Why Are You Dispensational? | Abner Chou
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 12 มี.ค. 2024
- In this video, Abner Chou, president of The Master's University and Seminary, shares with Costi Hinn why he holds a dispensational view and addresses the common caricatures associated with this viewpoint.
For more from For the Gospel:
• Subscribe on TH-cam | @forthegospelmin
• Follow on Instagram | forthegospelmin
• Follow & like on Facebook | forthegospel
• Follow on TikTok | tiktok.com/@forthegospel
• Listen on your favorite podcast platform | For the Gospel Podcast
#forthegospel
![เบิ้ล ปทุมราช - อ้ายกินดอง น้องลาบงัว ft. สแน็ก อัจฉรีย์ [OFFICIAL MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/-OK--KaSPcI/mqdefault.jpg)
Always pleased to hear teaching on eschatology done with grace, so many Christians put their testimony on the line when dealing with this difficult subject. Thanks for that!
Indeed, done with grace. 🎯
Abner Chou is a fantastic teacher and preacher. Thank God!
Greatly appreciate faithful men such as Abner Chou! Appreciate Costi and this channel as well!
We all can learn from the humble and gentle spirit of Dr. Chou on this subject. I may or may not agree with everything he said, but how he spoke and handled himself in this interview is worth noting. I wish him the best.
i learned dispensationalism first under Finis Jennings Dake. Studying the Bible is like trying to plumb a bottomless ocean. There is no limit to all we can learn. Praise God. thank you Jesus!!
Abner’s explanation from scripture was super clear and helpful! Thank you!
I'm in the CREC crowd, happily dunking my babies to the glory of God because of the Bible, and love Abner Chou's work. Credit to Jeremy Kidder for showing me your work- you've done a great service to the Body in thinking carefully about the prophetic and apostolic hermeneutic.
What is CREC?
@@Brother_Timothy_Harvey communion of reformed evangelical churches. We’re a denomination that’s broadly Presbyterian and Postmillenial, but like Masters, dedicated to God’s Word over all, and submission to Christ’s Lordship as essential to saving faith
Great teaching! Thanks for sharing.
The “mystery” isn’t the church. The “mystery” is gentile inclusion.
Not so fast. Gentile inclusion was a thing in the OT. Some Gentiles (sojourners) submitted to circumcision and became a part of Israel. In addition to that, many OT prophecies told of Gentile inclusion in the coming Kingdom with Israel as the head of the nations. The mystery, on the other hand, was never foretold in the OT; rather, it was hidden in God (Ephesians 3:9). The mystery is the Church, the Body of Christ, which is spiritual union with God and fellow believers. This is not the same as Millennial Gentile inclusion.
@@carolberubee “This mystery is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs, members of the same body, and partakers of the promise…” Eph 3:6
@@davejcampbe11 I agree, but that's not as simple as saying "Gentile inclusion." Gentile inclusion is all over the OT, so that's not a mystery. The mystery is one new man in Christ, not Israel over the Gentiles in the Millennial Kingdom.
@@carolberubee I think it really is that simple.
I would say the mystery is Christ’s coming at all for all peoples
Wonderful man of God and an excellent scholar. God bless!
The ancient church believed in forms of dispensational theology. My church still does: "The Ancient Antiochene Church of God ~ E.W. King".
Dispensationalism is both logical and evangelical. Thank you Dr. Chou for clarifying and edifying those of us which have endured the difficult season of faith, for the common pulpits to the those who look forward blessed return.
But what about the part that says not all Israel are Israel (Romans 9)?
The gospel came to the Jew first and then to the Gentile (Rom. 1:16), so the ethnic Jews do have a unique place in that way.
However, they were also the ones who pierced the Savior (Zech. 12:10).
God's people, regardless of Jew or Gentile, are those who are of the household of faith (Gal. 6:10) and eventually this collective group is the Bride of Christ.
Am I missing something? Please help me understand if I am missing anything. A genuine question.
Excellent question! I’ve wondered the same thing. Dispensationalism is more than just eschatology. It’s an entire theology that seems (to me) to be IMPOSED on the text, rather than exegeted FROM the text. Modern evangelical Hyper-Zionist views come directly from Dispensational theology. John Hagee is the most radical western “Christian” supporting the modern nation of Israel NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO… including their visceral hatred of Jesus and denial of Him as Messiah. The modern nation-state we call “Israel” is not the same “Israel” of scripture. It’s a corrupt globalist regime… just as corrupt and sinful as the American government is. --- Anyway… Romans 9 caused me to “pump the brakes” on Dispensationalism also. Lots of attacks and name calling in this debate… but I’ve never gotten a satisfactory explanation of Romans 9 other than, “It means what it says”. The true “Israel” are those who are IN CHRIST!! It’s HIS BLOODLINE that determines who “Israel” is. Ethnicity becomes irrelevant for those who repent and believe in the name above all names. No dispensational “dual covenant” exception is provided in scripture.
The explanation of Romans 9 is in Romans 9:30-32
@@robvoyles6230 of course there is no need to hold the position of Hagee. Jews need not be deified. Then again, we should check ourselves: are we bordering anti-Semitism like most Middle Eastern Arabs would embrace? Remember in Genesis 12:3, God bless all who bless His children, and curse all who curse His children. When we condemn Israel, what do we base our condemnation upon? If it is about the war in Gaza Strip, the pray tell, how would you react if you were in the position of those who lost their love ones due to the heinous crimes committed by the terrorists regime?
@@robvoyles6230 Thats not true neither theological nor historical. And you attach people, words and thoughts that have nothing to do with the biblical term "dispensation" at all.
@@dogmatika7- You are free to idolize whoever you wish and believe whatever you wish. If John Nelson Darby is a hero to you… then enjoy yourself with his theology. I simply have questions that were never answered biblically from a dispensational worldview perspective… and I grew up with it bring constantly and dogmatically preached at me from the Schofield Bible notes. It’s not a salvation issue… and it doesn’t distort the gospel of Christ either way… but theology does matter, and bad theology hurts people. Dispensational theology has produced MANY different “End Times” Doomsday Cults. I’ve never even heard of an Amillenial or Post-Millennial Cult!! --- And lastly… just because something is wildly popular (and generates MILLIONS of dollars in “scary end times” book sales) doesn’t necessarily make it true. -- God’s word is true. Man made theological systems??? Not always. ---- Peace.
