 What is the greatest threat to Christians today? You may wanna say that it is worldliness. In other words, Christians who live like the world, inviting the world into them, accepting certain things or cultural standards that the world believes it's okay, but the Bible calls it sin, inviting that in, embracing that. That is a danger, but it's not the most dangerous. You may then wanna say, well, it's gotta be sin. Because a Christian who lives in sin, well, that's a danger. Well, no, because Christians don't live in sin. We are told that those who are of God, we don't live a lifestyle of sin. Then you will say, well, then it's gotta be bad doctrine from doctrines that teach or distort the deity of Christ or doctrines that promote prosperity. All these different doctrines that are out there, it's gotta be it. Well, no, it's not that either. The number one threat, or the greatest danger to Christianity or Christians is bad hermeneutics. In other words, how you read the Bible, the method that you use to interpret scriptures. The reason why that's the greatest threat is because that leads to all the other three. If you have bad doctrine, it's because you have a poor hermeneutic. If you think that sin is okay and can be washed away just with a Hail Mary or whatever, it's because of poor hermeneutics. If you think that we should embrace certain cultural norms, it's because you have poor hermeneutics. A person with poor hermeneutics, a person who does not know how to read the Bible and is not governed by certain rules and is not governed by a strict reading of the word of God, that's the kind of person that would take off with all their energy and run into something they don't know is there. I saw something that really, really, really, really bothered me. Now you know guys that I kind of get a little bothered when I see certain heretical teachings that gets to me. I have no patience for it. And so if I see something that's wrong, a wolf or anything like that, I'm gonna warn the flock. But I saw something that bothered me even more than that. Even more than seeing people engaged and just outright sin, but more than that. Worldliness, same thing. What I saw, and let me just go ahead and caution you all, warn some of you guys that I might touch some of your idols here. Now I don't mean that you're actual idols. Some folks that you look up to, people that you think that are, they're pretty solid. And guess what? I think that these men are actually pretty solid in the scriptures as well, that they are, I believe all of them are Christian, that I respect them. But they said some things that just got me going. I told you before that when it comes to hermeneutics, especially the hermeneutic that I employ, that I'm going to forcefully defend that hermeneutic because it's the only one that is consistent. I don't like a hermeneutic. I believe that you open yourself up for all sorts of traps, pitfalls, if you have no consistency in how you read the scriptures. Because if you don't, depending on how you feel today or who you heard preach, how touched you were by a song or by a person, you can change. Now, I'm not advocating you come to a particular conclusion. You can come to whatever conclusion you want to. But I'm like a school teacher. I wanna see your work. I wanna see how you got there. And if you had a consistent hermeneutic, in other words, the way that you read the Bible is consistently all the way through, then amen, because you might even show me something. But if you read it differently this way, that way, that way, then you can be all over the place. Again, I don't care about the conclusion that you come to. As a matter of fact, folks that have the same hermeneutic that I have, they've got different conclusions as well. They have different understandings, which is fine. Which is fine. But if you are going to start saying things that aren't backed up by scriptures, and I'm gonna show you some things that they stated some things that just aren't backed up by scriptures. So I don't want you all to think that I am too disrespectful to these people that I don't have an issue with any of them. I do not have an issue whatsoever. But you all know that I have a dispensational hermeneutic. That doesn't mean that I am necessarily dispensational. However, if you call me dispensational, I don't have a problem with that. I've never told anyone that has called me dispensational, that I am not a dispensationalist. I've never said that. Though I don't call myself one. If you call me a Calvinist, I say no, I'm not a Calvinist, but if that's what floats you both, then amen. If you call me a Harmonian, whatever. If you wanna call me whatever, that's fine. But I'll tell you my method in reading the scripture. I read the scripture with a literal, grammatical, historical understanding. It's consistent. The way I read Genesis, all the way through the revelations. I'll let the scripture say what it says. That means though that I'm also open for figures of speech, metaphors, and similes and so forth. I understand that there are different genres in writing and so forth. But guess what? No one communicates in all of these different genres. No one communicates in metaphors. No one communicates in poetry. No, you might employ it for a portion of what you're saying, but the overall meat of what you're saying is a literal historical, grammatical harmony. We all, all throughout the history of time, that's what every civilization has utilized because it has to be some way that we understand each other. Now, I don't have a problem if you disagree with what I just stated, but when you distort it and you come up with these different things, ah, we got a problem, we got a problem. And so Houston, we got a problem. I wanna play a clip. I'm gonna play a bunch of clips from three men and I want you to see where I'm coming from. And you tell me, when I show these clips, you tell me as we're going through this, you show me where the scriptural references they have that they have employed here. A radical two kingdom theology, I think is number one, I think it's the worst. Second, dispensationalism, anti-covenant theology. I think dispensationalism, that's second on. Now, Joel Webman, who I do respect, is stating what he thinks are some of the five biggest dangers to Christianity. Now, he puts dispensationalism and also a dispensational hermeneutic up there with, if you heard what he's saying, this issue of complementarianism and egalitarianism. So you mean to tell me that the roles and functions of women and men in the church is right up there with, or dispensationalism or dispensational hermeneutic is right up there with that, really. And if you heard the other things that he mentioned, it's kind of an insult, but that's fine. He's more than welcome to have that understanding. I would love to have a conversation with him and ask him this one thing when he starts making some of these assertions, I'm gonna ask you to show me the scriptures. We all say that we let the scripture speak for themselves. We all say that. However, that's not a hermeneutic. And I would even ask you guys, even those that might even disagree, I see one in the chat that disagrees. So I'm gonna ask you right now why you're in the chat disagreeing, type in what your hermeneutic is. Don't give a bland hermeneutic that my hermeneutic, my way of interpreting scriptures is I just read what it says in the later, that's not a hermeneutic, that's not describing it. I've told you what mine is, you all tell me what yours is, because I can promise you this, the overwhelming majority of Christians in America or on the planet have not defined what their hermeneutic is. In other words, they have not determined, even to themselves, how shall I read the scriptures? How shall I be consistent? How do I know I'm going off the track? How do I know I'm not leaning to my own understanding? How do I know I'm not leaning to this preacher? This preacher gave us wonderful sermon. How do I know that he is not the one that moved me? Because oftentimes the church you grew up with, the seminary that you might have went to, the Bible school you went to, that's what determines how you read the scriptures and what you believe. But you've got to have your own hermeneutical method. And so I take a literal view of the scripture because guess what, I found out through trial and error, through living, through life experience, we're not trustworthy. We're not smart, we're not clever. We don't have the ability to delve into any deeper meanings. And so if God gives you a meaning that's under the scriptures, it's hard for us to find it. As a matter of fact, in doing so, we'll come up with all sorts of understandings. And so what he's saying is that dispensational hermeneutic is one of the worst things that we have going on in the church. Joel Webbin, I would love to have you come on here and say that almost like I'm back in prison. Say it to my face, I don't mean it in that way. But I would love to have him give a defense because what he does oftentimes is, this is what most folks do, they'll speak to people in the same category and you feel better around those folks that believe the same way. And so I would love to have you account for why you think that dispensational hermeneutic is up there with some of the worst things that are happening in the church body. On my list of most dangerous, then I put complementarianism. This is a serious issue, dispensationalism and non-dispensationalism are coming with theology. There's three issues. We've talked about one, it's eschatology and the eschatological timeframe. The other is this two peoples of God. And it ends up being two ways of salvation. It ends up being this bifurcation of the testaments. So that sharp distinction between Israel and the church rather than understanding one person of God or the one people of God rather. The third issue is just reading the Bible. And here's fundamentally the problem with dispensationalism. There are the parts that matter are the epistles. Now, I wanna hear what he just said. He says the parts that matter are the epistles. As far as he's concerned, he's got this issue with dispensational hermeneutics. The parts that matter are the epistles. And then let's listen to what he says are the parts that don't quite matter. And the parts that we sort of pick and choose from are the gospels in the Old Testament. And so that's, I think, the real Achilles' heel here. We can get hung up on the eschatological calendars and the differences. But I think what we need to see is this is not a healthy way. A dispensational theology and a dispensational hermeneutic is not a healthy way to read the Bible. So my question's gonna be before we continue. My question's gonna be why is it not a healthy way? Because for most of the scriptures that you read, you employ, he himself as well as Joel employs a dispensational type of hermeneutic. They read it in the literal grammatical hermeneutic, in the literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. How do I know? Because when you ask someone, now he's reformed, when you ask, and all of them are reformed, when you ask them, how do you know that Jesus died on the cross? And how do you know that he was dead and in the grave for three days? You know what they employ? A literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. How do you know that Jesus is God? How do you, what's your basis for believing the Trinity? All these things they come up with that they believe election and so forth is based off of a literal grammatical historical hermeneutic. In other words, the same sort of