Becoming Better Theologians (part 27)

Our Father in heaven we just come before you this morning as your people who have been blessed. Who have been? Graced who have been granted your love and your kindness. Father as we gather here this morning, and we look to your Word I pray that it would be a time that we would be strengthened that we would be encouraged that we would be challenged to Examine your word and to examine our lives the father.

I pray that you would bless our time in Christ's name. Amen. Well, you know, I really I thought I was done with this whole Dispensationalism thing completely done with it and then Harriton sent me an email last night and I thought well, maybe I'm not completely done with it.

Dispensationalism and the Israel-Church Distinction

So I did for anybody who wants these I haven't made extra copies, but if you want a copy of These amazingly confusing charts That I found online. They're actually from Kim riddle Barger's book or summaries of what's in his book about amillennialism postmillennialism.

Historic premillennialism and then dispensationalism. And you know if you can understand the dispensationalism one because it says overview of the seven dispensations. The first dispensation is innocence second is conscience third is human government and I'm like, I don't even understand these.

And I'm a dispensationalist. So but I digress. Anyway, what Harrison sent me last night was a little bit of a quote from Faith Works. How many have read that book by John MacArthur and this is an appendix to that book.

And I was going through it by the way if you if you read or didn't read the email I sent out a few days ago. I just want to read a little bit of that from MacArthur before I start this other thing here.

He says John MacArthur does I'm not into all kinds of complex charts that's why I went to MacArthur's Church for 10 years, and I can't tell you what the dispensation of promises. I Don't I don't know what that is.

Because they don't teach it. And and I think the key Thing to look at when we're talking about Dispensationalism and we'll talk more about this but the key issue is is there a future for Israel in terms of biblical promises and The key to understanding that is to study the Bible.

What does the Bible say? And that's that's what MacArthur does and that's why it doesn't have any funky charts because isn't do that. Listen listen what he says here. He says I'm not into all kinds of complex charts.

I'm not into all that is traditionally known as dispensationalism. Seven dispensations two kingdoms could two covenants two ways of salvation discontinuity between the Old Testament the new. He says I reject the wacky world of newspaper exegesis and cartoon eschatology and crazy interpretation like the locusts of Revelation 9 being helicopters.

Etc. And you know, I read that and I just started laughing because now this is. This is it's funny to me. Anyway, the first Bible study I went to was not Pastor Mike's Bible study in LA. I went to another one and it was a Grace Community Church Bible study other than the one for cops that I went to but the first real Bible study I went to was was under the headship of Grace Community Church and We studied a lot of eschatology and you know what they said about Revelation 9.

That the locusts in Revelation 9 were helicopters I just thought. See even a Grace Community Church people don't teach what John MacArthur teaches. He goes on to say so my dispensationalism if you want to use that term is only that which can to be defended exegetically and exit exegesis or exegetically means to draw out of Scripture.

If you if you are performing I said Jesus you put something into the scripture. You give it a meaning that it never would have meant by itself he says so My dispositionalism is only that can that can be defended exegetically or exposition Lee out of the scripture and by a simple clear Interpretation of the Old Testament is obvious God promised a future kingdom to Israel and I'm going to get to some of those passages here in a few minutes.

And when some comes along and says all the promises of the kingdom to Israel are fulfilled in the church. Listen to this. He says the burden of proof is not on me. It's on them. Why do you think MacArthur says that?

If someone says the Promises made to Israel are fulfilled in the church. He says the burden of proof is on them not on me Steve. Exegetically it says the promises are for Israel. So if you're gonna say well, it doesn't really actually mean Israel.

You have to defend it. You know and and here's here's what you can't do or at least I can't do. You can't say well, you know, the Bible does say that not all Israel is Israel and Then just take that one verse and just kind of apply it all over the place because then you have Other issues everything needs to be understood in its context.

