CORRECTION: After publishing this episode it was brought to our attention that we included some incorrect information about the Schofield Bible. We said that the first edition of the Schofield Bible had dates for when prophecies would be fulfilled, that were removed in the second edition because those dates were past. This was mistaken as dates were not included in the Schofield Bible. We apologize for the error, and are removing it from the CZcams version. Joshua Horn
I appreciate the video but would like to suggest some clarifications: 1. There is a BIG difference between premillennialism and dispensationalism. Premillennialism is simply the view that Christ will return and set up a 1000 year millennial kingdom on Earth, prior to the eternal kingdom. Premill position was supported by many church fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Dispensationalism is a different framework which understands the Bible through the church/Israel distinction. I wish you guys would have emphasized the distinction and referenced the patristic authors. 2. The “signs of the times” have been hotly debated by Christians of all stripes. But the overall message of the prophets reveals some key points: the Jews will return to their homeland in Israel, there will be a reuniting of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there will be a Messiah who reigns over Israel in justice and righteousness, and God will pour out His Spirit. Certainly the formation of Israel in 1947 would give some credence to the dispensational view? How else to explain the 50 plus prophecies stating that Jews would return to their homeland? 3. I would like to get your opinion on the Church/Israel distinction? Do you believe that the church has replaced or fulfilled Israel? Are the promises which were given to Israel transferred to the church? What exactly is your position, are you guys amillennialist covenant theologians?
Excellent comment. I picked up on them wanting to conflate premillenialism and dispensationalism the first statement the bearded one spoke. I'm with you. It's hard to figure out where these guys are coming from and what they believe. All they do is criticize, tear down and call everybody sinners (as though they are without sin). "All Catholic priests are pedophiles. Scofield was a drunk. They're all going to hell. You're not one of those dispensationalists are you?" They accuse them of being " divisive". What hypocrisy!
@mosesking2923 I typed a response to this right after you commented. I'm not sure what happened. 1. I agree that there can be a significant difference between premillennialism and dispensationalism. 2. Part of the problem is that when you look at prophetic language, the passage in Jeremiah that talks about the New Covenant says that it will be with Israel and Judah, so in the New Testament we need to consider what that means for what that fulfillment will look like. When God does more than what we thought he would we have to be very careful to not dismiss it as insufficient. 3. I don't like the word replacement theology. I do think that in the sense that Israel was the visible people of God, that the church has replaced them in that sense. But the church started with Israel and the Gentiles were brought in, so I think it's very incorrect to say that "WE THE GENTILES" have replaced Jews. No, we were brought in. It's important to read Exodus 12 where the nation of Israel is effectively instituted as a people/nation and God says very clearly that they are not going to be a nation of genetic ancestry, but of worship of God and the way that you will know them is through circumcision and the Passover. The church is the continuation and fulfillment of that with circumcision of the heart through the Holy Spirit and Communion. Charles
@markenge9348 We are Reformed Baptists and we hold to the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. I'm sorry you feel like all we are doing is criticizing and tearing down. We are certainly not without sin. We do have an interest in tearing down things that need to be torn down and to build up as well. We try to do a mix of episodes on different topics. We've been doing more episodes on dispensationalism recently which I do believe has been very damaging. Thanks for your comment, Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth If you guys are 1689 Baptist’s, you should consider reaching out to Sam Renihan or Brandon Adams for your show. That could be a great conversation since those guys are well versed in 1689 Federalism.
That's kind of the point of the video . Dispensationalist's claim that the end times are playing out before our eyes in completely different ways every 40 years for the past 200+ years. Whatever is happening in the world is the sign of the end times. It started put the French Revolution and when I was growing up it was Russia and the cold war and then the EU. And tomorrow it will be something else.
But dear brother if you use your eyes to see you will be deceived. Remember the deceiving spirit was at work from the beginning. Satan can only imitate the Truth.
It’s just a script. All the world’s a stage. “ now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to DECEIVE the nations which are in the four corners of the earth” Rev 20:7-
My wife and I both reached a point we felt we had often been lied to...referring to our church upbringings. The pre-trib concept among other things were presented as concepts as old as our Baptist roots. Such was not the case. Leaving the organized church at the time we did was the best thing we could have ever done. It allowed us to question, to research our beliefs, and those hard questions we had both asked others and received answers we knew did not fit...now our beliefs are stronger than ever because we took the time to do the "deep dive" study. When I found that the founding fathers had never heard of the pre-tribulation concepts [Darby did not come up with it until 1831 or something] it changed my world. Learning more of Darby...only raised more questions. To some extent why the collective protestant religions of the 1800's in the United States had so readily embraced those concepts. More importantly, the deep dive study...and I mean really deep dive kept leading us to more and more revelations. Today we follow only what is in the Bible, we only follow the feasts and festivals of the Bible, our sabbath begins on Friday evening at sunset...just as theirs did in the 1st century. Do I feel everyone must follow our path? Of course not. But we will no longer believe the lies we were told...and there were several. Yeshua is our savior...
Something similar happened to me. What I discovered is found below. New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below? Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary? What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. 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. God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9. 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 CZcams videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay...
@@SpotterVideo Ephesians 2:11-12 Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: Romans 11:11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy. when did the fall of Israel happen?????? have the gentiles all been saved or are there some still being added to the body of Christ!!!????? romans 11:25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in. God himself gave them over to blindness for a designated time ! and God will have mercy on who he wishes how he wishes! romans 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Following feasts and sabbaths according to Galatians and Collosians is going backwards. Each day is Holy now. All land is holy ground. The law is inward. Rest is inward. We are called to worship in spirit and truth. Today is the day. Now is the time.
First of all we did not say that dispensationalism was wrong because Scofield was wicked. Writing down prophecies with dates was wicked. Then removing the dates and saying they were still valid prophecies is bad. And people should ask, what parts did Scofield just make up. Second of all John Calvin didn't murder anyone. Regardless, I would want him held to the same standard that we held Scofield to. If Calvin was making up doctrine I'd care. If Calvin was being unfaithful to his wife, I'd care. And to be clear if the truths of dispensationalism are taught by God's word then that's all that matters. Just cut out the wicked middle men. But dispensationalism has major problems. It causes people to deny Christ's work unifying the Jews and Gentiles and making a new people. Charles
Did you know that Calvin was not a citizen of Geneva when Servetus was decided to be executed by the City Council? That Calvin corresponded with Servetus for a long time and warned him not to go to Geneva - or the force of the law will be applied to him by the City Council. And yet Servetus pestered Calvin thru the years - asking for attention for his divergent opinions, with no letup. That Servetus was already being hunted by the Roman Catholic authorities because of his anti- trinitarian views ( calling the Triune God a Cerberrus) in his book. That Servetus , besides not believing the Trinity is a Oneness teacher and that to him - Jesus the man is not God ? That of all places to seek refuge from them , he went to Geneva , instead of other Swiss cantons ( his destination is Italy) and even sit in front of the pulpit while Calvin was preaching, as if taunting him ? That Calvin, commanded to be an expert witness ( because of his legal education ) by the City Council , he tried so many times to dissuade Servetus , in his cell , so as to avert his condemnation? That Calvin requested the City Council to downgrade the penalty from death by fire to death by beheading - to avoid the prolonged pain ? That Calvin did not witness his execution but just continued to teach that day ? He did not relished viewing his death. That the Roman Catholics threatened all persons of death sentence those who teaches Anti-Trinitarianism or coddles them ? That Geneva is surrounded by Roman Catholic countries armies - like Germany , Italy and France during that time, under a German emperor or pope or a French king who already executed Protestant Christians ?
@@TheConqueringTruth Calvin was humanist Catholic LAWYER. His council also DROWNED Anabaptists, Murdered Michael Sevetus, and marched the "heretics" out of Geneva in winter. Jacques Gruet was BEHEADED for leaving Calvin a threatening letter at the pulpit of his church and his house WAS RAIDED, and as Gruet was MURDERED, Calvin APPROVED of the council's decision.
ON BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY: All three, amillennialism, post-millennialism and pre-millennialism (or what is referred to as "dispensationalism)" - including the pre-tribulation rapture - have their difficulties. I have also found that supporters for all three of these, far too often, misrepresent the others through "Straw Man" arguments in attempts to bolster their own claim. This debate concerns primarily a disagreement over non-essentials that does not concern the salvation of the lost or provide much impetus toward growing faith and continuing sanctification in the lives of those that put their faith in any of them. I CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT similar to the debate over God's sovereignty and man's free will from A.W. Tozer concerning predestination. A.W. TOZER: “God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination, and the divine sovereignty (or Amillennialism, Postmillennialism and Premillennialism). The best way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "0 Lord, Thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious profundity of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints.” The Apostles and the Lord himself would end this debate with what should be familiar words to all of us, "Be prepared," regardless.
Amen! We need unity in the body now more than ever. Some things do need to be addressed as heretical teachings a reformation would be great right about now. We've lost focused on the gospel that saves and the love we're meant to have for one another. If we only concentrated on those two things lives would be changed and so would the world. Thank you for your comment it blessed me, stay close to our Savior ❤️✝️❤️
This is refreshing. Listening to more of it this morning. Taking things out of context is huge. Acts 10, which is typically utilized to dismiss the old testament teaching...particularly the eating of pork. The problem is that we must read and understand it in the context it was written, certainly not taking a couple of verses (cherry picking). Peter, as a disciple knew very well the Mosaic teachings, and as taught/practiced by "The Christ". Stepping back, seeing the whole of verse 10 we see this was entirely about bringing the word to the gentiles...spreading then the gospels throughout the world. Also keeping in mind to be cautious, understanding the Bible setting on one's table is actually interpretations of copies of copies...of copies. Again, my Baptist upbringing taught that the gospels were all written in Greek. Understanding that there were 21 surviving Hebrew manuscript's of Matthew [often at best fragments of Matthew...as example]. Although citing my Geneva, and in Matthew 23:3; All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but after their works do not: for they say, and do not. I have often heard [Baptists and others] use this in their dismissiveness of the old testament. Unfortunately when we look back, at least in several of those early manuscripts "they" would be a misinterpretation, instead being more accurately interpreted "he"...which presents a different light on that verse. There is equal weight, again looking back for one interpretation vs. the other.
romans 14:1-5 1Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; [a]and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks. romans 14:14-17 I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Colossians 2:16 Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
@@wolfwatchersI was about to say there are other verses that clear up the food issue. God bless. So tired of legalism dominating the church. Sadly many don’t ever come out of law and into grace.
