Leaving Dispensationalism | Theocast 

My biggest issues with dispensationalism is that it has turned the modern nation of Israel into an idol in the evangelical community. It has provided an excuse for many to not participate in the work to be done on earth.

The biggest danger of dispensationalism is that most dispensationalists don't know they are dispensationalists

My moms head exploded when she heard me listening to this podcast. Shes a hardcore Baptist. Ever since i was little it seems they have been looking for signs of the rapture and end times. I hate how shes been indoctrinated into thinking that anything esle the differs from her beliefs is the devils way of leading you estray

You should do an episode on the origins of dispensationalism, pre-Darby. People need to know.

Just left dispensationalism. It’s amazing how much richer Scripture is to me through the lens of covenant theology

I am brand new to Covenant theology. I've followed dispensationalist preachers and the churches I've been in are dispensationalism or they don't have a stance. I'm 61 been in the church all my life and wasn't aware of CT. how did I miss this?....now attending a 1689 Baptist church. Devouring your videos. Thanks

This is the same story for so many, including myself. It’s what we were taught and what we learned if you grew up in an evangelical church. When you make a deep study of it yourself with humility, it’s just not there and you can’t unsee what is in the text.

Dispensations are just periods in time where God chose how to move. The time of Adam and Eve was completely different from Abraham's time, Abraham's time was completely different from Moses and Moses time completely different from the time of the Church. The church time will be completely different from the tribulation and 1000 year reign. I'm so confused how one would not see this. Am I missing something?

This discussion was very helpful. Thank you for making it so simple, with such a loving tone. I really appreciated it!

I’ve a very controversial question that I know it may make many to feel uncomfortable in their skin! But it’s a question and I’ve to get it out of my chest and find a answer for it. Remember that this question has nothing to do with antisemitism, it’s just a question about the theological views that impacts the world. Question: how much dispensational movement and world view played role or impacted the rebuild of the country of Israel in the 20th century, directly or indirectly?!

Keep up the great work guys and may many come out of this unhelpful system of beliefs and see that a Christ- centered , redemptive historical narrative is totally biblcal ;) to God be the glory

Grew up in Macarthur’s church, learned about post mil theology and became NCT, then I officially transitioned into 1689 Reformed Baptist theology.

The hyper fixation on Israel in dispensationalism concerns me for political reasons as well as the neglect of the present moment to basically divinate for an idol, in my opinion. Christian tarot.

I can’t stop watching your videos! Already read your book. 😂

4:37 - introduction & Dispensationalism background 7:06 - Jon talks about his training at Dispensational Masters Seminary 9:23 - difference between CT & Dispensationalism 11:45 - Human authorial intent e.g. Moses, Jeremiah & the Ultimate Authorial Intent of God, 1 big Story 17:00 Christo centric vs moralistic hermeneutic, shadows, Israel centric hermeneutic, NT interprets OT 20:00 - 3 major covenants, "Trinity" as a word is not in Scripture,Biblicism, 23:35 - allow the NT interpret OT, open theism, 24:50 - Dispensationalists openly disagree with CT Framework. Dispensationalism is a Framework of 7 Dispensations, Schofield study bible 28:30 - Israel is the centre?, is the Church the parenthesis? Rapture? 32:44 Law & Gospel distinction- this was so good. Legalism, antinomianism, John MacArthur Hard to believe books beating up readers, covenant of works, demands in Gospel? 3 uses of the Law in Dispensationalism, Gospel according to Jesus, RICH Young Ruler is a Law passage or a Gospel passage? 40:00 - sanctification is synergistic or monergistic? How do we grow in grace? Sacraments

I would agree with nearly everything stated here, but I do believe that your representation of the Israel/Church distinction lacks some clarity. In my opinion, the entirety of Scripture is concerned with Israel's eschatology. It was ALWAYS about Israel and its place in God's redemptive-historical plan. What is missing here is an understanding that Israel only changed in form, from a physical, ethnic entity into a spiritual entity as Paul describes in Romans 9 and 10. The Church is the True Israel, but in a spiritual sense. It was ALWAYS about Israel and the ending of God's redemptive plan. The two main covenants that we espouse really describe the transition from the Mosaic order of types and shadows into a spiritual administration. Most of the New Testament gives evidence of this. That is what Dispensationalists miss: that the Church IS (and will always be) the True Israel. The events of AD 70 comprised the vindication of all that Jesus professed and professed to be, and put an end to the types and shadows of what was always a spiritual promise, one that could only be known by the Spirit. They don't understand that the promises made to Abraham were only types and shadows of what were always spiritual promises. They are still looking for a return to the land instead of understanding "the land" as only a type representing the spiritual promise of an eternity of peace and fellowship.

