This is Apologetics Live to answer your questions.

Your host from Striving for Eternity Ministries, Andrew Rapoport.

Psych.

Andrew Rappaport is not here.

Instead, you got the trifecta without Andrew.

So now you know.

It's really going to be a good show.

Is it a trifecta or a tri defector?

You know, I guess we'll find out as the show goes on.

It's too early to tell, but Andrew, I don't know where he's at.

He was just.

He text me and Tom yesterday and was like, I'm not gonna be there.

Y'all do something.

So here we are.

Guess what we get decided to do, though?

We're gonna critique Andrew's debate.

Yeah.

And that's gonna be.

That's gonna be a fun one, because there's nothing like being able to tell Andrew that he's wrong.

Really?

Nothing like being here, being able to tell him that he's wrong and him not be here to defend himself.

This might not be a good thing for job security.

That's okay.

You know why?

Because for the past, I don't know how many years, I've been trying to get out of podcasting.

Anyway, so this is perfect.

But we are glad that you're here, that you tuned in for us.

Apologetics Live is a podcast ministry from Striving for Eternity.

If you disagree with us or you have questions, feel free to come on in.

Go to apologeticslive.com, click the duck, make sure your video and audio is hooked up, and we will bring you on in.

But like Tom said, tonight we are going to be discussing Andrew's debate that he had.

I don't know when he had this, but it's on which is more.

Which hermeneutic is more, Biblical covenant theology or dispensational theology?

So it's an interesting topic.

What are your initial thoughts, Tom?

Well, listening to the arguments, I would.

I don't think I would.

I would side with either one of their arguments.

It.

It.

I think Andrew did a great job.

So he was talking about the liter.

The grammatical, historical hermeneutic.

Which one makes more sense?

And what would you end up with if you stuck strictly to those.

To that hermeneutic.

Right.

And Andrew's argument was that you would end up dispensational.

You would.

You would end up with a dispensational view.

What's.

What's.

I can't remember the other gentleman's name.

His name's Joseph.

Joseph.

Joseph went and he tried to say, no, it's the, the analogy of faith.

And that is why he is covenantal.

My question is, did he make his argument?

Right.

And so we're going to get to go through that and listen to it.

So I, I would hold to a little something different.

I would hold to historical, grammatical, hermeneutic.

Right.

But I would also add the redemptive so that there's.

There's an overall story being told.

The redemptive story that's being told.

So I would probably disagree with both, but I think both made some good arguments that I would actually kind of agree with both sides.

And disagree with both sides.

Yeah.

You know, I would.

I would encourage everyone to go listen to it now.

When I listen to it, of course, holding to Covenant theology, definitely not dispensational.

And as I've told you, if, if I knew nothing about it, if I didn't, if I didn't hold to that position, I wouldn't be persuaded by his argument.

By Joseph's argument.

By Joseph's argument.

Yeah.

I think in listening to it, he had other points that could have made a better argument.

This is why I'm telling everyone to go listen to it, because we're not going to go through the whole thing.

We're going to focus on a.

Just look at, you know, the first cross examination.

But I think he had other points that would have helped make his case a little bit better, especially when talking about the historical, grammatical, hermeneutic and using the term literal, because, you know, they both use that term a lot.

They both defined that term.

And so I want to throw out a definition that I think often gets overlooked when we're talking about the.

The term literal.

And it means according to the literature.

Right.

So according to the genre.

So if we're, if we're reading something that has a lot of metaphors, Right.

We're going to take.

Take the literal metaphor and we're going to have to, you know, see what that means.

Right.

It's not always a wooden definition.

And I think Andrew would.

He would agree with that.

You know, where it's metaphorical.

It's metaphorical.

Where it's a simile.

It's a simile where there's a comparison or a contrast, where there's something historic, narrat, you know, something factual and that's a little more wooden.

But when there's an imagery or, you know, we take it in terms of how the literature is presented in that genre.

Right.

Okay, now, Dan, where do you fall on the spectrum?

You are muted.

This always happens to me.

It's probably a good thing.

Causes me to speak twice.

You know, I get, I get a mulligan.

I, I'm somewhere in the middle.

I don't know where I stand.

I think, you know, traditionally I have always attended.

Well, with the exception of my very, very young days before I knew what Dispensational and Covenant Theology, I'd never even heard the terms.

You know, I grew up in Presbyterian and then Lutheran and then Presbyterian churches.

And then when I was in high school, started going to a non Reformed Baptist church because that.

I was going to a non Reformed Baptist high school.

And then after that it was, it's basically been non denominational churches.

So my bulk of my exposure has been to dispensational.

So I would have to probably classify you just slot myself into that category mostly by default, not because of any intensive study.

So I'm just basically hoping to, I'm always interested in listening to this, to the, to the arguments for both sides because I see compelling.

You know, my son goes to a, a CREC college.

He goes to New St.

Andrews College in, in Moscow, Idaho.

And so, you know, very Reformed.

Right.

Basically it's, it's places crawling with pedo Baptists.

Right.

And my son is one of the last holdouts.

But you know, I get to hear, you know, after his studies of, of theology, I get to hear, you know, all the stuff that he's learning and they're, they're.

There are lots of beautiful things about Covenant theology that I really appreciate.

Like the, the consistency of just how they, you know, they view the consistency of Scripture.

Like, you know, it's one, one thing carries into another.

There's a beautiful coherence to it all, but there are just some things that I don't jive with, with, with my understanding of Scripture.

So, you know, I, that's not one of the things that it's regularly comes up in terms of people challenging me on it.

So I basically just feign ignorance and just say, yeah, you know, like John MacArthur's line, you know, leaky dispensationalist.

Right.

So.

Yeah, yeah.

So.

So doing apologetics and evangelism, you don't get those questions a lot in terms of Covenant theology or dispensational.

Yeah.

And, and quite frankly, it's been my personal experience that usually when I run into guys who are, it's like, it's like the old, the old joke, you know, how do you know if somebody does CrossFit?

You just wait 15 seconds and they'll tell you my, my Experience online has been that, you know, if, how do you know if somebody's reformed?

They'll, they'll either come out and tell you or they'll ask you if you're reformed.

Yeah.

So it's, it's kind of like the star bellied snitches and the plain bellied sneetches from Dr.

Seuss.

Right.

And so that's always kind of turned me off.

It's.

It's always seemed like, you know, are you reformed?

Well, if you have to press me on it, I would say I have a very reformed soteriology.

But there are other aspects of Reformed theology that I do not agree with.

So that's a very long answer to a very short question and I apologize.

Yeah.

What do you, what do you think Drew, is the most, you know, when you look at evangelicalism, you know, through throughout the United States, what's the most popular view?

You think the most popular view is without a doubt dispensationalism.

And that is, I think that's mostly due to the eschatology that was introduced by Tim LaHaye by what's.

I don't know if it was introduced by him.

Definitely popularized.

Well, popularized.

Yeah, popularized by him, Ed Henson, and especially you when you look at Liberty University in terms of a Christian university in America as probably what, the largest maybe and in their classes.

Right.

That's what they teach.

Right.

I mean I've got books on biblical prophecy that were writ co written by Tim LaHaye and Ed Henson and it is one of the worst things I've ever got.

Got great entertainment though, isn't it?

Yeah.

The.

There's nothing like just theological fiction.

Right.

But now in speaking in terms of like say we'll say Andrew Jim Osmond as dispensationalists, they actually wouldn't hold to those views as the Tim LaHaye them.

But yeah, it is by far the most popular view.

And I think what made it popular, Dan, to your point is, you know the Left behind series that was developed in the the 90s and that's definitely, definitely had a big part of it, Right?

Yep.

Now I do have to ask Dan, before we get started, how did your son end up choosing to go to Moscow to New St.

Andrews?

The short spiritual answer is he just felt like that was where God was leading him to go.

The slightly longer answer is that it was.

We had a short list of schools that did not receive government funding that was high on the list of criteria.

He wanted a Christian education.

So that further whittled it down.

And he wanted an explicit Christian education.

Not like one of the other schools that was being compared was, was Hillsdale.

Okay, but they're, they, they, they're not explicitly Christian, but they.

Right.

They kind of sort of lean in that direction.

And then there was also, oh, what's the one out on the east coast that's really good at the debate stuff, mock trial things.

Patrick Henry, that was one of the other schools.

But anyway, it was during the whole Corona apocalypse thing that, that he was getting ready to go off to school and he didn't know how long that was going to last or whatever.

And he didn't want to have to, to deal with all the stupid masking requirements that the airlines were foisting on people.

So in terms of price and location and you know, the other criteria we had going on, NSA just seemed to be a really good fit for him.

Okay.

And, and it has been.

He's getting ready to, to wrap it up in just a couple of weeks and get his degree and move on.

Great, good.

That's awesome.

Now, before we get into this, also, I want to get the sponsors out of the way because I know as we get going, I'm probably going to forget about them.

So if you're listening, watching, I hope you take notes very, very quickly because we're gonna go plunge.

Right, the ice bath plunge thing.

Plunge.com drew 38817 Get a discount on your cold plunge bath thingamajig.

MyPillow.

Get you a MyPillow.

Okay.

MyPillow.com promo code SFE.

Get a discount on your MyPillow.

They're very comfortable, but they don't also have, they don't only have pillows, they've got a bunch of different stuff.

Slippers, I think pajamas, mattress toppers.

Yeah, just go look, check it out.

Logos Bible Software.

I use it.

Do you all use it?

Great.

So, you know, go get you Logos Bible Software.

It's, it's worth the investment.

I just got the $50 one and I just keep up.

You can upgrade it, you know, here and there.

It's great.

Tool and Squirrelly Joe's Coffee.

20% off.

First time purchase with code SFE.

I hear it's very good.

I don't know, I've never had it.

Not really big coffee drinker, but I'll take everyone else's word for it.

Hopefully they've had their cup of honesty and getting that done.

All right.

I think we got through that rather quickly.

Very good.

Yeah.

So now we can get on with It.

So I'm going to bring this up.

This is the, the cross examination from Andrew's debate with Joseph on which is more biblical in the literal sense, the covenant theology or the dispensational theology.

I'm wondering, first, do you want to give us a definition?

And I mean, because we're painting with a broad brush regarding covenant theology.

There are different flavors.

Yeah, well, go ahead, because I know what you also have covenant theology in terms of like 1689 confessional and then 1689 federalist and then Westminster, which would be more closely with 1689 confessional, except for the pedo baptism part.

Right.

So go ahead and out a little bit.

Yeah.

So Presbyterian Covenant theology looks at, at one covenant of grace that spans throughout, starting in the garden, all the way through the garden, and, and, and, and goes all the way through the new covenant.

And they would say that there are different administrations of grace.

Baptist covenant theology called 1689 federalism.

So there's two flavors of that as well.

There are some Baptists who hold to classic covenantalism, and that would be the exact same.

They would see the covenant of grace spanning all the way through, and they're kind of putting baptism just on the end of it, saying, hey, we're Baptists, but we're still going to hold the exact same covenant theology as a Presbyterian does.

Then there's 1689 federalism that would see covenant of works all the way from the garden to the Abrahamic covenant to the Noah covenant to the Mosaic covenant, Davidic covenant, all those being covenants, works being subservient to the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace.

And then you have different flavors of new covenant theology, progressive covenant theology, which differ.

All of those differ.

And then, of course, dispensationalism, which some show an extreme point of continuity and some show an extreme point of discontinuity, dispensationalism being on the discontinuity aspect of it, Presbyterianism being on the continuity side of it.

Hopefully that helps.

Did everyone get that?

You might want to explain the continuity part.

Right.

Yeah.

So give you an example.

So if, if it's a covenant of grace, if we're talking about covenant of grace in the Mosaic covenant, that they're, that the people of God in that covenant, in the Mosaic covenant were, were all covenant people of God, you would see continuity in Presbyterian covenant theology and that the covenant, the, that covenant of people would be, they would receive the covenant sign of circumcision.

That would be a sign of remaining in that covenant.

And so they would see continuity going into the new covenant being a different administration of grace all the way to the new covenant.

And they would say that the new covenant sign and seal is baptism.