This not true Dispensational was mentioned in1500-1600 by Pierre poorer John Edward’s 1639-1716 Isaac watts 1674-1748 The problem is John Calvin never wrote a commentary on Revalation People need to get facts right
I think your dates for Poorer (Poiret?) are a bit off as he died in 1719. . We're not saying that Darby totally and completely created dispensationalism from nothing. But Darby is the guy who got traction and he genuinely built a system. We're also not arguing that Darby's sin or the circumstances surrounding the rise of the view make dispensationalism bad, but part of the reason why the ideas took off was current events. When I was growing up I thought of dispensationalism as a view that addressed the issues of the day. As I got older I realized it kept changing with what happened in the world. Part of the point is that this has been true from the beginning.
Augustine taught that God's Church was the kingdom of God on earth. Augustine has misled millions since the 4th century. Calvinism got some of its abherrant teachings from Augustine.
I don't care who wants to "take credit" for theology ... the FACT is the BIBLE is TRUTH and if you DIVIDE it rightly and know when the Lord is talking to Israel vs. the Church, it is very clear!
I use video like yours to be able to document myself into subjects of interest. I am writing a book on eschatology, as an ex-dispensatinalist from the Partial Preterist of view. I suspect that a lot of the dialogue that you had about John Darby and Scofield were facts that we're taken off Wikipedia. This conversation started really well and I was learning a few things, but later on, I was turned off by the approach os the group. You may be right on a lot of things you guys are saying, the argument gets obscured by toxicity. You can't make an argument of someone's doctrine, just alone by the moral failure of an individual. It may be some weight, but it's not enough. The Plymouth Brothers, in their weird and crooked way, they did a lot of good in their time. There was not as much knowledge as there is today and not everything that Darby did was wrong. If anything, it is admirable that he was more passionate than many of us into what he believed, which unfortunately I truly think was grossy misled. Using the moral character of a person to get rid of their material is something that not even the Bible does, Don't need to make examples... we will not have a Bible if we discard Bible books because of the more failure of their authors. Now, **By no means I am defending Scofield or Darby**, which, obviously had questionable testimonies, but if I am going to make a compelling case, I would like to suggest that starting from the moral failure of a person to make a case that the rest of everything they did was wrong, is the wrong vector point. There's so much more that could be said! Rather, I would like to show my case by a sound scriptural defense, concentrating of the weak points of the theology, contrasting fruit of belief, particular and peripheral of history and if necessary, yes, bring about historic and content evidence of moral character or even narcissism, to further define the fallacy of the belief. I believe that you try to do this here, but they said approach, and making fun of religious practices for us seem antiquated, fringe or misplaced, (getting in circles and waiting for God to move people to do something with something that the Quakers did in their beginning and it actually work for them), I don't think that fulfills the purpose to edify, neither speaks well of your intentent or your channel. I would encourage you to keep on going but making a careful balance of the mandate of Jesus to judge false prophecy and false prophets by their fruit, but also be careful not to criticize the servant of Another. Let's vehemently point to the bad fruit and stay away from propagating religious toxicity and exclusivism by trashing the characters of people that we never knew their true intent or simply don't agree with their practices. There's only only one truth, we have one Lord and there is only one body. But the complexity of humans is very vast. And God could cover it all, but not everything fits in our list of approved points of liturgy or theology. I'm glad we know better now. At least I hope. I hope this is taken as a constructive criticism comment. I truly care enough to drop this lines and hope it helps. Blessings.
Thanks for the comment. We agree that it is wrong to use the history of an originator, or earlier adopter, of a doctrine to dismiss a doctrine as wrong or heretical. The ultimate standard is scripture, and that is what must use to decide theological questions. Our church is reformed baptist, and if we we judged some of our positions by the standard of history, we would run into issues, as the first credobaptists at and after the time of the reformation were heretical and scandelous, as were some of the first people who split off from the church of England and pushed for independently organized churches. We have a few other episodes on dispensationalism, and other eschatological topics, where we argue from scripture alone. But we also think that the history is also worth discussing.
@@TheConqueringTruth Absolutely. Is great to discuss, and in order to further your point, and get it across as you intend, I cordially suggest to guard our approach, and express our intent with cordiality and love. Martin Luther could be a good example... While leaving us a legacy where Protestantism was built, he also gave us license to divide when we disagree. With the same strength, sarcasm and harshness that he criticized the Catholic Church thoigh the media of his day, (and with all the rights to do it) at the moment that he gave himself license to be overtaken by his feelings, he agregated that to our Protestant legacy, which is known for creating factions every time brothers disagree. Known also for uniting camps with emphasis on what we do not believe, instead of demonstrating together what we do believe. Even at being (loosely) a Partial Preterist, I thought this camp of Eschatology would be less aggressive and judgmental than Dispensationalism, and in the sense it is... but I have found a lot of people in this side of the camp, that is just as harsh and judgmental as the good 'ol Dispys. I guess we're learning day by day. Thank you for taking my comment with Grace. I wish you guys the best and I hope I was able to contribute to anything good to your channel. Blessings.
Irenaeus and Victorianus both taught pre-trib, premillenial eschatology. Ephraim the Syrian and Eusebius both taught pre-trib, amillenial eschatology. Hippolytus and Tertulian held to post-trib, premillenial eschatology. Augustine was post-trib, amillenial. All the major views save for the post-millenial position are well attested in the writings of early Christians since there is, to my knowledge, no one in the early church who taught that the Olivet Discourse was all fulfilled in AD 70. Since there are pretty early proponents of all these views, one ought to make their case from the Bible instead of appealing to an ahistorical fantasy of a doctrine's origin.
Ultimately I agree that the standard which all doctrine needs to be proved against is scripture. But looking at the history of doctrine is useful, especially if it can be successfully argued that a doctrine was a new invention, and was pushed by men who were clearly heretical in other areas. (And premillennial eschatology is just one part of dispensationalism).
Besides mentioning at the beginning of this video that dispensational understanding of scripture began with Darby and Schofield, you have not given any evidence of that being the case. Secondly, every believer is by definition some sort of dispensationalist. It is obvious that God dealt differently at different times with Man as per the progressive revelation of himself and his word. Scripture, especially so the KJV ; is intrinsically dispensational in nature. Anyone that actually reads it for themselves will see this , if they will only let it speak for itself without any denominational presuppositions . I came to a saving faith in the shed blood 🩸 of Christ through reading scripture. I then became disillusioned , and subsequently confused, after I began attending churches. I have never read one thing ever written by either Darby or Schofield, although I have seen some rather dubious evidence about them both . But what does that prove ? What you appear to be doing , is construct a guilt by association argument against anyone who sees an inherent contrast in scripture between Paul’s preaching Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which had been kept secret since the world began ; with the earthly ministry of Christ and the twelve apostles to Israel. Which had been prophesied since the world began. Two distinct ministries, which are also the two most important divisions in the Bible . Paul made it clear that what he received, was by revelation. Read Galatians 1 and 2 closely, and at least compare whatever version you are using to the KJV . Also read Ephesians chapter 3 , also comparing with the KJV . The word dispensation appears four times in the KJV Bible . It is a bible word. I believe that if anyone will objectively do this with a KJV , they will see that scripture is intrinsically dispensational . One need not bring the two aforementioned men into the equation. And for that matter, the entire argument should not rest on the opinions of any man ; but on the word of God . The contrasts in scripture, once again most clearly stated in the KJV , between the prophetic program for Israel and the Body of Christ ; are too numerous for me to mention hear beyond what I already have ☝️.. My thumbs would fall off ! But what I have already mentioned will suffice. All one has to lose , is their love of denominational creed , and opinions of men .
Everybody believes there are covenants, it doesn't mean they all agree with covenant theology. The term used as the name of a system/framework is not the same as the details and the arguments that define it and dispensationalism is a systematic way of viewing all of scripture (as is covenant theology) The KJV isn't dispensational, but the Scofield Bible is.
@@robplatt7138Do you agree with the following (true) statement? The apostle Paul preached the same gospel as Peter and the rest of the twelve (including Matthias, excluding the one who betrayed the only-begotten Son of the Living God).
