Hyper-Dispensationalism

I wouldn't say Prison epistles, but there are some so-called 'Acts 28' sorts that seem to think only Paul's Epistles are for the church. I know this in general, without being able to give much specifics, without research.
Ed

 

Hi MikeinGhana. You’re talking to a Hyper (Ultra) Baptist Dispensationalist, which I have been called on this board. It equates to “heretic” from some. But really turns out to be a badge of honor, for the Apostle given the “dispensational” gospel by Christ Jesus as He sits on the right hand of His Father in heaven, was accused of “heresy”. Ephesians 3:1 and on, ”For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2. If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward …………”

A disparaging name that came about of those that judges wrongly. The Hyper and Ultra are added to Dispensationalist I believe to try and get around the references in the Word of God given of Paul’s dispensational gospel. In this way one feels they are not showing disrespect to Paul, for after all they quote Him all to often. They must, for it is from him they must credit with truths such as the Body of Christ; the rapture, the one baptism, and on it goes.

What is Hyper-Dispensationalism? It really covers all that believe Paul has a dispensational gospel. Some Dispensationalists lay claim to Acts 9; and some Acts 13, then others Acts 28. I call myself a “progressive dispensationalist”, as I believe Christ was still teaching Paul up until Paul’s death. Even though the riches in Christ are “unsearchable”, we can find more light as we search His Word.

So how in the world can I be a Baptist, and one of “those” people too? Baptists are dispensationalist, but many don’t realize it. They must be for they are OSAS (saved by the blood while they live), without a work/s. I was an OSAS Christian when I joined the Baptist church. I believed on the Lord Jesus Christ for my Salvation, and the Holy Spirit baptized me. This is what was preached at the Southern Baptist church I joined.

I also believe just as the Baptist, that Jesus Christ did all of our work for us, so we did no work for our salvation. Believing on His name we are saved by God’s Grace, through faith of Jesus Christ, without a work. Can’t get more Baptist than that I don’t believe. If we claim anything else must be done, it seems to me we should perhaps join with the Catholic’s, Lutheran, church of Christ, or some of the others.

Hope this helps your understanding the term, and of believing the dispensational gospel that Christ gave to Paul.

 

Hello ituttut.

I did a quick search on the web and found this site, http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/9170/index.html

is Hyper-Dispensationalism the same as Calvinism?


john.

 

In about the past 150 years dispensationalism as it has ben challenged and proven wrog many times has become what it is today--progressive dispensationalism. The dispensationalists today do not hold the same theology as those of 100 years ago. Most dispensationalists today would not agree much with those of 100 years ago.

Dispensationalism is kind of like Mormonism--always in a state of change. Once they think they have it figured out then they realize they do not so they make some changes and then find out those changes do not work either.

 

Pick up a book by Bullinger or Stam and you'll get the idea.

 

Depending on the who, no baptism, no great commission, no Lord's table, as has been mentioned epistles only relate to the church. Add to that none of the Acts church orgainizational information.

Agree, if you want a full picture try Bullinger/Stam.

 

John, as a general (very general!) rule, Calvinists would not even be dispensationalists, let alone the hyper variety. Dispies (as they are affectionately known) tend to be 3-4 Point Calvinists. Most Calvinists (I hate generalities) tend to be Post-Millenialists.

I'm a little odd, and this isn't the first time I've heard it. I have been a dispensationalist, whether I knew it or not, for about 20 years. Ten years ago, during my time at Dallas Semitary, I decided to move to Progressive Dispensationalism. About that same time, I began looking at the Doctrines of Grace. I currently am a 5-Pointer and unsure of even Progressive Dispensationalism.

 

Mike, I have a friend, an IFB pastor, that I correspond with occassionaly that believes that only Paul's writings are relevant and applicable for the church today. He flat out told me I was wasting my time preaching a message to my church from the Old Testament or from the Gospels.

It really aggrivates him that my DMin project is centering on preaching in the Old Testament

 

Is this a teaching of hyper-dispensationalism?
(I'm checking it out, perchance there is merit to it?)

The number '7' is used in Jewish literature to denote perfection.