Let's see. Says the simplest way that I would answer someone who is what is called an omnilineous Meaning again, no literal 1 ,000 years of reign by Christ. It's not a literal 1 ,000 years or a covenant theologian is that Believing that there is one covenant and the church is the new Israel and Israel is gone that God has done with Israel and that's the issue between Dispensationalists and covenantalists.

There is no future for Israel and omnilineous would say he says my answer is simple. You show me that verse in the Old Testament, which promises a kingdom to Israel where it's where it says it really means the church.

Show me. Where does it say that on what? Exegetical basis. What. Historical grammatical literal interpretive. Basis of the scripture. Can you tell me when God says Israel? He means the church so. That's what I said on the email.

Now. This is from as I said appendix number two of faith works and Here MacArthur defines Dispensationalism he says it is a system of biblical interpretation that sees a distinction between God's program for Israel and his dealings with the church.

You know when you join Bethlehem Bible Church, we say when did the church start when did the church start and I guess for some people maybe it started when God went to Abraham in Genesis chapter 12, but we say that the church started on the day of Pentecost on acts in Acts chapter 2.

See he says a dispensation is the plan of God by which he administers his rule within a given era in his eternal program. Dispensations are not periods of time but different administrations than the eternal blah blah blah.

Israel was the focus of God's redemptive plan in one dispensation. The church consisting of redeemed people including Jews and Gentiles is the focus in another. All Dispensationalists believe at least one dispensation is still future and what dispensation would that be?

There's a future dispensation. What would that be called? Starts with an M rhymes with polinium that well-known word polinium it's. It's millennium. That's the future dispensation. And he says during the thousand-year reign on of Christ on earth known as the millennium in which Israel once again play a pivotal role.

Dispensation teaches that all God's remaining covenant promises to Israel will literally be fulfilled including the promises of earthly blessings and an earthly Messianic Kingdom. God promised Israel for example that they would possess the promised land forever.

Now, we're gonna look at some different Passages. Let's look at Exodus 32 13 and who would like to read that place? Okay, seeing no hands. I will read it Exist 32 verse 13. Remember Abraham Isaac and Israel your servants to whom you swore by your own self and said to them I will multiply your star or your offspring as the stars of heaven and all this land that I have promised I will give to your offspring and they shall inherit it forever.

Now the Hebrew word for forever is Olam and it means forever eternally permanently. So, you know back to MacArthur's original point if you're gonna say that you either have to establish the fact that Israel owned the land and it still owns it or That it will own it or you could say that the church is fulfilling this spiritually.

But again hit MacArthur's point is if you go to excess 32 13, you're gonna have a hard time proving that that's the church. Scripture declares that Messiah the Messiah will rule over the kingdoms of the earth from.

And see here's where the problem is with having to nail us from Jerusalem. Let's look at Zechariah. I mean, I'm looking at one page and then I looked at the next and it's talking about the attributes of God because that's what I was gonna teach this morning, but We're not gonna get there.

Zechariah. Zechariah. Zechariah 14 verses 9 to 11 and the Lord will be king over all the earth on that day the Lord will be one and His name one. The whole land shall be turned into a plain from Geba to Rimmon south of Jerusalem.

But Jerusalem shall remain aloft on its sites from the gate of Benjamin to the place of the former gates to the corner to the corner gate and from the tower of Hananel to the king's wine presses and It shall be inhabitants or it shall be inhabited for there shall never be.

Again be a decree of utter destruction. Jerusalem shall dwell in security. And again, you know, when is that? When is that time? I mean it hasn't happened yet. So either God has decided he's not going to keep that promise or it's some future point.

Old Testament prophecy says that Israel will one day be restored to the promised land. It's an Amos 9 14 to 15. We're just gonna be playing a little wd -40 here this morning. Ezekiel Daniel Hosea Joel Amos.

Oh sorry. Amos 9 verses 14 and 15. I will restore the fortunes of my people Israel and they shall rebuild the ruined city and in ruined cities and inhabit them. They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine and They shall make gardens and eat their fruits.