@@matthewsouthwell3500 Sorry for the late reply, I’m 55 and work construction for a living. And I’m afraid that I must at least sleep a little every now and again . So as for your question 🙋♂️… “ Would I agree with the obvious fact that the sky is blue ? “ Sure , blue it is . And yes , Paul did preach that Christ died on the cross . As did Peter and the twelve , and Christ prophesied about himself. But that there is more than one gospel in the New Testament, is even more true ; and is the crux of the matter. If Paul’s gospel, ( how many other apostles used the phrase “my gospel “ in the KJV ?) If Paul’s gospel were the same as the twelve’s , why would Christ leave the right hand of the father to appear unto Saul of Tarsus? Why would Paul , heretofore Saul and after spending three years alone with a resurrected and glorified Christ ; have to go up to Jerusalem and COMMUNICATE “that” gospel that he preached to the Gentiles to the other apostles ? ( a true statement, and scripture…) Moreover, under the gospel of the kingdom, the Gentiles were to be blessed by Israel’s RISING ..( Isa 60:3 ) Not by Israel’s FALL ..( Rom 11:11 ) Other contrasts include, but are not limited to.. Acts 3:21 and Rom 16:25 … ( that which had been spoken since the world began , and that which had been kept secret since the world began ) By definition which are obviously 🙄 not the same . Or how about James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 ? Or , Acts 10:35 contrasted by Titus 3:5 ? Or Matt 23:23 with 2Cor 9:7 concerning giving ? Let’s not forget Genesis 17:14 and Galatians 5:2 ( circumcision ) What about Matt 5:17 and Romans 6:14 ? Or how’s about Matt 6:14-15 , and Col 2:13 or Eph 4:32 , with respect to forgiveness. I’d like to stay and chat 💬, but I must needs go earn a living. I would appreciate the next time you make a ( “true “ ) statement in the form of a condescending ( “question “ ) that you provide some evidence for your ( “assertion”) instead of just making a statement with no evidence whatsoever, like saying that dispensational understanding of scripture “ comes from Darby and Schofield “ …and just burst in the “scene “ around 1850 .. as everyone knows 🙄 Come on ! If edification and reproof , and God forbid “ instruction in righteousness “ is your intent ; at least do a passable job NEXT video . 🙏🏻
@@robplatt7138 I'm not sure how you read condescension into that comment. I added "(true)" because it is, and I'm letting you know upfront where I stand on this, and will not concede on it, Lord willing. There seems to be a spectrum to the belief system known as "dispensationalism" and I was trying to gauge where you were. It is also confusing when you say to provide evidence for my assertion when you have already at the start of your reply agreed with that same assertion, or at least affirmed it in a sense. Additionally, it seems that you've confused me with the one who posted the video. Romans 1:1-4 and Matthew 13:34-35 is the inverse of your understanding of "the mystery" (secret). Isaiah 60 has parallels to Revelation 21, which speaks of "the bride, the Lamb's wife." Since marriage is between one man and one woman, and Ephesians 5 makes it very clear that the church is the "wife" in relation to Christ, this brings clarity to the passages, and these are obviously synonymous. Interestingly enough, right before this is addressed in Eph. 5, it is written, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light," which is also similar to what is written in Isaiah 60. The language of marriage is not happenstance in Scripture, nor is this some pagan notion; the language of marriage reflects COVENANT. To your question of why Paul went up to Jerusalem to communicate "that gospel," the apostle himself states the reason: "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." And what was the result? "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Meaning they were in agreement, the "question" as it is referred to in Acts 15 being that "certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." And the apostle Peter testifying before all who were assembled what the apostles and elders and the church collectively believed: "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they." ● You say that "there is more than one gospel in the New Testament." This is false. There is only one gospel, which I will endeavor to demonstrate. To support your statement, you are pitting Scripture against Scripture rather than harmonizing it as if it came through One Source, God, which is the case. The gospel remains the same even if less detail is given in one scenario rather than another, because the subject of the gospel remains the same throughout, which is the Lord Jesus Christ. - Paul referred to the gospel in several different ways, "my gospel" being one of them. He also says, "the gospel of Christ," "the gospel of God," "the gospel of His Son," "the gospel of peace," "our gospel," "the gospel of your salvation," and "the word of truth." (This is not a comprehensive list, and the Scripture also refers to the gospel as "the word of God" and "the word of the Lord" interchangeably within the same passages of Scripture, as also these other ways Paul speaks of the gospel are used interchangeably within the same passages as well). The apostle even refers to it as "preaching the kingdom of God." ● To focus on one in particular, please look at the apostle Paul's phrase "the gospel of peace" (which is found in Romans 10:16 and Ephesians 6:15). Before we look at Paul's testimony of this peace coming through Jesus, hear the apostle Peter tell what was proclaimed by them during Christ's ministry on earth prior to His death and resurrection: "The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him." (found in Acts 10:34-48) - Later in this same passage, it is said of Cornelius and "his kinsmen and near friends" after hearing the gospel and believing, that on them "also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost," and that they "have received the Holy Ghost" as the Jews who believed in Christ had before them. This Peter equates with the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16), and came after the word that came through the angel to Cornelius was fulfilled concerning Peter, "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." And as Paul said: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." - Meaning that Peter and the others were part of the body of Christ prior to Paul, and this is what the gentiles were made a part of. The receiving and baptism of the Holy Spirit is directly connected with the new birth/new man/circumcision of the heart, and to the adoption as sons of God through Christ. Ephesians 2:13-18 But now IN CHRIST JESUS ye who sometimes WERE FAR OFF ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. FOR HE IS OUR PEACE, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: AND CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHICH WERE AFAR OFF, AND TO THEM THAT WERE NIGH. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. - The peace that Peter and the others preached comes "by Jesus Christ." The language from Ephesians 2 is echoed in Acts 2 when Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF, EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL." (The promise being the gift of the Holy Spirit, as in Acts 2:33, Acts 1:4-5, Luke 24:46-49. This John the baptist also poointed to, "saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus," which as it is written in John 7:37-39, those believing in Him would receive the Holy Spirit. [The all-caps are for emphasis, I'm not screaming at you]
Regarding justification/saved for you & I. KJV , excellent choice :) Gal 2:7 writes :- Peter - Gospel OF the circumcision. Paul - Gospel OF the UNcircumcision. Saved by faith in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ. Pauls Gospel , 1 Cor 15:1-4 :- By which also ye are saved,..... that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: .. Can you list verses where Peter teaches the same ?
Can you be clearer as to what you think the difference is between the two? Are the circumcised justified/saved unto eternal life and glorification by Christ's death on the cross or by something else? If not, by what? Same question for the uncircumcised.
Firstly, eschatology, historically has NEVER been used as a metric to gauge one's allegiance to the orthodox faith. Only recently in church history has this issue been made an issue of one's validity in the othodox faith or lying outside of it. I appreciate the attention being brought to the problems with dispensationalism. I realized these problems years ago. We, however, need to tread very cautiously regarding a dogmatic assertion regarding one's conversion. David was a murderer, Solomon was an idolator, Saul of Tarsus actively persecuted Christians and aided in their imprisonment and murder, and the list could go on of those who the scripture denotes are believers, chosen by God. At the same time, we must not be naive regarding the fact that false teachers have always been among the church. Paul, writing to the churches in Galatia, refers to them (under inspiration of God and the Holy Spirit) as false brethren, who were teaching a works based salvation (Judaizers). There are serious problems with both the history of dispensationalism and those who espoused it, but let's be very careful about claiming the invalidity of one's salvation regarding eschatological aspects of scripture. Eschatology is not as cut and dry as Justification by faith, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement of Christ, etc. Tread carefully on this matter. One would not have to give an answer to Christ for having condemned one as a non-believer who they end up meeting in eternity. How exactly would one answer Christ in that scenario? It would be embarrassing at the very least. Lest you think I am being too lenient with them.. the scripture refers to Lot as "Righteous Lot". None of us would have ever said Lot was a believer, having moved willfully into Sodom. May the Lord bless you, your families, and ministries. P.S. I am NOT a dispensationalist.. my position is a historic pre-millennialist, but can see some merits in the post and a-mil positions as well.
First off, we're not saying that eschatology in and of itself should be a metric to gauge someone's allegiance to the Orthodox faith. Also, dispensationalism does not equal eschatology. It's a systematic view of scripture with its own hermeneutic. The other area where I want to push back on, is related to what you're saying about Old Testament Saints versus New Testament Saints. After the Ravi Zacharias scandal, in the episode we did on that, because of the many questions we got on that subject, we recorded the following episode to address the topic of what the indwelling of the Holy Spirit means. czcams.com/video/9f0flWatGAU/video.htmlsi=veeG97HrewUfkpQq
@@TheConqueringTruth Thank you. I look forward to viewing the video you have linked. I also appreciate push back. Iron sharpens iron. I wish no ill will, nor am I condemning the positions you take in the video. I'm simply asking that we all (myself included) be very careful with our condemnations to the validity of invalidity of one's conversion. We, unlike Christ, do not have the benefit of viewing the motives of the heart and seeing with any absolute certainty of such a claim. That being said, we are also to protect the church of Chirst from false teachers and warn our brethren. I can see clearly that this is what your intention is and I am grateful there are thoe like you who are guarding the flock with a holy jealousy that we all should have and exercies. Thank you again for your clarifications and the link.
Deuteronomy 18:20 is often times translated that the false prophet will die, not that the readers must put the false prophet to death. I believe if you mention the latter interpretation, as you do, it would be wise to mention the other. There were several instances that back up the former, i.e., the false prophet was killed by other means than an Israelite executing them.
Do you know who holds that view? I'm not familiar with it. Considering the format of the surrounding passages and the fact that this was part of the giving of the law and telling them how they were to punish things, it's odd to think otherwise. Particularly in light of Deuteronomy chapter 13 regarding false prophets and those who entice you to follow after other gods, chapter 17 regarding those who worship other gods, and the other places that have the similar phrasing to "that prophet shall die" that are taken to be death penalties and not God killing them: Deuteronomy 22:25 "then the man only that lay with her shall die", Deuteronomy 17:12 "even that man shall die", Deuteronomy 24:7 "then that thief shall die". Let me know if you have more information. Thanks, Charles
Watch the CZcams video "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 a book written by a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest named Manuel Lacunza. Irving first taught the doctrine at the Albury Prophetic conference about 1826. John Nelson Darby taught the doctrine at the Powerscourt Prophetic conference a few years later. Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ? (Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30) The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations? 1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:8, 3:16.) 2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ? 3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds? 4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh? 5. Who is replacing the word “remnant” in Romans 9:27, with the word “nation”? 6. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers? 7. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"? 8. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost? 9. Based on Hebrews 12:18-24, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.) 10. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9) Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? 11. Watch the 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...
This is a big joke. Get a clue. Read your bible. Mid acts Dispensationalism is the only way to read and study the Bible. If you don’t then most likely your lost.
@@TheConqueringTruth gospel means good news. This is the gospel of the kingdom not Paul’s gospel. Read Acts. Hebrews, hence the word, was written to Hebrews. If you think there is only one gospel and they all preached the same then how were you saved? Please give me a couple verses and tell mean how your saved? According to John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostles you had to repent and be water baptized for the remission of your sins and to receive the Holy Spirit. Seems like two different gospels to me.
@@TheConqueringTruth if they preached the same thing then why did God have to raise up Paul to go to the gentiles? Why does the Bible say Paul’s message was hid in God since the world began and only revealed to Paul. Why all the way to Acts 11 were they only preaching to Jews. This is almost 20 years after Pentecost.
Yes. More accurately Reformed Baptists as some people consider Calvinism to be limited to TULIP whereas Reformed doctrine typically doesn't get interpreted so narrowly. We recorded an episode on that as well if you are interested: czcams.com/video/Qw4366AimuM/video.html
@@TheConqueringTruth That does sound interesting. In most encounters, Calvinism to me sounded like predestination, which is scriptural. Lately I'm told it's specifically TULIP. It sounds like it's been more convoluted. I'm trying to save a relationship which this will certainly affect....
@@VeritasEtAequitas TULIP is the traditional articulation of Calvinistic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) also called the doctrines of grace. They are a bit broader than predestination, but the five points of tulip are logically very tightly connected to predestination. They really stand and fall together. For example, "Perseverance of the Saints." It is not exactly the same as predestination, but if God has chosen who he will save, it necessarily follows that he will enable those people, once converted, will persevere to the end.
