What does Al Mohler think of Dispensationalism? A Review (Part 1)
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 07. 2024
- In this video, Peter Goeman and Doug Bookman team up to review Al Mohler's interview of Daniel Hummel, concerning his book, "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism." Goeman and Bookman assess the interview and discuss the kinds of objections that are often brought up against dispensationalism as a system. Topics covered: whether dispensationalism is a valid way of interpreting the Bible, whether dispensationalism originated with Darby, whether dispensationalism is too complicated, and whether it is significant that dispensationalism is waning in the academy.
Part two of the interview: • What is the Defining M...
For another video interview with Mike Vlach dealing with dispensational hermeneutics: • Theological Systems an...
Was dispensationalism invented by Darby?: • Was Dispensationalism ...
Al Mohler Interviews Daniel Humel on history of dispensationalism: • ‘The Rise and Fall of ...
Discussion between Cory Marsh and Daniel Hummel: • History of Dispensatio...
#dispensationalism #hermeneutics #christian #theology #bible
The Bible Sojourner Audio podcast: anchor.fm/the-bible-sojourner
More About the Host, Peter Goeman: petergoeman.com
Splendid perspectives! I agree with Professors Goeman and Bookman.
Thanks for the encouragement! Blessings to you, my friend.
Doug's line on "Dispensationalists' worst enemies are other dispensationalists", is spot on. So many ridiculous uses of the eschatology pop-up with relentless zeal, that it distracts from the ACTUAL biblical discussion of Dispensationalism.
Exactly. And if I might borrow a phrase I heard Brad Klassen use one time, the opponents of dispensationalism show their competency in who they choose as their opponent. Unfortunately, many of the opponents of dispensationalism choose the low hanging fruit and think they are doing a great service in "debunking" fiction writers.
You're right brother. I'm guilty of the same. So easy to pick an extremity and attack it as a representation of the whole.
God Bless bro
Thanks for this. Looking forward to Part 2. Loved Dr. Bookman's contributions to "Forsaking Israel."
Appreciate that. Part two should release in a little over a week, Lord willing!
Great discussion. Doug is a wonderful teacher. As a side note note, I would find it very helpful if you could one day list out or review some commentaries for every book of the bible that speak from a dispensational perspective. I have found a few helpful resources over the years like the book by Jim Rosscup but by now it's somewhat out of date.
I recently discovered through a dispensational blog the Matthew commentary by Ed Glasscock. I'm really glad I picked it up. A great and helpful commentary. I'm also excited about The Master's Seminary planning to release an old testament commentary under the MacArthur series. There are great dispensational commentaries like MacArthur, Wiersbe and Walvoord but when it comes to more technical commentaries or more recent commentaries, there is very little if anything. So many passages in the gospels and in Revelation only make sense when read with a dispensational understanding. A plain reading of the text. Matthew 25:32 and following is an example. Understanding the all people in Revelation 7:9 in light of Revelation 7:14 would be another.
Thank you
That's such a great idea! Rosscup's book was quite valuable in the day. A website like bestcommentaries.com would be very helpful from a dispensational perspective.
@@thebiblesojourner My difficulty with the best commentaries website is that it's an aggregate of rankings. It's not feedback from a Spirit filled mature believer who lives and breathes the Scriptures and walks with God. I value your opinion, and from believers like Mike Vlach, over any ranking system from people who's theology and holiness I don't know anything about.
@@paul8914I think there is wisdom in that approach. We don't do theology by mob vote 🤣
I posted a review of Hummel's book on both the Amazon page and the fb page for Marsh and Fazio's book, Discovering Dispensationalism. I had sharp critiques for both his tone and content which served to disparage dispensational beliefs, practices, and ministries. Hummel outright states he's not a theologian but he offers a wide swath of theological critique for Darby, Moody, and others who explicitly were theologians. Hummel was interviewed by a dispensational professor after the publication came out and was sadly treated with kid gloves, praising him where he shouldn't have and refusing to ask the tough questions about the extremity of rhetoric used to associate the dispy movement with everything discredited under the sun, even pyramidology and Y2K! This book has the tone and content of a ranting grad student's online blog, so I would not recommend this book to anyone. Terrible shame this made it to press.