And so the reason why there's continuity there is that they would say that those are the people of God if you have two believing parents, the same way you have two believing parents in the old covenant or in the Mosaic covenant, that we should go ahead and baptize our children because they are covenant children based on the two believing parents.

So you would see continuity there.

In Baptist covenant theology, we would say, no, no, no, that, that, that the old covenant was based on ethnicity.

Those were, those were the people of God.

They were the chosen people, God based on, by birth.

And so the only people that are counted the people of God in the new covenant is by virtue of the new birth, which is regeneration.

So only those people that have been born again would, would, would receive the sign of, of the covenant sign, which is baptism.

Okay, that's helpful.

Okay.

But you seem to kind of glossed over dispensationalism a bit, so.

Yeah, so you would see major discontinuity with everything.

They wouldn't even recognize a covenant in the garden.

And we're going to see that in, in a minute here in the, in the conversation here, and we'll talk about that when we hit it.

Okay.

All right, fair enough.

Yeah.

All right, let's bring it up.

Just let me know when you want me to stop.

One of interpretation.

This would be one of.

Back up a little.

It's going to be two rounds.

Six.

You mentioned this is really hard to do and get it right.

You mentioned it.

Regarding the teaching gifts, I just want to clarify what's your view on what it actually is?

So.

Well, it's, it's not dealing.

My point was, is that that's not dealing with the.

Anything having to do with the interpretation of Scripture.

Specifically.

It says since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us in the exercise according to them, if prophecy according to the proportion of his faith, if service in his fate, in his serving, in teaching, who.

He who teaches in his teaching, the prophecy which, you know, some would say is preaching, whether it's reveal the, the revelation of Scripture, however, we're going to want to look at that it is in proportion to that specific gift.

So I don't think that this is either way.

I don't think that this is one of interpretation.

This would be one of the, the writing of scripture or the proclaiming of Scripture.

So let me just catch everybody up right there.

What happened previously is Joseph is making his argument for the analogy of faith, but he's using it out of a verse in Romans chapter 12.

And, and he's asking Andrew what he thinks Romans chapter 12, that specific verse is about.

And Andrew's clarifying the context of that passage.

Does he offer a clarification or a definition of what analogy of faith is?

He does.

And so for our listeners, I'll just tell you.

The analogy of faith just means Scripture, interprets Scripture.

But he does get into that.

I think it's in the second cross examination.

Maybe it may be in this first one.

So we would.

Yeah, so the analogy of faith is that we would.

We would go by the clearer interpretation of a passage.

So if there is a passage of scripture that's a little bit obscure, we would test it and go compare that passage to the Scripture with a clear definition of what that means.

Right, okay.

Interpret the foggy in light of the clear.

There we go.

You said that much better than I did.

Right?

Yeah.

I'm a professional speaker.

I do that.

All right, let's continue.

Okay, so what, what do you do if someone says to you prophesy according to the analogy of faith or according to the proportion of faith?

What does that mean practically for someone to do?

Well, it's gonna.

I think it's gonna depend upon how people interpret that prophecy.

Right.

So if it's.

If it's the revelation of Scripture, which I don't think it is, but if someone's going to take it that way, I think what you end up with is, you know, it's going to be interpreted as, you know, the trying to think how best to word it.

But that someone is.

Their faith is going to somehow give the revelation of Scripture.

I think this has to do personally more with the preaching.

And so I think that faith has got to do with their faithfulness.

Which.

Is how pistachs is translated throughout the Scripture as faithfulness.

Hey, I'm Jordan.

Hi, Jordan.

No free ads for you.

One year.

His faithfulness, for example, which we'd expect at least to say his.

His stales.

Why was it objectively the.

What do you think?

Yeah, well, and you're right.

You're right in your argument that it's.

There's a definitive argument there.

And so it's the proportion of his faith.

The definite article is to the proportion.

No, there's a definite article before the faith as well.

One definite article.

Oops.

I want to point out he's talking about the Definite article in terms of trying to apply it to the faith in that passage.

But it's still irrelevant to the topic if he's, he spends all this time in this question on the definite article.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with the, with the topic and what he's supposed to be proving.

Do you get a sense that he actually knows Greek or he just, he took like a quarter of it and now he knows how to read.

Ha.

Or, you know, I, I had that thought when I was listening to that today because I want to say I only heard him say this text in Greek.

And so it could be that he only knows maybe that, you know, maybe first year or one year Greek student and he knows a couple of things.

I don't know that he is fluent in the text, in the Greek text to where he can handle it in terms of if I were to give him a text and he can parse out everything.

I don't know that he would actually be up to that level.

I mean, I'm not up to that level.

I don't, you know, Andrew uses, you know, the word searches a lot, word studies on Bible software.

So I don't know that he is, will say almost like a James White.

You know, I don't, I don't think.

He'S on like what Vodi Bauckham says about, about what is it philosophy that if you've taken only one philosophy, one quarter of philosophy or one semester, it should be illegal for you to discuss philosophy.

Well, the other thing is, is Joseph is his name right, correct?

Yeah.

So he's, he's also making an argument that, that Andrew wouldn't disagree with.

Right.

He would also hold to scripture, interpret scripture.

That's right.

Yeah.

So, so there's really no disagreement.

The only thing is Joseph is using this as the main point of how we interpret the covenants of covenant theology and Andrew's entire debate philosophy, or we'll say apologetic at this point from.

Or from here on out is going to be to go.

Well Scripture doesn't actually say that, does it?

Right all the way to the end and to where, you know, really Joseph has to go.

Well, it's not, it's not said in so many words, but we just have examples of where we can point to.

But you know, he really once he said, well, it doesn't say, you know, not in so many words.

He's already conceded the debate to Andrew.

Right.

So you would also say that Andrew has a definite advantage being a better debater.

He does now Joseph and this in in our text thread earlier today, my.

The question I asked was what I said, is this his first debate?

Because when you watch the debate, you get a sense that this might be the first time he's done it in the way that he speaks, in the way that he's delivering his argument, in his cross examinations.

He's.

He doesn't really ask a good question.

Now, there's some questions that he does ask that are really good, but if he would have stayed on that line of argumentation.

Right.

He would have done a lot better.

But he allows Andrew to get him off of that line of argumentation, as Andrew does so well.

And it just, you know, the debate goes downhill from there.

But Andrew does, being an experienced debater, an experienced speaker, has the ability to kind of point out what his weakness is, and then he focuses on that and he continues to bring it back to that weakness and then ask questions about that until what.

So what Joseph should have done was he should have admitted, like, you know, I'll give it to you.

I don't really have, you know, a good explanation for this.

There's other places, you know, through Scripture where we can prove covenant theology.

And so I want to bring one of those places in.

Right.

And kind and kind of steer it back into his favor and then go with one of the other arguments that he had because he just kind of glossed over them instead of just honing in on them.

Yeah.

All right, let's.

What, you know, even with that.

So you're saying that.

You're saying two.

There's.

I'll grant it, for the sake of discussion, you're saying there's two definite articles, the proportion and the faith.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So.

And.

And I know I can't ask you the questions.

Why does that matter?

But.

Okay.

Yeah, I mean, I, I really.

I mean, we can keep going down the point.

I don't think this has to do with how to interpret Scripture.

Okay, I'll move on.

That's fine.

I'll ask you.

I'll give you a chance.

I'll ask you that question.

You can explain it.

Okay, sure.

So when Jesus spoke about the temple being destroyed in John chapter two, what did he mean?

In John chapter two, do you have the specific verse?

Yeah, I think it's verses 21 through 23 around there.

He says, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

Yeah.

So I think he's.

He's speaking there.

There.

You have a case where, like I said, he has.

He had.

We have no, he has a dual Meaning, because he says so.

Right.

He's speaking.

It says he was speaking of the temple of his body.

Right.

So where does he say that?

He has a dual meaning?

Because it says in verse 21.

But he was.

And this is, this is an important lesson because this is one of the things that Andrew was prepared for.

Yeah.

Going to John.

And the, the point that Joseph is trying to make is he's trying to say, how would that first century audience have taken the word temple?

When Jesus says temple, and Andrew's going, yeah, but the text clarifies what he means.

He was speaking of the temple of his body.

Right.

It's the very next verse.

But what throws me off is where Joseph says.

Where does it say that?

Right.

Almost as though he doesn't know.

It says that in the very next verse.

Right.

That was kind of concerning to me as well.

Right.

So.

So, so everybody knows.

So a dispensationalist would say what the human author's intent is, what, what it was intended for the audience.

It was.

Is what it means today.

So if the text, if the author was communicating something to the audience of the Old Testament, whatever that, whatever he was communicating then is what it means now.

Unless Scripture informs us otherwise.

Right.

Specifically.

Yeah.

And so what's.

What's very funny about that?

Because when I was listening to this, I thought about this.

Years ago, there was an episode that Andrew, Justin and Anthony did, and they were going over, they had Jim Osmond on and they were talking about one of his sermons.

And this is actually where me and Jim got to know each other.

So they do this episode and I do a rebuttal to this episode.

One of the comments that was made in the Apologetics Live episode was, I think it was by Pastor Justin Pierce, and he said, we have to look at this how the first century audience would have understood it.

And my rebuttal to that was, yeah, but Jesus is constantly having to correct the first century audience by saying, have you not read?

Have you not read?

Have you not heard?

Have you not heard?

Right.

So we can understand it how they understood it.

But is that what is actually meant?

Because Jesus is having to come in and correct their thinking.

Right.

So you're actually going to the New Testament to inform the Old, Right?

That's right.

Yeah.

A dispensationalist would not hold to that.

Really.

No, they would not.

I do.

Welcome to Covenant Theology.

Oh, no.

Maybe I've been soaking in it all this time.

Well, you know, it's a lot like all Armenian or all Armenians are Calvinists when they pray, you know, it's kind of the same thing.

Yeah, right.

Lord, please change his heart.

Yeah, right, exactly.

Yep.

All right, let's see what else we got.

Speaking of the temple of his body.

So he's.

He's talking about the temple that took 46 years to build.

What.

What temple took 46 years to build?

It would.

It would be the physical temple that they were standing in front of.

And when he says, you it'll raise up in three days.

Verse 21 states, and he was speaking of the temple of his body.

So there, you see in the text, the very next verse gives us the meaning that there was a dual meaning, that Christ had both the physical temple that took 46 years to build and his body would be raised.

And that's why we have that explanation, I would argue, so that we know that he had that dual meaning.

Were the Jews wrong to not understand him Speaking of His body.

Were the Jews wrong for not understanding.

I, I not sure how to answer that.

I would say in one sense that Christ specifically spoke in parables so they would not understand.

The funny thing is that throughout Scripture, it seems to be the Jewish leaders and the Gentiles that understood what the disciples did not.

Was Jesus speaking in a kind of parabolic way here, do you think?

Or do you think he was speaking clearly or what do you think the, the tone was here?

Oh, no, I said he clearly had a dual meaning because the scripture says so.

The, the difference I would have is I would never say that there's a dual meaning unless the scripture said so.

Okay.

But the Jews that this, presumably the Holy Spirit did not tell them directly there is a dual meaning here.

They're going by Jesus's words.

So what I'm asking is whether there was a responsibility upon the part of the Jews to recog What Christ is doing, to recognize Christ's figurative language there, or if they had to wait until they read John's gospel to see.

Aha.

That's what Jesus was doing in that moment to understand.

Yep.

This immediately, I think of.

What is it?

First Corinthians 2:14.

The natural man does not understand the things of the spirit because they are spiritually discerned.

He's talking to people who are spiritually dead.

So of course they're not going to get it.

Right.

Right.

Am I missing something?

No, you're.

You're right.

I would think that a reformed guy would be all over that.

Yeah, Yeah.

I mean, and that because.

Because we do that today, right?

When we're preaching, when we're evangelizing and doing apologetics.

Right.

When we're giving the gospel, we know that when we give the gospel, we're giving it to spiritually dead people.

Right, right.

And our hope and our prayer is that the Holy Spirit would move through that in them and change their heart.

Amen.

And bring them to.

To grant them repentance unto each other.

Exactly.

Yeah.

So that is the Reformed perspective.

Right.

To.

To know that we are talking to spiritually dead people and it is only the gospel of Christ that will awaken them.

Right.

So.