A teaching by a dispensationalist, that got me worried. Said that repentance was only needed by the Jews. Christians are saved by grace. Repentance was a work. Obviously we don't earn salvation by good works, but the bible is clear that faith without works is dead.
That's where the doctrine of the "carnal Christian" comes from. Dispensationalism is awful.
Are you familiar with Covenant Theology? They say that Jesus earned our justification by works of the law. And this contradicts Romans three where the righteousness of God is without law and not by works of the law. And you easily quote James 2:20 and 26 where faith without works is dead. In Greek that is the same pistis koris ergon as the faith without works between Romans 4:5 and 4:6.. James contradicted Paul. And have you read James 2:24 where " a man is justified by works and not by faith alone". And James 2:21 insists that Abraham was justified by works. Yet you say" Obviously we don't earn salvation by good works".
@@Bombaycompany1776 so you have been told by fools and the ignorant that dispensationalism is the source of the carnal Christian? When you have time you should read 1 Corinthians 3:1-4. That is where it came from. Stop listening to liars.
@@JosephBoxmeyer Not sure I understand your point? . My main point is: We are saved for good works . Ephesians 2:8-10 . The argument , that I can blatantly keep living as a prostitute, adulterer,liar or thief after being saved and consider my self "safe" from Gods judgement is delusional! My repentance is a response to the forgiveness of God. Not a work.
If you believe the bible to be the word/inspiration from God. Then a direct contridiction means you probably have not fully understood it. Using verse against verse , is not how we should try to interpret scripture. The verses used in context should work together.
Great video. As Dr. Chou explained, a dispensation is simply, "when God used different segments of time and different operations and purposes in every single era (1:38)". It means no more and no less. It is primarily a theology of 'Biblical time frame or periods' and eschatology. It is inaccurate for someone to denigrate dispensationalism -ist with phrases like, "they teach multiple ways to heaven", or "they teach the doctrine of the "carnal" Christian". There are always outliers in any theology. I could fill the comment section with outliers of Covenantal theology. The fact of the matter is since dispensationalism doesn't really focus on Salvation/Soteriology, or by and large any other doctrine except eschatology, those who ride the Dispen-wave and teach heresy has everything to do with their denominational opinions and beliefs and NOT that of dispensationalism.
This was a good comment, thankyou from an aspie dispy
wow! your comment is a stunner! I agree with what you have said regarding outliers.
Thank you for making this video! I was talking with my friends about this as well, and it was hard to make a conclusion about the question of whether the covenant is continuous or not.
I have a question regarding 1 John 2:7-8, as the scripture mentions that the commandment is the same as the old commandment but at the same time, it is a new commandment.
Just like how Dr. Abner Chou mentions the historical incidents in human history and we do say before/after ( ), even though there were different historical incidents mentioned in the OT, ultimately the salvation message, the core salvation message stays the same that that fact leads me that the covenant must be continuous. I think as we divide the dispensations, we are just dividing what happened historically from a human viewpoint, not considering God because in the end, God never changed, and the salvation message stays the same. Yes Sauron died and the new age started, but that does not mean that there is a mark in a time, and new time started as soon as Sauron died. It is just a big historical as the death of Sauron was a big thing in the world of LOR, but no more than that.
Going back to the passage that I wanted to ask about, even though 1 John 2:7-8 does not say about the covenant, but rather about the commandment, I think it still can testify that the core message does not change (and Dr. Abner Chou did mention the same thing as well), and I am curious how is this passage explained in dispensational point of view.
Sorry for my lack of eloquence 😅, thank you so much for making these videos!
Thank you for this video ! May the Father of our lord Jesus Christ bless you and protect you! Greetings from France 🇫🇷😉
Why are you a dispensationalist? "Because of a dream Nebuchadezzar had in the book of Daniel". Would have loved for him present his position using New Testament writings. Proper hermeneutics should always start with the more clear easy to understand passages and interpret the more difficult passages in light of those. This may sound like a reasonable argument to anyone who doesn't know any better.
Where is the idea of this 1000 year millennium with mortals and glorified saints dwelling together found in the whole new testament except from the most obscure and apocalyptic book filled with all kinds of symbolism? We don't see that we see Christ returning in judgment and the consummation.
“except” 😂 You just answered your own question
Isaiah 65
I will bet that you never question the factual truth of the "gospels" in which a major part of the teaching is imagined fictional "stories" called parables. How can you trust anything from someone who tells stories all the time instead of telling plain truth? And, that thousand years in Rev. 20 looks real enough, does it not? It tells what will happen before, during, and after. That nails it down to a time. And it is sure that during that time Satan will not be deceiving the nations. If he is currently deceiving or currently going about as a roaring lion, then this cannot be that millennium. And it must come after the tribulation, an unprecedented time of trouble in the whole world. Reasonable people all know that it has not happened yet.
Yes and I cannot believe that the perfect God Man lived here on earth among sinful men. Didn't happen. That would have been too much like a millennium with saints living beside sinners. So I join you in rejecting Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Not historical. Thanks for waking me up, @elusive4072. Oh yes, and all of that imaginary fantastical Alice in wonderland magical stuff in the Revelation. It just proves that the millennium must be false too. And the second coming of Christ must be fantastical and false also. Who rides horses with a sword out of His mouth? Very unsafe. I don't see that anywhere else in the Bible. Nowhere. So it must be false. And that bedtime "story" about Jesus living here on earth. I don't see that anywhere else in the Bible. So I'm writing that off. And how could you possibly believe anything taught by a guy who teaches mostly in parables? Must have had something to hide. Thanks, @elusive 4072. Good thinking.
However "obscure and apocalyptic", WHO ordered John to write the Revelation? So you just ignore "that guy"? Hey, Stupid! Jesus the Lord!. Yet you proudly ignore this book? You choose to ignore it?
Whenever reading Scripture we must always remember what it meant to the original hearers. I personally believe that Matt 24, Luke 21 & Make 13 are all local judgments and not something in your or my futures. And no, I'm not a full preterist.
Do you believe prophecy can have a dual fulfillment? Near-term and far-term?
