The first PHD was wrong on the history of dispensationalism. Dispensationalism goes further back than Darby. It goes back to Roman Catholic Jesuit Manual Lacunza in the late 1700’s. Irving brought it into the church in 1817. Ken Gentry debunks the late date of Revelation also. I encourage everyone to read or listen to his thesis. I have asked many dispensationalists to give me verses in context that are clear and not add one thing to the text. I asked many famous teachers of it. They could not give me one. I was taught dispensationalism in 1985. I never gave it any thought until ten or so years ago. I started taking every main verse read it several times slowly and meditated on the context to find I had to eisogete every passage to hold onto dispensationalism. I just couldn’t do it anymore.
Hello, there. Are you saying that you do not this as a reference to the Antichrist: "he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate..."? Can you please share more of your understanding? The text is certainly referring to the Antichrist.
Also, the Bible is already dispensed in its layout, as this is how God reveals His Word. "For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, there a little..." (Isaiah 28:10). Studying is necessary, and the Holy Spirit is the best teacher. He will walk you through His Word, if you ask. He can also show you to sound teachers. God wants us to understand His Word; He also wants us to be thorough disciples and study it.
@@AskBibleNotes hello, can I ask what Bible version you are reading?
Also, do you understand the difference between exegesis and eisogesis when it comes to Biblical,interpretation? Most people don’t. Maybe you are an exception.
If reading a Textus Receptus translation into English, there is nothing in that passage in the original Hebrew teaching two temples being built in one and a half verses. Some people are reading paraphrase Bibles and that is basically reading a ONE PERSON commentary on what they think the scriptures are teaching.
You must remember Daniel prophesied this before the second temple was in existence. He was still in Babylon. One must read it in that context.
I have about 200 lengthy articles on end times over a ten year span of constant studying. I am actually not teaching anything new pre-1830. The only difference between guys like Matthew Henry, John Gill, Clark and others than my writings is I bring apologetics into HOW I teach, the same way I do if showing an atheist, mormon or anyone else the problems in their belief system. There are over 12 logical fallacies that contradict scripture in the dispensational theology system. You only need one to disprove any teaching. I was tied it in 1985 in Bible school and never tested it to scripture until about 10 years ago.
No one is speaking a language that is easy to understand everybody is not a college scholar, so can you use words? We can understand what you're saying????
Dispensational ideas are well before Nicea. Polycarp and Irenaeus had a Dispensational Pre-millenial framework and that is how the structure of the Bible work.
The Millennium is still yet to come and clearly there is a plan involving Israel, which is why it's there today.
@@sacredcowtipper1378 Truly, a King James Bible is sufficient. Comparing scripture with scripture, and letting the Bible interpret the Bible avoids eisegetical trip-ups. The Bible is one complete body of work, without errors (the KJV). If you approach the Word by reading it plain on its face, in context, the themes make themselves apparent. You wouldn't need to force or spiritualize anything. I thank God He made His Word plain enough to understand in English. Again, the Holy Spirit is the best teacher; ask Him to help.
Fenomenal programa, gracias por permitir poner subtítulos en español.
We are pleased that you found this video to be beneficial.
I think it would be best if you guys actually used the bible to prove your doctrine . As in study to show thy self approved and rightly dividong the word of truth
@bornagaincarpenter This video was to respond to the mischaracterizations and falsehoods leveled against us by Mohler and Hummel. We have many other videos on our UA-cam channel that provide an exposition of the various texts and an explanation of dispensationalism. I refer you to them. What you are asking for is not the purpose of this particular video, but as I already stated, if you are genuinely interested, I encourage you to watch the episodes on Dispensationalism with Dr. Elliot Johnson and the episode on the Grand Narrative of Scripture with Dr. Scott Keen.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I didn't ask anything. What does the bible actually say regarding the doctrine of dispensationalism? The rest does not matter. Instead of defending your self use the bible
Dr Gunn just made his case around 20 mins in that Covenant Theology is contrary to that of Dispensational covenant theology. For those who are of the reformed position, how do you handle this along with your creeds?
Your question is not clear. Could you restate it?
@@BibleandTheologyMatters maybe my terms are unknown to you. Federal Headship or simply, covenant theology is not compatible with dispensationalism. You cannot hold both together. Pick one or the other.
Dispensational covenant theology?
@@patricklyons8023 dispensation theology is more about covenant than it is about the end times. It is a theology of covenant first which interprets how one sees the eschaton
@@karlwagner7150 if you had to sum up Dispensationalism in 1 paragraph what would say?
One thing I seeing being missed by everyone, is that the concept that the CARNAL stories in Genesis - AND THE PROPHETS are telling a SPIRITUAL truth. For example, the PROMISED LAND and the PROMISED SEED. Noah's Ark. Jonah. Joseph and his BRETHREN.