I will plant them on their land and Listen, and they shall never again be uprooted out of the land that I have given them says the Lord your God. These are pretty tough promises to just get around. I mean it takes some it takes some work to explain them some other way.

Let's look at Ezekiel 37 verses 26 28. Pam. What happens after the thousand years? It's a good question. What happens after the thousand years? You mean just with regard to the land or. Well, what happens that we know from?

We know that the earth and the heavens heavens and the earth are going to be what? Consumed and there's gonna be a new heaven and a new earth. So. Well, it's gonna is. Yeah, it's gonna be. Heaven is going to be different but.

You know, I think if God says Forever then that probably means forever. So that's a fine question. And you know what? I'll just say I don't know. Okay, I haven't really studied, you know after I've just kind of been focused on.

You know the Millennium no Millennium stuff like that. I haven't really been you know. Yeah, okay, I mean heaven's gonna be better. That's all I know Ezekiel 37, but I I'll check into that Ezekiel 37 verses 26 to 28.

In fact, I'm gonna Back up to 24. My servant David shall be king over them and they shall have one shepherd. They shall walk in my rules and be careful to obey my statutes. They shall dwell in the land that I gave to my servant Jacob where your fathers lived.

They and their children and their children's children shall dwell there forever and David my servant shall be their prince forever. Will that mean David was going to live forever? Or is that part of the Davidic Covenant where one of his descendants would rule on the throne of David forever and ever which is how I would see it.

I will make a covenant of peace with them. It shall be an everlasting covenant with them. And I will set them in their land and multiply them and will set my sanctuary in their midst forevermore. My dwelling place shall be with them and I will be their God and they shall be my people.

Then the nations will know that I am the Lord who sanctifies Israel when my sanctuary is in their midst forevermore. And MacArthur says that that refers to the temple being rebuilt so. And The people of Israel will be redeemed.

We could look at Jeremiah 23 6, but let's look at Romans 11 26 to 27 and Romans 9 to 11 by the way is something of I mean as far as the New Testament goes it's a little bit controversial between covenantalists and dispensationalists, but Romans 11 26 and 27.

And in this way all Israel will be saved as it is written. The Deliverer will come from Zion he will banish ungodliness from Jacob and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins and You know again, the idea would be well, when when is this going to be that the Jews will be?

Redeemed and the idea Created dispensationalism. Would there be a future date? In fact MacArthur goes on to say dispensationalists believe all these promise blessings will come to pass as literally as did the promise curses.

What is it? You know so much the Old Testament is what here's Harriton. I stole all your stuff here and I just kind of I went and I just copied the whole thing the whole appendix. Was my last question.

Oh, yeah, what what it would almost all the Old Testament is a story of God and his people and what what do his people do? They rebel they go after idols and so what does God say. Well, that's okay. Go ahead and go after your idols and you know you have Palestinian idol.

We have American Idol. Sarah Sarah. He brings judgment on him, and he tells him ahead of time. He's gonna bring judgment. I mean he does again and again and again, right? So as those Promises or as those curses were pronounced on Israel nobody ever says well when you see those curses being you know placed on Israel and talking about them being hauled off in a captivity that really refers to the church.

I Don't think well, maybe they do maybe that's the Babylonian captivity, but that actually happened in real history anyway. Covenant theology on the other hand usually views such prophecies as already fulfilled in other words all these things that we see as future.

The temple being rebuilt Israel being in the land all these kind of things as already fulfilled allegorically or symbolically. Covenant theologians believe that the church not literal Israel is the recipient of the covenant promises.

The church has superseded Israel and God's eternal program. That's what they say. God's promises to Israel are therefore fulfilled in spiritual blessings realized by Christians. MacArthur later says this I am a dispensation list because Dispensations and generally understands and applies scripture.

Particularly prophetic scripture in a way that is more consistent with Normal literal with a normal literal approach that I believe is God's design for interpreting scripture. For example dispensation list can take at vase at face value Zechariah 12 to 14 Romans 11 25 to 29 and Revelation 21 to 6 the covenant theologian On the other hand cannot is and we've talked at length about Revelation 21 to 6 that they're Chapter 20 verses 1 to 6.

