McMurtry on Dispensations: Part. 1

So Anderson’s buddy, Tommy McMurtry, has begun a series of videos about Dispensationalism.  This will be a great example of the deceptiveness of the New IFB movement.  They give more Bible references than the typical Fundy, but they are very deceptive in so doing.  It admittedly takes a lot of work to watch all their junk videos and unpackage all the false information and manipulation of texts.  So we will do as best as we can to expose them.

First, let me say that I officially hate the word, DEBUNK.  It is a made up Americanism with a ridiculous etymology that, at its root, means absolutely nothing.  In my opinion, we should try and use better words like: EXPOSE, UNMASK, or DISPROVE.  But that is just a personal opinion…  Let’s quickly move on.

In McMurtry’s first video, he takes up the issue of “What does it mean to rightly divide?”  He begins by bringing up the petty issue that if you don’t rightly divide, you won’t have “a mess” as most dispensationalists are wont to say, you will be “ashamed.”  This exemplifies the faulty thinking of Anderson and his goons.  Isn’t it fair to say that if a man makes a mess, he will be ashamed?  Of course, that is basic logic, something that McMurtry is happy to throw out the window, if it makes his videos go longer and get hearty amens from the comment section.

Next, he defines the “rightly dividing” of II Tim 2:15 as “correctly presenting or preaching”.  I feel like I just made that up, but that really is his official definition.  What a great example of his duplicity.  Truly, “rightly” means “correctly”  Gen 27:36, Luke 7:43, and Luke 20:21 prove it.  These all line up with the dictionary definition.

But after correctly defining “rightly” he does the complete opposite when he defines, “dividing”.  “Dividing” shows up 7 times in the KJB and all but one are clearly agreeing with the dictionary definition of, “Parting; separating; distributing; disuniting; apportioning to each his share.”  The only one that is not CLEARLY in agreement is the one example that McMurtry uses.  “But all these worketh that one and the selfsame Spirit, dividing to every man severally as he will.” 1 Cor 12:11.  McMurtry jams in his personal interpretation of “dividing” as “to give something out.”  But this will NOT work.  Try putting his definition into Heb 4:12, “For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing (giving something out???) asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.” or Isaiah 63:12, “That led them by the right hand of Moses with his glorious arm, dividing (giving something out????) the water before them, to make himself an everlasting name?”  His definition won’t work.

To be sure, the Bible’s plain definition of “separating” does indeed fit I Cor 12.  God has a bunch of gifts and he separates them to each member of the Body of Christ. That is perfectly acceptable, unlike McMurtry’s private interpretation.  If his interpretation and definition doesn’t fit the Scripture, then throw them out.

Next, McMurtry claims that nothing in the context of II Tim 2 has anything to do with dispensations.  We will examine that claim.

And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.” 2 Tim 2:2.  Paul is pushing what a guy could call Pauline doctrine.  Notice he isn’t talking about following Christ per se, although Paul definitely followed Christ (I Cor 11:1), he just didn’t preach the exact same things.  Christ preached that a man could lose his salvation (John 15), Paul preaches that you can’t.  Christ preached that forgiveness is dependent on forgiving others, Matt 6:15,  etc, etc, etc.  When Paul and Christ contradict, as they often do, then today, we go with Paul.  That is the verse.

Verse 7 says, “Consider what I say; and the Lord give thee understanding in all things.”  Again, this is a foundational verse for dispensationalism, just as vs 2.  We look at Paul for our doctrine and when something else in the Bible doesn’t fit something that Paul wrote, then we admit that the other verse is 100% true for another time period.

Verse 8 talks about “my gospel” which is emphasized in distinction to the other gospels preached by Christ and others before Acts 7.  Classic Dispensationalism.

Verses 17 and 18 say, “And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.” You have to rightly divide to know that there is more than one resurrection.  The resurrection of Christ and the OT saints had already happened, but the Rapture, which is undoubtedly what the issue was, had NOT happened yet.  This is an issue of dispensationalism.

So again, McMurtry was wrong about the defining words and the context of II Tim 2:15, but he valiantly continues on by reading a pamphlet from someone who is not dispensational, supposedly showing how stupid dispensationalists are.  He shows how this guy, Dr Charles Hiltibidal, will go to Matt 24 to prove that the Rapture is imminent.  But you don’t have to believe in the immanency of the Pretribulation Rapture to be a dispensationalist.  Many dispensational Bible Believers can understand that a few things happen before the Rapture (II Thess 2), but that is topic for another blog post.

In conclusion, McMurtry has been wrong on just about every topic that he has discussed in his video.  He incorrectly defined “dividing“.  He was wrong about the context of II Tim 2:15 not having anything to do with dispensationalism.  And he was wrong about what dispensationalists teach.  But I want to finish by pointing out some hypocrisy:


To demonstrate this, look at how the Anderson crowd deals with the issue of the Sabbath and other laws.  They claim that there are ceremonial laws and moral laws.  The moral laws, like killing homosexuals are still applicable today and the ceremonial laws like the Sabbath are not applicable.  This is a dividing up of the Bible.  Whether this is true or not, it shows that all Baptists are a little bit dispensational, the issue is how much.  Anderson and McMurtry need to face the facts and realize that they need to “divide” better. Or else? Or else, they will be “ashamed” when they make a mess out of things, as McMurtry has done in the past and, unfortunately, will continue to do.  As we have pointed out, Anderson’s church’s relationship with Modalism is directly related to his rejection of dispensationalism.  What a mess!

One thought on “McMurtry on Dispensations: Part. 1

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s