Talk:Hyperdispensationalism

List of Names

Being rather new to Wikipedia, I hesitate to modify entries made by others here. But A. E. Knoch should not be listed as an Acts 28 Dispensationalist, since he did not believe in the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ (this belief is one of the basic tenets of Christianity). Instead, Knoch considered Jesus to be a created being, and not God manifest in the flesh. Even followers of Welch and Bullinger do not consider Knoch and his followers to be "true" Christians (Knoch was more of a Unitarian). So, I will let someone more experienced here decide whether to delete the reference to Knoch altogether, or simply add a note that Knoch is not considered to be a true Christian, because he did not believe in the Deity of Christ.

Mr. Brwebb, I have deleted the name at your request. I picked both lists of names up from another source. Even though Knoch may have been heretical in his view of the person of Christ, he could still be classified as a Hyper-D, right? But it doesn't matter to me or the article. :-)

I'm sure you noted a little re-arranging on my part, specifically listing the Acts 28 group first. I did this simply to get Bullinger's name appropriately categorized and still up front in the article since he is the most prominent name (in my estimation). Please feel free to make adjustments or edits as you see fit. Also, you can automatically sign your user name to Talk entries by typing in four successive tildes. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I changed Otis Q. Sellers' middle initial...it isn't "R." There are several justifications for the Acts 28 view, so I deleted the suggestion that the one listed was the primary or only one. I also changed the dispensational break from the beginning of Paul's visit to Rome to after his discussion with the Jewish leadership at Rome. Acts 28 dispensationalists believe that the precise point when the change took place was during Paul's words to the Jewish leaders recorded in Acts 28:28. Although I am not a follower of Mr. Knoch myself, I never heard that he was a Unitarian, or that he did not believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think his unique viewpoint not shared by other Acts 28ers was his support of the view known as Universal Reconciliation, or the idea that all men will eventually be reconciled to God. I have never heard of an Acts 28 dispensationalist who did not believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus. Regards, Nathan C. Johnson

Sentence needs fixing

I think this sentence is missing some part of it otherwise the "yet" doesn't make much sense. "One rationale for this view is that, while Paul had written a number of epistles prior to the events in Acts chapter 26; viz. 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (the "Acts-period epistles"); yet in Acts 26:22, he states that he has only been proclaiming those things which the prophets and Moses said would come." - DNewhall 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the sentence. Duke Ganote 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup of new information

The recent addition of a lengthy, separate, personally signed "correction" section integrates poorly with the Wikipedia style; I am marking this page for cleanup as I am unsure what to do with it. --Yggdrasil 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've altered the text by removing the signature and changing the POV. It still integrates poorly and needs sources other than the editor's personal knowledge. Maria Caliban 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

In viewing the introduction, it seems to me that it presents hyperdispensationalism as if its primary distinctive was a Pauline viewpoint of the Scriptures. Whereas there are hyperdispensationalists who define themselves particularly by the Pauline issue, there are others, especially among Acts 28 Dispensationalists, who acknowledge Paul as the revealer of the mystery, but who do not emphasize the Pauline issue as being the primary distinctive of their hyperdispensationalism. This is particularly true since they do not believe that Paul's earlier letters contain the truth that is particularly for today. Since in the body of the article, Acts 28 is listed first before Mid Acts, it seems to me that there is a jarring contrast between what is stated in the introduction and what is stated in the article.

I would suggest changing the introduction to make it apply more universally to all hyperdispensationalists. Specific viewpoints, like Pauline dispensationalism, would be better discussed within the article itself. Thoughts? Nathan C. Johnson 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"hyperdispensationalism" is a pejorative term created by dispensational protestants that disagree with the Acts 2 type (Dr. Cyrus I. Scofield / Dr. Charles Ryrie), the extreme Acts 28 position (Dr. Bullinger), the mid-Acts position of Acts 9 (Les Feldick / Justin Johnson) or Acts 13 (J. C. O'Hare.) Nobody is hyper or ultra dispensational. One either believes Paul exclusively received mysteries from God about the "Body of Christ" or they blend the Jewish program in following Peter and Christ's earthly ministry. Both are still dispensational. LTSGUNNER (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Controversy

