[greenbear]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother.

Brothers and Sisters:

I haven't made a lot of posts on this thread, but in reflecting on some of these comments, it has occurred to me that I have seen good Christians beaten up and spurned because they do not agree with one view of dispensationalism over another. I have seen KJV believers have their very SALVATION questioned because they do not subscribe to some "construct" of division. I have seen good people on this forum become bitter and wage vicious attacks about details that even they THEMSELVES do not all agree on, even in their own little "camps." At times I have seen a pompous spirit rise up, which seems to suggest there is only ONE WAY of "rightly dividing" and no other could possibly be correct. I am convinced that much of this has more to do with personal friendships and alliances than it does with scriptural ABSOLUTES. Still, we put up our banners of interpretation and stake out territories, as though any of us could possibly come to a different conclusion in the end that ALL MEN are saved THROUGH THE BLOOD OF CHRIST.

This is all very sad, because even the men who have promoted various forms of Hyperdispensationalism, Ultra-dispensationalism, etc. do not all agree on some of these doctrines, and some have even changed their doctrines over the years to better suit their own constructs!

There are Ultras and Hypers on one end, there are non-dispensationalists on the other. A lot of us are somewhere in the middle. As you all know by now, I consider myself to be a moderate dispensationalist. Yes, I feel that Hyperdispensationalism is a chain of errors and an unworthy distraction, yes I get concerned when I see attacks on Biblical doctrines of believer's baptism and the Lord's supper, but that does not mean we should become hateful or angry at one another.

I have come to a conclusion over these last few weeks.
Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.

Bro. Parrish,

I can't help but notice you begin your post with an inference that George is inconsistent in his post #56 to me:

George, I have to give you credit there.
I notice you agree with Greenbear's "assessment" of Ironside, yet you ALSO pretty much agree with Ironside's negative view of Hyperdispensationalism, something that Greenbear has indicated she may be leaning toward. That's pretty good diplomacy, brother.

You note that brother George stated that he agrees with my assessment of Ironside's article, which is :

In my opinion, Ironside resorts to character assassination, name-calling, fear-mongering, straw-man arguments, faulty reasoning, wrong interpretation of scriptures and he doesn't seem very strong in eschatology, either. Attempting to influence opinion by labeling those who disagree as a heretic by the "orthodox" consensus is the oldest trick in the book. I think the correct perspective is that the refomation didn't go very far toward literal interpretation of all scripture unless it is apparent from the text that it should be read otherwise. Men like Ironside were greatly used of God but they didn't go far enough in literal interpretation. It is impossible to literally interpret the scriptures without a dispensational framework.

I also happen to agree with brother George's comments about Ironside's first five points. I don't believe I've espoused those first five positions in my posts.

I notice you haven't specifically addressed what I have written but instead pick up on a comment where I say that I may agree on some points with what I've read about Hyperdispensationalism.
From my post #50:

I think the correct perspective is that the refomation didn't go very far toward literal interpretation of all scripture unless it is apparent from the text that it should be read otherwise. Men like Ironside were greatly used of God but they didn't go far enough in literal interpretation. It is impossible to literally interpret the scriptures without a dispensational framework. If people want to label me as something or other because I may agree on some points, oh well.

Ironside's article is not the be all and end all of the subject matter.
Ironside's descriptions of the positions are very limited and slanted.
Just the other day I had the bright idea of googling hyper and ultra. So I have a little more insight than just what is in your article. I believe brother George was referring to what I have written on this thread and other threads. I also believe brother George has more insight into hyper and ultra than what Ironside wrote. I think the inconsistency was in your own mind for whatever reason.

I posted on this thread that I don't believe there are two churches. That would mean there are two bodies of Christ. That is impossible. It's also impossible, by my understanding, that the church of the circumcision was under the dispensation of grace by faith alone, which I understand to be Paul's gospel. Once the wall of partition between the jews and the gentiles was removed, the Jewish and the gentile parts of the church became one.

Ephesians 2:14-22 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone; In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

I don't see why you intimate George is inconsistent in his post to me. Except for Ironside's point 6, I believe George and I am in agreement.

Since I think you have read a lot of my posts on this forum you are probably aware of my position on water baptism. I believe the same for the Lord's Supper. I don't believe there are any ordinances for the church under the dispensation of grace. I do know that it isn't a salvation issue and I understand you don't want us to become hateful and angry at each other over these two ordinances. I agree.

Bro. Parrish:

Whether you choose to base your views on the confusion of Cornelius Stam or proudly cherry-pick the heresies of Bullingerism, I think we can all agree on one thing: CONDEMNING OTHERS about DIVIDING can DIVIDE THIS FORUM. Folks, let's pray for each other, and lift up Christ.

You sure deliver a one, two punch followed by a bear hug above. You miss the point, bro Parrish. Some of us don't base our views on any human author's writings. We don't go to some man's body of material and cherry pick teachings to piece together our doctrines. We will study the bible and come to our own conclusions. If we end up finding any points of agreement with these men it simply means they may be right on something after all!