Dispensationalism versus Hyper-Dispensationalism

[CoreIssue]

I am dispensationalist also. I agree with Ironside, as shown in the link you gave, that ultra-dispensationalism is no good.

But concerning dispensationalism, I do not think one can ever come to a complete understanding of the Scripture without understanding the dispensations God has given us in the Scripture.

Stranger

I agree.

No one can read the Bible and not see God set up blocks of time which changed in the amount of revelations he gave in each progressive one.

Change the revelation and change the realities.

Salvation has never changed. But the amount of knowledge we have has changed, which changes what we are judged upon.

The more we are given the more is required.

 

[CoreIssue]

I actually don't think that the case for separate dispensations holds up that well, but often in the context of discussing the millennium I am forced to identify as a "dispensationalist" or "non-dispensationalist." In such cases, I identify as a dispensationalist for a lack of a better way to describe my position on that particular issue.

In innocence, very little was required was required and known. They

In conscience more was known and required.

It grew again under Mosaic law and again under grace and it would change again when Law returns.

The context changes with each progressive age. I don't see how anybody can deny that.

 

[Stranger]

I agree.

No one can read the Bible and not see God set up blocks of time which changed in the amount of revelations he gave in each progressive one.

Change the revelation and change the realities.

Salvation has never changed. But the amount of knowledge we have has changed, which changes what we are judged upon.

The more we are given the more is required.

Yes.

Stranger

 

[gadar perets]

Gee, one of another faith explaining how Christians are to understand the Bible. That is pretty strange.

Stranger

You know full well I am of the faith of Messiah Yeshua. I was not explaining how "Christians" are to understand the Bible, but how believers in Messiah Yeshua are to understand it. That may include some Christians and some who are not Christians, but who are walking in the New Covenant. Try addressing the issues I raised in post #12.

 

[Stranger]

You know full well I am of the faith of Messiah Yeshua. I was not explaining how "Christians" are to understand the Bible, but how believers in Messiah Yeshua are to understand it. That may include some Christians and some who are not Christians, but who are walking in the New Covenant. Try addressing the issues I raised in post #12.

You're the one who has labeled himself another faith. Should I not believe you? If your other faith wants to believe something else then what is taught in the Bible, then that is up to you. I myself am Christian. And I believe the Bible.

As to your post #12, I don't understand what you are talking about. Be more explicit about how dispensation is against what you say.

Stranger

 

[CoreIssue]

You know full well I am of the faith of Messiah Yeshua. I was not explaining how "Christians" are to understand the Bible, but how believers in Messiah Yeshua are to understand it. That may include some Christians and some who are not Christians, but who are walking in the New Covenant. Try addressing the issues I raised in post #12.

And that is your problem. You talk as if Messiah Yeshua is not Messiah Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew Yehoshua shortened to Yeshua by the fifth century BC. Then to Iehsous in the Greek. Then to Jesus in the Latin, which all the early Bibles adopted, including the KJV.

So if you want to get picky, Yeshua is not is also not correct.

 

[gadar perets]

You're the one who has labeled himself another faith. Should I not believe you? If your other faith wants to believe something else then what is taught in the Bible, then that is up to you. I myself am Christian. And I believe the Bible.

My faith is founded upon the Bible, not upon the doctrines of men.

As to your post #12, I don't understand what you are talking about. Be more explicit about how dispensation is against what you say.

The "Dispensation of Law" refers to the time period beginning with the Law being given and the supposed end of the Law. Yet, if the Law ended, why do Christians still obey nine of the Ten Commandments as well as the two greatest commandments as well as tithing and a host of other OT commandments. It seems to me the Law never ended. Yet, dispensationalists teach it has ended and the Dispensation of Grace began upon the ending of the Law. Paul tells me the Law has "been established" (made to stand) by faith. Just the opposite of the Law ending.

 

[gadar perets]

And that is your problem. You talk as if Messiah Yeshua is not Messiah Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew Yehoshua shortened to Yeshua by the fifth century BC. Then to Iehsous in the Greek. Then to Jesus in the Latin, which all the early Bibles adopted, including the KJV.

