Apples and oranges only if you want to dismiss a categorically similar example among MANY.
A hammer can build a cathedral or crack a skull. The moral weight falls on the hand wielding it, not the existence of the hammer itself. Civilization collapses the moment we start blaming instruments for the sins of men.
AI is no different.
A calculator can help an engineer design a bridge or help an embezzler cook books. The internet can stream sermons from faithful churches or distribute degeneracy at industrial scale. Nuclear technology can power cities or vaporize them. Human history is basically one long parade of inventions being used by saints and scoundrels simultaneously. Welcome to life east of Eden.
So when you suggest, “AI will be used for evil,” the answer is: of course it will. So will cars, phones, electricity, and kitchen knives. That observation proves nothing except that sinners exist.
The real question is this:
Who will shape the systems that increasingly influence economics, education, warfare, medicine, communication, and culture?
Because the technology is not going away. That genie is not climbing back into the lamp. Telling America to stop developing AI is like telling 15th century Europe to stop printing books because some people might publish heresy. The only thing that accomplishes is surrendering the press to your enemies while you sit nobly in the dark reading handwritten pamphlets by candlelight.
History is merciless toward civilizations that voluntarily abandon strategic technologies.
If America abandons AI leadership, China will not be like, “Out of fairness, we’ll slow down too.” Authoritarian regimes do not take sabbaticals because Western academics had an ethical panic attack. They will build the models, train the systems, dominate the infrastructure, and export their values through the technology stack itself.
And values will be embedded in the systems.
Every AI model reflects assumptions about truth, morality, authority, sexuality, freedom, economics, religion, and human nature. Pretending technology is “neutral” in the absolute sense is naïve. The people training the model decide what is promoted, censored, rewarded, and punished. That means the worldview behind the machine matters enormously.
So the debate is not:
“AI or no AI?”
The debate is:
“Whose AI?”
A civilization that still has remnants of Christian moral structure, individual liberty, natural law, and human dignity shaping its institutions is vastly preferable to a regime built on technocratic authoritarianism or militant secularism. Even a partially Christian civilization has moral restraints that pagan empires historically lacked. Christianity gave the West concepts like the intrinsic value of the individual, limits on state power, and moral accountability above rulers themselves.
Without that framework, technology becomes untethered power and untethered power is where things become genuinely dangerous.
Ironically, many anti-AI dolts act as though abstaining from development is morally superior. But refusing to build does not eliminate the tool. It merely transfers power to those less restrained in using it. That is not righteousness. That is strategic surrender dressed up as virtue while your enemies clap.
It is a little like refusing to train soldiers because war is tragic. Congratulations, now only your enemies have an army.
The Christian response to powerful tools has never historically been retreat from dominion. Christians pioneered universities, hospitals, scientific inquiry, and printing because the biblical worldview teaches that creation is orderly and can be cultivated responsibly under God. The mandate was never “withdraw from civilization until the bad men stop inventing things.” If that had been the strategy, we would all still be dying from infected paper cuts while pagan warlords argued over whose goat was cursed.
The proper concern is not whether AI exists.
The proper concern is whether virtue, truth, and moral restraint exist in the people building and governing it.
Because the future will absolutely be shaped by AI. The only uncertainty is whether it will be shaped by those who believe man is made in the image of God, or by those who believe man is just programmable livestock with better marketing.
" The only uncertainty is whether it will be shaped by those who believe man is made in the image of God, or by those who believe man is just programmable livestock with better marketing."
Yeah I know the answer because my biblical eschatology is better than yours. God wins... Down here. Jesus is reigning right now as He is seated at the right hand of the father making all of His enemies his footstool. His kingdom never stops expanding.
That's the problem with people not actually believing that God wins and buying into the lie of premillennial dispensationalism where God isn't victorious and the church has to be raptured away. Try to shake that Rothschild funded deception.
And no, I negated your original premise because it wants to live in a fantasyland where AI isn't actually being used and developed by every superpower in the world. Meanwhile I'm actually presenting argumentation from the reality of here and now. You have yet to provide argumentation that actually deals with the fact that AI is being built whether you like it or not.
The only question is who builds it and what worldview is it presupposing..... Christian or secular.
Geoffrey Grider The Real Reason That They Now Hate The Time-Honored CI Scofield Study Bible Is Because It Defends Israel’s Future And The Right Division Of Scripture...The Rothschild-Funded Scofield Study Bible Myth Is A Smear Designed To Attack Dispensational Truth, Rightly Dividing And God’s Future For Israel
Lol dude did you just attack my salvation because I disagreed with you on a non-salvific issue?
