Are you baptized?
(youtu.be)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
u/SubtleSigns
Now to the topic of Scofield and Darby that so many build into a straw man in a bogus attempt to discredit dispensational theology - your criticism is an oversimplification, and it misrepresents the origins of dispensationalist support for Zionism.
Darby was a key figure in developing dispensational theology and he emphasized a future restoration of national Israel, which later influenced Christian Zionism. He taught a clear distinction between Israel and the Church, and believed God's promises to Israel, especially those regarding the land, would be fulfilled literally. The Scofield Reference Bible popularized Darby's ideas in the United states. Its notes promoted the view that modern return of Jews to the Holy Land was a fulfillment of biblical prophecy, and this influenced evangelical support for Zionism.
However, it is incorrect to say that dispensationalist Zionism is based only on Darby and Scofield. Their work systematized and spread the theology, but earlier Puritan and Reformed theologians also held some form of premillennial expectation involving Israel’s restoration. Additionally, many modern Christian Zionists are motivated by biblical interpretation, not just loyalty to Scofield or Darby.
Thus, while Darby and Scofield were influential in shaping modern Christian Zionism, they are not its sole or original foundation.
Neither Darby nor Scofield invented these ideas, they systematized them, and popularized them. These ideas became popular because they made sense to many people within their historical and theological context.
Dispensationalism gained widespread appeal because it offered a clear, literal interpretation of biblical prophecy, during times that were marked by social upheaval and global conflict. Its framework provided coherent answers to complex questions about history, Israel, and the end times. Events like the founding of Israel in 1948 and the Six-Day War in 1967 appeared to many as fulfillments of prophecy, reinforcing the system’s credibility.
Additionally, its rise was fueled by Bible conferences, seminaries like Dallas Theological Seminary, and popular works such as The Late Great Planet Earth and the Left Behind series, which made the theology accessible and compelling.
So, while not everyone may accept its premises, its popularity stems from its logical structure, scriptural fidelity, and timely relevance.
As for your assertion that John Darby "founded" the rapture... The criticism that the rapture doctrine originated solely with John Darby and the Scofield Bible is overstated. While Darby systematized pre-tribulation rapture theology and Scofield popularized it in the 20th century, earlier voices reflect similar ideas.
Here are some examples of Christian writings that reflect pre-trib or pre-wrath rapture views before Darby
Here are some examples of post-trib rapture views before Darby
So while Darby was pivotal in shaping modern dispensationalism, the idea was not entirely absent in church history. It remained a minority view until the 19th century, but the idea of believers being removed before judgment has historical precedent. To say it did not exist before Darby "invented" it misrepresents historical truth.
To your point regarding eschatology, virtually all Christian denominations hold to some form of eschatology (and all of them believe they are correct). Your assertion that dispensationalists "know exactly when the Lord is going to return all based off a bunch of frauds in the Middle East" is not accurate and misrepresents dispensational doctrine.
Dispensationalists universally affirm the doctrine of immanency, aka. the imminent return of Christ, meaning He could come at any moment, but they do not claim to know the exact time of His return. This belief is rooted in Jesus’ own words: “But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only” (Matthew 24:36). Most dispensational theologians explicitly reject date-setting and emphasize that while believers should watch for signs, the timing remains unknown. while some individuals may make speculative claims, mainstream dispensationalism does not teach that anyone knows when Christ will return, only that His return is imminent and could happen at any time.
Now regarding the state of Israel, you dispute that Israel becoming a nation is relevant because you say they are frauds. I believe that even if some who claim to be Jews are not truly Israelites, which may or may not be the case, God is sovereign, and by His will, the real Jews will return to the land. What man means for evil, God uses for good, and in this case, to fulfill His ancient promises. He can use any means he wishes - political, historical, even imperfect leaders - to accomplish His purposes. Scripture is full of examples: Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus, Pharaoh. He can use the modern state of Israel just as He used them.
As for your final critique - I appreciate that you hesitate to accuse them of being unsaved. Many in reformed circles are quick to label those they disagree with as being unsaved. Dispensational theology isn’t 'screwed up,' as you put it. Aspects of its theological framework may cause problems if applied to your theology, but it is a logical, internally consistent framework that takes Scripture seriously, especially in applying a literal historical-grammatical hermeneutic. Whether one agrees with it is a separate matter.