Yeah, I mean, I think, I think that was a good catch, Dan.

Yeah.

The figurative language Christ was using.

No, I mean Christ, it's very clear.

Jesus says, destroy this temple in three days.

I'll raise it up.

And what do the Jews immediately think?

They think the physical temple, because that's the language.

And Jesus is using the word temple in a different way.

Even though he's standing, you know, in the temple.

He, he being God knows what they are going to think.

He.

He understands their, Their.

Their mindset, but he uses that language purposely because being God, He.

He, for whichever, whatever reason he wants, he does not want them to clearly understand unless it's stated.

Would they, Would you consider those Jews to have been the original audience that was receiving Jesus's prophecy then?

Yeah, because he's.

It says, you know, he's.

He said.

He said this and the Jews were there.

So they were, they were listening.

But it.

The other.

But they're not the only audience because though they were there, the disciples were there as well.

They were also part of the audience.

So is Jesus's prophecy in any way undermined by the lack of understanding of at least part of his original audience?

Ask that question a different way.

So maybe.

We say.

Yep.

So I.

Do you agree with Andrew here that there's a dual meaning.

Was Jesus speaking about the physical temple?

I don't think he was.

Yeah, I don't think he was either.

Yeah, not the stone temple, no.

Yeah, no.

Yeah, he was clearly speaking.

And, and it informs us in the next verse, like you said, that he was clearly speaking about himself.

He's clearly speaking about his body.

So Andrew said, no, it's a tool.

It's a dual meaning.

So that, and that the audience was right in their understanding.

No, they totally misunderstood.

Right.

That he was speaking above spiritual things, like you pointed out.

They're ever, ever hearing, but never was ever seeing, but never perceiving.

Right, Right.

Yeah.

And that's what.

And you know, to Andrew's point, he was talking About a parable that we know that to some, to the unbelieving, it was concealed and to the believing, it was revealed.

And that was the point of the parables.

But I, I think that the meaning, the communication, the, the, in the text, he was communicating that he was the temple.

They just clearly didn't understand it.

Right, right, right.

Now he does talk about the destruction of the temple, but that's not until Matthew 24.

That's right.

You know, so.

But I also wouldn't say, oh yeah, when Jesus is talking about the temple here, he's talking about the temple in Matthew 24.

Like, I wouldn't say those are the same thing.

Those are two completely different things.

Two completely different events.

Definitely.

If a dispensationist would say that a prophecy must.

Or prophecies understood by its original audience, here are unbelieving Jews who count as at least some of the original audience.

So what, how then can Jesus's prophecy still be true if that part of that original audience didn't understand that?

Okay, so let me clarify that dispensationalism doesn't believe that the audience has a full understanding of every prophecy.

It is that the, that there is a meaning that would be understood at the time that of the prophecy.

Though they may not know the fullness, the fact that a virgin would give birth, some might have thought it was a maiden because the word could be used that way.

But we know that the spatujin, they knew it was literally a virgin.

How could that be?

I'm sure they didn't figure that one out.

They probably couldn't stop right there.

So Andrew's contradicting himself right there.

Because if.

And this is where he's going.

This is where Joseph is going.

If the author is intending to communicate something and whatever that information is that the author is intending, however the audience understood it is what it means.

That's what Joseph is saying.

He's making an error.

He's saying, well, no, no, you know, just because they didn't understand it, you know, that, that it has a dual meaning.

That's.

That's not the case.

Andrew is contradicting himself right here.

Yeah, yeah.

And, oh, there was something I wanted to point out about prophecy.

And then it left my mind.

Say everything you just said again and hopefully it will jog my memory of it.

I only do one show.

Go watch the tape.

Go watch the tape.

Yeah, it's gonna.

Look, we're gonna, we're gonna end the show.

I'm gonna go to sleep.

And then in the middle of the night it's gonna ring and I'm gonna go.

That's what it was that I wanted to say.

That's what.

Maybe it'll dry.

You keep playing.

It'll.

It'll jar your memory.

Yeah, yeah.

And understand that there is.

There are things that even Paul says are mysteries, but it.

But the difference being is we would only say when.

When.

When Paul says it's a mystery between the.

The.

The.

That marriage is a mystery between the God and church.

That's.

We know that because Scripture revealed that.

I wouldn't come into a conclusion like that unless Scripture reveals it.

Okay, stop again.

So.

So unless Scripture reveals it.

But I thought Andrew said that what the author's intent.

When.

When something is read in the Old.

In.

In.

Or something is written in the Old Testament, what it.

What it was communicating then is what it means now.

Now he's saying that something is different.

So Andrew is.

Is actually affirming what we're saying, that the New Testament interprets the Old.

When something is revealed more clearly in the New Testament, we must go by that.

That is the hermeneutic.

The lens by which we should communicate, by which we should read all Scripture is through the lens of.

Of the full revelation that God has.

Has communicated.

So it's not the.

It's not the human author.

It's not the human author's intent.

It's the divine author's intent.

What did the divine author intend to communicate here?

I see.

I'm just wondering, like, what makes that a.

A character?

I don't know.

I don't know if I can articulate this question.

Well, what makes that a distinctive of Reformed theology and not just good hermeneutics?

That.

Well, that's a good question.

Because.

Because I think that's his.

That that's the whole point of Joseph.

This is the argument that he's saying that this is a.

This, this clearly articulates why Covenant theology is.

Right.

I don't.

I don't get it either.

I don't.

I don't see his point.

This is just good hermeneutics.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I mean, it's.

It's demonstrated in Scripture.

Right.

I mean, you look at the book of Hebrews especially, right?

Like, oh, wow, you know, hey, there's.

There Hagar and Sarah wouldn't have.

Wouldn't have thought of that.

Right.

But there it is, an inspired scripture.

Right?

Yeah.

Yep.

Okay.

Where did everyone in Isaiah's day understand his prophecies completely?

No, I would say we still don't even know them completely.

Today.

Okay, okay.

Right.

Did they understand them at the time?

Did they understand them to, to the amount that within that covenantal period they had a covenantal period we'd call dispensation with the knowledge they had.

This is the, this is the understanding of progressive revelation.

As we have more revelation, we have a greater understanding.

We have, we have greater knowledge.

And so that, that's why it's so key to understanding Scripture.

I don't.

So just real quick.

I don't hold someone to, to, in, in Isaiah's day to understand everything that we have today.

Okay, last question.

What's the distinction you're making between your position in which the original audience doesn't necessarily understand everything and not all of them necessarily understand, and my position, which is that the Holy Spirit reveals truth beyond the original audience?

Yeah, the, the difference would be is how do you know that the Holy Spirit's revealing it if it's not revealed in Scripture?

See, so a clear, an example that I would have would be there could be things that are similarities, but similarities that do not make it factual.

In other words, the, the fact that there's a lot of similarities between Abraham offering Isaac doesn't mean that Isaac was a type of Christ.

There's similarities between the offering of Isaac and the offering of Christ, but it doesn't mean he is a type of Christ unless scripture says so.

Jonah is a type of Christ, because Scripture says so.

So I would limit it there.

Okay, so real quick, so when you, when you think of Isaac and the sacrifice that was made, do you not see a type of Christ there?

Yeah, yeah, that's the, that's the type and shadow, right?

Absolutely.

The offering up of your son on, on the altar as a sacrifice.

Right.

And so it is a, a type and a shadow because the only other.

Because then we see that in Christ himself, right.

As he goes up the mountain to offer himself.

And you know, we can even draw that out in terms of Isaac a little more because Isaac wasn't just this little helpless child.

I mean, if he didn't want to be put on that offering block, he wasn't going to be.

Right.

I mean, and Abraham at this time was really, really old, so he willingly went.

He willingly went there.

Yeah.

And so in that, you actually see the faith of Isaac as well, and then you doing what the Father doing.

What the Father had, had wanted him to do.

Correct.

And then before they even go up there, you see either, you see that Abraham believes either God will provide a sacrifice in Isaac's place or he will be Resurrected.

Because he distinctly says, me and the boy will go up and worship and we will return.

Yeah, that's.

That's definitely a type of Christ.

Yeah, Andrew, you might be wrong on that one.

You are wrong on that one.

Oh, that escalated quickly.

No, so.

Oh.

It was around the time the cessationist movie came out, and we had Les Lamp Fear on the show, and it was like, myself, Les.

I think Chris Honholz was on.

I think Chris Huff was on.

And we were talking about regeneration and faith, and somehow the.

Somehow the conversation turned to that regeneration and faith.

And we were all saying the same thing, except Andrew.

And when Andrew basically flipped it to say that faith pro.

Precedes regeneration and everyone.

There's a screenshot of it somewhere.

Everyone's face was like, what are you saying right now?

So the exact same thing.

We were at the why Calvinism conference in Tullahoma, Tennessee, last year, and we were at a roundtable.

Keith Oski, I mean, a whole bunch of reform people all around us.

Braden Patterson, we're all sitting there and we're talking to Leighton Flowers, of all people, about Calvinism.

And.

And Leighton asked the question, do you guys think that faith precedes or regeneration precedes faith?

And we all said, yes, yes, yes, around the table.

And Andrew, sure enough, there he goes, I don't.

I have a different view.

And the same thing.

We're all.

We are at a why Calvinism conference, Andrew Rapaport, and you're speaking at it, and now you're saying that faith doesn't pre.

Or that regeneration doesn't precede faith.

It was horrible.

Everybody's face was, wow.

And that's the thing with Andrew, right?

Because, like, you never know what he's gonna say.

Yeah.

And just do that to poke the bear or what?

You know, honestly, with Andrew, you don't know because he.

He may have just been saying it to.

To be on the opposite side of everyone else.

And he's so convincing in the way that he says it.

It's like sincere.

Yeah, but then he could be joking the entire time.

You never know.

That's the thing.

You just don't know until, like four months later when he may go, oh, yeah, I was joking about that the whole time.

But you didn't.

You never know until a week later.

And then he might have just changed his position.

Who knows?

So nobody knows where Andrew stands.

Who says unto his neighbor?

What was the man who says unto his neighbor?

I was only joking.

That's right.

That's a good one.

All right, let's see what we got here.

All right.

Well done, gentlemen.

Well done.

Very good.

That was actually, that actually I really enjoyed that.

And it looks like the audience did as well because that prompted a few more questions.

So getting, getting nice and, and hot up in here.

Right?

Like, here we go.

For me, for me, the, the, the cross exam is always like the key.

Moment of the debate.

So.

Yep.

Very, very well.

That's where debates are won and lost.

Okay, so a core part of our difference is going to be the analogy of faith.

So as I said, I'll ask you, you know, why is that Romans passage that you referred to?

Why, how, how do you interpret that and why is that important?

I interpret that to mean that we are.

Analogy on the Greek term has the sense of comparison.

So there's a comparison of the faith it's prophesying, which I understand to include teaching.

Therefore, if one is going to teach the word of God and to understand and therefore by implication, if you're going to understand it because the berean search of Scriptures to see if what Paul is saying is true, there must be a comparison of Scripture with the Scriptures.

And therefore I understand it as a comparison of one scripture with another Scripture to determine the meaning of a text along with the other methods we discussed.

Okay.

And I still was looking to see that there's a dual definite article there.

But so, so how do you, how do you come to an objective way of interpreting scripture using this analogy of faith?

How do you know?

The question is, how do you know it's of the Holy Spirit?

Because it's going to be in harmony.

Because with itself.

Because God is not the author of confusion, but of peace.

X cannot mean X and also X can.

X can't mean Y and also not mean Y.

There can't be any contradictions.

So when truth is established, we, we then use that to help shed light on different passages.

Give you an example, beasts in Daniel.

We, we can understand what beasts are in revelation somewhat by seeing how beasts are used for kingdoms in Daniel.

Thus by the clarity of the Old Testament, it sheds light on the less clarity in, in the New Testament.

So yeah, that's, that's one way.

But basically we're comparing scripture with scripture to find the doctrine of the unchanging, all powerful, mighty God who see.

And the thing is, is Andrew would agree with that.

He would agree with using scripture to interpret Scripture.

Andrew's starting to hone in on, okay, if you're, you know, where is it, you know, how is that Holy Spirit inspired?

