Ultra dispensationalism

[Guest]

Hello!

We have had some conversations over the past few years with some ultra dispensationalists. We have come to learn that most of them believe that the gospels don't apply to gentiles. This to me seems to be a dangerous path to go down.

What is your opinion on their beliefs? Do you think they could be borderline cultic?

[Guest]

Hi Telfers!

Good to hear from you here! I know you have had some intensive contact with this movement. I will try to give some biblical perspective on it.

Those who are called untra-dispensationalists, or hyper-dispensationalists, are also known as Bullingerites, after the British minister in the Church of England, E. W. Bullinger (1837-1913). Bullinger's views were spread through the notes of the Companion Bible which he edited. Hyper-dispensationalists believe that they are the only truly consistent dispensationalists (just as hyper-Calvinists are the only truly consistent Calvinists), and that may be a true assessment.

H.A. Ironside, a dispensationalist, but a critic of hyper-dispensationalism, characterized the doctrine as follows:

"There are a number of outstanding tenets of Ultra-dispensationalism. First, it is insisted that the four Gospels are entirely Jewish and have no real message for the Church. Secondly, it is maintained that in the book of Acts we do not have the Church, the Body of Christ, but that the word ekklesia (church), as it is used in that book refers to a different Church altogether than that of Paul's Prison Epistles. Thirdly, it is contended that Paul did not receive his special revelation of the mystery of the Body until his imprisonment in Rome, and that his Prison Epistles alone reveal this truth and are, strictly speaking, the only portion of the Holy Scriptures given to the members of His Body. All of the other epistles of Paul are relegated to an earlier dispensation and were for the instruction of the so-called Jewish Church of that time. Fourthly, the Christian ordinances, having been given before Paul, are supposed to have no real connection with the present economy, and therefore are relegated to the past, and may again have a place in the future Great Tribulation. "

I disagree with every point mentioned above, but the thing most disconcerting about ultra-dispensationalism is its insistence that there is a different gospel applicable to our time than the gospel that Jesus and the twelve preached. The "Gospel of the Kingdom" that Jesus and the twelve preached is said to have been only for the Jews, and all requirements like repentance, baptism and obedience belong to that gospel.

Then they say that Paul introduced a new gospel, for the Gentile or Church Age, called the "Gospel of Grace," which doesn't require repentance, faith, baptism, or even the acknowledgment of the lordship of Christ! Aspects of this view can be found in the teachings of people like theologians, Charles Ryrie and Zane Hodge; broadcaster, Bob George; and the cultic demigogue, R. B. Thieme (whom Hal Lindsey mentions as his "mentor" in the book "The Late, Great Planet Earth').

On this view, people need only "believe" to receive the grace of God. We have no business calling sinners to repent (as Jesus and Peter did), nor insisting upon obedient living or submission to Christ as Lord, as essential elements of salvation. If we preach what Jesus and Peter preached, we are said to be legalists, who don't understand the message of grace.

Paul (reconstructed beyond recognition) is the hero of the grace message to these people. He is the one who had the gospel for the Gentiles revealed to him. All those who preached before him were preaching to a different dispensation.

Unfortunately (for the Bullingerites), Paul also preached the necessity of repentance (Acts 17:30; 20:21) and of good works (Acts 26:20/ Gal.5:6/ Titus 2:14; 3:1, 14). Paul believed and preached that acknowledging of the lordship of Christ is essential to salvation (Rom.10:9/Acts 16:31). He said that, while he was not under the Mosaic law, he was nonetheless "under the law toward Christ" (1 Cor.9:21).

Paul also, in the only biblical passage that uses the term "gospel of grace," equates that gospel with the preaching of "the kingdom of God" (Acts 20:24-25), which is the same thing Jesus and Peter preached. In fact, Paul wrote:

"If anyone teaches otherwise, and does not consent to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ...he is proud, knowing nothing, but is obsessed with disputes..." (1 Tim.6:3-4). I'd say this reflects negatively on the Bullingerites, who say that Paul preached a different message than what Jesus preached...and describes the ones I have known pretty accurately.

The "Gospel of the Kingdom," as preached by Jesus, is not merely the message to the Jews of His generation, but, according to Jesus, is the message that must be preached "in all the world as a witness to all the nations" before the end comes (Matt.24:14).

The Gospel, as it is to be preached to the nations, according to Jesus's commission, includes "teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you" (Matt.28:20).

Those who preach Bullingerism would thus seem to be among those that Paul warned about, who preach "a different gospel" (2 Cor.11:4), and upon whom he pronounced a severe curse (Gal.1:8-9).

Does that answer your question?

[Guest]

Thanks! That was very good information. I look forward to learning more about it. It seems that everywhere we go, we run into the ultra or hyper dispensationalists, and they are very condemning to anyone who doesn't interpret the bible like they do. If we were to come out and say that we disagree with them, they would label us heretics.

[Guest]

I am greatly concerned about the teaching of ultra-dispensationalists, and to a lesser degree about dispensationalists of any kind.

Thank you, Steve, for your explanations. The fact that they proclaim a false gospel is the most serious of all their teachings, and you have pointed this out very accurately and succinctly.

They interpret the passage concerning "rightly dividing the word of truth" to mean dividing up the New Testament, saying that some of it is addressed only to the Jews, and other parts only to Christians. They say that even some of the letters of Paul are addressed only to the Jews and don't apply to Christians.

I argued for weeks with one an ultradispensationalist on another forum... but couldn't get anywhere. His mind was made up.

[Guest]

Steve:

I don't think its fair to refer to RB Thieme as cultic. I say this because I think of a cult as trying to control people's lives. I have ordered literally hundreds of tapes from his ministry by mail and have never received a single unsolicited communication from them. I have been to the church maybe 30 times and no one has ever said anything to me other than "Hi." By contrast there are other Christian organizations that I have ordered some particular material from years ago and continue to receive solicitations from them oftentimes with a "guilt trip" angle.

I realize that the classic way of identifying a cult is to determine if the organization in question acknowledges the diety of Christ. Thieme definitely acknowledges the diety of Christ. So again, I don't think its fair to refer to him as cultic.

[Guest]

Hi Herbert,

It's true that the word "cult" is ambiguous. In most cases, I try not to use the word without defining it, though sometimes it slips out.

Groups that deny the deity of Christ are called "cults" for theological reasons. But the word is also used (as you suggested) of any group that tries to control the lives of devotees, regardless of theological soundness. For example, a Baptist church, whose pastor keeps everyone in line by intimidation, or by saying they will go to hell if they don't agree with him, would qualify as a cult, in my book.

R. B. Thieme may not personally try to control people's lives day-by-day, nor urge them to give money, but, in the seventies, I had the distinct impression from his followers (of whom I knew several) that he had convinced them that he was the only living apostle teaching the unadulterated gospel. He may not have said these things in so many words (or he may have, for all I know), but I never met a follower of his who did not think this. Thus, whether he deliberately promoted this attitude in his followers or not, he had a "cult" following.

I heard some of his tapes and I know that he was very abrasive toward teachers who disagreed with him, calling them names, etc. Because of his teaching of "super grace," every follower of his I met used profanity, smoked cigarettes and defended a believer's right to fornicate, use drugs and get drunk. How much of this was advocated by him, I can't say. I don't claim to have extensive exposure to the man himself, but the fruit of his ministry that came before my scrutiny was consistent and unimpressive.