Wednesday, April 3, 2019

The Costliest Heresy…

At least in this generation…

Dispensationalism is a doctrine that is only about two-hundred years old, and in the Christian world is fundamentally embraced only in America.  Jesus never mentioned it; neither did Paul.  Of course, neither mentions the word “Trinity” either – yet one can at least find the conceptual basis for this word in Scripture.  No such luck for dispensationalism. 

The Orthodox Church describes dispensationalism as…

A heresy practiced by many Protestant groups, Dispensationalism is a form of premillennialism which narrates Biblical history as a number of successive "economies" or "administrations," called "dispensations." Each of these dispensations emphasizes the discontinuity of the covenants of God made with His various peoples.

…Dispensationalists believe that the Christian Church is an interruption in God’s divine contract with the Jewish people. …Because of this, many Dispensationalists are advocates of Zionism, the Jewish nationalist movement.

Almost two millennia of Christian scholarship had not discovered it.  While Christian theologians from Augustine to Aquinas were busy working on such apparent trivialities as improving our understanding of the Scriptures and Biblical truth, somehow they missed this rather important doctrine. 

St. Augustine, writing in the late 300s and early 400s, interpreted the reference to a "thousand years" in Revelation 20 as a metaphor for the age of the Church.

What do Catholics say?

While Tim LaHaye, Hal Lindsey, and other popular dispensationalists teach that God has two people -- the Church and Israel -- the Catholic Church asserts that God has always had only one people, or family, throughout history.

And the early Reformation leaders?

…even Martin Luther and John Calvin understood the Church to be the true heir of Israel.

Dispensationalism first gained a footing through the teachings of John Nelson Darby (1800–82) who strongly influenced the Plymouth Brethren of the 1830s in Ireland and England.  According to this teaching, there are (up to) seven ages in the history of man and his relationship to God.

We are currently in the second-to-last age, the time of Grace – the period from the Cross to the Rapture of the Church.  The final dispensation will follow: the Millennial Kingdom – A 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, centered in Jerusalem. This dispensation ends with God's judgment on the final rebellion.

Dispensationalism rejects the notion of supersessionism, still considers the Jewish people as God's chosen people, and some see the modern State of Israel as resulting in the Israel who will receive the fulfillment of all God's Old Testament promises.

This view is no longer limited to the small sect that is the Plymouth Brethren.  This idea is widely accepted in U.S. Protestant churches, with well-known figures such as John Hagee and Pat Robertson leading the charge.

Around the same time as this dispensationalist idea was being developed, there separately came a desire to restore a Jewish state.  Dispensationalism was going nowhere until it met up with this Zionist desire.  It was when these two met and wed that the heresy took firm root and gained ever-wider acceptance.

In walks Cyrus Scofield.  Who was he?

[In 1873] Scofield was forced to resign [as U. S. District Attorney for Kansas] "under a cloud of scandal" because of questionable financial transactions, that may have included accepting bribes from railroads, stealing political contributions intended for Ingalls [the senator from Kansas], and securing bank promissory notes by forging signatures.

He didn’t go to law school, yet became a US District Attorney.  His tenure didn’t last one year before resigning.

It is possible Scofield was jailed on forgery charges, although there is no extant evidence in the public records.

Converting to Christianity, Scofield was assisting Dwight L. Moody and served as the secretary of the St. Louis YMCA.  He came under the mentorship of James H. Brookes, pastor of Walnut Street Presbyterian Church, St. Louis, a prominent dispensationalist premillennialist.

Perhaps in part because of his self-confessed heavy drinking, Scofield abandoned his wife and two daughters during this period. Leontine Cerrè Scofield divorced him on grounds of desertion in 1883, and the same year Scofield married Hettie Hall von Wartz, with whom he eventually had a son.

He deserted to Texas.  In 1883 he was ordained as a Congregationalist minister – while his divorce was proceeding but not final – and accepted the pastorate of a small Congregational church in Dallas.  The church membership grew from fourteen to over five-hundred in the course of a dozen years.  By the 1890s, he styled himself “D.D.”, for Doctor of Divinity, but no records exist from any academic institution granting him this honorary degree.

