McMurtry on Dispensations: Part 4

We will continue our series of articles about the distortions and faulty logic of Tommy McMurtry.  In this article, we will demonstrate a healthy supply of both from him.

Part 4 is called, “Where Dispensationalism Leads?”  In most of the video, McMurtry ends up spouting arguments that could just as easily apply to himself.  This is called an association fallacy.  When you encounter this, you need to throw out the guy’s argument. This principle shows up in scripture about the Jewish hypocrites, but it applies here as well, “for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.” Rom 2:1b

The video is entitled, “Where Dispensationalism leads?”  To which we would ask “Where does the New IFB lead?” See how this works?  I like to talk about applying your own ideas to your own ideas, which is something most people in this world don’t do.  Christians should because it is the honest thing to do.

McMurtry claims that because some people who are dispensational have other wild ideas or doctrines, that therefore dispensationalism is wrong.  My question is this: Who cares? We should be worried about “What saith the Scripture” and this entire video is made without that question in mind.  It is the only question that matters.

McMurtry asserts that, “You did not become a dispensationalist because of something you read in the Scriptures.”  By this he means the name “dispensationalist” not the doctrine. To which we respond: “You did not become a Baptist because of something you read in the Scriptures.” and “You did not become a fundamentalist because of something you read in the Scriptures.” and “You did not become a New IFBer because of something you read in the Scriptures.” He is as guilty as the people he claims to be “debunking”.  Again, the only question that matters is, are the ideas of dispensationalism biblical?

He says, “The Bible is not as complicated as a dispensationalist makes it out to be.”  and his proof is Paul’s preaching in I Cor 2:1-4 – “And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know any thing among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

McMurtry designed this claim in order to deceive.  It is partly true and partly false.

If you don’t think that the Bible is a complicated Book, able to stymie the study of the world’s most brilliant thinkers, then you are not dealing with facts.  There are passages, chapters, and some might even claim whole books that NO ONE has a solid handle on. If you read Song of Solomon and think that you are 100% sure of what all is going on there, then you are ignoring large chunks of material.  The same could be said with much of Ezekiel and Zechariah and no one 100% understands everything in Revelation.

But his supposed “proof” for the Bible being easy to understand is Paul’s preaching to the Corinthians.  This has nothing to do with understanding the entire Bible, but with preaching the gospel to lost people.  I don’t preach dispensationalism to lost people, I preach the Gospel. You don’t have to understand the entire Bible to get saved, just the Gospel.  If they have a Bible question, then I will answer it using the ideas of dispensationalism if I have to.  But to be clear, the gospel is easy to understand. That is what we preach to the lost, as Paul did.

Four and five year old kids can understand I Cor 15:3,4 – “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:”  Simple stuff.  But that is the Gospel.  There are other verses and doctrine in the Bible that ARE complicated.  Look at Song of Solomon 8:8, “We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?”  To say that this verse isn’t complicated is to stretch the definition of the word “complicated.”

After a person is saved and he wants to learn the Bible, then I teach him about dispensations.  As we have demonstrated, it is the only way to teach the Bible without making it contradict. McMurtry’s claim doesn’t “stick”.

He then claims that dispensationalism is somehow a fulfillment of II Cor 11:3,4 “But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.”  I have 50 or so articles on this website.  McMurtry can not show one time that I (or any other Bible Believer) has ever preached “another Jesus” or “another spirit” or “another gospel“.  I preach that others existed, but I’ve never preached another Gospel for salvation for today.  What other Bible believers and I preach is completely in line with what Paul tells the Corinthians in II Cor 11.

McMurtry finally gets to his point.  He thinks dispensationalists have some crazy ideas and because he is not being logical, he thinks that those other crazy ideas discredit dispensationalism.  It does not. When you are dealing with Bible Believers, you will quickly realize that none of us believe the same things. If it were not that way, it would mean that we would like a cult in that respect.  Our differences happen because we read the Bible for ourselves. Gipp, Grady, and Sluder have all kinds of ideas that they disagree with each other about. Doctor Ruckman and Scofield would disagree about hundreds of doctrines.  This proves that most dispensationalists care more about what the Bible says, then what everyone else says. The same cannot be said for the Andersonites…

But if we will allow McMurtry to be correct, which he is not, then we will say that two can play at that game.  There are plenty of crazy ideas that New-IFBers believe. Does that discredit the New-IFB movement? According to McMurtry’s logic, it could.