And he gave him the covenant of circumcision: and so Abraham begat Isaac, and circumcised him the eighth day; and Isaac begat Jacob; and Jacob begat the twelve patriarchs.
Doesn't the Book of Galatians, specifically the third chapter, clear this whole thing up?
No, but that would be nice if it did. Here is a good video by Dr. Michael Vlach on the 4 ways "seed of Abraham" is used in Scripture in its various literal and figurative uses. ua-cam.com/video/jpne06TuOJI/v-deo.html
Concerning dispensationalism and pre-tribulation rapture:
John 6:40 “EVERYONE who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at THE LAST DAY.”
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 But I do not want you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning those who have fallen [b]asleep, lest you sorrow as others who have no hope. 14For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so God **will bring with Him** those who [c]sleep in Jesus.(NOT THOSE WHO WERE RAPTURED 7 YEARS PRIOR/which wouldn’t make sense anyway considering this is the gathering of The Church that’s being described)
15For this we say to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive and remain until THE COMING of the Lord will by no means precede those who are [d]asleep. 16For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of an archangel, and with the TRUMPET of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first. 17Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air. And thus we shall always be with the Lord. 18Therefore comfort one another with these words.
2 Thessalonians 1
4so that we ourselves boast of you among the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and [a]tribulations that you endure, 5which is manifest[b] evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you also suffer; 6since it is a righteous thing with God to repay with [c]tribulation those who trouble you, 7and to give you who are troubled rest with us when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, 8in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, 10when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who [d]believe, because our testimony among you was believed.
1 Corinthians 15:51-54 Behold, I tell you a [m]mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed- 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the LAST TRUMPET. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. 53For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. 54So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”(1 Corinthians 15:22-28) Colossians 3:3-4) Scripture says death is the final enemy that will be defeated, so this verse (1 Corinthians 15:51-54) has to be talking about what happens at the very end of time.
2 Thessalonians 2 Now, brethren, concerning **the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our gathering together to Him**, we ask you, 2not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of [a]Christ had come. 3Let no one deceive you by any means; for **that Day will not come unless the falling away comes first, and the man of [b]sin is revealed**, the son of perdition, 4who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshiped, so that he sits [c]as God in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God.(Satan will be worshipped by false believers who did not receive a love of the truth, this is the falling away/strong delusion)
5Do you not remember that when I was still with you I told you these things? 6And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. 7For **the [d]mystery of lawlessness is already at work**; only [e]He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way. 8And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will consume with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of **His coming**(Paul says we are gathered at His coming). 9The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, 10and with all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie, 12that they all may be condemned who did not believe the truth but had pleasure in unrighteousness.
Revelation 13:5-8 5And he was given a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies, and he was given authority to [c]continue for forty-two months. 6Then he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme His name, His tabernacle, and those who dwell in heaven. 7**It was granted to him to make war with THE SAINTS and to overcome them**. And authority was given him over every [d]tribe, tongue, and nation. 8All who dwell on the earth will worship him, whose names have not been written in the Book of Life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
(Verse 7 makes it very clear that the Antichrist will attack the true church/believers, which means the rapture could not have happened yet, and Christians will have to endure the tribulation.)
1 Thessalonians 5
1But concerning the times and the seasons, brethren, you have no need that I should write to you. 2For you yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so comes as a thief in the night. 3For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman. And they shall not escape. 4But you, brethren, are not in darkness, so that this Day should overtake you as a thief. 5You are all sons of light and sons of the day. We are not of the night nor of darkness. 6Therefore let us not sleep, as others do, but let us watch and be [a]sober.
2 Peter 3
7But the heavens and the earth which are now preserved by the same word, are reserved for fire until the day of judgment and [b]perdition of ungodly men.
8But, beloved, do not forget this one thing, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward [c]us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance.
The Day of the Lord
10But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night, in which the heavens will pass away with a great noise, and the elements will melt with fervent heat; both the earth and the works that are in it will be [d]burned up. 11Therefore, since all these things will be dissolved, what manner of persons ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved, being on fire, and the elements will melt with fervent heat? 13Nevertheless we, according to His promise, look for new heavens and a new earth in which righteousness dwells.
Be Steadfast
14Therefore, beloved, looking forward to these things, be diligent to be found by Him in peace, without spot and blameless; 15and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation-as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, 16as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.
These passages when taken together, read carefully, and understood properly absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt refute the false doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture, as well as mid acts hyper dispensationalism by virtue of it being hinged on the rapture doctrine to make sense.
At the Last trumpet, On the last day, when the dead in Christ arise, then we who are alive and remain will be gathered, at His coming/The coming/when He comes. No more days or trumpets can come after this. It is judgement day, the end of the tribulation and of time itself.
The church was God’s plan for Israel all along. The true spiritual Israel IS the church-the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham and his Seed(which is Christ). There is not a single sentence in all of scripture that supports the idea that there are two separate peoples of God with two separate gospels, two separate hopes and final destinations.