hermeneutic I employ is how they get their understanding. It's just on other things that I'm gonna show you guys that they're more selfish in nature, that they're more me-focused to kind of come to a particular conclusion. I'll make my conclusion be how I interpret the scriptures. You're gonna see that in just a little bit, but I would love to have him tell me, tell me why that my hermeneutic, which by the way, if you've never heard me talk about the new covenant, if you've never heard me talk about the end times and so forth, you would think that maybe, maybe I have the same hermeneutic, but it's just on these things that we differ from that makes it dangerous. I'd like to see you, sir. Okay, so thinking theologically for a moment, Black Hebrew, Israelized, would they be in like a dispensational kind of vein? So when I think of dispensationalism, I think of two tracks, right? That ethnic Israel, national Israel is still in full effect today. God still has a covenant with Israel. There are certain land promises, physical promises that are still yet to be fulfilled and will be fulfilled. Now, before I continue, Joel is having a conversation with someone that you may know also, Chris Williams, and they're talking about Black Hebrew Israelites. Now that kind of bothered me a little bit. The reason why is because you're comparing a dispensational hermeneutic as being synonymous with the Black Hebrew Israelites. Really, of course I've got a response to that. I think that's disingenuous. I think that's disingenuous. I think that's, it's kind of a low blow, but it's okay, listen, I can handle it, but I'm going to respond to that part in just a little bit. For Israel, now that's not my disposition. That's not where I'm at. I would hold to a 1689 federalism, a reform Baptist covenantalism. So I'm going to look and I'm going to say that the church is true Israel. So now remember that he says the church is true Israel. We're going to deal with that. As a matter of fact, we're going to debunk that. Again, I would love to have, I don't think that he's afraid to have a debate with someone. So I would love to have him have a conversation with me and explain to me and let's use the scriptures. I want to find the scripture that you use to come up with this idea that the church is the new Israel. Anyone that's watching this video or anyone in the chat, I want you to go and find your scriptures to tell me, tell us, tell the world how the church is a new Israel. Find the scripture for that. Since you say that you let the scriptures determine what you believe, I would love to see this. So would they be covenantal or would they be dispensational because the dispensational person is going to say, nobody's replaced Israel. There's Israel and then the church has come alongside Israel. And so there's promises to the church and there are promises to Israel, spiritual promises to the church, physical promises to Israel and all those of ethnic Israel are welcome through faith to join the church and receive those spiritual promises in addition to these land promises. But basically it's this parentheses that all of a sudden we're in this pause moment in the last days. But Jesus is going to come back and he's going to inaugurate his millennial kingdom here on earth and he's literally going to rule from the throne of David and Israel, ethnic Israel is going to inherit certain physical promises. Whereas I would say, no, the church has replaced Israel replacement theology just for the record is really a derogatory term that dispensationalists came up with. He said it's a derogatory term but he literally just said they have replaced Israel which is why people say replacement theology. And granted it is derogatory because I think it should be taken derogatory because you're trying to say that you are replacing Israel but you yourself literally, literally just said that. I would look at it more as fulfillment theology or it's really just covenant theology. And the word I would use is fulfilled that Israel was fulfilled in the church, in the church, but for the black Hebrew Israelite, it sounds like they're like, well they're not dispensationalists but it sounds like they're like all the very worst parts about dispensation, like they would say that there are still physical land promises and national Israel is still a thing and still in covenant with the Lord and nobody, there is no second. So dispensationalist two buildings, covenant theology is all into one building and for them it would be one building but it's still Israel and everybody else is in trouble. Yeah, just think like dispensationalism hyperized. Yeah, that's the opposite of what we would say because we would say, start with the New Testament that's shedding light on the Old Testament. They're not pitted against one another. There's a perfect unity to the Old and the New Testament but I can't remember what theologian was but he said the Old Testament is like a richly furnished room but the lighting is dim and Christ especially in the apostolic writings is the light that reveals the richness of this room. And so we would look at the New Testament in order to understand more fully the promises and the messianic prophecies in the Old. Okay, so I have a question then, I've got a question. If you think, and this is how, again, you start with the conclusion and then work your way through the Bible. So when you do that and you come up with this idea that the New Testament is where you start and the New Testament illuminates the Old Testament. Well, someone needs to go tell God that. Someone needs to go tell God that. As a matter of fact, 1689 in Baptist, you said God divorced Israel. They're gonna play that, they're gonna talk about that. 1689 in Baptist, I want you to find the passage that tells us that God divorced Israel. I know where you're gonna go but I want you to put in the chats where God divorced Israel. I'm gonna show you that that is absolutely poor reading. Forget poor hermeneutics, but just poor reading. We're gonna deal with that. We're gonna deal with this issue of God divorcing Israel. And if you wanna know, some of you guys wanna know where he's coming from, he's speaking of Jeremiah chapter 12. We're gonna go there and then we're gonna actually read the passage because I don't want you to just take my word for it because on this channel, what we're always gonna do is let the scriptures as folks say that all the time, we'll let the scriptures guide us. We're gonna do that and we're gonna have a literal, grammatical, historical, hermeneutical view of this. And then we're gonna see if God actually does or did divorce Israel. Now, there's a fundamental, even though they say they've studied it, there's a fundamental misunderstanding of dispensation of hermeneutics. Now I'm gonna talk about dispensation lists. There are different types of dispensation lists. They're different types. And one of the greater seminaries that we have here in America happens to be here in Dallas. One of, as a matter of fact, two of my mentors are from there. One of them was a professor and that's Dallas Theological Seminary. That happens to be a dispensational seminary. Tindale seminary is a dispensational seminary and so forth. There's different types. You have revised and so forth. You have the traditional and so forth. You have progressive. Now I won't get into the different types of dispensation lists there are because I'm not advocating you to be a particular type of dispensations or whatever. I'm just saying the hermeneutics that I employ, you need to have one as well. Whatever you have, it needs to be consistent. So it's not a, he says it's not a healthy, the other gentleman said it's not a healthy way to read the scriptures well. So what's a better way? Is it a better way to allegorize the text? Is it a better way to just figure out what you think it means? I had a conversation with a person the other day who completely allegorized the text, who wanted to tell us what he thought or what he felt or his experience led him to believe, but the text is a text. It's the reason why God gave it to us because that's the standard by which we should judge what God is doing. And so if I said that your replacement theology is what was embraced by, because he stated that and they made, and even Chris said that it's a hyper dispensationalism, if I said, if I said that you guys covenant, covenantal theology, or as I would say, your replacement theology is the reason why is a theology that was embraced by anti-Semites, would I be wrong? If I said that replacement theology was one of the roots behind the Holocaust, would I be wrong? If I said replacement theology was one of the reasons why Jews were oppressed and attacked, even if today, here in America, would I be wrong? I would not because it was some of the things that were, if you go back and look at history, these were some of the things that were talked about amongst folks to kind of go against the Jewish community. That Jesus, though he was Jew, he was killed by Jews. And so it's that God has rejected them in favor of us. Well, who's the us? Us good God fearing American Christian, us good God fearing Western Christians. And so God has a design a plan for us, not Israel anymore. Well, we got a problem with that. Again, I want to see your scriptures. Now, by the way, that you wouldn't be able to say that I was wrong. There's some facts in that. There's some facts in that. But to say that the Hebrew Israelites employ almost a dispensational hermeneutic. No, that part is wrong. That part is wrong. But I'll leave that alone. There's also this view amongst their camp that dispensationalism and a dispensational hermeneutic is new, which is I think is kind of ironic. Why do I say that? Any of you all out in the chat are any of you Calvinists? Are any of you Calvinists out there? Are any of you reformed? 1689 Baptist, we're going on that passage, but my question, are any of you reformed? Are any of you Calvinists? If so, your critics are gonna tell you that your view is relatively new. Now, by the way, I think that is a ridiculous argument to ever throw up that your doctrine or your doctrine of view is relatively new. I'm not talking about in the gamut of all Orthodox Christianity in evangelical Christianity. No, because what was the dominant force in Christianity or the church, the body, for the longest portion of the history? Can someone tell me who dominated or what dominated, especially Western Christianity, Western theology for most of our existence, the Catholic church? So whatever their doctrine was, whatever that theology was, tended to be the dominant. And obviously we've got the reformation and so forth and we've got people moving away from that who understood right from wrong. But to deal with this issue, I'm gonna let them bring it up first about this issue of dispensationalism or dispensational hermeneutics being new. There is a long history of interpreting this book that has existed long before dispensationalism ever came on the scenes in the 1800s. Let me reiterate, the 1800s is when dispensationalism came on the scene. You've got historic or classical premillennialism and you've also got dispensational premillennialism, a perspective that didn't exist within the entire history of the church until the 19th century. In other words, never came to the mind of a Christian before then. But you do have some historic examples of premillennial thought within Christian orthodoxy. And you know what? I still love Vody. As a matter of fact, I told you before, I've had the occasion to meet him a couple of times was at our church. His family members went to our church and so love Vody Bacchum. But he said it's new. He said the 1800s. Jeff said that no Christian previously had that thought. Let's see if we can... Now, if you've been on this channel before, you know that I've got rid of this thought you should never, ever in your mouth, ever let it come out that dispensationalism or dispensational thought or hermeneutic is new. Let's go back to where it started. How about Justin Martel? Let's see what Justin Martel said. He says several economies of the Old Testament. By the way, the word for dispensationalism comes from the word despatio. It's a Latin term. It's a Latin interpretation of the Greek word, a koinimia, which is a stewardship or economy. And so Justin Martel says, several economies in the Old Testament believed in a literal 1000. These are the words from Justin Martel. