The poor fellow that I spoke with kept telling all of his Catholic co-workers that we are in the last days.  He vehemently insisted that all of the signs of the end are evident.  I asked him the end of what?  He casually stated that he meant the end of the world.  So, I asked him about the signs which he was referring to.  He mentioned that there are wars, and rumors of wars.  So, I asked him what question Jesus was answering when He foretold the signs of the end?  He could not answer.  Nor did he realized that Jesus had been speaking about the destruction of the Temple.  I had to slowly walk him through the pronouncement of doom, the disciples excitement at seeing the stones of the Temple, the statement that not one stone would be left standing upon another, the disciples question as to when the end would be, and then the Lords discourse, in Matthew 24, and 25, of all the signs which would precede the end of the Temple. 

 

Then, I asked the fellow again what it was supposed to be the end of?  He said the world.  So, I backtracked to the statement that Jesus made to the effect that the Temple - the greatest national icon of Jewish pride - would be utterly destroyed.  Then, I showed him the question that the disciples thought to ask, in regard to when this event would occur.  Again, I asked my dear friend the end of what?  What was it that the disciples were asking about the end of? 

 

One would think that if a group of men were standing in front of a stone fortress-like complex, or the White House, that took decades to erect, and one stated that it would be totally ripped apart, and everyone else asked when this would happen, then they must be talking about the said building under discussion - not the end of the sun, the end of the moon, the end of the planet Mars, nor even the end of the world - simply the end of the building that is being spoken of.

 

Anyway, my friend could not figure this out since his mind had been so thoroughly polluted by Zionist centered theology.  Apparently, in the minds of Christian Zionists, the Temple must have been the world since the prediction that not one stone shall be left standing upon another somehow must indicate that the world will be burned up by fire.  It is called "Twwiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiissst and Shoooouuuut theology" - something totally unrelated to rightly dividing the word of truth - which most evangelicals are incapable of since they never even bothered to read the bulk of the Bible found in the Old Testament, as the apostles once did. 

 

Anyway, with a little "twist and shout theology" we can jazz up the prediction of the destruction of the Jewish Temple to mean the destruction of the whole world, and possibly even Mars, and the solar system, too.  Or, we can just suffer, and be honest about the question.

 

So, I spent a good hour explaining the meaning of the prophesies, the historical fulfillment, as well as the meaning of Kainos Diatheke.  Here is a good one to get a conversation going with a dispensationalist:

 

"Betcha don't know what New Covenant means."  The first thing that you will hear from these indoctrinated souls is a bunch of meaningless theological mumbo jumbo which they can readily parrot since they have actually been trained not to think, since thinking is not spiritual like K-mart jeans are not fashionable.  In fact, I would not be surprised if many "demons of thinking" have been cast out of the charismatic courts. 

 

Anyway, once it becomes evident that there is no substance to their explanation then follow up with this simple question, "Well, what about the New Man in Christ, that Paul spoke of?  How is this man new?  Didn't Paul say that old things have passed away, and all things have become new?"  Normally, you will have to help them out by jogging their memory (lets not call it thinking).  If they are real charismatics, then (thanks to a teaching popularized by Kenneth Hagin) they have to admit that the new man in Christ consists of old things (sinful nature) passing away, and all things being made new (image of Christ).

 

So, the next question is twofold:  (a) Why is the New Covenant called the New Covenant?  What old thing passed away, and what things became new?  Or, more specifically, what covenant passed away, and what covenant became a new reality?  With enough prodding from the Scriptures, it will become apparent to them, that the Old Mosaic Covenant came to an end at the cross.  And, a long promised eternal covenant finally became a spiritual reality through the blood of Jesus Christ.  This is why it is referred to as the "new" covenant".  The covenant based on animal blood was done away with, and replaced by a covenant based upon the blood of the Son of God.   Just as in the new man, the old sinful nature passed away, and the new man, made in the image of Christ, stands in the stead of the old sinful nature. 

 

This will get their rusty old Scofieldized wheels a'creakin.  Might even offer a few squirts from the oil'in can.  Next question is this:

 

If the new man is one where the old sinful nature passed away, and a new sin-free nature, made in the image of Christ, came into being, and the new covenant is one where the old Mosaic lamb-blood based covenant was done away with, and a New Covenant, made in the blood of Christ came into being, then what is the "New Jerusalem", which the writer of Revelations beheld coming down out of heaven?  Could it mean that there was an old Jerusalem which was passing away, just as the old man passed away?  Could it mean that this New Jerusalem would stand in the stead of the old?  Is that why it had to come down out of heaven?  Could it be that the appearance of the kingdom of God would do away with the former kingdom, and the former Jerusalem, which the vineyard operators had forfeited?  Does this not also sound like another new-kainos replacement?  My, my, my, careful, or thoughts might start forming!

