Any Ultra-Dispensationalist kooks reside here?

ALAYMAN

ALAYMAN

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Feb 2, 2012
Messages
9,477
Reaction score
3,089
Points
113
Do you believe in any of the nutty view(s) which follows...

That only the Epistles have relevance for this age?
Do you believe that the book of Acts is where the "period of Grace" started?
Water baptism is not for this age?
Bible-believing Baptists are heretics that do not follow Pauline dispensationalism and "his gospel"?
Peter and Paul preached different Gospels?
The Church is not the Bride of Christ?
Repentance should not be preached in this age?
The "Great commission" is not for the Church?
Paul was deceived about water baptism until he wrote Eph 3-4, after Acts 28?

Feel free to add any other of your associated errors and heresies de jour. :D
 
ALAYMAN said:
Do you believe in any of the nutty view(s) which follows...

That only the Epistles have relevance for this age?
Do you believe that the book of Acts is where the "period of Grace" started?
Water baptism is not for this age?
Bible-believing Baptists are heretics that do not follow Pauline dispensationalism and "his gospel"?
Peter and Paul preached different Gospels?
The Church is not the Bride of Christ?
Repentance should not be preached in this age?
The "Great commission" is not for the Church?
Paul was deceived about water baptism until he wrote Eph 3-4, after Acts 28?

Feel free to add any other of your associated errors and heresies de jour. :D
Click to expand...
I have family that are Acts 9, 12-out dispensationalists (and open theists), and this describes what they believe, although they would try to argue for the last point that Paul's few baptisms were done to avoid offending kingdom Jews and not that he was deceived (still just as ridiculously not obvious from Scripture). I have had to debate them a lot and it won't end soon. Needless to say, I have had to study Scripture intensely to refute the doctrine because such position can be very slick and convincing to the unlearned. THe more I study Scripture, the more I am convinced of how utterly untenable such a position is.

Anyone know any solid and comprehensive works that refute hyperdispensationalism? I'm not talking about the sparse classical essays such as Harry Ironside's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth." I am talking about book-length treatises that deal with many of the arguments from hyperdispensationalism in-depth and don't just mix it (or confuse it) with classical Scofield dispensationalism. I can't seem to find much of anything, so it seems like Stam, Baker, O'Hair, and modern proponents like Bob Hill and Bob Enyart have had free reign to propagate it on others who cannot seem to be able to refute it.

If not, I just may have to write one myself.
 
AresMan said:
Anyone know any solid and comprehensive works that refute hyperdispensationalism?
Click to expand...

The Bible.  ;D
 
[quote author=AresMan]I have family that are Acts 9, 12-out dispensationalists (and open theists), and this describes what they believe, although they would try to argue for the last point that Paul's few baptisms were done to avoid offending kingdom Jews and not that he was deceived (still just as ridiculously not obvious from Scripture). I have had to debate them a lot and it won't end soon. Needless to say, I have had to study Scripture intensely to refute the doctrine because such position can be very slick and convincing to the unlearned. THe more I study Scripture, the more I am convinced of how utterly untenable such a position is.

Anyone know any solid and comprehensive works that refute hyperdispensationalism? I'm not talking about the sparse classical essays such as Harry Ironside's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth." I am talking about book-length treatises that deal with many of the arguments from hyperdispensationalism in-depth and don't just mix it (or confuse it) with classical Scofield dispensationalism. I can't seem to find much of anything, so it seems like Stam, Baker, O'Hair, and modern proponents like Bob Hill and Bob Enyart have had free reign to propagate it on others who cannot seem to be able to refute it.

If not, I just may have to write one myself.
[/quote]

I have a good Christian friend who has been taken in by this erroneous view of dispensationalism.  Much of the influence that led him to hyper-land was from  TV preacher Les Felsdick.  The lack of continuity from the OT to the New in their hermeneutical approach is so arbitrary and disjunctive it's scary.

If you find a good book on the subject be sure to share it here.
 
