Talk:Hyperdispensationalism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Christianity Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Contents 1 Removal of Link and Additional Links 2 List of Names 3 Sentence needs fixing 4 Cleanup of new information 5 Introduction 6 Controversy

[edit] Removal of Link and Additional Links

I commend you for your writing on Acts 28 dispensationlism. However I noticed that you did not include any links to Acts 28 dispensational web sites. Therefore, I took the liberty to post 2 external links related to the two men mentioned in your article under the heading of Acts 28 Dispensationalists, Charles Welch and Oscar Baker.

I have removed Hyperdispensationalism and the New Covenant link. It is clearly opinionated and biased and goes against Wikipedia’s guidelines and standards.

There are too many external links to the Mid-Acts and Grace believer (who are also Mid-Acts) web sites. You should delete some of them because it makes you look biased toward that view. Clearly this should be avoided. DKVictor (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of Names

Being rather new to Wikipedia, I hesitate to modify entries made by others here. But A. E. Knoch should not be listed as an Acts 28 Dispensationalist, since he did not believe in the Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ (this belief is one of the basic tenets of Christianity). Instead, Knoch considered Jesus to be a created being, and not God manifest in the flesh. Even followers of Welch and Bullinger do not consider Knoch and his followers to be "true" Christians (Knoch was more of a Unitarian). So, I will let someone more experienced here decide whether to delete the reference to Knoch altogether, or simply add a note that Knoch is not considered to be a true Christian, because he did not believe in the Deity of Christ.

Mr. Brwebb, I have deleted the name at your request. I picked both lists of names up from another source. Even though Knoch may have been heretical in his view of the person of Christ, he could still be classified as a Hyper-D, right? But it doesn't matter to me or the article. :-)

I'm sure you noted a little re-arranging on my part, specifically listing the Acts 28 group first. I did this simply to get Bullinger's name appropriately categorized and still up front in the article since he is the most prominent name (in my estimation). Please feel free to make adjustments or edits as you see fit. Also, you can automatically sign your user name to Talk entries by typing in four successive tildes. Regards, Jim Ellis 14:41, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

I changed Otis Q. Sellers' middle initial...it isn't "R." There are several justifications for the Acts 28 view, so I deleted the suggestion that the one listed was the primary or only one. I also changed the dispensational break from the beginning of Paul's visit to Rome to after his discussion with the Jewish leadership at Rome. Acts 28 dispensationalists believe that the precise point when the change took place was during Paul's words to the Jewish leaders recorded in Acts 28:28. Although I am not a follower of Mr. Knoch myself, I never heard that he was a Unitarian, or that he did not believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. I think his unique viewpoint not shared by other Acts 28ers was his support of the view known as Universal Reconciliation, or the idea that all men will eventually be reconciled to God. I have never heard of an Acts 28 dispensationalist who did not believe in the deity of the Lord Jesus. Regards, Nathan C. Johnson

[edit] Sentence needs fixing

I think this sentence is missing some part of it otherwise the "yet" doesn't make much sense. "One rationale for this view is that, while Paul had written a number of epistles prior to the events in Acts chapter 26; viz. 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 & 2 Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans (the "Acts-period epistles"); yet in Acts 26:22, he states that he has only been proclaiming those things which the prophets and Moses said would come." - DNewhall 19:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted to clarify the sentence. Duke Ganote 03:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup of new information

The recent addition of a lengthy, separate, personally signed "correction" section integrates poorly with the Wikipedia style; I am marking this page for cleanup as I am unsure what to do with it. --Yggdrasil 00:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've altered the text by removing the signature and changing the POV. It still integrates poorly and needs sources other than the editor's personal knowledge. Maria Caliban 06:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

In viewing the introduction, it seems to me that it presents hyperdispensationalism as if its primary distinctive was a Pauline viewpoint of the Scriptures. Whereas there are hyperdispensationalists who define themselves particularly by the Pauline issue, there are others, especially among Acts 28 Dispensationalists, who acknowledge Paul as the revealer of the mystery, but who do not emphasize the Pauline issue as being the primary distinctive of their hyperdispensationalism. This is particularly true since they do not believe that Paul's earlier letters contain the truth that is particularly for today. Since in the body of the article, Acts 28 is listed first before Mid Acts, it seems to me that there is a jarring contrast between what is stated in the introduction and what is stated in the article.

I would suggest changing the introduction to make it apply more universally to all hyperdispensationalists. Specific viewpoints, like Pauline dispensationalism, would be better discussed within the article itself. Thoughts? Nathan C. Johnson 21:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I'm astonished that the Controversy section persisted as it did since it appeared "23:40, 11 October 2007 68.103.223.60 (Talk) (16,005 bytes) (Added opposing POV and 2 links)". I'll look around to see if Sproul and Hanegraaff have explicitly anti-hyperdispensationalism remarks. Duke Ganote (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)