The New Jerusalem IS the heavenly dwelling place for believers, built on the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, with Christ Himself being the chief cornerstone-on NO OTHER FOUNDATION can one build. The Bride enters the marriage covenant, becomes the wife and the two become ONE FLESH. This is a great MYSTERY, but I speak of CHRIST AND THE CHURCH. When Paul exclaims “Christ is the HEAD of the church”, it implies marriage. “His BODY, the church” implies marriage.
Colossians 1
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or [e]principalities or [f]powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. 18And He is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things He may have the preeminence.
Reconciled in Christ
19For it pleased the Father that in Him all the fullness should dwell, 20and by Him to reconcile all things to Himself, by Him, whether things on earth or things in heaven, having made peace through the blood of His cross.
21And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled 22in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight- 23if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.
Sacrificial Service for Christ
24I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of His body, which is the church, 25of which I became a minister according to the [g]stewardship from God which was given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God, 26the [h]mystery which has been hidden from ages and from generations, but now has been revealed to His saints. 27To them God willed to make known what are the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles: [i]which is Christ in you, the hope of glory. 28Him we preach, warning every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus. 29To this end I also labor, striving according to His working which works in me mightily.
I believe in dispensationalists, Calvin basically ignored Romans chapter 11, dispensation of time is definitely found in scripture, I personally liked Larkin's Charts 👍... J. D. Pentecost 👍
J.D. Pentecost was one of my professors (Paul Weaver here), and you are right, Romans 9-11 is a very big problem for Covenant Theologians.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters my trade in life was that of a brickmasons, the first time I heard the gospel and understood it was on TV... The pastor was Charles Stanley, I had grown up in church and been convicted of my sin for many years but didn't understand what Christ was expecting of me, Dr Stanley explained it in a way I had never heard, the Truth about Sin, Salvation and redemption, I started studying eschatology immediately and the Lord impressed upon my heart, for one to become wise, he must first become a fool... In other words he basically told me I needed a clean slate to be able to understand the vast area of information... I'm still learning to this day, I've subbed the channel and added it to my learning experience, God Bless and thanks for responding 👍
@@SkunkWorksRifle Thanks for sharing your personal story of God's grace! Thanks for subscribing and we pray that you (and many others) will find this channel and these resources helpful!
Great discussion. Thanks guys
I am glad you found it helpful! Thanks for listening!
If these gentlemen had been conducting a defence they would have been stopped by the presiding officer in mid sentence on the sole grounds of their collective contributions being void for vagueness.
By "these gentlemen" are you referring to Mohler and Hummel, or the pannel of 9?
Is there a difference between traditional and classical dispensationalism or is it just a matter of different labels for the same thing differentiating it from progressive dispensationalism?
Great questions @friedert976. Paul Weaver here. Before the arrival of "Progressive Dispensationalism," there was no need to use distinct categories of dispensationalists. You were either a dispensationalist or not. The title of "Classical Dispensationalism" is now used to refer to the Scofield/Chafer era, which is another reason why this conversation with Mohler and Hummel is misleading. They seem to use the term "Classical" even though they are talking about Traditional Dispensationalism. The term "Classical Dispensationalism" is not used by many any longer. Having said that, most Traditional Dispensationalists would say that there is not a substantial enough difference between "Classical" and "Traditional" dispensationalism to have two separate categories. To add another twist, progressive dispensationalists (Bock and Blaising) created a title for Traditional Dispensationalists - "revised" dispensationalism, to say that Charles Ryrie, John Walvoord, etc. revised dispensationalism from what Chafer believed, and that they (progressive dispensationalism) are just making additional "revisions" following the model of Ryrie. The term "revised dispensationalism" was used for a polemical reason. I do not accept that term, because it frames the debate. Traditional Dispensationalists typically argue that there is not a substantial hermeneutical difference between "classical" and "Traditional/revised" dispensationalists, but the "complementary hermeneutic" of progressive dispensationalism introduces a significant change, that does warrant a different category/distinction. See Dr. Joseph Parle's - "Dispensational Development and Departure: Comparing Classical, Essentialist, and Progressive Dispensational Models."
Thanks so much for taking the time to answer my question. Very helpful indeed.
Greeting from a convinced traditional dispensationalist in Germany. -Frieder
@@friedert976 My pleasure! I am glad that you found it helpful. And, I am pleased to hear from you, a traditional dispensationalism in Germany!
I am happy and not surprised that Dispensation/Ages is legitimate... That Moses and The Prophets, Jesus and The Apostles, Paul and Church Fathers got it right.
