John R Rice and Jack Hyles were not dispensationalists?

[Ascetic X]

In this sermon Rice concentrates on the "Acts 28" Bullinger, but in the area of baptism, mid-Acts dispensationalists such as O'Hair and Stam agree with Bullinger that baptism is not for this dispensation. But Rice does not mention those men in the sermon.

I was in a cultish group for a few years when I was in my 20s. They were very impressed with EW Bullinger and his books Witness of the Stars, Figures of Speech in the Bible, Companion Bible, etc. They did not believe in what they called John the Baptist water baptism. After I left the group, I became one who exercises a lot of scrutiny on Bible teachers.

 

[timf]

What is called dispensationalism has traditionally been an "Acts 2" dispensationalism. Some like Bullinger began to explore other points to divide the gospel of grace given to Paul from the national gospel of the kingdom offered to Israel. While some try to present seven "dispensations, the bible speaks only of two, the present dispensation of grace and a future dispensation of the fullness of times.

What Moses did receiving the law for Israel could be seen as a "dispensation", since the bible does not call it so, I would be reluctant to do so. However, this has not stopped some from seeing seven "dispensations".

Those like Stam and Bullinger explored what was called "ultra" dispensationalism, they often sought the specific point at which the kingdom offer expired and the dispensation of grace began. I see more of an overlap with the offer of the kingdom for Israel ending at 70 AD.

The fact that it is relatively recent historically that people have been exploring these possibilities might indicate that there is more to learn or consider. Dispensationalism has been falling out of favor recently, but I still think it is worthwhile to continue to explore. For me the mid Acts version offers an interesting way to resolve questions like, "Was the Great Commission given to Israel or the church?"

 

[John of Japan]

I was in a cultish group for a few years when I was in my 20s. They were very impressed with EW Bullinger and his books Witness of the Stars, Figures of Speech in the Bible, Companion Bible, etc. They did not believe in what they called John the Baptist water baptism. After I left the group, I became one who exercises a lot of scrutiny on Bible teachers.

Glad you were able to get out of that mess! They certainly have some weird beliefs. They are the "Acts 28" ultra-dispensationalists I've mentioned. The mid-Acts guys are somewhat less radical, but share some of the same beliefs. The mid-Acts headquarters are quite near us, and I've met and talked to one of the men. He loves the Lord, but just has some weird beliefs.

 

[Jerome]

But even John R. Rice wrote that some notes in the Scofield Reference Bible lean too much toward "ultra-dispensational" teaching.

On the very next page Rice gives an example: "ultra-dispensationalists say that the book of James was primarily to Jewish believers and not to Gentile Christians. Even the Scofield Reference Bible has a sub-head before Hebrews, James, I and II Peter and Jude calling them 'The Jewish-Christian Epistles,' as if they were essentially different from the rest of the New Testament. But this is not true...."

 

[J.D.]

Thought both were strong holders to that theology?

So did I but I'm finding out how wrong I was to assume that all fundamentalists were/are dispensationalists.

 

[J.D.]

Apparently, the strange Jack Hyles spoke against dispensationalism.

Yes, I've seen three different videos where he disowns dispensationalism, particularly the idea of a "dispensation of grace".

 

[J.D.]

I have classified John R. Rice as a historical premillennialist, but contra some of that stripe he was also pre-trib. He was definitely not a dispensationalist. He respected Scofield, but disagreed with him in his books and sermons numerous times. His number one disagreement was his belief that the church did not begin at Pentecost. Also, he included the OT saints in the church.

Following him in this belief got me in trouble when I applied to my mission board, which was dispensational. In my application, I said concerning the doctrinal statement that I did not agree that the church is "peculiar to the age of grace." They sent me to Dr. Monroe Parker, a true fundamentalist scholar, and I spent a day with him, then left convinced by his brilliant arguments that yes, the church is peculiar to the age of grace.

I then joined the board and was sent to Japan. On the way there we stopped in CA at a church, and stayed with a guy who grilled me on my theology. He ended up saying, "I'm telling your mission board that you are not a dispensationalist." I shut him up with, "They're the ones that told me that!"

Concerning Hyles, I had thought that he was a dispensationalist. I have very few books of his nowadays. I got rid of a ton of all sorts of books when we moved back to the States. However, I have the weird book by him, Enemies of Soul-Winning, in which he proved that he did not understand dispensationalism by attacking Scofield as an "ultra-dispensationalist." Hyles was nowhere near to being a theologian, so I recommend ignoring anything he said doctrinally.

You should've stuck with your grandpa . I share his views on the "beginning" of the church, and I probably go farther than he does with it, as I count the calling of Adam and Eve out of hiding as the beginning of the "Church", that is, God's assembly or congregation.

 

[J.D.]

He did believe in dispensations, just not dispensationalism. Ryrie states that the sine non qua (absolutely necessary) of dispensationalism is the separation of Israel and the church. Rice did not hold to that doctrine.

Grandpa was correct again. Even Matthew Henry uses the word "dispensation" to refer to epochs distinguished by God's workings under different covenants. And he certainly was not a Dispensationalist.

