The History of Dispensational Thought: Part 1

แชร์
ฝัง
  • เผยแพร่เมื่อ 4 ม.ค. 2025

ความคิดเห็น • 4

  • @jrpeet
    @jrpeet ปีที่แล้ว +3

    Much appreciated!!!!

    • @BibleandTheologyMatters
      @BibleandTheologyMatters  ปีที่แล้ว

      Thanks @jrpeet! We will be releasing a new video and audio podcast in the next couple of days that responds to Dr. Al Mohler's recently aired interview of the author of the book "The Rise and Fall of Dispensationalism." We invited 9 scholars to respond to Mohler's unfair portrayal of Dispensationalism.

  • @mikeyonce2323
    @mikeyonce2323 11 หลายเดือนก่อน

    What I understand John Hagee teaches two ways of salvation, and says Jews don't to be evangelized since they are saved under the old covenant.

  • @5crownsoutreach
    @5crownsoutreach ปีที่แล้ว

    Corey's wildly eccentric rhetoric alone ought to throw a red flag for any scholarly listener, i.e., "if you stub your toe ... its dispensationalism, ... dispensationalism is the boogeyman" (14:48)." What are we talking about again? This kind of publicly displayed asthmatic behavior makes any listener looking for objectivity wonder if his problem isn't more of a self-fulfilled prophecy than an objection to his form of theology. He's a professor, teaching the next generation of leaders, I simply ask: "Is this how his seminary wants to be represented?" I could see a grad student talking this way, but a fully salaried Professor? It sounds like Corey's just performing for the camera (or recorder in this case). Wow. He also shows some difficulty getting passed the term "marginalized" and certainly exaggerates the scenario while showing an inability to follow his own advice. For instance, he points to the most extreme example of 'vitriol' (13:26) but then criticizes others for "attacking the fringe voices" (15:50). A cute irony to say the least, but his general reference to the difficulty getting published is felt across the field. Fazio chimes in with some greater objectivity, which, by no surprise, also carries with it a more irenic tone, and relies on fewer breathless extremities. His conversation about antiquity's chiliasm (24:06) is excellent. His insistence on the history of literal interpretation (24:20) and his comments on various authors (24:30) and their verifiable histories and writings served as a breath of fresh air in this interview. Honestly, This interview would have been far more productive if Paul Weaver had conducted with Fazio alone.