In 1901, Scofield became a member of the Lotos Club, an exclusive New York men’s club. 

The Lotos Club was founded as a gentleman's club in New York City…. Its founders were primarily a young group of writers and critics. Mark Twain, an early member, called it the "Ace of Clubs".

Its "State Dinners"…are legendary fetes for scholars, artists and sculptors, collectors and connoisseurs, writers and journalists, and politicians and diplomats. Elaborate souvenir menus are produced for these dinners.

It was at the Lotos Club in 1906 that George Harvey, editor of Harper's Weekly, sent up his first trial balloon by proposing Woodrow Wilson for the office of President of the United States. In 1909, with financial backing from Andrew Carnegie, the clubhouse was moved to 110 West 57th Street, in a building designed by architect Donn Barber.

This was the big time.  Was Scofield president of a large law firm by this time?  A bank?  Mayor of New York City?  Not exactly.  At the time of his invitation, Scofield was pastor of a small church in Massachusetts:

In his devastating biography, The Incredible Scofield and His Book, Joseph M. Canfield [his biography is worth a quick read] suggests, “The admission of Scofield to the Lotus Club, which could not have been sought by Scofield, strengthens the suspicion that has cropped up before, that someone was directing the career of C.I. Scofield.”

One could not “apply”; one had to be invited.  Maybe the club was looking for some diversity in its membership?  You know, ex-cons on the run from deserted wives and bilked colleagues?

That someone, Canfield suspects, was associated with one of the club’s committee members, the Wall Street lawyer Samuel Untermeyer. As Canfield intimates, Scofield’s theology was “most helpful in getting Fundamentalist Christians to back the international interest in one of Untermeyer’s pet projects—the Zionist Movement.”

Whoa there, big fella…. Don’t go all anti-Semitic on us.  Maybe it wasn’t Untermeyer, and maybe it was merely luck (could we say “Providence”?) that brought the guy who wrote the Bible notes that supported a Zionist state into such company as to be found in the Lotos Club.  Or maybe not.

Untermeyer was no lightweight.  I find at least one report that it was Untermeyer who got President Wilson to appoint Louis Brandeis to the Supreme Court.  From Alison Weir:

Even more surprising to this author – and even less well-known both to the public and to academics – is Brandeis’s membership in a secret society that covertly pushed Zionism both in the U.S and internationally.

Wilson was opposed to the Balfour Declaration until Brandeis convinced him otherwise.

Untermeyer took an active part in preparing the Federal Reserve Bank law.  Not exactly typical company for someone like Scofield.  Certainly Scofield’s theology would be attractive to anyone interested in a Zionist state, and anyone interested in moving American Protestantism toward supporting just such a state.

In short order, Scofield produced the first edition of his Scofield Reference Bible, first published in 1909 and then revised by him in 1917.  It is an edited and annotated version of the King James Bible.  It was published by Oxford University Press – at the time one of the premier publishers in the world. 

How on earth did Scofield get such an audience?  A long track record of best-selling books was not in his history.  In any case, there he was.  And it probably didn’t hurt his chances to find that publisher Henry Frowde was very sympathetic to this theology as he was a member of the “Exclusive” Plymouth Brethren – an even more fundamental version of this small sect.

Scofield's notes on the Book of Revelation are a major source for the various timetables, judgments, and plagues elaborated on by popular religious writers such as Hal Lindsey, Edgar C. Whisenant, and Tim LaHaye…

Cheerleaders for the two-hundred-million man army.  It will make 70 A.D look like a picnic.  Instead, those who live by this doctrine wish a literal version of this passage from Revelation upon Israel (and, ultimately, the world):

Revelation 16:17 The seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and out of the temple came a loud voice from the throne, saying, “It is done!”
18 Then there came flashes of lightning, rumblings, peals of thunder and a severe earthquake. No earthquake like it has ever occurred since mankind has been on earth, so tremendous was the quake.
19 The great city split into three parts, and the cities of the nations collapsed. God remembered Babylon the Great and gave her the cup filled with the wine of the fury of his wrath.
20 Every island fled away and the mountains could not be found.
21 From the sky huge hailstones, each weighing about a hundred pounds, fell on people. And they cursed God on account of the plague of hail, because the plague was so terrible.