 

Well, the fellow I was speaking with seemed to suffer just from being challenged to think a little bit.  But, one thing became apparent to me:  How can a person only two years in the Lord be so thoroughly indoctrinated in Scofieldism?  The answer is simple.  He was indoctrinated through a Bible school.

 

This brings me to another thought.  A Burmese Christian told me that in Burma the most critical thing for Christians to do is to reach the kingpins, the head honchos, who rule over groups of people.  According to John, my Burmese friend, if you can get one Burmese tribal leader saved, all the rest will quickly follow.  But, if you do not get the head honcho saved, the rest cannot follow suit either - even if they want to.  Later, I was reading about St. Patrick's work in Ireland.  He was in exactly the same predicament.  He knew that the only way to reach the masses of people was through their lords.  Every time a lord became a Christian, the rest of the followers soon followed.  The idea is not unique to the doers of good.  The Zionists utilized the same principle to the fullest when they had the Scofield Bible, printed and distributed in mass, to every Baptist Bible seminarian in the United States.  It was certain that the little flocks would soon fall in line after their shepherds. 

 

A small lesson in history might help us to be more effective during this terrible age where Zionist centered theology has taken center stage.  Paul had to deal with the kingpin leading the church in Jerusalem.  That kingpin was non other than Peter.  Today, the "kingpins" are not just people, but even bad Bible translations which are dictated by the dollar, and not by those who are most interested in rightly dividing the word of truth.

 

The hard reality is that unless the kingpins are conquered, they will always churn out dispensationist indoctrinated Christians much faster than New Covenant Christians can reach them.  It is like a cancer that grows uncontrollably, and exponentially.  Treating cells individually, while leaving the root of the cancer unchecked, will result in failure, so long as the cancer grows far faster than it is being eradicated.  This is why there has to be a concerted effort to deal with the problems of our modern translations, the problems of ministers being weak in the Scriptures, as they were first received in Hebrew, and in Greek, the problems of Zionist theology, the problems of Zionist agents targeting and corrupting Christian leaders, the problems of the lack of understanding concerning the meaning, and Scriptural nature of the New Covenant, the problems of the churches operating as a mere powerless relic of the past, without understanding Her full spiritual, and social, function and mandate, in the world. 

 

All of these problems, and many more, have to be attacked, hammered, and mercilessly pounded head on, in the same way that Paul dealt with the Judaizers, and strengthened the churches against them.  

 

By the way, when I told my dispensationalist friend that I did not believe that the antichrist would take over the whole world, he suggested to me that I should ask the Holy Spirit.  His simple answer was that if I ask the Holy Spirit, He will tell me directly whether it is true or not.  I asked him if this was the case about the antichrist, then why does the Holy Spirit not directly tell us when our own Bible translations are wrong?  He could not answer this.  So, I followed up by another question:  Why should God tell us anything directly when He already put the information, in the world, and made the way for us to find it out?  Does God only exist to act as a crutch for our own laziness?  He could not answer this easier.  I suppose he thinks that since he speaks in tongues, his theology must be okay.  I got news for him and the rest of the church:  The charismatics are still not getting the point of the book of Acts.  There was a time when the apostles - the very ones who raised the dead - had there theology so mixed up that they were only preaching to Jews.  Eventually, they figured out that even converts to the law could be saved.  Finally, they reached the point that they realized they could disregard the law, and circumcision, entirely, while they won the Gentiles to Christ.  In other words, these men who were so adept at working miracles, speaking in tongues, and casting out demons, by the Holy Spirit,  were so mixed up in their theology, that it took many years to get it cleared up.  Today, this aspect is far clearer to us than it was to the early church during the time when the Holy Spirit's outpouring was shaking the world.  Will the charismatics ever wake up?  Did Paul, at the end of his life tell his underlings to just ask the Holy Spirit?  Or did he say to study to show thyself approved?  Did Paul say just ask the Holy Spirit, or did he say consider these things, and the Lord will give you understanding concerning all?  Did Paul say just ask the Holy Spirit, or did he refer to laboring in the word, and in doctrine?  Maybe this was the problem in the early church.  Maybe a bunch of Jewish Christian converts were "prophesying",

 

"Thus saith the Holy Spirit, you must have your foreskin cut off with a fresh copper blade, in order to become a child of Abraham, saith the Holy Spirit, because I asked the Holy Spirit."

 

Written by: Ben Eble