The main problem with dispensationalism is its claim that men are saved in different ways at different times throughout history. This is the basis of the so-called dispensations and the system cannot exist without this claim. The problem is that Hebrews 11:6 puts a screeching halt to this and resoundingly refutes it. "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him." So there is no "other" plan of salvation during another dispensation. Another feature overlooked by the adherents of dispensationalism is its claim that certain prophetic events are yet to be fulfilled in the future which implies that Jesus cannot return at this very moment because these so-called events have not yet taken place. Some dispensational teachers have recognized these problems and are trying to distance themselves from these heretical views by contradicting Darby. And many dispensational teachers contradict each other to the point of violent accusations.
@@randylplampin1326 this is a complete falsehood. We do NOT believe in more than one way of salvation. This betrays the fact that you haven’t read dispensationalist writings - just repeating talking points by Covenant Theologians who have also repeated these same false statements. We believe that salvation has always been by grace through faith. You should really try reading a few dispensationalists rather than repeating a falsehood that has been as Ryrie has said, answered more times “than a drippy faucet.”
If you do not believe in Darby's claim that "men are saved in different ways at different times," then you are not a dispensationalist. You might be something else, but not a dispensationalist.
@@randylplampin1326 I am sorry but you are just clearly wrong on this. If you want to really know what traditional dispensationalists believe (that is my position), I would encourage you to reach Charles Ryrie's book entitled simply Dispensationalism. In fact, he even has a section that addresses this false claim made by non-dispensationalists.
Thank you for being concerned. I do not need to know traditional dispensationalism because over fifty years ago I was a staunch believer in Darby and his sidekick Scofield. After certain facts were pointed out to me I had to be intellectually honest and abandon this newfangled invention. Should you decide to free yourself, I must warn you that you will pass a period of perhaps one year completely disoriented and grasping for "theological straws," to borrow a phrase. But you will survive and get over this episode and on to a much higher understanding of scriptures and God's plan for you. Read "Dispensationalism in America," by KRAUS. And give God a chance.
Pastors need commentaries, and OT and NT theology books, that are written by Bible scholars holding to a dispensational understanding of Scripture. In what I have seen there are very, very few of them.
You should try our 7 volume survey series - Learn the Word. All the contributors are dispensationalists. www.amazon.com/stores/Paul-D.-Weaver/author/B00RBQEPOS?ref=ap_rdr&store_ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true
I think J.N. Darby is an "evangelical church father level", and a great man of God, as John Macarthur said.
Darby was a narcissist who rejected church hierarchy yet spawn off his own denomination with himself the leader with the mindset of “I’m right you’re wrong.”
@@iraqiimmigrant2908
1- there is no hierarchy in the Church of God.
2- there is nothing wrong in saying "you are wrong" ( Ga 2:11)
@@كلامهذهالحياة 1 - There is numerous affirmations of church hierarchy in the New Testament which includes special offices, authority, and being ordained for those offices. Here is but a small list (I’m using KJV):
Elders - 1 Peter 5:1, Titus 1:5, 1 Timothy 5:17, Acts 14:23
Pastors - Ephesians 4:11
Bishops - 1 Tim 3:1, Phillipians 1:1
Peter as leader - Acts 15 (James addresses Peter as authoritative), Galatians 1-2
@@كلامهذهالحياة 2 - Always arguing with people, believing in your always right and everyone else is wrong, and calling them horrible names whenever they disagree with anything you think is a big red flag of narcissism. Darby was notorious for this. I can share you quotes and references to his biography, letters, and other historians.
@@iraqiimmigrant2908 I do have most of His writings and read His bio, never found anything of what you are talking about. In the end it might be right, we all fall short sometimes in our Christian conduct. But that does not mean that he was one of the most influential christians in history, at least in my life through His writings.
Quite blessed by this video. Thank you.
I think the majority of dispensational Christians do not know the word "dispensationalism" although they would agree with its core teachings and approach to biblical interpretation. From this perspective, dispensationalism's influence goes far beyond those in academia or those capable of producing podcasts discussing dispensationalism. For example, the Calvary Chapel movement is very influential and largely dispensational. To just name one name, Pastor Jack Hibbs has a large following and is strongly dispensational.
My concern is that perhaps the author, Dr. Hummel, has had limited exposure to the true influence and significance of dispensationalism at the church level (outside academia) and yet has written and spoken on the subject as if he is an expert.
Read the book he wrote, or listen to his interviews. See for yourself. I did. He seems to know his subject well.
In the interview, and in the book, Hummel made several very obvious inaccuracies that shows he did not truly understand us. I think he has learned a lot after it was published, when he received significant criticism. But, at this point, it is too late, he continued to promulgated inaccuracies - some old ones that have been rebutted multiple times.
Where would i start in the bible to study dispensational thelogy,?
With all due respect to you gentleman, I’m not sure if either side is having a good faith discussion….
1. Anyone who says anyone believes “replacement” is being disingenuous. It’s not a charitable way of their reading of the olive tree in Romans.