I'm a French pastor, born Brazilian. I grew up in a very dispensationalist Church and went to a Bible College that had the same vision of my Church. I became a slave to it and taught it more than I preched the gospel. On my way to Africa, over 30 years ago where I was a missionary, I met a person in Belgium who told me what you're doing here. I starded reading the Bible in a different way. I've been serving God for 25 years in France and I believe that one of the causes of division in the French Church today is the theology concerning the place of the acctual nation of Israel in God's economy. People have recently left our Church because we dont't believe Israel is the bride of the Lamb and the Church is God's comcubine. Would you pray for us?

17 mins in and I respect your approach, but I have to disagree that dispensationalists don’t think Christ is at the center of everything. We just don’t think his earthly ministry is the center of everything, we take each verses as the spoken (written) word of God which is spoken by Jesus. I believe Jesus can reveal things progressively through prophets etc not simply when he is on the flesh on earth.

I just read through the Bible, OT once a year, Epst. & Rev. twice a year, Gspl. & Acts 3 times a year. I see good things in Reformed Theology, see good things in Dispensational Theology, see good things in Baptist Theology, I've been reading the Augsburg Confession lately, good stuff there too. I test all of it by the Bible, The Word of God, here I stand I can do no other.

Wow you came out of the IFB! (Ex ifb here, love your guys podcast!)

I am Catholic abd bought into dispensationalism, read the Left Behind books and movies. My mom Catholic thought I was nuts. Come to find out, rapture is brand new and did not start till the 1800s. I was really obscessed with end times! No more!

One of Ligonier's recent youtube videos had Dr. W. Robert Godfrey answering the question " What is the greatest difference between Reformed theology and non-Reformed theology?" One man left a comment that the greatest difference was the Reformed had not " reformed" their eschatology. In my interaction with him, everything revolved around Israel. He had graduated from DTS. I was just " vomiting" out what I had been led to believe. ( I am Orthodox Presbyterian.) He used the phrase " Palestinian covenant." When I replied the Bible does not have a "Palestinian covenant," I was told I had not been " formally educated." Deut. does have a land covenant........which is part of the Abrahamic covenant. That small portion of Middle Eastern land ( Promised land) was a shadow that pointed to the new heavens and new earth. Dr. R. Scott Clark, Westminster Seminary, CA.......Abraham is not Moses.

Really appreciate this podcast. Ive been trying to really work out the differences between covenantal and dispensational viewpoints and this was so clear and simply explained. Thank you

The Bible is simplistic in its content. Jesus fulfilled and we just lean on His truth.

Hi, on the opposite, sanctification used to focus on monergism in dispensationalism because of antinomianism. My research thesis was exactly about that. On the other hand, in covenant theology, some perspectives focus on synergism, while others in monergism. If we analyze exegetically sanctification, it is participative (God and man), progressive, and focus on synergism. I am a theologian with a the New Covenant perspective. It is hard to explain everything here, but you can study more about both perspectives as you did, analyzing and comparing sanctification with both perspectives in a deeply and exegetical way. Just as it took time for you to realize that Dispensationalism has many mistakes, it can take time to realize what is exactly sanctification biblically and theologically. At the end, you understand why synergism is according to God’s Word. Thank you for the podcast!

Do you believe in the FINISHED work of our Lord Jesus Christ for salvation?

Dispensationalism is political Israel-based prophecy whereas covenant theology is Jesus-based prophecy.

If John Macarthur seriously teaches what you claim then he is in serious error.

You have some good stuff.

Is it imperative to read the text with a 'theological framework lens' as you suggest? For example, through a meta lens called 'redemption.'

Jack Hyles. Wow, that's a blast from the past. I worked at the Hammond Public Library, right down the street from Hammond Baptist. They had quite the reputation.