Mohler showed his true colors a few years ago at Shepherd's Conference
What happened there.
@1969cmp there is a clip available somewhere on line. Phil Johnson was questioning him during a panel. His response was troubling both in his attitude and the content of his response.
Doug, my blessings from Chile, we miss you
Thank you for all of the clarification. Forty-five years ago the Lord woke my husband and me up to the treasure of this Book. He (miraculously) led us to a non-denominational Bible church shepherded by a gifted pastor who had no formal training, but was committed to sound, literal hermeneutics. Pastor Ron imparted a love of the whole Word of God to his flock. Reading and re-reading it over the years, God's story has become increasingly clear as has the interrelationship between Old and New Testament - without ignoring the specific meaning and intent of passages of either of them. Until a few years ago, for me, dispensations and covenants meant there had been a progression of changes throughout the story that included the covenants. Life was much simpler then! Maranatha!
It is so good to hear stories like this about how God works in our lives! Thank you for sharing!
Nicely done. If I understood correctly, it was referenced that Morrow came up with the word dispensation. The word dispensation is in the KJV and goes back to Geneva and Bishop's Bible which predated Morrow. Eph 3:2 for reference.
Thanks, Jay. Appreciate your clarification, and you are correct. What we meant to say, but perhaps did not clarify was that Philip Mauro was the one is attributed to naming the system of dispensationalism (i.e., Darby and others never called themselves dispensationalists). You are absolutely correct that the term itself dispensation was around prior to the 1920s, but Mauro was likely the one who first used it consistently about the renewed and unique premillennialism.
It seems that people are losing the ability to make a calm reasoned argument, and have replaced it with name calling and dismissiveness. Perhaps a product of the cultural social media moment? Simply stating something as if it is a fact without backing it up with anything is a particularly popular method right now, especially among postmillennialists. 🤔🙏
I think you're exactly right. There has been a huge downgrade in people's ability to reason thoughtfully and carefully. I sense it in my own life as well! Social media really makes as poor thinkers. Or perhaps it just exasperates an issue which has always been present. In any case, I think most people acknowledge social media has this kind of downside.
It is foolish to deny that there are proper divisions in the Bible. It is worth noting that 2nd Timothy 2:15 in the King James Bible has been removed in all of the bogus new versions. This is one reason that modern Christians that use a flawed version think this way.
Pre-tribulation, premillenial perspective is the accurate truth in the Bible.
@@JamesBrown-fd1nv There is no conflict between the old English and the newer English translations. Orthotomeō (“Rightly divide” in the KJV) means “cutting straight” in the original Greek. This is their way of saying being precise or accurate. So there is nothing different here in the good English translations. That being said, I don’t think any of us deny that there are proper divisions in the Bible - Law, Prophets, History, Wisdom, Poetry, etc.
The greatest division is prophecy vs mystery.
"...a careless flippant, misrepresentation" (true)
of a doctrine that is a careless flippant misrepresentation of Scripture. (dispensationalism)
- makes it easy to appreciate Mr Mohler.
Agreed. Very easy to appreciate Dr Mohler! Love him dearly. He just missed a bit on this one.
Could someone here do me a favor? Could you scan Hummel's Bibliography (theological and historical sources he relies upon) and send it to me? I'm curious how he makes some of his assertions given the rich and publicly available source material regarding John Darby and his influence, both positive and negative, upon Evangelicalism since the nineteenth century.
HAS ANYONE HERE READ THE EXTENSIVE WORKS OF ROY A. HUEBNER ON JOHN NELSON DARBY AND DISPENSATIONALISM?
(2 Timothy 2:15 KJV) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Important mandate for believers!
Where can I find these “extreme ideas” of John Darby that are rejected as “crazy beliefs?”
I’m working on a paper to answer the question.
Although I probably agree with you about dispensationalism in a lot of respects this review did not interact with very much at all with Mohler’s interview. It feels a bit like false advertisement.
That's a fair criticism. Immediately prior to our episode, there were a number of podcasts that did in-depth criticism of the Mohler-Hummel podcast. We decided it would be more helpful to approach the big picture, foundational issues which Mohler's interview raised (thus the disclaimer at the beginning of the episode saying we wouldn't be doing an analysis as much as hitting some of the major points of contention). But I think the criticism is a fair one. Thank you!
