Ultradispensationalism: your views.

[Iosias]

What do you think about ultradispensationalism?

 

[@@Paul@@]

It has is merits and it's downfalls > just like any other theological stance.

 

[BT]

What do you think about ultradispensationalism?

I think ultradispensationalism goes too far.

Ultradispensationalism: The prefix ULTRA simply means more extreme than the point of view held by the one who uses the term. The principal difference between ultradispensationalism and normative dispensationalism is when the church, the body of Christ, began historically. The ultradispensationalist believes it began with Paul some time after Pentecost, while the normative dispensationalist holds that the church began at Pentecost (Acts 2). This difference effects what ordinances are practiced, and what Scripture is directly for the church

In some cases ultradispensationalists make outrageous claims that make the entire dispensational system look and sound foolish (for proof of that.. look around in this forum). There is great damage done by the extremist views of the ultra's including charges of "wrongly dividing the Word of Truth", "making the words of Jesus of no (or little) effect", "dismissing the Words of Christ" etc.

I spoke with one ultra (late Acts) who denied that the prophecies of Christ were accurate (because in early Acts the "kingdom" was still offerred...therefore the "end times" prophecies of Christ may or may not have happened)... (note: This guy was not typical of ultradispensationalists, his claims were new to me and I believe that grounded ultras would have called him on this notion as well)

Though the timing of the beginning of the church is an issue between us and the ultra's there are far more serious issues.. such as above.

 

[Iosias]

I think ultradispensationalism goes too far.

Ultradispensationalism: The prefix ULTRA simply means more extreme than the point of view held by the one who uses the term. The principal difference between ultradispensationalism and normative dispensationalism is when the church, the body of Christ, began historically. The ultradispensationalist believes it began with Paul some time after Pentecost, while the normative dispensationalist holds that the church began at Pentecost (Acts 2). This difference effects what ordinances are practiced, and what Scripture is directly for the church

Indeed, however surely from an Acts 28 position the Acts 2er is an ultradispensationalist? It all depends where you stand

In some cases ultradispensationalists make outrageous claims that make the entire dispensational system look and sound foolish (for proof of that.. look around in this forum).

An example being...?

I spoke with one ultra (late Acts) who denied that the prophecies of Christ were accurate (because in early Acts the "kingdom" was still offerred...therefore the "end times" prophecies of Christ may or may not have happened)...

Surely that is hardly the fault of ultradispensationalism? Rather the failing of that Man's understanding?

Though the timing of the beginning of the church is an issue between us and the ultra's there are far more serious issues.. such as above.

But water baptism is a Jewish rite...why would you want to have it in the church if it belongs to a previous dispensation?

 

[@@Paul@@]

I think in all fairness... Most "ultra's" do not believe the Body began until After Acts 28, therefore reject everything which happen during Acts as being for today... Which in my P.O.V, goes to far.

The term "hyper" has been used to label those who believe the kingdom was offered during the first part of Acts, and the body of Christ (the "church") began with the rise of Paul and His ministry to the Gentiles. <<<--- I'm in there somewhere.


AV, How would you label yourself??

 

[Iosias]

AV, How would you label yourself??

Flitting between Acts 9, 13 and 28 . The problem is that:

Acts 28
25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Seems to imply that Israel were not fully set aside before Acts 28, whilst:

1 Corinthians 12
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

seems to imply that the mystery was known before Acts 28...

 

[@@Paul@@]

Flitting between Acts 9, 13 and 28 . The problem is that:

Acts 28
25 And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

Seems to imply that Israel were not fully set aside before Acts 28, whilst:

1 Corinthians 12
13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

seems to imply that the mystery was known before Acts 28...

The "mystery" is a little more then the "body of Christ"...

Act 26:22 Having therefore obtained help of God, I continue unto this day, witnessing both to small and great, saying none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come:

Act 15:14-17 KJV Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. (15) And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, (16) After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: (17) That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.
​

Notice Paul preached none other things that what the prophets and Moses said should come... AND Simeon declared that God did visit the Gentiles to call out a people for His name; to which the prophets agreed.

Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,
Rom 1:2 (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,)​

Even in Romans, the last epistle written during the Acts period, Paul said the "gospel of God" which He was called to be an apostle of was "promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures"

So no, the nation of Israel was not set aside prior to Acts 28 AND the Body began before. - There's no problem here...

 

[Iosias]

So no, the nation of Israel was not set aside prior to Acts 28 AND the Body began before. - There's no problem here...

 

[BT]

Indeed, however surely from an Acts 28 position the Acts 2er is an ultradispensationalist? It all depends where you stand

I've never heard an Acts 28'er call an early Acts dispey "ultra"... but that's just me.

An example being...?

An example...

So no, the nation of Israel was not set aside prior to Acts 28 AND the Body began before. - There's no problem here...

and

But water baptism is a Jewish rite...why would you want to have it in the church if it belongs to a previous dispensation?