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do believe that Justin Martel existed and lived before Calvinism did, before there was a reform movement. I might be wrong. I might be wrong. Look what he says, but this is a quote from Justin Martel. But if so great a power is shown to have followed and to be still following the dispensation of his suffering, how great shall that be which shall follow his glorious advent for he shall come on the clouds as the son of man. So Daniel foretold and his angels will come with him. That's in a dialogue with trifle. That's from Justin Martel. That seems to predate anything that he believes in. Now, Papias or Hierapolis. Papias is a, and this is interesting. This is a matter of fact, it's important. He is a disciple of John. What John? John the one on Patmos, the apostle John, the one who wrote the book of John, first, second and third John, the one who wrote Revelation. Look what he says. Also a counterpart of Polycarp. He says in these, he says there would be a certain millennium after the resurrection that there would be a corporal reign of Christ on this very earth, which things he appears to have imagined as they were authorized by the apostolic nations, not understanding correctly those matters which they propounded mystically in the representation. He was dispensational. Now, not saying that he was right or wrong, but do not say that it is very new. Don't say that this predated, it predated Calvinism. Not saying that that means anything, but again, you cannot use that argument that it's very new. Who are also Iranians? By the way, Iranians is very important. We're gonna talk about him in just a second about something that Jeff Durbin brings up and he brings this up because there's this movement to make Revelation to mean that Revelation was written earlier than around 90 AD. I'll tell you why and about that in just a second, but also we've got some people who named John Bale, who lived from 1495 to 1563. He was dispensational in his hermeneutic. Joseph Mead from 1586 to 1635 dispensational. Isaac Watts, 1674 to 1748 dispensational. So it's not something that came around in the late in the 1900s or the 1800s. This isn't new, this has been there. But the problem was, and here's the reason why you would see it had fallen more out of favor because what people tried to do was they wanted to kind of help God out. Well, Lord, we see your prophecies and we see that all your prophecies had, especially concerning Israel, had been fulfilled literally. So the question's gotta be, Lord, how could that possibly be? Since there is no more Israel, there is no more land for Israel, there is no more nation of Israel. So how could that possibly be? Well, let's help God out. He must have meant that we are the new Israel. And so we're gonna have a problem with that. But again, the reason how they come up with that is, I think it's a lack of trust in the scriptures. The scriptures are clear. What he says, he meant. If God, God is not trying to trick us and God knows how fickle we are in our mind. What God wants us to believe, he would simply say it. He didn't have to mean something. He says what he means and means what he says. That's God. If anybody fits that, that is God and he does. But this bad hermeneutical style, this allegory that's employed here by these, I think these are great men of God. I really do, I really do. But they make this grave error. And the problem is, in doing so, and I'll talk about this later as well, but in doing so, you can find yourself just like the charismatic, just like the Pentecostal, just like the word of faith people, the NAR people, just like the New Age people. Because you can take the scriptures and say, well, to me, this means that. Or I see this meaning that. Well, God didn't want you doing that. He didn't, God does not, this might be a news flash. God has no confidence in your ability to think. He just doesn't. So anyway, something that Vodibachem said, and I'm sorry, Brother Vodib, but I have to call you to the carpet on this one. You all may remember, Vodibachem was on this guy who I think is just, he's horrible, Rashad Ritchie. He was on his broadcast and he was talking about Black Lives Matter and so forth, whatever, but I don't wanna focus on that. I wanna talk about something that Vodibachem says and let's see if Vodibachem is guilty of doing what he's claiming this guy's doing. You completely misused that text. The parable is one of three parables that were told together. The lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son. The emphasis there is on the fact that the Pharisees did not celebrate when individuals came to faith in Christ. How did I misuse the text? You misused the text because you allegorized the text in order to pour your meaning into it when Jesus very clearly used that text in order to say something very specific. Now, listen to what he said. He accused, and the guy did, by the way, allegorize the text. This was the parable, this is Jesus leaving the 99 for the one and he was correct. He allegorized the text to make it mean what he wanted to say. Now, I did hear this. I'm not gonna even give the personal proper credit. I even told him that I was gonna use this. I was gonna use his quote as my own. Let me just go ahead and put the quote up because I think it's a good quote and I want to be the one from now on known known for this quote. I didn't know what I put the double quote at. And I'm sitting and laughing at this thing because the guy is going to, he's here watching it but I don't care. Let me just say what the quote is. And this is true. Tell me if this is not true with a lot of people and I think this is even true here with Vody and with Jeff. These words don't mean anything to them until it means something to them. Words don't mean anything to them until it means something to them. Meaning that these words don't mean what you see that they mean until I say it means this because it means what I wanted to mean. I can take the words and for the majority, and now I'll give them this, for the majority of scriptures I think that they are sound and they are consistent. It's just certain parts where they get inconsistent and I think because they've adopted a particular doctrine which is fine that doctrine also leads them to believing that Israel has been replaced by the church and where the new Israel and so forth. Again, Vody, by the way, you'll notice that when we talk about this you won't see any passages about this new Israel or the church being the new Israel. You won't see that but we'll get to there in a second. So let's go back to Vody. You don't get to change what he meant by that. What was this everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt? What's? Now, by the way, before he is covering Daniel 12. I want you, we're gonna listen to him and then we're gonna say what he, we're gonna look at what he's talking about and go to Daniel 12 and let's see if Vody is guilty of, if he is guilty of allegorizing the text. If you don't see this on this passage then start coming to the Bible studies. What's being referred to here? Who are your people? Your people are the people of God. Daniel's people are the people of God. There are some people who are ethnic Jews with him in Babylon who are less his people than you and I are. They weren't really Daniel's people at all. Okay, so let's, before we get back to him, let's go to Daniel 12 and let's pull up and see who Daniel's people are. Now, don't confuse this. Daniel has his people that he's talking about and he's speaking of his people being people of God but that doesn't mean that Gentiles who are believers are not also people. It's not to say that the believing Jews are the only people of God. That's not, and I think that's, maybe there's a little bit of jealousy employed here. I don't know, a little envy. Hey, we're your people too. Well, yeah, we are, but this is not who Daniel is speaking. Let's go to the passage. Daniel 12, one, at that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charged of your people. Now, who do you all think, I love to put it, I wanna see you all in chess. I want you guys to participate with me. Who do you all think he's talking about Daniel 12 about his people? Do you think he means non-Jews? Do you think he's talking about the rest of the people? Daniel is clearly speaking of Israel. Let's go back to it. And there shall be a time of trouble such as never been since the nation, since there was a nation till that time. So he's saying there's gonna be a problem, there's gonna be a trouble such as never been seen till that time. He's speaking of Israel. He's speaking about Jacob's trouble, which is clearly for Israel. Let's keep going. But at that time, your people shall be delivered. Who's his people? Again, he's speaking of Israel. He's not talking about us. We've gotta get out of the habit of thinking that everything is about us. That's our big issue. We think a lot, it's gotta be about me. It's all about me. It's why I gotta, Lord, you gotta bless with a new car, a new house, I need a new husband by four o'clock. I need a new look. It's all about me. Bless me, bless. Matter of fact, oftentimes you see in a lot of our songs that we sing, it's about me. Do this for me, guy. You've done this for me, do it some more, right? But it's not about us in this case. It's about Israel. Now, he's gonna, it's not like that he's not dealing with us. He is gonna deal with us. But again, let's go to it. You said so, but at that time, your people shall be delivered. Everyone whose name shall be found written in the book. Now, interestingly enough, he's speaking of Israel who has been elect. All of those names of Jews, will whose names have been written in the book? By the way, by the way, I've got a question for you Calvinist folks. Again, I've been called Calvinist. So obviously I'm not an enemy of Calvinism or my reformed brothers. But I've got a question for you that you're gonna have to answer. And you're gonna have to stop this. You're gonna have to stop acting like that you are included in Israel as though God has just, I'm through with them. They are afterthought to us. No, they're not an afterthought to us. God can chew, what do we say? Can walk and chew them at the same time? Well, certainly God can do that, right? So let's go back to the passage. He says verse, in number two, I'm sorry, verse two, and many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt. He could not be talking here about Gentiles. He could not be because when Gentiles became part of the church, when they died, they went immediately heaven. Old Testament saints, when they died, they went to the grave to wait for Jesus' death bearer resurrection and then his ascension. He