I think that I'm more shocked that these supposed Christian leaders of the faith, could be so evil 😈 toward fellow brothers in Jesus Christ! Where is love in such an attitude towards other Christians; mean spirited and nasty! These supposed Christian leaders and pastors love in Words only; they only really love those Christians who share their view of the Scriptures. According to them, they "love lost sinners;" but depise fellow believers who have a different position then they do regarding God's Word! This attitude sirs, really doesn't honor Christ!
It is a great reminder to always seek to show love even in disagreement! That is advice that will always age well.
Al mohler is the dispensational equivalent of jacobus arminius.
While I agree that Discovering Dispensationalism is judicious and well-documented, I found several of its articles to be very poorly edited and rambling. Bugs me that the editors didn't take greater care in that way. A useful book that should have been a tour-de-force.
That is certainly a difficulty with a multi-author book. I also believe one of the authors (Watson) passed away at some point in the process. But I’m sure the editors would like to hear some of the critiques.
I agree with you John, but I would go a bit further. Max Weremchuk's Chapter 8 on John N. Darby (a critical figure when dealing with Dispensationalism) was poor and minimally scholarly, given the wealth of historical resource material available free online.
@@thebiblesojourner "editors would like to hear some of the critiques" I didn't find that to be true. I initially found Fazio receptive, but Marsh was highly defensive regarding my less-than-flattering comments about Chapter 8 (see just above.)
Did anyone in the church teach that Jesus would rebuild the temple and bring back animal sacrifices in the “millennium” before Darby?
I’m not sure if anyone taught Jesus would personally rebuild the Temple, but it was a very common belief that the Jews would rebuild the Temple so the prophecies of 2 Thess 2 and Daniel 9 could be fulfilled. Reconstitution of sacrifices is assumed on the basis of having a temple, Daniel, and Ezekiel 40-48. It would be a good research project to see how the early church interpreted Ezekiel 40-48. Might be fascinating!
@@thebiblesojourner
Why do people assume that Ezekiel referred to a third temple in Jerusalem, when at that time there wasn't even a second temple?
Jesus never spoke of a third temple in Jerusalem, but he did speak and prophesy that the second temple would come under judgment and be destroyed.
And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.
{Revelation 17:15}
The seven headed beast of Revelation 17:
The seven heads are symbolic of seven kingdoms, starting with the beast of Daniel chapter 7
1st < Babylon
2nd < Medo-Persia
3rd < Greece
4th < Pagan Rome
5th < Papal Rome; the little horn
("that was" & "is not" & "yet is")
6th < "one is"
^
The woman that rides the beast is in captivity at the time of John's vision, AFTER receiving the deadly wound from the (atheist) beast from the bottomless pit [Rev 11:7]. This is the beast of THE TIME of John's vision IN THE WILDERNESS.
(Meaning that John is in the wilderness in his vision and not physical on Patmos, and he sees a beast that would come up from out of this wilderness. Read Job 38:26.)
The 7th < "is not yet come"
At the time of John's vision *in the wilderness* this head of the beast was yet to come; this is *the beast from out of the earth* [Rev 13:11];
(And he shall exercise all of the power of the first beast...) when this beast will speak like a dragon.
This beast must continue a short time, as per the others before him.
I believe by the testimony of Jesus, that we are now living in that "short time".
The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.
{Revelation 17:8}
:11...even he is the eighth, AND IS OF THE SEVEN, and ascends out of the bottomless pit and goes into perdition.
--There are seven heads at the time of John's vision, five kings/heads/beast are fallen, so this eighth is of the seven kingdoms...."that was"...."and is not"...."yet is" AND received a deadly wound; AND his deadly wound was healed.
This wound is the loss of her (the woman/church that rides the beast.) temporal sword (also her captivity), which is the earthly secular world kingdom.
This is the image of the beast (that great city), who like Babylon of antiquity, who thinks to usurp church and state craft.
The number eight is a metaphor for the resurrection. The eighth is resurrected from a former head of the seven; the 5th head that received a deadly wound.
(When he shall go into perdition: this will be the final dispensation of this beast with seven heads, that is a metaphor for satan.)