You know, he's trying to make this claim that it's almost extra.

This argument that it's almost extra biblical and get Joseph to go along with it.

Where Joseph should have just said it's just a hermeneutical principle like gaining context in a passage and you know, then move on, move on to his next point.

Move on to your next question that you have.

But one of the things that Andrew.

So he, he does believe with comparing scripture with scripture, but only if it specifically says it.

Right?

Yeah.

So.

And, and he had announced that.

But, but we would actually look at that differently.

And I think that's where Joseph was going, that he was actually trying to say, no, this is the whole lens by which we should interpret everything.

Right.

And not just if it explicitly states it.

And I think, and I don't know where he does, but I think it goes to 1st Peter 1:12.

And it says it was revealed to them that they were not serving themselves, but you in these things which we have been, which we have been announced to you through those who preach the Gospel through the Holy Spirit to, to look into.

To.

I'm sorry, the Holy Spirit sent from heaven things in which you long to look.

And so that's the hermeneutic by which we should look at everything.

This is what Peter looked to.

To do.

The Apostle Paul looked to do.

He, he looked back and he was informing something brand new by looking back into the Old.

Right.

Everything was through the lens of the, of the New Testament.

Of the New Testament.

Right.

So when, like when Paul, you mentioned Paul, when Paul's going to the synagogues, into the marketplaces and he's.

It says he's reasoning from the Scriptures.

Yeah, he's taking that New Testament lens of Christ, the new covenant lens of Christ and he's showing them Christ in the Old Testament, but through that New Testament lens.

That's right.

Yeah.

And that would be the hermeneutic by which we should interpret everything.

Right.

If not, not just when it explicitly says it.

Not when it explicitly says it.

Right.

Yeah, I would agree.

Who's wet Is truth.

Okay, so how, how then do you separate yourself from every other religious group that will say that they have the consistency and do a similar interpretation?

For example, Mormonism will look at.

There's.

Okay, this is completely irrelevant by Andrew.

He's bringing in other belief systems.

But we're not talking.

But Joseph here is not talking about other belief system.

He's talking about comparing holy Scripture with holy Scripture.

Yeah.

So bringing in something like Mormonism is a distraction.

So Andrew's Talking about, you know, Joseph will make a logical fallacy.

Right.

Except Andrew right here is just bringing in a red herring.

It's something to distract.

That is really not to do with the argument.

Two, two branches in the.

I forget which book of the Old Testament.

And they'll say one is the Bible, one's the Book of Mormon.

And it's consistent with their analogy of faith.

How.

How can you say they're wrong when they use it?

They employ a same.

It doesn't matter if they imply the same argument.

You can objectively see that the Book of Mormon does not correspond to the truth of Scripture.

Jesus Christ was the son of God and final prophet.

Mormonism contradicts that, therefore Mormonism is false.

Amen.

Right.

Good answer to that.

Yeah, right.

And he was ready for that one too.

He said that.

He answered that one with competence.

Yeah, yeah.

Okay.

But yeah, Mormonism wouldn't.

Would the Book of Mormon in, in their mind precedes the.

The Bible.

It was written, you know, before the Bible was completed.

So again, objectively, how can you say that their style of.

Yeah, but I don't know that they.

That Mormons actually believe that the Book of Mormon was written before the Bible.

I've never talked to a Mormon that has said that.

I, I don't think that they would affirm that.

Yeah, I don't think they would either.

Yeah, he's a tricky, tricky Jewish guy.

Wrong.

And yours is right.

What object, what objective standard do you hold to?

Because objectively, the Book of Mormon was written after the Bible, therefore the claim doesn't hold up.

Therefore there's no point.

Pick it.

You can pick up the Book of Mormon and we can see evidences of it.

But the basic claim is false.

The premise can't even get beyond itself to a conclusion because the premise is utterly false.

We see from the vile life of Joseph Smith that he was a false prophet.

You shall know them by their fruits.

There are plenty of ways in which we hold up the Book of Mormon and we see that it does not concur with the spirit of truth in Scripture.

Thus it must be cast aside.

But again, I'm sticking with this because maybe you're missing the point.

The point is the rules of interpretation.

You.

They employ an analogy of faith, just like every religious group does.

And they have a system that is, that's.

That finds consistency within the system.

So you.

What is the objective argument to say.

That you're correct me if I'm wrong here, but it's almost as if Andrew is trying to bring in The Book of Mormon and say Mormons will look at the Book of Mormon and they will look at the Old Testament and they will compare the two and that's them comparing script, their scripture with scripture in order to validate their positions.

Yeah.

And it doesn't hold water.

It's, it's a, it's, it's, it's completely, it's, it's not, it's not a fair, he's not being a fair arguer right now, I wouldn't think.

Right, right.

I would agree.

Love you, Andrew, but you're not being a fair arguer.

Your proportion of faith, your use of this analogy is right, but their use of it is wrong.

Because the analogy of faith is one of three things, as I discussed.

Also to look at the context of the passage and also the original languages of the scriptures themselves.

Internal consistency is great, but it only works when you're actually using the scripture.

Once you try and introduce other books which are profane as holy, then the whole idea of the analogy of faith is destroyed.

Ezekiel 22:26 says, her priests have violated my law and have profaned my holy things.

They've put no difference between the holy and profane.

Neither have they showed difference between the unclean and the clean, have hid their eyes from my sabbaths and I am profaned among them.

Because the Mormons wickedly bring in a false book, bringing false prophecies, claims.

I have to internal.

So when we say scripture versus Scripture, when we compare scripture with scripture, we're not comparing scripture with the Quran.

Right.

We're not comparing scripture with, you know, the other religious writings that have nothing to do with the Bible.

We're, we're sticking within, you know, the infallible word of God.

Right?

Yeah, yeah.

And I would say in this portion of cross examination, I mean, points go to Joseph.

Yeah.

Because I mean, he's calling Andrew out on that.

He's saying, you know, that has nothing to do with it because you're introducing a false text, you know, and trying to compare the two.

So I think he did here, he did a really good job of that.

Now I think he, he should be a little more bold.

Right.

To say, Andrew, you know better.

Right.

Come on, don't go down this way.

You know better.

You know, you're introducing, you're basically creating a false dichotomy because you're bringing in a false religious text and, you know, trying to make an argument for that.

And you know that that's not what we're talking about.

So once you start down the doubt, the dark path, forever.

It will consume you.

Yeah, so.

So it would be good for him.

And I know, I think he's trying to be, you know, a little more respectful here to Andrew and, and answer the question.

But at the same time, just because someone asks the question doesn't mean you have to answer that question.

Right.

You can, you can answer it the way he did and then say, but, Andrew, I know you're.

I, I think you're arguing a little dishonestly here.

Do you think he's trying to show an extreme way of trying to say, listen, if we're going to make a comparison from one text to the other that we.

Is he just showing an extreme way to saying, you know, we could just make it mean whatever we want?

Andrew?

Yeah.

Do you think that's what he's trying to.

Where he's going with that?

Yeah, it seems to me it's kind of like, I don't know, it's.

What's the logical fallacy?

Is it a deny, denying the antecedent, affirming the consequence, one of those where it's just like, you know, the Jehovah's Witnesses do it this way, you do it this way, therefore you're just like the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Right.

It's, it's not a fair comparison.

Right, right.

It's.

Even if you do have the same.

Her, you know, the, the same, if you share a point of similarity in the hermeneutic doesn't mean you're going to get the same result.

It doesn't mean your, your starting point's the same.

It doesn't mean your ending point is the same.

Right.

Right.

Now, let me, let me bring in this comment by Kathy here.

She says, respectfully, I don't see Andrew is doing that.

He is getting at subjectivism.

And I mean, I as well.

He's trying to say, how do you know whether your interpretation is being subjective or objective?

You know, what standard are you holding to?

But Joseph has already answered that question.

He's, he's, he's answered that point.

He said, no, we, it, we only do it with holy Scripture and we're not introducing a false religious doctrine.

So we, we're gaining our interpretation from Scripture, which is the objective standard.

Right.

Back we had.

Tom, you have one addressed to you from Melissa.

She says, tom, this is exactly what Andrew is doing.

He's right, but I'm not sure that it was necessary at that point.

Y'all keep putting me at the bottom and I keep getting blocked.

By the way, you know, I don't know.

I don't know if anyone saw it, but when I put this thing up, I looked at the private chat and saw your comment, Dan, and started laughing.

Let's see.

Yeah, Kathy says yes, but some theology spiritualizes the text.

Do not get it by authorial intent.

I mean, yeah, we would understand that the.

But I think it's at this point part in the debate.

I think it's already been established that they're seeking authorial intent and they're seeking to just interpret scripture by Scripture.

Right.

So something on, on author's intent when, when we look at.

So yes, the human authors had an understanding of what they wrote.

We would all agree with that.

Right.

But did they have an exhaustive understanding of what they wrote in the Old Testament?

Well, no, they didn't because it says, you know, even the, the, the where was it is it's not in Hebrews says even, even the, you know, they, they, you know, even angels long to look into these things.

The authors themselves didn't really know.

They, they looked, they looked into these things to see, you know, what is this that I'm writing?

You know, what does this mean?

So.

Right.

So to Joseph's point, that's where I think he's trying to go with this, that the New Testament, now that we have, you think about even John the Baptist, we know as he was preaching, we have more than John the Baptist had at the point, the time that he was preaching because we have all of revelation.

And so to Joseph's point, he's basically saying this, Listen, the human author's intent is one thing.

Yes.

But we need to be informed by the rest of Scripture.

That is the lens by which we should interpret everything through the lens of Christ because God has told an entire redemptive story and canon is complete.

Now that canon is complete, that's the lens by which we should read everything.

Not by being so tight and going into the Old Testament.

Give you an example.

Look at Psalm 22.

Read that apart from the New Testament.

Read that apart from the New Testament interpreting that, you would never understand that being about what has actually happened to Christ on the cross.

If you just read that as the author's intent to who he wrote that to, you would never ever understand what that meant unless the New Testament informed the Old.

Yeah, I mean, in the same with Isaiah 53.

Right.

There's a reason why Isaiah 53 doesn't get read in temple readings is because you, once you read that even the Jewish people today have an understanding Of.

Of Christ and what happened?

They go, oh, you mean that's talking about Christ, that's talking about Jesus, you know, so, yeah, I definitely agree.

Right.

Consistency are not enough because they pollute word of God with their vile filth.

So you.

If I understand correctly, you would say that there's two other things that we need to be able to do that before the.

The analogy of faith, which is the.

The context.

Yep.

So we need.

We need context and we need to be faithful to the.

The literal wording.

Yeah.

Lit by literal.

Yeah.

The grammar, the.

The language.

We have to recognize what's being said and prophesy accordingly.

These three things go together.

I don't think it's necessarily a stage by stage, although it does make sense, I think, to look at the passage you're looking at, look at that language, then look around it to what's immediately before and afterwards, and then branch out into the whole of Scripture.

So logically, I do see that progression, although they do kind of all go together.

So there would need.

There would need to be a literal, grammatical, historical interpretation to.

In your mind to first be able to understand the analogy of faith.

It has to be there.

Yes, I absolutely agree.

It's not to understand the analogy of faith because the analogy of faith is how you understand the Scripture you're looking at.

But it has to, logically.

Yes.

It has to proceed.

It has to be there right alongside it.

Yes, I'd affirm that.

Okay, so the analogy of faith.

Ha.

You.

You said is how.

Has to be there.

That's how we interpret Scripture.

That's one of three method methods which we use.

We have to use all three methods together.

We can't separate them out and only use the analogy of faith.

Just as we can't separate them out and only use the original languages, we have to use all three things.

So.

Yeah.

And where do we get this understanding of the analogy of faith?

Romans 12:6, the.

Hold on.

I just want to bring in.

Andrew holds to all three of those and does all three of those too.

Yes.

Okay.

So because on this show, one of the things that we do whenever we're looking at Bible passages is the first thing is gain context.

Right.

And you will hear Andrew say that over and over and over again is we have to first look at the context.

So we gain context of the passage.

Then what will Andrew do?

He'll usually look at the original language, whether it's Hebrew, whether it's Greek.

He'll pull it up.