How would I get saved under covenant theology?

What about the mystery of the church? Not found in prophecy.

Was taught dispensationalism for 35 years. Revelation never made sense, nor did Daniel's 70th week, etc. Once I was exposed to partial preterism, Revelation and the entire Bible finally all made sense.

Thanks Theobros for this episode.

This is great!!

I agree with everything you said. After I was saved I went to a dispensational Baptist church for a long time. I have come around to reformed theology. The one thing I didn't understand is your view of sanctification. Don't I take part in that by the choices I make? I still have the desires of the flesh and the desire of righteousness. I choose between the two. If I choose not to read my bible, isn't that on me? (for example)

I support covenant theology but of the three covenants you mentioned only 1 is actually clearly defined in scripture and you are reading the other two into scripture. What about the covenant with Noah, Moses, David? What about those? Those are the actual covenants of covenant theology that God honors because those are the ones God actually made.

Neato! Do you guys have any videos in spanish or can recommend a channel in spanish with a similar understanding?

Regarding us not doing this stuff alone, how we must gather etc. What about someone disabled and unable to leave the house, with no vehicle to get to fellowship with other Christians? What about solitary monks in history?

I’m still so confused 😢😢😢 I used to be word of faith prosperity ugh then God opened my eyes and I guess I have been a dispensationalist Now ugh 😩 I just want to be with Jesus. I talk with Him all day everyday out loud. I read His word everyday but am I wrong in my thinking

Guess I'll remain hopelessly between both views, taking the best of each as long as they align with Scripture. I just don't see both as exclusive of each other.

What is Lordship salvation? I've heard this but don't understand the meaning.

How did theology go from the genuineness of St Maximus the Confessor to dispensationalism

How does a person survive in a church they are faithful to but is dispensational?

40:55 Does Phil.2:12 say "observe out your salvation with fear and trembling?"

Can you please discuss definitive sanctification vs. progressive sanctification, salvific vs. ongoing? it seems like you're saying there's only one aspect. And isn't this synergistic sanctification? Paul is working, or is he not actually working it's 100% God's doing? The saint doesn't fight he's only acted up on by God?: But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me was not in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them, though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me.

Well you said it, "give the people what they want". Itching ears.

My issue with the dismissal of dis is that I don't see disagreement as heresy, but as a risk. How do you read great falling away with many false teachers without concern of what happens near the end days.

Re prayer in 44.44 The Lord's Prayer is explicitly aimed at the individual's own prayer life. No problem with it being used in corporate worship, but it is definitely part of an individual's own actions.

I see dispensationalism as the theology of the Industrial Revolution. I do think it's brought some value as it relates to the Churches view of Israel. It had been fairly negative before. But in the end, it's shallow and lacks depth. Christianity was never about the rapture, or living in the future. It's just a selfish idea. Christianity, and the Gospel, has always been about helping fallen people in a fallen world, and having faith in Christ victory over the world. When you dig into scripture, dispensationalism falls apart. I do think this is understandable. It's only since the 1500's people have had access to printing, reading, writing. And only in the last 100 years people have had access to freedom, travel, technology, advanced scholarship. Then you add in the Dead Sea Scrolls, and people's understanding of the Word of God is really only now coming into fullness.

How can you dismiss the scripture on the rapture? Just curious not being judgmental.

Regardless of anyones position on "D" I found more hatefull things directed at my honest questions regarding it's theology and origin from Disp. People and preachers than anyone else in my life.

Dr. Paul Felter is the most informative dispensationalist.

I found after all the yrs I've intentionally studied the Holy Book of books the book of Isaiah God Speaks for Himself. He covers so Very much. JulieKilburn

What about rewards?

So are you telling me that Covenant people don't believe in the rapture?

(1 Co 9:17) For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward: but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel is committed unto me. (Eph 1:10) That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him: (Eph 3:2) If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: (Col 1:25) Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

I find ALL these systems, and labels counterintuitive to understanding the scripture. They all look beautiful and perfect when they are asserted but all have places where they fail, or as Mike Heiser puts it, have to "cheat" and twist the scripture to fit support the system. I appreciate Dr. Heiser's approach to scripture which encourages us to set aside systems and labels and come to the bible on its own terms. As long as you are coming to it through ANY theological framework, or worried about fitting yourselfninto one of these categorical labels, you are bringing bias to the text. We all need to recognize our bias and set it aside. Be a "slave" to the text, don't make the text a slave to your system. The Naked Bible Podcast is a great place to go to understand what that looks like.