Otherwise, it sounds like 21 to 26 or something the covenant theologian on the other hand cannot why because If you have a literal thousand years where Christ is literally ruling and reigning, that's the Millennium and they don't believe in that.

He says I have not a pan abandoned dispensationalism, nor do I intend to. Now he gets into The Lordship controversy here and and I'll we'll just talk about that. But he he's setting up and I think this is important that dispensationalists have a.

What what's called a grammatical. A literal grammatical. What's the what's the word? I'm grammatical historical Hermeneutic and what does that mean? What's a grammatical historical hermeneutic? I'm glad I asked Grammatical historical hermeneutic means this we come to the Bible and we look at it using the rules of grammar using what we know of history and culture and Language and we say okay in this context using what we know about the language using what we know about antiquity and the times and the culture and what we know about.

Kind of the overall setting that it's in then we extract our the meaning of the text. Using those rules using those principles of hermeneutics. You know and I say all the time. What are the main three rules of hermeneutics and they are.

Context context context. A covenant theologian Would say that they have a literal hermeneutic to but what what additional element they use. How many theological students we have in here. I Think about a hundred or so.

What additional word do they put in there. No but close. No, they don't they wouldn't say they have an allegorical and they wouldn't say they have a covenantal. They would say that it is a Grammatical historical theological.

In other words whereas whereas I would say that really kind of the last step of hermeneutics ought to be to kind of Cross-check scriptures, they would kind of promote that up a little bit because sometimes they need to.

Here here's what he goes on to say about different dispensationalists. Some of the big names. Lewis Perry. Chafer. Charles Ryrie. John Wolvard. Who else. Schofield. Yeah, he's gonna get to Schofield Pentecost.

Now listen what he says about dr. Ryrie. Charles Ryrie's description of dispensationalism. Says some years ago. He said the essence of dispensationalism then is the distinction between Israel and the church.

And that's what I've been talking about here this morning. We believe that there's a literal future for Israel and A covenant theologian would say there is no literal future for Israel that God is done With Israel.

He is on to say. This grows out of the dispensationalists consistent employment of normal or plain interpretation. MacArthur then says on those matters. Dr. Ryrie, and I are in fundamental agreements.

But and and and this is where things go off in a different direction. And so I'll just kind of I'll make this a little bit quicker. He says Non Lordship. Theology is closely associated with dispensationalism.

So many have imagined there's a cause-and-effect relationship between the two. And he says in the gospel according to Jesus. I disagreed with Dispensational this is MacArthur again talking dispensational extremists who relegate whole sections of Scripture and this is what I mentioned last week including the Sermon on the Mount and The Lord's Prayer to a yet future kingdom era.

In other words. Those things are not applicable to us now not applicable to us today. They only apply to the Millennial Kingdom. Which again? I don't really understand we if you were reading through Matthew and you came to Matthew 5 you wouldn't see where Matthew wrote.

You know little put a little asterisk there and said, okay, by the way, this doesn't apply to you. It applies to the future Millennial Kingdom. Because we we just wouldn't agree with that. Anyway, there's nothing there to indicate that.

Because it says I was critical of the way some dispensationalists have handled the preaching and teaching of Jesus in a way that erases the Evangelical or evangelistic intent from some of his most important invitations.

I decried the methodology of dispensationalists who want to isolate salvation from repentance in other words to say that you can be saved without repenting and separate justification from sanctification.

In other words that you can be justified declared righteous in Christ, but not have a changed life faith from works meaning that you can just say you believe in your life doesn't exhibit that at all and Christ lordship from his role as Savior in a way that breaks us under what God has joined together.

So that's the the thrust of his Problem with dispensationalist. That's why he describes himself as a Leaky dispensationalist. Now, he gets a little more harsh. Listen to this says frankly. Some mongrel species of dispensationalism ought to die.