That's a dogshit move. Bad dog.
That Bible single-handedly spread a virtually unheard of eschatological position that was first concocted and preached by Darby.
I wouldn't call 200 years in the scope of what SOME Christians started to believe"historical" by any stretch of the imagination. I would say the 1800 years before it would be historical where people had never even heard of premillennial dispensationalism.
Also your grandmother's grandparents and all their ancestors would have believed something completely different. But I guess that's not good enough for you. (Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument)
I'm sorry you think that God loses. That must suck to have such a crappy outlook that is so contrary to scripture and the mental gymnastics it takes to hold that position.
Keep thinking the ship is going down. No point in making anything better if you're sinking eh?
Meanwhile my church helped overturn Roe V Wade and have bills of full abolition and equal protection for the unborn pending all over the United States. Our partner church in DC is where Pete Hegseth attends. We are all post-mill.... like the founding fathers.
The article from Now The End Begins is basically arguing three things at once:
That C.I. Scofield’s dispensationalism is simply “rightly dividing” Scripture.
That critics of Scofield are actually enemies of biblical truth.
That Israel and the Church must remain permanently separated in God’s redemptive plan.
And from a historic postmillennial perspective, that entire framework collapses like a lawn chair under a sumo wrestler.
The Fundamental Problem
The article assumes the Bible is chopped into disconnected compartments instead of unfolding as one covenantal story centered on Christ.
Historic Christianity, whether Augustine, Calvin, the Puritans, or the Reformers, understood that the Old Testament promises culminate in Christ and His Church. The dispensational system popularized by C. I. Scofield was a relatively recent innovation tied heavily to the theology of John Nelson Darby in the 19th century.
That matters because the article writes as though Scofield descended from Sinai carrying leather-bound notes from heaven itself.
But the church somehow survived 1,800 years before Scofield arrived with his charts, arrows, and theological Tupperware containers.
The apostles preached Christ. Scofield preached categories.
The apostles preached one olive tree. Scofield brought pruning shears.
“Rightly Dividing” Does Not Mean “Artificially Separating”
The article leans heavily on 2 Timothy 2:15 and the phrase “rightly dividing.”
But Paul is not teaching Christians to slice the Bible into disconnected dispensations like a theological butcher shop.
The Greek idea carries the sense of handling correctly or cutting straight. It is about faithful interpretation, not constructing separate salvation programs for Jews and Gentiles.
The dispensationalist method often functions like this:
“That verse is for the Jews.” “That part is for the tribulation.” “That kingdom promise is postponed.” “That command applies later.”
Pretty soon, half the Bible is sitting behind yellow caution tape.
Meanwhile, the New Testament repeatedly says the opposite:
Gentiles are grafted into Israel, not placed beside it.
Christ broke down the dividing wall.
Abraham is the father of all who believe.
The promises are “Yes and Amen” in Christ.
Paul explicitly says:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek… for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
That is not theological segregation. That is covenantal fulfillment.
The Great Parenthesis Problem
Classic Scofield dispensationalism teaches that the Church Age is essentially a “pause button” in God’s prophetic plan for ethnic Israel.
That creates enormous theological problems.
It means the kingdom preached by Christ was delayed. It means the cross becomes associated with a contingency plan. It means Pentecost becomes Plan B.
But Scripture presents Christ’s reign as the fulfillment of prophecy, not a divine audible called at the line of scrimmage because Israel rejected the offer.
Peter at Pentecost does not say:
“Well folks, the kingdom got postponed. We’ll try again after the secret rapture.”
No. He says Christ is NOW enthroned on David’s throne.
Christ is reigning now. Not waiting nervously backstage for geopolitical conditions in the Middle East.
Douglas Wilson Style Response
Here is how the rebuttal might sound in that sharper, Wilson-esque tone:
The Scofield system treats the Bible the way a toddler treats waffles. Everything must fit neatly into little squares with syrup-proof barriers between them.
Israel over here. Church over there. Kingdom postponed. Sermon on the Mount quarantined. The Great Commission apparently surviving by sheer luck.
And then we are told this is the “plain reading” of Scripture.
No, it is the plain reading after someone handed you color-coded glasses and a prophecy chart large enough to cover a dining room table.
The early church preached that Jesus was reigning. Scofield preached that Jesus was waiting.
The apostles declared Christ had inherited the nations. Scofield turned Him into a landlord standing outside His own property waiting for the lease agreement to clear.
Dispensationalism has always struggled with one embarrassing fact: the New Testament authors keep applying Old Testament Israel language to the Church.