Interesting that dispies have the same views that orthodox Jews both in Jesus day as well as in the following centuries do when Rabbinic Judaism began to dominate Jewish theology. Insofar as the Messiah is coming to re-establish Israel and Messiah reigns on earth upon the throne of David. The temple will be rebuilt and Messiah brings in the literal earthly kingdom as both envision and hope for. The new testament teaches no such thing. Nor does the old testament when understood Christlogically and in its spiritual significance. The Israel of God are those whose hearts have been circumscised not just their flesh. Romans and Galatians teach us this unmistakably. Despite what Darby Scofield Walvord Pentecost and McArthur teach. A very earth bound and worldly future age.
I love the Christological interpretation of the OT. However, Ezekiel’s got a pretty graphic description of this third temple and Daniel’s prophecies seem to pretty clearly point forward past the intertestamental period and align with Revelation really well while at the same time not aligning well with post-NT events like they do with Pre-NT events. I also recognize the references to the Israel of God in scripture pointing to the Church, but the end run replacement folks do around the clear prophecy of Romans 9-11 is wild.
Friend, go and read the book of thessalonians, so then you also dont believe in israel as Gods chosen nation, why do so many bother with the pre trib, it makes you work harder for God
@@TheConqueringTruth friend the point i am trying to make is that people bother all the time to show that the pre trip is an evil thing,rather work harder to bring in more souls for Christ, people are trying to debunk the pre trip all the time! Saying all sorts of bad things that its a herresy, trying to show it to be wrong! Rather start seeking souls for Christ, i believe in the pre trip, we are not trying to convince people that what they believe on the rapture is wrong
We' are working to bring in souls, but Christ commabs more than just preaching the gospel. The Great Commission also requires teaching all the things Christ has commanded. That includes all the things Christ has revealed about what he has done, what his is doing, and what he will do in the days to come.
@@TheConqueringTruth yes friend we must teach all truth,because the Truth is in Jesus, but we are not going to change how the world is and were its going, we must snatch souls out of fire! The Word told us how everything is going to go on the last days
Do you notice how you have taken the Great Commission and made it smaller than Christ commanded because you assume that light and salt and the spirit of God do not change the world? Christ is clear that death will exist up until the very end, but "change how the world is" is exactly what Hebrews 11 says about faith. Through faith we understand that the ages are framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. When sin entered the world, God did not need to remake the world to allow the power of sin and corruption to affect the world, but in the same way, he does not have to remake the world for the power of truth and grace and the might of his word to change the world as well. There will not be heaven on earth until all things are made new, but Christ's command to go forth into the world was not just to snatch souls, but to make disciples of the nations. Is that not exactly what the pilgrims did when they came to North America? Is that not what the Reformers did in Europe as the gospel went forth in power? Robert E. Lee has a great quote that sums it up so much better than I ever could: "The truth is this, the march of providence is so slow and our desires so impatient, the work of progress so immense, and our means of aiding it so feeble, the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”
The tree and the fruit is Israel (the root) and the Church (the branches). This is why Jesus cursed the fruitless fig, and why Paul uses the same imagery in Romans 11. But go ahead and Darby up yourself, Bible answer man. You look so earnest in a beard and glasses.
@@TheConqueringTruth "Dispensation" is in the Greek, and in English, at least in the King James. It merely refers to the period of time in which a covenant or covenants are in effect. Now, all covenants, except the law, are with termination, or we might say the promises associated with those covenants are irrevocable. So, we can get overlapping. For example, the covenant to Noah is that the world will not be destroyed by flood. (It will be destroyed by fire!) Abraham comes along and God's covenant to him is to be the father of many peoples, an unending number, as many as the sands of the seashore, and through his progeny all the peoples of the world shall be blessed. This covenant does not revoke the covenant made to Noah. Nor does it undo Adam's disobedience to God's covenant to him: eat only of the fruit of the trees specified or else. Even in the covenant of the law there are eternal components. So it is quite possible to be over-specific with these things, too dogmatic, too willing to plot them on a chart, too willing to publish a best-seller etc. But that doesn't take away the problem: God deals with his people in different ways throughout human history. Does this make sense? I'm very able to walk you not only through chapter 11 of Romans, but the whole thing!
Would it be correct to say that because of Darby’s eschatology in a sense that it opened the door for false religions like the JW’s, Mormons, SDA’s etc?
There many be a connection, I'm not completely sure, those cults definitely were based on some similar eschatological ideas. But I don't think there was a direct connection as those cults have earlier roots that go back before Darby in the Millerites, the Great Disappointment of 1844, and the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century. They fed off a rise of Arminianism, emotionalism, reliance on movements of the spirit without exercising proper caution or discernment, an abandonment of historic creeds, a desire to restore a primitive church, openness to special revelation that could be exalted above the Bible, and a desire to look towards an imminent apocalyptic return of Christ. Perhaps further study would show more connections with Darby, but the timeline doesn't allow his theology to be a cause of the creation of those cults, though it could have helped them on. Joshua
You should go all the way and apply the same criticism to all doctrine and scriptural interpretation. Religious books look every bit like human authored books with no divine origin.
I'm not sure that I'm getting your point at all. We do think you should examine all extra-biblical information carefully. We aren't criticizing anything solely because it's extra-biblical. But when you consider that the first edition of the Scofield bible had dates in it for when each of the prophecies would come true that was a case of people putting way too much emphasis on things that man came up with
Saved is past tense. Needless to say, no one is saved until Jesus decides to throw us into the Lake of Fire or not, so saved is written in future past tense.
Saved is used in scripture to refer both to the entirety of the salvation process and to the parts which have already been accomplished (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5) You can find similar usages with the Greek words that are translated as deliver. We also agree that because so many people think of "justification" as the only part of salvation that matters that it's worth pushing on this concept and we've done that in a few videos and potentially should do it more. Thanks for the comment! Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth None of those are what is being referred to, and you know that. Anyone can be saved from a storm, disease or other calamity, but still be doomed. The word saved is most often referencing the final outcome at the very end of times.
I fixed the Timothy reference in my previous comment. Also, no, in those passages some sort of temporal, physical salvation is not being referred to. Can you point out where in those passages, something else is being referred to? Regeneration is real, justification is real, adoption is real, sanctification is real. Just because sanctification is not complete, and glorification has not yet happened does not mean that nothing has occurred. If you read either the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 or the Westminster Confession both of them deal with the different doctrinal aspects of salvation. But like I said, I don't completely disagree with the idea that the modern American church often ignores salvation as a process and thinks of it only as a moment in time. Charles
Everything I can tell says that Scofield was involved in its marketing and in how it was all packaged. He was not just selling the Bible he was selling a guide to the end times that he was asserting would be immediately unfolding. In that sense, I think he helped make it popular. He may have had even greater involvement but I'm not sure. Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth I am not saying he was not involved in marketing it. I am sure he and all his friends did. Yet he authored a range of materials covering many areas of theology. So I don't know why you think he was selling his Bible to promote a guide to the end times as opposed to any other subject. The dates in his Bible are Ussher's dates for world history, not future fulfillment dates. The fact remains that everything in the notes were standard and typical doctrine of the Bible conferences that had been going on for decades before he came along.
It's worth pointing out that the part about the dates being put in the first edition for prophecies was incorrect on our part. We've added a pinned comment on CZcams and are working to get it removed from the video as well. I get what you are saying about the Scofield Bible in general. It's true that Oxford University Press published it as a general study Bible, but Scofield was primarily going to prophecy conferences. I don't think he had any idea it would turn out to be as popular as it was and he does owe a lot of that success to others.
![The Errors of Dispensationalism [Scriptum #4.3]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/0K1D5bvI3Wc/mqdefault.jpg)
CORRECTION: After publishing this episode it was brought to our attention that we included some incorrect information about the Schofield Bible. We said that the first edition of the Schofield Bible had dates for when prophecies would be fulfilled, that were removed in the second edition because those dates were past. This was mistaken as dates were not included in the Schofield Bible.
We apologize for the error, and are removing it from the CZcams version.
Joshua Horn
The idea that dispensationalism is a way to deal with the scandal of the world is very helpful. I will steal that.
What a terrible interview. I’ve never seen the like of straw manning and misrepresenting facts in my life. Shame on you all
Well it wasn't an interview, it was a discussion. Are there facts we got wrong in this episode?
pretrib secret rapture is so secret that is not even written in the entire Bible :)
😂 good one, brother! 😅
💀
Shhhhh! It’s a secret.
I appreciate the video but would like to suggest some clarifications:
1. There is a BIG difference between premillennialism and dispensationalism. Premillennialism is simply the view that Christ will return and set up a 1000 year millennial kingdom on Earth, prior to the eternal kingdom. Premill position was supported by many church fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian. Dispensationalism is a different framework which understands the Bible through the church/Israel distinction. I wish you guys would have emphasized the distinction and referenced the patristic authors.
2. The “signs of the times” have been hotly debated by Christians of all stripes. But the overall message of the prophets reveals some key points: the Jews will return to their homeland in Israel, there will be a reuniting of the two kingdoms of Israel and Judah, there will be a Messiah who reigns over Israel in justice and righteousness, and God will pour out His Spirit. Certainly the formation of Israel in 1947 would give some credence to the dispensational view? How else to explain the 50 plus prophecies stating that Jews would return to their homeland?
3. I would like to get your opinion on the Church/Israel distinction? Do you believe that the church has replaced or fulfilled Israel? Are the promises which were given to Israel transferred to the church? What exactly is your position, are you guys amillennialist covenant theologians?
Excellent comment. I picked up on them wanting to conflate premillenialism and dispensationalism the first statement the bearded one spoke. I'm with you. It's hard to figure out where these guys are coming from and what they believe. All they do is criticize, tear down and call everybody sinners (as though they are without sin). "All Catholic priests are pedophiles. Scofield was a drunk. They're all going to hell. You're not one of those dispensationalists are you?" They accuse them of being " divisive". What hypocrisy!
@mosesking2923
I typed a response to this right after you commented. I'm not sure what happened.