And I will happily join basically in burying them. My purpose is not to attack the roots of dispensationalism Dispensationalism but rather to plead for a purer more biblical application of the literal historical grammatical principle of interpretation the hermeneutical method that underlies dispensationalism.

Dispensationalism is fundamentally sound and must not be abandoned. He says who are dispensationalists. Virtually all dispensationalists are theologically conservative Evangelicals our view of scripture is typically very high.

Says all dispensationalists are pre millennialists their position on the Earthly Millennial Kingdom is settled settled by their mode of biblical interpretation. Now he says it has implications for ecclesiology for the church dispensationalism does and what's the key one that he points to is baptism and here's the difference between the two systems or a difference between the two what would be.

We would see Baptism as being what? I'm sorry an Outward sign of an inward change. So believers baptism we baptize those who make a profession of faith in Christ whereas a covenantal theologian seizes an outward sign of of The covenant adoption of the covenant so they would baptize the children of believers Etc etc.

So that is a big difference. But he says true Dispensationalism makes no relevant contribution to soteriol soteriology. In other words how we are saved and that's why we can Have people in here who are covenant theologians and have them teach because as long as we don't get into Areas of eschatology.

We're not going to disagree with them for the most part. I Goes on to say that virtually all the champions of non lordship gospel are dispensationalists and he asked why and oh I do want to get to this about the the Schofield Bible any questions about anything I've said so far.

Because I'd excuse me. I did like this. He says early dispensationalists often package their doctrine and complex and esoteric Systems illustrated by intricate diagrams and I mean even this by riddle Barker shows kind of you know These things that I I really can't understand Dispensationalism's earliest influential Spokesman included Darby founder of the Plymouth Brethren and considered by many the father of modern dispensationalism CI Schofield author of the Schofield reference Bible Clarence Larkin EW Bollinger and Anglican clergyman who took dispensationalism to an unprecedented extreme usually called ultra Dispensationalism.

I haven't even heard of this stuff, you know Darby and Schofield were attorneys and He quotes here Says unfortunately some of the early framers of dispensationalism were not as precise or discriminating as they as they might have been.

The CI Schofield for example included a note in his reference Bible that contrasted quote Legal obedience as the condition of Old Testament salvation. Let's say that again and let's just think about that for a minute.

Legal obedience as the condition of Old Testament salvation. What would that mean? Obey the law you're saved. What's the purpose of the law? To show us how we get saved. No. No, that's not what she said.

What's that? To show us our sinfulness I Mean if somebody thought You know, I mean this really that whole that Schofield quote there just kind of smacks of it it reminds me of when Jesus is talking about the The publican and the Pharisee and the Pharisee says, you know, I thank you that I'm not like these others even this publican, you know this tax collector.

Did he really think he was saved by that or the rich young ruler, you know. All these things I've done since the beginning of my youth. Well, Jesus if Schofield was right. Jesus should have said well good job, you know, you're saved.

That's right. Jesus kept the law. So law-keeping does save us but It's his law-keeping not ours. Not ours because we can't keep the law. He says he has another quote here He'll actually continuing that he says legal beings as the condition of Old Testament salvation with acceptance of Christ as the condition of salvation in the current Dispensation.

In other words, we have to accept Christ now, but in the Old Testament, they had to obey the law. Schofield left himself wide open to the criticism that you know, he was teaching salvation by works in the Old Testament.

But later dispensationalists including Donald Gray Barnhouse Wilbur Smith Ironside were increasingly wary of the fallacies that peppered much early dispensationalist teaching Ironside's There again I go to skip to the next page Ironside's written works.

Show his determination to confront error within the movement. He attacked Bollinger's ultra dispensationalism. Condemned carnival Christian theology, excuse me says non-dispensationalism. Non-dispensationalists have tended to caricature Dispensationalism by emphasizing its excesses the charts and all that Stephanie says and frankly The movement has produced more than its share of abominable teaching Dispensationalists, I mean.

