Glad to see a futurist view being represented. If I recognize the name though, he is a classic dispensationalist. I’m sure it will interesting though. It would be great to see a progressive dispensational view represented. Like a TMS grad. Maybe someone like James Coates or Mike Riccardi - or probably any TMS faculty that is willing to represent their view. Just some ideas to get started if you pursue it. I hope that you’ll consider it. Thanks. And remember that all faithful Christians are standing side by side in the war against Christianity in this culture and always have been. It’s not a CN Christian vs. a non-CN Christian. It’s a Christian with a consistent biblical worldview and Christian ethic and a Christian that creates a false separation between biblical truth and politics. Of, course theonomy is definitely a dividing line but all Christians will preach the gospel, preach righteousness and preach against evil! And no Christian believes that there is neutral ground nor have they ever believed that. Even a child understands that it is God vs. Satan. Ok. Carry on. Christ is King!
I’ve watched his other interviews about his book “discovering dispensationalism”. He literally points to a list of heretics to find dispensationalism in church history. 😂
@@peterhanna3206 REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY Replace resurrection for rapture Replace one second coming for two Replace one plan of redemption for two Replace living, spiritual temple for physical Replace current reign of Christ for king-on-hold Replace centrality of Jesus Christ for centrality of Israel The real replacement is DISPENSATIONALISM
But hey, for the lord, a day is like a thousand years. Since soon doesn’t mean soon, quickly doesn’t mean quickly, and this generation doesn’t mean this generation, the millennium might just be a day long too!
The Day of the Lord is always referred to as near both in the NT and OT. In your interpretation of “soon”, how exactly was Rev 20-22 considered as “soon”? How exactly has Zech 14 been fulfilled? How exactly did Matt 24:30-31 get fulfilled in 70 AD? Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other
@@matts.6558 realizing there’s more than one day of the lord unlocks lots of fun. It’s a day of judgment. And pretty easy, what’s being described in Rev began back in the first century “soon” to the actual audience it was written to, but what’s described in Rev 20 is the beginning of a long period of time “a millenium” of which its not over.
@@matts.6558 also it’s always funny hearing the question of “how exactly” as if we know every detail. If I quote the verse and say that happened, is that good enough, since Jesus said it would happen? If I asked you “how exactly” it will happen in your futurist view, are you able to give me more specific details than reading the text? Some of my best buds are futurists, so I have this conversation quite often. I can read it, that doesn’t mean I know all the mechanics of how it was accomplished. For an explanation that might be pretty informative, look at Phil Kaiser’s work on eschatology. He’s very meticulous with laying out hermeneutics, especially as he goes through his series on revelation. Even if you don’t take his view, the sermon series is super edifying and challenging. Highly recommend!
@@hammerbarca6 you conveniently left out out a few. Polycarp and Iraneus being discipled from John’s teaching, who wrote the book, yet neither of them agreeing with a 70 AD fulfilment or partial preterist fulfilment? Not to mention literally none of the early church fathers agreeing with or teaching this as they were virtually all historic premil? And Matt 24:30-31, when did that happen in 70 AD? Does an obscure writing from one man Josephus really carry that type of description and weight, because to me it isn’t convincing and is really stretching it. And Zech 14? When exactly was that fulfilled? Also, I never said there wasn’t multiple days of the Lord referred to in the Bible, I said it was always referred to as near whether it was still far off or not. Why is this? To encourage people to respond. Why is it referred to as near in Rev, because it is both near in practical purposes (letters to the churches) and it is near to each person as their life is short. So it can always be used to encourage people to respond, act and change “now”while they can to ensure they find themselves on the right side of judgment. Is God done with Israel, the physical descendants?
I've always found the Revelation to John to express an eternal overview, like the OT prophecies. There are things about the then past and present, but also the then future. Things about the spirit realm, and also this realm. Themes that are recurring across time and also events that are very specific to a location in time. Trying to capture the Revelation by a single scholastic interpretive school is like trying to capture the Spirit in a bottle.
Dispensationalist always accuse Preterists of looking at extra biblical literature to interpret Eschatological prophecy, but they do the same. They constantly look at news papers and scrutinize many current events to interpret Revelation. The difference here is that Preterists are looking at HISTORICAL FACTS that completely fit what John described in his vision. Preterists simply look back at these facts while Dispensationalists continue to guesstimate and make predictions based on possibilities.