1. I agree that there can be a significant difference between premillennialism and dispensationalism.
2. Part of the problem is that when you look at prophetic language, the passage in Jeremiah that talks about the New Covenant says that it will be with Israel and Judah, so in the New Testament we need to consider what that means for what that fulfillment will look like. When God does more than what we thought he would we have to be very careful to not dismiss it as insufficient.
3. I don't like the word replacement theology. I do think that in the sense that Israel was the visible people of God, that the church has replaced them in that sense. But the church started with Israel and the Gentiles were brought in, so I think it's very incorrect to say that "WE THE GENTILES" have replaced Jews. No, we were brought in. It's important to read Exodus 12 where the nation of Israel is effectively instituted as a people/nation and God says very clearly that they are not going to be a nation of genetic ancestry, but of worship of God and the way that you will know them is through circumcision and the Passover. The church is the continuation and fulfillment of that with circumcision of the heart through the Holy Spirit and Communion.
Charles
@markenge9348
We are Reformed Baptists and we hold to the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689. I'm sorry you feel like all we are doing is criticizing and tearing down. We are certainly not without sin. We do have an interest in tearing down things that need to be torn down and to build up as well. We try to do a mix of episodes on different topics. We've been doing more episodes on dispensationalism recently which I do believe has been very damaging.
Thanks for your comment,
Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth If you guys are 1689 Baptist’s, you should consider reaching out to Sam Renihan or Brandon Adams for your show. That could be a great conversation since those guys are well versed in 1689 Federalism.
@mosesking2923
Thanks for the suggestion. I'm familiar with the Renihans (father and son) but not as much with Adams. I'll look into that.
Yet dispensationslism end time prophecy is unfolding before our eyes
That's kind of the point of the video . Dispensationalist's claim that the end times are playing out before our eyes in completely different ways every 40 years for the past 200+ years.
Whatever is happening in the world is the sign of the end times. It started put the French Revolution and when I was growing up it was Russia and the cold war and then the EU. And tomorrow it will be something else.
But dear brother if you use your eyes to see you will be deceived.
Remember the deceiving spirit was at work from the beginning.
Satan can only imitate the Truth.
@@jeremyjones8523 I’m
Not your dear brother, stop talking like a creep
@@nitrojanks2977 **exegetes the newspaper**
It’s just a script. All the world’s a stage.
“ now when the thousand years have expired, Satan will be released from his prison and will go out to DECEIVE the nations which are in the four corners of the earth”
Rev 20:7-
My wife and I both reached a point we felt we had often been lied to...referring to our church upbringings. The pre-trib concept among other things were presented as concepts as old as our Baptist roots. Such was not the case. Leaving the organized church at the time we did was the best thing we could have ever done. It allowed us to question, to research our beliefs, and those hard questions we had both asked others and received answers we knew did not fit...now our beliefs are stronger than ever because we took the time to do the "deep dive" study. When I found that the founding fathers had never heard of the pre-tribulation concepts [Darby did not come up with it until 1831 or something] it changed my world. Learning more of Darby...only raised more questions. To some extent why the collective protestant religions of the 1800's in the United States had so readily embraced those concepts.
More importantly, the deep dive study...and I mean really deep dive kept leading us to more and more revelations. Today we follow only what is in the Bible, we only follow the feasts and festivals of the Bible, our sabbath begins on Friday evening at sunset...just as theirs did in the 1st century. Do I feel everyone must follow our path? Of course not. But we will no longer believe the lies we were told...and there were several. Yeshua is our savior...
Something similar happened to me. What I discovered is found below.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: How many modern Christians cannot honestly answer the questions below?
Who is the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Who is the “son” that is the “heir” to the land in Matthew 21:37-43? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
What the modern Church needs is a New Covenant Revival (Heb. 9:10) in which members of various denominations are willing to re-examine everything they believe and see if it agrees with the Bible, instead of the traditions of men. We need to be like the Bereans. It will be a battle between our flesh and the Holy Spirit. It will not be easy. If you get mad and upset when someone challenges your man-made Bible doctrines, that is your flesh resisting the truth found in God's Word. Nobody can completely understand the Bible unless they understand the relationship between the Old Covenant given to Moses at Mount Sinai and the New Covenant fulfilled in blood at Calvary. 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.
God is not now a “racist”. He has extended His love to all races of people through the New Covenant fulfilled by His Son’s blood at Calvary. The Apostle Paul warned against using “genealogies” in our faith in 1 Tim. 1:4, and Titus 3:9.
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 CZcams videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay...
@SpotterVideo. Amen
@@SpotterVideo
Ephesians 2:11-12
Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; 12That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
Romans 11:11
I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy.
when did the fall of Israel happen?????? have the gentiles all been saved or are there some still being added to the body of Christ!!!?????
romans 11:25
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
God himself gave them over to blindness for a designated time ! and God will have mercy on who he wishes how he wishes!
romans 9:15
For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
Following feasts and sabbaths according to Galatians and Collosians is going backwards. Each day is Holy now. All land is holy ground. The law is inward. Rest is inward.
We are called to worship in spirit and truth. Today is the day. Now is the time.
If Dispensationalism is wrong because Scofield was wicked, then isn’t Calvinism heresy because Calvin was a murderer?
First of all we did not say that dispensationalism was wrong because Scofield was wicked. Writing down prophecies with dates was wicked. Then removing the dates and saying they were still valid prophecies is bad. And people should ask, what parts did Scofield just make up.
Second of all John Calvin didn't murder anyone. Regardless, I would want him held to the same standard that we held Scofield to. If Calvin was making up doctrine I'd care. If Calvin was being unfaithful to his wife, I'd care.
And to be clear if the truths of dispensationalism are taught by God's word then that's all that matters. Just cut out the wicked middle men.
But dispensationalism has major problems. It causes people to deny Christ's work unifying the Jews and Gentiles and making a new people.
Charles
Did you know that Calvin was not a citizen of Geneva when Servetus was decided to be executed by the City Council?
That Calvin corresponded with Servetus for a long time and warned him not to go to Geneva - or the force of the law will be applied to him by the City Council. And yet Servetus pestered Calvin thru the years - asking for attention for his divergent opinions, with no letup.
That Servetus was already being hunted by the Roman Catholic authorities because of his anti- trinitarian views ( calling the Triune God a Cerberrus) in his book.
That Servetus , besides not believing the Trinity is a Oneness teacher and that to him - Jesus the man is not God ?
That of all places to seek refuge from them , he went to Geneva , instead of other Swiss cantons ( his destination is Italy) and even sit in front of the pulpit while Calvin was preaching, as if taunting him ?
That Calvin, commanded to be an expert witness ( because of his legal education ) by the City Council , he tried so many times to dissuade Servetus , in his cell , so as to avert his condemnation?
That Calvin requested the City Council to downgrade the penalty from death by fire to death by beheading - to avoid the prolonged pain ?
That Calvin did not witness his execution but just continued to teach that day ? He did not relished viewing his death.
That the Roman Catholics threatened all persons of death sentence those who teaches Anti-Trinitarianism or coddles them ?
That Geneva is surrounded by Roman Catholic countries armies - like Germany , Italy and France during that time, under a German emperor or pope or a French king who already executed Protestant Christians ?
The difference (in the main) is Dispensationalism is not Biblical. Calvinism is Biblical.
@@TheConqueringTruth Calvin was humanist Catholic LAWYER. His council also DROWNED Anabaptists, Murdered Michael Sevetus, and marched the "heretics" out of Geneva in winter.
Jacques Gruet was BEHEADED for leaving Calvin a threatening letter at the pulpit of his church and his house WAS RAIDED, and as Gruet was MURDERED, Calvin APPROVED of the council's decision.
@@TheConqueringTruthhh
ON BIBLICAL ESCHATOLOGY: All three, amillennialism, post-millennialism and pre-millennialism (or what is referred to as "dispensationalism)" - including the pre-tribulation rapture - have their difficulties. I have also found that supporters for all three of these, far too often, misrepresent the others through "Straw Man" arguments in attempts to bolster their own claim. This debate concerns primarily a disagreement over non-essentials that does not concern the salvation of the lost or provide much impetus toward growing faith and continuing sanctification in the lives of those that put their faith in any of them. I CONSIDER THE ARGUMENT similar to the debate over God's sovereignty and man's free will from A.W. Tozer concerning predestination. A.W. TOZER: “God will not hold us responsible to understand the mysteries of election, predestination, and the divine sovereignty (or Amillennialism, Postmillennialism and Premillennialism). The best way to deal with these truths is to raise our eyes to God and in deepest reverence say, "0 Lord, Thou knowest." Those things belong to the deep and mysterious profundity of God's omniscience. Prying into them may make theologians, but it will never make saints.” The Apostles and the Lord himself would end this debate with what should be familiar words to all of us, "Be prepared," regardless.
Amen! We need unity in the body now more than ever. Some things do need to be addressed as heretical teachings a reformation would be great right about now. We've lost focused on the gospel that saves and the love we're meant to have for one another. If we only concentrated on those two things lives would be changed and so would the world. Thank you for your comment it blessed me, stay close to our Savior
❤️✝️❤️
This is refreshing. Listening to more of it this morning. Taking things out of context is huge. Acts 10, which is typically utilized to dismiss the old testament teaching...particularly the eating of pork. The problem is that we must read and understand it in the context it was written, certainly not taking a couple of verses (cherry picking). Peter, as a disciple knew very well the Mosaic teachings, and as taught/practiced by "The Christ". Stepping back, seeing the whole of verse 10 we see this was entirely about bringing the word to the gentiles...spreading then the gospels throughout the world.
Also keeping in mind to be cautious, understanding the Bible setting on one's table is actually interpretations of copies of copies...of copies. Again, my Baptist upbringing taught that the gospels were all written in Greek. Understanding that there were 21 surviving Hebrew manuscript's of Matthew [often at best fragments of Matthew...as example]. Although citing my Geneva, and in Matthew 23:3; All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do: but after their works do not: for they say, and do not. I have often heard [Baptists and others] use this in their dismissiveness of the old testament. Unfortunately when we look back, at least in several of those early manuscripts "they" would be a misinterpretation, instead being more accurately interpreted "he"...which presents a different light on that verse. There is equal weight, again looking back for one interpretation vs. the other.