He'll look at it because the deficiencies are in English, whereas in those original languages, and I would say especially Greek, it's more clear because you have words that specifically modify other words so that it can only be saying one thing.

And then what will he do?

He will then interpret scripture with Scripture, right?

Is this idea, is this concept, is this theological premise, is it taught?

In other places in Scripture, Andrew will do the same thing, but here he's bringing to Joseph.

Well, do you see anywhere in Scripture where it tells you to do this?

Well, we would ask Andrew the same thing.

Okay, Andrew, you do the same things where, where do you see that in scripture?

Right?

I mean, the same, the same argument can just be given back to him.

And just if what Joseph should have done in his cross examination was go, well, do you hold to those three things too when you interpret scripture?

Right.

Okay, now can you tell me in Scripture where you would find those things?

Right, Right.

So when you, when the scripture says in James that a man is justified by, justified by not just by faith, but by works also, we would have to compare that with scripture to get the understanding right?

Right.

Because otherwise what do you get?

You get like the Mormons twist that scripture, right?

And they say a man is only saved after all he can do.

And then they point to that as a proof text.

That's right.

For salvation by works.

Right.

So we would have to go to Romans 4, we would have to go to Romans 5, that we have access into this grace by which we stand through faith.

It is by faith alone.

So, so one is obviously talking the con in the context.

One is talking about the means of salvation, the other is talking about the product of salvation.

Exactly.

Dan, I know you said you're gonna have to go here.

Is there anything that you wanted to add thus far before you dip out?

No, I, I, it just, the whole, the whole, the whole exchange just kind of has me scratching my head and furrowing my brow and trying to figure out what is going on here.

Like I said earlier, you know, it doesn't really feel like there's anything distinctively reformed versus, you know, dispensational going on.

I don't see the connection between everything they've talked about and these two perspectives on, on, you know, the covenant versus dispensational.

They, it's, there's no, there's no connection there for me.

So, you know, in, in Dan, I was, we were going to talk about this at the beginning before you go, and I can't.

I, I believe it was part, first part of the, the show.

They were talking about a Covenant in the garden.

And I had said, why does Andrew reject the covenant of garden?

And he had says, because there's the covenant word.

Covenant is not mentioned because it's not mentioned, therefore it's not a covenant.

So I, I just got through listening to Jeffrey Johnson talking about this, the covenant of works in the garden.

And he says it's, it's actually called a concept fallacy that just because the word isn't there doesn't mean the concept isn't there.

And he gives an example.

If we were to say, hey, you guys, everybody go back to your homes, grab your mitts, bats, balls, let's go around, run around some bases.

You guys divide up in teams and everything.

What are we doing?

Well, we're playing baseball.

I don't, I don't have to use that word, baseball to say that we're playing baseball.

The concept of it is there.

And so when you look at the blessings that are promised to Adam and Eve in the garden, you can enjoy all of the field, go take dominion of the land, eat of all these fruits.

These are the blessings.

But don't eat of that tree of the knowledge of good and evil, because if you do, on that day.

So now there's a condition based on that.

So there's the covenant right there.

There.

There's a contract that God has made with the covenant head, Adam, saying, these are the blessings where you can have life as long as you don't do this.

And so there's a condition, there's a contract.

I don't share that perspective.

I, I would say that I view that more as a command.

And like you've got, you know, if anything, it would be a unilateral contract, which, you know, I understand that those are made.

God made one with Abraham.

But, yeah, I, maybe, maybe we could talk about that some other time when I've got more time.

But yeah, I don't see a covenant, you know, between God and Adam, but I'm willing to be proven wrong, you know?

Well, I mean, yeah, so I mean, it's really important because, man.

Because we have imputed sin from the covenant head, the federal representative.

What does federal mean?

It means covenant.

So that.

That's how God deals with his people all the way through.

It's not just a person.

There's a covenant head that is representative.

That's why sin is imputed to all of mankind.

And so you think about that.

Either we're under the covenant of Adam and we remain in that sin, or we're under the covenant of grace, who's the covenant of grace head Christ as goes the covenant head.

So go the people.

Think about that next time we talk.

All right, cool.

Okay, thanks, man.

Thanks for coming in, David.

Talk to you guys later.

All right, man.

All right, we will continue on.

Okay.

The analogy of faith.

Okay, so where in that define what you described as the analogy of faith?

Because words.

Yeah, that's just the words.

So I'm looking for the.

Right, so let me ask it this way.

First, define the analogy of faith.

Clearly, the analogy of faith is the comparison of one scripture to another in order to determine the truth set down by God in his holy word.

Okay.

And you get that what you just said directly from Romans.

That, but also from comparing Scripture with Scripture.

John 5:39.

Search the Scriptures for in them you think you have eternal life.

And they are that they which testify of me.

Acts 17:11.

They were more noble than those in Thessalonica in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and search the Scriptures daily whether those things were so.

So we see throughout Scripture a searching of the Scriptures, a use of.

A practical use of the analogy of faith, not limited to this one passage and the grammar within it.

We also see it's in harmony with the rest of Scripture.

Okay, now I know he's going to that verse, Romans 12:6.

Yeah, but I don't see that verse.

I don't either.

As explaining interpreting scripture with scripture.

I.

I don't see it at all.

So let's read.

Let's read the verse.

Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them accordingly.

If prophecy according to the proportion of his faith.

I don't see the analogy of faith there at all.

I don't see.

Hey, go and compare scripture to scripture there.

Right.

And.

And to Andrew's points that he was making a little earlier, he actually exegetes this text.

And he.

Because the text is, is.

I mean, it's very clear.

Right.

Since we have gifts that differ.

Right.

So you have gifts, I have gifts.

Since we have gifts that differ according to the grace given to us, each of us is to exercise them, the gifts accordingly.

And then he gives an example.

If prophecy according to the portion of his faith.

Right.

That has absolutely nothing to do with interpreting Scripture.

Right.

And so.

And then he pointed to other passages that basically just say, you know, study to show yourself the prudent God, a workman needing not.

That's not comparing scripture with scripture either.

Right.

You know, the.

To Andrew's credit, you know, he keeps Going to this and saying show me where that is right here.

Yeah.

And but Joseph need really needs to understand that you don't get that from this passage.

Right.

Right.

Now it is one of those where it's a concept that you can.

Because he gives examples.

Sure.

You can draw out examples.

I mean, and you know, we gave an example with James, you know, utilizing James we can look at.

But then again we don't.

We need what's already written in the New Testament to be able to understand this.

Where after Christ is resurrected and on the road to Emmaus, he's speaking with them and he said, and he teaches them of the scriptures and how they pointed to him.

Right, right.

But we wouldn't know that unless we had the New Testament and what, what took place.

That's right.

And then we can go back into the Old Testament and then because of the words of Christ we can go, oh, that's Christ.

That's Christ.

That's Christ.

That's Christ.

All throughout the the Old Testament.

Which is why based on the words of Christ saying all the prophecies, you know, pointed to him.

I look at places like the 70 weeks prophecy and I go, yep, that's fulfilled in Christ.

Right, right.

Absolutely.

I'm not waiting for some future 70th week from a non existent gap.

You know that, that the text, you know, and Andrew said, you know what the text says that the text doesn't say.

Right.

So yeah, I'm really hoping we get to that Daniel passage soon in here.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

But you, you said that it is found here in Romans 12:6.

And what you've done is you've taken the words of Romans 12:6 and you've, you've employed a meaning that is.

I asked how do you directly get that from this passage?

You said it means comparison.

Pisteos means the faith.

The faith is contained in the word of God.

Therefore, to know the whole of our faith is based on upon the word of God above all things.

I've said your word and your name.

Look at Psalm 119.

Your word is a lamp to my, my feet and a light into my path.

What would my faith be without the word of God?

Where would I get the objective content for my faith without the Scripture?

It is so fundamental to faith is made up, it's constitutive.

We have a noticia knowledge.

We have ascent and we have trust.

We, we can't have trust in what we don't ascend to.

And we can't ascend to anything we don't know.

And the contents of our faith knowledge wise is the scriptures.

That's why it must be through comparison of the Word that I can do the compare the analogy of faith.

They're so linked.

So that's where I get it from.

Okay, are you, you're so you.

But you said you get it explicitly from here and I, I think you're reading into it.

So I'm, I'm trying to, I'm trying to dig into this.

So because so everyone knows we'll do scripture.

Scripture is how you interpret each of the individuals passage of scriptures.

So with that the Romans 12, 6.

What is this?

How do you, from this, these couple of words extract out, extract out this full meaning that you defined.

Where, where in that passage does it say to use scripture with scripture?

Because there's a comparison and I'll argue, I mean in comparison.

Firstly it's all about prophecy.

So prophecy includes teaching the word of God.

You can't teach unless you can make that comparison.

And the piece that like, like I said in my opening it is the analogy of the faith, the proportion of the faith, which means comparison.

So it's there in the words.

And you can then support that from what we see, the practice of poof.

Do you agree with that?

That you can't teach unless you can make the comparison?

No, I, I mean do I have to make a comparison to.

You know, and that's what I was.

Thinking, what the scripture says.

Right.

But not even that.

But in order to teach just the gospel.

Right.

Proclaim it, teach it, what this means, do I, do I need to be able to make a comparison from somewhere else in scripture in order for somebody else to get it?

No right to say that you are justified.

Right.

Meaning God has canceled out the penalty against you by placing that penalty on Christ so that you are now declared not guilty.

Right.

I don't have to get a comparison from anywhere else in order to teach that, right?

I don't think so either.

Yeah, so I don't, I'm not, I'm not entirely sure why, why he said.

That because this is, this is about interpreting scripture.

The other thing is what does this have to do with the difference between covenant theology and dispensationalism?

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This is, this is kind of where it's, it's getting a little off topic.

Yeah.

So the, and I know what Andrew's trying to do is he's trying to, he's trying to draw it out so that he can show the inconsistency in the position.

And once you show the inconsistency, it's then not the most biblical hermeneutic.

I, I, you know, and I think that's what Joseph should have done.

I think he should have gone to Andrew and said, hey, let's go to Joshua and talk about the fulfillment of the land and show his inconsistencies, that if you're going to take it so wooden and so tight that you're actually being inconsistent because the Bible says that he's given all, all the land promises are fulfilled in Joshua, but then they aren't and you're still looking for another fulfillment.

Right.

And so the, the longer it goes on in this, with talking, continuing to talk about the analogy of faith and where you see it in Scripture and is that, you know, it's getting lost from the, you're getting lost in the weeds and away from the original thesis.

So you think this is more of a debate game?

I don't know if it's a game.

I think it's a tactic.

Okay.

I would say a little more of a debate tactic.

Okay, that's, that's a better word because.

Because later Andrew actually doesn't he.

So we see what he's, he's trying to do and asking these questions about this, but you don't see it fully until towards the end of the actual debate when he actually makes his point.

Right.

You know, oh, well, you just agreed with me on that.

Therefore, you know, I won the debate.

And so it's a tactic to get Joseph to see, well, this isn't explicitly stated in Scripture.

And so once he says, well, it isn't explicitly stated in Scripture, even so after he's already claimed that these verses teach that when they don't.

Once he's, he's, he says that, then Andrew's won the debate.

Right, Gotcha.

Yeah.

So, so the one thing that, that Joseph did, the mistake that really just kind of sealed it was he said this is what Scripture teaches and here is where it teaches it.

And then went to verses that don't teach that.

That.

And then Andrew pointed that out and now he's trying to draw that out, that they don't actually teach what you're saying.

And, but you're not going to see that until the end of the debate when he kind of brings that to the conclusion.

Yeah, yeah, I would, so I would agree with Melissa here.

She says that Joseph's arguments are confusing, so.

They are.

Yeah, they are.

To, to be fair, I mean, we, after, after going through this, we, we, we were both a little bit confused and and like we said, we both hold the Covenant theology.

And.

And he didn't.

He didn't sway us.

He didn't.

I would be totally lost.

I wouldn't be convinced.

Yeah, yeah.

After hearing this, I would.

I would go up to, like, if I was.

Let's say this was a live debate in front of people, right.

At an event.

Yeah.

I would have to go up to him and go, what?

Like, I don't understand.

I still don't understand.

You know, help me understand.