could not be, according to the text, he could not be talking to Gentiles. Let's continue. And those who are wise shall shine like the brightness of sky above and those who turn away, I mean, turn many to righteousness like the stars for everybody. You Daniel, shut up the words and seal the book until the time of end. Many shall run to and fro and knowledge shall increase. So I don't think there's any way to look at this other than he's speaking about Israel, but let's continue. Let's hear what else Vody has to say. Then those who were with him, here's Daniel in Babylon with other ethnic Jews. And there are some of those about whom this statement is true. You and I, who are not ethnic Jews are more his people than those who were with him in Babylon at that time. Why? Because if they were not gods by faith, if they did not belong to God by faith, they weren't really Daniel's people at all. Got a problem with that? Were you gonna say that? Okay, because what he's doing is he's taking after the cross who's God's people are and conflating that with this passage. This text is not this granted. I am part of God's people. You believers are part of God. You are God's people. But that's not who he's talking about. As a matter of fact, he's not even talking about God's people. Overall, he's talking about your people. As a matter of fact, he says your people, Daniel. He's speaking of Jews. This is an issue that I have because if you're gonna read it that way and read it how you wanna read it, then you can come to any conclusion and then let you be the arbiter of what's right and what's wrong instead of the scriptures. But you and I, who belong to him by faith, are Daniel's people. And so Michael is not just in this picture where you read it and flesh it out. There is this coming for the people of God. This is not just coming for Israel. Yeah, it's coming for the Israel of God. The church of Jesus Christ, amen. But this is not just about one particular ethnic and geopolitical people group. Yes it is, yes it is. I need you to tell me how Daniel, first of all, if Daniel or Ezekiel or Jeremiah or in the Old Testament prophets, if they're not speaking about, now remember, they had a greater relationship, a greater connection or a visitation, so to speak, more than we all do. He would agree that he's not a prophet and he didn't speak directly with God. He would agree that he's not that way but he would agree that Daniel did. He would agree that Isaiah did, that Jeremiah did, that Ezekiel did. He would agree with that. And so why is it that you have the ability to understand the foresight to know who he's talking about but none of them did? They never thought of what, nope, their prayers were for Israel. That's when Daniel's gonna prophesy. Daniel's already prophesied, as a matter of fact. Daniel is, this is during the exile and the 70 years is almost up and Daniel is prayed. What about my people, Lord? It's about time and so he comes and he gives an answer about your people. 70 weeks have been decreed for who? Not for us, but for his people. Vody, this is very easy. Unless you wanted to say what you wanted to say. Well then that would put you in the camp of the charismatic Pentecostal word of faith because I wanted to say what I wanted to say in the words no longer have meaning because it doesn't fit my document narrative. But isn't this what we read in Romans chapter nine verses 16 to 13? But it is not as though the word of God has failed for not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel. And not all. Now, who are we talking? We covered this some time ago. We covered this when we dealt with Romans nine to 11 that Paul takes a break and says, you know what? Everyone is being saved but I've got this issue with my people. Let's put it on the screen for a second. Let's go to Daniel nine. As a matter of fact, let's start in verse one. I'm speaking the truth in Christ. I'm not lying in my consciousness. Let's move down. Here's what he says in verse three. He says, for I could wish that I myself were a curse and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Who is he talking about? Is he talking about all of God's people? No, he's talking specifically about Israel. He says they are it. We know he's talking about Israel because he said, look what he says. He says they are Israelites. And to them, to who? Who to them? Israelites, Israel, the Jews. To them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the laws, and the worship of the promises. Who do the covenants belong to? Israel. I didn't write that. Paul wrote that. Paul said that. And he's speaking literally of Israel. So when Vody comes back and says that he's talking about all of us collecting, he literally pointed out and segueed not with just everyone who's being saved, but I've got an issue, a problem with Israel not being saved. And then he goes on and say, well, were God's promises for Israel? Have they failed? No, they haven't failed. As a matter of fact, he's gonna say what God is doing with Israel. He's put Israel on the shelf until the fullness of the Gentiles, and we talked about this, how right now he's dealing with the church, the Gentile church, or Gentile spirit, they're Jews coming in. So everyone who's coming in now, for the most part, they're Gentiles. Because a spirit of stupor by God has been given and put on Israel. God did that. Why? To deal with us. And it wasn't a new covenant dealing because he didn't make the covenant with us. Cause I would love for someone who believes that the new covenant is with Gentiles. Tell me when did God, or when did someone say that it was with the Gentiles? Because we see him speaking specifically to Jews on all the other covenants, and he says what he's gonna do. So I would love for someone to say, when did, when did he make this covenant to the Gentiles? When did he say you Gentile person or you Gentile folks, this is with you? I would love for you to show me that passage. Now, because he made it with them, that didn't mean that he's forgotten about you. Because he's got a promise with the Jews, they were the ones that broke the old covenant. So he's gotta have a new covenant for them. They were the ones that broke it, and so now he's got a new one. We don't need the new covenant, cause we didn't break the old covenant. He's got something, he's got, he's already had a plan for us. Since he's already had a plan for us, stop worrying about what he, you know what it really is? It's almost like you got a sibling, your sibling gets something, and you're like, what, what about mine? Where's my, you know, you know what it really reminds me of? It reminds me of the prodigal son. The prodigal son comes back, and the brother that was always there, well, wait, what, what, what about me? Yeah, guys, it's not always about you. It's not always a votey. It ain't about you, brother. Not on this one. Let's continue. The children of Abraham because they are his offspring, but through Isaac shall your offspring be named. This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are children of God, but the children of the promise according to the promise are counted as offspring. The children of the promise are counted as offspring. The others are not counted as offspring. Who belongs to God? Who are God's people? Those by faith are God's people. And so when Paul is speaking about that, these children of the offspring, those by faith, which people specifically? Paul has literally brought in view Israel. Those are the ones he's talking about. He's not talking about you, Vody. He's not talking about me. He's talking about the rest of us Gentiles. That's already taken care of. Paul's concern now is with ethnic genetic Israel. Those of the nation of Israel. That's who he's talking of. And he's saying that those who are really true Jews, they will have faith. When are they gonna have faith? Well, once I'm through with dealing with the Gentiles, my focus will come off of them and will then go to Israel. This all goes in bam, bam, bam, bam, in just a sequential order. It lines up if we read the scriptures in their intended way in a literal fashion. Now we know in Romans 11, he says that Paul even says, 1125, that when the fullness of the Gentiles comes, so after that, then he will deal with Israel. And you don't wanna be here when he deals with Israel. He does not want to deal with Israel. So, I mean, we don't wanna be here when he's dealing with Israel. Now, I wanna bring up this point though when they keep talking about this whole issue of the new church. The new church. The new church. I wanna know where does the Bible talk about this new Israel? That's what I wanna know. Again, words don't mean anything to them until they mean something to them. Well, you do not wanna have that as your hermeneutical stance. You don't, they've got to mean the same thing from Genesis to how do we know that God created the earth in six days? Cause it said so. You can allegorize that, you can spiritualize that and say, well, did he really mean six days? Because you know, another past says that one day is like a thousand years. Well, that's spiritualized. We're gonna take this that has nothing to do with, by the way, when we start talking about the millennium, ain't granted the millennium is not mentioned a lot. It's not. But can you all tell me one time in the Bible? Just, I would love, I would drop this right now if you'll tell me one time in the Bible where God uses a number and he didn't mean that number. I'll wait. Somebody please tell me where God gives a number and didn't mean that number. I just meant just kind of their abouts. Roughly, that's not the guy that we serve. But now they keep bringing up this issue of new Israel. So let's hear them say it. Do I think we ought to hate Israel? No. Do I think we ought to love them because they're Israel? No. Cause I believe that the church is the true, real, new Israel, Jew and Gentile alike. And that those people over there and that piece of land over there, they don't have eschatological significance to me. The vast majority. Now, before I get to there, I got to drink some water. No, no, no, no, no, Vody, I got to drink some coffee. Because you said those people have no significance to you. You mean to tell me, now listen. First of all, we have to be, listen, if Marcus Riders is wrong, I'll call them out on that. If Isaiah is south of Israel, I'll call them out, T.D. Jakes is wrong. I'll call them out if Creflo Dollar or Bideon, if they're wrong, I will call them out. I've got to do the same thing for my dear brother, Vody. You mean to tell me you don't think that there is no, nothing special about Israel? Let me tell you how you know he's wrong. And you guys will know this from the Bible study classes, what we've been covering this. Why was Israel the people taken out of their land? Can someone tell me, since that piece of land over there doesn't have any sort of significance, any kind of meaning? Well, the reason why they were taken out of the land because that speck of dirt, that land over there had meaning. They abused it and they did not give the land its Sabbath's rest. Not only were they abusing their own individually, Sabbath's rest, but because of the land. Because you, they, listen, they violated the Sabbath, how many times, 70 times. They violated the Sabbath 70 times. So 70 times seven, well, guess what we're gonna get. So since you all did that and violated this land, 70 times seven, 77s will be decreed for your people Israel, not for Americans, not for folks in England, not for folks in South Africa or South America. No, for Israel. For Israel. That's