Welcome to another edition of the RAP Report.

I'm your host, Andrew Rapaport, the executive director of Striving for Eternity and the Christian Podcast Media, of which this podcast is a proud member.

Now, today's episode is one where I was a guest on someone else's program.

The program is the Charismatic cheetah, to which many of you in this audience are going.

Oh, so you are debating the gifts, Whether charismatic gifts continue or not.

Well, no, no, we didn't, though hopefully that he'll come on the program and we can have that discussion at some point.

But what we did discuss was dispensationalism.

And this podcast is to provide biblical interpretations and applications for the Christian life.

And that is what dispensationalism actually is.

It's an interpretation style.

It is rules of certain of interpretation of the Bible.

How are we going to approach that?

That is what it is, you say, well, I don't hold to dispens.

So should I tune this episode out?

Well, actually, no.

You should listen to this to know thy enemy.

Well, no.

Okay, you're not an enemy.

We shouldn't be enemies over this.

But the point being is many people misrepresent the position that they do not hold to.

And so it's always good to hear from people that actually hold to the views explaining what they believe.

So may you do that.

May you listen to this to hear what it is dispensationalism actually is, or at least what I believe it is.

And my view of it and the topic he wanted was to talk about dispensationalism and end times and kind of everything in between.

So I think it was a good discussion.

And so I hope that you'll enjoy this discussion on dispensationalism on the Charismatic Cheetah, coming up on the RAP Report right now.

Welcome to the Rap Report with your host, Andrew Rapaport, where we provide biblical interpretation and application.

This is a ministry of Striving for eternity and the Christian podcast community.

For more content or to request a speaker for your church, go to Striving for Eternity dot org.

What is the dispensational view of eschatology?

What's the biblical support for this view?

What are some common misunderstandings of dispensationalism?

Today I'll be dialoguing with my guest Andrew Rapaport on dispensationalism and fielding some of your questions from Facebook.

This is a kind of an extended part.

I've had multiple people on about different views of eschatology, all Mill, Post mill.

Still waiting on a pre mill.

Maybe we'll get there soon.

But I finally got a dispensationalist on.

Really excited about that.

You're watching the Charismatic Cheetah podcast, exploring all things supernatural biblically.

That's a new slogan I'm trying on.

Let me know what you think of it in the comments.

My guest today is Andrew Rapaport.

Andrew Rapaport is the executive director of Striving for Eternity Ministries and the Christian podcast community, which my friend Adam Parker at Bold Apologia just joined.

That's awesome.

He is the host of several podcasts, Andrew Rapaport's Rap Report, Andrew Rapaport's Daily Rap Report, Apologetics Live.

And so you want to be a podcaster?

I probably need to listen to that one myself.

Andrew is the author of the books what do they Believe?

Which is a systematic theology of the major Western religions, and what do We Believe?

Which is a systematic theology of the Christian faith.

He has also contributed to other books like on the Origins of Kinds and Sharing the Good News with Mormons.

They definitely need it.

Andrew has established equip conferences, formerly Spread the Fire, evangelism training and outreach events.

You can find more of him on striving for eternity.org Andrew, thanks for coming on, brother.

Is there anything I missed in her intro there?

Well, let me first say thank you for having me on your name.

Your podcast has come up to my attention for several times by several people when I would talk about different, different topics and people would say, you need to go talk to the Charismatic Cheetah.

So I'm glad that, you know, you reached out on and just saying, hey, anyone want to talk dispensationalism?

And I was like, yeah.

When you told me the podcast name, I was like, oh, yeah, because.

So I've been looking forward to this.

It's a.

So yeah, no, there's.

There's a bunch of things you forgot.

I mean, when I was.

I was first born.

No.

Well, no, I appreciate you coming on.

I've been.

I emailed several dispensationalists.

Try to get on.

They were busy or they just ghosted me.

One of the two.

I understand why.

It's just, I'm actually.

I'm actually really flattered that, that, that you're happy to be on my show.

I think that's.

That's cool, man.

My reputation precedes me, which might not be a good thing.

But yeah, I understand the ghosting thing because the running joke.

So I do one of the shows as you mentioned apologetics life, right?

Thursday nights, 8 to 10 Eastern, anyone can come in and talk anything.

Like, we usually will have a guest.

But I get people that come in and they're prepared to debate me.

And I don't know, I'm having a debate that night.

I've had black people, Israelites, Church of Christ, pastor, want to argue, Baptism saves.

I mean, I.

All kinds of things.

Catholics who don't think the current Pope is Catholic.

And it, you know, it, it's fun.

I know I'm weird, but the number of people who, because I have that.

I'm always like, when people want or want to debate me online, I'm like, well, hey, join me on Apolog Live.

Let's discuss it.

Just recently, a woman who, you know, wants to say how wrong I am for my position on women pastors, and she's like, blasting me, like, daily, and I'm like, why don't you come on and discuss it?

And so, yeah, they, they don't usually come on.

I did do a debate once with a black Hebrew Israelite, and they, they pulled out of the debate.

So what I did was I told the moderator, said, listen, do the debate anyway.

Introduce me.

I'll do my opening and let the guests introduce themselves.

He was like, but who are you going to have?

I said, don't worry about it.

We'll have somebody.

He's like, okay.

And so all of a sudden, it's time to put the other person on.

I put up a picture of an empty chair, worked because there was a black Hebrew Israelite that got so upset that after a year and a half, no one would debate me, that he came on and debated me.

Now, Michael, you know how, you know, you want to debate?

Here's, here's how, you know, when everybody from that side tells you that that guy was not good at debating, they could do better.

And after the debate with the black Hebrew Israelite, I, I had dozens and dozens of emails, messages telling me that guy wasn't good, he's not a good reputation.

You need some?

Then why didn't you come up?

Yeah, kind of like the, the Carson.

What's his name?

Billy Carson with the West Huff.

He, you know, he totally backtracked and was like, oh, I was sick.

You know, seen that.

I have to watch, man.

It's, I heard it was really good.

It's pretty good.

I've seen parts and bits and parts of it, but yeah, it's, it's really good.

He got smoked.

Well, Andrew, thanks for coming on.

So, so far, I've had a few guests on.

It's been extended.

It's been over the last several months since I started the podcast.

Actually just a couple days ago was a year that I've been officially podcasting and posting videos on YouTube and stuff like that.

But so I've had some, I've had some, some really cool guests on.

I've actually had a lot of fun with it.

But I've had Sam Storms on.

We discussed all millennialism and also the spiritual gifts too, obviously.

My pastor, Trinity Bounds came on to talk about He.

He made the conversion from pre mill, historic pre mill over to the based correct all millennial position.

And then I had reformed recon on to discuss post millennial.

And so I've been looking for.

I was just recently on his program.

Oh, he's.

I like him and he's cool.

Yeah, yeah, he's a real good guy.

He actually.

So after.

After.

I'm glad he did it while we were.

We weren't recording anymore, but we are.

You know, I'm a, I'm an all millennial, but I'm also a partial predatorist.