Verses for mid-Acts dispensationalists to consider:

Gal 1:13  For ye have heard of my conversation in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure I persecuted the church of God, and wasted it:
Which "church of God" is this? How do you prove that it is different from the "church of God" for the "grace dispensation"?

Gal 1:22  And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Gal 1:23  But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
If Paul preached the faith He once destroyed, how can it be a "different gospel"?

Gal 2:14  But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews?
Gal 2:15  We who are Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles,
If Peter lived under the so-called "kingdom gospel" the remainder of his life (law-keeping for salvation), how was it that he was "living after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews"?

Gal 2:16  Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.
Paul say that "a man is not justified by the works of the law" NOT "a Gentile under the 'grace dispensation' is not justified by the works of the law." Also, he is referencing himself and Peter.

Gal 2:21  I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain.
This is a hard pill to swallow if the "kingdom gospel" includes the death of Christ AND righteousness by the law!

Gal 3:7  Know ye therefore that they which are of faith, the same are the children of Abraham.
Gal 3:8  And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.
Gal 3:9  So then they which be of faith are blessed with faithful Abraham.
According to mid-Acts dispensationalists, this "gospel" preached to Abraham was only the aspect of justification by faith and not the Person and Work of Christ. Yet Christ said of Abraham that he "rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:58). Paul's context of "the gospel" is still what he is talking about up to that point (i.e. "the truth of the gospel"). The promise to Abraham was that he would be "the father of many nations" (not just one, v.17). How can that be other than that of the promise that his seed ("one seed which is Christ") would be the Saviour of the world?!

Gal 3:10  For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.
Gal 3:11  But that no man is justified by the law in the sight of God, it is evident: for, The just shall live by faith. 
Gal 3:12  And the law is not of faith: but, The man that doeth them shall live in them.
Gal 3:13  Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:
If Paul calls the law "a curse," how can it then be the blessed salvation of the "kingdom saints"?
When Paul "no man is justified by the law in the sight of God", he was only talking about those in the "grace dispensation"?! Really?!

Gal 3:16  Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.
Kind of blows away the whole premise of an eternal promise to physical descendants, doesn't it? The promise of Abraham by faith ONLY (to Jew and Gentile), NOT by physical lineage, or physical lineage + faith.

Gal 3:17  And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
Gal 3:18  For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise.
Gal 3:19  Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom the promise was made; and it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator.
Hmm. If "the law" (ordinances and national privilege) was "added..until the seed should come," then the work of Christ nullified the law. It is not perpetual for "kingdom saints," it is not for ANY "saint."

Gal 3:21  Is the law then against the promises of God? God forbid: for if there had been a law given which could have given life, verily righteousness should have been by the law.
Obviously, righteousness was never by the law. The argument from Paul is that if one could be saved by the law in any "dispensation", then that would have been the finality of all things. However, that was never the point of the law. I am not seeing this separation of "kingdom saints" who would be saved by the law and "grace saints" who would be saved by faith only!

Gal 3:22  But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.
No distinction between "kingdom saint" and "grace saint." The [Old Testament] Scripture has concluded ALL (Jew and Gentile) under sin so that they would receive "the promise by faith." You mean what the "Body of Christ" receives was "promised" in "the Scripture"?! Say it isn't so!

Gal 3:28  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.
Gal 3:29  And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. Of course, the mid-Acts dispensationalist says that the "Jew and Gentile being equal" applies only to "the Body of Christ" and that it is not true of "the kingdom" or of any other "dispensation." Yet, if we are "Abraham's seed" (according to the promise given to Abraham in the Old Testament Scriptures), how can we be this "mystery" body not prophesied in the Old Testament and "neatly inserted" where the "prophetic clock stopped"?

There is SO MUCH MORE that could be said that destroys hyperdispensationalism that some large books could be written--and this is only part of Galatians!
 
