You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
13
WhatWouldMountainDew on scored.co
1 month ago13 points(+0/-0/+13Score on mirror)3 children
What he's talking about falls under the broad umbrella of modern "Dispensationalism" which originated with John Nelson Darby in the early 1800's. I specify *modern* because dispensationalism as a concept has existed for thousands of years and simply acknowledges that God has dealt with humanity in different ways throughout history. The way He related to different OT saints is different from how He relates to saints in the Church age. The type of Dispensationalism that Darby taught introduced a sharp divide between the Church and Israel.
Scofield rewrote Darby's theology as "notes" in his study Bible however, I believe it was KJV and he didn't alter the actual text in any substantive way. The damage came from the commentary and telling people the Bible was teaching Dispensationalism.
I will say that in fairness to Dispensational theologians (even though they are enablers), modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit to provide a "Biblical" justification for unquestioning loyalty to *our greatest ally*™
Yeah, I call it Pre-Millenial Dispensationalism because its something different from OG Dispensationalism. Dual Covenant "theology" is basically the big heresy of Pre-Millenialism, because the bible outright states that the actual Jews who rejected Christ were cut off and the Gentiles who accepted Him were grafted in their place, which completely contradicts Dual-Covenantism. Even the Modernists infesting the Church think Dual-Covenant theology is shaky and havent embraced it, though they still refuse to openly preach Supresessionism (which is the official Church teaching) because they are either false converts from jewery or simply boomers afraid of the jews. Also, Dual Covenantism doesnt make any sense because Christ literally called out the people who rejected Him as not even being actual Jews (and the ones today arent even ethnically Hebrew).
1 month ago2 points(+0/-0/+2Score on mirror)1 child
No. Scofield reinterpreted the Bible to conflate jews and Israelites to make supporting jews instrumental to bringing about the second coming of Jesus. It was all about making Christians serve jews.
I don't think we're in disagreement. Dispensationalists have a unique view of eschatology and how that will bring about the end times that's not found in any other theology.
Since Dispensationalism has really only been around since the 1800's, some Dispensationalists will claim that some of the Church fathers who supported premillennialism were Dispensationalists, but the reality is you can be a premillennialist without being a Dispensationalist but you can't be a Dispensationalist without being a (very specific type of) premillennialist.
1 month ago4 points(+0/-0/+4Score on mirror)2 children
Yes, Darby influenced Scofield. Certain elements of Dispensationalism existed before Darby but he was the first person to do serious work systematizing those theological distinctives.
That's part of the reason I say that "modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit". There's a lot more to Dispensational theology than dividing God's people into two groups but these days everything except literal interpretations of land promises has been abandoned and all you're left with is "the modern nation state of Israel is God's chosen people and if we don't given them infinite money God will curse us."
1 month ago1 point(+0/-0/+1Score on mirror)1 child
Supposedly, the theological groundwork for Darby's Dispensational theology originated from counter-reformation Jesuit priests defending the RCC against accusations of the pope being anti-Christ and the RCC being the "whore of Babylon" mentioned in Revelation.
If that is a pointed question expecting the response to be "the jews", I don't think there's evidence for that. After Darby, the jews definitely hijacked the Dispensational system of interpretation in the late 1800's because the rise of the Scofield Bible seems to coincide with Theodor Herzl's zionism.
Scofield rewrote Darby's theology as "notes" in his study Bible however, I believe it was KJV and he didn't alter the actual text in any substantive way. The damage came from the commentary and telling people the Bible was teaching Dispensationalism.
I will say that in fairness to Dispensational theologians (even though they are enablers), modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit to provide a "Biblical" justification for unquestioning loyalty to *our greatest ally*™
Since Dispensationalism has really only been around since the 1800's, some Dispensationalists will claim that some of the Church fathers who supported premillennialism were Dispensationalists, but the reality is you can be a premillennialist without being a Dispensationalist but you can't be a Dispensationalist without being a (very specific type of) premillennialist.
That's part of the reason I say that "modern day Dispensationalism is really nothing more than Zionism wearing Dispensationalism as a skinsuit". There's a lot more to Dispensational theology than dividing God's people into two groups but these days everything except literal interpretations of land promises has been abandoned and all you're left with is "the modern nation state of Israel is God's chosen people and if we don't given them infinite money God will curse us."
If that is a pointed question expecting the response to be "the jews", I don't think there's evidence for that. After Darby, the jews definitely hijacked the Dispensational system of interpretation in the late 1800's because the rise of the Scofield Bible seems to coincide with Theodor Herzl's zionism.
Dispensationalism is trash. How useless. Obviously we are evolving and things change. Zero useful detail.