Jesus;
(The resurrection; Jn 11:25) Ἰησοῦς/Iēsous = 888
by counting the letter values of the Greek transliteration;
I(10), E(8), S(200), O(70), U(400), S(200).
In antiquity the mountain was not only a metaphor for a kingdom, but it was also symbolic of the head of a (river) dragon that was symbolic of a river that flows out from a mountain, after the spring thaw and overflowing its banks, spreading out in the form of the dragon's tail.
The color is scarlet because it is symbolic of the blood of the saints of the Lord.
A woman in prophecy is always a metaphor for a church, in this case (Jezebel) it is the fallen temple of God.
The false prophet, a lamb (Christ like) with two horns, and/but will speak like a dragon (a wolf in sheep's clothing), will be the beast (from out of the earth ... the USA) that will make an image unto the first beast from out of the sea, who received a deadly wound and his deadly wound was healed.
The two horns are a metaphor for two (equal) kingdoms in one, church and state craft.
Medo-Persia also is expressed as having two horns [Dan 8:3], but one was higher, (Persia) and eventually usurps the other.
This is the image of the first beast from out of the sea (Papal Rome). Once the wall of separation of church and state is lost, then will the second beast from out of the earth become the image of the first beast, who claims the authority of both church and state.
Even so, come Lord Jesus. Amen.
Why is it that the explosion of Bible college and religion came the fall of the culture in America? Do you not think doctrine played a roll in that downfall during this explosion.
I think the massive upheaval in American culture is attributed to multiple reasons (stories like that are usually complex). But perhaps the primary reason the American culture has shifted is the Marxist infiltration of the Universities and Colleges in the 1940-1960s, which was huge in shaping the next two generations, each being successively more marxist in their socialized worldview. People who go to Bible colleges are usually less secular than their peers. So the Bible college movement may have actually slowed the decay, who knows? It is a complex interrelationship still being played out.
Dispensationalism in regards to eschatology did not originate with Darby, although he certainly popularized it. The early church in the first century was roundly pre millennial, even though historic premillennialism didn’t note the distinction between Israel and the church. This is mainly due to Israel not becoming a nation until 1948, so for 1900 years scholars assumed that “Israel” in the end times would have to mean the church. This is where we get amillenialism as well as replacement theology, which is demonstrably false. When God made OT promises to Israel, he meant Israel, not the church. Paul in Ephesians 3:2 clearly tells us that we are in the dispensation of grace, and uses the Greek word oikonomia, which simply means a household arrangement, or “house rules.”
It’s unfortunate that dispensationalism has taken on so much baggage over the years, to include ideas for instance that Jesus in speaking in the sermon on the Mount was for Jews only, so it doesn’t apply to modern day Christians. I don’t agree with that. But I think any Bible student who knows the OT well, and takes the Bible to mean what it says (using a literal hermeneutic) can clearly see that dispensational theology is biblically sound and really the only way eschatological events make any sense. Otherwise you have to allegorize or symbolize things, which anyone can then say whatever they think that is a symbol for.
Good points. I especially agree that it is quite unfortunate that there is so much baggage attached to the term dispensationalism. Seems a new term could be useful!
Maybe Hummel and Molher did us a favor in being SO poor, that Dispensationalism and Darby will get more attention than before.
Without hearing the term Dispensationalism for years after I got save in late 1993, I held to what makes up Dispensational ideas a few months after leaving atheism and months before I go saved. And that is how I am today.
I think preterism is silly and amillenialism and post-millenialism are just useless.
So what we are left with are variations of pre-millenialist models. Why. Because the Millennium is something that cannot be allegory and hidden, and the Millennium has yet to happen.
So no matter anyone believes, we are in the pre-millenial age.
The appeal of dispensationalism is in its simplicity. Read the Bible without having to be told how to read it.
@@thebiblesojourner 'How it reads is what it is'.
God has appointed times, to dispense what He chooses. Why question it, if you are His?
Because you need this understanding to reprove and rebuke false doctrine. TULIP is completely unbiblical yet some PhD's teach it. We need the whole armor of God.
Having a PhD doesn’t have as much meaning as it once did. You can find a PhD teaching just about anything! 🤷♂️
The ideas of progressive revelation and God working in different ways throughout history does seem to be a rather self evident principle.