I am talking about book-length treatises that deal with many of the arguments from hyperdispensationalism in-depth and don't just mix it (or confuse it) with classical Scofield dispensationalism.

Pshaw.  Kill two birds with one stone, I say . . .
 
Ransom said:
I am talking about book-length treatises that deal with many of the arguments from hyperdispensationalism in-depth and don't just mix it (or confuse it) with classical Scofield dispensationalism.

Pshaw.  Kill two birds with one stone, I say . . .
Click to expand...


Don't you think there's a significant degree of difference between hyper-dispensationalism and the garden Scofield variety?  Lumping them together seems akin to saying that hyperCalvinism and Calvinism is essentially the same.
 
Don't you think there's a significant degree of difference between hyper-dispensationalism and the garden Scofield variety?  Lumping them together seems akin to saying that hyperCalvinism and Calvinism is essentially the same.

If the presuppositions behind Scofieldism are wrong, then hyper-dispyism also falls by the wayside. Destroy the foundation, and the superstructure collapses as well.
 
Ransom said:
Don't you think there's a significant degree of difference between hyper-dispensationalism and the garden Scofield variety?  Lumping them together seems akin to saying that hyperCalvinism and Calvinism is essentially the same.

If the presuppositions behind Scofieldism are wrong, then hyper-dispyism also falls by the wayside. Destroy the foundation, and the superstructure collapses as well.
Click to expand...

Again, I could say the same about Calvinism.  But it should be noted that amongst Calvinists that there's a marked difference between the hyper variety of Calvinism and its accepted version.  Amongst dispensational views (just as within eschatalogical ones) it should be noted that the hyper view is so seriously flawed that it ought to be rejected outright and dismissed as borderline heretical, whilst the mainstream dispensational schemes may be disagreeable to some, but they aren't so flawed that they can't be held within a framework of reasonable orthodox Christian theology.
 
Again, I could say the same about Calvinism.

Calvinism is true. Dispensationalism isn't.
 
Ransom said:
Don't you think there's a significant degree of difference between hyper-dispensationalism and the garden Scofield variety?  Lumping them together seems akin to saying that hyperCalvinism and Calvinism is essentially the same.

If the presuppositions behind Scofieldism are wrong, then hyper-dispyism also falls by the wayside. Destroy the foundation, and the superstructure collapses as well.
Click to expand...
I don't know if you have had to deal with the hyperdispensationalists (also called "grace dispensationalists," "mid-Acts dispensationalists," or "Pauline dispensationalists"), but many of them are extremely critical of classical Scofield and progressive dispensationalism. In their eyes, many arguments against the "Acts 2 position" only bolster their own position. Not all arguments against traditional dispensationalism also counter hyperdispensationalism. The hyper variety has many distinguishing characteristics that require counter arguments that target this particular position.
 
I don't know if you have had to deal with the hyperdispensationalists (also called "grace dispensationalists," "mid-Acts dispensationalists," or "Pauline dispensationalists"), but many of them are extremely critical of classical Scofield and progressive dispensationalism.

I have, in fact, dealt with some of them before.

All dispensationalism is founded on the presupposition that there is a radical discontinuity between Israel and the Church.  That is the sine qua non of all forms of dispensationalism. Take that away, and Scofieldism, hyper-dispensationalism, and progressive dispensationalism crumble into the dust.

My basic answer to them is the same: unless you can convince me that the Old Testament Prophets had nothing to say about the Church (despite the obvious use of the Old Testament by New Testament authors), then the rest of your system will not convince me of anything.
 
More verses for mid-Acts dispensationalists:

Gal 5:19  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
Gal 5:20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,
Gal 5:21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

1Co 6:9  Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind,
1Co 6:10  Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1Co 6:11  And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Eph 5:3  But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not be once named among you, as becometh saints;
Eph 5:4  Neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor jesting, which are not convenient: but rather giving of thanks.
Eph 5:5  For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
What is this "kingdom of God" of which Paul speaks? Why should anyone think that this is different from this kingdom of God? Seems like the same concept:
Mat 25:34  Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:

1Co 15:50  Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption.
If "flesh and blood" cannot inherit "the kingdom of God," then why is "the kingdom of God" always elsewhere (by dispensationalists) associated with a "literal, earthly kingdom"?

