Here is the source article:
Without going through the entire series of almost completely disconnected ramblings that Stewart tries to pass off as an article, we will look at Stewart’s five reasons that he doesn’t like Dispensationalism.
People, like Stewart, are free to believe whatever they want. But Stewart’s reasons in this article are proof that this man’s brain doesn’t work well. If you choose to reject dispensationalism, that’s fine, but don’t use these dumb reasons. 1 Cor 14:38 – “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.”
Here are Stewart’s reasons:
First, it is MANMADE.
This contradicts his fourth point which calls dispensationalism a doctrine of devils. So who was it? Did men or the Devil create dispensationalism? See how his thinking doesn’t work? He just rambles.
More importantly, if you are a Bible reader, you must admit that Paul, inspired by God Almighty himself, is the “maker” of dispensationalism. In that sense, it is “MANMADE”. But clearly the ultimate creator of the doctrine is God. Romans 9-11 gives the outline for dispensations. Also, look at Ephesians 3:1-6 – “For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles, If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward: How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words, Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ) Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:” God showed Paul a mystery. He showed him that Jews and Gentiles would make up one body and get in on the promises through Christ. That didn’t exist before the Cross. (Eph 2:16) Did man do this? Did Darby and Scofield do this or invent this? No. Without any doubt whatsoever, God is the author of dispensationalism.
Second, it gives the Bible student a predisposed mindset toward the Holy Scriptures, before he or she has even studied the Scriptures for them self.
Here, I must give a word of testimony. When I first picked up a Bible as a teen, with no human influence, I figured that the works of offering a lamb in the Old Testament were required for forgiveness. (See the 8 times that “it shall be forgiven him” shows up in the Book of Leviticus where it always comes from the work of a sacrifice, not faith) When I started living for God, I ran across the teaching about Old Testament saints looking “forward to the cross”. Although I had different thoughts as a teenager, I really did become a believer that salvation was the same in the Old Testament as in the New Testament. I hadn’t run into dispensationalism yet. You can’t accuse me of having a “predisposed mindset toward the Holy Scriptures” because I believed what Stewart believes.
But after believing this for a while, I asked a Bible Believer about it. He took me immediately to Eze 18. If you see salvation by grace through faith in the finished work of Christ in Ezekiel 18, then you have an issue with both your heart and your brain. If you can look at the life of Samson and Saul and still think there is eternal security in the Old Testament (outside of a few exceptions), then you have heart and head trouble. The word “faith” only shows up 2 times in the Old Testament but 245 times in the much smaller New Testament. How can you claim that salvation was by faith alone in both Testaments? Answer: heart trouble.
Third, Dr. Cyrus Scofield (as John Hagee today) had known connections with Zionism Jews, which is a major conflict of interest.
Here, Stewart employs what is called a diversionary tactic. He is getting away from the point. The point isn’t “What does Scofield say?” or “Does a major proponent of dispensationalism have strange connections?” The only question that matters is “WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES?” If the Scriptures teach dispensationalism then it’s the truth. If they don’t, then throw dispensationalism out. That is all that matters.
But we could also bring up the point that Paul, the creator of dispensationalism, had known connections with “Zionism Jews”. Is that a major conflict of interest? Paul loved those Jews (at that time basically every Jew in the world was a Zionist) so much that he said in Rom 9:3-5, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh: Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises; Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” Paul is so connected to the Zionists, of which he was before salvation, that he would rather go to Hell than have them be sent there. How different this attitude is than the anti-Semitic jokers connected to the Bible blockhead, Jack Hyles. I’m of course referencing Anderson and Stewart.
Scofield, and any connections he may have had with Jews, has no bearing on the truth. The fact that people like Stewart and Anderson bring this up all the time only demonstrates their faulty logic. The more of their material that you read or watch, the more you will see that they don’t have a “sound mind“.
Fourth, tens-of-thousands of Baptists and other religious denominations have been misled by Dispensationalism to conclude multiple plans of salvation, which is a doctrine of Devils.
As I said in response to point #1, Stewart doesn’t have enough brains to notice that he contradicts himself. In point #1, he claims dispensationalism came from men. Here, in point #4, he claims that it came from devils. Where is your “sound mind“?