But I'm also, I'm also kind of a pessimistic when it comes to the end times.

Things are going to get worse and worse.

And off air he goes, wait a minute, I didn't say anything while we were recording.

But you're partial predatorist and you're, you're pessimistic.

And I was like, oh, good point.

I had no thought.

I couldn't even respond.

I was like, that's actually a really good point.

I need to rethink this.

Well, no, what you got to do is talk.

Talk to a friend of mine, Matt Slick.

You know, he calls it depressed scatology.

It comes.

He's gonna be.

It's gonna be depressing in the end.

But he's an Amiel, so, you know, go figure.

Yeah, well.

So again, I'm really thankful that you're.

That you're on today.

So we're going to be discussing dispensationalism, what it is, what it isn't, that sort of thing.

This is.

Isn't a debate by any means.

I made that clear when I messaged you.

No, I'm not a debate type of person anyway, I just wanted someone to come on and be able to explain the position without, you know, I might offer a little pushback if I feel it necessary or if I had some questions that come up.

But.

So kind of what I want to do is the first part is just Let you just explain dispensationalism, like, to someone who has no idea or, you know, maybe address some misunderstandings, maybe address what form of dispensational you are.

I know there's different, you know, different forms of it, so maybe which one you are and why.

And then, time permitting, the second half, I have a few questions from some people on Facebook who.

Which, by the way, I really appreciated you interacting with my viewers in the Facebook page.

That was.

That was pretty cool.

Some of those, Some of your responses I took note of.

I'm like, I'm gonna do that now.

Like the, the Galatians.

Like, oh, you obviously don't read Galatians.

You're like, I don't.

So I'm gonna start using that one.

I'm gonna put that one in my repertoire.

But so, time permitting, we'll.

We'll address those questions.

So.

So, Andrew, what is dispensationalism?

Yeah, and.

And first off, I. I obviously don't mind a debate if you want to go that way.

You want to get more debate of, I'm Jewish, right?

We were raised so.

And we are.

It.

It's.

People go, why are so many Jewish people.

Why are they become lawyers?

It is the only career path where you get paid to debate.

And we're, we're just trained to debate because it, it sharpens the skills.

So people think debate is a bad thing.

They think an argument's a bad thing.

It shouldn't be.

It should be to.

To strengthen our.

Our arguments, strengthen our thinking, sharpen us.

And so, and yeah, so I had.

I did have a lot of fun.

You got to see a little bit of my personality of, you know, when people tell me what I believe, I'm like, oh, I do.

Okay.

So dispensationalism is kind of.

Nowadays seems to be the, The.

The whipping boy of theology, right?

When people, People like everyone seems to have come out of dispensationalism and they're, they're now covenantal, and I'm going to explain those in a few minutes.

But they come out of that and they go, well, I understood it.

Well, the reality is, is people growing up.

I, I didn't understand Judaism growing up.

I came out of that.

I went to Hebrew school and we were taught it, but I didn't really understand Judaism until I started studying the Talmud as an adult, actually as a Christian.

So, you know, just because someone grows up somewhere doesn't mean they really believe it.

And so it's.

That's one of the things most People have a wrong definition of what dispensationalism is.

Maybe they read the Left behind series or they think it is the Left.

I've never read the Left behind series.

And just for those, I, I, since I got to see some of the questions being asked, I never read Schofield either.

So, you know, didn't read Darby.

So any of those questions that are gonna come up, oh, well, I'm not interested.

So let's first defined terms.

So you have two major views of how we interpret the Bible.

And it's very carefully what I said there.

They're theological systems that at their heart of the issue is how what rules you're going to follow for interpretation.

So you have dispensationalism, you have Covenant theology, and there are several branches within both.

There's actually, when you study it, there's movement within dispensationalism which is kind of coming a little bit closer to where Covenant theology would be called progressive dispensationalism.

And then you have some Covenant theology that's moving closer toward dispensationalism.

It used to be called New Covenant Theology.

Now I think it's called progressive Covenantalism.

But people that are, I really think what it comes down to is people that are looking at the text of Scripture are starting to see more agreement.

I personally will just say up front that I wish that we would, we would do a lot more of that so that we could like, actually fight the world system that wants to throw us in prison fighting each other.

I just, literally yesterday, just got back from a conference with a guy who.

So I'm, I'm a Baptist, I'm a dispensationalist.

And we're going to explain what it is in a moment.

This guy that I'm sharing a room with is from Doug Wilson's church, right?

So he's Presbyterian, he's cr, ccrc.

And you know, the opposite kind of on the other ends of expect of spectrums, right.

He and I are sitting, having.

I mean, I wish we recorded the conversation because we, we weren't using labels.

We weren't, we were just asking each other, what do you believe about this?

What do you believe about this?

And actually listening to one another and dialoguing with what each other's saying.

And we really realized, like, we had a lot more agreement than we would have thought walking into the conversation.

There's very little we actually really disagreed on in areas.

And it's just how we define things.

And, but this is not a so much Dispensationalism is not, and this is the big biggest misconception.

It's not an end time system.

It's not trying to say how things will happen in the end.

You know, book of Revelation, things like that.

It is how you interpret the Bible.

Now doing that consistently leads to an end times view of premillennialism.

Okay.

So that now another term I'm going to have to define premillennialism, but dispensationalism.

Let me start with, with Covenant theology.

And I'm just going to say, I'm going to say this up front.

Don't get upset.

Any of you who believe in Covenant theology, give me a chance to finish the sentence, but no, get the stones.

Yeah, well, that's what we all do historically.

What do we have?

We had a church early on, early church fathers, and they were working through theology.

And it takes centuries of working through theology.

Theology is usually developed when error occurs.

Okay.

Right.

And so, you know, you can look at a guy like Augustine.

I wrote a paper on Augustine and showed how he believed very much what we would hold to in premillennialism, that there would be a literal thousand year kingdom.

But amillennialists can look at the right of his writings because he believed he was in that thousand year kingdom.

Yeah.

And so you can have both.

So people say like, oh, this is, you know, dispensationalism is new.

Well, yes and no.

And there was a question in your Facebook group that asked that.

And it's like, well, yes and no, because the early church fathers were not as clear as we have become today.

Because we've been more and more and more precise.

Yeah.

In our language.

Because more error popped up.

So Covenant theology was something that was born out of the Roman Catholic Church.

Don't shoot me yet.

Let me finish speaking to the audience.

I know someone's banging their phone like.

Oh no, give me a rock.

Come on.

Yeah.

The.

But it, it was something where the, the Roman Catholic Church was trying to make themselves like they were Israel.

And that gave them the, that, that, that their priesthood and all of that stuff, they, to, to give themselves.

I, I think it's the same thing, you see with Mormons and others where it's like they give themselves.

Like they're, they're somehow more special.

They've replaced Israel or things like that.

And I think that that symbol, symbolic interpretation influenced the Catholic Church.

Now what believers today who don't, who would hold to what they call Covenant theology?

It is what is properly referred to as Reformed Theology.