I'm astonished that the Controversy section persisted as it did since it appeared "23:40, 11 October 2007 68.103.223.60 (Talk) (16,005 bytes) (Added opposing POV and 2 links)". I'll look around to see if Sproul and Hanegraaff have explicitly anti-hyperdispensationalism remarks. Duke Ganote (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Creation of Ultradispensationalism Wiki Page

Hello, I have created a new Wiki page Ultradispensationalism which accommodates E. W. Bullinger Acts 28 theology and I have moved all of the content from this Hyperdispensationalism page, along with all references and improved layout to that page. This change has been needed for a long time, as the two systems of belief of Ultradispensationalism and Hyperdispensationalism are clearly two separate systems of belief as shown in the Open Directory Catalog [1] I hope that you will continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia Mysteryofthegospel (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Acts 2

Acts 9

Acts 13

Acts 28

Ultra and Hyper are pejorative terms not adequately describing any of the dispensational positions of the latter 3. They are made up terms that have confused the dispensational believer. Acts 2 is what the fundamentalist would call classical. I say the Apostle Paul's teachings would be the classical version. I hope to soon set the record straight for what has morphed into these conflicting terms which have evolved over the last 100 years. LTSGUNNER (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

A note on my editing of this Article

I would just like to say a few words on my editing of this Wiki Hyperdispensationalism Article. My only purpose of editing this Article is to present verifiable content WP:VERIFY on what Hyperdispensationalism teaches in presenting an Article of referencing excellence and seek no personal gain or applause in doing so. If I have upset any editors on this Article then I do apologise and ask that you go right ahead and edit my entries with Scripturally verifiable content. I thought very hard before removing certain sections, and prayed for wisdom and Scripture in doing so. I realised, for example, that to leave the "Grace Movement" in the article would act as a precursor for anybody/everybody to start adding all kinds of church history, and that is not what this article is about. This article is about the doctrine of Hyperdispensationalism and thus must be defined and developed only with Scripture, not opinion, church history or assumption. I pray that God will use this page to lead people to the "acknowledgement of the mystery of God and of Christ" Colossians 2:2. I have kept a WP:NPOV throughout the article and presented only the Scriptural teaching of Hyperdispensationalism. I want to tell you that I do not live in the western world and do not have access to the internet where I live. I believe that this article needs protection from possible future vandalism and beseech editors of this article to keep an eye on it. A few more days and I will be gone, till next year, hence the intensity of my editing at this present time. Before I go, I would like to share something with you that totally changed my life as a believer in the Lord. For me, this was the precious key to understanding everything else that came after: God's church, which is His Body, is seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus. That is where God sees us - in Christ, in heaven. In Ephesians 3:15, Paul refers to "the whole family in heaven and earth" and that puts the family of God as being the departed saints and the living saints - but there is only one church, which is His Body and it is in heaven - and all departed saints and living saints are seated there - in Christ. Ephesians 2:6: "And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus." God has his family on earth and in heaven - but the church, the Body of Christ, is only in heaven. Thank you, Lord. May God bless you abundantly as you seek His Will in your life. Mysteryofthegospel (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what to do with this article now. I know what you've done has been in good faith, but it seem's you've made the page into a soapbox for the Berean Bible Society. Virtually all the references are Bible verses. WP highly discourages using primary sources, because they are so easy to manipulate. They may be used, but this should be done sparingly, not exclusively. Your talk page comments, as well as your user page, are indicative of an intention to soapbox (objectively, not necessarily that being your intention). Just letting you know where the article now stands in light of WP policy. Carl.bunderson (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello Carl, and thank you for your message mentioning your concerns. The only reason that I mention publications from the BBS as Referenced material is that they have an extensive range of published reference material on Hyperdispensationalism teaching, probably the biggest of anywhere in the world, and there is not a great lot of reference material available on this subject, (except against it) but if it is your view that the article would be better served without them, then I don't see a problem at all with removing those references. I come from a background where everything I believe is from the Bible. I want to tell you, Carl, that from the best of my ability in editing this article, that I have only sought to Biblically expound the doctrines of Hyperdispensationalism, including a section called "Controversies" which was already there, so that people can see the position of Hyperdispensationalism in relation to other views. Other pages on Wiki explain various other Christian beliefs using Scripture to explain their systems of belief on the pages, a lot of the pages with vast paragraphs of unreferenced sections. What is to stop anybody from removing all of those paragraphs as unverified if they are not referenced? With regards to my User page, yes, I talk on my User page, but so do many other Christian Wiki Users, on their talk pages. I have read many things on User Talk pages, such as "I am a Calvanist from Montreal" and similar things. I make a positive distinction from a User Talk page and an Article page - the Article page being much more important and superior, as it is editing the Wiki Encyclopedia itself, whereas a User may delete from their own user page, without problems. I have continuously tried to edit this Article from a NPOV, Carl, with the prefix of "Hyperdispensationalism teaches" being the continuous precursor; I thought that this was what an editor would be supposed to do while editing. What are the non-primary sources outside of the Bible that could be used, without it appearing to be quoting people's opinions? I honestly do not know the answer to that question, Carl, but I do know that Hyperdispensationalism is disliked by many people, and that if people's opinions become the primary content of the page, then it might possibly start to look like a battle ground, maybe subject to vandalism as well. I agree that virtually all of the references are Bible verses, but that's what Hyperdispensationalism is, it is a system of Biblical exegetical belief, which claims only Bible verses as it's foundation. I have not mentioned on the Article page what I believe, only expounded on the different variations within Hyperdispensationalism itself, giving as much coverage to each doctrine within Hyperdispensationalism as possible. Yes, as mentioned at the top of the Article, this page is in need of expert attention, so I got straight to it, as I have been teaching Hyperdispensationalism exegesis for 35 years now, independent of any organisation, so I am not pushing any organisation's doctrine, but only editing this Article by what the Bible actually says; but I am not the only editor of this page, and I sure that other editors have valuable edits to make as well. Please forgive me if I have done something wrong, Carl, it is not my intention to upset anybody by my editing or to violate any of the Wiki editing policies. Best Wishes, 86.166.136.206 (talk) 00:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Mysteryofthegospel (talk) 00:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

