Before we dive into a correction of the mistakes of McMurtry’s newest video, I want to illustrate the thinking and logic problems of the followers of Steven Anderson. This is from a conversation this week where I try to get an Andersonite to read one of my articles…
Me: Are you sure he (Anderson) is right? Have you looked at the other side? (I then provided a link to my article)
Andersonite: You sound like the serpent of Genesis 3! Yea, hath God said???
Me: So questioning the words of Anderson is like questioning the words of God?
The Andersonite immediately deleted the conversation! But what a telling illustration. (edit: I was wrong. My Facebook skills must not be very good, because the guy showed me that the dialogue is still there. I stand corrected. However my point still stands. It’s scary that anyone would put the words of a man on the same level as the words of God!)
I want to begin this article by stating some dispensational truths that I don’t feel McMurtry understands. He is very guilty of misrepresenting what dispensationalists believe and I don’t want any readers to make the same mistakes.
Truth: Dispensationalists believe that an individual Jew without Christ is lost and needs to get saved or they will die and go to hell when they die. They ought to be preached the same Gospel (I Cor 15:3,4) that we preach to lost Gentiles. There are weirdos like Hagee, etc that don’t think Jews are lost. That is heresy and we wholeheartedly agree with McMurtry’s cross references to Jews being lost today.
There are also weirdos today that we call Hyperdispensationalists who think that there is a difference between the content of our preaching to Jews vs the content of our preaching to Gentiles. Their “proof” is Gal 2 but their interpretation does not fit the book of Romans or Acts 15. I have an article about it here. These two heresies are examples of WRONGLY dividing the word of truth.
But beyond that, we understand the character of God and that, “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes.” Rom 11:28. They’re lost individually, but there is still something about them nationally. Exactly what that “something” is, will hopefully become more clear as we look at the verses in McMurtry’s video and examine what they are saying.
“Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Gentiles, nor to the church of God:” 1Co 10:32
This is the main verse of the video and McMurtry wants you to think that this verse is not talking about dispensationalism. But I have to ask, Does it have to be about dispensationalism? McMurtry has made up a rule that only verses talking about dispensationalism can be used in a discussion about dispensationalism. If it fits the rest of Scripture that there are primarily three groups of people addressed in the Bible, then this verse is ok to use to prove it. McMurtry’s “rule” isn’t applicable. The context of the verse is that there are “in God’s sight” three main groups of people and the Christian should not be going around and offending any of them.
McMurtry’s main thesis is that dispensationalists are wrong about God addressing three main groups of people in the Bible and that there really are only two: lost and saved. Let us look at the verses that he uses and see if simple math comes up with two or three.
“For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.” Rom 1:16
No one would argue that the people being addressed is the church (1:7). So that is one. Now read the verse. How many groups are there in the verse? I didn’t ask if Jews and Greeks were both lost. I asked how many groups are in the verse. The church is the audience. The Jews are the second group. And the Greeks (obviously a reference to Gentiles) are the third group. So with basic reading and math skills a man should be able to see that McMurtry is actually proving the point of the dispensationalists. Oh, the irony…
“Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile; But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:” Rom 2:9,10
Again, the last time I checked, after I got out my phone to use its calculator, 1+1+1=3. So this group of verses is talking about the three groups that dispensationalists talk about. How ironic…
But McMurtry continues on to verse 11, “For there is no respect of persons with God.” And here, McMurtry tries to make the verse say that there is no respect of NATIONS with God, which there most certainly is. Read your Old Testament and you will see God killing kings and destroying nations (Egypt in Exodus, the nations of Canaan in Joshua, Babylon and Assyria, etc.) The verse is saying that on a personal level, both Jews and Gentiles are lost without Christ. All dispensationalists believe that. To say otherwise is to purposefully misrepresent what we believe.
“What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.” Rom 3:1,2
Here, in order to fuel to the fire of his anti-Semitism, McMurtry changes the text. He changes the present tense “hath” of the text to a past tense “had”. Check me to see if I’m wrong. It is a little after the 7 minute mark of his video. Pretty sneaky. It matters because they still have the oracles of God, no matter what the Eastern Orthodox Church teaches about the Greek Septuagint (but that doesn’t matter for this article). Maybe it’s not such a big deal, but it illustrates a flippant attitude towards the handling of the text. Now, let’s do our math again. The church is the audience (1). The Jew hath the oracles of God (2). The gentiles don’t have the oracles of God (3). If you have to take your shoes off to figure out how many groups of people are in the text, then you might be an… oh, never mind.
Finally he ends up in Rom 3:23 trying to prove that there are only two groups of people when every verse that he has used has taught that there are three groups of people and two of them are lost. Rom 3:23 is not a reference to groups of people.
