Water Baptism was a Jewish tradition. The Bible first mentioned water baptism in the time of John the Baptist.
Therefore, John the Baptist immersing people in the Jordan River was perfectly within Jewish law and practice at the time.
How would you define heresy and Acceptable theology then?
- Thread starter YeshuaFan
- Start date
Therefore, John the Baptist immersing people in the Jordan River was perfectly within Jewish law and practice at the time.
I would suggest that people not attack strawmen of Dispensationalism and instead read the short book by that title written by Charles Ryrie, so that they may be able to approach their criticisms of the subject from an informed perspective.
I agree with you, but Hyper Dispy place it strictly under the Old Covenant now for the New
We are just speaking out against Hyper version of it, not "normal" Dispy
Yeah, even leading dispensational theologians place hyperdispensationalism in the same error basket as prosperity gospel. It's a dangerous error.
Any "hyper" version of a theological principle usually represents a serious distortion of what they're trying to represent. Having read Calvin's Institutes, I've seen how hypercalvinism distorts what Calvin actually taught.
Do you have an example? I am a bit familiar with hyper-disp (mid Acts variety), but never heard any repeat, distort, or teach on what Calvin taught.
Hyper-Calvinism is a term often used to describe a specific, and often criticized, interpretation of Calvinism that emphasizes God's sovereignty to the extreme, sometimes at the expense of human responsibility and the free offer of the gospel. It can be characterized by a strong emphasis on predestination and limited atonement, sometimes leading to a denial of the universality of the gospel call and the duty of all to believe.
That is correct.
It is my opinion of the totality of Scriptures, that baptism is an important step of obedience for a Christian, but I adamantly reject baptism as being required for the salvation experience.
I have stated here and other places that each and every Christian should be water baptized by immersion because it is what Jesus told us to do.
What Baptism illustrates is a believer’s identification with Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection.
Those who demand and teach that baptism by immersion in water are in fact saying that somehow the dirty water of a river, or a pool has MORE saving power than the shed blood of God!
Water baptism to be saved is a classic example of not understanding the CONTEXT of Scriptures and then inserting into them what we/they want those Scriptures to say because of the bias we hold for water baptism.
May I say here that this is the very same problem with the idea that divorced men can not be deacons. Well meaning but unlearned men READ INTO the Scriptures what that "Thought" the Scriptures said and simply could not unlearn that false teaching.
NO WHERE in 1 Timothy does Paul say that a divorced man can not be a deacon. It says literally...."Husband of One wife".
Anyone who does the study of history in those days knows that polygamy was rampant in those days. Pauls direction was clear as a bell......"Husband of one wife"!
Yes, as Calvin has gotten in some regards a bum rap concerning His theology, as some of what we assume is His Calvinism theology actually was the direct result of Beza and others after him, as he suppled the skeleton to the theology, while they fleshed it out
Basically, Hyper Calvinist hold to eternal justification, person born already in a "saved state", and God deals with saving his own, so no need for even missions nor evangelism
Water Baptism is obeying Jesus once saved, but not a requirement to get saved, and the part about divorced and remarriage and affection ones calling has been argues by minds far smarter than ours for a long time
Sorry for the confusion, I read your post as hyper-dispensational rather than hyper-Calvinists, who often over look the means God uses.
For example, some won't pray for the lost, believing their fate is sealed according to whether they have been predestined to salvation or damnation. They overlook the fact that God also predestines the means (evangelism and prayer) as well as the ends (one's salvation).
They refuse to see the Great Commission stick is for us even today
Excellent thought!
Funny fact. Those who condemn Dispensationalism seem to forget or never knew that Dispensationalism originated in the nineteenth century in the writings of John Nelson Darby. That is the same man who is credited with the origination of the pre-tribulation Rapture. My point is, they accept the Rapture but reject Dispensationalism and both came from the same man.
Classic dispensationalism consists of three primary principles of hermeneutics...........
1. A sharp distinction between Israel and the Church.
2. The division of the history of redemption into at least seven dispensations
3. A woodenly literal reading of prophetic and apocalyptic literature.
Now I am no expert, however from what I understand, the problem and reason why some reject Dispensationalism is rooted in #3.
Those in the Pentecostal faith believe that the gift of prophecy remains today in their prophets and those prophecies change from one person to the next depending on who is selling the most books or who has the most TV time.
Mormons have the same problem as do the 7th Days Adventists and JWS. That is why they have had so many expected 2nd returns of Jesus that have failed.
Catholics do as well to an extent as they believe the Pope is the Vicar of Christ and an Apostle. What he says becomes the law of their faith.
There is also the different views within Dispy, as the classic view of Scofield almost seem to make the Law means of salvation under the Old Covenant, while the so called Progressive branch seems to be getting much sloser to the Covenant theology view of one eternal Covenant, but do still keep intact difference between Israel and Church. Also seems to be a moving towards still preMil, but not pre trib rapture view is necessary still
Not to argue the point brother, but the written Word of God is the same today as it was when it was written.
Because it was misunderstood 2000 years ago is not and can not be an excuse for today. THAT is why it is so very important to read the Word of God instead of taking a mans word for what it says.
Listen.....I grew up in a devout Christian home. My dad was a deacon and we were in church every time the doors opened. Three times a week and revivals went on for 2 or 3 weeks and that does not include tent revivals.
I was taught by preachers, and teachers and my own father that divorced men and widowers could not be deacons.
It was not until I was a fressman in seminary that I actually READ what Paul said in 1 Timothy and it was like a fire engine bell going off in my head.
The Holy Spirit was screaming in my head......"Husband of One Wife"! See......there is nothing here about being divorced!
I think what you are referring to is the false teaching of Replacement Theology which does what you suggest.
Now some may say or teach the Law as a way or means of salvation but Schofield certainly did not do that.
There are among us some Covenant Theologians, who in trying to disagree with the dispensationalism of C. I. Scofield and Lewis Sperry Chafer, have repeatedly distorted their teachings.
I was speaking towards issue of if a man was divorced could he still be a pastor/elder/deacon, and many churches would seem to be seeing could still function as such if "bibical divorced"
Hyer-calvists do not teach evangelism. There is no need to pray for the lost ITO.
I do not understand....."Biblically divorced"!