The Ultradispensationalist-Hyperdispensationalist (U/H) community is a very small minority within dispensationalism. Within this U/H community there are two primary variants: the Mid-Acts view(s) and the Acts 28 position. The Acts 28 position developed earlier from Bullinger, while the Mid-Acts views developed in the 1930s. These days the adherents for the Acts 28 position are pretty rare and the bulk of the U/H community are the Mid-Acts views. They are numerous enough to have their own network of churches and at least one college Grace Bible College.

From my experience, Wikipedia is written with a general audience in mind, so the names and content of the articles should follow the more common usage of terms. Common usage regards the terms ultradispensationalism and hyperdispensationalism as synonymous. One can see hints of this in the section defining Hyperdispensationalism as well as in the Grace Bible College article. The less common usage has been that Mid-Acts proponents use the term Ultradispensationalism to label the Acts 28 view. But a number of Mid-Acts folks also reject the label Hyperdispensationalism, because it has often been used as a pejorative term. Most scholars and references use the term Ultradispensationalist as the primary label.

I commend the author of the present Hyperdispensationalism article for providing details from a Mid-Acts perspective - personally I'm always interested in theological views. But unfortunately the article also violates a number of Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia is not about providing a justified, detailed defense of a view, but rather about providing a summary or description of the views. If the author wants to preserve the article as is, then it could easily be hosted on a theologically like-minded or free web site.

So my recommendation is that the Ultradispensationalist article be modified to accurately summarize the Mid-Acts views, mention the usage of terms, and a controversy section added that lists specific points of contention. Then Hyperdispensationalism should be redirected to Ultradispensationalism. I am more than happy to do these things, but I will wait and see if there is any feedback before plunging into it... Lamorak (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I reviewed the edits made by Mysteryofthegospel. I agree with much of the remarks of Lamorak. Frankly, if I weren't a mid-Acts dispensationalist myself, I wouldn't have been able to even remotely understand all the minutiae. Hopefully, I've made the article clearer, something it desperately needed. Duke Ganote (talk) 04:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I am Mid-Acts Pauline dispensational (9-13.) Hyper and Ultra are pejorative prefixes made up by Acts 2 dispensationalists. Therefore it is not an actual doctrine. I hope this helps. LTSGUNNER (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Heresy

This extreme doctrine is so radical that even contemporary pluralist Christians would deem it to be heretical. Relevant criticisms need to be mentioned within the article so that the majority view can be expressed on this matter. ADM (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I particularly enjoy Ironside's condemnation of hyper-dispensationalism as an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth"! Duke Ganote (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