Peter calls the Church a holy nation. Paul calls believers the seed of Abraham. James addresses the Church as the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Hebrews says the saints have already come to Mount Zion.
The dispensationalist reads this and responds the way a malfunctioning GPS does: “Recalculating. Recalculating.”
The system survives only by maintaining rigid partitions the apostles keep knocking down with sledgehammers.
And then there is the postmillennial issue.
Scofield theology became deeply pessimistic. The world must decline. Cultures must collapse. Apostasy must triumph. Evil must gain momentum until Jesus returns to rescue history from the wreckage.
But Scripture says the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Christ has all authority now. Not after a prophetic timeout. Now.
The kingdom is not retreating. The kingdom is growing.
The mustard seed becomes a tree. The stone becomes a mountain. The leaven works through the loaf.
Dispensationalism often reads those texts like a man explaining why his garden definitely is not supposed to grow.
Historical Weakness of the Article
The article also presents hostility toward Scofield as hostility toward the Bible itself.
But criticism of Scofield is not criticism of Scripture.
Scofield’s notes are not inspired. Many Christians historically rejected dispensational distinctives long before modern internet debates existed. Reformed theologians, covenant theologians, and historic amillennial/postmillennial thinkers opposed the system because they believed it fractured biblical continuity.
Ironically, the article unintentionally elevates Scofield’s commentary to near-canonical status.
Some readers practically treat the notes as the 67th book of the Bible.
You can almost hear it:
“Turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 8 and Scofield footnote C.”
The Postmillennial Alternative
Historic postmillennialism sees:
One covenantal people of God across redemptive history.
Christ reigning presently from heaven.
The gospel progressively discipling the nations.
The kingdom expanding through Word and sacrament.
Old Testament promises fulfilled in Christ and His body.
This was substantially closer to the theology of many Reformers and Puritans than modern dispensationalism ever was.
The Church is not a parenthesis. Christ’s reign is not postponed. The kingdom is not failing. And history is not spiraling meaninglessly downward while Christians wait for evacuation.
Christ is King now, and the nations belong to Him now.
Apples and oranges only if you want to dismiss a categorically similar example among MANY.
A hammer can build a cathedral or crack a skull. The moral weight falls on the hand wielding it, not the existence of the hammer itself. Civilization collapses the moment we start blaming instruments for the sins of men.
AI is no different.
A calculator can help an engineer design a bridge or help an embezzler cook books. The internet can stream sermons from faithful churches or distribute degeneracy at industrial scale. Nuclear technology can power cities or vaporize them. Human history is basically one long parade of inventions being used by saints and scoundrels simultaneously. Welcome to life east of Eden.
So when you suggest, “AI will be used for evil,” the answer is: of course it will. So will cars, phones, electricity, and kitchen knives. That observation proves nothing except that sinners exist.
The real question is this:
Who will shape the systems that increasingly influence economics, education, warfare, medicine, communication, and culture?
Because the technology is not going away. That genie is not climbing back into the lamp. Telling America to stop developing AI is like telling 15th century Europe to stop printing books because some people might publish heresy. The only thing that accomplishes is surrendering the press to your enemies while you sit nobly in the dark reading handwritten pamphlets by candlelight.
History is merciless toward civilizations that voluntarily abandon strategic technologies.
If America abandons AI leadership, China will not be like, “Out of fairness, we’ll slow down too.” Authoritarian regimes do not take sabbaticals because Western academics had an ethical panic attack. They will build the models, train the systems, dominate the infrastructure, and export their values through the technology stack itself.
And values will be embedded in the systems.
Every AI model reflects assumptions about truth, morality, authority, sexuality, freedom, economics, religion, and human nature. Pretending technology is “neutral” in the absolute sense is naïve. The people training the model decide what is promoted, censored, rewarded, and punished. That means the worldview behind the machine matters enormously.
So the debate is not:
“AI or no AI?”
The debate is:
“Whose AI?”
A civilization that still has remnants of Christian moral structure, individual liberty, natural law, and human dignity shaping its institutions is vastly preferable to a regime built on technocratic authoritarianism or militant secularism. Even a partially Christian civilization has moral restraints that pagan empires historically lacked. Christianity gave the West concepts like the intrinsic value of the individual, limits on state power, and moral accountability above rulers themselves.
Without that framework, technology becomes untethered power and untethered power is where things become genuinely dangerous.