Because what happened was the reformers took that Catholic style of interpretation and they stripped out from that the hierarchy of the Church, the hierarchy of tradition, and left the word.

But, but that style of interpretation was still there.

So there's dispensationalism was, was totally different in looking at how do, how do we interpret language.

So a key part we're going to see a difference will be as a dispensationalist, I will use the same rules of interpretation as I would for any other book.

Pretty much where a covenant theologian slash Reformed theologian.

I'm using those terms, both those terms based on what I had just said historically.

They're going, someone in that camp is going to look at it and say, well, the, the Bible is a spiritual book.

It's a different book.

We use a different harmony than we would any other book.

And so as in the conversation I had, I had with this guy from Doug Wilson's church, he's one of the deacons there.

And you know, we're sitting and talking and I'm hearing what he's saying and say, okay, he's being consistent within his hermeneutic.

He's, he's being consistent with what he's saying.

And that's more what I'm looking for.

So as a dispensationalist, we're going to have a couple differences that we'd look at from a Reformed theology perspective.

Dispensationalism is going to have what I would refer to as a literary hermeneutic.

Now, people have different terminology they use for that.

A normal hermeneutic is just the, the science, art and science of interpretation.

So they would, they.

Some people would say it's a literary, sorry, a literal or some ryrie would refer to it as a normal.

The idea of it that I like literary because it deals with the different genres of the texts.

Right.

I'm going to follow the, the rules for that genre.

Okay.

So I don't spiritualize much.

And this will be a question I think one of your, your audience had asked about like, so when do you know that it's literal and when not?

And I, I will say the text will tell me.

But then that becomes the question for the Reformed or Covenant theologian is when do you do it?

And, and we'll look at some of those with some of the questions that you have now.

The.

So the first primary thing that defines dispensationalism is this literary normal hermeneutic, however you want to define it.

The second distinctive is seeing a distinction between Israel and the church.

Now, because of that harmonic, that style of interpretation, that's what leads to seeing Israel as separate from the church.

It is something that confuses a lot of people.

We don't have time to dig into it and expand this.

But let me just give really quick so your audience can understand where I come from with this.

Many of us within Christianity would talk about the visible, invisible church.

And when we talk about the visible, invisible church, we understand that to be the invisible church is believers everywhere around the world, and every believer is part of that.

The visible church is that local body that meets, that can have believers in it, could have unbelievers in it.

We don't know which one.

Who, who's the church, who isn't.

I use that same type of language for Israel, that there's a visible and invisible Israel, and I use it the same way.

So there's a nation of Israel that's made.

It's a.

That's the local church kind of thinking it's this.

It's believers and unbelievers, but there's an invisible Israel, if you want to use that, or a spiritual Israel, and they're the ones that are only believers.

And when I do it that way, I. I think it becomes a lot easier to understand the continuity, discontinuity, because the believers that the invisible parts of both are are the same body of believers, right?

And so that's how I make that distinction.

And there could be a lot more we could get into with that if needed.

And the third, is that a dispensationalist?

So where the first one is this literary style, a Reformed theologian is going to do more of a figurative style, more of a spiritual style, where I'm going to see a distinction between Israel and the church.

Someone that's in a Reformed camp is going to take less of it.

They're going to be seeing that Israel is just a different administration, as some will say, same body.

Israel and the church is the same, but different administrations.

Some will say that Israel is the Old Testament church and the church is New Testament Israel.

And so there's different ways that they'll explain that.

The third distinction is, I would say dispensationalism looks at scripture from a doxological approach.

In other words, everything about the Bible is for God's glory.

Where Reformed perspective will say, well, every passage of the Bible has to reflect back to Christ, so they're Christological, so they're looking for Christ and everything.

So let me give the example Song of Solomon.

I can look at that and say that God is describing the love within a godly marriage should be.

And I see it just as a wedding ceremony and honeymoon.

And a reformed theologian has to find Christ.

So that's about Christ and the church.

Yeah, that's how it's taught.

Correct.

And actually one of my professors, that Song of Solomon was his PhD dissertation and looking at what was actually going on and how the wedding festivals and all that.

And so it's something where I give that book because it becomes really clear how you, how you're going to approach Song of Solomon is going to be very different based on which camp you're in.

Okay.

So when it comes to the end times, right.

That's where people think whenever I say I'm dispensational, the response I usually get is, well, I'm not pre millennial or I'm a millennial.

And I go, that's nice.

It has nothing to do with it.

Right.

Because that's the byproduct of the interpretation.

Right.

It's not the, the what dispensationalism actually is.

It's that if you follow that hermeneutic, that interpretation style consistently, you be.

You'll become premillennial.

So dispensationalism just to kind of maybe tell me if my metaphor is right or not.

So dispensationalism would be like the whole train essentially, and the caboose is the caboose.

Whereas maybe like I'm all millennial, I'm reformed in a lot of ways, but I'm also not reformed in a lot of ways.

Amillennialism would be more the caboose, only that's the end.

That's the end of it.

But it's not the whole thing.

Like Reformed theology, I would say, is also the whole train as well.

Is that a good metaphor?

I'm not, I'm not sure.

But I mean it is you.

The difference I think with post male and AMIL is you can hold to reformed hermeneutic and believe either one of them because it's not tied to it.

In fact, you could hold to progressive Covenantalism or New Covenant theology if you.

They have the same harmonutic pretty much up until end times.

So where they would, you know, that camp would end up agreeing with me my most things.

But then they're end times.

They, they use a different hermeneutic for that.

And so that's, that's the difference.

So the, those camps can lead you to any of the three positions.

But dispensationalism the reason it's so closely, I think assigned with premillennialism is because the hermeneutic will always lead to, if it's consistent to that premillennial view.

And, and for, for the listeners, I mean that may, that.

I mean, you said it's been a while since he's done some of the shows, right?

So pre millennial, amillennial, post millennial, they deal with the idea of this Revelation 20, the first six verses, six times.

In there it talks about a thousand years.

That's the millennium.

Now the question is, is it a literal millennium?

If you say no, that would be an amillennial camp.

Okay.

If you say yes now the question, follow up question is does Christ return at the beginning of that period or the end of that period?

And that's now going to determine whether you're pre millennial or post millennial with where Christ is going to return.

Pre millennial, Christ is going to return before the millennium and he's going to reign during that millennium.

And post millennial he's reigning now, which would be similar to am and that the thousand years is more of a figurative thing like amillennial.

But the post millennial would say that Christ will end up coming back.

So you.

I, I kind of, there's, there's a lot of similarity between amillennial and post millennial.

Yeah, cousins.

Yeah, they're kissing cousins.

You know, dispensationalism is a totally different way of looking at how to interpret the Bible.

Different from the way the Catholic Church started doing it, the Roman Catholic Church.

And so I think that's why it comes to that different, that different.

Now within dispensationalism you have differences.

You have.

When is that there's a seven year period called the Tribulation that we read about.

And the question is, does Christ return, rapture the church?