To be honest, it's not something I've given much thought to, but I'll do some research and come back to you. God bless
"local judgment"? Maybe you failed to read all of the local verses. Try Matt. 24:21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no nor shall ever be. And verses 6-7 wars and rumors of wars.. nation shall rise against nation. That has not happened in my neighborhood for a couple of years. most of the nations and kingdoms in my neighborhood are mostly peaceful. And we don't have frequent famines and pestilences and earthquakes very often in my street. And in verses 29-31 the sun normally doesn't go dark or the moon and the stars fall from heaven only on one local town. And those angels gathering His elect from one side of town to the other. Sure, probably all local. Probably already happened when you weren't looking. Happens all the time. Great tribulations happen every week. Nothing special there. So is that what the original hearers and readers would have thought? From whom did you get this bunk?
The fly in the ointment of Dispensationalism is the pre-trib rapture. Premillennialism is the only viable framework for the literal fulfillment of prophecy, leaving full Preterism exposed as unbelief. For 3000 years men have argued about the “spiritual” meaning of prophecy, only to have LITERAL fulfillment take place right under their nose. I suspect this trend to continue ‘til Jesus’ physical return-
I am not yet decided on the Rapture. But Paul presents the Church uncompromisingly as one new man of Jew and Gentiles undistinguished. Undistinguished. But in the Rev. you see 144000 Jews, as Jews, as Jews, their tribes named and enumerated, as Jews. Does the Lord steal or borrow them from the Church and suddenly break His prohibition against distinguishing the Jews from the Gentiles? That prohibition against distinguishing the Jews as Jews is most basic to the identity of the Church. When you take out the Jews as Jews, then where does that leave the left behind Gentiles? Just not the Church anymore. Not the Church anymore, by its identity and definition. Not the Church anymore. But that leaves a very Biblical solution. Maybe the Church is not here when the 144000 Jews as Jews are taken for a special purpose, but not a purpose that includes the Church Gentiles. Maybe the Church is not here at that time. That is a solution that all intelligent Bible students must have considered. Also, if Paul's rapture texts are inspired, then when the rapture happens, who, who, who will be taken first, first, first? The dead in Christ is who. Well if the rapture is when Christ returns in the clouds then those saints beheaded for faithfulness to the Lord must must must rise first. Right? So that is all taken care of as and when Jesus is descending. Right? Makes sense, if the rapture is post trib. Right? He only comes back once. Right? Well when is that once that He returns? Would have to be in Rev. 19 as He descends. Right? Gotta be then. Right? But wait. Wait . What's the story with all of these beheaded saints in Rev. 20:4????? Chairs need to be set up and a special tribunal called to honor them. They are THEN honored and raised and go into the Millennium. But if the rapture actually happens post trib, then it would have been a done deal. Right. "The dead in Christ will rise first". Not last. Not later, after lots of other stuff. First, while Christ descends, to " meet Him in the air". Right? First. First is first. Maybe those pre trib rapture people weren't so stupid. Maybe everybody needs to start reading their Bibles. By the way, nobody told me these things. I figured these things from reading my Bible. I don't even know whether Darby agrees with me. Just me and my Bible.. How everybody should learn. If you think that you learned anything from being told, then you might have been lied to.
This is pretty amazing 😮 put the title speaks about the millennium not the tribulation so that could use an edit.
I cannot agree more with everything said. Thank you for the video.
You can believe God works through different ages, and also believe that God has plans for national Israel, and still reject dispensationalism.
I love my dispy brothers and sisters (I really do, we have the same Lord)... but since leaving the system of dispensationalism I have really come to greater understanding of scripture as a whole.
There is an incoherence in the chronological and hermeneutical principles in dispensationalism that needs to be reckoned with. Especially since this is a modern way of reading the Bible, not found throughout church history.
I'm like you -but opposite. I left the system covenant theology a while back and feel the same way. I have a clearer understanding of scripture with dispensationalism and enjoy evangelism a lot more.
I’m not sure what system I belong to. I believe one day all ethnic Israel will be gathered together and saved. I believe that this will happen before the rapture and second coming. I believe that we are one new man. I believe there is a new covenant, implying there is also an old covenant. The new covenant foretold but not realized till Christ. Those believing in God in the old, will come to partake of the new, in the resurrection.
So what does that make me?
i heard john macarthur say that there are parts from his dispensational background that he had to unlearn (ie, beatitudes are only for the millenial kingdom). does that mean there are different types of dispensationalism now?
It’s been falling apart for a while
"Newspaper theology." Nailed it.
Thank you for reminding me about dispensationalism.
Also, if Abner Chou is so insistent about the Church of Christ being explicitly called the "church" in Revelation, where is the verse that says "Tribulation saints"? Where is the verse in Revelation that says "Tribulation saints"?
revelation says saints and jews, gentiles are saints living in the tribulation, so call them saints during the the trib, but not church.
No “church” mentioned in Romans till the last chapter. I guess it’s not about the church. No Spirit mentioned in James. I guess it’s not for the people of the Spirit.
Do you hold the concept of Holy Trinity? But the term does not even appear in any part of the Scripture. Right?
Spot on!
@@cracker67but the meaning is taught. elohim for example. elohim is the plural of el. 3 in a unity of one. army is singular of many working as one. marriage is singular unity of two. church is gone in the rapture.
Jesuit counter-reformation wine of Babylon. This is the cup you drink from.
By the way everybody. Perhaps some of you are not especially "literate". But ",literal" reading concentrates on honoring what was written as was intended. That includes honoring fantastical descriptions as fantastical. Faithfully holding fantastical as such is literal reading. Some of you think that fantastical things are not "literal". Was it written that way? Then that is the "literal" way to read it. Read what is written. Or do you think that God is stupid? You will not understand everything. So live with it. The people who live to see it all happen might understand. Warning! It is a dangerous game that you play with Someone you shouldn't play with. God wrote His Bible and won't take lightly your deciding that things already happened when you admit that you don't even understand what they are. Are you trying to protect your theological system which was written by people who were better suited to other things?
The book of revelation uses the word saints multiple times and the church IS the saints. Saints are “holy ones” which is us, those who are united to Christ. Such bad exegesis to say the church is not mentioned again. How about the beast persecuting the church for 42 months and that is exactly how long Nero persecuted Christians before his death? This view of eschatology is bankrupt and leads to bad theology in other areas.
Curious who Nero's false prophet was in the 1st Century?
The saints in Revelation your referring to are angels. Here is Job 15:15Behold, he putteth no trust in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean in his sight.
There isn’t a single man in heaven at that point. The kjb also says Jesus comes back with angels. Thats all he uses in wrath. If its the church then why is it only ten thousands.
Here’s a verse saying Jesus will come back with his angels. Mat 16:27For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then he shall reward every man according to his works.