My 2 cents is: I was at Master's College in '92; I had the great Bookman as a professor (don't remember what subject). I was an ardent christian zionist dispensationalist. I now believe the Bible teaches what Eusebesius seems to affirm and that is that Jesus came back in AD 70. I believe if Jesus did not come back in that generation, and come back 'soon', 'quickly', 'at hand', etc., then the Bible is not true. I'm a full preterist now. We are in the New Heaven and New Earth which just means we are in the New Covenant church / New Jerusalem.
I appreciate you sharing your perspective in a congenial way. We do have a few episodes planned later to have a healthy discussion of preterism and where I think the arguments are lacking. Perhaps we can interact then as well. Thanks for giving your two cents.
If THIS is the new heaven and new earth then I feel like the Bible sold me a bill of goods. This surely is not a place where the lamb lays with the wolf and where every tear has been wiped away. Surely God can do better than this for a utopia.
@@sorenpx you are taking Old Testament idioms too literally. Those idioms like the heavens going dark and stars falling refer to judgement on a people/nation (see Ezekiel 32:7). New heaven and new earth just meant God was going from one way of relating to the world to another way - the Mosaic Covenant to the New Covenant. Jew and gentile both would have direct access to God in Christ - lion lying down with lamb. No more tears means no more spiritual death and separation from God. Notice in Revelation 22:15 that after the New Jerusalem has arrived there are still murderers and idolaters outside the city - outside the invisible church. Christ said, My kingdom is not of this world; it doesn’t come with observation. New heaven and new earth = New Covenant; New Jerusalem = invisible kingdom of God / church.
@@bfras33 I guess then the gift of eternal life also wasn't meant to be taken literally. It just means having a better life here on earth while we're still breathing. It's "eternal" just because it's so good. Or something or other. Right?
Our time on earth in flesh and blood is limited then we go to be with the Lord. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.
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?
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.
==============
Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?
(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)
The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?
1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:8, 3:16.)
2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?
3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?
4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?
5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?
6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?
7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?
8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)
9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9) Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
10. Watch the CZcams video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.
Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:
“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.
Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.
John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…
"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”
John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)
What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?
(See what Joshua said about the Old Covenant land promise in Josh. 21:43.)
Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?
Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?
Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is it fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:18-24?
Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church, if the New Covenant is “everlasting” in Hebrews 13:20? (See also 2 Thess. 1:7-10) If the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant “obsolete” in Hebrews 8:6-13, why would God go back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
Read the recent book "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism", by Daniel G. Hummel.
Sorry, I would love to interact with you but I don’t have time to answer all those questions (but I’m also assuming you aren’t really looking for answers). Hope to be able to interact with you in the future!
@@thebiblesojourner
Anyone who answers the first three questions will understand the truth, based on what is plainly written in God's Word.
I don't believe in DS. I wish you could clarify for me, what the DS position is.
"Since the Jews didn't receive Jesus, God postponed the inauguration of the kingdom."
The Pharisees demanded of Jesus when the k should come. They were talking about the k the DS say is promised to Israel by the O.T. right? and not talking about the spiritual k that Jesus came to create: a mustard seed turning into a great tree, and all the other parables Jesus made of the k, right? Jesus' answer to the Pharisees: The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Jesus was telling them they weren't thinking right about what the spiritual k was to be. I'm trying to get what the DS are saying. please help. ...So Jesus was offering a different k than what the Jews were expecting? and Jesus established that spiritual k (of saved souls who were part of His Body),. But because most of Israel didn't receive Jesus, He postponed the promised k to national Israel.
That's the DS position, right? What % of Jews was needed for Jesus not to postpone the Israel plan -so that they would have made Jesus king? (though, when they tried that, he hid himself).
[10% probably wouldn't be enough not to postpone. - even though Rom 9 and 11,
declare that the remnant is enough; and John B says that the stones would be enough
for God to fulfill to Abraham.]
So if Jesus HADN'T POSTPONED THE K, - Since Jesus had no sin, He would have continued reigning for the "1000 yrs" (He would never die; He would be on the throne over in Jerusalem, right now, as I am speaking) while all the people around Him would be dying. And all the time during this 1000 yrs with Jesus reigning, there would be NO souls being saved, because He hadn't died for our sin: I wouldn't be saved, you wouldn't be saved.