This response has become much longer than I anticipated and it has also taken a significant amount of time, if anyone has read this far, I am sorry for sliding the comments with this, lol.
Just to throw it out there, I have a different interpretation of both the words “Zionism”, and “dispensationalism”, than I think either one of you do.
Without getting a solid handle on what those things mean, there’s not likely to be a solid resolution.
Here’s bb’s comment on “Zionism”
https://greatawakening.win/p/1AR0eCMffG/x/c/4eWciaaTmEs
I don’t remember where my comments on dispensationalism were at, but there’s multiple meanings wrapped up in it as well. Here’s one on -isms: https://greatawakening.win/p/1AR0iqkqln/x/c/4eWcj7LhwCE
Frankly, most debates on -ism/ist are probably total wastes of time. Gotta break individual ideas out and look at those.
I think that is valid, different people may likely have different ideas on what Zionism even means. Many on this board seem to have turned it into a four letter word, and even discussing the topic draws ire, but I do not feel that those who demonize "Christian Zionists" have even bothered to try to understand what "Zionism" even means to those Christians that they are demonizing, and I definitely feel that it means something different to me than the way "Zionism" is represented by detractors. I think for my part I did (somewhat?) define what Zionism means to me in my reply.
Glanced at BB comment, while I think it is a decent attempt to try to classify different views of Zionism, I feel that it is likely inadequate, perhaps more labels are needed, or it might be better to think of it in terms of some sort of spectrum than labelling "zionists" under merely a few different labels.
One issue I have with the classification that BB uses, is that of the "Khazarian Zionists" being the evil Zionists who try to cause never-ending conflict. I find this description inadequate for a number of reasons. I feel that I tend to lean towards the perspective that u/Magavoices espouses regarding the "Khazarian question." I feel that the entire narrative of the "Khazarian mafia" is a psyop. Calling the ones that are trying to cause never-ending conflict "Kazarians" is making it into a racial issue, I do not believe that all Khazar-descended Jews align with this... ideology? Is causing chaos and war an ideology? Of course, there is a group that fits that description, of those trying to cause never-ending conflict that are working as pawns of Satan, I just don't think they can be neatly fit into a box of "Oh, they all came from Khazar bloodlines." or "Oh, they are all Jews," or any of the other boxes that I see people trying to put it in. I would not even be convinced that they are all a singular monolithic group, per se... except perhaps "pawn of Satan" but I understand wanting to give them some sort of name or label...
My second contention would be that I would not consider this group to be true "Zionists" but simply using Zionism to achieve their own ends, that being chaos, perpetual war, etc. It is really no different than the way the "bad guys," who in lieu of me not wanting to call them Khazarians, I will just refer to them as "them" lol, I do not see this group explicitly as an ethnicity. They used U.S. patriotism to push their own agendas after 9/11, and they can easily do the same thing with Zionism. I would not call those that abused patriotic sentiments to drag the U.S. into endless wars patriots, and I would not call those who try to use Zionism towards those same nefarious ends Zionists.
The other groups that BB classifies as Israeli Zionists and Christian Zionists, I would probably not want to put them into such a confined box either. I would not call Israeli Zionists misguided or selfish, per se, manipulated, probably, yes. If one is being manipulated they may also be misguided in a sense, but I don't think wanting to live in the ancestral homeland of your forefathers or to have a state is misguided or selfish (if that is even how they define Zionism), and I do not think that Zionists in Israel would see their idea of Zionism as being related to the "Palestinian problem." The majority of Jews in Israel are liberal, and they held pro-palestinian sentiments before the October 7th event happened. I don't think their concept of Zionism was such that it would mean to remove Palestinians. In other words, the war with Gaza should be separated from the concept of Zionism, excepting that "they," perhaps, targeted Zionists to incite the war. Just like "they" targeted patriots to incite war after 9/11. The one difference is that while 9/11 was not actually perpetrated by muslims, 10/7 was. Bloodthirsty zealots are easy to manipulate, and the fact that it really was perpetrated by Hamas just makes the response of the Israeli "patriots" even more polarized.