Good stuff, but I have nowhere heard this definition of ”biblicism” before. How official is this, for lack of a better word?

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? 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) 10. Watch the RU-vid 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? 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 Hebrews 8:6-13? Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

“I am undone” that is what the Law was intended to produce, so that God takes the coal (the Holy Spirit) and touches our mouth and purges our sin. Am I stretching?

Best I can tell, Covenant Theology is about the actual seed, Jesus Christ (Gal. 3:28), whereas Dispensationalism regards that seed as referring to all the descendants of Abraham. God's chosen people have always been true Believers... the "remnant".... Isaac, but not Ishmael; Jacob, but not Esau; Ruth and Rahab, despite not being Abraham's descendants. Recall Elijah's lament that he had failed to bring Israel to repentance/return to God and thought he was alone, but then was relieved/encouraged when informed that there were still 7000 who had not bowed the knee to Baal. The importance of genealogy was to point to Jesus as Messiah according to prophecy. Once He "arrived", genealogy's usefulness was complete, ie, genealogy no longer had a purpose after confirmation of the prophesied Messiah.

It’s also going to be the “great and terrible.” And we might be here. And clearly being saved by grace does not mean we throw out obedience to Yah’s instruction in the Old Testament. 2 Tim 3:16 Scripture/Tanakh.

We are gods workmanship. It is not of ourselves.

And Israel in covenant theology? I've been studying scripture for many years and you don't even make sense through the lense of Scripture 😮

It's disturbing when a preacher dismisses the Old Testament as irrelevant and yet it's full of Christ in types and shadows, The Holy Spirit reveals Christ to us in the scriptures.

The biggest problem with dispensationalism is the division of history into distinct time periods. These time periods, or so-called dispensations, are the basis of the inventor John Nelson Darby's claim that people were saved in different ways (emphasis) at different times, which is a contradiction of the Scriptures that indicate that nothing ever pleased God except faith. (Hebrews 11:6)

Get Adam Harwood's Christian theology. Book of the Year -22.

Theocast might have left formal Dispensationalism, but their way of teaching is dangerously close to Dispensational _Free Grace_ For example, things Justin has said: "if you are not being accused of antinomianism, you are not preaching Grace hard enough.", well...just because Paul was accused of that does not mean we should all model our teaching to eliminate the consequences of true saving faith. A good old Reformed pastor once told me: "you are preaching a good message when people leave the service knowing the infinite Grace and love from God towards His children, while having a clear conviction of sin and the potential consequences of it" Why is it important to be clear on both sides? 1. Because if you *just* emphasize law and sin, you are removing Grace, and that leads to legalism (Lordship Salvation - Dispensational) 2. If you *just* emphasize Grace, you remove the fruit of the Spirit and end up leading to antinomianism (Free Grace - Dispensational)

On the land question see the book JESUS AND THE LAND by Gary M Burge, formerly Professor of New Testament at Wheaton. Awesome.

I will call out that they believe Eze 45:17 is future and that is dangerous. That text is not about a “memorial”. The word there is atonement. That is a different gospel.

That the trinity is taught in scripture is clear. That God made a covenant within the Godhead seems sort of silly to me. Covenants are made to prove intent with solemnity. The members of the Godhead would never make a covenant with each other. They are the God that covenants resort to for their strength.

Historically and Spiritually, a Christian can learn from every Word in the Bible. Doctrinally, that's where we need to be careful. But if you want to grow out a dark beard and run off into the mountains of Judea and pretend like you're a Jewish virgin chosen from the Tribe of Benjamin who gets beheaded by the antichrist while raising the dead and healing the sick, you can be my guest..... (or you can rightly divide and say that doesn't apply to Church Age Christians....)

"We're in the era of the gospel of the Messiah, so the old testament is really not all that applicable. Other than to moralize it" "...because of their (dispensationalists) high view of the Bible and their high view of the inerrancy they do tend to biblicize(sp?)...we need to see it chapter and verse in a text then we can believe it." If dispensationalism is defined by seeing the importance of the OT and requiring a book, chapter, verse to have a belief, then sign me up.

