| Hyper Dispensationalism |
A close friend of ours has recently pulled out of all bible study & church activity to go into deep online bible study. It turned out to be into this extreme Acts 28 hyper/ultra dispensationalism. Within 2 weeks she has completely changed her views on the gospel & has slotted right into all that they teach. I have read the booklet on SI by Ironside.
It has been uncanny how a strong Christian women has been completely brainwashed by a completely different extreme view, where most of the NT is now no longer relevant to her, and where Peter & all disciples/apostles were not truly saved until Paul preached to them the mystery...etc etc
I was wondering whether anyone has had any contact or fruitful discussion with people who are in this doctrine & how they have tackled it with that person.
| 2014/2/19 5:59||Profile|
| Re: Hyper Dispensationalism |
I've spent a lot of time dealing with people caught up in this at one time in my life. I've personally never seen anybody come out of it. In my opinion, it is probably a damnable heresy.
In my opinion, the only way you can convince these people is simply by praying for them, and at the right time, dropping the right thoughts in their mind. Make whatever you say to them as much about Jesus as you can.
I would personally challenge them to ask how all these extra New Testament dispensations have come into being seeing how nothing has changed with Jesus Christ in his heavenly position in over 2,000 years. If nothing has changed with Him and what he's done, then how is it that they say a new dispensation begun with the apostle Paul?
If He is the second Adam, and the beginning of a new creation, and a new humanity, and we are made partakers of that new creation and humanity, then how do they divide the New Testament and future history into so many fragments and dispensations?
Also, if the church only has spiritual promises to inherit, and the Jews only have earthly promises to inherit, then how is it that we as Gentiles in the church will one day inherit the physical world and all that it contains, along with the Jews, via the resurrection of the dead? They need to clearly see that God is just as interested in blessing us with the same promise and blessing He gave to Abraham. Instead of there being two sets of promises and two peoples of God, they need to see there are only one set of promises and one people of God. All that Israel is promised to inherit, we are also made partakers of the same promises made to them.
Also, hyper dispensationalist are always King James Only advocates, and fiercly so. In my opinion, you would also have to seriously undermine their King James Only view point. But such would only be possible if they would be willing to read serious academic works on textual criticism. Such, most people aren't willing to do. Such is why people are King James only to begin with. But if you can do anything to undermind their position on King James only, then you'll have some hope of getting them to see the errors of their way, as their doctrinal position is highly dependant on perverted twistings and understandings of the language of the King James Version of the Bible. Because of the archaic language of the King James Version, and their mis-understanding of it, they've literally come to beleive there are two gospels.
But there is only one gospel, and that is the gospel in which Jesus Christ is reconciling the world unto himself. That is the promise made to Abraham and the prophets. God doesn't have different plans for different people. There is only one people of God, and it is those who have been made partakers of the new creation. A new creation in which God is bringing the realities of heaven to earth, and manifest in one kingdom.
| 2014/2/19 7:55||Profile|
| Re: |
KingJimmy wrote : ///Such is why people are King James only to begin with. But if you can do anything to undermind their position on King James only ///
brother, I have been very impressed with many of your post recently but lets becareful with sterotyping. It was faith in Gods Sovereign hand in inspiring even the English (KJV) Bible that helped to lead me to recognize and have faith to laying hold of the Promises with in it.
I would be more than willing to in a non contentious and lovingly way discuss the Superiority of the KJV to that of other modern English translations on another thread.
There are many Preashers on SI that seem to hold to simmaler convictions as my own, in that the KJV is Superior to modern translations. Keith Daniels, Chuck Smith, Timothy Tow, Moses Stoltzfus and many others, so lets be slow in sterotyping.
KingJimmy wrote : /// I've personally never seen anybody come out of it. In my opinion, it is probably a damnable heresy.///
I got caught up with the hyper Dispensationalist to some extent and it caused me to stumbled.
They call themselves grace believers (rightly dividing the word of truth): Jery Sanders and Percy Peters are the main preachers that I am aware of.
Besides throwing out all the books of the Bible except that of Pauls writings, in which they do not even include the book of Hebrews. The other most disturbing thing that I found was there hyper OSAS doctrines. They also seem to spend alot of there time bashing all other denominations which is appealing to those whom have been burned by various denominations.