It is for this that today’s dispensationalist Zionist Christians pray.  An evil prayer for an evil outcome.  For some reason, I don’t believe that the Jewish Zionists who encourage the Christian Zionists in this view take the same passage quite the same way.  All the while, millions suffer every day in support of this cause.


Joshua 21: 43 So the Lord gave Israel all the land he had sworn to give their ancestors, and they took possession of it and settled there.
44 The Lord gave them rest on every side, just as he had sworn to their ancestors. Not one of their enemies withstood them; the Lord gave all their enemies into their hands.
45 Not one of all the Lord’s good promises to Israel failed; every one was fulfilled.

Emphasis added; note the tense.  Frankly, it was all downhill for national Israel after that – they took a king, divided the empire, were taken captive, lived under Roman rule, etc.  


If God one day asks me why I didn’t support His plans for Zionism and Armageddon as taught in US Christian churches today (He won’t), I will suggest to Him that if this, in fact, was His plan, He certainly didn’t need my help to bring it about.  Instead, I figured I would do something to bring my understanding of peace and justice to this world – I am much more of a Sermon-on-the-Mount kind of guy.  I suspect this will be a satisfactory response.


  1. I always liked, and agreed with, Gary North's take on this:

    1. My apologies for the incorrect link. Here is another:

  2. Without knowing anything about Scofield and the curious connections you make in the article, I studied the Scriptures and came to a more or less dispensational view.

    One reason is that it correctly views God's covenants as specific to certain people for certain periods of time. There is a Noahic covenant, Mosaic, Abrahamic, New, Davidic, etc. Study the specific verses that detail each and you really have to then ignore much of what you have read to blend them all together. The most important point here is that no where do you read that the Church takes the place of Israel. In fact, Paul says the opposite in Romans 11. It would be more correct to say that the Church brought into Israel, but there are still distinctions because there are comments that relate to ethnic aspects of the people and the actual organization structure of the 2 entities.

    Allegorical interpretation of the Bible and things like Revelation specifically started in the late 2nd/early 3rd century. It was an approach to holy books that was foreign to the Jewish mindset. It came from the Greek scholars' interpretation methods of their myths. You couldn't really interpret them literally and come away with anything spiritually beneficial. Greek myths were interpreted as allegories so that scholars could impose their ideas into the text. They saw at the "spiritual" level. The Greek church fathers incorporated that style later after the apostles and their disciples had all died.

    Then others following like Augustine did not question the approach but continued to interpret certain parts of the Bible in that style, usually the ones that were harder to understand. That is the only way he could say that the 1000 year reign of Christ is the time of the church. If you interpret based on the actual definitions of the words in Revelation 20, then 1000 years is most likely a 1000 years. Even more convincing should be the fact that Jesus is on the Earth physically in Revelation 19. The book is very explicit with the timing of the events, meaning that the 1000 year reign can't be the age of the church. There are other passages like in Daniel 9 and Zechariah and others which continue to flesh out the events and their sequence.

    It is really strange that you would describe Revelation 16 as evil. It is not about nuclear war or humans destroying the planet like the kook you linked to is describing. That chapter is about God's direct judgment for sin on the earth. It is God doing it. Is God then evil?

    Do you not expect that God will judge sin once and for all. If Revelation 16 is truly evil then is God evil for judging sin in hell? Is He evil for visiting destruction on Israel in the book of Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, and 2 Kings? If Revelation 16 is evil, then how much more so the judgment of sinners at the end of Revelation 20 and the destruction of the whole world in Revelation 21? Peter describes the same events in 2 Peter 3. It is no metaphor or allegory. God showed John some specific things through visions and gave him this instruction in Revelation 1:19 "Therefore write the things which you have seen, and the things which are, and the things which will take place after these things."