But here again we see Stewart using a diversionary tactic. What does this have to do with “What Saith The Scriptures?” If you would go back and look at church history, you could find Baptist churches believing all sorts of things. So what? What Saith The Scriptures?
Fifth, As Atty. Philip Mauro correctly points out (see quotes to follow) from the Bible, God has already made Two Great Divisions in His Word; namely, the Old Testament and the New Testament.
Most of what we have gone over in the first four points is just simple answer to accusations. Here we are given the doctrine that Stewart believes. His answer to “What is rightly dividing?” is just to divide between Old Testament and New Testament. Which is generally true of course. But making that the only division in the Bible is a mistake for a number of reasons.
The first is that the New Testament itself claims that the New Testament doesn’t start until the death of Christ. Hebrews 9:16 – “For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.” So the Bible says that even though the majority of the four Gospels are in the “New Testament”, the first parts of those books are not in the New Testament. I personally believe that God made it this way to test men’s hearts. Without any doubt, Stewart fails the test and is guilty of rank heresy as we shall demonstrate.
The Devil wants Christians to believe as Stewart and Mauro do, because as soon as you take this attitude, the Charismatics, Seventh Day Adventists, and people who believe you can lose your salvation step in and say, “Gotcha.” If you take Mauro and Stewart’s way of thinking, then you have no answers to these heresies because all through the Gospels and parts of Acts, people are observing the Sabbath Day (Saturday) and Jesus Christ prophesied of tongues and people spoke in tongues in Acts. If the only division is between Old and New Testament, then how are you not a Charismatic Seventh Day Adventists? The only way to go against those heresies is to show the changes from God’s dealings with Israel to God dealing with the Church.
You don’t need to know much Bible to know that tongues are in the New Testament. Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 19 have Christians speaking in tongues. If the only division is Old and New Testament, why doesn’t old Stewart speak in tongues like in Acts? He can’t answer the question, because is presupposition is incorrect. To be very specific, the practice that I am referring to is a man speaking in a language that he doesn’t know. That is what is going on in Acts, not Charismatic gibberish. Stewart has never gotten up and opened his mouth and spoken in Xhosa. His doctrine doesn’t fit his practice.
The Book of the Acts is a transition from Israel to the Church. I Cor 14:22 says, “Wherefore tongues are for a sign” and I Cor 1:22 says, “For the Jews require a sign“. That is a Jewish thing and it’s all through the New Testament. Why doesn’t Stewart practice it? He has no answer. You need to make more divisions than just Old Testament and New Testament. Or else you look like an idiot. That is to say, you will look like Stewart.
The other issue that comes up is the Sabbath. Christ kept the Sabbath. Luke 4:16 – “And he came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up: and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the sabbath day, and stood up for to read.” Luke is in the New Testament. If we go by the New Testament, then why is Stewart going to Jack Hyles Buhptist Church on Sunday and Wednesday instead of Saturday? His theology doesn’t hold water.
We know that because of things in Acts and the Pauline Epistles, Sunday (or really any day) can be a day of worship, not necessarily rest as the Old Testament prescribed for Saturday. But that requires to look at the Bible Dispensationally. Something Stewart is too blind to understand.
Unless you make more divisions in the Bible than just OT-NT, then you can’t explain why a Seventh Day Adventist is wrong about the sabbath and we should be going to church on Saturday.
The third issue that Stewart can’t handle is eternal security. Hebrew 6:4-6 says, “For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.” There is no way to think that Hebrews 6 doesn’t teach conditional security without mangling the text beyond recognition. I would say the same things about Hebrews 10:26-29 which says, “For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses’ law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?”
These verses, when you believe the plain text of the Bible, contradict the doctrine of eternal security. This contradiction only exists if the only division is OT-NT, like Stewart says. But not if you look at the Scriptures dispensationally. We can see that those verses are dealing with the situation that Jews in the Tribulation will find themselves in. The verses have nothing to do with a saved Gentile in the Church Age. Stewart might know about Hyles and those guy’s teachings, but he is a blockhead when it comes to the scriptures.
More could be written about the ridiculousness found in Stewart’s article, but that is enough for today. Stewart is a fool who pretends to take the Scriptures seriously, but in the end, his final authority is Jack Hyles and his ilk and the historic religion of the Baptists. Feel free to read his articles, but as always, remember the question: WHAT SAITH THE SCRIPTURES?