You know, all you have to do is go back to the late great planet Earth and things like that. Dispensationalists have been forced to acknowledge that some of their critics points have been valid the biblical distinction between Israel and the church remains unassailed however as the essence of pure dispensationalism in recent years dispensationalism now, this is Almost 20 years ago.

He wrote this but listen to this. He says Dispensationalism has been hit with a blistering onslaught of criticism mostly focusing on Dispensationalism's love affair with a non lordship gospel. Evidence of this may be seen in John Gershner's book wrongly dividing the word of truth a critique of dispensationalism.

Gershner rightly attacks elements of anti-nominea Antinomianism and non lordship soteriology and some dispensationalist teaching. He wrongly assumes however that those things are inherent in all dispensationalism.

Anyway, so I just I Just thought this was really good. I want to bring it up. Oh, and here's a Let me just we'll just go to this and then we'll close out this particular thing or maybe we won't. He says some dispensationalism now who knows second Timothy 2 15 somebody must have this memorized The Iwana verse, what is it?

What is it study? You show yourself approved a workman. Workman not ashamed, right? So This is funny. MacArthur says some dispensationalists apply second Timothy 2 15 showed Study to show thyself. This is a King James show to Study to show thyself approved to get unto God a workman that needeth not to be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth as If the key word were dividing instead of rightly.

Says the dispensationalist tendency to divide and contrast has led some to some rather inventive exegesis. Some dispensationalist teach for example that the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God speak of different domains.

He goes on a note. He says now who knows what book? Has the phrase there's one book in the Bible that talks about the kingdom of heaven. What book it in the Bible is that? Raise your hand if you know that and you haven't been a seminary.

An eater. Matthew is correct. Now. Why would he say the kingdom of heaven a nature? For for mm. That's right. They're afraid of using the name of God wrongly. So they don't like to use it at all so they will use euphemisms and so MacArthur says Matthew writing to mostly a Jewish audience understood their sensitivity and sensitivity to the use of God's name.

And so he implied that euphemism, but that doesn't mean that it's a different kingdom. MacArthur goes on to say this tendency to set parallel truths against each other is at the heart of non lordship theology.

Jesus lordship and his role as Savior are isolated from one another. Making it possible to claim him as Savior while refusing him as Lord. I want to be saved, but I don't want to do what he says. Thus describing about three-quarters of so-called evangelicals today.

Justification is severed from sanctification legitimizing the notion of salvation without transformation. I've been saved and my life hasn't changed mere believers. Are segregated from disciples making two classes of Christians carnal and spiritual?

The carnal ones are still at home by the way in case you're wondering faith faith. Faith is pitted against obedience nullifying the moral aspect of believing grace becomes the antithesis of law. Providing the basis for a system that is inherently antinomian against the law and that's just not true.

You know, we talked earlier what the purpose of the law is to show us our need for a Savior. I Think that's grace. To show us that we can't obey. MacArthur talks about this. He says the grace law dichotomy the separation.

This artificial divide is worth a closer. Look. He says as I noted Schofield left the unfortunate impression that Old Testament Saints were saved by keeping the law. His best-known student was Lewis Barry Chafer.

He used to think his name was Lewis Barry Chafer because people say it's so fast, you know in the essence never run. Lewis Barry Chafer co-founder of Dallas Theological Seminary. Chafer a prolific author wrote dispensational isms first unabridged systematic theology.

Chafer system became the standard for several generations of dispensationalists trained at Dallas. Yet Chafer Repeated Schofield's error in his summary on justification. What is justification being declared?

It's a one-time forensic act by which you are declared. What? Not guilty because of Christ's righteousness his obedience. But he says in his summary on justification. He wrote this this is Chafer. According to the Old Testament men were just because they were true and faithful in keeping the Mosaic Law.

Micah defined such a life after this manner. He hath shooed thee also, you know, this is King James. He hath shooed thee. Oh man what is good and what doth the Lord require of thee but to do justly and to love mercy and to Walk humbly with thy God.