(And after the 1000 yrs, there would be no other 1000 yrs; - another 1000 yrs wouldn't
be necessary because Jesus HADN'T POSTPONED the k to Israel)
At the end of His reign, He would die for the sins of the world, resurrect; go into Heaven; the Trib comes, Christians put to death, then He returns in flaming fire taking vengeance; we meet Him in the air; He destroys ALL left on planet; and that would be THE END. As much as possible please affirm or correct what i have written, to align with the DS doctrine. I would much appreciate it.
How about this: If most of Israel had received Jesus, He would have still laid life down, hanging on the nails, - but not by the voice of beloved Israel. - and all the people mourning, weeping, loving, pouring heart out; grieving, as one losing his only son. and Jesus feeling the love. He dies.
He would have risen from dead, (the mustard seed sprouting, resurrected life, the k beginning, Jesus going into a far country and waiting till the k is complete and then receiving it; a full grown mustard tree) and not only Peter Paul et al, but the great multitude of Jews, including the priests, Pharisees, Sadducees, would have preached the gospel, and the country of Israel would have been premiere among the nations; land boundaries per David. . . . and if there had been that situation, (the kingdom not postponed, but Israel accepting Him, and going forth converting the gentiles), then toward the end, - the Tribulation would come, the man of sin released, the saints being overcome; Israel as a nation, not participating in the "Mark", and therefore hated by the world, and all nations coming to war with Israel; and then finally; the SAVIOR COMING BACK with the great sound of a trump, and the dead in Christ rise and we which are alive will be changed and caught up to meet him as He is coming; in flaming fire and to destroy ALL mortal men that are left on the planet (as in the days of Noah, the days of Lot) as the elements melt, and the heavens pass away.
- and then the Judgment.
The 2nd scenario is truth.
Please confirm or correct the DS doctrine. I would appreciate it. s@widdows.org - or respond publicly here.
I was not able to follow much of your comment, sorry. What does DS stand for?
@@thebiblesojourner Dispensational. Thank you for trying. if you could correct/clarify what is or isn't ds doctrine, it would be appreciated. You would have to study what I have written. I'm thinking that what i have written, reflects the ds doctrine. (or implication of) I wouldn't mind to pay to confirm/clarity (in response to what I have written). There's nothing immoral about paying for work. (I have studied ds: your videos, M. Vlach, other videos. . D Pentecost. Things to Come. Grover Gunn. Ladd. and others.)
@@stevewiddows It sounds like you have covered excellent ground if you have studied and read Vlach's dispensational primer and watched some of our videos on dispensationalism. Our seminary just released a short video list on dispensationalism too you may find helpful in defining a few of the issues: shepherds.edu/dispensationalism/
I sadly don't have time right now to check what you've worked on, but I'm very happy to see you working through the text and wrestling with these issues. I wish more people were as passionate about studying these issues. Blessings to you, my friend!
@@thebiblesojourner When I say, "study what I have written", I'm not talking about hours of research. The thoughts I expressed are not complex, but someone needs to read with intent to understand and respond. "Study" in that sense. I was careful when writing to clearly express the thoughts I was thinking. Maybe one of your readers would step-in: Have I correctly expressed dispensational doctrine?
I think you guys are being too sensitive. Thought they were both pretty respectful and the subject was the history of the movement not the merits of the system
Haha, that is entirely possible! I actually had a great follow up conversation with Hummel afterwards and that was very helpful in clarifying how he was approaching it. I will say it does seem a bit like Mohler was making some inaccurate assertions, but he’s 2000% smarter than the average man so what can we do? 🤣 Thanks for the feedback!
