Members candlelight Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 I have heard this term many times, but I have never been able to come up with an answer. I would rather go to my brothers and sisters in Christ, than just goggling it on the Internet. I have googled things before, and I seem to get more confused at what is put on the web, than what I can learn from others. If this topic is in the wrong section, please feel free to move it to where it belongs. Thank you, moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVBibleBeliever Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 Landmark or Baptist or Bulengerites(SP?) as they are known are Hyper dispesationalist. this is what makes me upset is that most who don't practice a dispensational right dividing study pattern will often lump all dispensational system people in to one group HYPER-dispensationalist. These are hard core no baptism for anyone in the church age as well as other doctrines like it is ok to drink wine and strong drink comes from this groups because only Israel was commanded the 10 commandments and the commandment not to drink wine or strong drink. as well as other errors in scripture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ASongOfDegrees Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 I have heard this term many times, but I have never been able to come up with an answer. I would rather go to my brothers and sisters in Christ, than just goggling it on the Internet. I have googled things before, and I seem to get more confused at what is put on the web, than what I can learn from others. If this topic is in the wrong section, please feel free to move it to where it belongs. Thank you, moderators. A hyperdispenstionalist or sometimes called ultradispensationalist is someone who over-divides the bible into different economies or dispensations (periods of time in which God deals with mankind). They are usually associated with the Grace Churches out of Michigan. J.C. O'Hair, Cornelius Stam, Charles Baker, E.W. Bullinger, Les Feldick, the Berean Bible Fellowship, Grace Bible College are associated with this teaching. They do have some good stuff. Bullinger's Companion Bible is a good study bible for theologians but you just need to be aware of his position. What a Hyper D will do is divide the NT up, most notably the Pauline epistles, until there is practically nothing left for the believer to follow. They'll say that any epistle of Paul written prior to his time in prison is not Church Age doctrine. All of Acts, or at least with some of them, half of the book of Acts, all the Jewish epistles, the Gospels (except for portions of John) and Revelation have no bearing on us today. Basically, all we are left with are Paul's prison epistles and that's it. Now, because the church ordinances Paul wrote about were prior to his prison epistles they no longer apply to us today. So no baptism or Lord's supper. Confession of sin, since it's mention in the epistle of John, no longer applies. The "mansions in heaven" and "new Jerusalem" as well as "city adorned as a bride" (Revelation) has nothing to do with the church since they are mentioned prior and after Paul's prison epistles. None of these things, including the OT, have any application whatsoever to the church. Some are so extreme (and I've debated them personally) they have TWO GOSPELS being preached right now, a Jewish gospel (faith and works) and a Gentile gospel (only faith)- Gal. 2:7. I agree with them that there are more than one gospel in scripture but there is ONLY ONE WE PREACHED TODAY. That is the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace without works with eternal security of the believer. Also, some of them teach that the Apostles are not even part of the body of Christ (i.e the church) since they were saved before the gospel that was revealed to Paul (as Paul called it, "my gospel"). Now not all of them are this extreme and many of them bring up some good points of theological discussion concerning difficult passages of scripture. Also, I find myself agreeing with them in some places. For instance, the Jewish epistles and Revelation do have doctrinal application to the Tribulation saints but where I disagree with them is that they say they have no application whatsoever, whether doctrinal or devotional, to the NT church. This is crazy for we know that "ALL scripture is given by God...for doctrine and instruction".Even the book of Leviticus has some kind of devotional or spiritual application to the church, just NOT doctrinal. I also agree with them that not all of Acts is applicable to the church AS FAR AS DOCTRINE. Acts 2:38 is NOT the gospel we preach today. I agree with them also that much of the gospels (Matt.