Gal 6:15  For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature.
Gal 6:16  And as many as WALK according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.
If "the Israel of God" is ontologically distinct from "the Body of Christ," and must be physically circumcised for their [kingdom] salvation, how is it that "the Israel of God" can rightly have "peace and mercy" if they WALK according to the rule that circumcision does not matter?!

Jer 11:16  The LORD called thy name [Israel], A green olive tree, fair, and of goodly fruit: with the noise of a great tumult he hath kindled fire upon it, and the branches of it are broken.

Rom 11:17  And if some of the branches be broken off, and thou, being a wild olive tree, wert graffed in among them, and with them partakest of the root and fatness of the olive tree;
If Paul is referencing Jeremiah 11:16 in Romans 11:17, then into what were the Gentiles grafted? Israel! Not a "plan" or an amorphous blessing from God, but Israel as a people of God. True Israel has always been people of "the promise," which is those of faith blessed with Abraham, which includes Jew and Gentile alike in Christ. True Israel was never intended to be based on ethnic privilege, but always by faith in the "One Seed" of the promise, which is Christ.
 
Ransom said:
Again, I could say the same about Calvinism.

Calvinism is true. Dispensationalism isn't.
Click to expand...

Can't agree on that. Calvinism has truths, but as a whole? Severe prickles vs. goo imbalance.
 
ALAYMAN said:
Do you believe in any of the nutty view(s) which follows...

That only the Epistles have relevance for this age?
Do you believe that the book of Acts is where the "period of Grace" started?
Water baptism is not for this age?
Bible-believing Baptists are heretics that do not follow Pauline dispensationalism and "his gospel"?
Peter and Paul preached different Gospels?
The Church is not the Bride of Christ?
Repentance should not be preached in this age?
The "Great commission" is not for the Church?
Paul was deceived about water baptism until he wrote Eph 3-4, after Acts 28?

Feel free to add any other of your associated errors and heresies de jour. :D
Click to expand...

As a dispy...I don't agree with any of those...and there is a distinct difference between the hyper groups of any theological system and the biblical adherents...just try to deal with a hyper-calvie or a full preterist!
 
[quote author=AresMan]
Anyone know any solid and comprehensive works that refute hyperdispensationalism? ...[/quote]


I'm sure this article isn't what you had specifically in mind, but it addresses some pretty salient points under consideration.

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm
 
ALAYMAN said:
[quote author=AresMan]
Anyone know any solid and comprehensive works that refute hyperdispensationalism? ...
Click to expand...


I'm sure this article isn't what you had specifically in mind, but it addresses some pretty salient points under consideration.

http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue108.htm
[/quote]I have read this one, as well as Ironside's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth." The problem is that both of them are still not as comprehensive as I would like and, perhaps, confuse the mid-Acts (12-out) variety with the Acts 28 variety. There are huge differences between the two positions. When I debate my Acts 9, 12-out friends and family, I will sometimes even use arguments from the Acts 28 position to demonstrate weakness in the mid-Acts positions.

The problem is that "Pauline Dispensationalism" in both its mid-Acts and Acts 28 varieties are relatively scarce in the broad scope of Christian theology, so very few have addressed the arguments from these positions with any length. Where I now live, hyperdispensationalism (and open theism) has a stronghold. There are plenty of books and articles that refute classical (Darby/Schofield) and revised (Chafer/Ryrie) dispensationalism, but the hyper varieties are hardly touched by them. The "scholarship" of hyperdispensationalism also continues to evolve, and surface-level arguments will often have lengthy replies from the hypers. Hyperdispensationalism sucks unlearned people in, and it can be difficult to convince them that their position is wrong. They will boast of their confidence that in their system there are no "problem passages."