Men were therefore Just because of their own works forgot or just see I was gonna say just because just because of their own works for God. Whereas New Testament justification is God's work for man in answer to faith.

I don't know because Hebrews in an address here, you know, or Romans 4 so, you know, you can just kind of Guess if you were to study Chafer that he's gonna have to do some fancy dance in there. Though Chafer else elsewhere Denied that he taught multiple ways of salvation is clear that he fixed a great gulf between grace and law.

He believed the Old Testament law imposed an obligation to gain merit with God. On the other hand Chafer believed grace delivers the child of God from every aspect of the law as a rule of life as an Obligation to make himself acceptable God and as a dependence on impotent flesh.

Grace teachings are not laws. They are suggestions. They are not demands. They are beseechings. Yeah, what does he say about you're being a slave to righteousness in Romans 6? I don't know. But in MacArthur says in Chafer system God seemed to fluctuate between Dispensations of law and dispensations of grace.

Grace was the rule etc, etc, etc. MacArthur goes on to say no one denies the scripture clearly contrasts law and grace. John 1 17 says the law was given through Moses grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ.

Romans 6 4 says you are not under law, but under grace. So the distinction between law and grace is obvious in Scripture, but Grace and law operate in every dispensation. Grace is and always was the only means of eternal salvation.

People were never saved by obedience. I mentioned this before, you know, you think of some of the biggest losers. In the Old Testament, I I can't think of anybody more gifted given more things than Samson and yet he never obeyed and really never showed any Any humility any love for God any love for God's people any love for anyone other than himself.

Until the moment he died and yet he's in Hebrews 11. So. But MacArthur says this in fairness, it is important to note that when pressed on the issue Chafer acknowledged that God's grace in Christ's blood were the only ground on which sinners in any age could be saved.

It must be stressed stressed. However that Chafer Schofield and others who have followed their lead have made too much of the differences between Old and New Testament Dispensations wanting to avoid what he thought was careless commingling of law and grace.

Chafer ended up with an age of law That is legalistic in an age of grace that smacks of antinomianism meaning you could do whatever you want, you know. What do we do when we evangelize? Does the law have any purpose?

How do we use it in evangelization? To show the depravity of man, I mean it you know the a shortcut way of thinking through this is How could somebody understand the good news unless they understand? The bad news and the bad news is.

You're a sinner and you're bound for hell. That's why I say, you know, I think it's it the biggest mistake. Anybody can make is to start their Evangelism with God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life.

Because the truth is what I mean on the other hand, you don't want to start this way, you know, according to Psalm 5 God hates you and He's destined you for hell, would you like to talk about salvation?

Might not open the door. I don't know so. But you know, I do I do find it interesting, you know Ray Comfort and these guys they have the way of the master and they do ask people, you know. Are you a good person the good person test?

I think is perfectly valid. Except they never ask what? What do they never ask them you ever break the Sabbath? You know, they always like to go to the Ten Commandments. They never say you ever break the Sabbath.

I don't know. Why not if you're gonna go to the Ten Commandments? I'm just saying If you ever carved a piece of wood worshipped it. Okay, moving on Schaefer could rightly be Lewis Perry Schaefer could rightly be called the father of 20th century non-lordship theology.

He listed repentance and surrender as two of the most common features of human responsibility, which are too often erroneously added. Listen to that erroneously added to the one requirement of faith or belief in other words.

You don't have to repent you don't have to surrender all to Jesus you just have to believe. He wrote to impose a need to surrender the life to God as an added condition of salvation is most unreasonable.

Can you think of anybody who was unreasonable then in the Bible. I Think Jesus was pretty unreasonable. Because according to Lewis Perry Schaefer. Because he said in Luke chapter 9 I mean we Surrendering is is unreasonable.

And he said to all if anyone would come after me let him deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. I don't know that sounds like surrender. You know, he also said in other places if you love anything more than me, you know, if you love mother father sister brother Said are more than me.