Concerning the writings of Paul:
The first of Paul's books are for the Jewish Messanics
The second seven of Paul's books are for the Gentile Christians

The Seven early Pauline letters:

1. Galations 49AD
2. 1 Thessalonians 50AD
3. 2 Thessalonians 51AD
4. 1 Cornithians 55AD
5. 2 Cornithians 56AD
6. Romans 57AD
7. Hebrews c. 56AD

The Seven later Pauline letters
(AKA /also known as/ the prision letters):

Written in Caesera 57-59AD or Rome 60-62AD:
001. Ephesians
002. Philippians
003. Colossians
004. Philemon

Pastorial Letters, about 65AD:
005. 1 Timothy
006. 2 Timothy
007. Titus

 

The theology of the dispensationalsists has changed. Read CH McIntosh, Scofield, Chafer and Larkin and then compare that to Ryrie of about 20 years ago and then the dispensationalists today.

They have changed big time. One of my best friends was a doctoral student at DTS until recently and he tells me they have changed a lot. So that is not just my opinion only.

 

The theology of the dispensationalsists has changed. Read CH McIntosh, Scofield, Chafer and Larkin and then compare that to Ryrie of about 20 years ago and then the dispensationalists today.

They have changed big time. One of my best friends was a doctoral student at DTS until recently and he tells me they have changed a lot. So that is not just my opinion only. </font>[/QUOTE]DTS was undergoing a huge change in the early 90's (when I was there) with the publication of Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig Blaising and Darryl Bock. It is an admission by them that there is some merit to aspects of Covenant Theology that they are trying to incorporate into their system. Some of these involved no longer holding to a distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God" which had been espoused by Ryrie. Another major aspect was abandoning the view that Israel and the Church are separated for all eternity (Israel on the earth and the Church in heaven).

BUT there is still a contingent of Classical Dispys there and many similar Dispy Semitaries that reject Prog Dispensationalism.

 

Thanks for the reply. Close John, but not the same, and also not Arminian. I believe from the “source” Paul came these beliefs, but as with all coming out of the "mother" church, they brought extra baggage.

Are we not all “dispensationalists" to some degree though? Are we living on the other side of "that world that then was"? Are we living on "that side of the Cross", or "on this side"? Are we living before "Damascus Road" or "After Damascus Road"?

Are we waiting to be "raptured", or waiting to go through the "tribulation" when God again deals directly with His Nation, and it is going to be in His wrath. I'm not going to be here. Paul says Christ gave to him a dispensational gospel. I believe this "dispensational stuff".

Way past my bedtime (3:37AM here). I see others to answer, but won't be able to do so until tomorrow evening.

 

The theology of the dispensationalsists has changed. Read CH McIntosh, Scofield, Chafer and Larkin and then compare that to Ryrie of about 20 years ago and then the dispensationalists today.

They have changed big time. One of my best friends was a doctoral student at DTS until recently and he tells me they have changed a lot. So that is not just my opinion only. </font>[/QUOTE]DTS was undergoing a huge change in the early 90's (when I was there) with the publication of Progressive Dispensationalism by Craig Blaising and Darryl Bock. It is an admission by them that there is some merit to aspects of Covenant Theology that they are trying to incorporate into their system. Some of these involved no longer holding to a distinction between the "kingdom of heaven" and the "kingdom of God" which had been espoused by Ryrie. Another major aspect was abandoning the view that Israel and the Church are separated for all eternity (Israel on the earth and the Church in heaven).

BUT there is still a contingent of Classical Dispys there and many similar Dispy Semitaries that reject Prog Dispensationalism. </font>[/QUOTE]But do these changes really qualify as "big time" changes? Is not the basic thrust the same? especially when compared to amil?

 

From the standpoint of an "amil" or "postmil," yes, these changes are small in insignificant. A dispy is still a dispy, no matter what changes they make within their system.

But from the standpoint of a Classical Dispensationalist, Progressives are bordering on heresy (I use that term loosely) because they are rubbing shoulders too much with the Covenant Theologians.

Personally, I agree with the Reformers. We should be reformed (unless we are Arminians)but always reforming.

 

Hello my Christian Missionary friend in Ghana, and all you other Christians. There are way too many to individually answer, so I’m going to try and answer all of you at once, and then you can try to disprove any specifics given. It is going to be in plain words in kind of a story form, hopefully not ambiguous at all, and every one should be able to understand what I am saying. Perhaps you will see why I call my self a “progressive dispensationalist”.