Word
romans 14:1-5
1Receive one who is weak in the faith, but not to disputes over doubtful things. 2For one believes he may eat all things, but he who is weak eats only vegetables. 3Let not him who eats despise him who does not eat, and let not him who does not eat judge him who eats; for God has received him. 4Who are you to judge another’s servant? To his own master he stands or falls. Indeed, he will be made to stand, for God is able to make him stand.
One person esteems one day above another; another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. 6He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; [a]and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord, for he gives God thanks; and he who does not eat, to the Lord he does not eat, and gives God thanks.
romans 14:14-17
I know and am convinced by the Lord Jesus that there is nothing unclean of itself; but to him who considers anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean. 15Yet if your brother is grieved because of your food, you are no longer walking in love. Do not destroy with your food the one for whom Christ died. 16Therefore do not let your good be spoken of as evil; 17for the kingdom of God is not eating and drinking, but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Colossians 2:16
Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days:
@@wolfwatchersI was about to say there are other verses that clear up the food issue. God bless. So tired of legalism dominating the church. Sadly many don’t ever come out of law and into grace.
This not true Dispensational was mentioned in1500-1600 by Pierre poorer John Edward’s 1639-1716 Isaac watts 1674-1748 The problem is John Calvin never wrote a commentary on Revalation People need to get facts right
I think your dates for Poorer (Poiret?) are a bit off as he died in 1719. . We're not saying that Darby totally and completely created dispensationalism from nothing. But Darby is the guy who got traction and he genuinely built a system.
We're also not arguing that Darby's sin or the circumstances surrounding the rise of the view make dispensationalism bad, but part of the reason why the ideas took off was current events. When I was growing up I thought of dispensationalism as a view that addressed the issues of the day. As I got older I realized it kept changing with what happened in the world. Part of the point is that this has been true from the beginning.
Augustine taught that God's Church was the kingdom of God on earth. Augustine has misled millions since the 4th century. Calvinism got some of its abherrant teachings from Augustine.
Obviously, this man does not understand the two most important books pertaining to Bible prophecy, Daniel and Revelation.
Bravo👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻Bravo!
I don't care who wants to "take credit" for theology ... the FACT is the BIBLE is TRUTH and if you DIVIDE it rightly and know when the Lord is talking to Israel vs. the Church, it is very clear!
Hudson Taylor and George muller were both Brethren
I use video like yours to be able to document myself into subjects of interest. I am writing a book on eschatology, as an ex-dispensatinalist from the Partial Preterist of view. I suspect that a lot of the dialogue that you had about John Darby and Scofield were facts that we're taken off Wikipedia. This conversation started really well and I was learning a few things, but later on, I was turned off by the approach os the group. You may be right on a lot of things you guys are saying, the argument gets obscured by toxicity. You can't make an argument of someone's doctrine, just alone by the moral failure of an individual. It may be some weight, but it's not enough. The Plymouth Brothers, in their weird and crooked way, they did a lot of good in their time. There was not as much knowledge as there is today and not everything that Darby did was wrong. If anything, it is admirable that he was more passionate than many of us into what he believed, which unfortunately I truly think was grossy misled. Using the moral character of a person to get rid of their material is something that not even the Bible does, Don't need to make examples... we will not have a Bible if we discard Bible books because of the more failure of their authors. Now, **By no means I am defending Scofield or Darby**, which, obviously had questionable testimonies, but if I am going to make a compelling case, I would like to suggest that starting from the moral failure of a person to make a case that the rest of everything they did was wrong, is the wrong vector point. There's so much more that could be said! Rather, I would like to show my case by a sound scriptural defense, concentrating of the weak points of the theology, contrasting fruit of belief, particular and peripheral of history and if necessary, yes, bring about historic and content evidence of moral character or even narcissism, to further define the fallacy of the belief.
I believe that you try to do this here, but they said approach, and making fun of religious practices for us seem antiquated, fringe or misplaced, (getting in circles and waiting for God to move people to do something with something that the Quakers did in their beginning and it actually work for them), I don't think that fulfills the purpose to edify, neither speaks well of your intentent or your channel. I would encourage you to keep on going but making a careful balance of the mandate of Jesus to judge false prophecy and false prophets by their fruit, but also be careful not to criticize the servant of Another. Let's vehemently point to the bad fruit and stay away from propagating religious toxicity and exclusivism by trashing the characters of people that we never knew their true intent or simply don't agree with their practices. There's only only one truth, we have one Lord and there is only one body. But the complexity of humans is very vast. And God could cover it all, but not everything fits in our list of approved points of liturgy or theology. I'm glad we know better now. At least I hope. I hope this is taken as a constructive criticism comment. I truly care enough to drop this lines and hope it helps. Blessings.
Thanks for the comment. We agree that it is wrong to use the history of an originator, or earlier adopter, of a doctrine to dismiss a doctrine as wrong or heretical. The ultimate standard is scripture, and that is what must use to decide theological questions. Our church is reformed baptist, and if we we judged some of our positions by the standard of history, we would run into issues, as the first credobaptists at and after the time of the reformation were heretical and scandelous, as were some of the first people who split off from the church of England and pushed for independently organized churches.
We have a few other episodes on dispensationalism, and other eschatological topics, where we argue from scripture alone. But we also think that the history is also worth discussing.
@@TheConqueringTruth Absolutely. Is great to discuss, and in order to further your point, and get it across as you intend, I cordially suggest to guard our approach, and express our intent with cordiality and love. Martin Luther could be a good example...
While leaving us a legacy where Protestantism was built, he also gave us license to divide when we disagree. With the same strength, sarcasm and harshness that he criticized the Catholic Church thoigh the media of his day, (and with all the rights to do it) at the moment that he gave himself license to be overtaken by his feelings, he agregated that to our Protestant legacy, which is known for creating factions every time brothers disagree. Known also for uniting camps with emphasis on what we do not believe, instead of demonstrating together what we do believe.
Even at being (loosely) a Partial Preterist, I thought this camp of Eschatology would be less aggressive and judgmental than Dispensationalism, and in the sense it is... but I have found a lot of people in this side of the camp, that is just as harsh and judgmental as the good 'ol Dispys. I guess we're learning day by day.
Thank you for taking my comment with Grace. I wish you guys the best and I hope I was able to contribute to anything good to your channel. Blessings.
The makers of this film are scandalous
Irenaeus and Victorianus both taught pre-trib, premillenial eschatology. Ephraim the Syrian and Eusebius both taught pre-trib, amillenial eschatology. Hippolytus and Tertulian held to post-trib, premillenial eschatology. Augustine was post-trib, amillenial. All the major views save for the post-millenial position are well attested in the writings of early Christians since there is, to my knowledge, no one in the early church who taught that the Olivet Discourse was all fulfilled in AD 70.
Since there are pretty early proponents of all these views, one ought to make their case from the Bible instead of appealing to an ahistorical fantasy of a doctrine's origin.
Ultimately I agree that the standard which all doctrine needs to be proved against is scripture. But looking at the history of doctrine is useful, especially if it can be successfully argued that a doctrine was a new invention, and was pushed by men who were clearly heretical in other areas. (And premillennial eschatology is just one part of dispensationalism).
Pretribulation is biblical why because Christ will return any time so we should be ready all the time...
Besides mentioning at the beginning of this video that dispensational understanding of scripture began with Darby and Schofield, you have not given any evidence of that being the case.
Secondly, every believer is by definition some sort of dispensationalist. It is obvious that God dealt differently at different times with Man as per the progressive revelation of himself and his word.
Scripture, especially so the KJV ; is intrinsically dispensational in nature. Anyone that actually reads it for themselves will see this , if they will only let it speak for itself without any denominational presuppositions . I came to a saving faith in the shed blood 🩸 of Christ through reading scripture. I then became disillusioned , and subsequently confused, after I began attending churches. I have never read one thing ever written by either Darby or Schofield, although I have seen some rather dubious evidence about them both . But what does that prove ? What you appear to be doing , is construct a guilt by association argument against anyone who sees an inherent contrast in scripture between Paul’s preaching Christ according to the revelation of the mystery, which had been kept secret since the world began ; with the earthly ministry of Christ and the twelve apostles to Israel. Which had been prophesied since the world began.
Two distinct ministries, which are also the two most important divisions in the Bible . Paul made it clear that what he received, was by revelation. Read Galatians 1 and 2 closely, and at least compare whatever version you are using to the KJV .
Also read Ephesians chapter 3 , also comparing with the KJV .
The word dispensation appears four times in the KJV Bible . It is a bible word. I believe that if anyone will objectively do this with a KJV , they will see that scripture is intrinsically dispensational . One need not bring the two aforementioned men into the equation. And for that matter, the entire argument should not rest on the opinions of any man ; but on the word of God .
The contrasts in scripture, once again most clearly stated in the KJV , between the prophetic program for Israel and the Body of Christ ; are too numerous for me to mention hear beyond what I already have ☝️..
My thumbs would fall off !
But what I have already mentioned will suffice. All one has to lose , is their love of denominational creed , and opinions of men .
Everybody believes there are covenants, it doesn't mean they all agree with covenant theology. The term used as the name of a system/framework is not the same as the details and the arguments that define it and dispensationalism is a systematic way of viewing all of scripture (as is covenant theology)
The KJV isn't dispensational, but the Scofield Bible is.
@@TheConqueringTruth I disagree
@@robplatt7138Do you agree with the following (true) statement?
The apostle Paul preached the same gospel as Peter and the rest of the twelve (including Matthias, excluding the one who betrayed the only-begotten Son of the Living God).
@@matthewsouthwell3500 Sorry for the late reply, I’m 55 and work construction for a living. And I’m afraid that I must at least sleep a little every now and again .
So as for your question 🙋♂️…
“ Would I agree with the obvious fact that the sky is blue ? “
Sure , blue it is . And yes , Paul did preach that Christ died on the cross . As did Peter and the twelve , and Christ prophesied about himself.
But that there is more than one gospel in the New Testament, is even more true ; and is the crux of the matter. If Paul’s gospel,
( how many other apostles used the phrase “my gospel “ in the KJV ?)
If Paul’s gospel were the same as the twelve’s , why would Christ leave the right hand of the father to appear unto Saul of Tarsus?
Why would Paul , heretofore Saul and after spending three years alone with a resurrected and glorified Christ ; have to go up to Jerusalem and COMMUNICATE
“that” gospel that he preached to the Gentiles to the other apostles ?