That that means a period where he just takes the church out and returns to dealing with Israel again.

Does Christ do that in the beginning of that seven year period, the middle of that seven year period or the end of that seven year period?

And there's different views there.

So those are the different views of end times.

And so I would end up being what's called pre mill, pre trib.

So I think that Christ will, the next event, Christ will rapture the church.

He'll bring Israel back into focus.

He will.

There'll be a seven year period of, of tribulation in the world as the church is gone.

At the end of that seven Year period.

There will be a great war.

There will be basically, Christ will return.

He will physically reign on earth as king for a thousand years.

That would be the second coming.

And then we end up having the, the end of the H. So just give a nice overview for, for the listeners and some of the listeners, like, oh, you bored me.

I already know all that.

Well, good.

Yeah, good.

What, what do you think are.

I don't know, maybe we got a few questions here.

But before, I guess before we get into that, maybe we'll address some of these with the questions.

But what do you think, what do you think's the biggest misconception?

Like I would say, you know, on, on the covenantal side of things, I would, I would say the biggest misconception is calling, calling it replacement theology because we don't actually think that the church replaced Israel, which we believe it's, it's, you know, Christ fulfilled it and that we were grafted into one tree, you know, romans was it 9, 11.

So that's a big misconception.

That's kind of like, you know, that's how we like to.

Yeah, just that's we tap, we attack each other with, oh, you're replacement theology, you're this, you're that, you know, so.

But on your end, what do you think is like maybe the biggest misconception that you hear a lot and you're always having to kind of correct or, or whatever.

Yeah.

And you're right, and I always point that out that covenantalism does not teach replacement theology.

There are some who do, but that's not the norm.

The two areas, I think if the biggest misconception is that dispensationalism is pre millennialism and premillennialism is a study of theology of end times called eschatology, which is amel.

Post.

Mill.

Pre mill.

Covenant theology is part of, with dispensationalism is more of the hermeneutics, but it has a broader aspect because that hermeneutic affects all the, the, the whole systematic theology.

Because the systematic theology is taking all the passages of the Bible, interpreting them and putting them together by category.

So how you interpret all those individual passages will affect your overall systematic theology.

And so I would say that's probably the biggest one.

You know, you're saying the replacement theology.

Well, the, the flip side to that one is that people will say, well, as a dispensationalist, oh, you believe that the church's plan B, you know, that God didn't have a.

God was dealing with Israel and then he just, he didn't see, you know, the church age or, you know, like Israel rejected.

And it was just, oh, this is a plan B, I'll do this.

Now that, that's, I, that's actually in the same exact camp as replacement theology.

You know, there may be a couple of extremists that hold to it, but it's not, it's not normative.

How, how would you, I don't know.

So, you know, going with, with that misconception, how would you, how would you respond?

Like, how is it, how is it not, I guess, God's plan B, if you will.

Well, because God knows everything.

So there was no plan B for God.

I mean, right.

I mean, that's, it's, it's really that simple.

This was always part of God's plan.

And I'll argue that we can see that in scripture.

We, we see prophecies in the Old Testament that talk about Christ.

And yet what you end up seeing is you'll see it where he's reigning as a king at the same time, where he's coming as a suffering servant, and they could be right next to each other.

And you go, how, how are these, like, it's been partially fulfilled.

And this is what some would say is what's called now, not yet, that there's some fulfillment of those prophecies now that we get to enjoy.

But there's others that have, have not yet been fulfilled.

So I would argue that when we look at the New Covenant, Jeremiah and then in Ezekiel, it talks about the New Covenant, it is being fulfilled right now.

In, in the part of the promise was that we would no longer need a priesthood.

The Holy Spirit himself, God himself would indwell us.

Well, that is what's happening in the church age.

But then there's other aspects of it that are tied directly to, to the nation of Israel.

So there's going to be a time that they have that experience.

Right?

And so we got to be careful.

And you know, another more personal.

Go back to misconceptions.

I'll give you a personal misconception.

And you even saw it in some of the, the, I think you might have saw it in some of the questions in your group.

People assume that because I'm Jewish, that's why I'm dispensational.

Because there was a question asking why, you know, why I'm a Zionist.

Oh yeah, I saw that.

And I'm like, well, I'm a Zionist because I'm an Israelite.

I'm not a Zionist because I'm a dispensationalist.

And there that.

That brings up.

I think I.

And I think that person is.

I, I would love to dialogue with that person because I think we have a different definition of what Zionism is.

But Zionism is just the idea of wanting Jewish people returning to the nation of Israel.

That's Zionism.

That has nothing to do with dispensationalism.

Well, I mean, some think it does because they think because there is this idea that God's going to deal back with the Jewish people back in the land of Israel, that that becomes important.

And dispensationalism has been around before 1948 when people started when there was another.

A nation of Israel again.

So, you know, it's.

It didn't start with the nation of Israel being reformed.

So.

Right.

That.

Yeah.

It only makes sense if it was post 1948 when.

Yeah.

When Israel was given their land back or at least some of it.

Yeah.

For some fun, you know, tidbits of information.

Do you know what we people used to call Jewish people that lived in that land known as Israel before 1948?

No.

Palestinians.

Yeah, that was what they were called.

That area was called Palestine.

There was never a nation of Palestine.

It was an area.

Yeah.

By the Romans.

Right.

The Romans started calling them that.

Is it as an insult to the Jewish people because the Philistines were.

Were like the thorn under their side.

And so the Romans called it Palestine and as like an insult to them.

And so the Jewish people that lived there prior to 1948 were called Palestinians.

That's that, that I know that just blew some people's mind going, wait a minute.

No, that can't be.

So I, I have a personal question.

And this is again, I could be completely.

The, the more, the more guests I have on with different views than me and the more I actually study myself and learn about the different.

I know where I land on.

On certain things or some areas where I'm a little weaker in.

But so this might be completely mischaracterization of dispensationalism and forgive me if it is, please correct me live on camera.

I don't care.

It's fine.

But something I've, you know, reading.

So for the First Peter, the letter of First Peter he's writing to.

This goes into.

Does a church quote unquote, replace Israel or, you know, is the church now Israel, Whatever.

However you want to label that.

So Peter and I love, I love First Peter.

It's one of my favorite letters in the whole New Testament, but he's talking to people scattered about Cappadocia, Galatia, I think Bithynia, several.

Several areas, Gentile areas.

You know, he's not, like, he's not writing to Jerusalem.

He's not.

He might be writing to Jews, but, but over and over in that, in that letter, there is.

There's basically talk of like, you're a holy nation.

Be holy, because I am.

He keeps over and over again referencing the Old Testament.

And basically, you would think, reading it, maybe he's talking to.

To only strictly Jews here, kind of like the writer of Hebrews seems to be doing.

But if, if one, if he's not writing to Jews, does that not.

Does that not disprove dispensationalism?

Does that not show that the church has, I guess, fulfilled Israel or been grafted in and the church is now Israel?

You know what I'm trying to.

You know what I'm trying to ask here?

Yep.

