What should a Humanist know about Ultra-Dispensationalists?
thank you for your interest and help.
David M
David, welcome to the forums. I'm not sure if this is a Logos question or a theology question. This forum is for users of Logos Bible Software who want to discuss issues about the software and how to use it and discussing theology or is not in line with the guidelines. Are you a Logos user? If not I'd encourage you to check it out.
If so, there are many ways to search your library regarding a topic such as Dispensationalism and much has been written. Here is a sample of a search from my library.
That there's plenty of "wrong" to go around.
What should a Humanist know about Ultra-Dispensationalists? That there's plenty of "wrong" to go around.
[:O][:D]
How much would a 2014 Edition 7,000 page resource that is dispensationalist, be worth? It's by one author only and covers the 66 books of the Bible. It's also available free online, but I don't always have internet connection and I very rarely use books online. What books of the Bible could be studied with it without harm? (I.e. are there any books of the Bible for which there isn't a special dispensationalist theology?)
Bruce's answer is spot on.
Getting into this topic here and debating the merits or flaws of dispensationalism is outside the boundaries of this forum.
Perhaps we can put forth some Logos or external sources on the issue but that is about it.
I do know that Wikipedia has an article on ultra-dispensationalism. My Library is currently being re-indexed so I cannot do a search for you.
Have you tried wiki?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperdispensationalism
mm.
At the risk of going off topic, you're worried about harming yourself with dispensational theology? That is not a concern I would have my friend. I may not agree with everything dispensational, but they are never too far from the mark. At least from my perspective. Your mileage may vary.
If keeping the book it would be used by at least two other persons too. (No that Edition is not in Logos, nor in my other software Accordance.) They are far from the mark. I want to know for what parts of the Bible it could still be used and what the value in $ would be?And if just for contrasting theologies, it's not worth anything - I won't use it for that:
At the risk of going off topic, you're worried about harming yourself with dispensational theology? [...] but they are never too far from the mark.
I'm not going to go in depth to the theological aspects of your question, but let me give three thoughts.
1) Money
Monetary value is determined by the end user, e.g. will I pay ___ for ___? If I hate steak, its monetary value to me is 0. Another example - Logos Portfolio is not worth the money to me, but there are a decent number of Portfolio users, which I'm glad for because it helps Logos financially as a company given that Portfolio buyers often buy many other resources. This is disregarding intrinsic value which is another subject. So, is it worth it to you?
2) Author
I often avoid single author resources because it's hard for one person to be an expert on every subject, so the net result is usually that harder questions are skipped or answered superficially. A similar example is a medical blog where a person has an opinion on everything - how can that person know all those topics well enough to give accurate and up to date answers?
3) Content
Dispensationalism addresses primarily hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible) and the relationship of the church to Israel. So those passages most affected by dispensational thought will be those passages over which people argue how to interpret, e.g. sections of the prophetic literature like Isaiah or Habakkuk, and those passages dealing with the kingdom, the role of Israel in God's plan, etc, such as Matthew 5, Romans 11, or the book of Revelation. In contrast, a commentary on Leviticus would be fairly similar in content whether written by a dispensationalist or a non-dispensationalist, assuming both are Protestant and have other background issues in common.
Thanks! Examples of more books of the Bible than just Lv?
My point is that outside of the OT prophets and certain key NT passages plus Revelation, most books will be similar.
What should a Humanist know about Ultra-Dispensationalists? thank you for your interest and help. David M
It is not in the Spirit of Christ to insult a Humanist or a Dispensationalist, especially someone seeking honest answers.
Assuming that you don't have Logos Bible Software then I think Wikipedia would probably answer a lot of your questions. If you want to read an original source from the Dispensational perspective then Dr. Charles Ryrie's Dispensationalism is a good source.
I started out as a Dispensationalist, but changed my perspective later. I do have great respect for many Dispensationalists who are outstanding Christian leaders, even if I no longer share their understanding of theology. They are my brothers in Christ. Just think for yourself, which I am sure you do, and you certainly won't be harmed by reading a Dispensationalist.