12:01 You go to God as the ultimate author but I would say that rather God was the General Editor of the Bible. In 1 Cor.1:16 Paul writes "Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other." The Holy Spirit knew who Paul baptized. The Holy Spirit made sure that what was said was the infallible Word of God, what the Corinthians needed, and we need to read, neither they or we need to know who all Paul baptized.

Wow yea thats true and this always bothered me put never knew how to put it. Ive been in a despinsation church for years and i never really cared but it always frustrated me that they would focus so much on physical isreal and how they are set apart .i never believed in the theology but i was saved late in my life apart from the knowledge of Christian tradition so i just never understood it .. but i think the biggest issues i had from them is the complete total fear of the law as if it has no value or good and they claim paul teach that but he says that the laws is perfect and has value . Grace by faith doesn't make the law useless. If u read moses ,how many times does God say ( i am the god who sanctifes) . Obviously God gave the law and then alse he is the one who cleans us because even in the giving of the law God says a dozen times that God himself will do the washing..

Dispensationalism is a man made idea who’s only rationale for existing is to encourage Christians to support Christ Rejecting Israel. If it’s inventors had their way, that support (some say worship) would necessarily exclude Jesus. Enjoyed the presentation.

I have not heard that dispensationalist believe to be a two ways to be saved, is always saved by faith, regardless if you are a Jew or Gentile. How do you explain away Rom 11 ? OT promises have not " transferred " to the Church from Israel have they? I really have a hard time even to understand where you guys come from with your own view, for me I was not born in US or in a Christian family, or taught any bible courses since I did not really care about Christianity. But a plain reading of the Bible is clear that Israel is here to stay regardless if is in her land or not. But like I said before I am grateful that your down to earth tone is easier to listen than someone like Doug Wilson or Joel Webbon who would call someone like me a heretic.

Not labeling things doesn't make you any more or less righteous, and it doesn't eliminate the fact that what is labeled theologically as a dispensation, it doesn't change the reality of what that particular providential work God's sovereign will is accomplishing, it's still a dispensation. Worked, for the time it worked for the purpose it needed to work to accomplish God's will, the only people I have found historically that have a problem with dispensations, are people who are little fruit juicy in their theology. Reminder selves, it's not our gospel it's jesus's, if we submit to him, then his rule and his standards have not changed - the other submit or or go do something else, there's no grey area.

"Brothers and sisters" thanks when u address all saints (saved by grace through faith sinners) in Christ. Makes it easier for females to listen or join in. In my point of view, what is missing on a lot of theological academia is the holy Spirit led understanding element (backed up verifiably by the same breathed scripture). Anyway, I must be unusual coz i can agree with all of it.. coz they are just different aspects to hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Why be dogmatic on some theology camp choice when we can appreciate both the OT and NT covenants through dependency on being taught Primarily by the Spirit. Some warning alerts may be useful but I get so lost with all this.. including what this podcast is dissecting altogether. I only agree to know the fullness of the truth. Creation by the Tri-united God Head, Christ Jesus sustaining it all, risen and alive and thereby Salvation in no other way but by Him alone is central -- and that is by His Most Holy sacrifice at the cross, once for all mankind including Israel as God's example in times past (via the 10 what-constitutes-doing-good commands given through their prophet Moses + their keeping of the Passover to remember God's deliverance out of egypt/pharoah/enemy's hand.. specifically that doorpost blood of the Passover Lamb.. to specifically recognize just how close that foreshadowed the Blood of Jesus was shed for our salvation/deliverance from like sin/worldly bondages to satan). So as we worshipped this same God historically, God has not forgotten Israel covenantially but it is not to be above Christ either in prominence/centrality. That said, I cant say for sure (and feel I probably dont need to fix a position) that my leanings are completely non-dispensational, especially where the interpretation of books like Daniel and Revelation are concerned. Time will show us whats up in prophecy fulfilment when the end draws near; multiple times near. The fullness of the truth is He will be back. His full redemption purpose is to justify, sanctify, then glorify those He calls who respond in thankful acceptance; to be ever restored back to honour and home under Him.