Yep.

And so Peter, who was the.

He's the apostle, known apostle to the Jewish people, along with James, the pastor of the church in Jerusalem, both wrote very similarly.

Similarly and for the same reason to their, their audience who was in Jerusalem and spread throughout the world under persecution.

And so these people have fled.

And he's writing to encourage them.

And so where Peter is encouraging them to how to live under persecution, James is writing to them, encouraging them what genuine faith is.

And under persecution, you question faith.

So it makes sense that they would both need those.

I think that what you have is.

You have the mixing now of.

So he's writing, I think, to a mostly Jewish audience, but not, not only.

And, but it's a Jewish audience that understands the idea.

And he's using the same language that we see used for Israel, language they would understand.

So it's not saying, okay, this is a, you know, we, this is now grafted in.

The idea of it is that there is a nation of Israel and there, there's a.

There was a different, what we would say dispensation, and that dispensation is defined by a covenant.

So there was a covenant of Moses that had certain commands that was for a nation that is different than the new covenant that we have for the church.

Okay.

So the way progressive covenantalism would say it is, or New Covenant Theology would say it is.

It's.

It's the law to Israel and the law, the law of Christ.

And so there are laws to the, to the nation of Israel.

You don't keep.

I'm sure, I'm sure you don't Keep kosher.

I had pork today for lunch, actually.

There you go.

You need to repent of that.

That's horrible.

No, the.

There's.

But, you know, you don't keep the Passover, which is, is a command to keep forever.

And so what we end up seeing is there, there are things that the church has different rules, shall we say, or instructions that differ, differ from the nation of Israel.

And that's why I said the difference of the visible, invisible, because when we're talking about the laws, which is where most of the people discuss this on, it's dealing with that visible church and visible Israel.

Right?

Because you can't see who's the unbelievers.

But when we talk about the invisible church and invisible Israel, now that I would say, okay, now we're dealing with basically one body, okay?

And so that's the redeemed people.

Now did they have different instructions when they were alive?

Yes.

I mean, that's no different than, you know, the instructions given to Noah were different than the ones given to Abraham given, different than the ones given to Moses.

And, and so every covenant.

This is why I, I have a friend of mine, Metzlec, he would, he would always say that covenant theology is more biblical because we see covenants in the Bible.

And I'd be like, yeah, that, that's, that's a fallacy because covenant theology is not a covenant.

It's.

They're totally different.

But see, dispensationalism is actually based on covenants.

Every.

What we'd call dispensation, that, that what some would call like a administration.

There's two administrations, one body of Christ.

We would see that with each covenant.

And so you, you asked the question of where, what type of dispensationalism?

I, there's classical.

I think the terms that people use is classical, traditional and progressive.

I don't know.

I know I'm not classical.

I don't care because I'm not.

It sounds bad, but because everyone knows me as the poster boy, I guess, for dispensationalism online.

But I don't really care because I'm more about how you interpret the Bible.

I think I'd probably be more in the, in what's the progressive camp.

And I, and I don't fully understand the differences between the traditional and progressive other than the view of David's.

The covenant with David, what you do with that.

And I'm going like, okay, but I'm in the church age, so like, some of that doesn't matter practically.

And, and As a shepherd, I'm more concerned with shepherding the flock.

So I, I have less concern with all of the theological debates and nuance that we sometimes want to just debate when we're scholars.

It's the advantage of being a pastor versus a scholar.

Right.

So, yeah, I can get along better with people.

So, yeah.

So, I mean, that's, I, I, when people actually ask me what I am, Michael, I say I'm a reportian because my last name is Rapaport.

I thought you, you answered.

Yeah, yeah.

Somebody that.

You got to ask me what I believe.

Right.

Because.

Because it doesn't fit.

You know, like, you know, you're describing how you're.

That's why I think you'd get along well with Matt Slick.

You know, he's, he's a Presbyterian who goes to Calvary Chapel churches, who's Reformed, believes the gifts continue, is Amil, believes there's a future for Israel and that things will get depressing.

Yeah, that's besides the Presbyterian part.

But, yeah, that's, that's probably where I fall under.

He doesn't fit into anything there.

Right.

You know, it's, you know, because he's, he's trying to take the text of Scripture and this is where the difference is.

Like, so, so Matt and I come to different conclusions because we have a different hermeneutic, but we're both doing the same thing.

We're not letting the theological system determine how we interpret the Bible.

We're trying to interpret the Bible and then develop this, the systematic theology from it.

And so, you know, but like when I wrote my book, what do we believe?

You're not going to see a lot of dispensationalism in there, because I'm trying to say what all of Christian believes except for one area.

If you, if you read the chapter in my book, what do we Believe on the Church?

What I do in there is, is to define what church is.

I actually go through historically to say the word ecclesia changed over time.

The meaning of it.

I mean, it was first, it was first used in Ephesus to, for, to vote, where everyone was required to vote.

Every male was required to vote.

And so what you ended up having was you had it as a, you know, a call for people to come out and vote.

And then later it becomes something where it's used for the worship of God.

Then later it becomes more precise in the visible, invisible church that we're talking about.

And then later in the Puritans, they, because of error, they're clarifying It.

And they're saying, oh, it's the three elements of church.

They talk about the.

You know, that it's got to be the preach, the preaching of God's word, the practicing of the ordinances and practicing of church discipline.

Right.

So each time it got more and more precise.

So I do give, I will admit I give a little bit of a tweak in that chapter because I do say that, like, if you're reformed and you keep reforming, you know that the, the.

This.

The definition of church has been more precise, that it's not Israel.

So up until there, everyone agree.

Could agree.

It's just that that's probably the only place where I, I did have a little fun.

Because it's.

Because that is the major difference between Israel, the difference with Israel and the church is the difference between the two theological systems.

Okay, okay.

Well, we're already at 40 some odd minutes here, so I want to get it at least a few of our.

The viewer quotes.

They had some really good questions.

I had a hard time selecting, you know, selecting some.

And somebody already answered in the comments section.

It was pretty funny, actually.

So what he's trying to tell you folks is you want to go and look at the post that he put up in the group where he said I was coming on so that you could see some of my humor in the answer for sure.

Answered one with the one fellow that I did answer online because he was like, you know, I don't know if you had that one where he was like, I don't know if this is out of line to say, you know, but.

But he, he was.

Thought he was like, isn't there, you know, doesn't everyone think that, you know, Chris is going to come in there in their time period?

And I was like, yeah, that totally mischaracterized the point, actually, in a fun way, polite way.

Yeah, I'm glad I tagged you because, you know, like, when you don't.

When you got someone that you don't know, you haven't, you know, you haven't really interacted with coming on your show and you're like, I don't know if they're gonna be like, you know, brass or what, you know, you just don't know who they are.

So I'm really glad I tagged you.

I'm really glad that you were.

You were, you know, interacting with people in the comments because I was like, okay, this is gonna be fun.

This is gonna be fun for sure.

Well, I, When I come on someone's podcast, I'm doing It for your audience, not mine.