No, we don't. Only hysterical preterists who are still responding to Hal Lindsey's book from 52 years ago think that dispys find prophetic fulfillment in the news. Time to grow up
@@miguelfcervantes yep. I’ve debated with dispensationalists and used only Scripture. Eventually they get pinned into a corner because they simply can’t make their case with Scripture alone, so what do they do? They pull out the “Israel was brought back into the land in 1948” proof. 🤦♂️
If the human pen (John) that wrote Revelation discipled Polycarp and Polycarp discipled Iraneus who stated John wrote this in the 90’s day toward the end of the emperor Domitians reign, and neither Polycarp or Iraneus though a historical view of eschatology, then isn’t that a pretty solid sign that none of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD?
@@joshnelson3344 You can look up the evidence online and judge for yourself. Are there any church fathers that lived in the first 4 centuries that taught a fulfillment of Revelation in 70 AD? Was Zech 14 fulfilled in 70 AD?
@@joshnelson3344 In the context of speaking about John, Irenaeus (A.D. 180), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30) Domitian reigned from 81-96 AD. John saw the apocalyptic vision in the 90’s AD. Therefore John wrote the book after seeing this vision, likely in the early to mid 90’s as the majority of scholars agree.
Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28). Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications. Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14) Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22). Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture. Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4). Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6). These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
I’ve even heard some dispensationalists teach a tri-bride theory, not just a dual bride theory. They claim that God the Father is married to Israel, God the Son is married to the church, and God the Holy Spirit is married to the tribulation saints. I kid you not. You just can’t make this stuff up. Dispensationalism is so wacky!!!
@@joshnelson3344no single reputable dispy scholar believes or teaches that. Every system has their crazy fringe voices (including CT). Best to interact with the most informed representatives of a tradition to get an accurate view of what it believes.
@@CoryMarsh-o4g I get that from Jack Hibbs and Lee Brainerd. Whether they are considered “reputable” or not I suppose can be up for debate. But they do seem to be pretty influential dispensationalist voices.
@@joshnelson3344 Jack Hibbs is not a scholar, that should be obvious. If I want to learn about post mill thought I am not going to take it from NAR preachers. Scholarship is what matters, not pop-level loose, unguarded theology.
@@empese1127 Here are some reasons why Darbyism, a form of dispensational premillennialism, is considered unbiblical by some: Isolationism and party spirit: Charles Spurgeon observed that Darbyism exhibited a growing tendency towards isolationism, obscurantism, and a party spirit. This fragmentation and exclusivity are seen as unbiblical, as the early Christian church sought unity and concord despite theological differences. Warped hermeneutics: Spurgeon also criticized Darby’s hermeneutics as “warped,” implying that his interpretive approach was unbalanced and led to aberrant conclusions. This criticism suggests that Darby’s methods were unbiblical and failed to accurately understand the Scriptures. Exclusion of biblical passages: Darby’s New Testament excluded certain passages, which he deemed unnecessary or misleading. This selective approach to Scripture is considered unbiblical, as the Bible presents a unified message and narrative that cannot be cherry-picked or ignored. Misunderstanding of worship: Darby’s distinction between ancient and modern conceptions of worship is seen as unbiblical. While it is true that the word “worship” has evolved in meaning over time, the biblical concept of worship as reverence and devotion to God remains constant. Darby’s attempt to separate ancient and modern worship is seen as an artificial and unbiblical distinction. Disconnection from biblical unity: Darbyism emphasizes a strict separation between Israel and the Church, which is considered unbiblical. The New Testament presents a unified message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, without distinguishing between Jewish and Gentile believers. Darby’s separation is seen as a departure from this biblical unity. Unbalanced emphasis on prophecy: Darbyism places a disproportionate emphasis on prophetic passages and the literal interpretation of apocalyptic imagery. While prophecy is an important aspect of Scripture, this focus can lead to an imbalance and neglect of other essential biblical themes, such as Christ’s teachings, the Sermon on the Mount, and the importance of love and holiness.