2. In defense of the comment about dispensationalism being complicated, I can give you a few examples where it makes me stumble:
A. Simple reading of Galatians 3 says all in Christ are the seed of Abraham. Michael J Vlach tells you “actually, seed could mean 1 of 4 things in the Bible”
B. Gospel doesn’t mean gospel if it’s the kingdom. Some will even try to say kingdom of God is not the Kingdom of Heaven to get around uncomfortable verses, or that Paul and Peter have different gospels (not universal among dispys I know, but this isn’t a stretch from the line of the thinking, it’s actually logical how hyper dispys get there)
C. Matthew 25 says we’ll be judged based on how we treat the “least of these”… very convicting verse for all Christians historically. Ryrie study notes says “actually this verse is talking about how those left behind in the rapture will be judged based on how they treat Jews in the 7 year tribulation”
D. Futurist eschatological reading of Daniel’s 70 weeks with a 2,000 year gap inserted seems more complicated than reading it as messianic on a “determined” timeline.
E. “Once alienated from the commonwealth of Israel but made nigh in the blood of Christ” (Eph 2) actually means still technically distinct from Israel, but I guess you need the right hermeneutic to get that.
I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but I’m not even a covenant theology guy. I’m just frustrated that I read scripture and it seems like there is a plain message for the layman, and “theology” types are telling me it’s actually way more complicated than that.
I hope that makes sense, and all the best.
Btw, I’m not looking for responses to those verses, I am aware of the long winded explanations. I’m just making the point that no one, I mean no one, really seems to be offering the plain face reading. Just my experience though.
The key is reading the progress of revelation, beginning in Genesis. Putting ourselves in the shoes of the original recipients of the Covenants (Abraham, David, etc.) and the prophetic Scriptures (those in captivity, etc.). If you are willing to do that, and follow the progress of revelation, I think these difficult passages can make perfect sense.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters I don’t know if that flies with your system either. Are we to believe if we put ourselves in Ezekiel’s shoes, he thought he was writing about a third temple?
Loved the interaction and comments made in this interview. As a simple listener, I think it doesn’t matter how new or old a theological concept is. The Holy Spirit doesn's stop bring more truth to us from the Bible. I think the most important thing is that we should be able to trace back any theological concept to the Bible. Simplicity doesn’t seem to be a criterion. Any Bible doctrine can be simple and complex at the same time. I would say, clarity should be a criterion, in a sense that any theological concept must be clearly taught in the Bible and secondly, not to come in contradiction with the Bible truth that was already established. Bible harmony is extremely important. I always struggled to understand how Jesus can teach the Secret Rapture towards the end of Matthew 24 (verses 40 and 41) while in the previous verses He talks about signs in sun, moon starts and heavenly bodies and a loud trumpet. His coming according to verse 27 should be like the lightning that comes from the east and it’s visible even in the west. Those two concepts are not in harmony. Is Jesus contradicting Himself? Apostle Paul talks about similar loud events in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, 17. Nothing secret about that. So, I believe that Bible harmony is essential in all old or new teachings.
Hello @michaelmohanu939, thank you for your kind words and interaction. I (Paul Weaver) hope to release an episode soon, the 9 reasons that I hold to a Pre-Tribulational rapture. One of the many reasons is that, the description of Christ's 2nd advent - return to earth (Olivet Mountain) in Zechariah 14, Revelation 19 seems to be different in nature and purpose than what is described in John 14:1-3 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18. When we compare these passages (amongst others), I conclude along with other pre-tribulationalists that they must be describing two phases of Christ's 2nd Advent - one for the saints (1 Thess. 4; John 14), and one coming with the saints to establish the kingdom and judge the wicked (Matt. 24; Zech 14; Rev. 19). That is one of my nine reasons.
I am not a dispensationalist and the Mohler interview was disappointing to me because it did not touch exactly the points these gentlemen point out i.e why is the literal grammatical interpretation something that needs to be used correctly and in the context of the scripture. Again these men did not convince me, but at least they made a good case.
At 11:11 you all argue that Irenaeus has the dispensational view “except the pre-tribulation rapture.” But is it not the pre-tribulation rapture which is the aspect of dispensationalism which is new and the most controversial aspect of dispensationalism?
It sounds like there is no disagreement about the history of the teaching, but just whether new is bad.
I would point out that a major reason for the pre-trib rapture is the immanent return expectation of the church. The pre-trib event is supposed to answer the historical-critical attack on scripture.
Any view that has ONE return of Christ after the tribulation removes the possibility of Christ coming “at any time” (whether pre-mil or amil). Thus, the one coming views are subject to the criticism that the first century expectation of Christ’s appearance is error.
In fact, the only alternative to the pre-trib solution to this problem would be a partial-preterism, which explains the imminence of Christ’s coming by distinguishing the prophetic judgment coming of Jesus against Jerusalem (Mat 24:1-34), and the salvation of his church from their persecutors, from his future second coming (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:13-18; Rev. 20:9-13).
