Ultra/Hyper Dispensationalism

Topic tags
Was out evangelizing last night and spoke for a while with a man who went to a ultra dispensationalist church. I am a dispensationalist, but a classical one as I believe and in no way one like this man. He believed fully that Matt-Acts and the other non Pauline books are no to be held to the same weight as Paul books. When I quoted scripture, he would rat me when it came from a non Paul book. Although he denied it, it appeared he held that Paul and Christ are opposed to each other. He claimed salvation only came though Christ (Jn 14:6, Acts 4), the works of man cannot save but only the gift of salvation by grace from God (Eph 2:8-10), the new life of a believer at conversion (2 Cor 5:17), among other doctrines.

This man did not believe in Universalism, and that Satan would eventually be saved as some others do. This man and his views were wrong, but perhaps to the same degree as someone in the snake handlers movement or Hyper Calvinist movement. Although they do not teach another gospel, their views are dead wrong. What do you say?

A good book on “http://www.christianbook.com/dispensationalism-revised-and-expanded/cha…”: Dispensationalism is by Charles Ryrie called

Would love to get input.

John

Discussion

I’m commenting partly because I’m interested in seeing the responses and partly because I attended a hyper-dispensationalist church for a period of time. (Although the pastor vehemently denied that he was a HD.) The Lord’s Supper was once a year if someone brought it up. Believer’s baptism was administered IF the person insisted and only after a class where the candidate was taught that it was essentially meaningless. The Gospels were considered Old Testament because they were written before the death of the Testator. Acts was a book of transition and had little of doctrinal importance and nothing to do with church government. The church had no membership and decisions were made by the pastor with the approval (?) of a board that had been selected by the pastor.

That being said, I believe that these were saved people but the church was a “denomination” with doctrines and practices that were not Biblical.

"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan

Paul specifically appealed to Abraham (prelaw) and David (law) as justification for his teaching on justification in Romans 4. If there were different ways of salvation, his point would be stupid.

These people fumble scripture. They are careless if not worse. Revelation was written postPaul and refers to churches and their failures to act/believe right.

1 Kings 8:60 - so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God and that there is no other.

[Ron Bean] I’m commenting partly because I’m interested in seeing the responses and partly because I attended a hyper-dispensationalist church for a period of time. (Although the pastor vehemently denied that he was a HD.) The Lord’s Supper was once a year if someone brought it up. Believer’s baptism was administered IF the person insisted and only after a class where the candidate was taught that it was essentially meaningless. The Gospels were considered Old Testament because they were written before the death of the Testator. Acts was a book of transition and had little of doctrinal importance and nothing to do with church government. The church had no membership and decisions were made by the pastor with the approval (?) of a board that had been selected by the pastor.

That being said, I believe that these were saved people but the church was a “denomination” with doctrines and practices that were not Biblical.
Plymouth Brethren (a Fundamentalist group) also do not believe in membership, but they are in no way HD. Church membership is a debatable topic.