I'm not looking to gain an audience from it.

I'm not looking to promote, you know, hey, this is.

Unless, unless a host asks me to promote things.

I, you know, I, I, a lot of times forget to.

Because I'm here for your audience.

And so you give me a chance to engage with your audience about what we're talking about.

I, I'm doing that because I'm hoping that.

I'm hoping your audience will get more out of the engagement, even though they, they'll disagree with me.

Okay, I could take it.

I get fixing.

I, I'm just gonna say, I personally believe that men like R.C.

sproule believe what I believe today.

I think we are in agreement today.

And for folks who don't realize, RC Spro was a Presbyterian that passed away.

So my, the joke is, I'm saying he's Baptist today.

That's the joke.

I'm saying he's a continuationist today.

Yeah, I will.

One way or another, I will.

We will.

So, like, even on that topic, we will agree in heaven.

Yeah, both can't be right.

We both could be wrong.

Yeah, both can't be right.

I think we're all gonna be right.

I think when it comes to end times, we're all going to be a little bit like, oh, we all had it wrong, at least a little bit.

And for your audience, I am hoping that you will, you know, come on to my apologetics live so we can talk about the, the continuation of cessation.

I think it'd be fun.

I'm down.

I'm down.

You call me out in front of everybody.

I got.

Now I gotta.

Come on.

All right, well, let's.

I guess we really only have time to answer one or two of these, but I'll start with Jamie.

Jamie, I'm sorry.

I actually went on his podcast, not the sermon.

I think it's coming out March 17th or something like that, so.

Really funny guy, Jamie Nunally.

I think I'll put it up on a screen in post production here so you can see this name.

And the question says, how do you choose which parts of Revelation to consider literal and which parts are symbolic?

For example, you've already kind of answered this question, but, for example, the image of Jesus in Revelation 1:12:16 is usually not considered literal with symbolic.

With bronze feet, eyes of fire, etc that carry metaphorical meaning.

Yet many dispensationalists believe in a literal mark of the beast, actual millennial reign, and a flesh and blood false prophet.

What besides the reader's opinion.

That's a nice little jab.

Determines what is literal and what is it?

You've already kind of answered this, but maybe kind of expound.

Yeah, it is good, because this is an important one.

And you know, Jamie, you know, I'll give you the little jab back, and I think I did on the group.

But the, the question is, how do you do it?

I, I will say that the way I do it is based on the genre.

So let me, let me take a stab at, you know, you, you start with it.

What does it say?

Looking at it, does it make sense?

Michael, if I said, I'm so hungry I can eat a cow, do you believe that I, in one sitting, can eat an entire cow?

Depends on who's asking.

Baptist preach, Pastor?

Probably.

No, I'm joking.

I'm totally joking.

Don't.

Don't throw rocks.

Most people say no to that and to which I respond and say, you didn't.

You didn't know me in my younger years.

So.

But no, I mean, we, we understand there's idioms.

In fact, let me give you, let me give you an idiom that maybe many of your audience don't even know about.

Jesus said that no one knows the day or the hour, not the angels, but only the Father knows.

Now people sit there and get into a whole debate on whether Jesus doesn't know things in his humanity that he knows in his deity.

And when you separate that, that's heresy.

Right?

But that's a Jewish idiom.

Now we drop out the angels part, but no man knows that they are the hour, not the Son, only the Father is a idiom referring to a Jewish wedding to say you have to live life as if any moment could be the moment, which when you see both in the context, that's the exact moment context of both of those.

And so a lot of people misunderstand and some even fall into heresy unknowingly and teach heresy because they don't realize it's an idiom.

Okay.

And so one of the principles is if we read it and it can't possibly be literal, you know, then we take it figurative.

Now, in this one, he's referencing this symbolic image.

Well, there's an image.

What is it?

Well, we don't know.

But to John's vision, Remember, this is John describing what he sees.

I mean, you know, if.

If you take someone from 1500 years ago and you show them a helicopter, what would they describe it as?

They wouldn't have a category for it, and they'd be trying to figure out how to explain to people what, what they're seeing.

So there is going to be some of that.

So, but to flip it on, Jamie, when we look at something like Jeremiah, sorry, Revelation 20, you have six times in six verses, thousand years being used in chronological language.

So the, the issue is if, if you take this as something that's not literal, then all the language around it seems to be very specifically, this happens, then this happens a thousand years.

Then this happens a thousand years.

So there's chronological language to it.

That's what would lead me to believe that it's literal.

Because of that.

Now he lays hold of a dragon, the serpent of old, and they go, well, that's, you know, that's a dragon.

That's not the actual.

But the dragon is specified as the serpent of old, who is referred to as Satan in Genesis.

So that's who it's referring to.

It's not referring to a literal dragon.

People will say, well, the angels, my friend Matt Slick, he'll say, well, the angels coming from heaven, having a key to abyss and great chains in his hand.

And they'll say, well see, an angel can't be chained up physically because they're spiritual.

But then, see, Matt also agrees that in First Peter it's referring to angels.

And that go back to Genesis chapter six with the sons of God mating with the daughters of men.

And he'll say that those are, well, the offspring are the Nephilim or the giants.

But he'll say that they're, that those are angels, which is I think, the right interpretation.

And, and historically the view that would be the Jewish view.

So with that I go, well then how are they chained up?

And he goes, oh yeah, there's a problem, right?

But he, his argument is because the angels being chained hats to be figurative, then the thousand years has to be figurative.

And I flip it around and say, well, the, the thousand years doesn't have to be figurative because the language, the direct language is chronological.

So I'm going to take that as normative, as, as literal.

Now what I'm going to do is say, okay, the dragon is literal, that's Satan, and he's literally bound for a thousand years.

The angels are in the abyss with a great chain and they could be chained up.

We can't, you know, we don't understand how that chain is.

But I'm sure it's not a same chain as what we'd see.

But when John sees this, he would look at it and see a chain and know what a chain is.

And that's how he describe it.

So that I'm gonna let the direct context tell me whether it's literal or not.

I'm gonna default to a literal interpretation.

Unless a literal interpretation wouldn't make sense.

So that, that's how I would do that.

And the question that I would ask, you know, someone that it would be more covenantal in their theology would be, when do you determine when it's literal or not?

Because, you know, we'll take example.

A good example, I know this is one of your questions will be Daniel, Daniel, chapter nine.

So, you know, maybe you wanted to, we could jump to that question because that would be a good, a good segue for me to finish answering that for sure.

Yeah.

I was actually looking for, I was going to pick one more question to ask you before we had a wrap up.

So that's actually perfect.

So you pick it for me.

We, we don't have to wrap up early.

Your wife's not looking to see you.

Don't worry about it.

She's probably like, yeah, yeah, yeah, I want to go hang out with my friends, read a book.

You know, she's not in a rush to see you.

Yeah, sure.

My wife.

Oh.

All right.

So this one word of.

It's from Word of Faith, Rema Reptile, which he's a funny guy.

Disagree with the word of a thing.

