Segraves and OPs re-examine dispensationalism?

[SDG]

2008 UGST Symposium

Oneness Pentecostals and Dispensationalism: Modification or Replacement?
Daniel L. Segraves, PhD (ABD)

Although the early twentieth century Pentecostal movement did not originally
embrace dispensationalism,2 the dispensational theory soon flourished in some segments
of Pentecostalism among those who “shared the premillennial vision of the future” and
who thus found that “dispensationalism with its intense emphasis on futuristic
eschatology had a strong appeal to them.”3 It was immediately necessary, however, for
Pentecostals to modify Scofieldian dispensationalism, because although the “system . . .
provides a convenient method of organizing biblical history and teaches that it is possible
to fit the full range of prophetic Scripture into something like a complicated puzzle,”4 it
also asserted “that the gifts of the Spirit, especially what has been called ‘the sensational
gifts’ or ‘sign gifts’ (healing, faith, working of miracles, and tongues), were confined to
the apostolic age.”5 Although cessationism was rejected by Pentecostals, “the
dispensational understanding of the church, as well as its eschatology, has influenced
pentecostal theology.”6

MORE HERE: http://www.ugst.org/uploaded/Symposium/2008/Papers/OnenessPentecostalsAndDispensationalism_Segraves.p df

[pelathais]

heh. That Seagraves kid is getting closer and closer to the Kingdom all the time.

[deltaguitar]

Wow, when are they going to kick him out.

[KWSS1976]

just googled this http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics.../segraves.html

[SDG]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

just googled this http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics.../segraves.html

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.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

just googled this http://jesus-messiah.com/apologetics.../segraves.html

Shouldn't that be " http://jesus-messieh.com "?

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is an article of interest.
http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Di...e_Origins.html

[KWSS1976]

I just copied and pasted so if it is wrong o well

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by KWSS1976

I just copied and pasted so if it is wrong o well

No, no. I'm sorry. I was teasing Reckhart. He's constantly mixing up the spelling of "Messiah." I should have been more clear.

It just seems kind of funny to me that the man sends people to hell because they might not agree with everything he has to say on the subject of the Messiah, and yet he's never certain of the spelling.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is an interesting article on cessationationism.
http://preteristvision.org/holyspiri...fts_today.html