I think I’ve finally finished the “Interesting Conversation” and come to a couple of conclusions. First I can thank the small group of folks with whom I was trying (unsuccessfully) to have a rational dialogue for ‘encouraging’ me to do some homework and broaden my knowledge concerning the doctrine of Dispensationalism, and especially Hyper dispensationalism, which is. what the members of that small group teach as the truth, the whole truth, and only truth.
I’ve been called several interesting names and even declared lost and headed for hell unless I repent of my wrong beliefs concerning the message of the gospel. I’ve been booted from a couple of their Facebook pages.
They are Hyper dispensationalists to the core, meaning that their doctrine was developed by a man called E.W. Bullinger in the 19th Century and not John Darby as I had first thought. That might not sound like a small matter, but I assure you it is not. While Dispensationalism in itself is not heretical, but one way of looking at church history, Hyper dispensationalism, on the other hand has been called heretical by many notable Bible scholars and theologians.
If I was asked what I thought was the most grievous teaching of the movement, I would say it would be there are two completely different gospels, one for Jews (The Gospel of the Kingdom) and one for Gentiles (The Gospel of Grace). There has always been one gospel. You can know recognize the movement when you hear such phrases as:
- Paul’s Gospel vs Jesus’ Gospel
- Gospel of Grace vs Gospel of the Law
- Gospel to the Jews vs the Gospel to the Gentiles
- Gospel of the Kingdom vs Paul’s Gospel
Another characteristic of my interesting conversation colleagues is that all seem to be solidly KJV ONLY adherents, which brings me to the most seriously mind-boggling tidbit. While they claim to read nothing else but the KJV and use no other resource (especially other men’s brains), they are relying on the teachings of a man from the 19th Century!
I’ve rambled on enough. Below are links to sites I found that aided me in a little bit of research:
- What is ultra-dispensationalism? | GotQuestions.org
- The Two Gospel Heresy
- Hyperdispensationalism and the Authority of Christ (cicministry.org)
- DISPENSATIONALISM, ULTRA-DISPENSATIONALISM, HYPER-DISPENSATIONALISM. IS THERE A DIFFERENCE?
- Covenant Theology Vs Dispensationalism (10 Epic Differences) (biblereasons.com)
- When the Church Began – Hyperdispensationalism: Why It Is Wrong – The Superior Word
The Battle Cry 
I have recently learned of the Mid Acts Dispensationalists and I agree their most egregious teaching is there are different gospels. I do not understand how anyone could read the Bible and come away with 2 gospels. Paul would say these people are anathema (Gal 1:9) and they really do over venerate Paul. Thank you for your work with this, Dan!
LikeLike
It’s really bizarre.
LikeLiked by 1 person
using the King James is seemingly the most accurate, and if not, why would other versions of the Bible leave out verses, that the King James includes?
LikeLike
The reason those verses are omitted or bracketed off in our newer translations is because modern translators understand these verses to not be plausibly part of the older and more reliable manuscript tradition. The KJV was first published in 1611 and was based upon fewer and later manuscripts. There are newer translations that are based on earlier manuscripts that are closer to the original meaning of some passages that the KJV. I examined a single passage once in four different language translations. My Polish Bible was actually closest in meaning to the earliest manuscripts.
Dr. James White has written a very good book called The King James Controversy. Daniel Wallace (Dallas Theological Seminary) is also. Good source. Is your good big enough to ensure that His book has been improved upon through the centuries, based on archeological discoveries? Some KJV Only types believe that the 1611 KJV is just as divinely inspired as the original autographs,mwhich is laughable. They will tell you that if you don’t stick to the KJV you aren’t even saved.
LikeLike
so man is deciding for us as to what has value and should be important for us. Is this right?
LikeLike
Is that serious question? Some newer translations are based on manuscripts dated closer to the original ones, which nobody has. It’s purely a translation principal, not a man telling what has value and should be important. At the same time, a man telling you that the KJV is the only reliable translation is an example that fits your question. Note that I said ‘translation’, not a paraphrase. Some so called translations are not true translations. The Passion Bible intentionally inserts false doctrine into the text. You can research it if you like.
LikeLike
isn’t intentionally leaving out the original verses false doctrine?
LikeLike
If those “original” verses were from manuscripts found that earlier manuscripts (closer to the real originals) did not include, it’s likely the might have been added by an overzealous scribe who was trying to make the text easier to understand for the reader. That did happen on occasion. And sometimes those verses were still included and sometimes italicized with explanatory notes saying that they were not in the earliest available. False doctrine? That could only happen if ‘doctrinal’ issues are a mistakes. Not every verse in the Bible teaches doctrine. Do you understand we are talking strictly about sound translation issues?
LikeLiked by 1 person
seems to me like that word “if” appeared out of nowhere?
LikeLike
Actually the “If” originated in my mind in order to make my answer a “hypothetical” one so that I was not making any sort of absolute truth claim. “Came out of nowhere? Are you serious?
LikeLike
I have no problem with anyone whose preferred translation is the KJV. My issue is with KJV Onlyists who say that using any resource BUT the KJV for Bible study but also swear by doctrines developed by a man from the 19th Century.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: “In Vain do They Worship Me” | The Battle Cry