Is the “immanent expectation”issue an accurate assessment for one of the fundamental motivations for the pre-trib rapture? That is, as an apologetic against modernist critics of the Bible’s reliability?
@jrhemmerich you do not have to be a pre-tribulationalist to be a dispensationalist. There are mid-trib, pre-wrath, partial, and probably even post-tribulationalists who would regard themselves as dispensationalists. Although, pre-tribulationalists (of which I am one) believe in the imminent return of Christ, you can also believe in imminence of Christ if you do not hold to a literal tribulation but do hold to a premillennial return of Christ. Pre-tribulationalism from my vantage point is not motivated by "defending against a historical-critical attack," but rather trying to read and interpret passages like Zech. 14; Rev. 19; Matt. 24 as the original readers would have understood them, and understanding John 14 and 1 Thess. 4:13-18 as the original readers would have understood them. When we read all of these passages, they seem incompatible in the second Advent without a rapture preceeding it followed by a passing of some time. And, we find a partial-preterist view very lacking in many ways, including, and especially the dating of the book of Revelation.
@@BibleandTheologyMatters, Thanks for the reply and input. The variety of rapture views is a worthy point. I would say that they all characteristically separate the return of Christ into two stages. And this would be one of the primary characteristics of dispensational eschatology (the other two being the Church age as a parenthesis, and the restoration of Israel to the center of God's dealings with the world).
I did not mean to imply that defending against the historical critical attack was a bad thing or an alternative to exegetical reasons. I actually think such a defense is a positive point for a pretrib rapture. Certainly, immanency is one of several reasons that D. Pentecost puts forward in his book Things to Come. And it is actually a reason against the mid-trib and pre-wrath views as these views locate certain texts in a place where they can't easily be separated from the return of Christ.
So, I would favor the pre-trib view as helpful in explaining the Apostles’ language about an immanent appearing of the Lord (2 Tim. 4:1, 8, 1 Jn. 2:18, 28). I find any view that supports the veracity of scripture to be worth considering.
But on the pre-millennial view there are difficulties with the passages you cite, as to whether the rapture can be separated from the return of the Lord. The cloud coming in Mat. 24:29-31 is supposed to happen "immediately after the tribulation" (not before). 1 Thess. 4:13-18 seems directly tied to 1 Cor. 15:24, 51-58, which occurs at the "end" of the kingdom age when death is totally defeated, and so this would be part of the general resurrection at the end of the millennial kingdom. But, alternatively, 1 Thess. 4:13-18 might be connected with Mat. 24:31. In either case, it’s not a pre-tribulation event. The resurrection at Christ's "coming" (1 Cor. 15:23) would seem to fit with the first resurrection (Rev. 20:3-4) at the beginning of the millennium.
So, on the pre-mil paradigm, it’s hard to find a pre-tribulation rapture. Certainly, there are odd texts that stick out like John 14 and generic promises that believers are not destined for wrath but salvation (1 Thess. 5:9-10), but these don't directly establish the pre-trib view, but can only be used to augment and fill this view out once it is established by other passages. Zech 14 could be associated with Christ's coming at the beginning of the millennium in Rev. 19 (though it could also be associated with Rev. 20:9 and Ezek. 38), but if so, is that not Christ's premillennial coming in deliverance of faithful Israel, not the pre-trib rapture?
Altogether, while I see the rationale for an immanent appearing of the Lord in the NT, I don't see the exegetical teaching of a pre-trib rapture. Are there other passages or something that I'm missing?
Thanks again for your insights.
Even if dispensationalism or even the Rapture is seen by some as ‘new’ schools of thought, even though they aren’t, what’s wrong with that ?
What did God say to Daniel 12:9 ? “He said, “Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.”
In other words, these mysteries, which in Biblical terms is something known but not yet seen, a truth undiscoverable except by revelation, long hid, now made manifest. Thus there are many aspects of the Bible which come to the forefront as knowledge increases, or as prophecy reveals itself. Things become clearer as time goes forth.
Covenant Theology just doesn’t work when one compares God’s plan for Israel with His plan for the Church.
What is God's plan for the church?
@@benjaminbelcher2739The Great Commission, rapture, the marriage supper of The Lamb, Return with Christ and the Millennial reign of Christ to rule over the nations. And of course we have the New Heaven and New Earth.
@@benjaminbelcher2739:
What a question!
The Church is the Body of Christ.
Currently the Head and the Body are separated. The Head is in heaven, the Body is on earth.
So the next step is to unite Head and Body. This will happen between heaven and earth, in the clouds.
And then:
Ephesians 2:6-7:
6 And has raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
7 That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
One of their own, Paul Washer, studied Petroleum Engineering prior to going to Seminary.
What do you mean can you explain?