Job 15:15 says God sometimes call his angels saints.
Jesus returning back with his angels/saints will 100 percent fulfill what you said had to be his church.
I think the key reason people are scared is because of these "terms".
All Scripture points to Christ -- not to a group of unbelievers whose sole point was to prepare for Christ's first advent where he fulfilled every promise made.
Mic drop 👏🏽
If you think Christ fulfilled every promise already, then you should study the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants, and really study Zechariah. Without understanding these covenants and the prophecies of Zechariah, just to name one of many prophets, then your understanding of eschatology and Israel is seriously flawed, and It sounds like it is.
@@mariosangermano study covenant theology, Christ is the fulfillment 😭
@@mariosangermano -- all the promises of God are yes and amen in him.
Study the Bible. The fulfillment includes Israel. Don't read it selectively. @@hidden_inchrist
Since there is no text that teaches a pre-trib rapture then the system falls apart.
Well, not so. There is scripture that supports pre tribulation rapture.
1 Thessalonians 1: 9 -10, 5:9 the church is not appointed to wrath.
Viewers will not be overtaken by the day of the Lord.
Revelation 3:10 we are protected from the hour of trial.
Also it's supported by the fact that you see the church mentioned 19 times in the first 3 chapters of Revelation, and then the church is never mentioned again until chapter 22.
Also the word church is never used in relation to the tribulation.
Also pretribulationism is the only view that maintains the distinction between the church and Israel and God's separate plan for each.
Also the " seventy sevens" of Daniel 9:24, are decreed upon Daniel's people, the Jews, and Daniel's Holy city , Jerusalem.
The prophecy also makes it clear the seventieth week the , Tribulation is a time of purging and restoration for Israel and Jerusalem, not for the church.
John 21:22-23 shows the early church felt Christ return was imminent, that He could return at any moment.
So all this to say, there are many different views that have validity , so no position is completely right or wrong. But for me the pre tribulation rapture makes the most biblical sense, with the most support.
@@mariosangermanothe tribulation is not the wrath of God. It’s not until the bowls of wrath at the very end, that you reach the wrath of God.
There is no text that presents a post trib rapture. It is clear from 1 Thess 4:15 " for this we say unto you by the word of the Lord" that Paul's rapture is a very different event from the Matt 24 event which cannot be the rapture. So that post trib event cannot be the rapture. So the post trib rapture never had any basis.
Listen I think the petty arguments in the comments are kinda silly guys. I’m not saying you shouldn’t have a conviction but is this the way the Lord would have His church disagree? Yes be convicted of scripture but no more name calling and splitting over things like this. I was raised dispensational and have recently came into contact with covenant theology. Instead of calling covenant theology a heresy I have studied the Bible and read several books and listened to messages. I’m not convinced either way yet but we need to remember the other side is not our enemy. They are just fellow brothers and sisters in Christ trying to do their best to understand what the scripture says. Both sides have great arguments and both sides have some pitfalls. We’re human and we’re all going to get to heaven and find out there were things we were right about and things we were wrong about. God bless brothers and sisters.
Newspaper Theology. Never heard that one before.
I became a dispensationalist after I found out and studying how Peter and Paul did not preach the same thing one preached to the circumcision and the other preached to the uncircumcision. One preach to the Jews only and the other preached to both Jews and Gentiles.
But that is demonstrably false, Brother. Peter preached to Cornelius a God-fearer Roman Centurion. He and his household were saved, so I am not entirely sure where you got that idea from (see Acts 10).
New Covenant Whole Gospel: Can you honestly answer the questions below?
Who is now the King of Israel in John 1:49? Is the King of Israel now the Head of the Church, and are we His Body? Why did God allow the Romans to destroy the Old Covenant temple and the Old Covenant city, about 40 years after His Son fulfilled the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34 in blood at Calvary?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
===========
Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?
(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)
The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?
1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Paul’s interpretation in Galatians 3:8, 3:16.)
2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?
3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?
4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?
5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?
6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?
7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?
8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)
9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9) Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
10. Watch the TH-cam video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.
Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.
Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:
“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.
Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”
Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.
John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…
"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”
John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)
What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?
(See what Joshua said about the Old Covenant land promise in Josh. 21:43.)
Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?
Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?
Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and is it fulfilled by the blood of Christ at Calvary in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 12:18-24?
Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church, if the New Covenant is “everlasting” in Hebrews 13:20? (See also 2 Thess. 1:7-10) If the New Covenant has made the Old Covenant “obsolete” in Hebrews 8:6-13, why would God go back to the Old Covenant system during a future time period?
Read the recent book "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism", by Daniel G. Hummel.
"Dr. Chou, why do you believe dispensationalism?" "Well, look at the Lord of the Rings!"
I still disagree with Pre Tribulation. Where does it say that the church is not mentioned after Revelation 4 to 19? Theres no such thing as “The Tribulation Saints” smh
It's an exegetical fallacy to think something is not mentioned if you don't use a certain word for it. The Church can be pictured and present even if the word church / ekklesia isn't used. Just like the truth of the Trinity. Just because the word "trinity" isn't in the Bible doesn't mean that the Trinity isn't present in Scripture
there were mosaic saints before the resurrection. there are saints after the rapture. only gentiles and jew, no church.
@@donhaddix3770 Does what you refer to as "the rapture" (the text says, "Then we who are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air") take place before or after the resurrection in 1 Thessalonians 4? (Though I would say this corresponds to 1 Corinthians 15, those who do not sleep but are changed, and is therefore part of the resurrection).
Do you take Revelation 20 "literally"?
Do you take the "first resurrection" of Revelation 20 to be the bodily resurrection, and if so, is this said to occur BEFORE or AFTER the beast, image of the beast, the mark, and tribulation?
it is mentioned in heaven, not on the earth.
trib saint. the phrase for saints on the earth during the trib.
want to get technical, where is the roman catholic or orthodox churches ever mentioned in the bible?
@@matthewsouthwell3500 the first rapture begins at the opening of the trib and last to the end to the mk. the 2 witnesses rapture is mid trib. those who die later are rapture later
There is nowhere in scripture that says we will be 'raptured 7 years before the great tribulation. Nowhere. Matthew 24 the disciples ask Jesus to tell them about that 'day' His second coming ! He talks about some will be persecuted, even beheaded for His name . Nowhere does it say we will be raptured before this period. This is a dangerous teaching because we need to be prepared for what is to come . God will be with us through it all. Also, if he comes to take the 'first lot' then comes again for the end.. that shows more than a second coming. Its suggesting He comes goes back,comes again
. Scriptures doesn't teach this.