Let me know if you know of more resources against hyperdispensationlism. I may continue to post more verse commentaries here for the benefit of any that may have to deal with it.
 
[quote author=AresMan]]I have read this one, as well as Ironside's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth." The problem is that both of them are still not as comprehensive as I would like...[/quote]

Oh, so you wanted the writings of Cloud, Hyles, and Ruckman on the subject eh?



;)


Seriously, I never looked a lot into this before, but on the internet, the IFB folk that I found writing about it (and that comprises a good amount of the google hits) are resoundingly and categorically opposed to this strain of goofiness.

While these links are hardly the scholarly stuff you're looking for, they are *interesting* reads nonetheless.

http://www.angelfire.com/nt/books/hyperdispensationalism.html


http://www.soulwinning.info/books/jack_hyles/enemies_of_soulwinning/ultra_dispensationalism.htm


http://wayoflife.org/files/ff92e8f95e2e0887d2468156498ba416-163.html

This one is actually not a fundy apologetic, and though not exactly written in an academic style, it is informative.

http://www.realapologetics.org/blog/2012/02/26/other-important-hyper-dispensational-resources/
 
1 Tim 1:15 This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.
1 Tim 1:16 Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting.
Mid-Acts dispensationalists use this passage to support their idea that Paul is the first convert in the "Body of Christ." They do this by overriding the traditional idea that when Paul said he was "chief [of sinners]," he was making a statement of humility that he was the worst of sinners. According to them, he was really saying he was the "first" chronologically. Although the Greek prwtos can mean "first" chronologically, it most certainly can mean "first" in other ways. When Paul repeated the same word in v.16 to say that Christ would show "in me first" all longsuffering for a pattern," we do not have to take this message with a dispensational presumption. The example of the sovereign grace of Christ in converting Saul the enemy of the church to Paul the apostle shows that God would convert more enemies of the cross in a similar way, such as those to whom Paul ministered in Caesar's household (Php 4:22).

Prwtos cannot mean "first" in the chronological sense, because of the passages below:

Gal 1:22 And was unknown by face unto the churches of Judaea which were in Christ:
Gal 1:23 But they had heard only, That he which persecuted us in times past now preacheth the faith which once he destroyed.
Gal 1:24 And they glorified God in me.
As I brought up this passage before, it applies here as a commentary to the meaning of 1 Timothy 1:15-16. These churches of Judea (arguably the "kingdom saints" according to hyperdispensationalists), did not know Paul in person. They were not his converts; they were converts of "The Twelve." They had to have been converted before Paul, yet he says they were "in Christ." This is a phrase that Paul uses frequently for those of the "Body of Christ."

Rom 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellow-prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.
These two Jews ("my kinsmen") also suffered persecution and imprisonment like Paul. They were "of note among the apostles," which would seem to indicate that they endorsed their ministry. Of these two Jews, Paul says they were "in Christ before me."

The mid-Acts dispensationalist would argue that "in Christ" does not have to refer specifically to the "Body of Christ," but could refer to any relationship to Christ. In other words, Paul could have described these two as being "in Christ" by virtue of their being in "the kingdom" (an ontologically separate group of saints saved by the Law and could lose their salvation). However, Paul uses this phrase earlier in the same epistle:

Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
There is no condemnation to those "in Christ" who "walk not after the flesh" (including the fleshly seal of circumcision). Would it not be highly unreasonable to understand Paul as using the same phrase in the same epistle in two different ways for two different peoples. If Andronicus and Junia were "fellow-prisoners" in relation to Paul, and they were "in Christ before [Paul]," how in the world could anyone come away from this statement believing that these two were not part of the "in Christ" in 8:1 to which there is "no condemnation" and they walk "not after the flesh, but after the spirit," unless one brings to the table a presupposition from a hermeneutic that requires a very strained eisegesis?!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top