Talk:Dispensationalist theology

message: Since this article focuses on Evangelical dispensational theology, having the "Latter day Saints" section on dispensationalism at the top is confusing to readers. So I moved the "Latter day Saints" to "other dispensational schemes" section. Lamorak 14:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: works for me, but I would like to see a history section, as to how the theory evolved, when it was established, etc.  Bytebear 01:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good idea, because dispensational schemes predate the emergence of Evangelical dispensationalism by at least a century (i.e. Isaac Watts, John Edwards). I think I (or someone else) will create a new article entry called either "dispensations" or "dispensational schemes." That would be a better fit for a broader article on the history of dispensation and to show those outside of Evangelicalism also have dispensational arrangements. I'll do some additional research and when the article is in decent shape, I suggest we then move the LDS scheme there. Lamorak 15:57, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Again, no complaints, as I understand it.  This will go over the concept of dispensations, the history of the concept, but no actual list of dispensations?  I think it would be POV to exclude the LDS position, and should probably be listed as part of the history, as the LDS concept is an outgrowth of the original concept. Bytebear 01:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latter-Day Saints 

message: Dispensationalism isn't this hard, and I have more than 115 books on biblical subject; many on Dispensationalism. Nevertheless even I'm stumped when I view this page. Learning Dispensationalism isn't that hard but it appears that a number of people have either inadvertently or deliberately made the subject "unlearnable". A lot of this material appears unsourced and I put in a few comments into this page. This material needs references for many of the statements that it's making, otherwise I recommend a complete revamping of the whole page! To those who really want to learn the argument, I recommend J. Dwight Pentecost's book "Things to Come" published by Zondervan. I'm using my old copy in dealing with this page; I'm currently ordering a new book in case there were any updates to Pentecost's book. At least one Wiki user on another page asked the question of what Dispensationalism is and maybe, if I have time, I'll try to fix this page but the material here would confuse anyone.--MurderWatcher1 (talk) 22:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This page used to be quite simple :) - sorry I created it at this point though as it is just a mess--not that I claim it was good to begin with as I just lifted it from the already bloated Dispensationalism page. Looks like it might need further breakdown or maybe just a focused effort at keeping things deleted... maybe expand the talk page here. eleuthero (talk) 04:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This page is lacking citations/references. It seems that someone with knowledge of this subject should provide primary source information. This page is not reliable or useful due to this issue. Dusterdw (talk) 17:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Page in General 

message: A couple of years ago, I had posted some stuff from an earlier version of a paper I submitted for publication in a book, under the section entitled "Biblical arguments in favor of dispensationalism". This book is about to be published. Since it will be copyrighted, I think it's only right that I remove my posting. I received verification from Mr. IP, Defender of Open Editing, that I can remove it. Brwebb (talk) 11:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical arguments in favor of dispensationalism 

message: Should this article and the one on Dispensationalism be merged? SRP Weston (talk) 02:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this page should be merged with Dispensationalism.Lamorak (talk) 07:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, if the Dispensationalism article is shifted from a single scope (Protestant evangelical tradition) to a more broad scope which includes other religious and philosophical groups.  That may be a tough sell considering dispensationalismis well defined in Latter Day Saint traditions, but isn't even mentioned on that page. Bytebear (talk) 18:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A hard sell for the dispensationalism page, yes. However the arrangement of periods of history (dispensations) predates dispensationalism as a theology, so I think the broad scope (and the LDS dispensations) can  easily be included under an article titled Dispensation (period). At the moment Dispensation (period) redirects to dispensationalism, when it really should be a separate page.Lamorak (talk) 20:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge? 

message: The sections "Biblical arguments in favor of / opposed to dispensationalism" had been tagged as WP:OR for five years. These are lists of Biblical references with commentary, which:
* are often unclear (example: "Progressive Dispensational claim "Israel", "God's people," and "the church" are interchangeable based on Rom 9:6-8 states that "not all those who are descended from Israel are Israel," going on to indicate that genetic hereditary links to Abraham do not constitute membership in the true Israel, although faith in Christ does.") 
* violate WP:NPOV as well as WP:OR through unsourced assertions (example: "They claim it is contrary to the orthodox understanding that God is immutable.") 
* lack any organisation, offering no indication of which are regarded by scholars as the really important points. 
Biblical arguments pro and con are important of course, but the starting point should be the theology, illuminated by the Biblical references. Then for balance some account of the views of a secondary scholar which gives their Biblical and theological reasons why they think this theology is wrong. 
As they stand these lists are worse than useless and I have deleted them in their entirety. asnac (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical arguments pro / con - removed as OR and contravening NPOV 

message: I have undone the edits carried out yesterday as they lack any referencing. This is particularly important with phrases such as  Many Covenant Theologians and Dispensationalists alike learn about one of the five views and make inaccurate generalized sweeping statements - who are these people and how do we know their statements are inaccurate?;  a couple of prominent teachers introduced Revised Dispensationalism - which prominent teachers? I'm sure this information is significant but it needs a source (see WP:OR)asnac (talk) 19:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dispensationalist theology. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070922020646/http://www.stempublishing.com:80/authors/darby/MISCELLA/34031_4E.html to http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/MISCELLA/34031_4E.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't this article be merged to Dispensationalism? Editor2020 (talk) 18:46, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: So, no one cares? Editor2020 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge