Death Blow to Dispensationalism

It is mind-boggling to read the verbal diarrhea that Dispensationalists believe all because they are ignorant, illiterate, and ill-informed as to Scripture. Pete Garcia on Facebook recently wrote a lengthy post on the "theological dumpster fire" Christendom is in doctrinally, but fails to recognize that his particular system of theology is a large part of that fire. Here are some of the things he brings up, and the corrections to his blind belief and regurgitation of such erroneous interpretations. (Headings are as he used them.)

 

1.) "We are in the Kingdom now."

"Wow, if true, the Bible completely oversold this whole concept."

The Bible didn't "oversell" anything here; you just fail to understand it. Start with Mark 1:14-15. The long-awaited Kingdom of Daniel 2:34-35, 44-45 is being proclaimed (see also Daniel 7:13-14, 18, 22, 27). The New Testament presents the kingdom as both "already" present and "not yet" fully consummated. Jesus explicitly links the Ekklesia and the Kingdom (Matthew 16:18–19). The Kingdom is "in the midst" or among those who belong to Christ (Luke 17:20–21). Entrance and transfer into the Kingdom occur through the Gospel and new birth, placing people in the Ekklesia (Colossians 1:13–14). The Kingdom’s present character is lived out in the Ekklesia (Romans 14:17; 1 Corinthians 4:20; Ephesians 2:19; Revelation 1:6, 9). Believers "receive a kingdom that cannot be shaken" (Hebrews 12:28) and await its full manifestation (Matthew 25:34; 1 Corinthians 15:24–28; Revelation 11:15). The Ekklesia is the community of those who have already come under the King's rule, who proclaim the gospel of the Kingdom (Matthew 24:14; Acts 8:12; 28:31), and who live as its present outpost or embassy until every knee bows.
Dispensationalists attempt to make an unlawful distinction between "Kingdom of Heaven" and "Kingdom of God," despite examination of parallel passages in the synoptic gospels revealing they are the EXACT SAME THING.

 

3.) "There is no Rapture!"

"Really, so why does the apostle Paul, whom Christ appointed and taught, and who was recognized by the other apostles, describe a resurrection of the dead church-age saints and a physical, bodily translation of the living into their glorified, immortal bodies that 20-30 distinct differences from the Second Coming?
Key Scriptures: 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18; 1 Corinthians 15:51-55"

First, there is no "Church Age."
Second, there is ZERO support for the "Rapture." There are NOT "20-30 distinct differences." The ignorant, illiterate, and ill-informed must, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, rip random isolated verses of Scripture out of their immediate context in order to force them to support nonsensical doctrines. Read the entire chapter of 1 Corinthians 15; it is about the RESURRECTION—not the "Rapture." The "Rapture" must be IMPOSED upon the text. By itself, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 SOUNDS like it teaches the "Rapture," but sit down and read the entire book from beginning to end, in CONTEXT, and you will quickly discover that that false interpretation vanishes as the entire book is about the RESURRECTION.
If you examine Jesus' words pertaining to "one taken and one left" (which some Dispensationalists reject as having anything to do with the "Rapture" because it destroys their doctrine), you will discover that it is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Dispensationalists teach. The word "taken" (paralambanō) has to do with judgment, as in Jesus being 'taken' to be scourged and 'taken' to be crucified. Luke's parallel adds information not present in Matthew's; the disciples ask, "Where?" as in "Where will they be taken?" They are taken in DEATH. The word "left" (aphiēmi) implies pardon, forgiveness.

 

6.) "We are in Satan's little season now!"

"Ummm...interesting. This smells like preterism.

• When did the 70th Week of Daniel happen?
• When did Christ destroy all the nations of the earth?
• When did the Second Coming happen?
• When did the Millennial Kingdom happen?

I could go on.
Key Scriptures: Jer. 30:7-11; Dan. 7:25; 12:7; 9:27; Matt. 24:15; 2 Thess. 2:4; Rev. 11:2"

Umm... Pete doesn't seem to understand what Preterism is.
The 70th week LITERALLY took place at the end of Jesus' life. The plain reading of Daniel 9:24-27, as well as the poetic structure AND the chiastic structure of the passage, ALL destroy the Dispensational re-interpretation. When was Jesus, the Messiah, anointed? At His baptism, the start of His ministry. How long was his ministry? THREE AND ONE HALF years long (He celebrated 4 Passovers). What happened at the end of these 3.5 years? Jesus was "cut off," crucified "in the midst of the week." Three and one half years later, The Jews stoned Stephen; their final rejection of Jesus as the Messiah.
There won't be a "Millennial Kingdom." You're trying to make literal the 1,000 years while EVERYTHING ELSE in the passage is clearly symbolic. Can a literal, physical chain bind something that is incorporeal? Where is this literal "bottomless pit"? Do you understand this concept? According to Dispensational theology, when Jesus returns at the Second Coming, the nations are judged and sin is done away with. According to Scripture, the only people that will enter that kingdom are redeemed blood-bought saints (Jesus already separated the goats from the sheep, remember). So the only people in this imaginary "Millennial Kingdom" are redeemed blood-bought saints who will be giving birth to redeemed blood-bought saints who, at the end of this "literal" thousand years rebel against their Lord and Saviour, thus making His blood insufficient and ineffective in dealing with our sin.
Dispensationalists also have the Temple being rebuilt (ignoring the fact that WE are the new Temple) and sacrifices being reintroduced (ignoring the fact that JESUS was THE sacrifice to end ALL sacrifices). They claim this is a "memorial," but the verses they use to try and support this LITERALLY say, "to make atonement."
The "last days" and the "1,000 years" refer to the ENTIRE period between Jesus' FIRST coming and His SECOND coming. Go read Hebrews 1:1-2. According to this passage, when were the "last days"? Not in AD 70, like Preterists believe, and not today or in the future, like Dispensationalists believe. They were when God spoke through Jesus. Go read Acts 2:16-17. According to this passage, when were the "last days"? Again, not in AD 70, like Preterists believe, and not today or in the future, like Dispensationalists believe. They were when Joel's prophecy was fulfilled on the Day of Pentecost.
I could address the Dispensationalist's false interpretation of Matthew 24 here, too, and how they claim to "read the Bible literally," and yet ignore, deny, and/or reject Scripture's own LITERAL word use: "Then they will deliver YOU"—the disciples/apostles; "So when YOU see"—the disciples/apostles; "IMMEDIATELY after those days"; "When YOU see these things"—the disciples/apostles; "THIS generation"—not THAT future generation. The disciples ask Jesus about "THE end" (sunteleia; Matt 24:3). When Jesus mentions "the end" (telos; Matt. 24:14), He is talking about AN end but not THE end. Telos is the everyday type of ending. Sunteleia is a consummation of a plan type of ending. The Old Covenant age ended (sunteleia) in consummation at the cross. Corinthians 10:11 is the end (telos) of temple-based worship. First Peter 4:7 is the end (telos) of godless living. The ignorant, illiterate, and ill-informed should know these things.
The disciples had asked Jesus TWO (2) question. Matthew 24:4-35 answers the first question, pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which happened in AD 70. Matthew 24:36-25:46 pertain to Jesus' Second Coming. Both Preterists and Futurists misread the Scriptures and IMPOSE their blind beliefs upon passages that clearly refute their position. But rather than learn the truth, be transformed by it, and conform themselves to it, they dig their heels in and double down in their error like stubborn mules. They should really thank God that their salvation isn't dependent or incumbent upon what they believe beyond the foundational essentials!

 

8.) "The Church has replaced Israel."

"Romans 11 explicitly addresses Israel's unbelief, the inclusion of the Gentiles, and the reality of Israel's future restoration. Paul's declaration that "the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable" provides an important basis for arguing that God's covenant commitments to Israel have not been canceled.
Key Scriptures: Romans 9-11, especially 11:25; Jer. 31:35-37"

No, not "replaced"; fulfilled. In the Old Testament, who was portrayed by the symbol of the vine? Israel. What did Jesus say in John 15:1? "I am the TRUE vine." In other words, I am the TRUE Israel. His life parallels their existence. "Out of Egypt I called My Son." Ever read that OT passage? There is NO WAY you could apply any of it to Jesus, yet Matthew, through the Holy Spirit, finds fulfillment in Jesus. They spent 40 years walking through the wilderness, Jesus spent 40 days in the wilderness and recited what they were supposed to have learned. I could go on.
Throughout the Old Testament, God prophesied of the gentile INCLUSION in His plan of salvation. Paul's "mystery" was the extent—FULL equality—of that inclusion (Ephesians 2:11-3:13). Read Romans 11:17-24 carefully. Paul splits physical, national, ethnic Israel into two groups: believing and unbelieving. According to Romans 2:28-29, what does that say about the second group? According to Romans 9:6-8, what does that say about the second group? Then Paul adds the believing gentiles IN WITH the believing Jews. This is EXPANSION theology through God's prophesied INCLUSION. In other words, FULFILLMENT. ALL God's promises are fulfilled in and through the Ekklesia! Furthermore, after Paul makes his case in defending God's choice to include the gentiles in His plan of salvation, he says, "in THIS way, all Israel will be saved." In what way? He is talking about what he just described—the EXPANSION of TRUE, spiritual Israel through the INCLUSION of the believing gentiles in among the believing Jews. Go read Galatians 3:7, 16, 29.
Let's take the Dispensationalist's blind argument that "the land promise has never been fulfilled." According to Scripture, FOUR (4) different times, it says it WAS fulfilled (Joshua 21:43-45; 23:14-15; 1 Kings 8:56; Nehemiah 9:7-8). Dispensationalists fail to recognize that the Jew's ability to KEEP the land was conditioned upon their obedience (Deuteronomy 28:15–68). Moreover, when Jesus predicted the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, which he vehemently wept over, Scripture NEVER promised a second future return! There is NO "future restoration" for Israel. This mythical fantasy is NOT in the Scriptures. It must be IMPOSED upon them through EISEGESIS.

 

9.) "There is no distinction between Israel and the Church."

"Jews and Gentiles are united in Christ regarding salvation, but spiritual equality does not eliminate the unconditional national covenant promises God made to Israel.
Key Scriptures: Eph. 2:11-22; Romans 11:1-2, 25-29; Acts 1:6-7"

"Unconditional national promises"? There's no such thing! Ever read Deuteronomy 28:15–68? That's very CONDITIONAL. There both IS and ISN'T a distinction between Israel and the Ekklesia, depending on what you're looking at. Physical, national, ethnic covenantal Israel is different from the Ekklesia, but true, spiritual Israel IS the Ekklesia and the Ekklesia IS true, spiritual Israel.

 

“It shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the house of the LORD [the Ekklesia] shall be established as the highest of the mountains, and shall be lifted up above the hills; and all the nations shall flow to it.” —Isaiah 2:2

“The latter glory of this house [the Ekklesia] shall be greater than the former [the Jerusalem temple], says the LORD of hosts. And in this place I will give peace, declares the LORD of hosts.’” —Haggai 2:9

“Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king, and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days.” —Hosea 3:5
Hosea is describing the New Covenant of grace (Romans 2:4; see Acts 2; 4:4; 5:14; 6:1).

 

The Israel that exists today is NOT the covenantal Israel of the Scriptures, but a political Israel. Their becoming a nation in 1948 has NOTHING to do with "Bible prophecy" because the Scriptures NEVER prophesied any such thing! Dispensationalists, ignorant as to the Old Testament's chronology, take passages pertaining to the Babylonian captivity and the Jew's return, and force them into the future. They ignore biblical context as well as history.

If you'd like to learn more about biblical truth as opposed to Jewish myths and fables, you can purchase my book: http://getbook.at/TheEndTimes (in the process of being updated and revised).

What Are James' "Works of Faith"?

"But someone will say, ‘You have faith and I have works.’ Show me your faith apart from your works, and I will show you my faith by my works." (James 2:18)

What are the works of faith that James is referring to? The context is clear: this is about saving faith. Apparently, the faith that saves is a faith you can see.

James was writing to religious Jews who already believed in God. Their faith was demonstrated in Temple attendance and careful submission to the Law of Moses. James even grants them that much—"You believe that God is one; you do well" (James 2:19). But then he turns around and calls them foolish, declaring their faith dead and useless (vv. 17, 20, 26). How can genuine faith in the one true God be dead and useless?

• Faith in God is dead and useless if it is not accompanied by the work of God. What is the work of God? "The work of God is that you believe in Him Whom He has sent" (John 6:29).
• Faith in God is dead and useless if it disobeys the command of God. What is the command of God? "This is His commandment, that we believe in the name of His Son Christ Jesus" (1 John 3:23).
• Faith in God is dead and  if it goes against the will of God. What is the will of God? "This is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in him will have eternal life" (John 6:40).

Like his Jewish readers, James had faith in the one true God. The difference was that his faith was a saving faith—he trusted in the Saviour whom God had sent. When James declared, "I will show you my faith by my works," he was not pointing to a lifelong checklist of religious performance. He meant that he had confessed with his mouth that Jesus is Lord and believed in his heart that God raised Him from the dead (Rom. 10:9). He meant he was living from the revelation that Jesus Himself is the source and center of the new life we now have in Him. And, ultimately, it meant he would one day be murdered by religious people who refused to share that same faith.

Notice something important: the "works" that James is referring to are one-time acts, never to be repeated. How do we know this? Let me ask you two questions. How many times did Abraham offer up Isaac? Once! "Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar?" How many times did Rahab receive the spies and send them out another way? Once! "And in the same way was not Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way?" Salvation is not by works (Eph 2:8–9), but it is unto/for good works that God prepared beforehand (Eph. 2:10; Titus 2:14; 3:8, 14; 2 Tim. 3:17; Col. 1:10; Heb. 10:24; Matt.. 5:16).

Some people shrug off and dismiss "believing in Jesus" as if it were a small thing. There. Is. No. Greater. Work! Nothing in this life carries more weight or value than trusting the risen Lord. To live out what Jesus has already done for you—and what He now wants to do through you—is the very height of what it means to be human.

Christians often worry they are not doing enough. They say, "Sure, I believe in Christ. But what am I supposed to do? There must be more." Listen to Jesus’ answer to the doubter:

"Do not be unbelieving, but believing." (John 20:27)

What you believe shapes everything—what you think about, who you marry, what you pursue, where you live, and how you live. Everything. Do you want to do something for God that actually lasts? Then bet your life on His Son. Live in the reality that you are already seated in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus and that in Him you are more than a conqueror. There are a thousand-and-one things we can chase in the name of “faith,” but they all amount to nothing if we miss the one thing that matters: believe in Jesus.

The Charge Against True Grace

If nobody has ever accused you of preaching a "license to sin," then perhaps you have never preached grace as boldly as the apostle Paul did. The true preaching of salvation by grace alone always draws that charge. Martyn Lloyd-Jones put it plainly: "There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace." If that misunderstanding never arises, re-examine your sermons again.

Paul faced these very accusations:

"why not do evil that good may come?" (Romans 3:8)

"Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound?" (Romans 6:1)

"Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace?" (Romans 6:15)

People did not react this way because Paul preached the same works-based system of behavioural management taught by the religious world. They reacted like this because Paul preached a grace so free, so radical, so hyper-superabounding (huperperisseuó) that it offended and scandalised the religious mind. People have always struggled with a grace that cannot be earned, deserved, or maintained by human performance. Formal, dead religion has always levelled this charge against the doctrine that God justifies the ungodly.

Notice how Paul answered their objections:

"Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it?" (Romans 6:1-2)

Paul did not back-pedal. He did not add qualifications or place limits on the freeness of grace in order to sooth and appease those who feared it would encourage sin. Instead, he explained the believer's new identity in Christ Jesus and why grace does not give Sin (an entity, essence, force, power, presence) dominion over the believer. We have been united with Jesus in His death and resurrection. We are no longer what we once were, and Sin is no longer our rightful master.

"For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace." (Romans 6:14)

Paul drives this same truth home throughout the entire book of Galatians. There he relentlessly insists that we are free from the Law, justified by faith alone, and must never surrender that liberty—yet he also warns that this freedom is not an opportunity for the flesh (Galatians 5:13). The whole letter is one sustained answer to both the grace-killers and the grace-abusers.

Grace does not give permission to sin. Grace liberates us from Sin's power. The very grace that frees us from the Law's condemnation also teaches us to live righteously (Titus 2:11). It is the goodness of God that leads us to repentance (a change of mind; Romans 2:4).

The objection "Well, then why not just sin all you want to? Why try to stop sinning? You just want a license to sin." reveals a deeper problem. It assumes that the only thing restraining a person from sin is the fear of punishment. But if the threat of consequences is your sole deterrent from sin and motivation for holiness, you have never been inwardly changed—you are just being restrained. There is a world of difference between being held back by the fear of punishment and being governed by a new heart, new desires, and a new Master.

Nobody needs a license to sin. We were already slaves of Sin long before we ever heard the Gospel. The notion that a blood-bought believer would reason, "Now that I'm under grace, I'm going to sin as much as I possibly can," is ridiculous and asinine. True grace does not stir up the desire to sin; it stirs up the desire to walk in newness of life (Romans 6:4). The Law, by contrast, actually provokes sin. Sin takes occasion by the commandment to produce every kind of covetous desire (Romans 7:5-8). The prohibition does not create the rebellious nature—it simply exposes and inflames what was already there.

Here is a question: If you knew that God had freely given you eternal life, apart from anything you have ever done, and you could never lose it, would that make you want to sin as much as possible? If it does, then that is a heart issue and you do not understand the Gospel.

So if someone accuses you of preaching a license to sin, rejoice. You are standing in the same company as Paul, Luther, Whitefield, and others. You are preaching the scandalous, hyper-superabounding grace of God without compromise.

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek." (Romans 1:16)

List of Disgraced Preachers

When a preacher is disgraced, having been disqualified from ministry, that is supposed to be the end of it according to their doctrines based on Scripture. Yet, there are many who continue in ministry, simply changing churches. Here are just some—predominantly prominent ones—of the publicly reported cases involving major scandals (moral failure, abuse allegations, financial issues, etc.):

• Jim Bakker
• Tammy Faye Bakker
• Todd Bentley
• Mike Bickle
• Shawn Bolz
• Michael Brown
• Joshua Ryan Butler
• Juanita Bynum
• Tony Evans
• Jerry Falwell Jr.
• Ted Haggard
• J.D. Hall
• Bob Hartley
• Bill Gothard
• Brian Houston
• Frank Houston
• Bill Hybels
• Rick Joyner
• Carl Lentz
• Steven Lawson
• James MacDonald
• C.J. Mahaney
• John-Paul Miller
• Reginald Wayne Miller
• Robert Morris
• Perry Noble
• Chris Rosebrough
• Jimmy Swaggart
• Tullian Tchividjian
• Ravi Zacharias

Of the dozens of prominent and not-so-prominent cases we know of that have made it into the light, how many hundreds of cases are still hidden in the shadows? This list could be expanded to include people like Phil Johnson, for verbal, spiritual, or emotional abuse (not just sexual or physical abuse), or even people like John MacArthur and Matt Chandler, for protecting abusers and villifying the victims.

What Does John 3:5-7 Mean?

"Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not marvel that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’" John 3:5-7

Christian commentators like to jump forward and look for a means of interpreting this instead of being wise and looking backward. What do you not grasp and understand about "The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed"? How many times did Jesus and His apostles refer to the "Scriptures"? What is/are "the Scriptures"? The Old Testament!

Without the Old Testament, there is no New Testament. How can I say such a thing? Again, how many times did Jesus and His apostles refer to the "Scriptures"? Again, "The New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, and the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed."

Jesus would have been drawing on something from the Old Testament, the "Scriptures." Nicodemus would have understood Him based on his knowledge of the Scriptures. So let us look at two key passages from the Old Testament where the words water and Spirit are brought together in a way that makes sense of this passage.

"For I will pour water on the thirsty land, and streams on the dry ground; I will pour my Spirit upon your offspring, and my blessing on your descendants." Isaiah 44:3

"I will sprinkle clean water on you, and you shall be clean from all your uncleannesses, and from all your idols I will cleanse you. And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to obey my rules." Ezekiel 36:25-27

When Jesus says, "unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God," and, "unless one is born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God," He is saying the exact same thing. To a Jewish leader steeped in Old Testament language, the idea of being "born of water and the Spirit" would evoke the idea of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit. Jesus was pointing Nicodemus to the truth of the New Covenant.

Now, according to Baptists, water is associated with "the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus." [The burial has no actual relevance because Jesus could have hung on the cross for three days and everything would have been accomplished exactly the same. But that is difficult for the religious to grasp.] They derive this conclusion from their wrongly dividing of Romans 6:3-4 in order to support their method of baptism. Romans 6:3-4 has nothing to do with actual water or mode of baptism; it has to do with identification. Pay attention to the context. You can begin with Romans 5:20 and continue from there.

According to Scripture, however, both the Old Testament and the New Testament associate water with the Holy Spirit. Water is not only a symbol of the Holy Spirit, but it is also a symbol for His work. As water cleanses your flesh from dirt, so the Holy Spirit cleanses your inward self of sin. In Acts 10-11, as soon as "the gift of the Holy Spirit was poured out even on the gentiles" (Acts 10:44–45), Peter was immediately reminded of baptism (11:15-16).

Please notice the words used in both Old Testament passages: "pour" and "sprinkle." Right there you have affusion (pouring) and aspersion (sprinkling). As the Spirit was poured out (affusion) on the gentiles, Peter was immediately reminded of baptism. They did not have an abundance of water at hand. In fact, the circumstantial evidence surrounding every single instance of water baptism in the New Testament prevents and prohibits immersion (dunking).

The same is true of John. He would not have invented a new method of baptizing. His baptismal practice would have been derived from the Old Testament Scriptures. In other words, he would have used a hyssop branch to sprinkle (aspersion) water over the people, which he could have done quickly and effortlessly. No doubt, Ezekiel 36:25-27 would have been on John's mind, too, which is why he switched locations from an abundance of water where immersion could take place to "many springs" (John 3:23) where such abundance of water did not exist, but it was cleaner and purer.

The insistence that Christian baptism is valid only if performed by immersion has weak lexical support (see the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament and the five-volume works of James W. Dale on baptizo). What remains is the application of water in the name of Jesus as the sign and seal of union with Him, cleansing, and incorporation into the Ekklesia (visible and invisible). Affusion (pouring), aspersion (sprinkling), and immersion (dunking) are all historically attested modes preferred for theological, practical, or symbolic reasons, but the New Testament never elevates the quantity of water or the precise posture of the recipient to the level of an essential. The emphasis falls on the water's application in connection with the Word and the Triune name, not on the mechanics of how the water contacts the body. The decisive thing is the application of water, not the particular mode. The linguistic data itself supplies the primary warrant for this conclusion.

I digress. Nevertheless, Jesus' words are not a contrast or comparison between our physical birth and our spiritual birth, and they are not picturing the outward expression of the Christian baptism. He is impressing upon Nicodemus the regeneration of the soul by the Holy Spirit, which was a key promise of the New Covenant. The "born of water and the Spirit" are best understood as a reference to "the washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit" (Titus 3:5).

Jesus is the True Vine

Here are the primary Old Testament passages where the vine (or vineyard) clearly represents Israel (or specifically Judah), presented with surrounding context:

1. Psalm 80:8–16 (Israel as the vine transplanted from Egypt)

“You brought a vine out of Egypt;
you drove out the nations and planted it.
You cleared the ground for it;
it took deep root and filled the land.
The mountains were covered with its shade,
the mighty cedars with its branches.
It sent out its branches to the sea
and its shoots to the River.
Why then have you broken down its walls,
so that all who pass along the way pluck its fruit?
The boar from the forest ravages it,
and all that move in the field feed on it.
Turn again, O God of hosts!
Look down from heaven, and see;
have regard for this vine,
the stock that your right hand planted...”

Context: A communal lament (likely after the fall of the northern kingdom). God is portrayed as the careful planter who brought Israel out of Egypt, established it in the land, and allowed it to flourish—yet now the protective “walls” are broken and the vine is being ravaged by enemies.

2. Isaiah 5:1–7 (The Song of the Vineyard)

“Let me sing for my beloved my love song concerning his vineyard:
My beloved had a vineyard on a very fertile hill.
He dug it and cleared it of stones, and planted it with choice vines;
he built a watchtower in the midst of it, and hewed out a wine vat in it;
and he looked for it to yield grapes, but it yielded wild grapes.
...
For the vineyard of the Lord of hosts is the house of Israel,
and the men of Judah are his pleasant planting;
and he looked for justice, but behold, bloodshed;
for righteousness, but behold, an outcry!”

Context: Isaiah’s parable of judgment. God is the owner who did everything possible for His vineyard (Israel/Judah), yet it produced only worthless fruit (injustice and oppression). Judgment (removal of protection) follows.

3. Jeremiah 2:21

“Yet I planted you a choice vine, wholly of pure seed.
How then have you turned degenerate and become a wild vine?”

Context: Early in Jeremiah’s indictment of Judah’s apostasy. God recalls planting Israel as a pure, high-quality vine, but the nation has become corrupt and foreign in character through idolatry.

4. Hosea 10:1

“Israel is a luxuriant vine that yields its fruit.
The more his fruit increased, the more altars he built;
as his country improved, he improved his pillars.”

Context: Hosea’s critique of the northern kingdom. Prosperity (fruitfulness) only led to greater idolatry rather than greater faithfulness to Yahweh.

5. Ezekiel 15:1–8 (The useless vine wood)

“Son of man, how does the wood of the vine surpass any wood, the vine branch that is among the trees of the forest?
Is wood taken from it to make anything? Do people take a peg from it to hang any vessel on it?
Behold, it is given to the fire for fuel...
Therefore thus says the Lord God: Like the wood of the vine among the trees of the forest, which I have given to the fire for fuel, so have I given up the inhabitants of Jerusalem.”

Context: A short parable of judgment on Jerusalem. Unlike other trees whose wood has useful purposes, vine wood is good only for burning—symbolizing Judah’s worthlessness when it fails to bear fruit for God.

6. Ezekiel 19:10–14

“Your mother was like a vine in a vineyard planted by the water,
fruitful and full of branches by reason of abundant water.
Its strong stems became rulers’ scepters;
it towered aloft among the thick boughs...
But it was plucked up in fury, cast down to the ground;
the east wind dried up its fruit;
they were stripped off and withered.
As for its strong stem, fire consumed it.”

Context: A lament over the royal house of Judah (and by extension the nation), portrayed as a once-flourishing vine that has been uprooted and burned in judgment.

Additional related references
- Jeremiah 12:10 – “Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard; they have trampled down my portion…”
- Isaiah 27:2–6 – A future (post-exilic) restoration song in which the Lord again tends His vineyard (Israel) so that it fills the world with fruit. If this is not post-exilic, then it speaks of Jesus and His Ekklesia.

These passages consistently use the vine/vineyard as a metaphor for God’s chosen people: carefully planted and nurtured by Him, expected to produce righteousness and faithfulness, yet frequently depicted as failing and therefore facing judgment—while also holding out hope of future restoration.

What Jesus is Claiming
Now we come to John 15:1: "I am the true vine!"

So what is Jesus saying? He is saying, "I am the true Israel!" Jesus is asserting that He is the genuine, faithful fulfillment of what Israel was supposed to be. Where national Israel produced wild/sour grapes, Jesus is the authentic vine that perfectly bears the fruit the Father seeks. He is the true Israel, the obedient Son who succeeds where the nation did not. His life paralleled their existence.

Now read Romans 11:17-24. Notice how Paul divides national, ethnic, physical Israel into two groups: believing and unbelieving. Now go read Romans 2:28-29 and 9:6-8, applying them to the unbelieving group. Then notice how the believing gentiles are grafted in with believing Jews. This is inclusion theology. This is expansion theology. All through the Old Testament Yahweh God promised to include the gentiles in His plan of salvation. After laying this out clear as day, Paul then says, "In THIS way all Israel will be saved." In other words, with the believing gentiles included with the believing Jews, "all Israel will be saved." Paul also explains this in Ephesians 2:11-3:13. The true, spiritual Israel is the Lord's Ekklesia, and the Lord's Ekklesia is the true, spiritual Israel.

Those blind to Scripture (Dispensationalists and Zionists) ignore everything the New Testament reveals, and attempt to make Scripture and prophecy Israel-centric rather than Christ-centric. These things are explained clearly in the New Testament, and yet they willfully ignore, deny, or, worse, reject them.

Dear Catholics,

Why do you believe that the “Eucharist” means to receive the actual body and blood of Christ Jesus?

The word "eucharist" comes from the Greek ϵυχαριστια (eucharistia), which breaks down into ϵυ (eu-, meaning "good") and χαρισ (charis, meaning "grace" or "favour"), meaning "thanksgiving" or "gratitude." The Latin merely adopted the Greek term directly. 

You have been told that during the “Eucharistic” prayer, the bread and wine miraculously turn into the body and blood of Christ Jesus and that by consuming the “Eucharistic” elements, Jesus enters your earthen vessel.

Is it not ironic that Satan entered Judas at the Last Supper? This happened immediately after Jesus had given him the bread and wine. So this means that immediately after Judas partook of the very first so-called “Eucharist,” “Then entered Satan into Judas” (Luke 22:3).

Did Judas receive Jesus and Satan at the same time?!?

Satan did not enter Judas by him consuming the body and blood of Satan, because Satan is a spirit.

The “Eucharist,” properly called the Lord's Supper or the Breaking of Bread or Koinonia (Fellowship; translated into Latin as Communion) or Agape Feast, symbolically represents the body and blood of Christ Jesus, as a remembrance of His sacrifice. It is not a re-sacrificing of Jesus (Heb. 7:27; 9:24-28; 10:10-14; 1 Pet. 3:18; Rom. 6:10). Jesus is not up in Heaven being repeatedly offered for sins, and you are not down here being repeatedly forgiven. There is no second act; there will be no encore. You were forgiven once for all your sins—past, present, and future!

The "Eucharist" is not a "reunion with the body of Christ" because you are "one spirit with [the Lord]" (1 Cor. 6:17) through your union with Him, which occurred at salvation, if indeed you have been saved and transformed by Him.

Baptism and the Lord's Supper are not "sacraments"! Learn what a sacrament is and where it originates: https://bereansdesk.blogspot.com/2025/10/lords-supper-and-baptism-not-sacraments.html

John MacArthur's Grace To You

As much as I respected John MacArthur, his ministry Grace To You was not just a misnomer, a Galatianism, or a syncretism, it was a complete theological irony since he did not understand biblical grace accurately and instead tried mixing parts of the Old Covenant in with the New Covenant, like trying to mix oil with water. Jesus explicitly warned against this using the analogy of New Wine and Old Wineskins (Luke 5:37–39). He said if you put the new wine (the New Covenant of grace) into old wineskins (the Old Covenant of law), the skins will burst, and the wine will be ruined. By trying to fit the radical freedom of the New Covenant into the rigid, performance-based frame of the Old Covenant, the pure message of grace is lost.

MacArthur would have benefited from paying attention to Martyn Lloyd-Jones or Charles Swindoll in their treatment of grace. MacArthur was worried about believers turning grace into a license for sin, and ended up watering down grace (true "cheap grace"). Here is just one thing MacArthur failed to understand about grace: if people are not misunderstanding you, misinterpreting you, and misrepresenting you, then you are not preaching biblical grace correctly. Read Romans 3. The religious individuals of Paul's day were worried about the same thing and accused him of teaching that we should just go wild with sin. After stating that "where sin abounded, grace hyper-superabounded all the more" (Rom. 5:20), Paul anticipated their pushback: "Should we continue in sin so that grace may abound? God forbid! May it never be! Should we continue in sin because we are not under Law but under grace? God forbid! May it never be!" (Rom. 6:1-2, 14-16). Do we have any evidence in the New Testament of those who misunderstood him, misinterpreted him, and misrepresented him? Of course we do: the Corinthians!