Right.

So Melissa says, I don't believe that Andrew is being sneaky.

I think Andrew is genuinely trying to.

And you know, that.

That probably could be it, too, because it is, like, super confusing.

But the thing.

Yeah, but the thing is, is like you had pointed out, he does hold to comparing scripture with scripture.

Right?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, Andrew would employ the same hermeneutical techniques in order to gain a proper interpretation.

Right.

But he is.

He's also pointing out that Joseph's going to.

That text is.

Hey, listen, you're going to this text.

It has nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

And.

And I think Andrew did a good job of pointing that out as well and calling him on that and pointing.

Pointing that out.

Andrew was by far the better debater.

But, yeah, there's.

That's the thing with Andrew, man.

You got to watch out sometimes, like, you just.

You just don't know because he might pull.

He might pull a tactic and get you focused on one.

Right.

Don't pay attention to what this hand is doing.

If I can draw your attention down here and I can distract you.

Right.

Because I got something going on up here where I'm going to come around the other side and I'm gonna.

I'm gonna trap you and I'm gonna.

I'm gonna get you.

Yeah.

Because I.

I don't.

I don't think through the whole thing that I actually heard Joseph actually make a case for Covenant theology.

Exactly.

Yeah.

Yeah.

But at the same time, I don't know that Andrew made one for dispensationalism either.

Agree.

That's true.

Yeah.

So much time here.

Yeah.

But.

But if you think about it, because Joseph is the affirmative in the debate, Andrew's.

Andrew doesn't have to make a case for dispensationalism.

He's just got to put doubt about the Covenant theology, about the affirmative position.

So as long as he can do that, which he did, then he'll win the debate, which I think he did.

Right?

Definitely.

Yeah.

Andrew Graham here Says Andrew is pulling a matte slick.

The Jedi mind trick.

Yeah, exactly.

These aren't the droids you're looking for.

That's right.

For example, in Romans 3 does it.

In Hebrews 1, he does it.

We see that's a consistent practice.

Christ says, have you not heard the Scriptures?

And he brings that scripture in to teaches, to teach, which further belongs to that which further belongs to the scripture, to create the wonderful whole and harmonious whole.

So we see that as a constant practice and doctrine of the Scriptures.

It's.

It's confirmed here in, in plain words, it's set down, but you can see it throughout the Scriptures.

Time, Time.

Okay, so here, here he's trying to make that case for.

You have to make a comparison in order to.

To teach.

But if I'm thinking about, say, a prophecy that he's giving and he's teaching like Matthew 24, my.

He doesn't.

I don't think he gets into any kind of comparison until he brings in Noah in the flood.

Flood, Right.

So he goes through this whole thing talking about how the temple is going to be destroyed.

And then depending on how you.

If you view all of Matthew 24 is fulfilled, or if you break it up into sections like I think like Kenneth Gentry does, or once you get to knowing the flood, he's now talking about the second coming.

So he's shifted topics.

But in that whole talking about the destruction of the temple, I don't think he makes a comparison at all.

In order to teach that the temple will be destroyed.

Yeah.

So what would, what would you say would be a good case for the analogy face.

What, what, what would be some topics that you would look at?

I mean, maybe first Thessalonians, you know, are we talking about the second coming?

That we really need to.

Because there's kind of gray areas.

It's not.

We need to tie it together with other passages of scripture.

Yeah.

So there was.

I actually did a teaching.

I sent it to.

Or I did a video.

I sent it to Andrew, both Andrew and Jim Osman.

And I said, hey, listen to this.

Give me your feedback.

And I didn't hear back from either one of them, but it was on the 70 weeks of Daniel, and I used scripture.

I went to.

I think it was Romans 11, where it's talking about the transgression of Jacob.

Okay.

And then.

But then I had to go back and look at what the transgression of Jacob was.

And so when you get into.

Then when.

Once you get into, say this, the 70 weeks prophecy to finish the transgression Right.

What does that mean?

How would that audience, you know, that's captive in Babylon have understood what is the transgression?

Right.

And so I tie those together.

But.

But I start out with Romans 11.

I think it's 11 where it's talking about.

That's talking about is all Israel saved?

Is that where you're going?

Yes, but it's.

I'm trying to think if it was.

It had to be 11.

See, it's been a long time since I've actually looked at that, that you can tell, because it's not off the top of my head.

But I.

I use those scriptures to compare with Scripture and then to further illustrate that the 70 weeks of Daniel is talking about being fulfilled in Christ, that the destruction that it mentions.

Right.

The abominations of desolations, that.

That's not something that it says will happen in the 70 weeks.

It's a result of the fulfillment of the 70 weeks.

I use Jesus's own words in Luke where he's standing outside of the city, looking at the city, and he's basically lamenting that they're going to be destroyed, that that city is going to be destroyed.

I might have to link.

I don't know how I can link it.

Andrew might have to link it.

But that teaching that I did on the 70 weeks prophecy, you might able to be able to just go to YouTube and then look at Matter of Theology YouTube page.

And it's probably on there if.

Okay, yeah, yeah, it should still be on there.

Hold on.

Melissa says, drew, give us your sales pitch on the 70 weeks.

I'm curious to hear what you have to say.

Okay.

All right, here we go.

Okay.

Start with the 69th week.

The 69th week.

Here's.

Here's what I'll do.

Okay.

Let's begin at verse 24.

Okay.

70 weeks have been decreed for your people and your holy city to finish the transgression, to make an end of sin, to make atonement for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up the vision and prophecy, and to anoint the most holy place.

I think place is the wrong word because we don't see a holy place being anointed in Scripture, but we see people being right, priests being anointed.

Right.

So I think that's better translated as the most holy person, the anointing.

Now, first, let's gain context with this passage.

In Daniel, chapter nine, we have Daniel's prayer, okay?

And his prayer is for the people of Israel who are in captivity.

It was prophesied that Israel was going to be in captivity for how many years.

Are you asking me?

Yeah.

Oh, I'm not even.

Hold on, I'm looking at the passage.

Let me get there.

You were following along with me.

Hold on.

So on 26, nine.

20.

So, so 70 weeks.

Where are we at?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.

Just Daniel, chapter nine.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So I'm going through the context of Daniel, chapter nine.

Okay.

And so Daniel's prayer for his people.

We first have to understand that Israel was in captivity.

And how long were they in captivity for?

I'm looking.

What verse are you on?

Oh, well, this is.

I think.

I don't know that it actually says it in chapter nine, but it's 70.

Like they were in captivity for 70 years.

Okay.

Is what they were going to be.

Oh, it's in verse 24.

It's talking about 70 weeks.

Hold on.

If we look at verse two of chapter nine.

In the first year of his reign, I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely 70 years.

Right, right.

So they would be in captivity for 70 years.

Yes.

And so Daniel prays and his prayer is basically, how much longer until this is over with?

Right, right.

And so we have Daniel confessing sins.

Right.

And actually have them highlighted here.

Right.

We have sinned.

We have not listened to your servants, the prophets, because of their unfaithful deeds.

Because we have sinned against you, we have rebelled against him, nor have we obeyed the voice of the Lord.

Right.

So he's just listing out all of their sins to God.

And so he's asking how much longer?

And then the gate, the.

The angel Gabriel then comes in and answers him.

And Gabriel says 70 weeks have been fulfilled or had been decreed.

And so we.

We already know to save us a lot of time, that it's 70 weeks of years.

Right.

So my question is he's taking the 70 years and then he's expanding it into 70 weeks of years.

So is there a gap between the 69th year and the 70th year of captivity?

No.

So why would there be a gap between the 69th week and the 70th week of the prophecy?

Right.

If we're staying in context of.

Of what's being related here?

So there.

So, so first, that's my first indication that there's no gap and there doesn't need to be a gap.

But when we get into what's listed, six things are listed that are going to be completed within the 70 weeks of years.

Okay, so what is going to be completed?

Finish the transgression, make an end of sin, make atonement for iniquity, bring in everlasting righteousness, seal up vision and prophecy, anoint the most holy place.

So did Jesus, who fulfill all those when he came?

Yes, yes, absolutely.

Yeah.

So.

So what else would we be waiting for?

Right?

Like.

Yeah, what else, what else are we waiting for?

That's, I mean, that's it.

So, okay, go ahead.

But I mean, so, so, but don't.

They, don't they Dispensationalists in verse 27, don't they look at one being Christ and one being the Antichrist?

Don't they talk about.

So yeah, so let's, so let's look at that.

Okay.

Okay, 27.

And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week.

But in the middle of that week, he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offerings.

And on the wing of abominations will come one who makes desolate.

Even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolate.

So who is making the covenant?

Well, God would be making the covenant.

Right.

Because does Satan make covenants?

No, Satan doesn't make covenants.

Right.

So God will make a covenant with the many for one week.

But in the middle of that week, he will put a stop to sacrifices and grain offerings and on the wing of abominations.

So now what covenant do you believe that that's talking about?

Is.

Are we talking about the new covenant?

So I would say.

Because the dispensationalists would just basically said that this is a, this is a covenant or a, like a treaty with Israel.

Right, right.

But that, you know, I, I would have to disagree with that.

I would too, because they're also going along with the Antichrist being the.

Right.

Yeah, yeah.

So he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week.

So I, first, I believe the many is faithful Israel.

And then in the middle of that week, he will put, he will put a stop to sacrifice and grain offerings.

So this could be, you know, in the middle once Christ was crucified.

So when you say Israel real quick, when you say the many, you think that that's talking about ethnic Israel or, or spiritual Israel.

So I, so I think that's talking about the faithful ethnic Israel that was looking for the Messiah.

Okay.

Because the church isn't established until right when the apostles are sent out.

So unless that's why I'm that.

And so that's where I'm kind of going with.

Unless the covenant that they're talking about is the new covenant, then that would be spiritual Israel.

Sure, Yeah, I can see what you're saying.

Yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

But, you know, when we look at this.

So after the 69th week, go straight into the 70th week, and then in the middle of that week, Christ is crucified, Right?

Well, in the middle, that's important, because.

What happens when Christ is crucified?

We're talking about an atonement for sin.

Right?

An atonement for sin, which makes him the final sacrifice.

Absolutely, yes.

So he put.

So with that puts an end to the sacrificial system.

Now, whether whether Israel, ethnic Israel, continues to do sacrifices is irrelevant because the whole point of Christ being crucified is he is the final offering.

He is the perfect offering that takes away sin and atones for sin.

So believing Israel would not be performing these sacrifices.

Correct.

Okay, so that's.

That's an important note, too.

Yeah, yeah, exactly.

So.

So he puts an end to sacrifice and of grain offerings.

Right.

So, so he.

He takes away that sacrificial system because of his death.

Death.

And then as a result of that comes abominations, desolations.

Now, that happens at a much later time.

That doesn't happen within the 70 weeks.

That happens after the 70 weeks.

But for some reason, my wife is blowing up my phone.

I do not know why.

Oh.

Let'S just drop that on the floor.

Do you want to get it real quick?

No, it's okay.

Okay.

If it was important, she would come in here.

Okay.

So that's how I know it's not important.

Okay.

But where was I?

So he puts an end to the sacrificial system.

Right.

Then you have the establishment of Christ Church.

And the establishment of Christ Church goes against the.

The system that they have.

Right, Right.

Which eventually brings in the destruction of the temple, the destruction of Jerusalem, the abominations of desolations.

Where once you get into the Olivet discourse, and especially Luke, it says, when you see Israel surrounded by armies.

Right.

Well, was Israel surrounded by armies?

Yes.

Yes, they were.

You know, and so.

I know that's not a simple answer.

I know that's a long answer.

There's not a lot there.

There's.

There's so much there.

Yeah.

That needs time to be taken out and drawn out.

And this is actually where comparisons with scripture would need to be made.

That's why it's like, you can't really do a sales pitch for it.

Right.

Because this is one of those prime examples where the analogy of faith or interpreting scripture with scripture would come into play.

So, so wouldn't you also need to look at this through like, let's say the book of Revelation, where the book was opened, you know what I'm saying?

I mean, so I mean, because it was, it was sealed in Daniel, it was open in Revelation, so we're going to allow the New Testament to inform the Old.

Right, and find out what this is talking about.