Just face facts. The book of Romans and its author, Paul, are where the teachings of dispensationalism began. The truth of dispensationalism was further reinforced in the book of Ephesians and other places in the New Testament. IT WAS NOT STARTED BY DARBY AND SCOFIELD. Paul taught that there are three main groups of people and Paul is teaching after the cross. Darby and Scofield were flawed men. For that matter, Doctor Ruckman and Larkin and me and all people are nothing like Paul. Their personal failings have nothing to do with whether dispensationalism is correct or not. If you have a problem with dispensationalism, take it up with Paul and God Almighty. Now let me get off my soapbox and get on with the article…
“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” Gal 3:26
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Gal 3:28,29
“Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” Col 3:11
These three verses, along with eight verses from Eph 2, are used by McMurtry to teach that there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles. He especially focuses on, “For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;” Eph 2:14.
But there are two main points that McMurtry glosses over in order to make you think that these verses prove his theory. First, the verses aren’t talking about lost people, they are talking about saved people, unless you are stupid enough to think that lost people can be “in Christ“? See “in Christ” in Gal 3:26. See “in Christ” in Gal 3:28. See “in Christ” in Eph 2:13. And then find anything in Col 3 that even hints that verse 11 is talking about or addressing lost people. McMurtry vainly tries to prove that OUTSIDE OF CHRIST there is neither Jew nor Greek and he has miserably failed. The verses talk about the church because it is only the church that is “in Christ“.
Second, even if we pretend that the first point isn’t true, then you run into a problem when Gal 2:28 says, “there is neither male nor female“. We live a day and age where people are confused about gender roles. To think that this verse talks about no distinction in races, then you would have to admit that there is no distinction in genders. It’s what the verse says. How can homosexual marriage be wrong? “There is neither male nor female” Right? Anderson and his crowd are in a tough spot here, so they will conveniently ignore the issue.
Of course, as a Bible Believer, we know that there is a spiritual truth that, in Christ, racial, gender, and economic distinctions are worthless and we are truly nothing more than saved sinners. These verses have nothing to do with there not being three main groups of people in the world.
McMurtry claims that “dispensationalists are trying rebuild the middle wall of separation” that was broken down in Eph 2:14. But the middle wall is only broken down in Christ. Outside of Christ and even physically speaking, there are clearly distinctions of race, gender, and economics. If you think that because the middle wall of separation is still true, then do all people have the same amount of talent in basketball? This is a silly illustration, but it proves my point. Differences exist and we can still believe every word in every verse of Ephesians 2 and still believe and teach dispensations.
But McMurtry takes everything a step further and begins to teach full fledged Replacement Theology where the church is the chosen people of God and all the promises of Abraham, etc are given to the church. But as I’ve asked over and over again, does that mean that the land was given to the church? And if so, why don’t we get some guns and go take our land? That is where Replacement Theology falls apart. It doesn’t practice what it preaches… It doesn’t walk the talk…
Finally, McMurtry masterfully mixes truth and error by going to John 3 and showing how Jesus told Nicodemus (a Jew) that he must be born again. I know of no dispensationalist that would disagree with McMurtry on that, that Jews need to be born again. So for the umpteenth time, he has been caught misrepresenting the dispensational position.
We understand that the Lord said, “There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God.” Luke 13:28,29. That current generation of Jews were going to miss out on both the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of Heaven (Matt 8:11) if they weren’t careful. And they weren’t. Nevertheless, after the rejection and crucifixion of the Messiah by Israel, we read in Rom 11 that, “As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the fathers’ sakes. ” (vs 28). They are personally lost and nationally against the Gospel, however, God still has a love for them.
“Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.” 1Cor 15:50
McMurtry uses this verse to prove that the coming kingdom cannot be given to the Jews. But he is conveniently leaving out the fact that Israel will get saved, nationally, at the end of the Tribulation (the time of Jacob’s sorrows or Daniel’s 70th week). Look at Rom 11:26,27, “And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob: For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.” Flesh and blood doesn’t inherit the Kingdom. A bunch of Jews get saved as a nation and THEN they inherit the Kingdom. Either McMurtry is not as familiar with dispensationalism as he claims or else he is deliberately leaving out huge pieces of the puzzles on purpose.
He closes out his video by telling dispensationalists to “stop trying to elevate people because of a bloodline.” To which I can only respond by saying, TAKE IT UP WITH GOD.
If you are reading this and you are unfamiliar with the teachings of a Bible Believer, we would recommend the books by Doctor Ruckman and the videos of Pastor Gene Kim. If you have believed Steven Anderson and his followers in the past, that is not a problem, but when you are faced with the truth, you need to act. As the old preachers used to say, GET RIGHT WITH GOD.
Vake Biblia 