( a true statement, and scripture…)
Moreover, under the gospel of the kingdom, the Gentiles were to be blessed by Israel’s RISING ..( Isa 60:3 )
Not by Israel’s FALL ..( Rom 11:11 )
Other contrasts include, but are not limited to..
Acts 3:21 and Rom 16:25 …
( that which had been spoken since the world began , and that which had been kept secret since the world began )
By definition which are obviously 🙄 not the same .
Or how about James 2:24 and Romans 3:28 ?
Or , Acts 10:35 contrasted by Titus 3:5 ?
Or Matt 23:23 with 2Cor 9:7 concerning giving ?
Let’s not forget Genesis 17:14 and Galatians 5:2 ( circumcision )
What about Matt 5:17 and Romans 6:14 ?
Or how’s about Matt 6:14-15 , and Col 2:13 or Eph 4:32 , with respect to forgiveness.
I’d like to stay and chat 💬, but I must needs go earn a living. I would appreciate the next time you make a ( “true “ ) statement in the form of a condescending
( “question “ ) that you provide some evidence for your ( “assertion”) instead of just making a statement with no evidence whatsoever, like saying that dispensational understanding of scripture “ comes from Darby and Schofield “ …and just burst in the “scene “ around 1850 .. as everyone knows 🙄
Come on ! If edification and reproof , and God forbid “ instruction in righteousness “
is your intent ; at least do a passable job NEXT video .
🙏🏻
@@robplatt7138 I'm not sure how you read condescension into that comment. I added "(true)" because it is, and I'm letting you know upfront where I stand on this, and will not concede on it, Lord willing. There seems to be a spectrum to the belief system known as "dispensationalism" and I was trying to gauge where you were. It is also confusing when you say to provide evidence for my assertion when you have already at the start of your reply agreed with that same assertion, or at least affirmed it in a sense. Additionally, it seems that you've confused me with the one who posted the video.
Romans 1:1-4 and Matthew 13:34-35 is the inverse of your understanding of "the mystery" (secret). Isaiah 60 has parallels to Revelation 21, which speaks of "the bride, the Lamb's wife." Since marriage is between one man and one woman, and Ephesians 5 makes it very clear that the church is the "wife" in relation to Christ, this brings clarity to the passages, and these are obviously synonymous. Interestingly enough, right before this is addressed in Eph. 5, it is written, "Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light," which is also similar to what is written in Isaiah 60. The language of marriage is not happenstance in Scripture, nor is this some pagan notion; the language of marriage reflects COVENANT.
To your question of why Paul went up to Jerusalem to communicate "that gospel," the apostle himself states the reason: "lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." And what was the result? "But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised." Meaning they were in agreement, the "question" as it is referred to in Acts 15 being that "certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved." And the apostle Peter testifying before all who were assembled what the apostles and elders and the church collectively believed: "But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they."
● You say that "there is more than one gospel in the New
Testament." This is false. There is only one gospel, which I will endeavor to demonstrate. To support your statement, you are pitting Scripture against Scripture rather than harmonizing it as if it came through One Source, God, which is the case. The gospel remains the same even if less detail is given in one scenario rather than another, because the subject of the gospel remains the same throughout, which is the Lord Jesus Christ.
- Paul referred to the gospel in several different ways, "my gospel" being one of them. He also says, "the gospel of Christ," "the gospel of God," "the gospel of His Son," "the gospel of peace," "our gospel," "the gospel of your salvation," and "the word of truth." (This is not a comprehensive list, and the Scripture also refers to the gospel as "the word of God" and "the word of the Lord" interchangeably within the same passages of Scripture, as also these other ways Paul speaks of the gospel are used interchangeably within the same passages as well). The apostle even refers to it as "preaching the kingdom of God."
● To focus on one in particular, please look at the apostle Paul's phrase "the gospel of peace" (which is found in Romans 10:16 and Ephesians 6:15). Before we look at Paul's testimony of this peace coming through Jesus, hear the apostle Peter tell what was proclaimed by them during Christ's ministry on earth prior to His death and resurrection:
"The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ: (he is Lord of all:) That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him."
(found in Acts 10:34-48)
- Later in this same passage, it is said of Cornelius and "his kinsmen and near friends" after hearing the gospel and believing, that on them "also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost," and that they "have received the Holy Ghost" as the Jews who believed in Christ had before them. This Peter equates with the baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16), and came after the word that came through the angel to Cornelius was fulfilled concerning Peter, "Who shall tell thee words, whereby thou and all thy house shall be saved." And as Paul said: "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body."
- Meaning that Peter and the others were part of the body of Christ prior to Paul, and this is what the gentiles were made a part of. The receiving and baptism of the Holy Spirit is directly connected with the new birth/new man/circumcision of the heart, and to the adoption as sons of God through Christ.
Ephesians 2:13-18
But now IN CHRIST JESUS ye who sometimes WERE FAR OFF ARE MADE NIGH BY THE BLOOD OF CHRIST. FOR HE IS OUR PEACE, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: AND CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHICH WERE AFAR OFF, AND TO THEM THAT WERE NIGH. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
- The peace that Peter and the others preached comes "by Jesus Christ." The language from Ephesians 2 is echoed in Acts 2 when Peter says, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, AND TO ALL THAT ARE AFAR OFF, EVEN AS MANY AS THE LORD OUR GOD SHALL CALL." (The promise being the gift of the Holy Spirit, as in Acts 2:33, Acts 1:4-5, Luke 24:46-49. This John the baptist also poointed to, "saying unto the people, that they should believe on him which should come after him, that is, on Christ Jesus," which as it is written in John 7:37-39, those believing in Him would receive the Holy Spirit.
[The all-caps are for emphasis, I'm not screaming at you]
Regarding justification/saved for you & I.
KJV , excellent choice :)
Gal 2:7 writes :-
Peter - Gospel OF the circumcision.
Paul - Gospel OF the UNcircumcision.
Saved by faith in the death/burial/resurrection of Christ.
Pauls Gospel , 1 Cor 15:1-4 :-
By which also ye are saved,.....
that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:
..
Can you list verses where Peter teaches the same ?
Can you be clearer as to what you think the difference is between the two?
Are the circumcised justified/saved unto eternal life and glorification by Christ's death on the cross or by something else? If not, by what?
Same question for the uncircumcised.
Firstly, eschatology, historically has NEVER been used as a metric to gauge one's allegiance to the orthodox faith. Only recently in church history has this issue been made an issue of one's validity in the othodox faith or lying outside of it. I appreciate the attention being brought to the problems with dispensationalism. I realized these problems years ago. We, however, need to tread very cautiously regarding a dogmatic assertion regarding one's conversion. David was a murderer, Solomon was an idolator, Saul of Tarsus actively persecuted Christians and aided in their imprisonment and murder, and the list could go on of those who the scripture denotes are believers, chosen by God. At the same time, we must not be naive regarding the fact that false teachers have always been among the church. Paul, writing to the churches in Galatia, refers to them (under inspiration of God and the Holy Spirit) as false brethren, who were teaching a works based salvation (Judaizers). There are serious problems with both the history of dispensationalism and those who espoused it, but let's be very careful about claiming the invalidity of one's salvation regarding eschatological aspects of scripture. Eschatology is not as cut and dry as Justification by faith, the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the bodily resurrection of Christ, the atonement of Christ, etc. Tread carefully on this matter. One would not have to give an answer to Christ for having condemned one as a non-believer who they end up meeting in eternity. How exactly would one answer Christ in that scenario? It would be embarrassing at the very least. Lest you think I am being too lenient with them.. the scripture refers to Lot as "Righteous Lot". None of us would have ever said Lot was a believer, having moved willfully into Sodom. May the Lord bless you, your families, and ministries.
P.S. I am NOT a dispensationalist.. my position is a historic pre-millennialist, but can see some merits in the post and a-mil positions as well.
First off, we're not saying that eschatology in and of itself should be a metric to gauge someone's allegiance to the Orthodox faith.
Also, dispensationalism does not equal eschatology. It's a systematic view of scripture with its own hermeneutic.
The other area where I want to push back on, is related to what you're saying about Old Testament Saints versus New Testament Saints. After the Ravi Zacharias scandal, in the episode we did on that, because of the many questions we got on that subject, we recorded the following episode to address the topic of what the indwelling of the Holy Spirit means.
czcams.com/video/9f0flWatGAU/video.htmlsi=veeG97HrewUfkpQq
@@TheConqueringTruth Thank you. I look forward to viewing the video you have linked. I also appreciate push back. Iron sharpens iron. I wish no ill will, nor am I condemning the positions you take in the video. I'm simply asking that we all (myself included) be very careful with our condemnations to the validity of invalidity of one's conversion. We, unlike Christ, do not have the benefit of viewing the motives of the heart and seeing with any absolute certainty of such a claim. That being said, we are also to protect the church of Chirst from false teachers and warn our brethren. I can see clearly that this is what your intention is and I am grateful there are thoe like you who are guarding the flock with a holy jealousy that we all should have and exercies. Thank you again for your clarifications and the link.
Weak on content. Lots talk not much information just guys agreeing that they are right.
Deuteronomy 18:20 is often times translated that the false prophet will die, not that the readers must put the false prophet to death. I believe if you mention the latter interpretation, as you do, it would be wise to mention the other. There were several instances that back up the former, i.e., the false prophet was killed by other means than an Israelite executing them.
Do you know who holds that view? I'm not familiar with it. Considering the format of the surrounding passages and the fact that this was part of the giving of the law and telling them how they were to punish things, it's odd to think otherwise. Particularly in light of Deuteronomy chapter 13 regarding false prophets and those who entice you to follow after other gods, chapter 17 regarding those who worship other gods, and the other places that have the similar phrasing to "that prophet shall die" that are taken to be death penalties and not God killing them: Deuteronomy 22:25 "then the man only that lay with her shall die", Deuteronomy 17:12 "even that man shall die", Deuteronomy 24:7 "then that thief shall die".
Let me know if you have more information.
Thanks,
Charles
Watch the CZcams video "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 a book written by a Roman Catholic Jesuit priest named Manuel Lacunza. Irving first taught the doctrine at the Albury Prophetic conference about 1826. John Nelson Darby taught the doctrine at the Powerscourt Prophetic conference a few years later.
Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?
(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)
The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?
1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:8, 3:16.)
2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?
3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?
4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?
