Any Ultra-Dispensationalist kooks reside here?

[wheatpenny]

I've encountered dispensationalists who recognise so many dispensations that it seems they run the New Testament thru a paper shredder and assign each piece to a different dispensation...

 

[AresMan]

Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Hyperdispensationalists emphasize that this passage has to do with a geopolitical Jewish kingdom and has nothing to do with the "Body of Christ." They will explain that the "born again" here is more a corporate "rebirth" of the nation of Israel from their apostasy, and not the common idea that we have today of individual regeneration of the heart. They will say that there is no instance of "born again" applied to the Gentiles, because there is no "again" for them as a nation of God. The concept of being born again is mentioned in 1 Peter 1:23, but never in Paul's epistles.

However, we must look at Jesus' elaboration on what He means to see if there are any parallels elsewhere:

Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Only in v.5 does Jesus mention "water." He then emphasizes being "born of the spirit" as opposed to being "born of the flesh." This is what makes "born of water and of the spirit" not two things but one. It really means being born of cleansing and of the spirit, and it is the spirit that cleanses, and this is through the Word of God:

Joh 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Jas 1:18 Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.
Jesus said that it is the Spirit that makes one alive, and that "the flesh" profits nothing. How can Jesus say this if He also taught that physical circumcision and water baptism, among other fleshly things, were necessary to being "born again"?! Also, if it is the spirit, as opposed to the flesh that makes alive, and the spirit and the word are one (really, the word through the spirit), then it is the Word of God alone that is sufficient for salvation.

Like the Campbellites, some hyperdispensationalists will interpret the "water" in John 3:5 as water baptism. However, this would be the only place in the Bible where water baptism would be described as being "born of water." Many other passages shed light on what Jesus was communicating:

Eze 36:25 Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you.
Eze 36:26 A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
Eze 36:27 And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them.

Psa 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

Joh 15:3 Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.

Eph 5:26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it [the church] with the washing of water by the word
When comparing Scripture with Scripture, the "water" in John 3:5 is not the physical water of water baptism, but the cleansing of water applied in a spiritual context, and this cleansing is through the Word.

To the charge that Paul do not teach what Jesus taught in John 3, we must compare what Jesus said here to what Paul said in Galatians 4:

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted him that was born after the Spirit [Isaac], even so it is now.
So, Paul says that Isaac was "born after the spirit"? He also says that we as was Isaac are "the children of promise." Galatians is full of doctrine that clashes with hyperdispensationalism. Now, Paul is using the same phrases that Jesus used in John 3: "born after the flesh" and "born after the spirit." He then says that just as the one of the flesh [Ishmael] persecuted the one of the spirit [Isaac] even so it is now. This is clearly about the Jewish law-salvationists persecuting Paul. Paul was "born after the spirit," and this clearly mirrors the same distinction that Jesus made in John 3.

If a mid-Acts dispensationalist is tempted to assert that Paul could have been talking about the Jews persecuting the kingdom saints, we see the context in chapter 5:

Gal 5:10 I have confidence in you through the Lord, that ye will be none otherwise minded: but he that troubleth you shall bear his judgment, whosoever he be.
Gal 5:11 And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I yet suffer persecution? then is the offence of the cross ceased.
Gal 5:12 I would they were even cut off which trouble you.

Paul is clearly talking about Pharisaical Jewish influence on the Galatian Gentiles and himself as "the apostle to the Gentiles." He clearly implies that if he taught physical circumcision, he would not be facing persecution (4:29). The "offense of the cross" is a non-circumcision message, and "he that troubleth you" is "born of the flesh" and not "born after the spirit."

 

[AresMan]

I've encountered dispensationalists who recognise so many dispensations that it seems they run the New Testament thru a paper shredder and assign each piece to a different dispensation...

I have a dispensational joke where I make fun of dispensational proof-texting.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

1 John 2:15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Here, we have two entirely distinct dispensations that were given to John:
1. In the first dispensation, we are told that God loves the world. Obviously, those during this dispensation had to "love the world" because God did.
2. However, in the second dispensation, we are told NOT to love the world, because if we do, we do not have God's love in us. Therefore, God no longer loves the world. These two verses are clearly contradictory, and the only way to harmonize them is to understand them dispensationally.

 

[ALAYMAN]

In my "reply #17" above I linked a David Cloud article that condemned hyper-dispensationalism.  In that article he cited a prof (Stauffer, Rightly Dividing the Truth) he had at Tennessee Temple that taught such cappola for awhile.  Well, I just came back from a conversation with a coworker who is somewhat theologically atuned.  I asked him if he had heard of any strains of hyper-dispys in our neck of the woods.  He promptly turned around to the rack above his desk and grabbed Stauffer's book and handed it to me.  It had been loaned to him from a local Baptist pastor who highly endorsed it.  My coworker hadn't read it all, only about half of it, but claimed that there was a strong element of selective prooftexting (from the Epistiles) that was done in order to support the notion of eternal security.  The claim was that these breed of dispys want to exclude the gospels and non-epistles from doctrinal authority (at least in part) due their lack of clear teaching on eternal security. 

