Talk:Hyperdispensationalism

message: 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)
thread_title: Sentence needs fixing

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cleanup of new information 

message: 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)
replies: text: "hyperdispensationalism" is a pejorative term created by dispensational protestants that disagree with the Acts 2 type (Dr. Cyrus I. Scofield / Dr. Charles Ryrie), the extreme Acts 28 position (Dr. Bullinger), the mid-Acts position of Acts 9 (Les Feldick / Justin Johnson) or Acts 13 (J. C. O'Hare.)  Nobody is hyper or ultra dispensational. One either believes Paul exclusively received mysteries from God about the "Body of Christ" or they blend the Jewish program in following Peter and Christ's earthly ministry. Both are still dispensational. LTSGUNNER (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: This extreme doctrine is so radical that even contemporary pluralist Christians would deem it to be heretical. Relevant criticisms need to be mentioned within the article so that the majority view can be expressed on this matter. ADM (talk) 21:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I particularly enjoy Ironside's condemnation of hyper-dispensationalism as an "absolutely Satanic perversion of the truth"!  Duke Ganote (talk) 11:24, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Heresy

message: Hello fellow wikipedians,
I've just reverted the article back to mid-2008, as a certain user made over 200 blatantly useless contributions to this article that obfuscated the main ideas of the philosophy. This author user:Mysteryofthegospel blatantly violated almost every single Wikipedia policy, including WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:RS, and WP:MOS. This author turned a once concise article into a laundry list of bible quotes supporting his own personal dogma. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sound board for biased information. Please, for the love of Wikipedia, do not restore these edits. 76.109.44.167 (talk) 08:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not sure what you accomplished, but the article now  even begins  with the POV  assertion, "Except for a few obscure dissertations, there has been no substantial investigation of the hyper-dispensational position and its strengths [not weaknesses]. Only superficial assertions of the Acts 2 position is posited as an answer..." I suppose Ironside's  "Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth" , or Norman Geisler's Systematic Theology, or  online pages such as by  Critical Issues Commentary  must be considered such. But i do not now have the time to work on this page, which is of poor quality. Grace and peace thru the Lord Jesus (talk) 14:05, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note on my editing of terrible editing 

message: The article needs a better lead. It currently starts:
:The Grace Movement ... is a Protestant doctrine that basically views the teachings of the Apostle Paul both as unique from earlier apostles and as foundational for the church...
:Hyper-dispensationalism exists in different intensities, with E. W. Bullinger (1837–1913), an Anglican clergyman and scholar, being the best known early expositor of Acts 28 ultra-dispensationalism, although all dispensational ideas trace back further to John Nelson Darby (1800–1882). J.C. O'Hair independently arrived at the Mid-Acts position after rejecting the Acts 2 position early on and then the Acts 28 position later.
This is completely incomprehensible to someone who doesn't already know what it's about. What is unique about the teachings of Paul according to this group? What exactly are their doctrinal differences with others? What is this sudden mention of "Acts 28 ultradispensationalism" without any explanation? Imagine an article about Christianity that started:
:Christianity is a religion that views the writings of the four evangelists as unique from earlier Jewish writers and foundational for the church.
Though true as far as it goes, there is no mention of Jesus Christ, no mention of monotheism, no mention of the Jewish Bible, etc. I trust you'd agree that that would be a poor lead. Can someone who is familiar with the topic write up a better lead? I tried to understand the topic from the body, but again that seemed opaque. The paragraph about the "four basic truths" seems to start to get to the heart of the matter, but ends up being just as vague. One truth, for example, is "The Difference between Israel and the Church, the Body of Christ"; but what is the difference, and what is its significance? It is never explained. --Macrakis (talk) 12:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs better lead