@@empese1127 Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28) . Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications. Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14). Israel’s Fate: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22). Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture. Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4). Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6). These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
@@empese1127 Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28). Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications. Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14). Israel’s Fate: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22). Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture. Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4). Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6). These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
@@empese1127 Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28). Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications. Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14). Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22). Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture. Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4). Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6). These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity. Israel’s Fate:
![Fall Asleep Listening to Genesis: Bedtime Scripture for Deep Sleep [Holy Bible Audio]](/img/n.gif)
I appreciate hearing him explain his view
Glad to see a futurist view being represented. If I recognize the name though, he is a classic dispensationalist. I’m sure it will interesting though.
It would be great to see a progressive dispensational view represented. Like a TMS grad. Maybe someone like James Coates or Mike Riccardi - or probably any TMS faculty that is willing to represent their view. Just some ideas to get started if you pursue it. I hope that you’ll consider it. Thanks.
And remember that all faithful Christians are standing side by side in the war against Christianity in this culture and always have been. It’s not a CN Christian vs. a non-CN Christian. It’s a Christian with a consistent biblical worldview and Christian ethic and a Christian that creates a false separation between biblical truth and politics. Of, course theonomy is definitely a dividing line but all Christians will preach the gospel, preach righteousness and preach against evil! And no Christian believes that there is neutral ground nor have they ever believed that. Even a child understands that it is God vs. Satan.
Ok. Carry on. Christ is King!
I second the comment discussing bringing someone from TMS to explain their view. Do it!
When will you all do a video on the historicist position on Revelation?
Not sure, but Lord willing it will get done.
I’ve watched his other interviews about his book “discovering dispensationalism”. He literally points to a list of heretics to find dispensationalism in church history. 😂
Really? I don't recall your name being in the book
@@peterhanna3206 REPLACEMENT THEOLOGY
Replace resurrection for rapture
Replace one second coming for two
Replace one plan of redemption for two
Replace living, spiritual temple for physical
Replace current reign of Christ for king-on-hold
Replace centrality of Jesus Christ for centrality of Israel
The real replacement is DISPENSATIONALISM
Preterism is the only view that makes Eschatological sense
Full or partial?
💯
We take words like soon and near - get this - literally 😅
Only if revelation was written before 70ad. Lots of evidence points to it being written later
@@stuarthughes5391 Read WHEN JERUSALEM FELL by Kenneth Gentry.
But hey, for the lord, a day is like a thousand years. Since soon doesn’t mean soon, quickly doesn’t mean quickly, and this generation doesn’t mean this generation, the millennium might just be a day long too!
The Day of the Lord is always referred to as near both in the NT and OT. In your interpretation of “soon”, how exactly was Rev 20-22 considered as “soon”? How exactly has Zech 14 been fulfilled? How exactly did Matt 24:30-31 get fulfilled in 70 AD?
Then will appear in heaven the sign of the Son of Man, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory. And he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other
@@matts.6558 realizing there’s more than one day of the lord unlocks lots of fun. It’s a day of judgment.
And pretty easy, what’s being described in Rev began back in the first century “soon” to the actual audience it was written to, but what’s described in Rev 20 is the beginning of a long period of time “a millenium” of which its not over.
@@matts.6558 also it’s always funny hearing the question of “how exactly” as if we know every detail. If I quote the verse and say that happened, is that good enough, since Jesus said it would happen? If I asked you “how exactly” it will happen in your futurist view, are you able to give me more specific details than reading the text? Some of my best buds are futurists, so I have this conversation quite often. I can read it, that doesn’t mean I know all the mechanics of how it was accomplished. For an explanation that might be pretty informative, look at Phil Kaiser’s work on eschatology. He’s very meticulous with laying out hermeneutics, especially as he goes through his series on revelation. Even if you don’t take his view, the sermon series is super edifying and challenging. Highly recommend!
@@hammerbarca6 you conveniently left out out a few. Polycarp and Iraneus being discipled from John’s teaching, who wrote the book, yet neither of them agreeing with a 70 AD fulfilment or partial preterist fulfilment? Not to mention literally none of the early church fathers agreeing with or teaching this as they were virtually all historic premil?
And Matt 24:30-31, when did that happen in 70 AD? Does an obscure writing from one man Josephus really carry that type of description and weight, because to me it isn’t convincing and is really stretching it.
And Zech 14? When exactly was that fulfilled?