Two questions:
It is not in the Spirit of Christ to insult a Humanist or a Dispensationalist, especially someone seeking honest answers. Two questions: What brought this on? Would you consider this an insult? Jer. 4:22
I just don't think when someone asks the forum for information (very politely) that it is proper to mock or insult their belief. I also don't think it changes any minds or lifts up the truth.
And what does Jeremiah have to do with it? I don't think he posts on the forum. I am pretty arrogant, but I have not yet begun to correct God's Word. But my posts and your posts on this forum are not God's Word.
Sorry if my remarks were offensive, but I thought the original poster might have been offended by yours. Perhaps I misread the spirit of your post. Let me ask you a question: How did you know that I was talking about your post? I didn't quote you or call you by name, and there are a number of posts between your original post and my post.
We can agree to disagree.
The author often tells if there are several other theologians/authors with the same opinion (so it's a little bit like the Exegetical Summaries series), but doesn't quote or reference which ones - so it's tricky to verify the claim "most scholars ...". There is a bibliography at the end of each book and I'm not particularly impressed by it (have looked at Ephesians).
Yes, multiple author works are usually better, but are there any recent cheap ones? I'm having problems: I'm spending too much on books. I usually go with quality works, it's just that not all parts and books of the Bible are equally important for me to study in detail, so I'm thinking I would save with this resource:
2) Author I often avoid single author resources because it's hard for one person to be an expert on every subject, so the net result is usually that harder questions are skipped or answered superficially.
I often avoid single author resources because it's hard for one person to be an expert on every subject, so the net result is usually that harder questions are skipped or answered superficially.
It's difficult to imagine that it would not matter in more books of the Old Testament:
My point is that outside of the OT prophets and certain key NT passages plus Revelation, most books will be similar:Thanks! Examples of more books of the Bible than just Lv?
How do I see the difference which verse is about hermeneutics/interpretation and which is not? A hermeneutics class is starting tomorrow, Monday, in uni, it's on a somewhat advanced level:
3) Content Dispensationalism addresses primarily hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible)
Dispensationalism addresses primarily hermeneutics (how to interpret the Bible)
If so, there are many ways to search your library regarding a topic such as Dispensationalism and much has been written.
Also can search a collection (e.g. Theology) for articles using Heading Text and Large Text:
Searching entire library for articles with human and dispensation found:
Caveat: search results depends on resources in Logos library.
Keep Smiling [:)]
It is not in the Spirit of Christ to insult a Humanist or a Dispensationalist, especially someone seeking honest answers. Two questions: What brought this on? Would you consider this an insult? Jer. 4:22 I just don't think when someone asks the forum for information (very politely) that it is proper to mock or insult their belief. I also don't think it changes any minds or lifts up the truth. And what does Jeremiah have to do with it? I don't think he posts on the forum. I am pretty arrogant, but I have not yet begun to correct God's Word. But my posts and your posts on this forum are not God's Word. Sorry if my remarks were offensive, but I thought the original poster might have been offended by yours. Perhaps I misread the spirit of your post. Let me ask you a question: How did you know that I was talking about your post? I didn't quote you or call you by name, and there are a number of posts between your original post and my post. We can agree to disagree.
Michael, did you not find the question to be rather odd? I certainly did. On its face, it is quite bizarre. Ignoring that, what was the context of the question? The only thing that comes to mind is that the person posing the question was the "humanist". Going from that, the question poster is asking a Bible-related forum for generic info on, not "dispensationalism", but rather "an" ULTRA-dispensationalIST. The next thing that comes to mind is...what does a humanist know of dispensationalism, much less ULTRA-dispensationalism?? The answer to that question gives a pretty strong indication that the question being posed isn't being asked from a vacuum of knowledge. Let's put it this way...if the person is asking the question from sincere ignorance, then that ignorance is pretty severe, and that kind of ignorance is highly unlikely to go around posing and posturing itself as "humanist". Humanists are persons who pretty much by definition have a rather lofty sense of their capacity as a human to deal with the vicissitudes of life (say, an encounter with an "ultra-dispensationalist"), and they rarely stoop to ask backwoods neanderthal religionists for advice.
My conclusion, therefore, was that the question was not, as you appear to have concluded, a "very polite" and honest inquiry, but a bogus attempt to troll. Could I be wrong? Of course, but I doubt it. I suspect that Bruce's "just the facts, ma'am" response, disconnected from personal perspective gave the OPer an indication that more fun was to be had elsewhere.