AresMan, had you encountered this?

 

[rsc2a]

...want to exclude the gospels and non-epistles from doctrinal authority...

I know some Ruckmanites that exclude even some of the Epistles.

(Not addressing the eternal security piece)

 

[biscuit1953]

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.

I know a preacher who teaches that in the Millennium there will be no more Black people because the curse will have been lifted at that time.  No joke.

As a former long time "Ruckmanite" I'm pretty familiar with their teachings.  Hyper-Dispensationalists teach that men in the Old Testament were saved differently than those in the New Testament by faith and works.  They teach that no man was born again in the Old Testament even though Jesus told an Old Testament Jew that he must be born again.  Many teach that Hebrews to Revelation are "Tribulational books" and have no doctrinal application to the Church of Jesus Christ. 

To start with, lets take the idea men were saved by faith and works in the Old Testament. 

Rom 4:2  For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath whereof to glory; but not before God.
Rom 4:3  For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Rom 4:4  Now to him that worketh is the reward not reckoned of grace, but of debt.
Rom 4:5  But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.
Rom 4:6 Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works,
Rom 4:7  Saying, Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Rom 4:8  Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

We have Abraham before the Law and David under the Law and both were counted righteous without works!  Some get around this by saying that David is the exception in the O.T. and use the verses talking about the "sure mercies of David" as a proof text.  Furthermore, they claim that doing good works helped Old Testaments saints slip into heaven.  The only problem is that "all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags" which they like to quote to show we are saved by grace alone in the N.T. is found in the O.T. (Isa 64:6)!

I think the best way to refute this crowd is to show them the authority of the Gospels and Acts.

1Ti 6:3  If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;
1Ti 6:4 He is proud, knowing nothing, but doting about questions and strifes of words...
Eph 2:19  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
Eph 2:20  And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

The Book of Acts is a transitional book; but so are the gospels.  One can read in the context about who it is that is being spoken to and give to the Jew what is the Jews; to the Greek what is the Greeks; and to the Church what is the Church's without discarding the whole book!

Where else can one find the wholesome words of the Lord Jesus Christ but in the Gospels and the beginning of the Book of Acts?  What you have left is the spiritual building of Ephesians 2:19,20 without a foundation.  Ultradispensationalism and Ruckmanism gives us that floating building.

They also teach that Hebrews through Revelation are Tribulation Books because they (according to the hypers) mix works with grace which they say is  how people will be saved in the Tribulation period.  I'll take them one book at a time.

IS HEBREWS A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

In Hebrews 2:3 there is a dispensational unity and continuity concerning the plan of salvation, from the gospels to the book of Hebrews.  Moreover, in Hebrews we find eternal security (7:25), a new covenant (10:9), the one sacrifice as opposed to animal sacrifices (10:8-12), Jesus the author and finisher of our faith (12:2);  Jesus the mediator of the new covenant (12:24), grace (13:9), the new covenant sacrifice of praise (13:15).  Does anyone really believe Paul expected to be with the Tribulation saints shortly or that Paul asked the Tribulation saints to pray for him (13:18,23)?

IS JAMES A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

The 12 tribes scattered abroad, to whom this Epistle was written, were begotten with the word (1:18), were beloved brethren who were the firstfruits of his creatures (1:18,19);  were told that the word saves the soul - not works (1:21);  were shown the futility of keeping the Law for salvation (2:10); were able to cause the devil to flee (4:7 - imagine the Tribulation saints trying this one);  were benefactors of grace (4:6); Even the apostle Paul implied works (Acts 26:19,20).

IS 1 PETER A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

Note the greeting of grace, and multiplied peace (1:2) to these scattered strangers.  Notice also that these scattered strangers were begotten by the resurrection of Jesus Christ (1:3) and redeemed by only the precious blood of Christ (1:18,19), and born again (1:23); trusting in the events of the cross (2:24), and standing in the true grace of God (5:12).  The were capable of suffering as Christians (4:16), and were in Christ Jesus (5:14) and were eternally secure in anticipation of the last time (1:5) cf. 2:9 - Israel will find comfort in this book during the time of Jacob's trouble.

IS 2 PETER A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

This book is addressed to those who have Peter's like precious faith (1:1).  Notice the grace, even multiplied grace (1:2) and these saints were partakers of the divine nature (1:4).  Note that Peter connects the salvation of his epistles with that of Paul's epistles (3:15).

IS 1 JOHN A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

The blood of Jesus Christ cleanseth from all sin (1:7), simple confession of sin is sufficient for forgiveness (1:9), and John taught the new birth (3:14).  John exhorted his readers to look forward to the rapture and resurrection (3:1-3).  Christ is the Savior of the world (4:14).  Simply confessing the son of God was sufficient for a right relationship to God and believing that Jesus is the Christ, brought about the new birth (4:15; 5:1).  Eternal life was received only through the Son ((5:10-13).