what, if that piece of land had no significance, we're gonna even look at the fact that God even talked about, he prophesied, he literally prophesied what he's gonna bring Israel back. Can I ask you guys a question? Can I ask you guys a question? Why do you trust the prophecies of what God is gonna do bringing Jesus in? You trust those literally when he says that he's gonna bring it, all the prophecies about Jesus, but surrounding these prophecies about Jesus are the prophecies about Israel, you ignore those have no significance. Bringing Israel back into the land, those have, we'll categorize those, but we will not categorize the text concerning Jesus's coming and his death, his burial, his death. We won't categorize that. We won't categorize the text that says that God chose us before the foundation of the earth. We won't categorize that. Well, as a matter of fact, I see Calvinists getting in arguments with people who are not Calvinists and saying the text says what it says about election and you accuse them of spiritualizing or valorizing text, but you're doing the exact same thing when it comes to Israel. If we're not gonna be consistent and I can't listen to you, you've got to be consistent because then I don't know when to trust your word. I can trust guys' word. He didn't give me the word to second, I wonder what God meant here. No, that's not what's happening here. Now, Joel is going, he's in the middle of a sermon. And this is bad. This is bad. This is bad. Now, moderates, do me a favor. If we're in the chat, it's talking about other stuff, put them in timeout. Put them in timeout. So I want you all to listen to what Joel is saying here. The majority of Israel, according to the flesh under the Mosaic Covenant are currently in hell. They witnessed the parting of the Red Sea and manna daily falling in the wilderness, falling from the sky. They witnessed the 10 plagues in Egypt. They saw water miraculously come out of the rock and they drank from that water and the rock was Christ. All that is true. And we're going to get to a lot of those passages in Hebrews chapter 10 in the following weeks. All those things are true. And yet despite these miraculous and true things that occurred with Israel, under the Old Covenant, as they witnessed the supernatural, miracle working of God and His covenant keeping, His steadfastness, His faithfulness on their end, as it pertained to them, they broke the covenant. And they broke it again and broke it some more and kept on breaking it and broke it and broke it and broke it and broke it and broke it and broke it. To eventually, the Old Testament goes on in the Minor Prophets to say that God divorced Israel. Which is one of the chief doctrinal ideas for why I am not a dispensationalist, meaning why I believe the church is Israel. Oh man, Joe, my brother, I love you to death. I love you to death. Listen, I'm subscribed to your channel. I love you to death. Oh my God, my brother. Why? Let's continue. Why is the church Israel? Because Israel was divorced. This idea of two separate tracks that God is doing one thing over here with the church, but He's still doing something over here with Israel. No, Israel was divorced. Why was Israel? Now, let's go ahead and look at the passage real quick that He's talking about, about Israel being divorced. Some of you all were, matter of fact, some of you all saw it the other day. We covered this about Israel supposedly being divorced. Let's, do I even have it up here? All right, you know what? I took it down. Let me go ahead and put it up there. It's Jeremiah. Jeremiah, chapter three, 69 in Baptist. This is what you were talking about, about showing where Israel was divorced. Now He's speaking to, He's speaking to Judah about Israel. Are you with me? So let's go to verse, what are we going to start? Let's just start in verse six. The Lord said to me in the days of King Josiah, have you seen what she did that is, that is faithless one, Israel. Now, speaking about Judah, I mean to Judah about Israel. Remember, remember we've got a divided kingdom. We've got Judah and we've got Israel. And He said, look at what happened with that faithless Israel. And He's trying to warn Judah. By the way, before we forget, Judah and Israel collectively form Israel, the nation of Israel. Okay, let's not forget that. Judah and Israel, the Southern Kingdom, the Northern Kingdom, form collectively the nation of Israel. And so He says, how she went up on every hill, every high hill and under every green tree and there played the whore. And I thought after she has done all these, all this, she will return to me. But she did not return. And her treacherous sister, Judah, saw it. Let's keep reading. Look what it says. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, look what God says, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce. That must be what He's talking about. That's gotta be what He's talking. He's saying that He divorced Israel. But did He? Let's keep reading. By the way, y'all realize if I'm saying this that we've read the scripture before, right? I wouldn't be here if I hadn't checked this out. So let's let you check it out with me. He says, but she took, oh, I'm sorry, after that, after He gave her decree of divorce, yet her treacherous sister, Judah, did not fear, but she too went and played the harlot. Now you're gonna have, I'm gonna have to ask you guys if you believe that He divorced Israel, did He divorce Judah? Did God divorce Judah? We don't have any passages saying that God divorces, divorced Judah, which is part of the entire nation. But let's keep reading. Because she took her whoredom lightly, she polluted the land, committing adultery with stone and tree. Yet for all this, her treacherous sister, Judah, did not return to meet with her whole heart, but in pretence declares the Lord. Well, they would go ahead and probably win the argument though that God has divorced Israel. And so for that reason, according to Joel, that's why the church gets brought in. No, the church didn't get brought in because of that. How do I know? Well, Joel or anyone else, Baptist 1689, or 1689 Baptist, I might be saying it wrong. All we gotta do is just keep reading. That's all we gotta do. So let's keep reading. Verse 11, and the Lord said to me, faithless Israel has shown herself more righteous than treacherous Judah. Wait a minute. So treacherous Judah didn't get divorced. Israel supposedly did get divorced, but Judah is worse. Let's keep reading. Go and proclaim these words towards the North and say return faithless Israel declares the Lord. I will not look on you with an anger for I am merciful declares the Lord. I will not be angry forever. Stop with this silliness. This foolishness saying that Israel was divorced. And so now he's married a new bride. He's married to stop that, please. You have no, you just read it. He says, go and bring them back. I'm not gonna be mad with you forever. As a matter of fact, that was the prophecy. As a matter of fact, the prophecy stated that what he will do to Israel, put them out of their land and bring them back and put them out of their land and then bring them back. When did he bring them back? Class, ladies and gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please tell me, did God fulfill what he stated that he was gonna do with Israel? As a matter of fact, before we go any further, let's go to Ezekiel chapter 16 verse, let's start verse 59. For thus says the Lord, I will deal with you as I have done. You have despised the oath in breaking the covenant. Well, who broke the covenant? Israel. How come when we talk about Israel and the church, we never talk about the church doing anything bad. It's always the good things go to Israel. I mean, go to the church and the bad things are for Israel. That is really, really narcissistic. We talk about this narcissistic behavior we have in America. Well, church, don't be narcissistic as well. Thinking that you get all the good stuff, Israel, you get all the bad stuff. Israel, you get the short pooped up into the stick and the church, we get the good golden into the stick. Stop it. Let's continue. He says, yet, look what he says. This is reminisces of what he just said in Jeremiah, yet I will remember my covenant with you in the days of your youth. And I will establish for you an everlasting covenant. Excuse me, who's he talking about, Joel? Excuse me, Vody, who's he talking about? Jeff, when we get to you, who is he talking about? He's talking about Israel. He will establish an everlasting covenant with Israel. Look what he says in verse 61. Then you will remember your ways and be ashamed when you take your sisters, both your elders and your younger, and your younger, and I give them to you as daughters, but not on account of the covenant with you. I will establish my covenant. I will establish my covenant with you. That's Israel, and you shall know that I am the Lord. Now, can I give you some more? Can I give you some more Bible? Can I give you some more Bible? How about we venture over to Jeremiah 16, 15? How about we do that? No, let's start in 14. Therefore, behold the days are coming. He's speaking, obviously, to Israel. Behold the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it shall no longer be said, as the Lord lives, who brought up the people of Israel out of the land of Egypt, but as the Lord lives, who brought up the people of Israel out of the North country and out of all the countries where he had driven them, for I will bring them back to their own land that I gave to their fathers. Who was that? Joe, who was that? Vody, who was that? Tell me who he's speaking of. Is it the church? Because what land were we driven out of and brought back to? Please tell me. The issue is that when we saw what happened in 1948, we had to start to believe, you know, well, no, go on it. Maybe God meant what he said. Maybe God actually meant what he was doing with Israel. Maybe, because it's coming to pass. Is that the only thing? Well, no. We've got a lot of things that we can look at that God has said is going to happen and that did happen like Jesus is coming, his death, bearing resurrection. We've got all those things happening. All these prophecies that we tell about Jesus, we take those prophecies literally. What about this one? And he did do it. Let's continue with, with Joe. Israel divorced because God is just. That's why separate tracks that God is doing one thing over here with the church, but he's still doing something over here with Israel. No, Israel was divorced. Why was Israel divorced? Because God is just. That's why. And you don't get to reject God for 1500 years and not have any consequences. This is where my glasses almost popped off. My glasses almost just shot off my eyeballs and just went away. Joe, I'm gonna send you the link to start coming to the Smart Christian Bible studies because that is horrible. So let's just take what he just said. You don't get to reject God for 1500 years and not have any consequences. Well, what about the church? Did we neglect God for 1500 years? No, we rejected God for longer. So here's my question. Here's my question. I'm asking you all you Calvinists, all you reform folks. By the way, you can actually be dispensational and still be Calvinists as well, but I'm asking you guys a question. How did you get saved? Let's go back to Joe and I'll deal with that on the other side. Now, by God's grace, I believe that ethnic Israel, according to the flesh, will be saved. I think that Romans 11 speaks of that. And there's a debate theologically to be had, but I think that God