Jesus said. I WILL KEEP YOU FROM THE GREAT TRIBULATION THAT WILL BE ON THE WHOLE WORLD. That’s good enough for me.

There is a big difference between the orthodox and sound doctrinal principle of dispensations and some human errors of people who make the claim of being a dispensationalist. Biblical error is error whether it is being made by somebody who claims to be dispensational in their hermeneutics and theology and by somebody who claims to be non dispensational or antidispensational. These differing hermeneutical and theological approaches do not prove that one side is right and the other side is wrong, this is nothing more than one groups bias against a different groups. In other words there is nothing but human authority and not divine authority behind these disputes. I think that the most probable category of error that dispensationalists might fall into is to overemphasize the discontinuities in the word of God and to under emphasize the continuities. For the non dispensationalist the broad category of error they are prone to making is just the opposite they deny the discontinuities of the word and only recognize the continuities. My point is that everyone should be humble enough to recognize their own fallibility so they won't fall into this trap and make this truly devilish destructive error and foolish presumptuous mistake.

My journey out was very long. I spent most of my life well into my 50s in the Baptistic-Arminio-Dispy world. During all these years I was troubled by how poorly what I was being taught fit with what I was seeing in the scripture. Gradually through God's grace all of that has fallen away and I would characterize myself as a classic Presbyterian including the Doctrines of Grace, Covenant Baptism, and Post Mil eschatology (in that order). In the later subject I recognized very early that modern Dispensational eschatology clearly couldn't be correct. So I spent a fair amount of time in a vaguely A mil realm lightly held and eventually understood an optimistic Post mil to be the most consistent with the overall arc of scripture.

So clear...and Biblical..Christcentered

I use to be a Dispy, till I came to Sam Storms, Riddlebarger, Beale, Schreiner. I lean towards Covenant theology, but from a 1689 Baptist perspective.

That’s what I love about dispensationalism is they separate the law and the gospel because the two can’t mix.

I have no idea what you guys were attempting to say.

That’s what I beleive. There’s more than one gospel. And that’s not heretical.

Your last two points on the dispensational understanding of sanctification and the law grace distinction were mixed up. Everything you said about the lawgrace distinction Ihave always believedand was taught in my dispensational Brethrenc hurch and Biblec ollege. I think you are conflating sanctification in the IFB churches which are known to be legalists with dispensationalism. They are really inconsistent dispenesationalists because real dispensationalism has a very sharp distinction between the mosaic covenant and thenew cov. Most dispen churches hugely emphasise grace versus law.. also the socalled synergistic view of sanctification. I have heard reformed peopl criticize harshly movements like Keswii k who emphasized let go and let God live the Christian life. Many reformdd theologians emphasized obedience to the chur h rules in the past to the point I think of insinuating that sanctification is by obedience. Really the Bible takes middle road on that. I just take exception to your mixing of categories here.

If you're leaving dispensation theology just remember if you take that position you'd have to say that what Jesus said in Matthew 15:24 was a lie when He said "I've come not but for the Lost tribes of Israel" was a lie but for Gentiles too, and the fact of the matter is if Jesus didn't mean what he said when he said that then he was not the spotless sacrifice on the cross for our sins. You would also have to say what Paul said in Romans 15:8 and 16 was a lie as well as Paul made it very clear that Jesus ministry was for the circumcised (The Jews) Paul said his ministry was for the GENTILES in verse 16. I rest my case. This is why 2 Timothy chapter 2 verse 15 says...Study to show yourself approved of God a workman not ashamed rightly dividing the word of God. Also Paul said in an Ephesians chapter 3 that there was a revelation of a mystery of a DISPENSATION ( meaning change of requirements) of Grace revealed to him to give to the Gentiles, these dispensations are described in Hebrews 1:1 that says At Sundry times God chose different ways in how to deal with people through his prophets. The evidence of dispensation theology is therefore irrefutable.

I TRY to not cuss.

I obey because Im saved and know Jesus is living His law out in me, not to be saved.

You are being to nice, Dispensationalism does enormous violence to the simplicity and efficacy of the gospel on many points. We can not embrace the essence of the gospel and then deny it at the same time which is what Dispensationalism does.