    The can be some kookiness from dispensationalists. There is some real heresy from some in how they describe the mode of God's salvation through history. But to conflate those things with a logical, literal interpretation of eschatological passages carries other serious problems. I know I have written too much already and to really explain myself I would have to get more into the weeds of the details of scripture. I know this isn't the place for it, but it there is another venue where it is, let me know.

    1. RMB, one question. Who is Abraham's seed referring to, physical Israel or all those that become followers of Christ through the ages? Read through the epistle to the Hebrews. The seed of Abraham can only mean the Church.

      It seems to me from numerous NT epistles that the physical Israel, God's chosen people in the OT were not ever meant to remain His chosen people forever. They were used for a purpose and a sign of things to come, but when Christ came His new covenant was upon the Church His eternal chosen people. Of course that includes all Jews that receive Him.

      You did make some good points here by the way. I do believe there is much misunderstanding on the role of Israel and the significance of their role in history and who they are today.

    2. RMB,

      I might be bending one of Bionic's rules here, so I apologize in advance, but it is quite relevant to the discussion at hand.

      The Catholics have it more or less right here I believe. Israel is the Church. The Church is the diaspora Christians who live and abide the word of Jesus Christ. I don't believe the biblical Israel is equivalent to the secular state in Palestine which was instituted by non-religious Jews, bankers, and democratic leaders who had just prosecuted a war that destroyed the remnants of the Holy Roman Empire (Austria-Hungary), and which now routinely pulls the reigns of the US war machine to destroy thousands, perhaps millions, of innocent lives (both foreign and domestic) in the surrounding desert.

      The Jews were the chosen race, but they were broken off the tree when they broke the original Covenant with God or when they rejected Christ (who came to save all of us!) - take your pick. They can be grafted back on, but they will find that their importance on the tree is no different than any of the others grafted on, Gentiles included who share no biological lineage with the tribes of ancient Judea.

      "20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:
      21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.
      22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
      23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again." - Romans 11: 20-23

      See "Dispensationalism, Israel, and the Church" at, a traditional Catholic website, for more.

      Show me an individual or family of Jewish heritage descended from an unbroken line of Christian faith and devotion from the time of Jesus' teachings on earth, and I will be the first to hold them up as belonging to God's chosen people. Otherwise, there's no longer anything preeminent or chosen, at least in my eyes, about today's Jews.

    3. RMB

      “It is really strange that you would describe Revelation 16 as evil.”

      Please be careful regarding what you believe I have described as evil. It is the interpretation of many dispensationalists that I describe as evil.

      “That chapter is about God's direct judgment for sin on the earth.”

      If this is the case, then He does not need American Christian unconditional support for one of the most destructive regimes in the region in order to make manifest His plan for the world.

      “The can be some kookiness from dispensationalists.”

      I will be clear: I do not care about their (or your) theological or doctrinal interpretations. I do care about if and how such people who hold such interpretations act these out in the world. If their (or your) theological or doctrinal interpretations result in this, then this is what I describe as evil:

      Millions are dying and suffering every day in large part driven by such support. If you do not like the word “evil” attached to this, please offer another.

    4. ATL

      "I might be bending one of Bionic's rules here..."

      Bending, but perhaps I brought it on by not being much more clear about my purpose. The theology and interpretation are irrelevant to me. So I don't repeat myself, see my comments to RMB immediately above.

    5. RMB, in reading again my reply to you, I find that I should have started by stating that I recognize perhaps my purpose was not clear in my original post. If this sent us off in a wrong direction, I apologize.

    6. epnngg, what verse are you referring to about Abraham's seed? Paul in Galatians 3:15-16 actually says Jesus Christ is the seed. The seed is singular not plural. I confirmed this during studying for another issue. In the Hebrew and Greek "seed" is singular.