still has a plan for Israel, but not in the way that the dispensationalist thinks. Not that they still have land to inherit. Not that they still have temporal, earthly promises, physical, tangible, promise. No, there's just one Israel and it's the church. It's true Israel. Israel, according to the promise, spiritual Israel and this Israel, if you have faith in Christ is you and the beauty. Oh man. See, when you start taking off and not holding to the text properly, you just start almost making it up because it fits your doctrine narrative. This is what you're like. Yes. Just gonna run into stuff. Now, let me address something right here. This person, I don't know who AS is. You have to tell me what your real name is. I guess you do know me, but no, I've had this thought long before I met Dr. Kong. Do you know who my mentor was? I told you all about this. Matter of fact, you can go to the community page and you can see his funeral. His name was Dr. Willie Bolton. He was a professor at Dallas State Law School of Engineering. Before I knew Dr. Kong, stop making up stuff. Stop assuming things. I'll tell you, all you gotta do is ask me. I'll tell you what you wanna know. I have, again, I don't hide anything. So Dr. Kong did not put this in me at all. So right now, repent. No, I'm kidding. I'm kidding. But again, I told you that two of my mentors had this view and just said, Corey, just read the scriptures literally in this literal grammatical historical hermeneutic and see what you come up with. See what you come up with. Because if you read them, if you read them however you want to, if you decide I'll read it literally here, up until here, because up until here will take me away from, will take me, well, tell me what you, I don't know that you, or tell me what your name is. I don't care that you should argue with me in prison. I don't know who you are. But anyway, but if you don't have a literal hermeneutic, this is your future right here. I'll keep playing that clip over. That little boy, I didn't know what he was doing, but he thought he was going somewhere. Now, I've got a question for you people. I've got a question. That's right. Righty decided to become hyper Calvinist. It's okay, but I still love you, brother. I still love you, but I've got a question for you, Rodney, and for the rest of you, the hyper Calvinist, or you just regular Calvinist, or you reform people. I got a question for you folks who believe in election. Let me drink my drink while you guys get yourself ready to answer this question. And I want to see how arrogant and how narcissistic that somebody might be out there. I really want to see this. Are you guys ready? Because a word from our sponsors. All right, how did you guys get saved? This is just for, I'm just playing with you. I know you're not hyper Calvinist, but you are Calvinist. If there ever was a Calvinist, it is you. But answer me this question for the rest of you guys. How did you guys get saved? Please hurry up for all the Calvinists, for all the reform people. Please hurry up and put in the chats. What caused you to be saved? I know Jesus, I know your faith in Jesus, what was the, what started that? I'm asking all of you, I'm asking all of you, what started that? Was that something that caused you to have faith in Christ? I know Jesus, from Jesus, but from the Calvinist view, what, stop saying grace. See, I think you all are smart. You all are smart. You all are starting to see where I'm going. What caused, according to the Calvinists, what caused them? There we go, C. Davis. I'm not even sure, I don't even think you're Calvinist. But God decreed their salvation. Election. God drew me, amen, amen. Can I ask you a question then? Kira, she said, thank you, sweetheart. She said God chose us. All right. Let me ask you a question, especially you, Joel. I know you, maybe you'll see this. I hope you do. But if God drew you, if God chose you, if you feel like you were elected, what is it about you that made you think that he would elect you and not the people that he'd given his oracles to? How narcissistic, how selfish do you have to be to think that God loves me so much that he chose me and not Israel? By the way, we just read where he said he's going to have his elect in Israel. Paul's even gonna say that. So yeah, there's consequences for sin, Joel, just like it is for non-Jews. But if the way you got in was him choosing you, why don't you think that he also chose Israel? Or some, as a matter of fact, we even, we literally read where those in Israel, whose names were written before the foundation, whose names were written in the book, they will be saved, just like you say about you. What we do oftentimes, guys, is we pick and choose who we'll elect and who we'll dislike. We do it often. Can I give you a recent example? Everybody is coming out and attacking Matt Chandler. I don't know what the deal was, I do not know. I don't know. But I can promise you, if Matt Chandler was reformed, if Matt Chandler was Calvinist, a lot of the other Calvinist brothers would not be attacking him, would not be equating his name with sexual, I can promise you that. So if we're gonna, listen, be consistent when calling things out. Don't, do not, do not be inconsistent when it's your brother. I had this whole issue with Alex Bagani. I called his brother out, and he blocked me, he unfriended me, all of a sudden. That's fine. That is fine. The point is, God can love you and somebody else at the same time. You jealous Christians you. Stop being jealous of the fact that God's also and still loves Israel. He has a specific, what other nation, what individual soul nation does God have this plan for? Just Israel. Not that they were so great, as God says they were the least of people. But he, but he, but he chose them. Now, they're gonna go through it and he's gonna bring them back. It's exactly what Paul, Paul is not talking about Gentiles in Romans nine, 10 and 11. Romans nine to 11 is Paul having a concern with Israel. So if, so two places that people go to is Romans nine to 11. He's not talking about anything Calvinistic. He's talking about Israel and what he's gonna do with them. Not Gentile believers. If you can't read that, you can't read the Bible. It is you taking this portion of the Bible and making it say what you want to as a famous philosopher once told me, words don't mean anything to them until it means something to them. This famous philosopher said that. I'm not giving him credit. I know he's in a chance. He wants it. No, you're not getting credit for that. I took that. I stole it that is now mine. I've changed one of the words. So now I said that. But you make Romans nine, 10 and 11 about you and then you also make the book of Hebrews about you. Can I ask you guys a question? It's not a difficult question. Not a difficult question. Who is the book of Hebrews written to? Somebody just tell me this. Who is the book of Hebrews written to? If you listen, y'all, this is the Smart Christians channel. You guys are smart. Not because, again, I said before we're smart not because what we think we know because what we know, we don't know. We realize that we have to rely on God. Yeah, yeah. The book of Hebrews is written to the Hebrews, to the Jews, to Israel. Jewish believers who are struggling with the fact that they don't have to live under the law anymore and it doesn't make any sense. We're used to sinning and then having to have our sins atone for every year. And the book is like, no, not anymore. We've got a better high priest. We've got a better sacrificial lamb. We've got a better scapegoat. And so this is no longer an ongoing thing. And so if you're looking to find Gentile salvation, now you can find some of the things that benefit us without question. You can apply some of the same things in there for Gentile believers, but the book is intentionally written to the Jews. That's why it's called Hebrews. Otherwise it'd be called Gene or nations or races. That's literally what it would be called, but it's written to these Jews. Are you guys with me? So let's go ahead and continue. Now, did I finish with him? I think I didn't finish with him, but you know what was conspicuously absent from what he said, from what Joel said, from what Vodius said, from what anyone has said, is where is the passage that tells us that we are the new Israel? I would love, I would change my tune if you showed me that passage. Now, I stated earlier that because you can take what you want to and make it into what you want to. You can take a passage or you can take a thought and start reading it into the scriptures, but what if you take an entire book and say that I believe this book was written differently, written at a different time because it fits my narrative? That's what Jeff Durbin did. The book of Revelation written by the apostle John, I would argue before the destruction of Jerusalem, before the fall of Jerusalem. Now, I'm going to do a video to cover this. The book of Revelation, we're pretty sure it was written in the 90s, not in the 70s. People say, well, if it was written in the, if John wrote it in the 90s, 98, 95, 86, 96 thereabouts, why didn't he mention the Temple of Destruction? Because it's almost 30 years later. That's why I didn't mention it. It's a well-known past historical fact. How many of you all walk around today still talking about 9-11? Or the kidney assassination? Or Martin Luther King Jr. being shot? Or the, or World War II or Vietnam? How many of us talk about these major cataclysmic events that happened in our history? We don't sit down, they didn't either. They moved on. And again, the people closest to the source say that it was written around that time, or they tell us who the emperor was that put John on the island of Patmos, which was the nation. So, but you wanted to have been written in the 70s because it matches your eschatological views. That's not good. No, sir. Jeff, if you do that, this is what you're like. Yeah. This kid is gonna have a, you're gonna have a comb by the time I get through playing this video. So, now, because you have this view, because if you have a dispensational hermeneutic, there are gonna be some things that you're gonna differ with Calvinist on. Like for example, I differ with Calvinist on the T of Tula. I don't think that man is so depraved that he can't make a decision. I think that man is so depraved, though, that he will not, but I believe that he has the ability, he just won't. I think that if you look at Bob Smith, Bob Smith knows about God and so forth and read the Bible, but he will not give his life to the Lord. He will not place faith in Christ. Not that he can't, just the Bible won't. And I think that's carried out over the eight billion people on the planet and the six or seven billion people that lived before. So, the 14, 15 billion people that's ever existed, we all have an opportunity to come to Christ, but none of us will. That's where I differ with the Calvinist. I also differ with this limited atonement. I differ with them on that, because I'm just reading the text literally. Now, I might be wrong, but that's one issue why a lot of Calvinists have an issue with dispensationalists. And oh, by the way, the dispensationalists we pretty much know are, we study the Greek, we study the Hebrew. By the way, do you all know which seminary in America is known for? And this is not even, it's not even close. No one has debated this argument amongst seminarians. Which seminary is probably known the best for its languages? Well, that'd be a lot of seminary. And guess what they are? They are dispensational. I'm not