Thread: Hyper-Dispy

There's "Hyper" everything, I'm sure but it seems I have run across a hyper-dispensationalist. The comments were unlike anything I've heard.

Is it consistent with typical Dispensationalism to make the writings of Paul totally distinct from the rest of Scripture? (Paul uses "my Gospel" at times so they take this to be different from the Apostle's Gospel) Have you ever heard that we no longer need to repent? How strong is the correlation between Dispy theology and Antinomianism?

I may go into detail if the thread warrants, but for now, I could hardly believe what I was hearing.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

There's "Hyper" everything, I'm sure but it seems I have run across a hyper-dispensationalist. The comments were unlike anything I've heard.

Is it consistent with typical Dispensationalism to make the writings of Paul totally distinct from the rest of Scripture? (Paul uses "my Gospel" at times so they take this to be different from the Apostle's Gospel) Have you ever heard that we no longer need to repent? How strong is the correlation between Dispy theology and Antinomianism?

I may go into detail if the thread warrants, but for now, I could hardly believe what I was hearing.

I can hardly believe what you are hearing as well!

I have heard it argued by dispys that Paul's words do not carry the same authority as the words of Jesus, but I have not heard them argue that Paul preached a different gospel altogether.

I think that sounds 'hyper'. I can't imaging someone like J. D. Pentecost ever making that claim.

A long time ago I encountered one kind of hyper-dispie group that considered the only scriptural applicable to this era to be Paul's prison epistles--they did not even accept the gospels. I don't recall what they did with the general epistles and Revelation.

How can people call God "Lord" when they feel free to pick and choose which books they like and which they will discard? It seems evident who is lord in this case.

Yes, there is a version of dispensationalism that denies that the Gospels have much to say to the church age at all. Jesus offered the Jews the Kingdom, they rejected it, God went to his mystery parenthesis of the Church Age (= Age of the Gentiles). In that sense, the Sermon on the Mount would be pure millennial lawcode and the epistles would be the only really applicable part of the Bible.

Such dispensationalists are no more typical of rank and file dispensationalists (and no more "the logical conclusion of the philosophy") than hyper-preterism or hyper-Calvinism typifies or represents the "logical conclusion" of Reformed thought. The Reformed have their Harold Camping and the dispensationalists have their Acts 28 Dispensationalists and Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

Is it consistent with typical Dispensationalism to make the writings of Paul totally distinct from the rest of Scripture? (Paul uses "my Gospel" at times so they take this to be different from the Apostle's Gospel) Have you ever heard that we no longer need to repent? How strong is the correlation between Dispy theology and Antinomianism?

I think this is a repetition of some of the early church errors. In particular, certain groups divided God into the manifestation as the Father, then as the Son, and then as the Spirit, each mode of God's existence implying a different kind of salvation. In theology proper, this is called modalism (vs. Trinitarianism). In ethics, it is called anti-nomianism. In soteriology, it is called dispensationalism.

To be sure, one may be a dispensationalist and still a Trinitarian. But, IMO, only by "blessed inconsistency".

Another error was to divide up the Scriptures along these categories, and only go for the writings of Paul, and probably not all of them (heretics such as Marcion did this). Nothing new under the sun...

Cheers,

Originally Posted by DMcFadden

Yes, there is a version of dispensationalism that denies that the Gospels have much to say to the church age at all. Jesus offered the Jews the Kingdom, they rejected it, God went to his mystery parenthesis of the Church Age (= Age of the Gentiles). In that sense, the Sermon on the Mount would be pure millennial lawcode and the epistles would be the only really applicable part of the Bible.

Such dispensationalists are no more typical of rank and file dispensationalists (and no more "the logical conclusion of the philosophy") than hyper-preterism or hyper-Calvinism typifies or represents the "logical conclusion" of Reformed thought. The Reformed have their Harold Camping and the dispensationalists have their Acts 28 Dispensationalists and Mid-Acts Dispensationalists.

BINGO! You've nailed it. Want to come with me to their house next time?

Originally Posted by Leslie

A long time ago I encountered one kind of hyper-dispie group that considered the only scriptural applicable to this era to be Paul's prison epistles--they did not even accept the gospels. I don't recall what they did with the general epistles and Revelation.

How can people call God "Lord" when they feel free to pick and choose which books they like and which they will discard? It seems evident who is lord in this case.

Very similar here. I quote them, "Take out the 13 epistles of Paul and you basically have the OT." I know my response was and then

I posted a chart here: Baptism not valid during this Dispensation

Here is a related article:

Modern Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of the Unity of Scripture - Oswald T. Allis - Reformed Literature

Originally Posted by JM

I posted a chart here: Baptism not valid during this Dispensation

Great chart. I think this is it to a T.

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Here is a related article:

Modern Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of the Unity of Scripture - Oswald T. Allis - Reformed Literature

Thanks! Looks useful.

Originally Posted by D. Paul

Originally Posted by CaseyBessette

Here is a related article:

Modern Dispensationalism and the Doctrine of the Unity of Scripture - Oswald T. Allis - Reformed Literature

Thanks! Looks useful.

You're welcome. It was a real eye-opener when I first read it. I had never quite made the connection between dispensationalism and the spirit of higher criticism. Definitely an unexpected connection between fundamentalism and liberalism!

Hyper-dispensationalism is often associated with E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913):

Hyper-dispensationalism
E. W. Bullinger