Yeah, yeah.

And.

But I mean, even the book of Revelation itself, when you get, when you get into that.

Yeah, because people will say, oh, well, we take the book of Revelation literally.

Right, right.

So when they say the millennium, they're looking at a literal thousand years.

Okay, I understand, but is that according to the genre?

Yeah, it wouldn't be.

Right, it wouldn't be.

Because the book of Revelation is literally filled with imagery, all of signs.

Right?

Yeah.

Symbolic language.

Symbolic language.

And you see that in chapter one, where the author John says this was given to him and it was signified.

Right, it was signified.

It's a book of signified signs that mean other things.

Right.

So the beast isn't really a seven headed beast, it's representative of something.

Because he says it.

These are seven kings.

Right, Seven kings.

Seven heads.

Seven kings.

And then he explains the seven heads.

So a, a dispensationalist.

A dispensationalist would look at Revelation 20 and say, no, I need to interpret this like any other book.

Book, Right.

That's written.

Yeah, right.

I mean, I mean you, if that's the approach you're going with.

Right.

The, the literal interpretation, you, you kind of have to.

So.

But dispensationalists would also understand that there's a lot of imagery in Revelation.

Right.

So.

So the question would be how do you distinguish?

Because Andrew actually asks Joseph in this debate, how do you distinguish what's figurative and what's literal or what's wooden?

Right.

Okay.

So how does the dispensationalists in Revelation distinguish what's figurative and what's wooden?

Yeah, that's a good question.

So they would go to like Revelation 20, they would see a dragon.

So they would go, okay, well what's a dragon?

Does it mean a literal dragon?

No.

Would it mean a literal chain?

No, but they would say literal pit, you know.

Right.

So it's interesting.

And then the literal thousand years.

So would you say that they're being inconsistent, but they're hermeneutic oh, absolutely.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

I've always.

Yeah, I've always held to the position that dispensationalists do have an inconsistent hermeneutic.

And I think revelation shows that.

Yeah.

Because.

Because you can't say we hold to this literally and then come to this book that's full of signs.

And now you have to be the distinguishing factor of what's a sign, what's wooden, Right.

Because.

And when we compare scripture with scripture, right.

When we look at the term thousand years, right.

Or the term or the phrase thousand, we're going to go, how else is that used in other parts of the text?

Right?

And.

Well, it's never used to mean a literal thousand, Right.

You know, so.

Right, yeah.

So.

So God owns a cattle on a thousand hills, but not the thousand and first.

Right.

You know, so it can't mean that.

It means a.

All of.

Right.

It means a great number.

Right.

So basically, they pick and choose when they want to be literal, when it.

When it fits their.

So here, let me give you another example, people.

Okay?

And I know Andrew's gonna have a field day when he comes back.

Drones and stuff.

Yeah.

So in second Peter, chapter three, okay, we see this passage starting in verse 10, talking about a new heaven and a new earth, right?

And Peter says, but the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will all be burned up.

So does this mean, like, does this literally mean that the earth itself is burned up when it says the elements will be destroyed with intense heat?

If I'm reading this from the plain sense of it, it looks like it is, right?

It looks like it is.

Yeah.

So now I'm going to go a little bit deeper.

That word elements, how is it used in other places of Scripture?

Okay, so I got.

Let's see here.

I have.

Oh, elementary principles, elemental things.

Let's see here.

Other parts of scripture.

Do you have a specific place you want to go?

So Galatians 4.

3 says, so we also, we are children.

We are held in bondage under the elemental things of this world.

So it's only used seven times, right, In Scripture.

Right.

But every time it's used before this is.

It has a specific meaning, which means the elementary teachings.

The elementary principles of this world.

Right?

So principles, teachings.

It the only time it me it's supposed to mean, right?

The elements of this world is in this section of Scripture.

So now you have one portion that's completely changed the definition of that word.

Right.

Which wouldn't fit with the other uses of that word, right?

That's correct.

So now if I'm comparing scripture with Scripture, does this mean the literal end of this world?

Well, it also couldn't if the meek inherit the world.

Right.

So that, what are we.

What do we inherit if it's gone?

If it's destroyed?

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So this is interesting, though, because the interesting text.

I don't know if we.

Do we disagree.

So are we looking at a new heaven or are we looking at a reconstruction of a.

Of a new earth here?

That's a very good question.

Good question.

So when you think about that, so Noah destroyed, or God destroyed the, The Earl, the earth and the flood made all things brand new, you know, but it's the same earth.

Right.

Okay.

So now with that, I'm not gonna make up an answer because I don't necessarily have an answer for that.

Okay.

But I also don't want to go to the place where maybe a lot of post mills would go and say something like David Chilton would say is that we are in the new heaven and the new earth, it's.

But it's being perfected.

Yeah, I don't like that either.

I, I do not like that.

I, I think that's completely way off.

And so, yeah, with that, with the answer to that question, I would simply say, I don't know.

Yeah.

You know, now I could.

Here's the thing.

I could be entirely wrong about this.

And this could absolutely mean the elements of this, you know, the, the, the material makeup.

Right.

The periodic table.

It could, it could absolutely mean that.

Right, right.

But if I'm just comparing scripture with scripture in this, how this word is used in other places, I, I can't, you know, definitively say that.

Yeah, this means just the earth.

Right.

It could mean the, the elementary teachings of the world, the philosophies of the world, will be done away with.

So I'm.

And I'm just don't mean to be pushing back.

So.

So when I read the, the text in itself, but the day of the Lord will come like a thief.

We're talking about Christ coming back.

Right.

Okay.

So it comes as a surprise because there's a thief.

Yeah.

So.

So there's also.

The day of the Lord is used in other places, but in other places, it's used to mean a judgment has come.

Right?

Right.

So like in the Old Testament, you would see where something happens to Israel, like they go into captivity or someone wages war against them.

That's, that's a day of the Lord, because it's a judgment that has come upon them.

Right.

So that's, that's another great portion to look at, the.

Comparing scripture with scripture.

What else happens on the, on the day when Christ comes back, what happens immediately?

Right.

And we would say that he judged the earth.

Right.

He makes all things new.

So I would even say that on this video.

Would you not say that this is also the last day?

It could be because now we have to bring in revelation, right?

Yeah.

And so because we do believe that Christ is coming back, we do believe that he's going to bring a judgment.

Yeah, we do believe that his enemies are going to be destroyed.

Any gaps here?

Yeah, I don't believe there's any gaps.

No gaps.

Right.

And so, so this could mean a judgment, but also a judgment at the second coming when Christ comes to judge his.

To judge his enemies.

Right.

And it could also be a consummation of things, that he's making all things new too.

Right.

With the new heavens and new earth.

Right.

Yeah.

That's why I've always read this text here.

And I just don't see any room for a thousand year millennial kingdom in here either.

Yeah.

And so, so I'll give you something.

When me and Jim had the, had the discussion.

So in my rebuttal to him, I brought in what Dr.

Greg Bonson calls the unity of the eschatological complex.

Okay.

Which just means when we look at those events in scripture, they happen at the same time.

Right.

So like if we were to go to 1st Corinthians 15, 1st Corinthians 15.

List those out at the same time.

It's one resurrection, it's one judgment.

They take place at the same time.

He's actively separating goats and sheep.

If we look at, I think it's John, chapter five.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

It's the same thing.

They happen at the same time.

Agree.

And then if we look at the parable of the wheat and tares.

The parable of the wheat and tares.

Well, who's gathered first and thrown into judgment?

The wicked.

And then the believers are gathered.

Right.

So the idea of a secret rapture.

Not there, not there.

Because they're taken away first.

Which would coincide with the Olivet discourse where Jesus says, just as in the days of Noah and the flood came.

Right.

One will be taken, one will be left.

Well, who was taken in the flood?

That's right.

The wicked were taken away and Noah was left.

Yeah.

So, but yeah, the, the we see the resurrection.

Right.

These things happen at the same time.

Right.

I, I agree.

Totally agree.

I, I just.

And.

And that's really important.

So we're looking at the resurrection of the dead.

We're making it.

We're looking at that.

The separation of the wheat and tears, God's judgment and him making.

So like Vodi Bauckham says, that's a wrap when Christ comes back.

Right?

Yeah.

He's not coming to establish a kingdom.

He's coming to bring judgment because the kingdom is already established.

It's just growing.

That's right.

Yeah.

It's already been inaugurated.

Yeah.

And.

And I think.

So when he comes back, it's the consummation.

Absolutely.

100.

Where he hands it over to the Father, Father.

And that's where I think a lot of people don't understand because they think Christ is coming to bring a kingdom.

He already brought a kingdom.

Because if you look at his parables, his parables are king, mostly kingdom parables.

Yeah.

Where he talks about the mustard seed will grow into a large tree.

Where he talks about the leaven, will leaven the whole lung.

Just.

Well, if you take that and you look at 12 disciples who went out into the world to take, you know, the gospel, well, it started in Israel, and the gospel has now reached the ends of the earth.

Right.

And it's just growing.

Absolutely.

So the kingdom is growing as the gospel goes forth and people are brought into the bride of Christ.

Right.

And he's reigning now.

He's seated at the right hand of the Father now reigning over all things.

Right.

Yeah.

And.

And so that's not.

I would say that's not necessarily spiritualizing it either.

I don't think so either.

Yeah, yeah.

Because when I think about that, because people will say, oh, well, you're just spiritualizing it.

And it's a spiritual kingdom.

Okay, well, first, hold on, time out.

Because if we go to the Old Testament, God was the king of the people, but the people rejected God as their king, and they wanted a king like all the other nations.

And so God gave them that.

He said, okay, you want that?

You want to reject me as your king?

Okay, go ahead.

You can have a.

You can have your king.

You pick your king.

Right.

And now look at our king right now as the covenant head, the.

The federal head of the new covenant, that we are in Christ, that we are under that covenant head.

Yep.

He's reigning, as goes the king, so goes the people.

I mean, there's victory.

It's total victory.

Yeah, yeah.

Which when I hear a Statement.

And I just.

I want to preface it by saying I absolutely love John MacArthur.

Dr.

John MacArthur.

I pray for him every day with his health.

He has had such an impact on.

On my faith.

Me too.

But when years ago, when I heard him say, we lose down here, my first thought was, no, absolutely not.

True.

Because the Great Commission was given for this battlefield.

It was given to go forth on this battlefield.

And so if we lose down here, that means the Great Commission fails.

Sure.

But if what Christ says was the scriptures say is true, ask of me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance.

Right.

Well, then I have to believe that.

Where it wasn't previously going in the.

In the Old Covenant, right now, now it's something brand new.

It's going right everywhere.

It's going through the end of the earth.

Yeah.

Where it was just focused on Israel, ethnic Israel.

Right.

Now it's exp.

And we see.

Even in the Old, Old Testament, we see glimpses of that.

Right.

With Nineveh, with Rahab, with Ruth.

Right.

We see these little grafting in of Gentiles.

That is a shadow.

Yeah.

Of what would happen in the New Covenant, you know, and so when I look at Christ's words where he says, all authority is on heaven and on earth is given to me.

Well, now I know all authority is Christ.

Right.

So Satan doesn't rule down here because he's not a sovereign.

There's only one sovereign.

That's a good point.

So that's a good question for a lot of the dispensationalists that might be watching.

How and what way would all millennialists say that Satan is bound?

How is he bound now?

But given that you go outside and you see, you know, that still looks like he's raining.

How would you say he's bad?

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, I would just say that he's.

That now, because we have the Holy Spirit that goes forth through the proclamation of the gospel, we.

God can.

I don't know how I like the way I would word that.

Would you say he's bound in terms of not being able to deceive?

Yeah, to deceive the minds.

So now there may be somewhere God allows them to be deceived.

Right.

God gives them over to their sin.

He allows them to be the same way he did with ethnic Israel.

Right.

I will blind you.

Right.

I will cause you not to see.

I will cause you not to hear.

But all of that is controlled by God.

Absolutely.

But see, we would even say that.

That he was.

God had his thumb on Satan.

Even in the Old Testament.

I mean, look, even Job, he had to have permission to do that.

But so in what way is.

Would we, as an amillennialist, say that he's bound?