saying that dispensationalists are the greatest, that's not what I'm saying. But what I'm saying is, reading it strictly, I think you come to certain conclusions. But if you don't, fine. I just need to know that you're reading it consistently. That's all. I just need to know that you're reading the dog on book consistently, because how do I know when I start reading it, or you start reading it, how do I know you're not making up on the way? Fed pen seminary. Yeah, that's one of the better seminary. But that seminary though, Proverbs, that teaches you how to make it, how to be serious, how to be real. That's what that seminary does. So, wait a second. Cory doesn't like allegorizing, and he just did, with Kent and changed it. Where did I change this at? Tell me where, dear friend. Tell me where. Tell me where. Now, you know me, Rodney. I'm trying to handle this like a prison debate. I'm gonna make my point in a second, but I'm handling this like a prison debate. Because in the end, I want you to feel so bad, not you, but anyone that would ever make the statement that dispensational hermeneutics is a dangerous, a threat is the worst. I wanna make you feel so bad by saying something so stupid, because it really is. To make that, now, I don't say Calvinism is a threat or is the worst. I don't say that, just like I wouldn't say other, or not others, but a lot of other doctrinal norms or doctrines that are out there. I wouldn't say those are a threat. Those are dangerous. I wouldn't say that. But why dispensationalism? Well, I'll tell you why, because we're gonna hold your feet to the fire. I'm not out, listen. The reason why I don't pick a name or title is because I don't want to be associated with all the rest of them. And I don't wanna obligate myself to a particular doctrine of theology. I don't wanna do that. Because no one wants to be wrong. And well, since I'm a Calvinist or I say I'm an Armenian or I say I'm a, what's a new one, provisionist or I'm a progressive dispensations. If I say any of those things, I'm gonna hold myself to that. Well, you just said people won't, not can't. But scriptures are supposed to say people cannot. Find the scriptures that people cannot. And I will show you that that's not quite what it says. So, I do like some of Lewis Brey Shaffer I do. I'm not in total agreement with Shaffer. Matter of fact, oh, I've got some of his commentary back there. But again, I'm not beholden. I believe that any one doctrinal statement or theological system, I'm just not because is there anyone that didn't have any flaws in it? They all have a flaw, but I'll embrace the flaw because it's our flaw. I'm not gonna do that. I'm just not gonna do that. I'm not gonna be like, come on, the cowboys are. The cowboys are gonna keep riding with their quarterback, even though that quarterback ain't about nothing. But he's our quarterback. I'm gonna keep riding with this doctrine, even though I see this glaring hole in it, because it's my hole. It's our error. I'm not going to do that. I'm not, now, what they'll say is they don't like the, part of it has to do with eschatology because they believe that I believe that the world is getting worse. They believe it's not getting worse. They believe it's going to get better. The motivation is fear-based rather than confidence in Christ. And it makes sense that pre-mill would go right there with dispensationalism. It's like every day I need to make, so it's a diluting of the covenantal promises and a removal of the objective reality of being in Christ and it becomes more of a subjective, personal, individual feeling and a decision that needs to be made and remade and remade. And so there's the fear there, fear incentive, and then on top of it, Jesus could come back tomorrow and things are gonna get worse and worse until he does, so you better be resolute, you better be standing strong. So, but it really feels like fear-based. Yeah, unbelieving men. So, they believe, and that's fine. They believe that in their way that it's going to get better that Christians are going to end up dying. They'll point out how many people now profess to be Christians. Well, first of all, I wouldn't care if 80% of them profess to be Christians. We know that's not the case and do we think that the entire world is going to become Christians? Well, we know the Bible teaches us that God is going to destroy this world. But we know that for a fact. Let's second Peter, chapter three, verse two, that you should remember the predictions of the holy prophets and the commandments of the Lord and Savior through your apostles. Knowing this, first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days. So that's what's happening now. And even more so, following their own simple desires. They will say, where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all things are continuing as they were from the beginning of creation. For they deliberately overlooked the fact that the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and through water by the word of God. And that by means of these the world, that then existed was deluded with water and perish. But by the same word, the heavens and the earth that now exists are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly. God is going to do something with this world. He is going to. Now, they believe though that, and Jeff is going to say so about, because if he's made us new creations, then certainly he'll do the same thing for the earth. Men and women will never, ever be able to transform the world. But Jesus can, Jesus can, God by His Spirit can, and He does it because of salvation, but also He does in terms of the standard, it goes according to His law word. Indeed, this entire creation, this entire cosmos will be delivered from the curse of sin. See. Now, what He's doing is, they're actually examining a pastor or this pastor. I think he's in this area of pastor. I think it's Emilio or I'm not sure of his name, but they're critiquing him who has, he's the pastor critiquing as a millennial and they are post meal. And so they're critiquing him. The real problem. Just quickly. Go ahead. On that, I was going to say that I think it's important for us to just remark on the fact that one of the, I think one of the errors is that if I'm hearing pastor Emilio correctly here, if he's talking about the earth itself, the physical cosmos, those sorts of things under the curse of sin, all of that, if what he's talking about is that this physical cosmos must be destroyed and then a new one made, then that's not transformation. That's destruction, right? And something brand new happening after that. Now we can get into a long conversation here that could be an entire show on itself, on its own about new creation and what all that means and how scripture uses that. Like for example, in the New Testament, it says that we are a new creation in Jesus Christ. Believers in Jesus Christ are a part of that new creation in Jesus Christ. He is the beginning of the new creation. Jesus Christ is the beginning of the new creation. We are new creations in Christ. And so according to the New Testament, that new creation has already started. It's already started. And so one of the distinctions I think between what many people think today is they're thinking about this universe, this cosmos, this earth is just a throw away. God's gonna destroy it. He's gonna just throw it away in the trash heap of history and he's gonna create something brand new here. We actually believe in a resurrected cosmos. We believe that this physical cosmos itself is renewed and resurrected. That this world, we're gonna live with God forever in eternity. We're gonna live with God forever in a resurrected cosmos but it's gonna be this cosmos. So because we're a new creation then so too will the earth become a new creation. Yeah, after he destroys it, after he destroys it, then it will be. Cause it's literally what he said. Jesus talks about how bad it's going to get. That part, he's not saying figuratively. He's not saying metaphorically it's gonna get bad. No, it's literally going to be bad. As a matter of fact, even talking about when the tribulation comes, he says it'll be like nothing we've ever seen or ever will see. If 70 AD was the tribulation according to them. If 70 AD was a tribulation, is that as bad as it got? Is that as bad as it got? Cause I got some folks from the Civil War, from World War I, World War II. I've got some folks from the Holocaust. I've got some folks that would beg to differ. And we're told they're wrong. It's going to get worse. It's going to get worse. But I understand you want to make it to fit your particular doctrine. I don't want anything to fit my doctrine. I want my doctrine to fit what the scriptures say. That's what I want to do. And so this whole issue, and this is why I say this is bad. Now, thankfully, thankfully guys, that these three men who I still, listen, I respect these men, I do. And I trust what they say. But I'm like Ronald Reagan, trust but verify. Okay, you said what? Okay, now let's go to the scriptures. They have an idea. They have an idea of what God has said, and they're for the most part, they are on point. But what if they don't, what if they're not? What if someone who has not, who hasn't been brought up the way you were, Jeff or Vody or Joel, what if someone takes the same permenutical stance that you do and they end up over here and believing that you have to be baptized in water and speak with evidence, speaking in tongues and then go cast out five demons in order to be saved? What if they have that view? Because it's the exact same hermeneutic that you employ. It's the exact same. I didn't take this literally, I took it to mean this. Well, God didn't think enough of you, Jeff, Vody, Joel, Corey or anyone else. Think of you enough to think that you have the ability to understand any sort of spiritual insight. How do I know? Jesus said, I've told you earthly things and dog on it, Jeff, dog on it, Vody, dog on it, Joel, dog on it, Rodney, you don't understand earthly things. How then can I tell you heavenly things? What's a straw man, Nicholas? Tell me real quick, what's a straw man? I got a minute. What is the straw man? What if dispensationalism is wrong? I didn't say I was dispensationalist. I said to hermeneutic, okay. I want you guys to listen to what I just said from the very beginning. I did not say dispensationalist or dispensationalism was the way to go. If that's the conclusion you come to, then fine. I said a dispensational hermeneutic. That's what I said. I said, you need to have a hermeneutic that is consistent, which is why I also said, which is why I, well, fine. What position did I miss represent? Tell me, stop, stop. You guys keep making these little comments and don't describe what you're saying. I can't deal with it. I can't deal with it, Nicholas. I have no idea how to, because if you put it in the chat for me to see and I see it, I don't know where you're going. I don't know what you're saying. So give me some information with what you're saying. But, so if you're going to make a statement, I need to know what your hermeneutic is. That's why I said, tell me. I said this at the very beginning. Write down, type in what your hermeneutic is. I'm willing to bet that if you tell me what your hermeneutic is, and I apply your hermeneutic to when you read scriptures, if you don't have the same one, and I didn't even get this hermeneutic, but if you did, I bet we'll see some holes. I've seen holes in voteys. I've seen holes in Joels. I've seen holes in Jeffs. It's not, well, I'll take it back. I can't