I believe that God created us to enjoy the pleasure of ever increasing love with us forever. To know Him completely means to know His love completely, and that cannot be known without Him expressing that love to us through redemption. So, I disagree that the purpose of the Bible is the glorification of God at all. I am persuaded that the purpose of reality, and of scripture, is revelation. He did not create us to redeem us to glorify Himself. That would be egomaniacal. He created us to enjoy sharing love with us, and he let us fall so He could redeem us so He could reveal to us the fullness and depth of His love. God is love. God is not glory.

This should be interesting. I do not know what "reformed" is in contrast to dispensationalist. I studied on my own from an exclusively Biblical perspective, by which I mean I took a fresh Gideon's Bible and a highlighter, and went Genesis to Revelation marking all passages that had anything whatsoever to do with eschatological prophesy. Then, having completed that, I went through all the highlight passages looking for portions (verses and passages) that taught individual things that had only one possible meaning. For example, if a symbolic passage may have indicated that Jesus either was, or was not, coming back (no, there is no such passage to my knowledge, hence a great non-example to show the method), and another that clearly said Jesus is coming back, and that passage could mean absolutely nothing but that Jesus was, in fact, coming back, the first passage had to conform to the second passage. After that first list was compiled, I went back with my skeleton of doctrine and identified passages that had two possible meanings, and crossed out the ones that were not a logical option within the framework of the first list. And on and on until I was finished. Then I wrote my conclusions down in a book. No, it was not published. I wrote it for one purpose. So my wife and I could stop bickering over eschatology. LOL And, it worked.

When you ask God for forgiveness how do you know you sinned? Isn't the law showing you that you sinned? How do you show God you love Him? Obeying His commandments. Even God says that. Of course the law does not save you, but when God judges people He will put His law in front, there is no judgement without the law. Jesus fulfilled it but not abolished it. Someone might think they are ok with doing bad things if they are performed out of a misunderstood love. There must be something showing you the sins, otherwise why should you ask for forgiveness? Jesus is the only One that saves you through His supreme sacrifice. By faith, grace and love. "Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." Even the devils believe and tremble. So, law, faith, works, love are cooperating .

I have heard both use and studied both views over the decades. Ultimately, I see covenant theology as spiritualizing the text which did not come about until Augustine. But I also reject that extreme Literalism that has come about from the dispensational point of view. Both views have issues. The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but we need to be careful when we try to determine God's intention when he wrote the scriptures. The scripture says that godly men wrote the scripture as they were carried along by the spirit. Therefore, We need to take the author's words at face value, Unless the text requires us to spiritualize it or read as an allegory. Covenant theology too often takes it to that point, Where we make the history of israel as a mere parenthese in the grand story of God's redemption.I think you are sincere, but I believe to be sincerely wrong. God's creation is always about His glory. Redemption is one of the ways He glorifies Himself, but the scripture reminds us that the whole earth is filled with His glory. Every encounter with God shows He is awesome. Even Jesus when He was transfiguration was seen as glorious. That is the problem I have with Covenant theology, and why I am a progressive dispensationalist. But I also reject a pre trib rapture also.

Biblicism is a good thing. They don't tend to that, they tend away from that and ignore parts of scripture in an attempt to claim dispensational teaching. It isn't in scripture, it isn't in the early church, it isn't in the fathers but they will find it anyway.

Maybe I'm wrong but I'm glad to not be part of a denomination. Every back-and-forth in this comment section seems to be fodder to me. I'm neither for nor against dispensation. If talking to a Christian, they'll say what their denomination teaches. Scripture to the contrary is dismissed as it doesn't apply to them (and/ or me). They will say that James isn't written to me. Hebrews isn't written to me. The parts of any of the 4 gospels contrary to their beliefs is not written to me, but to someone else. I quickly quip back, then none of it applies to me. I'm not a Thessalonian, therefore Thessalonians does not apply to me. There's no letter of Paul to the Americans so nothing applies to me. If Matthew 18 doesn't apply to me, then no other chapter applies to me either. If there's a benefit for not being denominational is that I have no indoctrination that I am loyal to. From here I could write a book on how in both cases, I'm right and wrong not to participate in church, or maybe I do participate (even though I don't attend) , maybe both are true. There are so many caveats. Yet the confidence of those in error is exceedingly. It all seems like fodder.