      But your other point. All those who believe enter into the Abrahamic covenant with God regardless of race. Still there are promises to Abraham's physical descendants in Genesis that still stand. They are by birth not faith. This is where the land things come into play.

      I guess I would say that Israel is still God's chosen nation but not every individual is included and God chose other individuals not Jewish to be his people to. It is complicated, but we know the church isn't Israel based on Peter's declaration in the Jerusalem council in Acts 15. Paul also writes of this distinction in Galatians.

    7. ATL, you raise good points as always but I think it would be instructional if you kept reading in Romans 11.

      "25 For I do not want you, brethren, to be uninformed of this mystery—so that you will not be wise in your own estimation—that a partial hardening has happened to Israel until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in; 26 and so all Israel will be saved; just as it is written,

      “The Deliverer will come from Zion,
      He will remove ungodliness from Jacob.”
      27 “This is My covenant with them,
      When I take away their sins.”

      28 From the standpoint of the gospel they are enemies for your sake, but from the standpoint of God’s choice they are beloved for the sake of the fathers; 29 for the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you once were disobedient to God, but now have been shown mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so these also now have been disobedient, that because of the mercy shown to you they also may now be shown mercy. 32 For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all."

      Make no mistake, I do agree that Jewish people are believing in Jesus today and are a part of the church. I am not sure how it all comes together but it is also clear from the passage above that God will deal with Israel as an entire nation in the future. Whether this is the nation-state of Israel or not I don't know. But I do know from Zechariah 14 and Daniel 9 and Revelation that that reckoning will happen in Judah geographically.

      Zechariah 12:1-3 also describes how Jerusalem will be in the middle of global controversy. I have think that some of that controversy comes from their own bad behavior. But in the end Jesus comes to fight Jerusalem's enemies. So my stance is don't support Israel's wrongdoing because they will be judged for it but also don't be in the army coming to destroy Jerusalem because that army will be destroyed by Jesus himself. Best to stay as uninvolved as possible.

    8. bionic mosquito, I appreciate the clarification. No need to apologize. The discussion here is always reasonable and disagreements are handled respectfully. The culture of clarification and even apology found on this page isn't found many other places on the internet. It is why I love engaging with you and the other commenters.

  3. Remember when a Jewish cop arrested an erratically driving Mel Gibson, just two years after numerous high-profile Jews had raked him over the coals for producing a movie dramatizing the Central Ontological Mystery of the Christian West, and in a fit of spite and drunken rage he accused "the [numerous high-profile] Jews" of starting all the wars, and the rest of us all feigned outrage he would say such a thing? Good times, the mid-twenty aughts.

    1. Anytime someone gets close to the truth they're suddenly an anti-Semite. Yet Jews can believe they're God's chosen race. Isn't that odd?

  4. Dispensationalism is a heresy for sure. Started by Protestants? Hardly. Jesuit priest Francisco Ribera came up with the idea as way to derail the Protestant Reformation. Sadly, too many Protestants lapped it up, and now only those who are Bible scholars (sola scriptura) do not buy into it.

    1. Or you could just read the Bible and come up with it. If you pay attention to sequence of events in eschatological passages and study the covenants it is a very reasonable interpretation.

  5. Gary North's take is mostly good on the history, but his idea that Scofield's heresies on Israel and dispensations, especially pre-Tribulation "Rapture", are universal among evangelicals is sorely wrong. Sure, even the Establishment Christian Media has quashed mention of the numbers of non-dispensation believers (and non-Calvinists), but they are the reason in my opinion for the famous series of "Left Behind" books. Establishment dispensation thought mandates is struggling to stay afloat, from whence accusations of "anti-Semitism" is competing with the volume and decibels of "racist" accusations.

    He is also wrong in his title idea to accuse dispensationalists of a morbid desire to accelerate the "Rapture" to escape Tribulation, knowing two-thirds of Isreal will suffer. They genuinely believe it is their duty to support Israel. Come on, Gary, can't have them both believing this stuff and then saying it's a morbid desire for more genocide.