say I've seen holes in their hermeneutic because their hermeneutic is not consistent. Though they'll say it is, well, I'll take it back. If you say it is, then it's not consistent. It's just not. So, and all I'm saying is this, guys, I'm not asking you to agree with me. Dear Lord, don't agree with me, agree with the text. I'm saying is have a consistent way of reading this and stick to it. Don't change it because the day is Friday and then on Monday you're doing something different. Yeah, that's literally what I said, or I need the literal, historical, grammatical hermeneutic. That's literally what I said. Dispensational hermeneutic, which is what that is. Now, does that mean Corey? Corey is a dispensational Calvininian. K.L. is in trouble. You're in trouble, K.L. But that's the point. I can at least define mine and stick to it thereby allowing you to critique me. Corey, you weren't consistent there. And I've had a time or two where someone said, well, you know, you were wrong there because of this. And I said, well, okay, let me see that. You said that some people you need X, Y, Z, cast out four demons to be saved, but that's not what, all right. Obviously that part was metaphorical, but the other part though, when they said you have to be baptized in water with the name of Jesus said over you and come up with the evidence of speaking in tongues, then you are saved. Now, did I straw man them on that, Nicholas? No, I did not. If you don't believe so, go ask Marcus Rogers. Now, of course, then again, Marcus Rogers doesn't know what he says from day to day. One minute he'll say that he disagrees with the Trinity, then he'll go out and try to describe the Trinity because he doesn't know what he's doing. Marcus Rogers and people like that have no business being leading a church because they can't define any, they can't even pick a doctrine and stick with it. That being the case, if you do not have a consistent literal hermeneutic, I don't know what to say with you. I don't know, I don't know. If you can, can I bring up my little toddler friend again who runs into the wall? If you don't have a consistent hermeneutic. Yeah, that's what you're doing. So, guys, I think that that is the biggest issue with the church, with Christians. We're not consistent. We kind of make it up as we go. And so therefore, Vody would say, and he kind of does it kind of, you know, kind of jabbing that we're talking about this secret rapture of the church. Well, no, Vody. The Bible is clear and we understand to be clear that there'll be less and less actual Christians on the planet as we go. There'll be less and less people who actually, not profess Christ, but actually possess Christ. In other words, they place faith in Christ. As we go, there'll be less and less and less and less and less and less and less. And because of that, when it does happen, when the rapture does happen, and it deals with Israel, like he literally said he's gonna deal with Israel, when it does happen, no one's gonna notice it. You know why? Because all the Justin Bieber Christians, all the Beyonce Christians, all the Oprah Christians, all the Christians who aren't really Christian, those Christians, they'll be the ones around like, well, yeah, the church hadn't been raptured because Beyonce's still here, so the church couldn't have been raptured. The Clark sisters are still here, so the church, I'm shooting at the Clark sisters, I'm sorry. Steve Harvey's still here, so the church could have been raptured. That's what's gonna happen. Because Jesus literally said it was going to happen. So now, here's my final shot. Here's my final shot, and I'm getting y'all ready for me to dip out. I wanna end this like a good old fashioned prison debate. Told you in the prison debate, when we have a debate in prison, the goal is to make you wish you never set eyes on me. The goal is to make you wish you never said anything to bring me into this. I'm sitting there watching TV and the Muslims over there asking me questions about Jesus. Hey Corey, how come Jesus is allowing sex offenders in the church? All right, fine, you wanted to mess with me? Okay, Mr. Muslims, how come Mohammed was a sex offender? Oh, they got mad. How come Mohammed is bedding nine year olds? How come everywhere Mohammed's religion is spoken of, you have child rape that's being lawfully conducted? In every Muslim majority country, in every country that allows it, yeah. That's how you handle a prison debate. Now, they may wanna go and get the sock and lock and fight it, but you'll never wanna talk to me again about this, so let me just say this. If you are going to espouse a belief in Christ and then hold to, hold to, soul of scripture, only in the scriptures and then depart from the scriptures, stop it. I wouldn't care if your name is John MacArthur. I wouldn't care if your name is James White. I wouldn't care if your name is Bodebaugh. I wouldn't care what your name is. If you're gonna ever say that you hold a soul of scripture and don't hold to the scriptures unless you interpret it, stop it. Delete your social media files. Stop pastoring, stop teaching if you're not gonna hold to it. And I don't care that your favorite teacher, your favorite pastor, doesn't align with it. I don't care if he's not gonna really, because now that's you Calvinist talking about soul of scripture, but you don't hold to it because the scriptures literally said what I just said. I pulled them up. You won't pull up one scripture telling me that the new covenant is for Calvinists or for Gentiles. You won't do that. I can show you where it is literally speaking of the Jews. Literally speaking of Israel, though we are still blessed. How come it is that you have decided to show us the whole world, pull your pants down and show the whole world that you don't have faith in God's word? You didn't have faith in God's word. Now you're doubling down because once God showed that he's really truly about bringing Israel back and he puts them in the land. By the way, the scripture tells us that after he puts them in the land, then he's gonna deal with them. Then he's gonna pour his spirit into them and cause them to walk and they will not depart from him. But he's putting them on the side and he's gonna deal with the Gentiles because he loves them too. He doesn't have to have two different, one promise for everybody. He can have many different beliefs or many different tracks that he wanna take. We're not talking about two different people. We're talking about or two different groups of people. We're talking about one people being made out of different groups. That's biblical. Jesus said that in John 10, I've got sheep of another flock and I'll bring them together and we'll have one body. He was speaking about the Jews and then he was speaking about the Gentiles. He didn't make a promise to give the Gentiles a new covenant because they didn't need one. He made it for Israel to put Israel on full display to show his power, to show his justice but also to show that he's the one, not you, not a Calvinist, not an Armenian, not anyone else. We're not the ones that are faithful, he's faithful. And the glaring object to show his faithfulness even in a disobedient Israel is the fact that he brought them back, put them in their land, they're still unfaithful but he says, guess what I'm gonna do? I've got this spirit of stupid over them and I'm gonna bring them back after I'm through showing my love for you. Now, from now on, if you're not gonna believe the scriptures then stop talking about the scriptures. If you're not gonna promote the scriptures, stop talking about the scriptures. That's what I have to say about the whole thing. And if I'm wrong, well then you know what? I'm not wrong. I am not wrong about this. Again, I may be, now if you think I'm wrong about my conclusion, that's fine. I know one plus one is two. Two times two is four. You saying preach Darby? No, listen, I ain't preaching Darby. I'm preaching John the disciples of the apostle John's. I'm preaching his disciple. I'm preaching Papias. I'm preaching Justin Marder. I'm preaching Heriopolis. I'm preaching Irenaeus. I'm preaching what they preach because folks wanna say that this dispensational hermeneutic just started. No, it didn't. It started long before there was Darby, long before there was Goldfield, long before there was DTS, long before there was a Chris Cone, long before there was a John Calvin or Lutheran, long before there's a Catholic church, long before any of you people existed. They were speaking about the promises of God and they took a literal tact. They may have had some differences, disagreements, but at least they had the same sort of rules that they would employ. You know who didn't? You know who allegorized the text? Along come these Gnostics and get this little deeper meaning, this hidden meaning. And so if you're gonna act like a Gnostic, then I'm gonna call you one. If you're gonna allegorize the text, do not ever lie and say that you are for soul scripture. Don't do that. Don't lie to us and don't lie to yourself. Be true to your calling, to the word. That's all we got. That's all we got. Oh, by the way, let me leave you with this. Let me leave you with this. You don't even have the right anymore to call out the sinners. You don't have the right to call out the people who, wait a second, O'Dell, you jumped in the middle of my prison debate. O'Dell, let me give it to you again, brother. I love you, I love you, brother. Justin Maher in the book, Dialogue with Trifor. I think it's paid 10, I'm not sure, but Dialogue with Trifor made this statement. Several economies, that's the Greek word for Aquinas, which is dispensations, several economies in the Old Testament said, but if so great a power is shown to have followed and to be still following the dispensation of his suffering, how great shall it be which shall follow his glorious advent. I won't keep reading that. Also, Papias makes a statement, and it's accredited by Eusebius. Where is this? I can't think of it. Oh, I'm gonna have to look at him and see where this is written in. I'm sorry, in Eusebius's writings. So, Google it. Google it. If you think that John Nelson Darby was the founder of this, that's fine, that's fine. Now, one reason why I don't even go in point to Darby, a Schofield, a Calvin, an Augustine, or any of these people, I don't care. I think some of you guys care too much about what some of these so-called early thinkers and philosophers and church fathers believe, I don't. You never hear me, other than this point, you never hear me quoting them. You don't hear me quoting what someone is a Pelagius or a semi-Pelagius. You don't hear me saying that. You don't hear me talking about Augustine. You don't hear me talking about Calvin. For what? For what? For all I know, they could have been very sound in their doctrine, but have no Jesus in their heart. For all I know. That's why you can hold me accountable to two things, to two sets of words. Are you with me, brother? Odell, you're with me, two words. Two words, two sets of words you can hold me accountable to. One, that word, the word of God, and then my words. It's all I'm accountable to. I'm not accountable for what anyone who even believes the same thing that I believe, I'm not accountable for that. I'm accountable to what I say and what the Bible says. And I hope the two line up. All I can say, though, is for Vody, for Jeff, for Joel, everything that you said, for the most part, does line up, but when you talk about this issue, it doesn't line up. And for that, you need to go back and rethink your doctrine. Amen.