Ironically, many anti-AI dolts act as though abstaining from development is morally superior. But refusing to build does not eliminate the tool. It merely transfers power to those less restrained in using it. That is not righteousness. That is strategic surrender dressed up as virtue while your enemies clap.
It is a little like refusing to train soldiers because war is tragic. Congratulations, now only your enemies have an army.
The Christian response to powerful tools has never historically been retreat from dominion. Christians pioneered universities, hospitals, scientific inquiry, and printing because the biblical worldview teaches that creation is orderly and can be cultivated responsibly under God. The mandate was never “withdraw from civilization until the bad men stop inventing things.” If that had been the strategy, we would all still be dying from infected paper cuts while pagan warlords argued over whose goat was cursed.
The proper concern is not whether AI exists.
The proper concern is whether virtue, truth, and moral restraint exist in the people building and governing it.
Because the future will absolutely be shaped by AI. The only uncertainty is whether it will be shaped by those who believe man is made in the image of God, or by those who believe man is just programmable livestock with better marketing.
" The only uncertainty is whether it will be shaped by those who believe man is made in the image of God, or by those who believe man is just programmable livestock with better marketing."
...I think you know the answer to that one...
...which brings us back to my original premise...
Yeah I know the answer because my biblical eschatology is better than yours. God wins... Down here. Jesus is reigning right now as He is seated at the right hand of the father making all of His enemies his footstool. His kingdom never stops expanding.
That's the problem with people not actually believing that God wins and buying into the lie of premillennial dispensationalism where God isn't victorious and the church has to be raptured away. Try to shake that Rothschild funded deception.
And no, I negated your original premise because it wants to live in a fantasyland where AI isn't actually being used and developed by every superpower in the world. Meanwhile I'm actually presenting argumentation from the reality of here and now. You have yet to provide argumentation that actually deals with the fact that AI is being built whether you like it or not.
The only question is who builds it and what worldview is it presupposing..... Christian or secular.
"Try to shake that Rothschild funded deception."
Geoffrey Grider The Real Reason That They Now Hate The Time-Honored CI Scofield Study Bible Is Because It Defends Israel’s Future And The Right Division Of Scripture...The Rothschild-Funded Scofield Study Bible Myth Is A Smear Designed To Attack Dispensational Truth, Rightly Dividing And God’s Future For Israel
https://www.nowtheendbegins.com/real-reason-that-they-hate-the-ci-scofield-kjv-study-bible-that-teaches-right-division/
It was good enough for my Grandmother...
...and it is good enough for me.
I will pray for your eternal soul.
u/#howl
Lol dude did you just attack my salvation because I disagreed with you on a non-salvific issue?
That's a dogshit move. Bad dog.
That Bible single-handedly spread a virtually unheard of eschatological position that was first concocted and preached by Darby.
I wouldn't call 200 years in the scope of what SOME Christians started to believe"historical" by any stretch of the imagination. I would say the 1800 years before it would be historical where people had never even heard of premillennial dispensationalism.
Also your grandmother's grandparents and all their ancestors would have believed something completely different. But I guess that's not good enough for you. (Inconsistency is the sign of a failed argument)
I'm sorry you think that God loses. That must suck to have such a crappy outlook that is so contrary to scripture and the mental gymnastics it takes to hold that position.
Keep thinking the ship is going down. No point in making anything better if you're sinking eh?
Meanwhile my church helped overturn Roe V Wade and have bills of full abolition and equal protection for the unborn pending all over the United States. Our partner church in DC is where Pete Hegseth attends. We are all post-mill.... like the founding fathers.
Good day.
Here's an analysis of the article linked:
The article from Now The End Begins is basically arguing three things at once:
That C.I. Scofield’s dispensationalism is simply “rightly dividing” Scripture.
That critics of Scofield are actually enemies of biblical truth.
That Israel and the Church must remain permanently separated in God’s redemptive plan.
And from a historic postmillennial perspective, that entire framework collapses like a lawn chair under a sumo wrestler.
The Fundamental Problem
The article assumes the Bible is chopped into disconnected compartments instead of unfolding as one covenantal story centered on Christ.
Historic Christianity, whether Augustine, Calvin, the Puritans, or the Reformers, understood that the Old Testament promises culminate in Christ and His Church. The dispensational system popularized by C. I. Scofield was a relatively recent innovation tied heavily to the theology of John Nelson Darby in the 19th century.
That matters because the article writes as though Scofield descended from Sinai carrying leather-bound notes from heaven itself.
But the church somehow survived 1,800 years before Scofield arrived with his charts, arrows, and theological Tupperware containers.
The apostles preached Christ. Scofield preached categories.