Then the Christian Zionists "who support Israel no matter what." First thing I would ask is what does "support" mean to them. It is likely that it means something different to different people. Does it mean have the US govt. send them money? To me, absolutely not. To others, it might. To me it means pray for their salvation, and that God's perfect will might be accomplished. That's pretty much the end of it. "Support" to me also means evangelism, and humanitarian support. I have no problem with someone sending a check to Meir Panim Maybe moral support, like, "Hey! You have a right to exist and I support that," while also being able to levy valid criticisms. But others who would call themselves a "Christian Zionist" they might have a completely different perspective.
As for "they believe all this mess is necessary for Jesus' second coming and for ushering in the Kingdom of Heaven." You got me on that one. I do believe that. That doesn't mean I condone everything that happens, there is a difference between God using the actions of people, and events to complete his sovereign will and him condoning those actions and events. God can use evil for good. If the existence of Israel is evil, God will use it for good. If the war that is going on over there is evil, God will use it for good. I do not condone the war. I don't condone either side's bloodlust. God will use it to accomplish his plan. And for what it's worth I think Gaza should be supported in the same ways. Pray for the people of Gaza. Pray that God uses all this to bring as many Gazans to Christ as possible. Evangelize. Give humanitarian aid (unfortunately very little of that gets through because of the UN).
As for dispensationalism, I never even knew what that even meant until relatively recently (like, last couple years), when I started investigating the topic on account of how frequently it is brought up (to demonize it). I then found that I agree with it on many points. It was like, "Gee why do people hate this dispensation thing so much? Oh, because it is true, lol." To be clear I do not consider myself a dispensationalist, I reserve the right to disagree with any aspect of it if the Holy Spirit leads me as such. But I do seem to align very closely with dispensational teaching theologically. If there are different ways to define dispensationalism that I am unaware of I don't know, but I am aware that there are varying dispensational perspectives, such as progressive dispensationalism, and hyperdispensationalism. I am not clear on the differences between these various dispensational perspectives. I have been focused on studying the neo-Calvinistic system, and more recently Eastern Orthodoxy, rather than studying the differences in these different dispensational views. To be blunt, I have my beliefs and I am unconcerned about what category of Christianity any of said views may fall under. I consider myself non-denominational.
Sliding?? I just called 911 because I'm buried in this avalanche!
Just kidding. I cant let this day go without recognizing your effort in defending your position.
You and I may not completely agree with each other but if we believe in the same God head,
The way is Jesus the Christ, fully God and fully Sovereign,
That we are saved by his will and Grace and the true baptism is of the Holy Spirit we are pretty darn close.
We all need to be wary of Satans tricks and lies.
Personally I think the vast majority of proclaimed Jews are not Israelites.
And they said as much after the war.
That squashes that whole come back as a nation for those people.
The true Israelites are the Anglo Saxon Caucasians and pick a nation.
Sliding?? I just called 911 because I'm buried in this avalanche!
Apologies, I hate being wordy, I usually try very hard to communicate concisely.
You and I may not completely agree with each other but if we believe in the same God head,
The way is Jesus the Christ, fully God and fully Sovereign,
That we are saved by his will and Grace and the true baptism is of the Holy Spirit we are pretty darn close.
Amen, at least we can find some level of agreement.
Personally I think the vast majority of proclaimed Jews are not Israelites.
My perspective is, It is not up to me to sort them out, God will sort them out, and it won't go well for whosoever among them might be fakes. The true Israelites, I believe God will call them home whenever it is their time to return. Some may have returned already. Perhaps more than you think.
Only 1/3 will make it through the fire and be "refined," I believe that the 2/3 that don't make it are the bad ones. That would include whoever among them would not accept Jesus as the Messiah as well as any who might be "fake" Jews.
I personally believe that there are people with Jewish genealogy that would have many other "goy" blood mixed in, some might be white, some might be brown, some might be black, consequentially I think there could be many people that are Jews that look very different from each other. This is simply a result of the diaspora. I do not think that they need to have "pure" Jewish genealogy to be considered a Jew. There is a guy that I follow on YouTube named Tal Oran, he is a Jew, he is also brown. He comes from Iraq. He is an Iraqi Jew. They are called Mizrahi Jews. They trace their Jewish ethnicity all the way back to biblical times and the period of the Babylonian captivity.