OK, I have been to Israel several times as well as Egypt, Jordan etc.. This video is manipulative and mixes error with truth. The SDA Church "believes the Christian church is the historical continuation of the Old Testament Israel as God's people, centered around Jesus, and that Old Testament end-time prophecies are fulfilled in the church. This stands in contrast to dispensationalism, a popular conservative Christian view, which sees a prominent place for the nation of Israel in the end-times." Ellen G. White and early SDA pioneers taught that "the OT prophecies concerning Israel constitute a declaration of God's purpose with respect to the Jews as the covenant people; these prophecies were strictly conditional upon their cooperation; by rejecting Jesus as the Messiah the Jewish nation withdrew from the covenant relationship and forfeited its special relationship to God under the covenant." So on the question of whether modern political Israel holds special prophetic status, SDA theology would say no—the covenant promises transferred to the church and not the people. Here is what is wrong with this video: 1. The "Zionist Conspiracy" Behind the Scofield Bible Is Unsubstantiated The video claims the Scofield Reference Bible was funded by Zionists as part of a deliberate manipulation campaign. However, "the claim that Zionist Jews or the Rothschild family funded the Scofield Reference Bible lacks credible evidence. The documented history points to dedicated Christian businessmen who supported Scofield's work out of a shared commitment to their theological convictions. Research has identified Scofield's actual funders: "Alwyn Ball, Jr. of New York, John T. Pirie of Chicago, John Buss of St. Louis, Francis E. Fitch"—Christian businessmen, not Jewish financiers. "These claims lack credible evidence and are widely debunked as conspiracy theories rooted in antisemitic tropes about Jewish financial control (e.g., Rothschild myths dating to the 19th century)." Ellen White warned against conspiracy-minded thinking that attributes evil motives without evidence. The Bible says, "by their fruits you shall know them" (Matthew 7:16), not "by your suspicions about their funding sources." 2. Premillennialism Predates Scofield by 1,800 Years The video implies that belief in a literal millennium and future restoration was "invented" in the early 1900s through the Scofield Bible. This is historically false. "The pervasiveness of premillennialism in the early church in general was so great that Philip Schaff once declared: 'The most striking point in the eschatology of the ante-Nicene age is the prominent chiliasm, or millenarianism, that is the belief of a visible reign of Christ in glory on earth with the risen saints for a thousand years, before the general resurrection and judgment. It was indeed not the doctrine of the church embodied in any creed or form of devotion, but a widely current opinion of distinguished teachers, such as Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Methodius, and Lactantius.'" Justin Martyr (AD 100-165) wrote: "But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, as the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare." Papias (A.D. 60–130), "a hearer of John" the Apostle according to Irenaeus, "represented a chiliastic [premillennial] tradition which had its antecedents in Palestine." The early church fathers who held these views had "no connection to 20th-century Zionism"—they lived 1,800 years before it existed. 3. Dispensationalism and Historic Premillennialism Are Different The video conflates all premillennial views as "Zionist manipulation." But "ancient Church chiliasts like Irenaeus did indeed argue that some of God's promises to Israel had to be fulfilled literally in a kingdom on earth, but they recognized that the humble recipients of this kingdom would be spiritual Israel, all who confessed Jesus as God's Messiah, regardless of their national or ethnic origin." This is closer to the SDA position than to dispensationalism. The early church held premillennial views "without" the modern dispensationalist teaching about a separate program for ethnic Israel. 4. Ellen White and SDA theology teach that God's promises were conditional: "'These promises were conditional on obedience' (PK 704). 'As they would obey the divine laws, they would receive the divine blessing.' 'The promises and the threatenings of God are alike conditional' (Ev 695)." This is grounded in Scripture. Jeremiah 18:7-10 states: "The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster that I thought to bring upon it. And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and to plant it, if it does evil in My sight so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I said I would benefit it." 5. Genesis 12:3 Must Be Interpreted Carefully The video dismisses "bless Israel to be blessed" as a Zionist slogan. A more careful biblical analysis shows the promise was made to Abraham personally and his spiritual descendants: "The prophecy did not say, 'I will bless those who bless Israel...and curse those who curse Israel.' Although this is presented that way in modernity. Rather, it was stated, 'I will bless those who bless THEE and curse him who curses THEE.' The reference is clearly to Abram." The Apostle Paul clarifies in Galatians 3:8-9 that this promise referred to the gospel being preached to all nations through Abraham's seed—Jesus Christ—not unconditional support for a political state. "Blessing the Israel of God, therefore, does not mean supporting every policy of the modern nation-state of Israel... The Israel of God is Jesus Christ and all those who are united to Him by faith alone in his church." 6. This video is a "hype" piece set to enrage people and to push an emotional and political agenda in my mind. The video uses language like "psychological operation," "programming," "spell," and "brainwashing" to describe Christians who hold different theological views. This is base rhetoric: Millions of believers are portrayed as mindless dupes rather than sincere students of Scripture who have reached different conclusions. Employs ad hominem attacks: Rather than engaging theological arguments, the video attacks motivations and funding sources. Ellen White counseled: "The spirit of Christ will lead His followers to be kind, considerate, and tender toward those in error" (Gospel Workers, p. 373. Calling fellow Christians "programmed" or "spiritually sick" violates this principle. 8. Historical Accuracy Matters ( I spent decades as an LDS historian) The video makes sweeping historical claims that require verification: Claim: The Balfour Declaration was purely a "British imperial document" exchanged for "global political influence." Reality: The historical motivations were complex, involving genuine religious convictions among British leaders (like Lloyd George, raised on the Bible), strategic wartime considerations, humanitarian concerns about Jewish persecution, and yes, political calculations. Reducing it to a single conspiratorial motive in 20 minutes oversimplifies history. The Claim here..: Christian support for Israel was "engineered" starting in the early 1900s. What history shows: Christian Zionism has roots in 17th-century Puritanism, and various forms of restorationism existed long before Theodore Herzl. The theological streams that fed into modern Christian Zionism developed over centuries not just the 20th. The video raises some legitimate theological concerns about dispensationalism and uncritical political support for any nation. From an SDA perspective, these concerns have merit. But its focus is a problem to me as someone who has been there, knows many people who live there as well as some Palestinians. It plays hard and fast with the truth. 1. It relies on unsubstantiated conspiracy theories rather than documented historical evidence as if merely stating them makes them true somehow 2. It misrepresents the history of premillennial thought, (creates a fiction) which predates Scofield by nearly two millennia 3. It uses inflammatory rhetoric and a false dichotomy that demonizes sincere Christians who hold different views 4th.. Feel sorry for anyone who suffers, speak for them but don't create a fiction to support a specific narrative and then demonize anyone who disagrees. Mormons do that constantly and I am so glad to have left that cult behind that my ancestors started. 2 Timothy 2:24 This was fun to watch and think about and do some quick research
3 weeks ago | 1
Its sad to see how many of so called Adventist making the gospel avail to ony those who pay membership. No where in thw Bible or SOP do we here God say salvation es exclusive to only a few. I remember that is why Israel is no longer Gods remanant. I wonder if the same will be done to those who preach only to those who pay. Salvation is free yet some want to seel it loke Simon the magician. Really sad!
1 month ago | 0
Advent Media Connect
This video deserves more visibility.
1 month ago | [YT] | 19