But something's going to tell me that that person's gonna hold to a charismatic view.

I don't know what in this.

It's kind of like a charismatic cheetah.

I don't know what makes me think that you guys are continuationists.

I.

Well, me and him disagree fundamentally on Word of Faith and Kenneth Copeland, but that's.

But still hilarious meme page.

He really is hilarious and asked some really good questions too.

So he says, is Ezekiel 40:43 about the millennial kingdom?

And if so, how do we reconcile sacrifices being present?

Oh no, that's not the right question.

I'm sorry, that is not the right question.

The one that you had was the.

You had these.

The one you gave me in the show notes has the.

Ezekiel 40:43.

That's the first one.

Yeah.

His third question.

Yes.

Three.

Gotcha.

Yeah.

I could try to cover all three of his.

Yeah.

Okay.

Well, he said, good segue into Daniel.

So his question about Daniel 9 says what is dispensational hermeneutics?

Bring to the table as far as Bible interpretation.

Can you give us a rundown of the dispensation, dispensational understanding of Daniel's 70 weeks from Daniel chapter nine.

Yeah.

Which is, I never hear anyone that is, opposes dispensationalism that wants to talk to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9.

So let me he, this is a really good question, the first one about Ezekiel.

Because people, because when you look at Ezekiel 40, 43, there's talk about sacrificing in the millennium.

So what is that?

And you know, are we re offering a sacrifice when Christ already did, you know, he finished the sacrifice?

I, I personally believe what that's probably going to be is very much like what our baptism and Lord's Supper is.

It's a memorial.

It's not actual, it's not an actual sacrifice, but it is a reminding of what Christ did.

So it'll probably go back to it.

More of a mindset that Jewish people would understand with the Jewish sacramental system as a, as a memorial that is more direct to something they would understand.

So I don't think it'll, I don't think it'll have any, I, I would, I wouldn't think that it has any sacramental value like the way the Catholics think that the Lord's Supper gives them grace.

And I think it'll be just a memorial.

Okay, so the, the, the Daniel nine.

The reason I said this, that this one is a good segue is this is one, when we look at this, it, it's like four verses.

It starts off there's 70 weeks.

Now the, the weeks in Hebrews, it's 77s.

So we understand this is a seven.

Each week is a seven year period.

Okay, that would be very understanding to Jewish thinking because you have the jubilee years, you have these, everything was based on a seven day week, a seven year cycle, a seven time seven year cycle.

So this is very common thinking for a Jewish thinking.

So you have seven seven year periods and he has, he gives six things that are going to happen at the end of this.

It's seven.

Seven weeks.

70 weeks have been decreed for your people and for your holy city.

Okay.

To finish transgression.

One, two, to make an end of sin.

Three, to make atonement for iniquity.

Four, to bring an everlasting righteousness, five, to seal up vision and prophecy and six, to anoint the most holy place.

Okay, now for word of faith, Rema and charismatic Cheetah.

I would argue this becomes a real problem for you guys because if this is, if this is referring to what already happened at the cross, then all, then all of the vision and prophecy is over.

It is ceased.

It's Sealed up.

Yeah, that, that becomes a problem.

Just.

Yeah, but.

So I mean it's, you know, but when we looking at it, I.

What you have is he's seven seven year periods.

That is literal.

We.

How do we know it's literal?

Well, he says so that you know, to discern from the issuing of the decree to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Messiah, there will be seven seven year periods and 62 seven year periods, it will be built again with a plaza and a moat and even in times of distress.

Well, the decree is literal.

The rebuilding of the of Jerusalem is literal.

The coming of Messiah is literal.

He gives the time frame.

It is interesting that it's a 77 year period and a 627 year period because from the decree from CYRUS it was seven years, seven year periods, right?

40, 49 years of to build it.

And then There was the 62 seven year periods from the time it was finished building until Christ is on the scene.

So all of that is literal.

And, and this is something I've only had one person ever say disagree that it's not literal.

And the only reason is because when I came to my conclusion, he had to backtrack and say no, this has to be figurative, because he wants the last week to be figurative.

Okay.

And so I'm seeing that literal because everything here is literal.

What do you have in verse 26 it says then after 62 weeks or 62 seven year periods.

That's chronological again, right?

So you see, all this is chronological.

It's one, then the other, it's the seven weeks and the 62 weeks.

Then after the 62 weeks the Messiah will be cut off.

So 62 weeks, the Messiah comes after that he's cut off and, and have nothing.

The Messiah is cut off and have nothing.

And the people of the prince who is to come will destroy the city and the sanctuary.

So who do who destroyed the city and the sanctuary were the Romans.

So they are the prince who are to come.

So there's got to be this prince.

And we would see that in other books to say that's the Antichrist.

The prince who has come will come from Rome.

Some people say, well that's, that's the Pope.

Well, it could be, but.

And then it says and its end will come with a flood, even to the end there will be war and desolations.

And then here's the thing it says and verse 27, it's.

And it's not then you see verse 26 was then after this is.

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

So that's one seven year period.

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

And the wing of abomination will come, will come one who makes desolation until a complete destruction, one is decreed, is poured out on the one who makes desolation desolate.

So this is saying there's going to be a seven year period sometime after Messiah comes.

It doesn't have to immediately follow because it's, it's not saying, it's not using chronological language here.

But what's going to happen, you're going to have a seven year period.

Halfway through the sacrificial system is going to end.

Now what many will do is say, well this is, this verse 27 is fulfilled in 70 AD and the full predator, you know, do this big time.

And this is the question I always have for the full predator does help me with the math.

Seven years, right?

We got a seven year period.

So Christ dies in 30.

Some, you know, say you want to say 33, you know, 36, whichever.

So 33 plus 7 equals 70.

How right, 33 plus the seven year period equals 70 A.D. it doesn't work.

And so what a lot of people have done is say that, that last week is figurative, you see, but there's nothing with the other weeks that were figurative, so why would the last one be figurative?

The language of the text says it's all literal.

It's a literal seven year period.

So now how do we rectify that?

Because we know Messiah came, but we haven't had this seven year period where the, the sacrificial system is ended in the middle of a seven year period.

But you notice the language also allows for a gap in time for us to say, well this is chronological.

This happens, then this happens.

And then after that happens somewhere this other thing is going to happen.

But there wasn't the chronological connection there.

And so I could see that God, and this is also why I'd be pre millennial.

I think that God's going to take the church out of the world, bring Israel back into, into focus, and then that seven year period will start.

And in the middle of it he's gonna, the Antichrist would put an end to the sacrificial system.

So, so that, that's a.

And I'm glad that word of faith, Rima asked that because of the fact that what, that, what it does is allow it really allowed me to show kind of everything you've been wanting and bring it all together.

What is Dispensationalism.

How do we interpret what is the premillennial view?

This one passage has it all.

Now.

I'm almost upset.

You did kind of ask the next question in your show notes about the biggest misconception.

The only thing I liked about the question was the, the, the person who asked the name, you know, the, the Calvary Chapel Coconut crab.