@@thebiblesojourner thank you for your gracious response. I definitely saw some smugness and inaccuracies but I’m used to way worse from from non-dispensationalists lol
@@hettinga359 That's a good point. It is unfortunate that online interactions tend to foster smugness and inaccuracy, but we need to fight that. I'm trying to be open to critique on that end. Always feel free to let me know if I'm missing the mark. Appreciate all feedback, positive and negative 😃
Apostle Paul is dispensational,
He at least uses the language 😀
Watching this was very disappointing. You should have just invited Mohler on, I am sure he would be happy to discuss why Dispensationalism is false. Instead, you start out by saying "Well, we aren't going address Mohler's arguments, we are just going to complain that he was less than charitable in refuting Dispensationalism". You were complaining that Mohler was resorting to logical fallacies while you yourselves "attacked the messenger" rather than his message. While Dispensationalists usually defend the scheme by calling those who have arguments they can't answer by saying they believe in "Replacement Theology" (a logical fallacy that proves nothing in itself) I believe that Dispensationalism is the real "Replacement Theology". It replaces Jesus as the central figure of Scripture and God's plan to relate to and redeem the world with a genetic people group. It has replaced Jesus as the Seed of Abraham and the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham with a genetic people group that rejected Jesus and continues to do so until this day. It splits the people of God into at least two groups, those who are of the "Household of Faith" and the people who God really loves because of their genealogy. You can call me anti-Semitic if you like but I assure you I am not. I just don't like it when things are put in front of Jesus and His sacrifice for us.
Appreciate your interaction. As noted in the video, the reason we didn’t go through the video in detail and talk too many specifics was because many others have done that (see Paul Weavers video for example). Our goal was to correct the broad misconception about dispensationalism which was evident in how Mohler characterized it. I have friends who have reached out to Mohler and offered to talk to him about this and so far he has been unwilling. So I’m not sure your statement about his willingness to engage on this issue is exactly accurate. But if you have issues with what we said specifically I’d be happy to try to interact with them as I’m able! It seems there is often misunderstandings more than anything which cause the divisions.
@@thebiblesojourner I have a feeling if you had personally called his office and told them you were about to make a CZcams video because you believed he was being condescending and wrongly characterizing Dispensationalism that you would have gotten a call back from someone. Biblically if we have a problem with a brother we are commanded to go to them first.
I used to be a Dispensationalist because that was what all of the popular teachers taught. I mean they couldn't be wrong or they wouldn't be popular.
However, after listening to all of these guys on TV and in their books telling us that everytime someone sneezed in the middle east that the Gog/Magog war was about to start or the rapture was about to happen for decades I became suspicious. How could these guys have their Eschatology correct and be so wrong hundreds of times?
So in 2012, I put aside all of my preconceived ideas and studied the Scriptures for 2 years myself to see what it actually said. To my surprise, what I had been taught wasn't Biblical. Mohler is correct, if you had never heard of the Bible before and set down to read it without Schofield's notes or more recent teachers with their complicated charts and graphs you would never come up with "rightly dividing" the people of God into at least two pieces, God's plan to relate to and redeem the world into at least 7 pieces, divide the second coming up into at least two pieces, etc.
Many of us are not very charitable to Dispensationalism because we believe it to be dishonest and heretical.
It replaced the fulfillment of the promises to Abraham (the promises were to Abraham, not Israel) who is Jesus with a genetic people group that rejected Jesus and continues to until this day. This isn't anti-Semitism (I know the charge is coming) it is just the facts.
The Scripture tells us from Genesis 3 on that the Seed is Jesus and no one else.
Galatians 3:16 Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, "And to seeds," as of many, but as of one, "And to your Seed," who is Christ."
Another 19th century heresy.... 😢
They pop up all over the place! But to which are you particularly referring to?
If you are against proper dispensational teaching, then you will never get your doctrine or prophecy right.
...just as well dispensational ideas are over 1900 years old...
Dispensationlism false doctrine!
Hello my friend. What is dispensationalism? Stay tuned for part 2. Or else check out the link to my episode with Mike Vlach on hermeneutics of dispensationalism. Might surprise you what dispensationalism actually is.