Surely that is hardly the fault of ultradispensationalism? Rather the failing of that Man's understanding?

I don't see it as the "fault" but rather the "result"... of ultradispensationalism

But water baptism is a Jewish rite...why would you want to have it in the church if it belongs to a previous dispensation?

 

[@@Paul@@]

We could all do that until our foreheads are dented.

 

[billwald]

The ultras that I know tend to take St Paul as their primary authority, not the Gospels or the origional apostles.

 

[TheScottsMen]

What do we define as an Ultra or Hyper? Acts 28'ers? Surely not an Acts 9 or 13'er? I think we are better defined as Logicalisters... If thats a word, haha.

 

[TheScottsMen]

The ultras that I know tend to take St Paul as their primary authority, not the Gospels or the origional apostles.

If you mean simply by the person who wrote it, then yes. But our final
authority is Jesus, just as He is yours. We simply believe that what pertains
to the Church today in doctrine and our marching orders is not found in Jesus earthly ministry,
but his heavenly ministry which was revealed through Paul.

 

[@@Paul@@]

What do we define as an Ultra or Hyper? Acts 28'ers? Surely not an Acts 9 or 13'er? I think we are better defined as Logicalisters... If thats a word, haha.

HAHA, CommonSenserists? j/k....

When I think of Ultra i classify those Acts28r's and beyond. Hyper's then being somewhere between Acts 9 and 28.

 

[TheScottsMen]

HAHA, CommonSenserists? j/k....

When I think of Ultra i classify those Acts28r's and beyond. Hyper's then being somewhere between Acts 9 and 28.

Though, I never new there was a difference between ultra and hyper?

 

[Iosias]

If you mean simply by the person who wrote it, then yes. But our final
authority is Jesus, just as He is yours. We simply believe that what pertains
to the Church today in doctrine and our marching orders is not found in Jesus earthly ministry,
but his heavenly ministry which was revealed through Paul.

 

[BT]

HAHA, CommonSenserists? j/k....

Don't you mean CommonCensorists? Since they hold the Gospels as "not applicable"?


oooooh that stings!

And of course, I'm only joking

 

[@@Paul@@]

Don't you mean CommonCensorists? Since they hold the Gospels as "not applicable"?

oooooh that stings!

And of course, I'm only joking

LOL... Good one...


They would include me, and I do not old the Gospels as "not applicable".

 

[Ebb]

What do we define as an Ultra or Hyper? Acts 28'ers? Surely not an Acts 9 or 13'er? I think we are better defined as Logicalisters... If thats a word, haha.

Actually this what Covenant theologians see when looking at ultra-dispensationalists. They are just being consistent and logical with classical dispensationalist assumptions and trying to solve its problems.

But in doing so, they have to almost sell their souls (if it were possible to the elect). For instance, as some ultradispensationalists are now saying, even taking being born again away from the Church. It's as if Satan himself is speaking the doctrine.

See
http://www.icdc.com/~dnice/disp.html
Excerpted here:



Harry Ironside, one of dispensationalism's stalwarts, states -
Having had most intimate acquaintance with Bullingerism as taught by many for the last forty years, I have no hesitancy in saying that its fruits are evil. It has produced a tremendous crop of heresies throughout the length and breadth of this and other lands; it has divided Christians and wrecked churches and assemblies without number; it has lifted up its votaries in intellectual and spiritual pride to an appalling extent, so that they look with supreme contempt upon Christians who do not accept their peculiar views; and in most instances where it has been long tolerated, it has absolutely throttled Gospel effort at home and sown discord on missionary fields abroad. So true are these things of this system that I have no hesitancy in saying it is an absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth.37



37.Harry Ironside, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth (New York: Loizeaux, n.d.), 11.



The moral of all this for the Scofieldian dispensationalist is that if he will not build on the covenantal continuity of the earlier dispensations, there is simply no way by which he can make room for the church at a later stage. The ultradispensationalist has been pointing this out for a century. Covenant theologians have been showing it for millennia.38

38.John H. Gerstner, Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Brentwood TN:Wolgemuth & Hyatt, 1991), 204-5.


The Bullingerite stands with arms outstretched to welcome the moderate dispensationalist. All that is required is to apply the dispensational system consistently.

 

[@@Paul@@]

But in doing so, they have to almost sell their souls (if it were possible to the elect). For instance, as some ultradispensationalists are now saying, even taking being born again away from the Church. It's as if Satan himself is speaking the doctrine.

Hehe... I would agree... Christ was telling the JEWS they need to be born-again to enter into the millennial kingdom...

Israel was born at Sinai; however their current condition required them to repent and be "born again" > to earn their inheritance.

While, I see this as being "applicable" to us : we were never "born" to begin with... (PS, a classical dispy pointed that out )

as if straight from Satan...