-Luke and some of John) is directed towards Israel and contains millennial doctrine and the "gospel of the kingdom" is NOT the gospel we preach today. But again, this doesn't mean it can't be applied to the church in instruction and make for good preaching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted March 13, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 Landmark or Baptist or Bulengerites(SP?) as they are known are Hyper dispesationalist. this is what makes me upset is that most who don't practice a dispensational right dividing study pattern will often lump all dispensational system people in to one group HYPER-dispensationalist. These are hard core no baptism for anyone in the church age as well as other doctrines like it is ok to drink wine and strong drink comes from this groups because only Israel was commanded the 10 commandments and the commandment not to drink wine or strong drink. as well as other errors in scripture. I have heard of Landmark, but not the others. They don't practice the ordinance of Baptism? And, they drink strong drink? Why do people confuse Dispenstationalists with these people? They aren't remotely close to being like one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVBibleBeliever Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 I have heard of Landmark, but not the others. They don't practice the ordinance of Baptism? And, they drink strong drink? Why do people confuse Dispenstationalists with these people? They aren't remotely close to being like one another. I think I meant to say Brider Baptist. They do over divide Romans and 1Corinthians to a fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted March 13, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 A hyperdispenstionalist or sometimes called ultradispensationalist is someone who over-divides the bible into different economies or dispensations (periods of time in which God deals with mankind). They are usually associated with the Grace Churches out of Michigan. J.C. O'Hair, Cornelius Stam, Charles Baker, E.W. Bullinger, Les Feldick, the Berean Bible Fellowship, Grace Bible College are associated with this teaching. They do have some good stuff. Bullinger's Companion Bible is a good study bible for theologians but you just need to be aware of his position. What a Hyper D will do is divide the NT up, most notably the Pauline epistles, until there is practically nothing left for the believer to follow. They'll say that any epistle of Paul written prior to his time in prison is not Church Age doctrine. All of Acts, or at least with some of them, half of the book of Acts, all the Jewish epistles, the Gospels (except for portions of John) and Revelation have no bearing on us today. Basically, all we are left with are Paul's prison epistles and that's it. Now, because the church ordinances Paul wrote about were prior to his prison epistles they no longer apply to us today. So no baptism or Lord's supper. Confession of sin, since it's mention in the epistle of John, no longer applies. The "mansions in heaven" and "new Jerusalem" as well as "city adorned as a bride" (Revelation) has nothing to do with the church since they are mentioned prior and after Paul's prison epistles. None of these things, including the OT, have any application whatsoever to the church. Some are so extreme (and I've debated them personally) they have TWO GOSPELS being preached right now, a Jewish gospel (faith and works) and a Gentile gospel (only faith)- Gal. 2:7. I agree with them that there are more than one gospel in scripture but there is ONLY ONE WE PREACHED TODAY. That is the gospel of the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ and salvation by grace without works with eternal security of the believer. Also, some of them teach that the Apostles are not even being part of the body of Christ since they were saved before the gospel that was revealed to Paul (as Paul called it, "my gospel"). Now not all of them are this extreme and many of them bring up some good points of theological discussion concerning difficult passages of scripture. Also, I find myself agreeing with them in some places. For instance, the Jewish epistles and Revelation do have doctrinal application to the Tribulation saints but where I disagree with them is that they say they have no application whatsoever, whether doctrinal or devotional, to the NT church. This is crazy for we know that "ALL scripture is given by God...for doctrine and instruction".Even the book of Leviticus has some kind of devotional or spiritual application to the church, just NOT doctrinal. I also agree with that not all of Acts is applicable to the church AS FAR AS DOCTRINE. Acts 2:38 is NOT the gospel we preach today. I agree with them also that much of the gospels is directed towards Israel and contains millennial doctrine and the "gospel of the kingdom" is NOT the gospel we preach today. But again, this doesn't mean it can't be applied to the church in instruction and make for good preaching. I would be completely confused by their doctrine. Thank you for pointing out who these people are, Song. I haven't heard of the names before, so I will assume that I have never heard their beliefs explained. I am familiar with the Bereans, but haven't come across this type of thinking with them. At least, yet... anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted March 13, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 I think I meant to say Brider Baptist. They do over divide Romans and 1Corinthians to a fault. It