So if you want to get picky, Yeshua is not is also not correct.

The Savior was given the name "Yeshua" meaning "he will save" (Matthew 1:21), not "Yehoshua" meaning "Yah will save".

 

[CoreIssue]

The Savior was given the name "Yeshua" meaning "he will save" (Matthew 1:21), not "Yehoshua" meaning "Yah will save".

I already explained it was an update of the ancient name.

My point is you are making a big deal out of not using Jesus.

Yehoshua means "the LORD is salvation"

Yeshua means "Salvation"

Yah means "YHVH"

 

[CoreIssue]

My faith is founded upon the Bible, not upon the doctrines of men.


The "Dispensation of Law" refers to the time period beginning with the Law being given and the supposed end of the Law. Yet, if the Law ended, why do Christians still obey nine of the Ten Commandments as well as the two greatest commandments as well as tithing and a host of other OT commandments. It seems to me the Law never ended. Yet, dispensationalists teach it has ended and the Dispensation of Grace began upon the ending of the Law. Paul tells me the Law has "been established" (made to stand) by faith. Just the opposite of the Law ending.

The "Dispensation of Law" Is from the giving of Mosaic law to the annulment of Mosaic law on the cross.

The 10 Commandments are not Mosaic law. They were given separately from Mosaic law.

They are the foundation of Mosaic law.

Think of it like the Declaration of Independence. It is not part of the Constitution.

 

[gadar perets]

I already explained it was an update of the ancient name.

My point is you are making a big deal out of not using Jesus.

Yehoshua means "the LORD is salvation"

Yeshua means "Salvation"

Yah means "YHVH"

No, Yeshua is not an update. It was the name given to him from heaven at that time. He was not given the name Yehosua and then it was shortened in his lifetime to Yeshua.

You are the one making a big deal of it. I was discussing dispensationalism and you start talking about the Savior's name.

Yeshua doesn't mean "Salvation". It means , "he will save". Yasha means salvation.

 

[gadar perets]

The "Dispensation of Law" Is from the giving of Mosaic law to the annulment of Mosaic law on the cross.

Since the Mosaic law was not annulled on the cross, the "Dispensation of Law" is bogus.

The 10 Commandments are not Mosaic law. They were given separately from Mosaic law.

They are the foundation of Mosaic law.

Think of it like the Declaration of Independence. It is not part of the Constitution.

The foundation of any building is part of the building. The 10 are the heart of the Mosaic law.

 

[CoreIssue]

No, Yeshua is not an update. It was the name given to him from heaven at that time. He was not given the name Yehosua and then it was shortened in his lifetime to Yeshua.

You are the one making a big deal of it. I was discussing dispensationalism and you start talking about the Savior's name.

Yeshua doesn't mean "Salvation". It means , "he will save". Yasha means salvation.

We'll just have to disagree.

You deny your Christian and yet the New Testament uses the word Christian.

I don't know what you think you are, but you do not sound like a follower of Christ.

 

[CoreIssue]

Since the Mosaic law was not annulled on the cross, the "Dispensation of Law" is bogus.


The foundation of any building is part of the building. The 10 are the heart of the Mosaic law.

It was annulled. God divorced Israel, the veil was rent, there's a laundry list by Christ and the apostles of annulled laws.

The Church has both Jews and Gentiles as members. Israel and the Churc are coheirs in the body of Christ. There is no temple and more.

So whatever you are, is not a follower of Christ.

 

[Enoch111]

I actually don't think that the case for separate dispensations holds up that well...

As long as one ties the various covenants in the Bible with the dispensations, there should really be no problem. Those who are unfamiliar with Dispensationalism seem to think that it is some kind of man -made theology rather than a method of Bible interpretation that takes everything in its plain literal sense (other than metaphors), and recognizes that the Church cannot be substituted for Israel without doing a great deal of damage to proper Bible interpretation.