Also, I never said there wasn’t multiple days of the Lord referred to in the Bible, I said it was always referred to as near whether it was still far off or not. Why is this? To encourage people to respond. Why is it referred to as near in Rev, because it is both near in practical purposes (letters to the churches) and it is near to each person as their life is short. So it can always be used to encourage people to respond, act and change “now”while they can to ensure they find themselves on the right side of judgment.
Is God done with Israel, the physical descendants?
If Peter and Moses are correct that one thousand years is like a day, then “soon” is hard to understand. It’s God’s appointed time.
I've always found the Revelation to John to express an eternal overview, like the OT prophecies. There are things about the then past and present, but also the then future. Things about the spirit realm, and also this realm. Themes that are recurring across time and also events that are very specific to a location in time.
Trying to capture the Revelation by a single scholastic interpretive school is like trying to capture the Spirit in a bottle.
Dispensationalist always accuse Preterists of looking at extra biblical literature to interpret Eschatological prophecy, but they do the same. They constantly look at news papers and scrutinize many current events to interpret Revelation. The difference here is that Preterists are looking at HISTORICAL FACTS that completely fit what John described in his vision. Preterists simply look back at these facts while Dispensationalists continue to guesstimate and make predictions based on possibilities.
Has Dr. Marsh ever done that?
@@jhow0089no! He sticks with scripture ONLY.
I’m not sure if you even listened to Dr. Cory Marsh, but he only sticks to scripture. 🙏
No, we don't. Only hysterical preterists who are still responding to Hal Lindsey's book from 52 years ago think that dispys find prophetic fulfillment in the news. Time to grow up
@@miguelfcervantes yep. I’ve debated with dispensationalists and used only Scripture. Eventually they get pinned into a corner because they simply can’t make their case with Scripture alone, so what do they do? They pull out the “Israel was brought back into the land in 1948” proof. 🤦♂️
If the human pen (John) that wrote Revelation discipled Polycarp and Polycarp discipled Iraneus who stated John wrote this in the 90’s day toward the end of the emperor Domitians reign, and neither Polycarp or Iraneus though a historical view of eschatology, then isn’t that a pretty solid sign that none of Revelation was fulfilled in 70 AD?
Yes it is 👍
Where does Iraneus state that John wrote it in the 90’s?
@@joshnelson3344 You can look up the evidence online and judge for yourself. Are there any church fathers that lived in the first 4 centuries that taught a fulfillment of Revelation in 70 AD? Was Zech 14 fulfilled in 70 AD?
@@joshnelson3344 walk me through Zech 14 and show me how that was fulfilled in 70 AD…
@@joshnelson3344 In the context of speaking about John, Irenaeus (A.D. 180), wrote that the apocalyptic vision “was seen not very long ago, almost in our own generation, at the close of the reign of Domitian” (Against Heresies 30)
Domitian reigned from 81-96 AD.
John saw the apocalyptic vision in the 90’s AD.
Therefore John wrote the book after seeing this vision, likely in the early to mid 90’s as the majority of scholars agree.
Is a Classic Dispy still Pre-Trib Secret Rapture & separate from the Classic Pre-Mil which holds to a Post-Trib Rapture?
Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis
Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28).
Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications.
Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14)
Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22).
Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture.
Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4).
Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6).
These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
I’ve even heard some dispensationalists teach a tri-bride theory, not just a dual bride theory. They claim that God the Father is married to Israel, God the Son is married to the church, and God the Holy Spirit is married to the tribulation saints. I kid you not. You just can’t make this stuff up. Dispensationalism is so wacky!!!
@@joshnelson3344no single reputable dispy scholar believes or teaches that. Every system has their crazy fringe voices (including CT). Best to interact with the most informed representatives of a tradition to get an accurate view of what it believes.
@@CoryMarsh-o4g I get that from Jack Hibbs and Lee Brainerd. Whether they are considered “reputable” or not I suppose can be up for debate. But they do seem to be pretty influential dispensationalist voices.
@@joshnelson3344 Jack Hibbs is not a scholar, that should be obvious. If I want to learn about post mill thought I am not going to take it from NAR preachers. Scholarship is what matters, not pop-level loose, unguarded theology.
@@CoryMarsh-o4g who are the dispensationalist scholars?