A note on my editing of terrible editing

Hello fellow wikipedians, I've just reverted the article back to mid-2008, as a certain user made over 200 blatantly useless contributions to this article that obfuscated the main ideas of the philosophy. This author user:Mysteryofthegospel blatantly violated almost every single Wikipedia policy, including WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:MOS. This author turned a once concise article into a laundry list of bible quotes supporting his own personal dogma. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sound board for biased information. Please, for the love of Wikipedia, do not restore these edits. 76.109.44.167 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you accomplished, but the article now even begins with the POV assertion, "Except for a few obscure dissertations, there has been no substantial investigation of the hyper-dispensational position and its strengths [not weaknesses]. Only superficial assertions of the Acts 2 position is posited as an answer..." I suppose Ironside's "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" , or Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology, or online pages such as by Critical Issues Commentary must be considered such. But i do not now have the time to work on this page, which is of poor quality. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Needs better lead

The article needs a better lead. It currently starts:

The Grace Movement ... is a Protestant doctrine that basically views the teachings of the Apostle Paul both as unique from earlier apostles and as foundational for the church...

Hyper-dispensationalism exists in different intensities, with E. W. Bullinger (1837–1913), an Anglican clergyman and scholar, being the best known early expositor of Acts 28 ultra-dispensationalism, although all dispensational ideas trace back further to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). J.C. O'Hair independently arrived at the Mid-Acts position after rejecting the Acts 2 position early on and then the Acts 28 position later.

This is completely incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know what it's about. What is unique about the teachings of Paul according to this group? What exactly are their doctrinal differences with others? What is this sudden mention of "Acts 28 ultradispensationalism" without any explanation? Imagine an article about Christianity that started:

Christianity is a religion that views the writings of the four evangelists as unique from earlier Jewish writers and foundational for the church.

Though true as far as it goes, there is no mention of Jesus Christ, no mention of monotheism, no mention of the Jewish Bible, etc. I trust you'd agree that that would be a poor lead. Can someone who is familiar with the topic write up a better lead? I tried to understand the topic from the body, but again that seemed opaque. The paragraph about the "four basic truths" seems to start to get to the heart of the matter, but ends up being just as vague. One truth, for example, is "The Difference between Israel and the Church, the Body of Christ"; but what is the difference, and what is its significance? It is never explained. --Macrakis (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hyperdispensationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4066

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Recent editing.

I have added specific doctrines believed and held by the Mid-Acts position and historical corrections. I know there is some repetition but I will work on fixing that and adding requisite references. Ultradispensationalism needs to be a separate article and that should be readily apparent now. There is mostly confusion among opponents of the position and few competent materials against it, (Including Ironside and Giesler). Ryrie says the least against it and is the safest attack on the position. It is an interpretive grid forced upon scripture but before it can be properly and effectively corrected, it must be accurately identified and described. Really most all attempts at attacking it has been an abysmal spectacle let alone correctly described.71.90.33.41 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Recent Summery

I tried to summarize the points being made in the excellent references. As well as dispensationalism and dispensationalist_theology articles. I have noticed that since this article as been published, these two wikipedia articles includes most of the content here with a much clearer picture. Could someone identify who is speaking before each paragraph in "general views"? It is all great information. But extremely bias, since it pushes someones point of view before defining who they are. But otherwise, historically, everything stated seems stated very well.

Afterwords, could you remove any duplicate information presented dispensationalism and dispensationalist_theology that does not first identify who, historically, is speaking?

TamusJRoyce (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Removed due to lack of reasoning and references

1. Specific reason being it lacks reasoning on rejecting scripture based on a biblical period time 2. It promotes categorizing people under the original hate speech it was originally defined as

Note: Not following a specific practice, including sacrificing animals, water baptism, baptism by fire, building an ark, Lord’s Supper, attending only the 7 Churches of Revelations are not valid, as while these practices are biblical, they have various viewpoints and opinions. And it is rare for anyone to follow all practices across all time periods.

Although it is common for people to reject practices outside of a specific time period, rejecting the practice, and not the importance, does not seem to me justification for them to be hyperdispensationalist. Especially since the original definition was not intended to include that group of people. Otherwise, most protestants would be a.) hyper b.) dispensational c.) ist (by breaking the word apart into its root meanings: a.) exceedingly focused b.) time period c.) someone who practice or follows). And I just don’t see that being the case.