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Hyperdispensationalism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=4066
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:30, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I have added specific doctrines believed and held by the Mid-Acts position and historical corrections. I know there is some repetition but I will work on fixing that and adding requisite references. Ultradispensationalism needs to be a separate article and that should be readily apparent now. There is mostly confusion among opponents of the position and few competent materials against it, (Including Ironside and Giesler). Ryrie says the least against it and is the safest attack on the position. It is an interpretive grid forced upon scripture but before it can be properly and effectively corrected, it must be accurately identified and described. Really most all attempts at attacking it has been an abysmal spectacle let alone correctly described.71.90.33.41 (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent editing. 

message: I tried to summarize the points being made in the excellent references. As well as dispensationalism and dispensationalist_theology articles. I have noticed that since this article as been published, these two wikipedia articles includes most of the content here with a much clearer picture. Could someone identify who is speaking before each paragraph in "general views"? It is all great information. But extremely bias, since it pushes someones point of view before defining who they are. But otherwise, historically, everything stated seems stated very well.
Afterwords, could you remove any duplicate information presented dispensationalism and dispensationalist_theology that does not first identify who, historically, is speaking?
TamusJRoyce (talk) 01:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Summery 

message: This has been reported. This article has been requested to be removed. Editor2020 has had no response or discussion with reverting changes more than 3 times.
TamusJRoyce (talk) 04:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malicious Change 

message: Thank you to User:RHaworth for reverting  to Hyperdispensationalism. Editor2020 (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thanks! 

message: The escalation above is due to Editor2020 inability to discuss, critique, and assist in making appropriate changes. Talking with Wikipedia staff, it seems to be a larger issue with how Wikipedia promotes collaboration. Source control tool, git, has a feature called pull requests. Where approvals and critiques can be gathered and applied before publishing. As long as editing pages directly and the content of the pull request remains open and free for anyone to access, this would be a beneficial feature that would prevent the issue Editor2020 caused to escalate the above.
I understand it is against wiki etiquette to troll for a response (viewable in the the change log of this article...going as far as renaming the page). But it is more-so against wiki etiquette to not communicate. I have determined that the issue is not directly the common issue above. But the lack of tools that facilitates communication and builds strong wiki editors.
I still do wish for this page to be combined into dispensationalism (and thus this page deleted). And dispensationalism be changed to Dispensational Theology. Not because of the what I have mentioned above. But others; that this article is very poorly structured.
It should be structured exactly how Covenant_theology is structured. And the term "ism" should be dropped. Unless Covenant_theology should be renamed to Covenantism. Both either not having an "ism". Or both having an "ism" posfix (i.e. Covenant_theology changed to Covenantism). Please resolve the inconsistencies in how this article is structured.
I will be promoting, if not working on, a tool to allow a pull-request-like feature to better assist and promote collaboration. Until then, I request following wiki etiquette to prevent others from following the examples set forth of breaking wiki etiquette.
TamusJRoyce (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Editor2020|Editor2020]] reverting page without discussion 

message: ? 2600:8807:400:13C0:C111:3CA1:C1C:CBF7 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyper hypergismationalism 

message: Article says, "Acts is seen as a transitional period between dispensations, and the Mid-Acts position does not insert an extra dispensation there (contra Ryrie), as did Anderson."  This sentence should be deleted as lacking sources.  It also is unclear.  The words "there" and "contra Ryrie" require clarification.  What did Ryrie claim and to what is Ryrie opposed?  Is the claim that Ryrie espoused an extra dispensation or that Ryrie opposed the claim that Mid-Acts Disps believed in an extra dispensation. Also the perjorative word "extreme" appears to be an NPOV violation.  Is the intent to debunk a position by labeling it extreme? All parts of this article which lack sources should be deleted or sources added. (AltheaCase (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article has been tagged as possibly containing original research and that it needs additional sources for verification. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced parts of the article 

message: I suggest adding Bob Enyart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Enyart) to the <Proponents>. 독자적인 길 (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. When you find that source, add it and re-add your edit to the Bob Enyart article or add it here, ping me and I'll add it. Cannolis (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 February 2024