I believe we must go to the beginning, and what we find there is God dividing, or separating out things. God is concerned with more than one sphere. “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth”. Everything from the beginning to the Old Testament is tilted toward the earth. Then the beginning of the Old Testament (covenant) concerns the earth with His promises, and prophecies. God has a purpose in mind, else why would He commit to things such as the Promised Land for Israel? We see God creating His child, and watches it grow. Its name is Israel, God’s nation of people. God Loves His Nation, and that Holy City that he builds for them will be brought down to earth. He gave them Law, and laws and ordinances, and they by blood made covenant with Him for He asked them to do it. They agreed. He is their God.

People accuse we dispensationalist of just knowing the gospel of Paul and forgetting the rest. But in understanding this gospel that Christ from heaven gave to Paul leads us to understanding the purpose of God, and His Word. I believe the churches today want to have it both ways. They want to horn in on what God promised Israel, i.e., believing the Church today is the Israel of yesterday, believing the gospel has always been the same.

Listen to God and His people in just a few verses. The Old Testament is filled with such things. God is in Love, and has a nation.

Psalms 25:13, ”His soul shall dwell at ease; and his seed shall inherit the earth”/u]. A few verses down in 22 we read, ”Redeem Israel, O God, out of all his troubles. In John 10:1

Ezekiel 28:25, ”Thus saith the Lord God; When I shall have gathered the house of Israel from the people among whom they are scattered, and shall be sanctified in them in the sight of the heathen, then shall they dwell in their land that I have given to my servant Jacob.”

Ezekiel 36:28, ”And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be My people, and I will be your God.”

From the few verses above, we see those whom God loves. He asked them to make covenant with Him, and they did. He never asked anyone else. While Jesus was on earth He said He came only for His own, and this is to whom He preached that gospel; and to no one else. In John 10:1 we find He addresses only His sheep of the seed of Jacob, and only they can enter. Many that do not obey His commands, and the preaching of John the Baptist’s message of “repent and be baptized for the remission of their sins” will not be able to enter. So if we want to try and get in by using such verses as this, we had better start acting and doing all the things that were required of His people. The Catholic, and some other churches do believe they have the answer in their “repenting and baptism for the remission of their sins”.

But we know that’s not what we are to do today, don’t we? So what are we heathen Gentile’s to do (all seen by God today in this manner). He has completely left us out in verse 1 above. But He hasn’t as we read further. John 10:16, ”And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.” Good. Here I am. But I am in a different “fold”, and He says I shall hear His voice. But I look while Jesus talks only to His people. He does not have anything to say to me. Wait a minute. He is talking future here. Ah! Here it is in the “great commission” in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Now I can be saved just as those in that other flock, when I hear that gospel of John the Baptist. When I believe what Jesus said and follow that gospel He preached of repentance and baptism for the remission of sins, I will be saved.

Then as I continue to read I find the Apostles are still in Jerusalem, and the message is not being preached to the Gentile, although He said they should. Acts 2 sure doesn’t read like it includes me…. At last, here’s something. Jesus was telling the truth. It is right here in Acts 9, and I have my own Apostle appointed by Christ Jesus from Heaven. Well now I feel better, for this Apostle is not only my Apostle, but to the Jews also. I wonder why He waited all those years from Pentecost to include us? Have to check on that. So the gospel must be the same of repentance and be baptized for the remission of my sins. Well guess I should get on over to the Catholic church. Wait a minute there are other churches that believe the Bible and how we are to be saved closer to home.

Gee, I sure wish those Baptist’s believed this, cause there’s one of their churches in walking distance. Poor things, I wonder where they get their OSAS without doing a work Jesus told them to do? Oh, well, that is their problem.

Now that I know how I’m saved today, I can hurry and finish the rest of the Bible and get on to something else. …..Strange here at the end of Acts, Paul says He is going to the Gentile’s for they will hear Him. This is what Jesus said back there in John 10:16. Now I’m confused. I thought I heard Jesus talking to me and telling me to repent and be baptized for the remission of my sins. I’m going to have to pay closer attention and keep on searching the scriptures. But first I’m going back in Acts for I remember Paul saying something about believing Jesus, and a house? Here it is in Acts 16:28-31.

But something is wrong. Paul is talking to a Gentile here. This is more confusing for I remember Peter telling me……Whoa – just a minute. I need to read Acts 2 again. What! Peter is not even talking to me. Verses 37-39. He is talking to only His own people. Does verse 39 cover me? I don’t know. It sure looks those are Jews in far off places. This has to be it as Paul is telling me something different than Peter. Since I’m a Gentile, I better start concentrating on what Paul is trying to tell me.