I would ask that one by, because of, because of the name.

It's a mouthful.

Well, Andrew, we're out of time here.

And by the way, that did also answer Hugo's question as well that you had, you know, as far as the literal and, and grammatical how that plays out.

So Hugo Helm is my favorite cessationist post mill.

Like we, we disagree on the gifts, but we almost agree on eschatology.

He's, he's one of those that, he heckles me, but in a friendly way.

Nothing like a, you know, so I, I really like Hugo.

He's cool, he's funny.

If you want to believe the, the gifts continue for, you know, what, like 70 years, go for it.

Because for eternity you'll, you'll, you won't be.

So I mean, some people, people want to wait till heaven to be right.

I, I, I, I just don't wait, you know.

Speaking of that though, you know, I was thinking, I don't, I don't know how anybody can be dispensational and a continuation.

So I actually catch more flat for my followers for being, for not being a dispensational than I do for, you know, being, you know, not being a cessationist.

I actually catch a lot more flak from my fellow charismatics who are dispensational than I do from my, you know, the cessationist followers.

So I like, to me it doesn't make sense.

Like you can't really be a charismatic.

I don't think so.

At least like you talked about with the, The Daniel, the 70 weeks thing.

I don't think, I don't see how you can be a dispensational and a charismatic with, because of that, just because of the Daniel, Daniel portion.

But I, I tend to agree with you.

I mean, I've never used that Daniel portion in, in discussing the continuation of gifts, but I do, you know, being that, you know, and I don't know how you would interpret, you know, Daniel, but like, if you're saying, hey, completed at 70 A.D. right, well then those prophecy prophecies done, right, that could become a problem for your position, being that you are a continuationist if you hold that this is 70 A.D. i, I think that the, really, it comes down to how we're interpreting First Corinthians 12, 13 and 14.

And the hermeneutic there, I don't think is.

Is playing in.

I would, I would argue that I'm following a more consistent hermeneutic when it comes to chapter 13 and what the teleos is.

They would disagree and, and, you know, this wouldn't be, you know, if we, if you ever wanted to do another show on First Corinthians, you know, 13 and the Telios, that, that could be a lot of fun.

Yeah, yeah.

I don't bite people's heads off.

I mean, look, the reality is you and I are both wrong.

This is something, you know, I, I was doing a debate.

Metzlik and I were the keynotes on an apologetics cruise.

And a question was asked why it is that we are debating dispensationalism versus covenant theology.

And I was addressing the strawman arguments dispens make against covenant theology.

He was making.

Addressing the strawman arguments covenant theologians make against dispensational theology.

And someone asked why we do that.

Now he.

Matt had a much better answer than me.

So even though he went first, I'm going to go explain mine first.

His was better.

I, I basically said, because, you know, someone that's dispensational is going to take it better.

Me pointing out that when you talk about replacement theology, that that's not a fair representation of the position they're going to, they're going to receive it better from me.

Yeah.

Matt had a much better answer, one that I've used all the time because he's so right.

Matt said, andrew and I are both wrong in our theology.

We don't know where, because if we did, we would change.

But when we know that when we sit at the feet of Christ, he will correct both of us and we'll be happy.

Hey.

Freaking men, man.

Yeah, I think that is a thing that many people, especially the keyboard theologians online, need to learn.

Matt is a very smart guy and, you know, we debate a whole lot of things.

We're very good friends and we disagree, and we could disagree vehemently and still be really good friends.

Why?

Because of what Matt said.

We, we believe we're right because of how we interpret the Scriptures, and yet we come to different conclusions.

And we know when we sit before Christ, we'll be corrected.

Amen.

And if more people did that, we wouldn't have a lot less arguing online and maybe we can make a difference in this world, especially against the Marxists, you know.

Oh wait, now I'm sounding postmill.

Oh.

That'S a perfect place to.

That's a perfect place to wrap up.

Andrew, where I kind of plugged your website here.

Let me put your, Let me put your website up here.

Is there anywhere else people can find you besides website and books?

Well, you find everything at striving for eternity.org from there you can find the Christian podcast community with all of our 50 plus podcasts that are part of the community.

You can find my books there in our store.

You can find our free academy that we have the striving fraternity Academy where we have classes that you could take online for free if you want to buy the syllabus that you have to pay for.

But from there that you could invite us to come and speak at do what we really are focused.

We're discipling ministry.

So what we really want to do is so we use podcasting, we use online classes, we do all these things to do discipleship, but we really like to do is get in front of a congregation, small congregation.

That sounds weird.

We don't mind like we want to help churches and we know that most of the churches that are hurting the most are the smaller ones.

Bi vocational pastor doesn't have time to put studies together.

So we come in and we'll do how to interpret the Bible, how you know, how to evangelize, apologetics, seminars on the family, parenting, you know, creation science.

So we got a whole lot of different.

You know, another popular one ever, you know, in last five years is the one we have on social justice.

But we have those, we come into the church, try to help train up the church and then kind of try to leave some resources behind.

That's why we have different syllabuses and books to to leave behind that people can use in Sunday school and study.

That's why I have the, the systematic theology what do we believe?

Or the one on world religions what do they believe?

So that it, it gives someone to, to have son that they could study and do as a, like a Sunday school and, and learn more of what we believe and then what are the differences with others?

So, so they can they from there they can find our different speakers and invite any one of us to come and speak at their church.

We, we will go anywhere.

We don't have a speaking fee.

So if you know our, our monthly donors support it so we can go to churches.

We.

Look, I, I go all over the world, you know, I get asked to go places.

I tell them, well, you got to pay.

No, we.

We'll find a way to make it happen.

And if God wants us in the Philippines or India or wherever, he makes the resources there.

Amen.

Did I sound charismatic or something?

Oh.

Well, thanks for coming on, Andrew.

Yeah, we should definitely.

We should definitely look at doing a first Corinthians 13 episode sometime.

And I guess.

I guess since you, you know, called me out in front of my.

My viewers, I guess I'll come on your show soon.

Yeah, well, see that the advantage of coming on Apologetics Live is your viewers will be able to watch and they'll be able to help you in the chat or even come on in and support you by jumping in, because anyone can come in.

So, you know, I don't know, you may end up and Word of Faith, Rema and Calvary Chapel, coconut crab.

And, you know, who.

Who knows who else, you know, all teaming up against me.

But I'm okay.

I can handle because I got the word of God, so.

Amen.

Well, thanks for watching.

Listening.

However you're consuming this, please subscribe to the channel like this video comment.

Go check out Andrew Rapboard's page.

He's on.

He's on Facebook.

He's on, obviously the website.

And we'll see again unless we get raptured before then, right?

That's right.

And folks, listen, if you got some value out of this, share this episode with others, because that is how Charismatic Cheetah grows.

The growth comes through you sharing the content that you enjoy with others.

So if you got something good out of it, hey, go text five of your friends this episode right now.

Whatever app you're using, just go share it with five people right now.

Amen.

Amen.

Appreciate, Andrew.

Thank you very much.