 

[John of Japan]

On the very next page Rice gives an example: "ultra-dispensationalists say that the book of James was primarily to Jewish believers and not to Gentile Christians. Even the Scofield Reference Bible has a sub-head before Hebrews, James, I and II Peter and Jude calling them 'The Jewish-Christian Epistles,' as if they were essentially different from the rest of the New Testament. But this is not true...."

Thank you. I wondered what he meant. In his book False Doctrines, he mainly opposes Bullinger's "Acts 28 ultra-dispensationalism." I don't know that modern dispensationalists deny those NT books as being for us; at least I've never read that in Ryrie, Vlach, Showers, etc.

 

[John of Japan]

You should've stuck with your grandpa . I share his views on the "beginning" of the church, and I probably go farther than he does with it, as I count the calling of Adam and Eve out of hiding as the beginning of the "Church", that is, God's assembly or congregation.

Grandpa wasn't completely happy that I went to Japan as a missionary, saying "You can win more souls in America," but he went to Heaven before I became fully dispensational. (He wanted me to work with him in his ministry). However, he and Grandma supported me financially even before I began deputation. (There may have been some rolling in the grave when I became a dispensationalist, though.)

I think it all depends on how you define "church." Over the years I have become more of a local church advocate. I don't like the terms "universal church" or "invisible church," but prefer the biblical term, "church the body of Christ." That church will someday assemble in Heaven (Heb. 12:23). A "church" without an assembly is not a church!

 

[John of Japan]

Grandpa was correct again. Even Matthew Henry uses the word "dispensation" to refer to epochs distinguished by God's workings under different covenants. And he certainly was not a Dispensationalist.

All theologians worth their salt use the term "dispensation," because it is a biblical term. Even Berkhof, the covenant theologian, wrote, that "dispensation" is "a Scriptural term" (Systematic Theology, p. 290). Only Internet "theologians" deny that the word has any value for theology! He even praises Bullinger for referring to Eden as the "first dispensation" (p, 291).

On the other hand, contra covenant theology, Rice did believe in a future for ethnic Israel, and supported modern Israel in their homeland while not believing modern Israel is a fulfillment of prophecy. Even before WW2 he wrote a pamphlet against the Holocaust when most other Christians were ignoring it. He led many tours of Israel, and loved the Holy Land.

I think any Christian worth his or her salt should love Israel as the nation that produced Jesus. In more modern times, Millard Erickson (historic premil) wrote in his systematic theology, "There is, however, a future for national Israel. They are still the special people of God" (Christian Theology, 3rd ed., p. 965).

 

[John of Japan]

BAPTISM FOR US IN THIS DISPENSATION; HAS NEVER BEEN DONE AWAY WITH​

By John R. Rice

This is contra ultra-dispensationalism (Bullinger, Stam, O'Hair, etc.), which says that water baptism is no longer valid. Normal dispensationalism does not agree. I've baptized a bunch of Japanese, some in my homemade baptistry in our apartment!

I'll attach an essay by ultra-dispensationalist O'Hair which takes Rice to task and even defends Bullinger, mis-characterizing Rice as a dispensationalist along with Scofield.

 

[John of Japan]

What is called dispensationalism has traditionally been an "Acts 2" dispensationalism. Some like Bullinger began to explore other points to divide the gospel of grace given to Paul from the national gospel of the kingdom offered to Israel. While some try to present seven "dispensations, the bible speaks only of two, the present dispensation of grace and a future dispensation of the fullness of times.

What Moses did receiving the law for Israel could be seen as a "dispensation", since the bible does not call it so, I would be reluctant to do so. However, this has not stopped some from seeing seven "dispensations".

Those like Stam and Bullinger explored what was called "ultra" dispensationalism, they often sought the specific point at which the kingdom offer expired and the dispensation of grace began. I see more of an overlap with the offer of the kingdom for Israel ending at 70 AD.

Good post.

The fact that it is relatively recent historically that people have been exploring these possibilities might indicate that there is more to learn or consider. Dispensationalism has been falling out of favor recently, but I still think it is worthwhile to continue to explore. For me the mid Acts version offers an interesting way to resolve questions like, "Was the Great Commission given to Israel or the church?"

The mid-Acts position, as well as the Acts 28 position, denies that the Great Commission is for us. But they do personal evangelism and send out missionaries anyway! I've talked several times to a mid-Acts man here in town, and seen him witnessing powerfully to some folk in MacDonald's.

 

[JesusFan]

Thank you. I wondered what he meant. In his book False Doctrines, he mainly opposes Bullinger's "Acts 28 ultra-dispensationalism." I don't know that modern dispensationalists deny those NT books as being for us; at least I've never read that in Ryrie, Vlach, Showers, etc.

Hyper ones state that really only NT books written to us who are gentiles would be the Epistles of paul, and also deny water Baptism is for today, and some even Great Commission

 

[Ben1445]

Hyper ones state that really only NT books written to us who are gentiles would be the Epistles of paul, and also deny water Baptism is for today, and some even Great Commission

Someone should have told Paul that he wasn’t supposed to be teaching baptism.

Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

 

[JesusFan]

Someone should have told Paul that he wasn’t supposed to be teaching baptism.

Romans 6:4
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

Ephesians 4:5
One Lord, one faith, one baptism,

They would use though 1 Corinthians 1:17
Paul says, “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.”