I do think the word being looked for is Pauline Dispensationalist.

Or maybe Hyper.Pauline.Dispensationalist (rejecting all but the time period in which Paul taught). But in that reasoning, there could also be Hyper.Old.Coventental.Dispensationalist. Both could be generalized as HyperDispensationalist. But it would be proper to identify what time period.

Regardless, we should be soft-hearted and not put others under this term if it offends them. It may go against Christian Values. But it definitely goes against Wikipedia terms. The original definition could be considered hate speech towards a specific group. But there is historical significants.

There is a historical and original viewpoint that is worth noting that the definition of hyperdispensationalism was intended to place people that exclude some of the practices above (sacrificing animals, water baptism, baptism by fire, building an ark, Lord’s Supper, attending only the 7 Churches of Revelations, etc...), specifically defined below, under. Feel free to add this below content back under History. Remember that it should be added with an unbiased viewpoint .

Another reason for this being moved is there is a lot of duplicate content here that is also contained in dispensationalism.

Malicious Change

This has been reported. This article has been requested to be removed. Editor2020 has had no response or discussion with reverting changes more than 3 times.

TamusJRoyce (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

References

Thanks!

Thank you to User:RHaworth for reverting to Hyperdispensationalism. Editor2020 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Continuing to request community support to remove this page

File:51twC+7qosL. SY346.jpg

Persecution of a denomination

A common unchristian image belittling the right to religious freedom. The article has many false claims such as the Grace Movement not believing in water baptism. Even the cites in this article have preconceived misconceptions. I wanted to preserve the historical significance of this page. But I see that is not worth doing.

Reference: https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&q=hyperdispensationalism

Editor2020 reverting page without discussion

The escalation above is due to Editor2020 inability to discuss, critique, and assist in making appropriate changes. Talking with Wikipedia staff, it seems to be a larger issue with how Wikipedia promotes collaboration. Source control tool, git, has a feature called pull requests. Where approvals and critiques can be gathered and applied before publishing. As long as editing pages directly and the content of the pull request remains open and free for anyone to access, this would be a beneficial feature that would prevent the issue Editor2020 caused to escalate the above.

I understand it is against wiki etiquette to troll for a response (viewable in the the change log of this article...going as far as renaming the page). But it is more-so against wiki etiquette to not communicate. I have determined that the issue is not directly the common issue above. But the lack of tools that facilitates communication and builds strong wiki editors.

I still do wish for this page to be combined into dispensationalism (and thus this page deleted). And dispensationalism be changed to Dispensational Theology. Not because of the what I have mentioned above. But others; that this article is very poorly structured.

It should be structured exactly how Covenant_theology is structured. And the term "ism" should be dropped. Unless Covenant_theology should be renamed to Covenantism. Both either not having an "ism". Or both having an "ism" posfix (i.e. Covenant_theology changed to Covenantism). Please resolve the inconsistencies in how this article is structured.

I will be promoting, if not working on, a tool to allow a pull-request-like feature to better assist and promote collaboration. Until then, I request following wiki etiquette to prevent others from following the examples set forth of breaking wiki etiquette.

TamusJRoyce (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hyper hypergismationalism

? 2600:8807:400:13C0:C111:3CA1:C1C:CBF7 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced parts of the article

Article says, "Acts is seen as a transitional period between dispensations, and the Mid-Acts position does not insert an extra dispensation there (contra Ryrie), as did Anderson." This sentence should be deleted as lacking sources. It also is unclear. The words "there" and "contra Ryrie" require clarification. What did Ryrie claim and to what is Ryrie opposed? Is the claim that Ryrie espoused an extra dispensation or that Ryrie opposed the claim that Mid-Acts Disps believed in an extra dispensation. Also the perjorative word "extreme" appears to be an NPOV violation. Is the intent to debunk a position by labeling it extreme? All parts of this article which lack sources should be deleted or sources added. (AltheaCase (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC))

The article has been tagged as possibly containing original research and that it needs additional sources for verification. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024

I suggest adding Bob Enyart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart) to the <Proponents>. 독자적인 길 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When you find that source, add it and re-add your edit to the Bob Enyart article or add it here, ping me and I'll add it. Cannolis (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)