The thing that confuses me about them is that we can not rightly catagorize them as 'easy-believism' because they do not teach a shallow intellectual exceptance of salvation.
| 2014/2/19 11:09||Profile|
| Re: |
I'm ok with people believing the KJV is superior to other translations. If you believe that, such is fine by me. It is a matter of personal opinion. However, it has been my experience that the hyper-dispensationalism crowd tends to be rabid KJV-only, and make no room whatsoever for the use of other translations. Maybe I've misread them, but this seems to be the case to me. And to me, it seems that so much of their position is dependant upon the exact verbiage of the King James Version. Their interpretation is very difficult to come by if you use any other translation of the Bible.
So, if you can at least show them that some of their key interpretations are built on a somewhat grey translation issue, i.e. Galatians the gospel "of" the Gentiles vs the gospel "of" the circumcision, then perhaps they will realize that their rigid "rightly dividing the word of truth" isn't so sharp to begin with. If you can show them that other serious literal translations of the Scripture show that some of their favorite passages can be translated another way, then you might have a chance to open their eyes to some stuff.
That's the only reason I brought up the KJV-only issue. But, I think that one could effectively prove the error of their doctrines simply with a KJV of the Bible. I know many people who are King James only that don't hold to the views they do. So, the problem itself isn't with the King James per say.
Their beliefs are very alarming though. And because they tend to be very strong students of the Scripture, they can be hard for even the best interpreters of the Scripture to engage in conversation with. I think to some degree you need to be prepared to argue in a language with them and talk about things in a very non-traditional way. If you play the game on their level, you'll probably lose the argument.
| 2014/2/20 8:00||Profile|
| Re: |
thank you for your response,
What is the history of this movement ? I do not know of there history, I always just assumed that they took the Scolfield,Darby interpatation to a far extreme.
I am in total agreement that there 'beliefs are very alarming'
| 2014/2/20 9:22||Profile|
| Re: |
Unfortunately, I don't know much about the history of it. It has so few people that adhere to it that I don't really concern myself with it. Most of the people I've known to hold the belief have been through contacts made on the internet.
I know it was first expounded by E W Bullinger a little over 100 years ago. Noted scholar Charles Ryrie was also a fan of it. It's roots are definitely in Darby and Scofield's dispensationalist teaching. Being that they tend to reject things like water baptism and communion as being things we need to participate in, I don't know of any major body of Christians that identify themselves theological with this doctrine. I think you mostly run across it in way-out-there loosely affiliated baptist groups who spend more time on the internet than in any sort of serious fellowship with one another.
| 2014/2/20 10:21||Profile|
| Re: good and important discussion|
I am researching into it right now, I do not think that 'Noted add (Dallas Theological Seminary) scholar Charles Ryrie' would be correctly labled with what we are talking about. also Ryrie was not KJV only.
The movement that I am talking about call themselves 'grace believers' they seem to be mostly former Baptist not current baptist, they drop out of Church fellowships altogather and either do online studies or through the mail studies, Jerry Sanders used to do a radio program on a local station. Jerry Sanders, Percy Peters and other of there preachers will travel around and rent a building for a weekend and gather all the local followers.
I used to listen to Sanders alot, at the time I was unaware of all that he taught. He seems to spend about 3/4 of his time bashing the way other churches do things, what I found appealing was that he was the first preacher that I had heard at the time that pointed out the problems with the alter call and other such problems of modern churchs, he plays alot on peoples emotions whom have been burned by churchs.
here is what theopedia says about them :
Hyper-dispensationalism (or sometimes ultra-dispensationalism), as opposed to traditional (or classic) Dispensationalism, views the start of the Christian church as beginning with the ministry of the Apostle Paul after the early part of the book of Acts. Although variations exist in specifics, all hyper-dispensationalists view the four Gospels and many of New Testament Epistles as applying to the pre-Pauline Jewish-Christian church or to the future Davidic Kingdom; not directly applicable to the predominantly Gentile Church of today.