Dispensationalism/Darbyism is unbiblical.
Have you actually sat down and read Darby or like 99% of people who vilify him are you just going by what you've heard about him?
@@empese1127 Here are some reasons why Darbyism, a form of dispensational premillennialism, is considered unbiblical by some:
Isolationism and party spirit: Charles Spurgeon observed that Darbyism exhibited a growing tendency towards isolationism, obscurantism, and a party spirit. This fragmentation and exclusivity are seen as unbiblical, as the early Christian church sought unity and concord despite theological differences.
Warped hermeneutics: Spurgeon also criticized Darby’s hermeneutics as “warped,” implying that his interpretive approach was unbalanced and led to aberrant conclusions. This criticism suggests that Darby’s methods were unbiblical and failed to accurately understand the Scriptures.
Exclusion of biblical passages: Darby’s New Testament excluded certain passages, which he deemed unnecessary or misleading. This selective approach to Scripture is considered unbiblical, as the Bible presents a unified message and narrative that cannot be cherry-picked or ignored.
Misunderstanding of worship: Darby’s distinction between ancient and modern conceptions of worship is seen as unbiblical. While it is true that the word “worship” has evolved in meaning over time, the biblical concept of worship as reverence and devotion to God remains constant. Darby’s attempt to separate ancient and modern worship is seen as an artificial and unbiblical distinction.
Disconnection from biblical unity: Darbyism emphasizes a strict separation between Israel and the Church, which is considered unbiblical. The New Testament presents a unified message of salvation through faith in Jesus Christ, without distinguishing between Jewish and Gentile believers. Darby’s separation is seen as a departure from this biblical unity.
Unbalanced emphasis on prophecy: Darbyism places a disproportionate emphasis on prophetic passages and the literal interpretation of apocalyptic imagery. While prophecy is an important aspect of Scripture, this focus can lead to an imbalance and neglect of other essential biblical themes, such as Christ’s teachings, the Sermon on the Mount, and the importance of love and holiness.
@@empese1127 Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis
Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28)
.
Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications.
Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14).
Israel’s Fate: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22).
Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture.
Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4).
Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6).
These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
@@empese1127 Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis
Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28).
Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications.
Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14).
Israel’s Fate: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22).
Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture.
Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4).
Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6).
These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
@@empese1127 Dispensationalism's Biblical Basis
Dual Bride Theory: Dispensationalism’s separation of the church and Israel into two distinct peoples of God is unbiblical. Scripture testifies to the unity of believers under the cross (Ephesians 2:11-22, Galatians 3:28).
Literalism: Darby’s strict literalism, applied to biblical interpretation, is problematic. It neglects the figurative and symbolic language used throughout Scripture, leading to misinterpretations and oversimplifications.
Rapture and Tribulation: The dispensationalist doctrine of a secret rapture preceding a 7-year tribulation is not supported by biblical evidence. Instead, Scripture describes a gradual apostasy and deception leading up to Christ’s return (2 Thessalonians 2:1-12, Matthew 24:4-14).
Dispensationalism’s emphasis on a future restoration of Israel and the Kingdom of Israel is unbiblical. Scripture portrays Israel’s ultimate destiny as a spiritual restoration, not a physical re-establishment (Romans 11:25-27, Ephesians 2:11-22).
Disregard for Whole Counsel of God: Dispensationalism often focuses on isolated passages and neglects the broader biblical context and the “whole counsel of God” (Acts 20:27). This leads to an incomplete and inaccurate understanding of Scripture.
Inconsistencies with Biblical Prophecy: Dispensationalism’s teachings on the end times, including the rapture and tribulation, are inconsistent with biblical prophecies that describe a gradual decline into apostasy and deception (2 Timothy 3:1-5, 2 Peter 3:3-4).
Lack of Unity: Dispensationalism’s emphasis on separate destinies for the church and Israel creates divisions within the body of Christ, rather than promoting unity and harmony among believers (Ephesians 4:1-6).
These unbiblical aspects of Dispensationalism/Darbyism undermine the authority and coherence of Scripture, leading to a fragmented and inaccurate understanding of God’s plan for humanity.
Israel’s Fate:
Partial-preterism is a scam, full-preterism is a heresy.
I agree
🤦♂️