Can someone tell me when John had his vision in Revelation, how did he know he was seeing exactly 1,000 years passing by? Did an Angel or the Lord tell him he was witnessing 1,000 years ? Or is the argument that the Holy Spirit inspired him to write 1,000 years. Also, when it is written that God has no problem cutting off the old branches and grafting the new ones in…are you saying that God will graft the branches that he cut off back in? Are you saying that for thousands of years since the New Testament was written that God has been sending the old branches to hell, but in the future God will graft them back in and stop sending them to hell? So millennial reign Jews get to go to heaven, but the millions before them have to go to hell?
Who is Israel?
Jacob, and Jacob's children. In short, those under Judaism. Most would call them Jews.
@@chapmaned24 So everyone who can claim Jacob as an ancestor in some way? Or those who follow Rabbinic Judaism?
@@nathanhornok
1. Only the non-Christian Jews can claim to be Israel, which, of course, is an ancestor from the family line of Jacob, as well as those who convert to Judaism. Those who convert to Judaism are considered to be a Jew. They are the only ones who can claim the name Israel.
2. Christians are NOT Israel. ESPECIALLY GENTILE Christians. Why?
The Promised Seed is:
a. Isaac
b. JESUS (Galatians 3:16)
a. The Family line of Jews/Judaism = Abraham, Isaac, Jacob
but...
b. The Family line of Christians = Abraham, JESUS, YOU.
You belong to Jesus, not Jacob (Israel). Having said that, the PROMISED LAND is...
a. A small piece of real estate in the middle east for the JEWS/JUDAISM
b. Eternal Life in Heaven for Christians
In short, there is no such thing as the church being Israel. The church is the church, and they get heaven; Israel is Israel, and they get a small piece of real estate in the middle east.
@@chapmaned24 "Only the non-Christian Jews can claim to be Israel" So when a Jew becomes a Christian today, he stops being Israel? Is he part of the "branch grafted back into the tree" whose root is Israel, but then again is not Israel because he joined the church. Is he still entitled to the tiny piece of land in the middle east? So is it like a partial prosperity gospel for messianic Jews, but not a prosperity gospel for every other Christian? Is he Israel but his Christian children are not Israel unless they keep marrying messianic Jews, or non-messianic Jews? Does the tiny piece of land belong to them even if they don't live there? And as a gentile Christian, my family line is to Jesus and then directly to Abraham because Jesus was not a descendant of Jacob? Do I have this all sorted out? Basically God is obligated to keep His promise of a tiny piece of land to descendants of Jacob as long as they keep rejecting His son, so that someday they'll stop rejecting His son once there is no Church around to preach His son as Messiah, then He'll actually give them the land forever to fulfill all those old testament prophecies about getting the land and Zion forever, but it won't really be forever cause at the end of 1,000 years the whole will be destroyed anyway? I think its starting to make sense.
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? 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?
In the Noahic covenant, God made an agreement with All people. How does this not "complicate" Covenant theology just as Dispensational theology does?
LOL, When did dispensationalism fall? Great discussion.
We would agree with you :). Thanks for the kind feedback!
A big problem with dispensationaliam is the third coming of Jesus.
Hello @davmatheophilus159, thanks for your comment. I am sure that you are aware that most Old Testament saints did not expect 2 advents of Christ. Yet, later progressive revelation makes that very apparent that in his first advent he came as a suffering servant and in his second advent he will return as a conquering king. Dispensationalists do not use the language of "third coming," but rather two phases of the 2nd advent. The first aspect/phased - the rapture involves meeting the Lord in the air (John 14:1-6; 1 Thess. 4:13-18), the second aspect, is a return to the Olivet Mountain (Zechariah 14:1-5; 2 Thess. 1:6-10; Rev 19-21). The first aspect comes for the saints, the second with the saints (see same passages listed above). The first delivers the church from wrath, the second delivers Tribulation saints who endured wrath. The first phase is imminent, the second is preceded by signs. The first phase, Satan continues his influence on earth, in the second he is cast into the bottomless pit. So, the dispensationalist is seeking to grapple with these important passages, and we recognize that these events cannot be fulfilled by one phase of the 2nd advent.
@BibleandTheologyMatters
Thank you, but I think they are mistaken, it would be three comings, no matter what language they use.
@@davmatheophilus159what is most important is how you can harmonize the passages listed above. In my estimation, you cannot, unless there are two phases. Just as there are two comings, and only one was expected until later progressive revelation revealed that the Messiah would come as a suffering servant in His first advent and conquering king in His second.
@BibleandTheologyMatters
The most important idea is that the Lord will return. Any division arising from dogmatic, bombastic assertions one knows exactly how all the details will take place, is just wrong.
@@davmatheophilus159 Look in the mirror.
8:55.....now that's a smack down. 😊
Apostasy in these last days is so evident by the tearing down of the truth of dispensationalism.
Where is the hermeneutical and exegetical evidence for dispensationalism?
