Segraves and OPs re-examine dispensationalism?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by jaamez

Funny that the man responsible in large part for the "Search for Truth" Bible study is, in fact, now himself a preterist!

Who would that be?

[Michael The Disciple]

Delete

[Evang.Benincasa]

Charles Parham was a believer of the British Israel doctrine.
Pentecostals who went off into Dispensationalism did it to explain away their prior beliefs of Cessationism. Most of those who came into the early Pentecostal movement were from Church of Christ, Nazerene, and Presbyterian churches. All of those denominations were cessationists.
The Azusa Street Pentecostals in America adapted Dispensationalism to say that they were part of a latter rain, that would usher in a return of Jesus Christ. Since Christ was soon to return, their would be a renewed out pouring of the gifts. This was not only among those Azusa or Parham Pentecostals, but was also among the Millerites, and Latter Day Saints. All held on to a notion that THEIR truth was a restoration of old light that had been snuffed out by the Roman Catholic Church.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

Delete

Huh?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Charles Parham was a believer of the British Israel doctrine.
Pentecostals who went off into Dispensationalism did it to explain away their prior beliefs of Cessationism. Most of those who came into the early Pentecostal movement were from Church of Christ, Nazerene, and Presbyterian churches. All of those denominations were cessationists.
The Azusa Street Pentecostals in America adapted Dispensationalism to say that they were part of a latter rain, that would usher in a return of Jesus Christ. Since Christ was soon to return, their would be a renewed out pouring of the gifts. This was not only among those Azusa or Parham Pentecostals, but was also among the Millerites, and Latter Day Saints. All held on to a notion that THEIR truth was a restoration of old light that had been snuffed out by the Roman Catholic Church.

In Jesus name

Brother Benincasa

www.OnTimeJournal.com

Ironically, Segraves is now saying that because dispensationalism was developed by cessassionists ... keeping it ... strengthens some of their arguments and can be used to seemingly contradict Pentecostal theology.

He writes:

Since dispensationalism did not originate in a Pentecostal milieu, since it
eliminates ecclesiology from the Old Testament – and in some cases even from portions
of the New Testament, and since it readily lends itself to cessationism, we are back to the
question of dispensationalism’s usefulness for Oneness Pentecostal theology. In the final
analysis, dispensationalism is a hermeneutical system.

He states about Scolfiedian dispensationalism:

First, there is the
problem of its non-Pentecostal origins. The dispensational hermeneutic did not arise
from the context of the Pentecostal experience with the Holy Spirit in the first decade of
the 20th century. It was, instead, C. I. Scofield’s adaptation of John Nelson Darby’s
hermeneutic. Even progressive dispensationalism is developing among non-Pentecostal
evangelical scholars. What are the ramifications for Oneness Pentecostals if they
embrace a hermeneutic that arises from a non-Pentecostal, Trinitarian source?

He also seems to be wary of the restorationists approach to this matter:

The restorationist impulse of Oneness Pentecostals
must extend beyond experience and even beyond recovery of selected texts to a fullorbed
return to the hermeneutical methodology of our apostolic forbears.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Ironically, Segraves is now saying that because dispensationalism was developed by cessassionists ... keeping it ... strengthens some of their arguments and can be used to seemingly contradict Pentecostal theology.

He writes:


He also seems to be wary of the restorationists approach to this matter:

Great thread Dan

I believe one thing that also is helping today is the education of many of the Apostolics today. 100 years ago there was more ignorance about the things of history, the Bible and doctrine in general. Today, even the ordinary JOE can study and dispell that ignorance. No longer can something be preached like it was and the ignorant masses follow it "Just because".

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, ...

We are dealing with more of an educated body. It is refreshing to see truth triumph.

[SDG]

Even David Bernard seems to be saying that the traditional view of dispensationalism needs to be MODIFIED. Segraves writes about DB's views as follows:

In his paper “Dispensationalism and Oneness Pentecostal Theology,” David
Bernard concluded that dispensationalism is right to emphasize “the literal interpretation
of Scripture, progressive revelation, the existence of various ages in God’s dealings with
humanity . . . , the uniqueness of the New Testament church, and the reality of the
Millennium.”7 On the other hand, Bernard asserted that the “distinction between Israel
and the church in prophecy is not absolute . . .” and that “[a]lthough national Israel still
has a role in God’s plan and will still receive His promises by faith in Jesus, the church
also enjoys the spiritual blessings of Abraham and participates in promises originally
given to Israel.”8 Further, Bernard declares dispensationalists to be wrong if “they teach
that the Abrahamic covenant is unconditional, that the kingdom of heaven is not the
kingdom of God, that Christ offered an earthly kingdom to the Jews at His first coming,
that Gentile salvation . . . occurred only because the Jews rejected His offer, and that God
will revert to the old covenant in the Millennium.”9

Dispensationalism’s weakest point, according to Bernard, is its doctrine of
salvation, which does not understand the “obedience of faith.”10 Finally, Bernard asked,
Do the biblical doctrines of the new birth and of the church require a form of
dispensationalism? Is it logically possible to retain some aspects of
dispensationalism and discard others, or does the whole system stand or fall
together? What dispensationalist assumptions have colored the interpretation of
Scripture, particularly eschatology, and are they valid?

. . . it appears that Oneness Pentecostals must significantly modify or
replace traditional dispensationalism to maintain logically, consistently, and
successfully the doctrines of the new birth and holiness of life.11

[TJJJ]

There are many preachers, pastors and evangelists in CA. that believe in one form or another of Preterism or fulfilled prophecy. They keep a low profile so as not to attract attention but they are there.

They thought that they had stomped this thing in the head when they issued their book... "OUR FUTURE HOPE" by Medina. Now they are still having to deal with the issues.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Even David Bernard seems to be saying that the traditional view of dispensationalism needs to be MODIFIED. Segraves writes about DB's views as follows:

Bernard absolutely must have some partial preterist leanings. In his book the oneness of God he stated that Jesus came back on the day of Pentecost.

They probably don't want to call it preterism, because of the stand that they have taken against it already, they'll think up a new name, but the priciple will be the same.

Interesting

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

There are many preachers, pastors and evangelists in CA. that believe in one form or another of Preterism or fulfilled prophecy. They keep a low profile so as not to attract attention but they are there.

They thought that they had stomped this thing in the head when they issued their book... "OUR FUTURE HOPE" by Medina. Now they are still having to deal with the issues.

Medina's book lumped partial and full Preterism in the same camp. It did itself a great disservice by that account, IMO.