God bless xx
Try reading 1 and 2 Thessalonians, besides many others I'll post if you want me too.
@@mariosangermano 2 Thessalonians 2 says "our gathering together to Him" is not until "the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction."
Then why don't you debate Dr. Chou on Dispensational Theology and get his mind right so he can see it the right way like you see it?
@@1lebero beloved, do not be willingly ignorant of the scriptures. Nowhere in the holy scriptures, does it say the Saints will be caught up before the beginning of the 70th week of Daniel nowhere does it say the Saints will be caught up before the antichrist is revealed… Let’s keep this real simple. When does the Lord come as a thief? if he comes as a thief to you, it’s because your not born again, you see, he comes as a thief to the world and when does that happen? Not seven years prior to the tribulation…
Revelation 16:15-17 (KJV)
15 Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth, and keepeth his garments, lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.
16 And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
17 And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, It is done.
@@rubeno.2808 Since he has it wrong, why don't you become president of a seminary, get a platform , and debate Dr. Chou on Dispensational Theology and get his mind right -so he can see it the right way like you see it? Until then you're just another guy on TH-cam with an opinion on the subject of prophesy. So sit back and listen to someone who sees the biblical text different than you do -instead of ramping up and claiming you have the truth to the end-times puzzle-because you don't.
Are you excited to rebuild the temple and get the blood of sacrifices flowing and have a BBQ in the millennium??? 😂😂😂
Beloved your lack of reality of what the day of the Lord is shows your ignorance of this massive, monumental event..
Amos 5:18 (KJV)
18 Woe unto you that desire the day of the LORD! to what end is it for you? the day of the LORD is darkness, and not light.
We are excited to see the fulfillment of the Word of God (Ezekiel 40-48). Read the Bible and believe the Bible.
There are about a dozen mentions of the church after Revelation 3:
The servants and brethren who would be killed (6:11)
The servants of God (7:3)
Those who come out of the great tribulation (7:14)
The saints whose prayers reach the golden altar (8:4)
The two witnesses (11:3-12)
The woman's seed who have the witness of Jesus (12:17)
The persecuted saints (13:7, 10)
Those who follow the Lamb (14:4)
The saints who have faith in Jesus (14:12)
Those who die in the Lord (14:13)
Why do the tribulation saints not count as the church? They're believers in Christ. They're His body. What's the difference between us and them?
Reading Revelation as recapitulations helps to make sense of it.
I don’t understand the different groups of Christians….what qualifies the raptured ones and disqualifies those killed during the tribulation?
What you're missing is that those people who come to faith during the tribulation period.
@JesusIsLordxx you're just a little confused.
@patgruzenski4024 those who are raptured are already believers and were raptured. The others were not believers until after the rapture and became Christians during the tribulation. That's the difference.
And I saw another angel ascending *from the east* having the seal of the living God: and he cried with a loud voice to the four angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the sea,
Saying, Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, *till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads*
{Revelation 7:2-3}
(These are already sealed with the Holy Spirit, so this os not speaking of being born again.)
“For as the lightning *cometh out of the east* and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”
{Matthew 24:7}
And *the sixth angel* poured out his vial [plague] upon the great river Euphrates; and the water [support] thereof was dried up, *that the way of the kings of the east might be prepared*
(And I saw three unclean spirits like frogs come out of the mouth of the dragon, and out of the mouth of the beast, and out of the mouth of the false prophet.
For they are the spirits of devils, working miracles, which go forth unto the kings of the earth and of the whole world, *to gather them to the battle of that great day of God Almighty*
"Behold, I come as a thief. *Blessed is he that watcheth and keepeth his garments* lest he walk naked, and they see his shame.")
And he gathered them together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon.
And the seventh angel poured out his vial into the air; and there came a great voice out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, *It is done*
{Revelation 16:12-17}
And after these things I heard a great voice of much people in heaven, saying, Alleluia; Salvation, and glory, and honour, and power, unto the Lord our God.
For true and righteous are his judgments: for *he hath judged the great whore* which did corrupt the earth with her fornication, and hath avenged the blood of his servants at her hand.
{Revelation 19:1-2}
...
Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb *is come* and his wife hath made herself ready.
And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, *These are the true sayings of God*
{Revelation 19:7-9}👈
^
Describing events after Armageddon and the seven last plagues.
To me it seems there is often a confusion about Dispensations and Supersessionism. Dispensations are logical deductions. The jews made a difference between ages and so did christians like Paul in Ephesians 1,21 or Colossians 1,26. From these verses alone, you can distinguish 4 different ages.
Supersessionism is something totally different and is the twisted idea that the church replaced Israel. And that's nothing unique to the "Dispensationalism" that is often attached to Darby/Scofiled as if it was their unique idea - the catholic church did this in the first place or the Nazis as well using the "Ersatztheologie". It would be a totally different thing if you would make a case by saying "Darby and Scofiled twisted the bible and distorted the distinction of ages to justify their ideas". But "different ages" or a "dispensation" is something that the bible teaches itself even without the accretion or deduction of dispensations or "Heilzeitaltern".
Dispensations often get confused in the same way, Catholics missunderstand or even missrepresent "sola scriptura". People think its some magical dogma, but its just a technical term for a logical deduction. Darby derived the dispensations exactly like the jews did throughout the centurys: "this age and the age to come". So there you have already two + two "Heilszeitalter". Our day and age and the days of the new kingdom plus pre and post ages respectively.
Paul did the same "dispensations" for example in Ephesians 1;21 "not only in the present age but also in the one to come.". There is nothing magical or "false prophetic" about it at all. Its simple logic. Adams days or Abrahams days, were different than our days and Gods revelation was different as well. One could say much more about it but to be clean and simple - its really just that - a logical deduction that helps to make a difference between different times, different revelations and different people and their unique circumstances and reletaionship to God.
And on a side note: Dispensations are a realy good apologetic way to approach false teachings like from the Adventists with their food laws. They apply them because they have a wrong understanding of the laws of God at the time of Moses - given to the jews/at a specific time/with a specific purpose - therefore you can not apply the "Laws of Moses" to the church because its a totally different "Heilszeitalter", from a time before the first coming of Christ, etc etc...