For 2,000 years, the religious legalists have been pressing that same argument as if Paul did not already deal with it. You do not need the Ten Commandments. Why? They already did their job. They directed you to Christ Jesus. Now you have the indwelling Holy Spirit to guide you. "Love is the fulfillment of the Law" (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14). If you love the brethren, your neighbour, and your enemy, you are not going to lie to him, steal from him, sleep with his wife, or murder him. What did Paul tell Titus? It is "GRACE that teaches us to say "No" to ungodliness!" (Titus 2:11-12). The religious are going about it all backwards, like trying to swim upstream against the current.

The irony is that MacArthur's ministry Grace To You did not actually provide any biblical grace to anyone who heard his messages. It enslaved them in bondage to legalism and religion. From a practical, believer's perspective, New Covenant teachers would call it a spiritual bait-and-switch. The title Grace to You acts as the "bait"—drawing in weary, heavy-laden people with the promise of rest, forgiveness, and unconditional love. But once inside the system, the "switch" occurs: the believer is handed a heavy backpack of rules, continuous self-examination, and the terrifying fine print that if they do not perform well enough, they might not actually be saved.

The way his church constantly and consistently treated others is evidence enough that he was not extending grace to them in the least. He and the ruling elders of his church behaved more like Pharisees than Christ Jesus. Rather than discover what the Bible actually had to say, they taught their own opinions, preconceptions, and preferences as if they were the Gospel? When caught in wrong doing, they refused to make it right, instead doubling down in their error. That is not grace, by any stretch of the imagination or theological or linguistic gymnastics.

The True Doctrine of Grace

Martyn Lloyd-Jones taught from the book of Romans a lot. Pay attention to his exposition of Romans 6:

. . . If it is true that where sin abounded grace has much more abounded, well then, 'shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound yet further?'
First of all let me make a comment, to me a very important and vital comment. The true preaching of the gospel of salvation by grace alone always leads to the possibility of this charge being brought against it. There is no better test as to whether a man is really preaching the New Testament gospel of salvation than this, that some people might misunderstand it and misinterpret it to mean that it really amounts to this, that because you are saved by grace alone it does not matter at all what you do; you can go on sinning as much as you like because it will redound all the more to the glory of grace. That is a very good test of gospel preaching. If my preaching and presentation of the gospel of salvation does not expose it to that misunderstanding, then it is not the gospel. Let me show you what I mean.
If a man preaches justification by works, no one would ever raise this question. If a man's preaching is, 'If you want to be Christians, and if you want to go to heaven, you must stop committing sins, you must take up good works, and if you do so regularly and constantly, and do not fail to keep on at it, you will make yourselves Christians, you will reconcile yourselves to God, and you will go to heaven.' Obviously a man who preaches in that strain would never be liable to this misunderstanding. Nobody would say to such a man, 'Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?', because the man's whole emphasis is just this, that if you go on sinning you are certain to be damned, and only if you stop sinning can you save yourselves. So that misunderstanding could never arise. . . .
. . . Nobody has ever brought this charge against the Church of Rome, but it was brought frequently against Martin Luther; indeed that was precisely what the Church of Rome said about the preaching of Martin Luther. They said, 'This man who was a priest has changed the doctrine in order to justify his own marriage and his own lust', and so on. 'This man', they said, 'is an antinomian; and that is heresy.' That is the very charge they brought against him. It was also brought against George Whitfield two hundred years ago. It is the charge that formal dead Christianity--if there is such a thing--has always brought against this startling, staggering message, that God 'justifies the ungodly'. . . .
That is my comment; and it is a very important comment for preachers. I would say to all preachers: if your preaching of salvation has not been misunderstood in that way, then you had better examine your sermons again, and you has better make sure that you really are preaching the salvation that is offered in the New Testament to the ungodly, to the sinner, to those who are dead in trespasses and sins, to those who are enemies of God. There is this kind of dangerous element about the true presentation of the doctrine of salvation.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon obviously agreed because he said, "No doctrine is so calculated to preserve a man from sin as the doctrine of the grace of God. Those who have called it ‘a licentious doctrine’ did not know anything about it."

What Martyn Lloyd-Jones and Charles Spurgeon are talking about is nothing new. The religious Jews of Paul's day accused him of the very same: "But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) By no means! For then how could God judge the world? But if through my lie God’s truth abounds to his glory, why am I still being condemned as a sinner? And why not do evil that good may come?—as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just" (Romans 3:5-8).

Paul anticipated their objections when he said, "where sin increased, grace abounded all the more" (Romans 5:20). What was his response to their objections? "What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized pinto Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life" (Romans 6:1-4).

But he does not stop there; he continues further. "For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace. What then? Are we to sin because we are not under law but under grace? By no means! Do you not know that if you present yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are slaves of the one whom you obey, either of sin, which leads to death, or of obedience, which leads to righteousness? But thanks be to God, that you who were once slaves of sin have become obedient from the heart to the standard of teaching to which you were committed, and, having been set free from sin, have become slaves of righteousness" (Romans 6:14-18).