That said, I nevertheless think my response is germane to a wide variety of "This vs. That" face-offs, most especially those encountered in the realm of religion. There is a wide tendency to assume that in debates, one side is right and the other wrong. That assumption is often (usually, in my view) mistaken. In the Bill Nye vs. Ken Ham debate, for example, neither view is accurate. False dichotomies (or rather dichotomies of falsehood) of this sort abound in religious circles. My response, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, was a pithy attempt to instigate a twinge of reflection on the part of our humanist "friend". If my grain-of-sand comment wounded him even slightly, he wasn't remotely worth his humanist salt.
Thanks David for taking the time to respond, and I understand your post much better.
Did you mean to type "Humanism"?
I'd consider "humanism NEAR dispensation"
it is quite bizarre. Ignoring that, what was the context of the question?
And here I thought it was a plausible question that I would guess comes from a young adult running into some of these ideas for the first time on their own. Of course, I do have young adult grandchildren. I think my reading requires fewer assumptions than yours so I'll claim Occam's razor favors me.
I think my reading requires fewer assumptions than yours so I'll claim Occam's razor favors me.
Does it? You think the vast chasm from humanist to...*pause for effect*...ULTRA--dispensationalist is not so expansive and distant (is "oceanic" sufficient to describe the remoteness? I think not...) that one querying about the other is "plausible"? Hmmm...I guess I have to take your word for that.
I retain my perspective that "bizarre" is fitting in this case. Not necessarily impossible, mind you...just requiring an extremely improbable and unique set of conditions in order to pass beyond the threshold of implausible.
You think the vast chasm from humanist to...*pause for effect*...ULTRA--dispensationalist is not so expansive and distant (is "oceanic" sufficient to describe the remoteness? I think not...) that one querying about the other is "plausible"?
In the US, yes. People do work and go to college with people of other faiths, you know.[;)] And marry into their families. And meet them when their kids are on the same hockey team. So it's perfectly reasonable and plausible to want to know something about them.
In Sweden it would be more odd. I'm not sure I'd even heard the word 'dispensationalism' before I started reading these forums.[:)]
Out of curiosity, I typed "ultra-dispensationalism" into Google to see if Logos popped up. It did...on page 10. Care to guess what the link was to?
This thread.
I could be off, but something about this just seems fishy. A search for plain "dispensationalism" gives numerous quality hits on the first 3 pages, including Wikipedia (the most obvious place to go, imo). Info gathering doesn't bring a humanist to Logos forums...that's my point.
Logos is #1 if you look at humanism and ultradispensationalism - on my google - can't say I'd read much into this list. Maybe a student wanting us to do his research for him? No, let's give them the benefit of the doubt.
That #1 hit is this thread.
[:)]
We're #1! We're #1!
I suppose too it depends on what type of humanism the original poster is discussing. Certainly modern humanism is entire galaxies away from dispensationalism, but there are older forms of "humanism" from around the time of the reformation that actually make sense. Many may agree with the ideas held by the group which included reading old books, new books, any books they could get their hands on (but especially the old Greek texts) in an effort to expand and inform their thinking. Many (but not all) also were avid students of scripture. Suddenly "humanism" is beginning to sound more like what we do on a daily basis. He may have to define his terms before we can even recommend resources.
Thank you all for your comments
I am a Humanist dedicated to speeding the usefulness of science alone in all matters . Am I therefore lost?
The question was asked as part of my research as a presenter for local ( Reading UK) Radio station. i.e. Blast1386 available on www.Blast1386.com and on Mixcloud.com for 'Listen Again'. The programme is called " I am happy with …. " E.g I am happy with Buddhism. There are 7 programmes there to listen to already.
I interview guests about their beliefs and play their choice of music. This is all part of my belief that the only way forward for religions and Humanists alike is to foster dialogue- although I cannot promise to spend a lot of time on this forum.
I have come across an Ultra-Dispensationalist. He is an editor for the Open Bible trust. I intend to interview him mid MAY
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR COMMENTS BUT THEY RAISE MORE QUESTIONS THAN ANSWERS
I AM NOT AT ALL OFFENDED .