    And get this, Gary: There is a WAY OUT OF PROPORTION of Christian evangelicalism to bring Jews to Christ, in comparison to Arabs or everyone else on Earth. Sure, a few really crazy idiots with an audience tell Jews they're "automatically saved" by birthright, but very few take him seriously. Netanyahu does a ritual washing of hands no doubt every time he has to shake the hand of such a deceiver. - Trutherator

  6. In your article on dispensationalism you say at the beginning there is conceptual support for the trinity in the bible. You should get a copy of Anthony Buzzard's book: "Jesus Was Not a Trinitarian". Or watch a few of the dozens of youtube videos under the channel: "restoration fellowship".

  7. What a long wondering religious/secular bit of half thought out material. Yes we are heading for the end and no you will likely not understand it until it is over. Your position could be refuted but I suspect that you are not listening.

    1. If you can refute, refute. Nobody cares about your suspicions.

  8. Thanks for addressing this important issue! I believe this dispensationalist/Zionist heresy and philosophy has been absolutely devastating not only to the true Church, but has greatly influenced our destructive foreign policy throughout the ME.

    This doctrine has so permeated the evangelical movements of today that those Christians who refute it as heresy are viewed as under God's curse for not wholeheartedly supporting Israel no matter what evil they perpetrate on the people and lands around them.

    Dallas Theological Seminary, the bastion of dispensational/Zionist teaching, will not allow anyone to teach there if they do not adhere to this heretical teaching. Many well-known preachers such a Chuck Swindol and others have come out of DTS spreading this heresy in their nationally broadcast sermons for many years. The propaganda runs deep and entrenched in almost every evangelical church today.

    I would encourage anyone who has questions concerning the validity of the Zionist/dispensationalist movement to listen to a series of messages on this topic by Chuck Baldwin, who was immersed in this movement, but after careful study realized the error of his ways. He is an excellent teacher and breaks down this whole heresy very well.

    You can find his teachings here:

    Bionic Mosquito, thanks again for bringing this important issue before your readers.

    1. epnngg, you have captured my purpose in writing this. It is how the belief is made manifest in action that is my concern.

  9. Agreed!

    However, the entirety of this subject will never be fully understood without correctly identifying both the Judahites and Israelites in the Bible (not always the same people), today's descendants of the same, today's non-Israelite/Judahite Jews, and the Bible's goyim and ethne (poorly translated "Gentiles," even the capitalization is incorrect).

    For more on all of this and more, see free online book "The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?" at

  10. This subject is personal to me - I was a pre-millie for over 20 years. While not a dispensationalist, we studied it and were very familiar with its teachings among others.
    To cut to the chase, I was personally challenged by myself about 13 years ago to do a thorough examination of all the 3 major isms - premil, amil and postmil. My conclusions became the foundational premise for my website and blog-library.
    I have neither the time or interest to get into a food fight with anyone here - you can easily find my website and library online. Most folks aren't really interested to do serious studying, but if you are - go at it.
    Over the last almost 4 years, that library has a motherlode of sourced articles essays - some very long.
    In brief - my journey of discovery was strongly advanced by a number of sources from American Vision. Two books by David Chilton - Paradise Restored and Days of Vengeance were key sources - get them and read them.
    Conclusion - premil of any type is a Zionist hoax - and the resources in my library prove it to all who are interested to 'Prove All Things'!

    1. Crush, I also don't desire a food fight here, so I will summarize my view: we do what we can to bring peace to this world at this time, according to the example Jesus gave us. The rest I leave in God's hands.

    2. I have no problem whatsoever with your view, bionic - in fact, my library has quite a few of your essays archived.
      I also have come to fully realize that most folks have little interest in serious research into these matters, but the occasional gem of a researcher can accomplish much in the grand scheme of things - all by God's grace!
      Keep writing!

    3. Chilton - I knew the name was familiar, but couldn't recall from where...until I looked up the books. Both are available free online. I found one here:

      And the other here:

      This is when I recalled: Gary North has written of Chilton; also as I recall, North holds the same view.