From chapter 2 of Acts to chapter 9 I don’t see any “good news” for me anywhere. Hey, this looks like a Gentile soldier in Chapter 10. Wonder what all that “sheet” going up and down really means. I remember when skimming through Acts, after Christ spoke to Paul I didn’t understand the unclean things then, but could that be me? Well Jesus did say I was a dog in Matthew 15:22-28.

Now here is something else I really didn’t notice before. Peter in Acts 10 is telling this Gentile he is not supposed to be talking to him, or associate with him. This is the same thing Jesus said. He said He didn’t come for me when He was here. But now God has made Peter go to this Gentile, and it is sometime after Christ spoke to Paul about the Gentiles. This must be the first time Peter ever preached the gospel to a Gentile. I remember Cornelius got the Holy Ghost, and was baptized. Holy Ghost and t – h – e – n? Acts 10:42-48, ” And he commanded us to preach unto the people (my insertion – Peter’s people), and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
43. To him give all the prophets witness, that through his name whosoever believeth in him shall receive remission of sins.
44. While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word.
45. And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost.
46. For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter,
47. Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
48. And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.

So there it is. This looks like another gospel as God would not allow Peter to preach that gospel of John the Baptist of “repent and be baptized for the remission of sins” to a Gentile. God had Peter preach what Paul was preaching elsewhere at the time. God knowing all things knew the Jerusalem church would never believe Christ chose Paul to go to the Gentile’s, so now that church will have to believe for Peter himself preached to his first Gentile, and it was a different gospel as witnessed by those Jews with him. This sure looks like the gospel that Christ has given to Paul to preach to me(Acts 16:28:34). I see Paul has no qualms at all of going into a Gentile’s home and eating and drinking what ever is put before him. The Gentiles believed what God had told them by word of mouth through Paul, the Gentile’s Apostle.

I’m a Gentile, and Paul is the Apostle to the Gentile, and God forced Peter to see with his own eyes, and the others with him, that the Gentile is to believe another gospel. And Paul tells how we are saved, and how the circumcised are saved. The circumcised were saved by faith. And we uncircumcised in the flesh today are saved through faith – Romans 3:30.

Are we on the same foundation today that Peter was on? Not if we believe Christ from heaven - I Corinthians 3:1-11.

Does Paul build on Peter’s foundation, the foundation the earthly Apostles were told to build on? Not if we believe Christ from heaven – Romans 16:15-22.

II Corinthians 5:16-21, ”Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh: yea, though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we him no more.
17. Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.
18. And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19. To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.”

Where is boasting then? ”Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
28. Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
29. Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
30. Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.”

Are we to believe the gospel to the Jew before Damascus Road, or the gospel to the Gentile and the Jew after Damascus Road, verified and proved by Christ when he sent Peter to Cornelius?

Peter tells His people in II Peter 3:15-16 they had better understand the wisdom given to Paul; Then Paul in Galatians 1:8, says any that preach to we Gentile’s any other gospel but His has got problems coming. Paul and Barnabas went to Jerusalem over this matter, and James, Peter, John and the others shook hands that they of the Jerusalem church on its foundation of Jesus Christ, would preach their gospel to the circumcised, and the Christian church in Antioch on the foundation of Christ Jesus was to preach to the Gentile’s.

I know who it is that I am supposed to believe. ”…………. I am not ashamed: for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.” II Timothy 1:12.

“I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith”, II Timothy 4:7. This is the last Epistle of Paul. My how Paul has progressed from that day Christ from heaven chose him to be the heavenly Apostle to the Gentile, and also the Jew. God taught him all along the way. Precept by precept he taught him.

Paul started at the very beginning, as we all should seeing God is a God of division, but in the end, bringing back together. I strive in Christ to be like Paul and progress to the end. I believe the "secret" Christ told to Paul.
Christian faith, ituttut

 

To me it depends upon what the "dispensation" is about. I believe in dispensation of certain laws to certain people at certain times, but I don't believe in dispensation of grace. Romans chapter 4 and Galatians chapter 3 make clear the dispensation of certain laws, but also makes clear that grace has always been the same for all peoples throughout all time.

 

I don't think you have to swallow the whole dispensational pill. I think you can be dispensational with dispensationalism