I do not like books. Yes Wikki was my first stop but as has been mentioned , I do not believe in 'One stop shops'. Sad really they are meant to be attractive but also cover up for what they do not offer.
Great site BTW
I am a Humanist dedicated to speeding the usefulness of science alone in all matters . Am I therefore lost? I have come across an Ultra-Dispensationalist. He is an editor for the Open Bible trust.
I have come across an Ultra-Dispensationalist. He is an editor for the Open Bible trust.
As to your question above, I would first point out that the term "lost" is used in two ways. In the more pedestrian way, as in "lost in the woods", the answer is "yes", of course. If you don't know YHWH, you don't have a foggy clue why you exist. In the more specific sense of being destined for destruction, the phrase "judge not, that you be not judged" applies specifically (and almost exclusively) to that particular question. There is only One who can render a judgment about a human's ultimate fate, and that is YHWH Himself. As a friend on mine says, that determination is beyond our pay grade. However, given a set circumstances, it is possible to have a pretty good idea where a behavioral trajectory will end up. The main variable (not the only one) is "course correction", aka repentance.
Regarding your interview, have fun, but don't expect a lot of light to be shed, one way or the other. Imo, dispensationalism is an error in describing how YHWH works, the assumption being that He is very rigid in how He deals with situations. In reality, He is remarkably fluid, and He deals with each situation according to how He feels it bests suits His purposes. Generally, dispensations are considered necessary to describe these differences with the underlying perception that "THIS is how God works here" and "THIS is how God works there". In reality, He does whatever He wants, whenever He wants, including many things that would shock the shoes off a dispensationalist...or most Christians, for that matter.
Sam Harris and Michael Shermer would (with some possible minor qualifications) say "correct".
The question was asked as part of my research as a presenter for local ( Reading UK) Radio station.
In that case it would have been a good idea to start by reading the Forum Guidelines.
speeding the usefulness of science alone in all matters . Am I therefore lost?
I assume that you know that science uses abductive reasoning to build models that are useful. That rather limits what science can appropriately study. If on the other hand you were to promote critical thinking in all matters, you would have a possibility of covering "all matters". Unfortunately, if you don't like books, I can't really help you learn what science can and cannot do - you'll have to fly blind.
And yes, fgh is correct. The Logos boards are not an appropriate place for your query.
I am a Humanist dedicated to speeding the usefulness of science alone in all matters .
The term "humanist" has had many meanings over time. There are some who view it as meaning that all knowledge is Physics or Stamp-collecting. (I was a Chem major, Physics minor back in undergrad) There are others who use it to describe the joy of studying all aspects of what humans do and create. Back when I was a child, this was the understanding I heard from Carl Sagan's original Cosmos... And if this is true, is it not possible that true "Science" (or at least Knowledge) is to use the methods appropriate to the subject - not force one method upon all subjects? Remember that important figures like Erasmus and Calvin were both definitely humanists - even if "Pre-modern".
Yes - there are too many religious nuts out there. I will admit that.
I do not like books.
Most, if not all of us are the opposite... That is why most of us have spent so much money of books for this software.
Ken McGuire
I am a Humanist... I do not like books.
I am a Humanist...
I don't know which is most appropriate...
[^o)] or [:O] or [:D]
You are a decidedly un-humanist humanist, if this is the case. If George comes around with his Erasmus quote, you will find that books have been the self-perceived lifeblood of the humanist tradition. Your proclamation is a bit like a rancher proclaiming he doesn't like cows or a chef proclaiming he doesn't like to cook. If the tradition you claim had a voice it would likely disassociate itself from you.
I reassert my earlier claim: "bizarre".
I always try to place the question among our dog and his close friends. He frequently likes to discuss the humans with his friends. But he completely refuses to read any of the books his best doggie friends wrote. Obviously he's padding around blind.
And it's easy to assert that our dog can't possibly be a doggie-ist. Sure he may enjoy dog days, battling over tasty bones, and so forth. But disinterest in his doggie-friends writings is the major clue. Pochi <> doggie-ist.
Speaking of Erasmus:
“When I have a little money, I buy books; and if I have any left, I buy food and clothes.”