    4. You're correct - in fact, North wrote the Foreword to Paradise Restored - 2007 hard cover edition - it is the highlighted go to bread and butter reference for me since at least 2008.

  11. The question that God will ask everyone is what do they believe. Do they trust that Jesus Christ died on a cross for their sins, was buried, and then rose again 3 days later? If yes then they will be in heaven, but if they don't trust in that then they will be in hell.

    Eph 3:1 For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
    Eph 3:2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:

    The Bible says that we are in a dispensation of grace. Now many people will twist the Bible to their own ends, but it doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong. It certainly doesn't mean that Christians or anyone else today can get God to do their will instead of his will.

    2Thess 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
    2Thess 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
    2Thess 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

    What is the gospel that those who fail to follow will be punished if they don't follow?

    Gal 1:11 But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.
    Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

    1Cor 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
    1Cor 15:2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
    1Cor 15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    1Cor 15:4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

    The gospel is that Christ died for their sins, was buried, and rose again. Nothing about baptism, prayers, good works, or anything else that religion teaches today.

    So the truth of the dispensation of grace is true. It doesn't matter how anyone tries to twist it today to support their own goals. No one can stop God from accomplishing his will on his timetable. The current plans of evil men notwithstanding.

    1Cor 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
    1Cor 3:20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.

    1. "It doesn't matter how anyone tries to twist it today to support their own goals. No one can stop God from accomplishing his will on his timetable."

      I agree.

      "The current plans of evil men notwithstanding."

      This (in the context of this post) is what I call the heresy.

  12. This is such a fascinating story in history. I think it touches a lot of the main poisonous roots that led to the unraveling of the Christian faith and good governance in America in the late 1800s. More, more, more on this topic if you can please!

    1. Maybe. If I do, I will have to be much more careful in making my point - which I have tried to clarify via my replies in the comments section.

      The issue is the unquestioned and unconditional support for the State of Israel. Nothing more. Sometimes I think more Jews get this right than American Christians.

    2. I would never advocate for unquestioned or unconditional support of anything. Israel has some issues for sure.

    3. It's tough to avoid the theological when speaking on this subject, because a certain theology is used to justify "how the belief is made manifest."

      Maybe a way to divorce this from a theological discussion is to point to all the non-religious folks who have participated in this Zionist plan, or to show that those who were purportedly 'religious' were actually more interested in social justice than any real devotion to Christ.

  13. Agreed!

    However, the entirety of this subject will never be fully understood without correctly identifying both the Judahites and Israelites in the Bible (not always the same people), today's descendants of the same, today's non-Israelite/Judahite Jews, and the Bible's goyim and ethne (poorly translated "Gentiles," even the capitalization is incorrect).

    For more on all of this and more, see Google online book "The Mystery of the Gentiles: Who Are They and Where Are They Now?"

  14. Another excellent and scholarly book on the subject of the trinity is "One God & One Lord Reconsidering the Cornerstone of the Christian Faith", by John A. Lynn, Mark H. Graeser, and John W. Shoenheit.

  15. There is a mention in Ephesians 1:10 of a future dispensation - the dispensation of the fullness of times. I'm not sure where this idea of "dispensations are a bad thing" has come from except in the context of a blind support of a nation of people who, it turns out, are just as human as everyone else.

    Considering the fact that Bible verses have as many interpretations as there are people who read them, I would assert that words like "heresy" are inappropriate in the context of any non-authoritative interpretation - I include the scholarly as well as the superstitious interpretation in the word "non-authoritative".

    I have always maintained that scriptural authority comes from God, not from a college; that the scriptures were given by revelation and can only be properly understood by revelation and that the only way we can gain such revelation is by coming to know God - not as projections of ourselves, but as a real and individual being.