Of course, dispensations are biblical. You have natural markers like the flood, the exodus/mosaic law, Jesus and the new covenant, 70 AD, etc. that noone would deny.
If you focus on continuity and the unfolding revelation of redemption from Genesis to Revelation, then you are covenantal.
If you focus on discontinuities or even introduce them through contextually inconsistent interpretations, you are dispensational. The problem is not defining dispensations, but introducing historically new concepts like the pretrib-rapture, the in many ways wrong interpretation of Daniel 9, etc.
Ich hoffe, du verstehst was ich meine. 😊
@debbyjack the problem with your eschatology is that you completely ignore the Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants. Without understanding them from a literal grammatical hermeneutic, you get a wrong understanding of Israel and the church, and an esoteric, confusing , spirituized mis understanding of all prophetic passages, and the last days.
Another book that gets ignored is Zechariah. Without a well studied understanding of that book, you completely destroy God's plan and purpose for ethnic national Israel in the end times. Not to mention God's promise given in the Davidic covenant , just like the Abrahamic covenant. These were unilateral eternal promises of a
land, people, and Seed.( Jesus).
These were literal promises not symbolic.
2 Samauel 7:10
2 Samuel 7: 12-13, vs 16
Matthew 21:9
Jeremiah 23:5
Isaiah 9:7, 11:1
Luke 1:32
Acts 13:34
It's clear from these passages by the context that these are literal promises and have not come to pass yet.
@@mariosangermano I'm not a preterist or idealist. So I have a very literal understanding of scripture. That is why I say, that the promises for Israel CANNOT be fullfilled in the Millenium on a decreated earth (because of the trumpets, bowls, earthquake, hail, with the heaven passed away and no more mountains and Islands...). The promises for Israel (=covenated people) will be fullfilled on the new earth and in the new Jerusalem ETERNALLY. (Thats the literal teaching of the book of Hebrews chapter 1+2+4+11+12, 2. Peter 3, Acts 3:21, etc.) Almost all the promises you were referring to mention or indicate an ETERNAL STATE. Dispies have to stop putting eternal promises into the millenium and then claiming to be literal...
@@counting-blessings Aber ich kann "Dispensationen" oder "Heilszeitalter" doch völlig losgelöst, von meiner Interpretation der Offenbarung, formulieren. Wie gesagt - es macht auf mich den EIndruck, als würde man im amerikanischen Raum, "Dispensationen" automatisch in einen Topf mit "Ersatztheologie" oder "falschen" Interpretationen der Offenbarung werfen. Man belegt den Begriff grundsätzlich negativ oder sieht in ihm (dem Konzept) sogar den Grund, für eine falsche Auslegung der Offenbarung oder der Ersatztheologie. Da möchte ich gegen halten und aufzeigen, dass es sich erstmal nur um einen (biblischen) Fachbegriff handelt, der als solcher eine logische Deduktion in sich trägt. EDIT: Interessant, das du herausstellst, dass es wohl Ansätze gäbe um eine "kontinuierliche Lesart" oder eine abänderliche oder "unterbrochene Lesart" zu haben. Aber beides würde eben eine Lesart formulieren, die man von außen an die Bibel heranträgt. Es wird nur eine Seite betont und das wäre grundsätzlich der Weg zur Irrlehre, in dem Versuch eine natürliche Spannung, die in den Texten liegt, aufzuheben und sich diesen gefügig zu machen.
@@mariosangermano In no word did I talk about eschatology at all. Dispensations or "Heilszeitalter", Covenants, etc, are neutral at first and not connected to subjective or twisted interpretations of Revelation or Supersessionism. Thats what I am saying.
There are more holes in dispensationalism than Swiss cheese. I was a dispy for years. Now I see it makes no sense hermetically. Not to mention it’s a relatively new doctrine made popular by pessimists. BUT I still appreciate these brothers in Christ. Dispensationalism will die eventually which I think will be a positive thing but until then let’s all preach Christ crucified the only hope for sinners.
Sure you were.
Based
There are more holes in Covenant Theology than Swiss cheese. I was a Covenatny for years. Now I see it makes no sense hermetically. I have now have the truth.
Go watch “before the wrath”.
Dispensationalism is the result of a consistent literal hermeneutic. So I guess you don't believe in taking a literal interpretation of the Bible. There are no holes as you claim. There are some dispensationalists which have gone to an extreme, but it is not normative dispensationalism. Dispensationalism is not of recent origin as you claim, it actually can be traced back to the writings of the early church fathers. If you're interested I recommend a book by James C. Morris called "Ancient Dispensational Truth".
From now on, I will use this as my go-to example of a word salad.
Agreed.
Disturbing...
Short answer is because he's a professor at Madrers. I really appreciate Dr. Chou's work on the LSB but I hope that didn't influence his contribution. Dispensationalism is the easiest of the views of end times to destruct on biblical and historical grounds.
Well, not sure about this presentation. Of course there's a rapture. Most Christians believe that. The question is do the saints meet Christ in the air and then turn around and go back to heaven, or, do we meet Christ in the air and continue his journey to earth as he sets up his kingdom. This is what the Greek word "meet"implies. As the citizens in Rome would meet the conquering general outside the city after his victory and return with him in triumph to the city. That's the image to "meet" Christ in the air seems to imply..
This 1 Thess. 4:15 rapture was a special revelation from "the Lord". This describes a different event than the post trib Matt. 24 event. Not post trib.
It’s weird how costi came from a cult and still doesn’t quite have his theology right. I respect this guy’s view, but most dispensationalists talk a lot and then never get to an actual point. Makes them sound smart, but doesn’t mean they are. This guy is also doing that.
I am so glad for you that you got it all figured out on your own. Amazing 😮
Nice sarcasm. I didn't say I have it all figured out, but Costi could learn from other teachers such as RC sproul but instead he's following after John Macarthur's bad view of theology and missing the understanding of covenant theology.@@Jeremiah17910
WHAT are you talking about? In 15 minutes he gave you how many scriptures to follow up on? Perhaps instead of accusing that he just talks.. read the WORD.
It's incredibly disingenuous of you to make an accusation when he referenced his theological stance ON ACTUAL SCRIPTURE. So with all concern... WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
Dispensationalism arguments run in a similar matter often when Scofield or Darby are talked about. Just talk of some new theological doctrine that wasn't accepted for years. How many though, doctrines are revealed more accurately and un-enigmatically after the Catholic Church had twisted and censored studies?
