Segraves and OPs re-examine dispensationalism?

[KWSS1976]

O ok I did not pay attention to how it was spelled I don't know anything about this seagrave guy anyway just googled him to see what came up

[Sam]

Wouldn't it be weird if, after condemning Preterism, the UPC would swing to Pretrrism?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Brother Sam many futurists are not dispensationationists.
The Historicist view rejects it as well.

[Scott Hutchinson]

This what Historicists think of Dispensationalism,I understand there are Historicists in the UPCI,ALJC and such.
http://historicist.com/articles2/distimeline.htm

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by Scott Hutchinson

This what Historicists think of Dispensationalism,I understand there are Historicists in the UPCI,ALJC and such.
http://historicist.com/articles2/distimeline.htm

I don't personally know of any historicists. I do know of many, many preterists (full/partial) in OP (myself having preterist leanings). And many people confuse preterism with historicism. They are NOT the same. Also, if there are any avowed preterists in UPCI or ALJC, they are "in the closet" so to speak. I do know one very high-profile UPCI minister (oft-BOTT speaker) who is "in the closet" with his preterist views.

PAW is very tolerant of preterism. A large PAW church in Akron teaches preterist eschatology (not sure if it's full or partial) and also has a Bible college where it is taught.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I think Reckhart's biggest beef w/ Segraves are his past views of dispensationalism ...

http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics...ortations.html

It's become apparent that DS is re-looking at the fallacies of dispensationalism ... He goes as far as possibly looking at replacing it.

Read his conclusion in this recent paper:

Conclusion

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. Is it compatible with Oneness
Pentecostal theology? In his work quoted at the outset of this paper, David Bernard
wrote, “[i]t 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.”38 In a more recent work, Bernard
declares that “traditional dispensationalism must be significantly modified to be
compatible with Apostolic theology.”39 How significant must this modification be? To
what extent can dispensationalism be modified and still be accurately described as
dispensationalism? Is there any need for Oneness Pentecostal theology to retain the label
of dispensationalism? Is modification enough, or should dispensationalism be replaced
altogether? If so, with what?

From the perspective of this writer, it is time for Oneness Pentecostals to think
seriously about the possibility of a hermeneutical methodology that arises from the first
century apostolic use of Scripture. 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.

--------------------------

I have to agree that it eliminates the OT out of ecclesiology ... and that's what drives me crazy about it.

Is it compatible with Oneness Pentecostal theology? WOW.

In many ways it's been the backbone.

This has huge ramifications in the eschatological, soteriological arenas also.

We're looking at change IN THE FACE.

Awesome post Dan! Glad you found the info.

This truly is a huge shift in the doctrinal stance of the UPCI.

I have felt for some years now that the problem we as oneness believers were having with traditional end time doctrine, ie Dispensationalism, was not that some people did not believe in a "Rapture", that was secondary. The problem was how could you split up the comings of the Lord and still have one Lord! We teach one God, His name is Jesus, yet Jesus did not come back on the day of Pentecost! That was presenting the problem. It was more a ONENESS problem as opposed to a RAPTURE problem.

Great link, glad you found it.

[berkeley]

I am a futurist and I do not espouse to the dispensation doctrine. But, when you go the route that I did, it easily leads to Preterism.

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Bryan

I am a futurist and I do not espouse to the dispensation doctrine. But, when you go the route that I did, it easily leads to Preterism.

I am not a Preterist, even though I share many view similar to what they believe. I just can't swallow all of the EVERYTHING IS FINISHED jargon.

The point I am making is that Tradional Oneness Pentecost is finally having to confront some of their erroneous doctrines and they are kicking and screaming all of the way!

I love it.

They excommunicated many of us a few years ago for what they called heresy, now their own SCHOLARS are asking the same questions we were askng.

[berkeley]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

I am not a Preterist, even though I share many view similar to what they believe. I just can't swallow all of the EVERYTHING IS FINISHED jargon.

The point I am making is that Tradional Oneness Pentecost is finally having to confront some of their erroneous doctrines and they are kicking and screaming all of the way!

I love it.

They excommunicated many of us a few years ago for what they called heresy, now their own SCHOLARS are asking the same questions we were askng.

Why were YOU excommunicated?

[TJJJ]

Originally Posted by Bryan

Why were YOU excommunicated?

Excommunicated, disfellowshipped, it all means the same. I believe I speak for a fairly large group of ministers and laity that have been disfellowshipped from their churches, fellowships and circles of friends because they did not buy into the dispensationalist mentallity. They may have been historists, partial preterists, preterists and etc. The problem is that there is no venue, up till now, that these questions were able to be asked. Now to see this still coming out into the open is refreshing. It proves that time is on our side.