was explained to me that a "Baptist Brider" is one who believes that only the Baptists will share in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Is this Biblical? If not, where do they get this from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members John81 Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 The Bible is "divided" between Old Covenant and New Covenant; yet they seamlessly flow from one to the other. Other divisions are the doings of man, not God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ASongOfDegrees Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 The Bible is "divided" between Old Covenant and New Covenant; yet they seamlessly flow from one to the other. Other divisions are the doings of man, not God. I guess if you're are Reformed or Calvinist this would be your position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AVBibleBeliever Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 It was explained to me that a "Baptist Brider" is one who believes that only the Baptists will share in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Is this Biblical? If not, where do they get this from? of course not doctrine of men Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members ASongOfDegrees Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 It was explained to me that a "Baptist Brider" is one who believes that only the Baptists will share in the Marriage Supper of the Lamb. Is this Biblical? If not, where do they get this from? See if you can follow this mess: Baptist Briders or Landmakers teach that since the Baptist church was started by John the Baptist (which it wasn't) and you can only get into the church by water baptism (submersion- Acts 2:41,47) and that the baptism of the Spirit in Romans 6 is really a water baptism then somehow this means that only Baptists are part of the Bride of Christ and therefore we will be the only ones partaking of the marriage supper of the Lamb. All other Christians will be waiting on tables and doing dishes. So men like Billy Sunday and D.L. Moody will be serving Billy Graham and Harry Emerson Fosdick. The kicker is that John the Baptist is not part of the Bride of Christ but a "friend of the bridegroom" (John 3:29). He is an OT prophet (Matthew 11:10-14). Also, you will find with Brider churches that you will have to be rebaptized every time you join a new Baptist church since they believe that the local church (even though there are unsaved folks in the local church) is the Bride of Christ. Therefore, you have thousands of Brides of Christ running around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted March 13, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 The Bible is "divided" between Old Covenant and New Covenant; yet they seamlessly flow from one to the other. Other divisions are the doings of man, not God. Is that the same as Old Testament and New Testament, John? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members candlelight Posted March 13, 2014 Author Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 See if you can follow this mess: Baptist Briders or Landmakers teach that since the Baptist church was started by John the Baptist (which it wasn't) and you can only get into the church by water baptism (submersion- Acts 2:41,47) and that the baptism of the Spirit in Romans 6 is really a water baptism then somehow this means that only Baptists are part of the Bride of Christ and therefore we will be the only ones partaking of the marriage supper of the Lamb. All other Christians will be waiting on tables and doing dishes. So men like Billy Sunday and D.L. Moody will be serving Billy Graham and Harry Emerson Fosdick. It doesn't sound too Biblical to me, Song. LOL! The kicker is that John the Baptist is not part of the Bride of Christ but a "friend of the bridegroom" (John 3:29). He is an OT prophet (Matthew 11:10-14). I understand. Also, you will find with Brider churches that you will have to be rebaptized every time you join a new Baptist church since they believe that the local church (even though there are unsaved folks in the local church) is the Bride of Christ. Therefore, you have thousands of Brides of Christ running around. How is that even Biblically possible? If one joins another IFB church due to re-locating, for example, it shouldn't mean that they should be baptized again. That doesn't make Biblical sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bro K Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 What is a Hyper Dispensationalist? One who tries to dispensate with having his coffee!!! About time to quit beating this !!!! This is not a Doctrine; but simply a studying tool which some use to help in understanding the Bible. Some do and some don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Bro K Posted March 13, 2014 Members Share Posted March 13, 2014 The Bible is "divided" between Old Covenant and New Covenant; yet they seamlessly flow from one to the other. Other divisions are the doings of man, not God. I believe that the "flow" changed course at Calvary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.