IS 2 JOHN A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

John found (past tense) the elect lady's children walking in the truth (v.4).  He was speaking about people that existed then rather than future tribulation saints that did not yet exist.

Do you think such a tribulation lady could have a sister in John's time, that could send her a greeting by John (v.13)?  Note the doctrine of Christ and grace (v.3,9).

IS 3 JOHN A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

John speaks of the brethren and the children of Gaius in the past tense (v.3,4).  Could they be Tribulation saints?  How could John expect to deal with Diotrophes when he came, if Diotrophes was a Tribulation saint (v.9,10)?  How could John expect to see Gaius shortly and how could Gaius greet mutual friends by name, for John -  if they were Tribulation saints (v.14)?

IS JUDE A TRIBULATIONAL BOOK?

Jude preached preservation in Jesus Christ and eternal security (Jude 1,24);  multiplied mercy (v.2); and the common salvation (v.3).

 

[AresMan]

As a former long time "Ruckmanite" I'm pretty familiar with their teachings.  Hyper-Dispensationalists teach that men in the Old Testament were saved differently than those in the New Testament by faith and works.  They teach that no man was born again in the Old Testament even though Jesus told an Old Testament Jew that he must be born again.

The ones I know say that being "born again" has to do with Israelites being "born again" as a "holy nation," and that it has nothing to do with "the Body of Christ" or individual Christian regeneration. They would say it is a New Testament ("new covenant") concept, but the New Covenant applies only to Israel and is yet future. The New Covenant is "the subject of prophecy" whereas the Body of Christ is "the subject of The Mystery

 

[biscuit1953]

AresMan, I have heard most of what you posted.  Of course even within Ruckmanism and Mid-Acts Pauline Dispensationalism there are disagreements among them.  I used "heaven" but meant paradise as where they believe O.T. saints went when they died.  Since leaving KJV onlyism I have started using the NKJV MacArthur Study Bible and really  enjoy it.  There are two sides when it comes to Covent Theology and Dispensationalism.  That would be for another thread but I believe even though the New Covenant superceded the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-13), it has not voided it.  God still has an obligation to deal with the Jews in a unique way.  The covenant God made with Abraham was unconditional and cannot be revoked as far as I can see. 

 

[rsc2a]

...There are two sides when it comes to Covent Theology and Dispensationalism.  That would be for another thread but I believe even though the New Covenant superceded the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-13), it has not voided it.  God still has an obligation to deal with the Jews in a unique way.  The covenant God made with Abraham was unconditional and cannot be revoked as far as I can see.

What is a "Jew"? 

 

[biscuit1953]

...There are two sides when it comes to Covent Theology and Dispensationalism.  That would be for another thread but I believe even though the New Covenant superceded the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-13), it has not voided it.  God still has an obligation to deal with the Jews in a unique way.  The covenant God made with Abraham was unconditional and cannot be revoked as far as I can see.

What is a "Jew"? 

A physical Jew is a descendant of Abraham.  Webster (well before Darwin came along with his theories) describes "race" as such:

"The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, &c."

The Jews come from the stock of Abraham (Acts 13:26). Only in modern politically correct dictionaries will you find "race" being morphed into "nation."  Nations are made up of one or more races.  When the census asks what "race" you are, they aren't asking where you are from.

 

[rsc2a]

...There are two sides when it comes to Covent Theology and Dispensationalism.  That would be for another thread but I believe even though the New Covenant superceded the Old Covenant (Hebrews 8:8-13), it has not voided it.  God still has an obligation to deal with the Jews in a unique way.  The covenant God made with Abraham was unconditional and cannot be revoked as far as I can see.

What is a "Jew"? 

A physical Jew is a descendant of Abraham.  Webster (well before Darwin came along with his theories) describes "race" as such:

"The lineage of a family, or continued series of descendants from a parent who is called the stock. A race is the series of descendants indefinitely. Thus all mankind are called the race of Adam; the Israelites are of the race of Abraham and Jacob. Thus we speak of a race of kings, the race of Clovis or Charlemagne; a race of nobles, &c."

The Jews come from the stock of Abraham (Acts 13:26). Only in modern politically correct dictionaries will you find "race" being morphed into "nation."  Nations are made up of one or more races.  When the census asks what "race" you are, they aren't asking where you are from.

I'm not talking about Webster. I'm talking about Bible...

Jesus talking to ethnic Jews about spiritual Judaism


So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed him,

 

[AresMan]

According to mid-Acts dispensationalists, the Acts period was a "transitional period" between the "gospel of the kingdom" and the "gospel of grace."  Supposedly with Paul's conversion (or sometime not too long afterwards), God gave Paul "The Mystery