Hyper-Dispensationalism, on the other hand, makes a mess of Bible interpretation and comes up with some bizarre ideas.

 

[Hidden In Him]

recognizes that the Church cannot be substituted for Israel without doing a great deal of damage to proper Bible interpretation.

This is the part I absolutely agree with when it comes to Dispensationalism. It's some of the specifics on the various ages I have issues with, but not something I'm in the mood for addressing now.

And yes, I distinguish it from Hyper-Dispensationalism most certainly.

 

[Stranger]

My faith is founded upon the Bible, not upon the doctrines of men.


The "Dispensation of Law" refers to the time period beginning with the Law being given and the supposed end of the Law. Yet, if the Law ended, why do Christians still obey nine of the Ten Commandments as well as the two greatest commandments as well as tithing and a host of other OT commandments. It seems to me the Law never ended. Yet, dispensationalists teach it has ended and the Dispensation of Grace began upon the ending of the Law. Paul tells me the Law has "been established" (made to stand) by faith. Just the opposite of the Law ending.

If your faith was found upon the Bible you would be Christian.

Understand first, that there are some Christians who still believe we are to be obedient to the Law. To which I disagree. But, at the same time Christians are found to be obedient to many things written in the Law. But that is not due to their trying to keep the Law. It is a natural obedience due to walking in the Spirit. When one walks in the Spirit, he naturally keeps those things in the Law.

As to 'tithing', Christians are under no law to tithe. Many churches still do. But we are no longer under any law to. We give. In many cases much more than the tithe.

So, the Law has been done away as far as a legal document over us that we are required to keep.

Stranger

 

[gadar perets]

You deny your Christian and yet the New Testament uses the word Christian.

Before they were called "Christians", they called themselves disciples, brethren, believers, the called out, etc., and were called by others the Nazarenes, and Galilaeans. "Christians" may be a derogatory, mocking name that unbelievers called believers. However, one thing is very clear to me. The beliefs of "Christians" back then are totally different than what "Christians" believe now.

I don't know what you think you are, but you do not sound like a follower of Christ.

I certainly don't sound like what modern day Christians say a believer should sound like. That is because their beliefs are so skewed from what Scripture teachers resulting in this thread about the false teaching of dispensations.

 

[gadar perets]

It was annulled. God divorced Israel, the veil was rent, there's a laundry list by Christ and the apostles of annulled laws.

Even after God divorced Israel the law was still expected to be kept. Please cite some of that "laundry list", especially the ones where Yeshua annulled the law.

The Church has both Jews and Gentiles as members. Israel and the Churc are coheirs in the body of Christ. There is no temple and more.

Yes, both Jewish and Gentile believers must still obey the law. So, having no temple means we are now free to murder, commit adultery, idolatry, thefts, etc.?

So whatever you are, is not a follower of Christ.

How childish. Simply because I do not believe like you I'm not a follower of Christ? Grow up.

 

[gadar perets]

If your faith was found upon the Bible you would be Christian.

Understand first, that there are some Christians who still believe we are to be obedient to the Law. To which I disagree. But, at the same time Christians are found to be obedient to many things written in the Law. But that is not due to their trying to keep the Law. It is a natural obedience due to walking in the Spirit. When one walks in the Spirit, he naturally keeps those things in the Law.

As to 'tithing', Christians are under no law to tithe. Many churches still do. But we are no longer under any law to. We give. In many cases much more than the tithe.

So, the Law has been done away as far as a legal document over us that we are required to keep.

Stranger

Your answer does not address the law in relation to the "Dispensation of Law". Are you saying that the "Dispensation of Law" refers to the years when Israel was under a legal document with written laws, but now we are not? And why not? Is it because those written laws are now written in our hearts and minds? The laws still exist. They are simply administered in a new way (internally rather than externally). Perhaps you should rename the dispensations of law and grace to the "Dispensation of External Laws" and the "Dispensation of Internal Laws" rather than misleading believers worldwide into believing we are no longer under any Law.