Paul was very clear in his letter to the Galatians about our freedom. In fact, you can be certain that he preached the exact same message of grace and freedom to the Corinthians. How can we know? Because they clearly misunderstood it and misinterpreted it because they had the motto "All things are lawful for me." Twice in Paul's letter to them he brought this motto up to re-balance them from liscentiousness to liberty instructed by love (1 Cor. 6:12; 10:23).

Those who carry this objection are quick to water down grace and preach a lesser version of it, and to demonize those who preach biblical grace by derogatorily referring to their message as "hyper-grace." Yet, their profound ignorance of grace is exposed by the fact that Paul referred to Yahweh's grace as "hyper-superabounding." So, yes, biblical grace is hyper-superabounding grace. It is extreme grace. The evidence that you are teaching biblical grace is that there will be some who misunderstand it and misinterpret it in the exact same way that the Corinthians had. Anything less is cheap watered down grace.

Preach the scandalous grace of God and some will misinterpret your message as an endorsement of sin. It is inevitable. Either in grace abusers who interpret it to mean they can sin like the devil, or in grace killers who interpret it as an endorsement of continuous sin. 

It will always bring out the grace abusers and the grace killers. Grace abusers will take what I write and go crazy with it, thinking they can continue in their loose and carefree lifestyle. Grace killers will take what I write and accuse me of caring little about the holiness of Yahweh God and giving people the freedom to sin.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer coined the term "cheap grace," but what did he mean by it? "Cheap grace" justifies sin rather than the sinner. True grace justifies the sinner and not the sin. Today, many ignorant and ill-informed believers misrepresent true, biblical grace as "cheap grace," "greasy grace," or even "hyper-grace," demonstrating their lack of understanding and familiarity with grace. In Romans 5:20, Paul uses the Greek compound word huperperisseuó. Huper is where we get the word hyper. Perisseuó means to overabound, superabound or abound in excess. In other words, Paul says that Yahweh's grace hyper-superabounds. If you are accused of preaching "hyper-grace," embrace it! That is what the apostle Paul preached.

Eight Stubborn Statements

by Timothy Klaver

Here are eight stubborn, biblical declarations rooted in the finished work of Christ, the New Covenant, and the pure Gospel of grace. They go right to the heart of true Christianity. There is no middle ground on these realities. There is no room for compromise on any of these eight points.

1. Either the Bible is in its entirety the holy, inspired, infallible Word of Yahweh God — our final authority for faith and life — or it is unreliable and unworthy of our trust. If it is Yahweh God’s Word, as it repeatedly claims, then we must submit every thought, doctrine, and practice to it. It must be our only rule of faith and practice.
   (2 Timothy 3:16-17; 2 Peter 1:20-21)
    
2. Either Yahweh God is absolutely sovereign over all things, working out His eternal purpose — or He is not God. Yet this same sovereign God genuinely offers salvation to all and calls every sinner to repent and believe the Gospel. There is no contradiction: His sovereignty includes the real responsibility He has given to man.
   (Ephesians 1:11; John 3:16; Acts 17:30-31)
    
3. Either man is born spiritually dead in trespasses and sins, utterly unable to save themselves — or humanity needs no Saviour. All have sinned and fall short of Yahweh God’s glory. Therefore every sinner desperately needs the grace of Yahweh God and the new birth provided in the New Covenant.
   (Ephesians 2:1-3; Romans 3:23; Romans 5:12)
    
4. Either salvation is entirely by Yahweh God’s sovereign grace, chosen for us in Christ Jesus before the foundation of the world — or it is not of grace at all. Yet this same grace is freely offered to whosoever will believe in Jesus. Salvation is Yahweh God’s gift from start to finish; the Gospel invitation is real and universal in its call.
   (Ephesians 1:4-5; Ephesians 2:8-9; John 3:16)
    
5. Either the Lord Christ Jesus is the all-sufficient, effectual Saviour who has perfectly redeemed His people by His blood — or He is no Saviour at all. On the cross He cried “It is finished!” His one offering has forever put away the sins of all who believe. He is the Saviour of the world — mighty to save all who come to Yahweh God through Him.
   (John 19:30; Hebrews 9:12,26; 1 John 2:2; Hebrews 7:25)
    
6. Either the Holy Spirit must sovereignly quicken the dead sinner and draw him to Christ Jesus — or there is no salvation. This same omnipotent grace is not coercive but powerfully persuasive, enabling the sinner to respond in faith. No one is saved by their own willpower, but by the irresistible pull of Yahweh God’s love made effective through the Gospel.
   (John 6:44; Ephesians 2:4-5; Titus 3:5)
    
7. Either Yahweh God’s people are completely free from the Law as a covenant and system of righteousness — or we remain in bondage. The New Covenant declares that we died to the Law through the body of Christ Jesus. We are not under Law but under grace. The Spirit within us fulfills the righteous requirement of the Law as we walk in newness of life.
   (Romans 7:4-6; Romans 6:14; Galatians 3:25; Hebrews 8:10)
    
8. Either every true believer shall be preserved and kept by Yahweh God’s power unto final salvation — or the Gospel offers no lasting security. Because of the unbreakable purpose of Yahweh God, the perfect atonement of Christ Jesus, and the sealing of the Holy Spirit, those who are in Christ Jesus will persevere. Yahweh God’s grace not only saves — it keeps.
   (John 10:28-29; Philippians 1:6; Jude 24; Romans 8:38-39)