The apostles preached one olive tree. Scofield brought pruning shears.
“Rightly Dividing” Does Not Mean “Artificially Separating”
The article leans heavily on 2 Timothy 2:15 and the phrase “rightly dividing.”
But Paul is not teaching Christians to slice the Bible into disconnected dispensations like a theological butcher shop.
The Greek idea carries the sense of handling correctly or cutting straight. It is about faithful interpretation, not constructing separate salvation programs for Jews and Gentiles.
The dispensationalist method often functions like this:
Pretty soon, half the Bible is sitting behind yellow caution tape.
Meanwhile, the New Testament repeatedly says the opposite:
Gentiles are grafted into Israel, not placed beside it.
Christ broke down the dividing wall.
Abraham is the father of all who believe.
The promises are “Yes and Amen” in Christ.
Paul explicitly says:
That is not theological segregation. That is covenantal fulfillment.
The Great Parenthesis Problem
Classic Scofield dispensationalism teaches that the Church Age is essentially a “pause button” in God’s prophetic plan for ethnic Israel.
That creates enormous theological problems.
It means the kingdom preached by Christ was delayed. It means the cross becomes associated with a contingency plan. It means Pentecost becomes Plan B.
But Scripture presents Christ’s reign as the fulfillment of prophecy, not a divine audible called at the line of scrimmage because Israel rejected the offer.
Peter at Pentecost does not say:
No. He says Christ is NOW enthroned on David’s throne.
Christ is reigning now. Not waiting nervously backstage for geopolitical conditions in the Middle East.
Douglas Wilson Style Response
Here is how the rebuttal might sound in that sharper, Wilson-esque tone:
The Scofield system treats the Bible the way a toddler treats waffles. Everything must fit neatly into little squares with syrup-proof barriers between them.
Israel over here. Church over there. Kingdom postponed. Sermon on the Mount quarantined. The Great Commission apparently surviving by sheer luck.
And then we are told this is the “plain reading” of Scripture.
No, it is the plain reading after someone handed you color-coded glasses and a prophecy chart large enough to cover a dining room table.
The early church preached that Jesus was reigning. Scofield preached that Jesus was waiting.
The apostles declared Christ had inherited the nations. Scofield turned Him into a landlord standing outside His own property waiting for the lease agreement to clear.
Dispensationalism has always struggled with one embarrassing fact: the New Testament authors keep applying Old Testament Israel language to the Church.
Peter calls the Church a holy nation. Paul calls believers the seed of Abraham. James addresses the Church as the twelve tribes scattered abroad. Hebrews says the saints have already come to Mount Zion.
The dispensationalist reads this and responds the way a malfunctioning GPS does: “Recalculating. Recalculating.”
The system survives only by maintaining rigid partitions the apostles keep knocking down with sledgehammers.
And then there is the postmillennial issue.
Scofield theology became deeply pessimistic. The world must decline. Cultures must collapse. Apostasy must triumph. Evil must gain momentum until Jesus returns to rescue history from the wreckage.
But Scripture says the knowledge of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. Christ has all authority now. Not after a prophetic timeout. Now.
The kingdom is not retreating. The kingdom is growing.
The mustard seed becomes a tree. The stone becomes a mountain. The leaven works through the loaf.
Dispensationalism often reads those texts like a man explaining why his garden definitely is not supposed to grow.
Historical Weakness of the Article
The article also presents hostility toward Scofield as hostility toward the Bible itself.
But criticism of Scofield is not criticism of Scripture.
Scofield’s notes are not inspired. Many Christians historically rejected dispensational distinctives long before modern internet debates existed. Reformed theologians, covenant theologians, and historic amillennial/postmillennial thinkers opposed the system because they believed it fractured biblical continuity.
Ironically, the article unintentionally elevates Scofield’s commentary to near-canonical status.
Some readers practically treat the notes as the 67th book of the Bible.
You can almost hear it:
“Turn in your Bibles to Romans chapter 8 and Scofield footnote C.”
The Postmillennial Alternative
Historic postmillennialism sees:
One covenantal people of God across redemptive history.
Christ reigning presently from heaven.
The gospel progressively discipling the nations.
The kingdom expanding through Word and sacrament.
Old Testament promises fulfilled in Christ and His body.
This was substantially closer to the theology of many Reformers and Puritans than modern dispensationalism ever was.
The Church is not a parenthesis. Christ’s reign is not postponed. The kingdom is not failing. And history is not spiraling meaninglessly downward while Christians wait for evacuation.
Christ is King now, and the nations belong to Him now.