How do you deal with the time statements? How do you apply interpretive frames regarding literalism and figurative language to the biblical text? Do you use audience relevance and context in your dispensational interpretation?
Frankly, many of you made similar mistakes to Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel. For example, when Dr. Hummel was asked for a definition he didn't really give one, he gave characteristics instead. You noted that, but then kept referring to it as a definition and treating it as a definition. For example he listed free grace as a characteristic which, it is even if it is not universal are necessarily part of a definition.
Further, when one of you offered a definition it was sufficiently vague to the point that it could have easily been understood as a definition of any systematic theology including covenant theology. The only thing in the definition that limited it to dispensationalism was the claim of a "literal" hermeneutic, but depending on what is meant by "literal" that may not even limit the definition to dispensationalism.
Some of your critiques of Dr. Mohler and Dr. Hummel's approach were warranted. Some of their arguments weren't actually arguments or did not warrant the conclusion that dispensationalism is wrong. On that we agree.
Dispensationalism in genera and all of you in particular claim that a plain reading of Scripture will conclude with a dispensational perspective, but it is exactly that (a plain reading of Scripture) that led me away from dispensationalism. While I do not ascribe to covenant theology as much as a progressive covenantalism, my plain reading of Scripture has led me to believe dispensationalism is wrong. Ladd's book, The Blessed Hope, was helpful to me and Hummel's book, so far, has been helpful as well. But I have read Ryrie's book "Dispensationalism", Blaising's "Dispensationalism, Israel and the Church", and a host of others.
Lastly, I've always found the use of the word "replacement theology" rather odd coming from dispensationalists. Yet, they are virtually the only ones who use the term. It is dispensationalists who literally believe Israel has been replaced with the church during the church age. Please stop using that term, it is not reflective of what most covenant theologians believe. In fact, most of them would probably use a term closer to "fulfillment theology" to describe what they believe. Your use of this term is uncharitable and misleading.
I do appreciate your respectfulness towards Mohler in your conversation.
The phrase “fulfillment theology” sounds more friendly than “replacement theology,” but using it is making a distinction without a difference. They still believe that God has substituted the Nation of Israel with the Gentile Church.
And that belief is the reason why they cannot take end time prophecies literally. But it's all unfolding literally today, so Israel shall start building a new temple, then rapture his church within 3.5 years.
@@biblehistoryscience3530 frankly, you are just wrong. It isn't about sounding friendly. There is a difference between "replacement theology," which is a term very few people accept as a label for themselves, and fulfillment theology.
Furthermore, it is uncharitable and in bad faith to use language in a manner that misrepresents another's view. There are several views on Israel's role in the end times and simply grouping all but your view under one term, "replacement theology" is overly simplistic and unfair to those views.
@johnbyrne9601 Some in the early church saw that God had allowed Rome to conquer the nation and scatter the Israelites. Meanwhile, he was working through the church, so it seemed to them that the church had replaced Israel. But God working through the church until the rapture is not mutually exclusive with God sending revival to Israel after his Gentile bride comes home.
And you can call it a spiritual continuation, but that description alone ignores the conclusion that God is therefore supposedly finished with national Israel.
@@biblehistoryscience3530 I understand what dispensational premillennialism believes. That is not the issue. I'm not calling anything a "spiritual continuation." As you described, dispensational premillennialism it occurs to me that "replacement theology" might more accurately describe your view than it does mine. I am not covenantal and there are more views than just strict dispensationalism and covenantalism. I am probably best described as a progressive covenantalist/historic premillennialist. While my view regarding Israel doesn't agree with yours, it also isn't replacement theology. "Replacement theology" is a term that for the most part is misused to describe views that do not hold to what the term seems to describe. It is rarely a helpful term.
@@johnbyrne9601 , Whether you believe in it or not, the debate is about Dispensationalism vs Covenant Theology, which many people call Replacement Theology because it teaches that the church now holds the special relationship with God once held by Israel. They don't like the term because of the Antisemitic implications, but “replace” is the correct word for the idea that God permanently substituted the church for Israel in this relationship.
In Rom 11, Paul warned against such hubris that the church had replaced Israel. He vehemently rejected claims that Israel had fallen from grace. Paul said that God had mostly hardened Israel UNTIL the fullness of the Gentiles comes in. The church gets raptured, then God will send a revival to Israel, and the great tribulation will start.
Excellent!!!!!!!
Thanks for the kind feedback @davidsutter1846
Clark Summit Univ.will be closing.
That is true. If you are interested in the reasoning, rather than assume it fits Hummel's narrative, here is an insider's perspective with a very honest and objective view. facebook.com/share/p/efX1jQHMYA2EhEZQ/
Its sad that we all got to tear each other apart.
I don't know but would believe some of these men are disagreement with each other.
Any form of systematic theology under mines the nature of God.
God knows we all do our best to find the truths contained in His word written to the simplest of all who spend the time and effort to read it.