They believe in killing homosexuals.  Does that discredit the New-IFB movement?  According to McMurtry, it could.

They believe that the Holocaust is a hoax.  Does that discredit the New-IFB movement?  According to McMurtry, it could.

They believe in a quasi-Calvinistic, Lordship Salvation Doctrine of Reprobation. Does that discredit the New-IFB movement?  According to McMurtry, it could.

Anderson and his buddy Wittenberger are connected to the fraud Alex Jones, who claims to believe in New Age pantheism.  Does that discredit the New-IFB movement?  According to McMurtry, it could.

These four beliefs are incorrect and as wild as anything any Bible Believer teaches.  But that is not the reason to believe that salvation in the OT is the same as in the NT.  You should reject that theory because it is unbiblical. Reject it independently of these four ideas.  Then, study out the other doctrines of the Andersonites and then reject them one by one, since they are not scriptural.  I hope this demonstrates that McMurtry has bad logic skills AND that he and his associates are just as guilty as anyone of what he accuses.  

Let’s just dig in and give a quick explanation for what these dispensationalists are saying.  My explanation is not an endorsement that I believe their theories.


Gipp doesn’t call Jesus his Messiah.  This is a technical argument and Gipp is well aware that Christ and Messiah are synonyms.  But one is a Hebrew word and one is a Greek word. No Gentile in the Bible calls Jesus his Messiah.  The term is limited to the context of an Israelite King.  I would never say it like Gipp does, but he is technically correct. If you could find one Gentiles, saved or lost, who called Jesus “Messiah” then Gipp would be wrong.  You can’t. Therefore, you cannot prove that Gipp is wrong from the Scriptures.


Sluder and Sowell believe that God wants to populate outer space in eternity.  All this is, is a guess and a theory.  There are a couple of verses that seem to fit, but no one claims that the verses prove 100% the doctrine, it’s just a guess.  But I ask this: what does McMurtry think we will do in eternity? He doesn’t know what he believes, he just thinks Sluder and Sowell are wrong.


Spencer Smith believes that Hollywood movies are conditioning people to accept the Antichrist.  He theorizes that Infinity Ware is “end times told from the AC’s perspective.”  What does this have to do with dispensationalism? Nothing. All I can say, is: so what?


Grady believes that in Rom 2, the Bible teaches that Gentiles were “saved by conscience”.  This is a poor way of saying it, but Grady is not wrong.  That’s what Rom 2 teaches. Rom 2:5-10 – “But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; (talking about Jews who don’t follow the Law) Who will render to every man according to his deeds: To them (Jews and Gentiles) who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (someone got salvation by works, it’s what the text says.) But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, 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:” More works in the passage.  Vs 15 tells us the means of Gentiles determining their good works (This is all before the cross…) “Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.”  


If you don’t believe that Gentiles were saved before the cross by following their consciences, then I ask this?  How did they get saved? Read about Job, Ruth, Naaman, the Ninevites, or any Gentiles in the OT and show me where they trusted in Jesus Christ to save them from hell?  You cannot. Grady gave the truth, even if he said it poorly.


Gipp believes that for 40 days before the Rapture, dead Christians will return to their bodies and go around and witness until the Lord takes them up.  Lots of people have rejected this teaching and still continued to believe and teach dispensationalism.  I see Gipp’s point, but I think he is using unclear verses to make doctrine which is a bad idea generally.  


As far out as some of these teachings are, they are still not as crazy as Holocaust denial and Anderson’s Doctrine of Reprobation.  But if you are honest you will look at each of these doctrines separately and determine, with the help of the Holy Spirit, if they are Biblical or not.  That is a correct way of dealing with doctrine.  McMurtry wants to appeal to people’s emotions.  He should have tried to get people to ask…




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 )

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s