5. Who is replacing the word “remnant” in Romans 9:27, with the word “nation”?
6. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?
7. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?
8. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?
9. Based on Hebrews 12:18-24, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)
10. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9) Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
11. Watch the 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...
🍿
This is a big joke. Get a clue. Read your bible. Mid acts Dispensationalism is the only way to read and study the Bible. If you don’t then most likely your lost.
Mid Acts is the gospel?
@@ParticularBaptist yup
That's not what Hebrews 4:2 says
@@TheConqueringTruth gospel means good news. This is the gospel of the kingdom not Paul’s gospel. Read Acts. Hebrews, hence the word, was written to Hebrews. If you think there is only one gospel and they all preached the same then how were you saved? Please give me a couple verses and tell mean how your saved? According to John the Baptist, Jesus, the Apostles you had to repent and be water baptized for the remission of your sins and to receive the Holy Spirit. Seems like two different gospels to me.
@@TheConqueringTruth if they preached the same thing then why did God have to raise up Paul to go to the gentiles? Why does the Bible say Paul’s message was hid in God since the world began and only revealed to Paul. Why all the way to Acts 11 were they only preaching to Jews. This is almost 20 years after Pentecost.
Calvinists?
Yes. More accurately Reformed Baptists as some people consider Calvinism to be limited to TULIP whereas Reformed doctrine typically doesn't get interpreted so narrowly.
We recorded an episode on that as well if you are interested: czcams.com/video/Qw4366AimuM/video.html
@@TheConqueringTruth That does sound interesting. In most encounters, Calvinism to me sounded like predestination, which is scriptural. Lately I'm told it's specifically TULIP. It sounds like it's been more convoluted. I'm trying to save a relationship which this will certainly affect....
@@VeritasEtAequitas TULIP is the traditional articulation of Calvinistic soteriology (doctrine of salvation) also called the doctrines of grace. They are a bit broader than predestination, but the five points of tulip are logically very tightly connected to predestination. They really stand and fall together. For example, "Perseverance of the Saints." It is not exactly the same as predestination, but if God has chosen who he will save, it necessarily follows that he will enable those people, once converted, will persevere to the end.
Interesting that dispies have the same views that orthodox Jews both in Jesus day as well as in the following centuries do when Rabbinic Judaism began to dominate Jewish theology. Insofar as the Messiah is coming to re-establish Israel and Messiah reigns on earth upon the throne of David. The temple will be rebuilt and Messiah brings in the literal earthly kingdom as both envision and hope for. The new testament teaches no such thing. Nor does the old testament when understood Christlogically and in its spiritual significance. The Israel of God are those whose hearts have been circumscised not just their flesh. Romans and Galatians teach us this unmistakably. Despite what Darby Scofield Walvord Pentecost and McArthur teach. A very earth bound and worldly future age.
I love the Christological interpretation of the OT. However, Ezekiel’s got a pretty graphic description of this third temple and Daniel’s prophecies seem to pretty clearly point forward past the intertestamental period and align with Revelation really well while at the same time not aligning well with post-NT events like they do with Pre-NT events. I also recognize the references to the Israel of God in scripture pointing to the Church, but the end run replacement folks do around the clear prophecy of Romans 9-11 is wild.
Friend, go and read the book of thessalonians, so then you also dont believe in israel as Gods chosen nation, why do so many bother with the pre trib, it makes you work harder for God
I'm genuinely not sure what point you are trying to make.
@@TheConqueringTruth friend the point i am trying to make is that people bother all the time to show that the pre trip is an evil thing,rather work harder to bring in more souls for Christ, people are trying to debunk the pre trip all the time! Saying all sorts of bad things that its a herresy, trying to show it to be wrong! Rather start seeking souls for Christ, i believe in the pre trip, we are not trying to convince people that what they believe on the rapture is wrong
We' are working to bring in souls, but Christ commabs more than just preaching the gospel. The Great Commission also requires teaching all the things Christ has commanded. That includes all the things Christ has revealed about what he has done, what his is doing, and what he will do in the days to come.
@@TheConqueringTruth yes friend we must teach all truth,because the Truth is in Jesus, but we are not going to change how the world is and were its going, we must snatch souls out of fire! The Word told us how everything is going to go on the last days
Do you notice how you have taken the Great Commission and made it smaller than Christ commanded because you assume that light and salt and the spirit of God do not change the world? Christ is clear that death will exist up until the very end, but "change how the world is" is exactly what Hebrews 11 says about faith. Through faith we understand that the ages are framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
When sin entered the world, God did not need to remake the world to allow the power of sin and corruption to affect the world, but in the same way, he does not have to remake the world for the power of truth and grace and the might of his word to change the world as well. There will not be heaven on earth until all things are made new, but Christ's command to go forth into the world was not just to snatch souls, but to make disciples of the nations. Is that not exactly what the pilgrims did when they came to North America? Is that not what the Reformers did in Europe as the gospel went forth in power? Robert E. Lee has a great quote that sums it up so much better than I ever could: "The truth is this, the march of providence is so slow and our desires so impatient, the work of progress so immense, and our means of aiding it so feeble, the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”
The tree and the fruit is Israel (the root) and the Church (the branches). This is why Jesus cursed the fruitless fig, and why Paul uses the same imagery in Romans 11. But go ahead and Darby up yourself, Bible answer man. You look so earnest in a beard and glasses.
Why don't you quote the passage from Romans 11 and explain it, because what you wrote makes no sense.
@@TheConqueringTruth What? Isn't it in the Schofield Reference Bible? Scandalous.
I'll quote this one instead:
"The kingdom is being taken from you and given to a nation who will bring forth the fruit."
I mean walk through the text in Romans 11 and explain it. Are you dispensational? It's hard to tell from some of your comments.
@@TheConqueringTruth "Dispensation" is in the Greek, and in English, at least in the King James. It merely refers to the period of time in which a covenant or covenants are in effect.
Now, all covenants, except the law, are with termination, or we might say the promises associated with those covenants are irrevocable. So, we can get overlapping. For example, the covenant to Noah is that the world will not be destroyed by flood. (It will be destroyed by fire!) Abraham comes along and God's covenant to him is to be the father of many peoples, an unending number, as many as the sands of the seashore, and through his progeny all the peoples of the world shall be blessed. This covenant does not revoke the covenant made to Noah. Nor does it undo Adam's disobedience to God's covenant to him: eat only of the fruit of the trees specified or else.
Even in the covenant of the law there are eternal components. So it is quite possible to be over-specific with these things, too dogmatic, too willing to plot them on a chart, too willing to publish a best-seller etc.
But that doesn't take away the problem: God deals with his people in different ways throughout human history.
Does this make sense?
I'm very able to walk you not only through chapter 11 of Romans, but the whole thing!
Would it be correct to say that because of Darby’s eschatology in a sense that it opened the door for false religions like the JW’s, Mormons, SDA’s etc?
There many be a connection, I'm not completely sure, those cults definitely were based on some similar eschatological ideas. But I don't think there was a direct connection as those cults have earlier roots that go back before Darby in the Millerites, the Great Disappointment of 1844, and the Second Great Awakening of the early 19th century. They fed off a rise of Arminianism, emotionalism, reliance on movements of the spirit without exercising proper caution or discernment, an abandonment of historic creeds, a desire to restore a primitive church, openness to special revelation that could be exalted above the Bible, and a desire to look towards an imminent apocalyptic return of Christ. Perhaps further study would show more connections with Darby, but the timeline doesn't allow his theology to be a cause of the creation of those cults, though it could have helped them on.
Joshua
No
You should go all the way and apply the same criticism to all doctrine and scriptural interpretation. Religious books look every bit like human authored books with no divine origin.
I'm not sure that I'm getting your point at all. We do think you should examine all extra-biblical information carefully. We aren't criticizing anything solely because it's extra-biblical.
But when you consider that the first edition of the Scofield bible had dates in it for when each of the prophecies would come true that was a case of people putting way too much emphasis on things that man came up with
Saved is past tense. Needless to say, no one is saved until Jesus decides to throw us into the Lake of Fire or not, so saved is written in future past tense.
Saved is used in scripture to refer both to the entirety of the salvation process and to the parts which have already been accomplished (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 3:5) You can find similar usages with the Greek words that are translated as deliver.
We also agree that because so many people think of "justification" as the only part of salvation that matters that it's worth pushing on this concept and we've done that in a few videos and potentially should do it more.
Thanks for the comment!
Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth None of those are what is being referred to, and you know that. Anyone can be saved from a storm, disease or other calamity, but still be doomed. The word saved is most often referencing the final outcome at the very end of times.
I fixed the Timothy reference in my previous comment.
Also, no, in those passages some sort of temporal, physical salvation is not being referred to. Can you point out where in those passages, something else is being referred to?
Regeneration is real, justification is real, adoption is real, sanctification is real. Just because sanctification is not complete, and glorification has not yet happened does not mean that nothing has occurred.
If you read either the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689 or the Westminster Confession both of them deal with the different doctrinal aspects of salvation.
But like I said, I don't completely disagree with the idea that the modern American church often ignores salvation as a process and thinks of it only as a moment in time.
Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth I think we are talking about two different things.
Scofield did not make it popular, rather its popularity made good business for Oxford. Scofield merely rode the wave.
Everything I can tell says that Scofield was involved in its marketing and in how it was all packaged. He was not just selling the Bible he was selling a guide to the end times that he was asserting would be immediately unfolding.
In that sense, I think he helped make it popular. He may have had even greater involvement but I'm not sure.
Charles
@@TheConqueringTruth I am not saying he was not involved in marketing it. I am sure he and all his friends did. Yet he authored a range of materials covering many areas of theology. So I don't know why you think he was selling his Bible to promote a guide to the end times as opposed to any other subject. The dates in his Bible are Ussher's dates for world history, not future fulfillment dates. The fact remains that everything in the notes were standard and typical doctrine of the Bible conferences that had been going on for decades before he came along.
It's worth pointing out that the part about the dates being put in the first edition for prophecies was incorrect on our part. We've added a pinned comment on CZcams and are working to get it removed from the video as well.
I get what you are saying about the Scofield Bible in general. It's true that Oxford University Press published it as a general study Bible, but Scofield was primarily going to prophecy conferences. I don't think he had any idea it would turn out to be as popular as it was and he does owe a lot of that success to others.