The truth is the very notion that doctrine and theology and truth is revealed ... and released in a new way even from the protestant reformation shows dispensationalism in a lesser but true degree. It doesn't change the Plan of God.
In Samuel it was said God no longer spoke in Visions and Dreams during a time.
Moses, Elisha, Elijah were miracle workers in a period of time. Intense stuff.
The Judges were given physical prowess and Gid enacted deliverance miracles in a time.
The early church had super natural miracles abound and were super miracles consistently to authenticate the church.
In the tribulation witnesses and miracles will come back. It even says that!
There is no doubt Dispensations are true. Enigmatic truths and revelations were revealed to the prophets!
You don't have to look far and wide to realize as with other doctrines (like a Triune God) that's its right there and none of this is new or man made.
God gives eyes to see. And if anything is to be argued, the scripture can stand for itself if their is any lie.
@@Elhom777 study covenant theology and come back to me. There’s a lot online or in books to self study, but I learned from the Bible myself then supplemented from there. Understanding Romans 9 and Daniel 9 is what drew me out of modern dispensationalism. Daniel 9 isn’t talking about an antichrist, it’s about CHRIST and his first coming. The fault in dispensationalism that bothers me the most is the focus on the antichrist and end times. They totally lose focus on the glory of God. I was a Calvary chapel person, but I’m now reformed. I hold to Calvinistic view of scripture, covenantal, amilllennist. Once you see it, you can’t go back.
Thanks for your response to study CT before getting back to you.
What you mean is.. I haven't. And I have only if I agree with you.
Certainly concerning. No longer a reason to debate here. And sadly you felt no inclination to respond to anything specific.
Seeing as how Romans 9 and Daniel 9 sent you packing your theology into a AMILLENIALIST position of absolute certainty, I won't even be needing to debate this with you in particular.
You have made up your mind and that's that. While ur on the way of accessing me of not studying your position (Not sure if you think that as well in regards Chou here as well) i mean .. you must be more accurate and knowledgeable than him right?... you might want to pick up a book to study Dispenssationalism by Ryrie and Dispenssarionalism before Darby.
There.. you can study more.
God bless.
So lord of the rings is why?
Dispensationalism is a presupposition that does literal and contextually consistent hermeneutics no justice.
Thats not true neither theological nor historical.
By interpreting the Bible to mean what it says?
No, by interpreting the bible to fit ones presuppositions rather than interpreting the bible in context (especially the teachings of Jesus and the apostles). For example, take the "Day of the Lord". I'm Amill and I take it as a literal 24 hours day in light of all "DAY of the lord/wrath/etc." and "last day" passages and Zechariah 14:6+7.
A Premill/Dispie would be in big trouble with a literal understanding of "DAY" in 1. Thess 4-5 and 2. Peter 3, Revelation 1+6+16+18 etc. so they will interpret the DAY of the LORD to mean a 7 year tribulation + 1000 year millenium.
@@beauchal Except all of the places where it doesn't.
Unfortunately, both systematics have holes and aren't consistent all the way throughout the scriptures. In covenant theology there's nonfuturenfor ethnic isreal, making Romans 11 and other passages meaningless and in dispensationalism you will end up with believers (both jews and gentiles) outside the bride during the tribulation. Let alone the millennium where we go back to sacremnts of the old covenant where it's gonna smell BBQ every day for a thousand years. Hmmmm my comfort is that we'll eventually be with the Lord.
to be fair there are plenty of covenant theologians that would affirm a mass revival of ethnic Israel before the second coming. However, they would see them as a lost people group, that the Gospel and the Church grew out of, being grafted back in to the singular people of God (which is the Church).
@egads94 Yeah, but they'd be inconsistent (specially in the eyes of the majority of covenant theologians) because the old covenant was replaced by a better covenant, and the church is the real isreal, and that's just stabs a lot of biblical passages in the back. And one of their biggest arguments is that God doesn't have 2 brides. Unfortunately, when it comes to eschatology, there's no such thing as a perfect system.
Abner, dispensationalism began in the late 19th century, it is a human invention.
What about Covenant Theology, buddy?
@@liberating-truth what about it?
@@CH-xt4crCovenant Theology was a human invention by Calvin and Cocceius. And they read it from a Jesuit book. Look it up. It was designed to contradict Paul in Romans chapter three. A righteousness without the law. Covenant Theology turned righteousness into a law righteousness, to be Roman Catholic. Well, Calvin was a Catholic, after all. He was obedient to the Jesuits.
There are billions of people who never heard the gospel of salvation and heading to Christ-less eternity while the dispensationalists ultimate concern is to prove through theological jargon the Jews right to the holy land. Unbelievable! Till now, I'm not able able to wrap my mind around this type of idolatry.
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold. I must bring them also, and they will listen to my voice. So there will be ONE FLOCK, ONE SHEPHERD. (John 10:16)
Those dispensationalists are reading Bible which God wrote instead of saving people. Did God promise that land? Do you criticize God for taking that time to write the Bible instead of using His time to evangelize? You should be God's advisor. You could have told God not to write those prophecies about animal sacrifices. You could have helped God to avoid a lot of embarrassment.
Shocking explanation describing the church from the Apocalypse. The church is there being described as God's people in apocalyptic terms as 144 000, 2 witnesses etc.
Nonsense. The Church is not the 144000 Jews.
Why do you think left behind caricatures exist? It was literally created by this theology and this tribe. It’s so stupid and not good biblical theology.
No, serious dispensationalists would not have made such movies. These movies have the opportunity to preach the gospel but don't.
This is so weak. No one who isn’t already convinced will be convinced by this. There’s a reason why covenant theology is so appealing: it’s simple, it accounts for scripture, and it doesn’t have to engage in these hermeneutical gymnastics.
Hermeneutical gymnastics?? Covenant Theology literally does so by basing its whole system off three THEOLOGICAL covenants that require gymnastics. Chou is arguing for a consistent hermeneutic. One that Covenant Theology doesn’t have
You didn’t argue with any of his points. Covenant Theology makes things too simple, reduces all of human history is individual salvation, creates an extra-biblical lens for viewing scriptures (3 theological covenants that require gymnastics), and there are a plethora of passages that doesn’t fit within Covenant Theology’s paradigm (Deut. 30:1-6; Jer. 31:31-35; Ezek. 40-48; Matt. 19:25; Acts 1:6; Rom. 9-11, esp. 11:3-5, 26; and the ENTIRE book of Zechariah).