If people ONLY studied what Jesus taught on the end times, there would be no debate on these issues. Dispensational belief (Pre-trib rapture and a literal 1000 years in our future) are FALSE teachings. When the Lord returns as a THIEF. It's over. 2Pt3:10. NO second chances for Jews or anyone else. Don't take my word for it, study what Jesus taught. In Lu17:28-30 Jesus said the SAME DAY Lot (Represents believers) went out of the city (Represents rapture) God destroyed THEM ALL. The SAME DAY. Where does Jesus teach anyone left behind? How about what Jesus taught in Jn5:28-29 Jesus said ALL THAT ARE IN THE GRAVES SHALL COME FORTH (Just and unjust together) Where does Jesus teach a time period between this event, or anyone left behind??? To God be the Glory
Hey Mark, thanks for interacting with a thoughtful comment. I have a question as I read your comment. Why limit our Bible reading and theology to ONLY the things that Jesus said? That seems unhelpful (and incorrect) if ALL scripture is inspired by God (2 Tim 3:16). A literal 1,000 year reign of Christ is explicitly described by John in Rev 20. And although that time period is not quantified elsewhere, it is certainly described (Zech 14; Isa 2, etc). So why limit ourselves to just what Jesus said? 🤔
This is very simple to answer. Let me ask you a question before I answer. Is there ONE scripture in God's word that would CONTRADICT what Jesus taught? (NO) Thats your starting point! If someone had told me this when I first started studying, it would have saved me years of STUDY. So, when we CLEARLY understand what Jesus taught, then and ONLY then can we understand the PROPHETS writings. Every teaching of Jesus is the SAME. Jesus gives us an example of what will happen when he returns in Lu17:28-30 The SAME DAY Lot (Represents believers) went out of the city (Represents rapture) God destroyed THEM ALL. The SAME DAY. Where does Jesus teach anyone left behind? (NO literal 1000 years) In Jn5:28-29 Jesus said ALL THAT ARE IN THE GRAVES SHALL COME FORTH (Just and unjust together) Where does Jesus teach a time period between this event? The same thing in Jn6:39-40,44,54 (Believers) Then Jn12:48 (Unbelievers) Both on the LAST DAY. Every parable and teaching of Jesus says the same thing. SHEEP and GOAT judgment Mt25:32-33 (NOT live people) Wheat and Tares. Mt13:30, 37-43. NO one left behind and NO literal 1000 years in our future. If you will believe what Jesus taught, then you will understand your interpretation of Rev20, and Zech 14 are incorrect. (I made the same mistake) NOW you will have a LOT more questions. Such as what "IS" the 1000 years, HOW "IS" Satan bound? I pray that you study these scriptures, and the Holy Spirit will show you what has been shown to me. Yours in Christ. P.S. I will try to help anyone who has a thirst for TRUTH. So, don't be afraid to ask.@@thebiblesojourner
I agree, only there are two resurrections separated by a thousand years.
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto *the resurrection of life* and they that have done evil, unto *the resurrection of damnation*
{John 5:29}
And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, *both* of *the just and unjust*
{Acts 24:15}
*But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished* This is the first resurrection.
Blessed and holy is he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such *the second death* hath no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years.
{Revelation 20:5-6}
And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and ("""a thousand years""") some to shame and everlasting contempt.
{Daniel 12:2}
Thanks brother, but I want you to read the scriptures you gave very carefully. Jn5:28-29/ Act 24:15/ Dan12:2. And ask yourself, where do you see a time period in any of them separating the just and unjust being resurrected? This is why YOU ADDED a 1000 year time period to make your belief work out. The scripture that confuses most people (Including myself for a time) is Rev20:5-6 The FIRST resurrection. This is NOT a BODILY resurrection. This is when we are BORN AGAIN. Jn3:5. This is when we put on the new man. There are many scriptures that teach this SPIRITUAL resurrection. Here are a few. Jn5:24-25 Passed from DEATH unto LIFE. Rm6:13 ALIVE from the DEAD. Eph 5:14 Awake you that sleep, and ARISE from the DEAD. 1Jn3:14 We know that we have passed from DEATH unto LIFE. Remember what Jesus said in Jn8:51. Believers will never see death. This DEATH is the lake of fire. The second death. The reason it's called the SECOND DEATH, is because the unbelievers are DEAD while they are alive. 1Tm5:6 She that liveth in pleasure is DEAD while she LIVETH. Jude 12 TWICE DEAD. If you can understand these scriptures, it will open your eyes to many other scriptures just like it did me. You will also, have many questions that will come into play. BUT, if you trust these scriptures you will understand SPIRITUAL things. (Like the binding of Satan). To God be the Glory.@@larrybedouin2921
@@markhauserbible7168
And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: *for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away* and there was no more sea.
And I John saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and *there shall be no more death* neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
{Revelation 21:1-4}
And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
{Hebrews 1:10-11}