    I propose that the dispensations noted by some others on this thread and spoken of negatively by Bionic are not meant to be blind support of a nation regardless of its actions. I suggest that such dispensations would be dispensations of authority from God to certain individuals - after all, the history in the Bible shows that each "dispensation" follows a period of apparent apostasy, a falling away from God's teachings or loss of proper understanding. Certainly someone who could authoritatively say "this sayeth the Lord.." would be the only thing that could clear up such confusion.

    I'm pretty sure that what I've written will ruffle some feathers. I guess that's the price I pay for being a heretic ... :-)

    1. " I'm not sure where this idea of "dispensations are a bad thing" has come from except in the context of a blind support of a nation of people who, it turns out, are just as human as everyone else."

      The "blind [and absolute] support" is the heresy that I was getting at, and I am sorry that I wasn't more clear as I believe I introduced unnecessary tension in this conversation.

    2. No problem, Bionic. The written word is often an imprecise method of communication ... :-)

  16. You are a Roman Catholic and have no idea what you are talking about regarding Dispensation. You will die in your sins shocked you are in Hell, because you believed some amount of your works granted you entrance into God's Heaven and God "owes" you. What's worse is your a libertarian and no Pope ever believed in the tenants of that philosophy that was started by Jesus Christ hating Jews (Von Mises/Rothbard both of whom are burning right now)and would chide you to your face for adhering to them. Your entire existence is an exercise of "picking & choosing" what parts of RCC you want to obey--thus making you your own denomination of RC; in essence your god.

    Libertarians want to "get out from under" the system of government and God, because of our sin natures, wants us under it so curb our appetites. All of you who claim to be Christian Libertarians are insane.

    1. "You are a Roman Catholic..."

      Are you sure?

      "All of you who claim to be Christian Libertarians are insane."

      How about let's allow readers of my work and readers of your comment to decide which of the two of us exhibits less sanity?

  17. R.J. Rushdoony starts his essay on the meaning of theocracy with this statement. Was he insane?

    “Few things are more commonly misunderstood than the nature and meaning of theocracy. It is commonly assumed to be a dictatorial rule by self-appointed men who claim to rule for God. In reality, theocracy in Biblical law is the closest thing to a radical libertarianism that can be had.” (

    I claim to be libertarian and want to get out from under the rule of political government. I also claim to be Christian and have no problem being under the rule of godly law administered by Jesus the Christ. Does that make me insane?

    One of the fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22, 23) is self-control (self-governance, self-government), the exercise of which helps us to overcome our sin natures. With respect to this, both Christians who practice “love your neighbor as yourself” and libertarians who practice the non-aggression principle are doing the very same thing—treating other people with the dignity, respect, and friendship they deserve, as laid out in the Golden Rule. If this is insane, lock me up forever!

    Mr. Lowe, are you God? If you are, then you can decide who gets to burn in Hell. If you are, then you can see the heart of Bionic Mosquito. If you are, then you can make all sorts of judgements about him, his religion, his followers, and anyone else who might happen to believe something which is at odds with your own version of the truth.

    My guess, though, is that you are not God. If this is the case, then it’s not your call. You don’t have any authority to make a lot of claims which you have no way of proving. You have no idea who will be in Heaven or Hell. That is God’s prerogative, not yours.

    Jesus tells us (Matthew 7:1) not to make judgements about people, referring to the status of their spirituality. We cannot know the heart condition of anyone besides ourselves and consequently cannot make a righteous judgement about anyone else. There are times we are blind to our own failings. I know I am. It is only by the grace of God that our eyes are opened, not to see the flaws of everyone else, but to see how far short of God's holiness and perfection we are personally.

    Mr. Lowe, it is obvious that you are not libertarian. What political philosophy do you follow?

    From your response to the article, it seems that Bionic Mosquito touched a raw nerve. Do you feel threatened by something which was written and discussed? If so, why? If BM wrote something that was so far off base that you felt compelled to “straighten” him out, then why don’t you directly address the statement(s) you take issue with. You’ll get a lot further along that way.

    I’ll end this with a couple of sayings. Neither one of them is appropriate for honest, civil discourse.
    1. “If you don’t like the message, shoot the messenger.”
    2. “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”