And I would say the answer to that is that now that the Gospel, now that we have the Holy Spirit, he's no longer preventing the nations to come into the people of God.

Right.

So he's no longer bound by preventing anybody from preventing the gospel to get reached the end of the earth.

Whereas before.

Before he was crushed by.

By Christ on the cross.

He's.

He was.

He was.

He had reign over the nations.

He had reign over everything.

Yep.

And so when I take Christ's words at the Great Commission, where he says, all authority in heaven, on earth, is mine.

Right, yeah.

Go therefore and make disciples of the nations.

Right, right.

My question then is, do you believe that the nations will be discipled?

Absolutely.

Right, yeah.

And.

And why do I believe that?

Because he has all authority.

Right.

In heaven and on earth.

Yes, but now.

Now there's a part of the problem in that is that there are many of us who don't believe that and are not faithful to do that.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

I mean, you think about.

When you think about Jonah knowing the character of God and knowing that he was slow to anger, that he was going to have.

Have compassion on the wicked city.

He knew God so well that he knew he was going to go and cause those people to repent and turn.

And I'm wondering.

I'm wondering if we really believed and knew God the way Jonah knew God, because he knew it.

I knew you were going to do it.

That's basically what he was saying.

I knew, you guys, you were going to go and save that wicked city just based on the power of your word, that I was.

That you're sending me to proclaim.

I don't think.

And it's sad because if.

If we truly believe that we should be going out there all the time, you know, sharing the gospel, if we truly believe that.

That by.

That salvation is of the Lord through the proclamation of the gospel, and we are his instruments to go proclaim that good news, if we truly believe that we would be going out there and doing it every day.

Yeah, yeah.

And you can actually point out the inconsistency in dispensationalists, and especially dispensationalists who are evangelists.

Yeah, right.

And so because when we look at.

And.

And this is.

This is where I would say, you know, Andrew is a little bit inconsistent with his dispensationalism because he is an evangelist.

Right.

He's an open air preacher.

Yeah.

Because he goes out to proclaim the gospel to a lost and dying world, to bring them into the body of Christ.

Right.

Whereas just a lot of dispensationalists would believe, well, why?

The world's just getting worse and worse.

Okay.

What's the point in doing it?

And I think that's where, and I'm thankful Andrew doesn't take that position.

Right, but where I think a lot of dispensationalists who followed like the Left behind series and all that stuff, I think that's where they have done a disservice to the people of God because they look and they say, well, this is going to end anyway.

Why do it?

Right.

I, I think you're right.

I think our eschatology is going to shape our, our mission mindedness.

And I would even go so far as beyond not only say the, you know, the classic dispensationalists, but even progressive dispensationalists who are the more faithful of the group, who are usually typically Reformed.

Right.

You see it, they don't make much of evangelism in their churches.

Right.

I mean, they, they just don't.

The, the concept of sending out a street preacher is totally foreign to them.

Right.

There's, there's, there's not very many.

Not very many.

And there's not very many broadly, even as a whole.

But, but, and I think you're right, though, that, that our, our eschatology is going to shape our, our mission mindedness and evangelistic zeal.

Yeah, yeah.

And so one of the things that, where I think a lot of disposal and I'm not talking about.

Well, yeah, because where they're inconsistent.

Like, like Andrew would be.

And I called this out in Dr.

Silvestro a couple years ago where you had things like Covid.

Right.

Things like.

And churches were being shut down and they were saying, well, don't let the government shut down your church.

That's your church.

You go take the fence at you.

And, and my reaction to that was, okay, but that's fighting like a post mill.

That's fighting like an optimistic Amel.

Yeah.

That's not fighting like a dispensationalist.

Right.

Those two things don't coincide.

And so Anthony Silvestro will act.

He'll actually say, you know, I'm dispensationalist, but I live like a post mill.

Right.

So he recognizes the, the contrast there.

Yeah.

And you would even say that John MacArthur's actions, you know, standing up to the government, you know, during COVID He wasn't living like a dispensationalist.

Look, let's, let's broaden it.

Let's broaden John MacArthur's ministry.

Okay.

And how he's, he's inconsistent with his dispensationalism because he has a, he's one of the most well known expositors of scripture.

Right.

Bible teacher, his New Testament commentary.

Absolutely fantastic.

But he's got a Bible teaching ministry, grace to you, that is broadcasted out through the world where he has brought countless people to Christ on the basis of the Gospel.

That's post millennialism at work.

Right, I was just, I was just gonna say hashtag that.

Postmill.

Right, yeah.

That.

That's actually practical post millennialism.

Right, right.

It really is.

Yeah.

So, yeah, so there are.

And, and I see Kathy saying many of the dispensations are very evangelistic and disciplers, but that's not consistent with your, that's not consistent with the mission.

Yeah, yeah, it's not consistent.

And, and we, and we would say, you know, Kathy, you're right.

You know, like Andrew, like Justin, like Jim Osmond, like a lot of these guys that we know that have been on this show, we would, we would agree with you.

We would say, you're right, but that's just not a consistent ministry to have with holding to dispensations.

But I did want to bring this up because, you know, I was, I've been doing some study in prayer lately.

And Kathy says he, meaning Satan, is the deceiver and blinds the minds because God has such a powerful, glorious message to free people that only God can unblind and set free.

And this, when I saw this comment, it got me thinking about some of the things I've been studying and looking into about prayer.

Right.

And thinking about people who are in the church, but they get downtrodden, they get, they get bogged down with things of the world and it distracts them from God.

And they wonder, you know, even in my spiritual life, how, how can I do this?

How can I grow closer to God?

You know, I'm being deceived by the devil or, you know, I just, you know, something's going on.

Their spiritual warfare, whatever it is, and the response to those people needs to be yes, but do you not remember the promises of God?

Right.

Yeah.

Because if we, if we take our minds off of what we'll say Satan is trying to throw at us to distract us from God, where should our mind go?

It should not go to those things.

Scripture.

Right.

Christ.

And it should be focused on the promises of God that he has given to his children.

That's right.

Right.

And then once I focus on those things, I go into prayer and communion.

With my God and say, father, you said that you would never leave me nor forsake me.

Exactly, you know, Exactly.

Right.

Ask him for something.

Right.

You know, based on who you are, based on what you said.

Right.

I'm counting on you, Father.

You are.

Exactly.

That's right.

That's right.

You know, and.

And we don't.

Because I'm working on a study right now, a 12.

Putting together a 12 week study that is on prayer.

And we come to prayer.

I like how kind of this has shifted a little bit, this topic.

But we come to prayer and a lot of times when we remember to do it, you know, because it's.

We all.

It's the number one thing we go, oh, I can always do better than that, you know, I know I forget to pray.

When we make the time to come to God in prayer, our prayers are usually just babbling.

Right.

It's not really anything of any substance.

It's almost like we're treating it to just get it done and check it off a list instead of knowing that, yes, I am God's.

Yes, he has purchased me by the blood of his Son.

Yes, he draws me into communion with Him.

Yes, there is an enemy that wants to deceive me, but he can no longer deceive me.

Let me come to my Lord and let me commune with him.

Let me rest and be satisfied in the presence of God where I am safe.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

I mean, and that's sanctification.

Even when we're struggling, God wants us to go to Him.

He wants us to depend on Him.

He doesn't want us being lone rangers, thinking that we can now that we've been justified and declared righteous, that we could go on living a life any the way that we want to live, or even without Him.

Him.

We need Him.

He's our Father.

Why wouldn't we want to go to Him?

He is sovereign over everything.

Yep, yep.

Kathy's talking about Media Gratier and Jeremy Walker are currently doing a study on prayer.

Yep, absolutely.

Because in part of my study, I listened to Media Gratier and I especially listened to Jeremy Walker.

Jeremy Walker is one of my absolute favorites.

And I don't think enough people know about him.

Yeah, he wrote a book called the Brokenhearted Evangelist.

It is one of the best books on evangelism.

Yeah.

And so what actually got me wanting to put together a study on prayer and the different types of prayer is listening to them talk about prayer.

But yeah, so man, we've gone a long time.

Yeah, very good.

We've gone way over.

You know, I actually think that we made a better case for covenant theology in the past, you know, 15 minutes.

Than in talking about prayer and the promises of God.

Yes, absolutely.

Yeah, exactly.

I mean, he's our covenant head.

Why wouldn't we go to him?

Right.

That's a case for covenant theology right there.

That's right.

And, and you know what?

I know that he's not going to change once a dis.

Different dispensation comes.

That's.

That's right.

Yeah.

He's not going to deal with his people differently, is he?

Right, yeah.

No, but I know usually when I'm hosting I don't put up a lot of comments or answer a whole lot of questions.

But we did have some things we wanted to get through in some of the, the debate we wanted to point out.

So let me just ask you this, Tom.

Since Andrew's not here, which is more biblical in terms of a hermeneutical reading of the scripture, is it covenant theology or dispensational theology?

Covenant theology.

Boom.

And I would agree with that.

Therefore, two to one, Andrew's wrong.

So that ends that debate right there.

Yeah, I, and, and, and we need to clip that and make sure we, we highlight that in every show coming up.

That's right.

In fact, I am going to clip that.

I mean, I'm going to clip it and I'm going to send it to you so you have it.

Also, you better believe I might even make a real, a Facebook reel on it talking about Andrew Rapaport being wrong and that covenant theology is the way to go.

Right?

Yeah.

But with that we're.

Thank you for everyone that stuck around with us.

We want to thank Dan, the seven foot apologist for dropping by at the beginning of the show.

Go out, get your Mypillow, your squirrelly Joes, your plunge, your what else am I with Logos Bible software.

And you know what, you can also get head on over to farmsteadcottage.com and get you a some wax melts, get you some room sprays.

And I'm only saying that because that's my company and that I've made and so my goal, and I told Andrew this my goal and we really just started.

We haven't really moved a whole lot of stuff.

Right.

I haven't really been Pushing it and whatnot.

But the first hundred dollars that's made is going to come to Apologetics Live.

So if you go buy some stuff, spend money there, the first hundred dollars is going to come here to Apologetics Live for Andrew and what Andrew does with this podcast.

Amen.

That's awesome.

So I have only one thing to say.

Yeah.

Because the most important thing to do is.

Is.

Is not forget our mention, our mission.

That's right.

And that's to go out and share the gospel.

So if.

If we have, what, 60 people watching right now?

If you guys haven't shared the gospel, somebody this week, we have a few days before the Lord's Day.

Make it a point.

And.

And, you know, be in prayer, covenant with God and say, you know what?

Bring me somebody.

Go out there.

Just go open your door.

They're.

They're out there.

They need to hear about Christ and.

And just think about that, that you've been saved by the grace of God.

You didn't deserve it.

I didn't deserve it.

And.

And for us to.

To not go out and share, you know, this.

This wonderful news is, Is.

Is just neglecting the duty that every Christian is called to do.

So I would encourage you guys that, you know, before the Lord's day, communicate with one person the gospel, you know, get them to realize who they are, you know, compared to a holy God, and.

And to repent and believe.

I mean, just communicate that, and God will be glorified.

So I would.

I would.

I would encourage you guys to do that.

Yep.

Amen.

I just want to address our sister here.

Melissa says, thank you, gentlemen.

I have to be honest, I feel a little beat down after watching the show tonight.

I still appreciate you both, though.

We don't want you to feel beat down, Melissa.

We have to.

I hope you can understand this.

We have to take every advantage when Andrew is not here to talk about dispensationalism.

Yeah.

But to.

We know.

We both, Tom and I know that there are lots of.

Lots, lots.

And I mean lots and lots of faithful brothers and sisters in Christ who are dispensationalists, such as Andrew Justin Peters.

My entire church that I attend, by the way.

Yeah.

So, yeah, a lot.

Our view is just that the most consistent hermeneutical approach is Covenant theology.

But we love our dispensational brothers and sisters, so just wanted to relay that because we love you, Melissa.

Yeah.

You're a faithful listener to the show.

She is one of my favorite dispies.

Yeah, that's right.

I have favorite dispies.

And they're all associated with this show.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

But with that, we want to thank you for joining.

We are going to get out of here, go share the gospel with someone and strive to make every day an eternal day for the glory of God.

We'll catch you next time.

Amen.