"Dispensationalists distinguish Israel from the church and so look for a point in history at which God's redemptive program changed from the one form of administration to the other. The most common dispensationalism finds the beginning of the church in Acts 2 with the Spirit's coming at Pentecost. From the standpoint of Acts 2 dispensationalism two other views seem extreme, or "ultra." According to Acts 13 dispensationalism the church began when Paul started his mission to Jews and Gentiles (Acts 13:2). According to Acts 28 dispensationalism the church began toward the end of Paul's ministry with his reference to Israel's rejection of the kingdom of God and the sending of God's salvation to the Gentiles (Acts 28:26-28)."^^
The most notable proponent of Acts-28 Dispensationalism was E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913). Other writers holding this position include Charles H. Welch, Vladimir M. Gelesnoff, and Otis Q. Sellers. Spokesmen for the Acts-13, or Mid-Acts Dispensationalists, include J. C. O'Hair, C. R. Stam (Things That Differ), Charles F. Baker (A Dispensational Theology), and Bob Enyart (The Plot).
Hyper versus Ultra
While Hyper-dispensationalism is a not a label most Mid-Acts Dispensationalists would readily accept, they prefer that the term "Ultra-dispensational" be reserved for Bullinger and the Acts-28 end of the spectrum.^^ In fact, if the classical Scofield variety may be termed as Acts-2 dispensationalism, then there is indeed a spectrum of views to be acknowledged. By way of distinctions, it is noted that classical dispensationalists accept both baptism and the Lord's Supper as applicable to the church. The Mid-Acts (Hypers) reject baptism and the Acts-28 (Ultras) reject both. Additionally, for the Hyper, the doctrine for the church is contained solely in the Pauline epistles. For the Ultra, doctrine for the gentile church is contained only in Paul's post-Acts 28 (prison) epistles.
Norman Geisler uses the terms interchangeably in volume 4 of his Systematic Theology.^^ On page 27, he refers to Bullingerites as "extreme ultradispensationalists"; while Baker, Stam and O'Hair are called "less-extreme ultradispensationalists". On pages 680-681, under the section of Ultra-Dispensationalism, Dr. Geisler again includes Baker in his description of ultra-dispensationalists, while Bullinger is again called an extreme ultradispensationalist. He states: "Ultradispensationalists call themselves the grace movement... Compared to even more moderate dispensationalists like John Walvoord (1910-2002) and Charles Ryrie (b.1925), the grace movement is ultra- or hyperdispensational."
Edit add: this is the movement that I am discussing : "Ultradispensationalists call themselves the grace movement... Compared to even more moderate dispensationalists like John Walvoord (1910-2002) and Charles Ryrie (b.1925), the grace movement is ultra- or hyperdispensational."
Charles Ryrie is considered a moderate dispensationalists compared to the grace movement.
| 2014/2/20 11:13||Profile|
| Re: |
Good research :-) The name "Grace Beleivers" sounds very familiar for sure.
| 2014/2/20 14:17||Profile|
| Re: |
I have also found that Charles C. Ryrie aligned himself with Harry Ironside to the point of calling Ironside the Prince of dispensationalism.
It was Ironside that taught that E W Bullingers extreme view of dispensationalism was of Satan, That seems to be the view more represented of what we are speaking of : the Bullinger form of dispensationalism, which does not seem to reflect the views of Ryrie.
I would not consider myself a dispensationalist, I am not even pretrib.
But I do believe that the message of the Gospel is found in it's purest form After Jesus went to the Cross and most clearly found within the letters of Paul.
It is Faith in the blood that purifies as you have correctly wrote on another thread recently.
| 2014/2/20 15:28||Profile|
| Re: |
When I was first "saved" and a new born in Christ, three Jehovah's Witnesses, elders in their congregations hammered me with their doctrine day after day at work. Much of their doctrine is entrenched in dispensational theology. Through that experience, I relied on God and the Scriptures to overcome their logic based approach to evangelizing. And there was a time where the central teaching of the Jehovah Witness attacked the doctrine of the Trinity. I desperation I asked God for the truth. And He was faithful. I began to recognize the work of Christ throughout the Scriptures. I began to see Christ in Scripture as John wrote of Him in the first chapter of John.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
He was in the beginning with God.
All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made.
In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehendfn it.
But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name:
who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
I found Christ is not bound by time as man knows time. I know that the doctrine of the Trinity is true because He, Christ was "In the beginning" the "Word of God."
So look for Christ who is the Light of all men coming into the world. Teach people about the Trinity and to contemplate the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the Scriptures. The Jehovah Witness or any other dispensational teaching cannot stand in the presence of Christ in the entirety of Scripture.
| 2014/2/20 20:46||Profile|