Covenant theology puts blankets over Scripture and misses a lot of crucial things in the texts by doing so🤷🏻♂️
Why is simplicity automatically an argument for a wrong way of thinking?
I use ages and covenants to teach my kids. First I give them an impression from a birds eye view, I introduce them to the great characters and special events of the bible. Later on, we can dive into the depths and specifics. Nothing wrong about that.
Amen and Acts 3 "disagrees" that Jesus Christ will have to come back to rule over nuked rubble...
Acts 3:19 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord.
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the Heaven must receive
🫱until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
Jesus never claimed he was coming back to rule and reign "before" things were consummated.
Dispensationalism 🤔
I'm a dispensationalist because the bible teaches it, not Darby.
A common answer. Same thing heretics say.
@@scott5654 lol. Do your homework.
@scott5654 please explain dispensationalism. I'm curious what you think you know. You don't understand the difference between essentials that we must agree on and non essentials we can agree to disagree on and are still brothers in Christ.
@@mariosangermano
Are you omniscient?
@scott5654 No, but you still haven't answered the question of what is dispensationalism according to you. So, what is it and why is it false?
I think your response was a way to avoid answering the question and making a foolish accusation toward me. And the fact you think dispensationalism is heretical shows you don't understand essentials from secondary issues.
Jesus fulfilled the Law.
What do we do about the religious leaders and the politicians in the nation state of Israel? Didn't Jesus say it all?
No, what did Jesus say? We can do nothing about the state of Israel, or about anybody else . But have I repented of not reading my Bible! Have I repented of listening to preachers who hate dispensationalism but who don't read their Bible either? Dispensationalists did not create this state of Israel. But idiots say so.
I’m a dispomsatiomalist because I see how God works in different eras. Like one day we will have a millennial kingdom. It will be different than how life is today.
Lies
A lot of implied stuff unfortunately
Costi, how big are your hands mate?!!
The short answer to why he is dispensational is because those who pay him are. Hirelings do what they must for a paycheck. He would be out of a job if he decided he wasn't dispensational. A paycheck attached to our theology equals conflict of interest.
Man that is such a loving and kind accusation against another Christian that: a. You don't know and b. ignorant about his career, financial status or motives. This comment section shows how broken and proud many are in the Christian community.
@redpillrev.6127 wow what an unloving comment. Way to be the example. Get serious, like money doesn't control people. At the end of the day these guys aren't doing this for free. He works for a premill dispy college. He is paid to say this. If he disagreed he would be out of a job.
@@scotbrandon and what is the difference with anti dispensational Covenant pastors and teachers?
@JosephBoxmeyer they don't believe the promises were made to a secular antichrist nation in 1948, but those in Christ like Paul taught in Galatians 3. Hard to break away from false teaching when the celebrity words hold more weight than scripture, by the sheeple.
Dispensationalist have most things right, except that pre-tribulacional rapture thing. 😅 It's pre-wrath, not pre-trib.
Ethnic Israel doesn’t mean the church.
God has OT promises made to Israel that have not yet been fulfilled.
Jesus, the bridegroom, will come again for his bride, the church.
When using a consistent literal hermenutic in the OT as well as the NT, eschatological events make sense as opposed to amil/postmil views which have to allegorize and symbolize everything. Dispensationalism may have taken alot of baggage recently as people keep imposing ideas onto it, but it is the way.
#DispensationalismisDead
Dispensationalism is an egregiously wrong eschatological system. It's so not supported by the text in any way. HOWEVER, as a church, let's be united in our love for Christ and the spreading of the Gospel.
United in which gospel? I don't teach the gospel of the kingdom. And the gospel of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is a very different gospel. We must agree on this first. Or what unity do we have?
@@JosephBoxmeyer Yep
Dispensationalism- you may not agree with it, but if you find a REAL Dispensational theologian I GUARANTEE you won't be able to defeat him biblically.
😂😂😂😂
I absolutely, personally, could destroy a dispy theologian. There are so many holes, issues and unexplained assumptions in that view.
@randomname2366 no you won't trust me I'm Reformed. You can't do it because of the Hermaneutic system they use.
What a ridiculous statement. The church wasn’t born at Pentecost - that can be demonstrated any which ways, and nothing this guy says disproves it.
@@randomname2366 if there are so many why didn’t you name any in your response? Seems like a futile comment if you’re not going to expound upon your accusation and claim
Long story short - Because John MacArthur told me so.
awe how long did it take you to articulate that argument?
Since "John MacArthur told" hm so, Then why don't you debate Dr. Chou on Dispensational Theology?
That's funny I don't recall his name being mentioned once.
@@david8252 not very long. It’s called mob loyalty. Or what you’re raised in. John MacArthur wouldn’t allow anything less than.
@@1lebero gladly. It’s a weak argument.
Premillenial view is so unbiblical.
Dispensational view is spiritual blindness and for agendas but not God's
If you’re going to make such baseless claims, at least TRY supporting your view with Scripture, otherwise is unauthoritative conjecture.
@JSkeleton 1st thessalonians 4:13-18, 5:1-5,
Daniel 12:1-3
Matthew 24,25
1st Corinthians 15
ON THAT DAY BUDDY.
@@ericmchenryil5186 how does any of that prove that Premill is unbiblical? Lol. You sound like you’re only supporting Premill😂
Yes, start reading Bible, buddy. God bless peace out.
@@ericmchenryil5186 likewise. You sound confused my friend.
Oo oo oo I know…because you don’t believe the Bible.
You don't know God.
You should debate Steve Gregg
If we read the Bible in a literal manner, the way it should be, without theological bias, then we ARE dispensationalist
I am yet to find a Dispensationalist who takes all the timing texts in Revelation literally. "Near," "soon," and "quickly" are frequent in Revelation, but because they jeopardise the Dispensational system, they are "spiritualised" away. Truth is, nobody reads Revelation literally. It's ironic that Dispy's claim the high ground of "literalism" when they don't even take the first verse of Revelation literally.
@@davejcampbe11 how do then, those dispensationalist that you met interpret the word ‘soon’?
@@cracker67 For a dispensationalist, "soon", in Revelation generally means "a couple of thousand years or so."
@@cracker67 When a futurist sees "soon" in Revelation, they think, "that means a couple of thousand years or so."
Futurists have an approach that reads the "soon" passages in Revelation as "a couple of thousand years or so."