Is Dispensationalism a cult?

Well, let's see.Phat #1: "I think."Phat #2: "One favored scripture - Proverbs 3:5-6 ~ Don't think."Seems pretty consistent to me. Remember, we're talking religion here.

You keep saying that you regularly question your thoughts, beliefs, and the things you are taught. But I have to ask, what is the point of doing so?By your own admission, you simply agree with what is taught.You go with what 'God says'whatever that even means.And the beliefs you already hold are apparently fine answers for all your questions.What is the point of asking questions if you just follow what you've been told anyway, go with your gut, and already have the answers?Do you question just to say you've questioned? Do you just throw the phrase around to appear more intellectual? Is it just a smokescreen? A reformat of the old I'm not a racist, but... line to hide the reality of your blind, feel-good faith?Do you think it gives your beliefs an air of credibility because you pretend to have thought them through?Really, Phat, I want to know: Why are you supposedly always so busy questioning, even when it produces no difference in you or your opinion?

Keep in mind that we people here at EvC don't really know each other. All the evidence that we have about one another stems from the statements and posts that we make. I have changed over the years, but you are right that in some ways--ways that you can see--I have not changed. I still believe in God...perhaps now more than ever. Thus, you could rightly assert that my self proclaimed attempts at questioning are a sort of confirmation bias for me. This is , I think, a trait of humanity. Rarely do people dramatically change their opinions or beliefs. Do you have any anecdotal observations to disprove my observation? I mean...come on...we both know jar, for example. Has he changed much in the past ten years? Has Tangle? Ringo? Faith? And again...all that we have is anecdotal evidence...just look at anyones old posts...in fact, Jon...the one whom I have seen change here at EvC is you. You have made more intelligent posts than you used to make. You are still a thorn at times, though you do so with perhaps more noble motives...though I'll let the audience decide.Getting back on topic--as far as my faith and belief go, I am still a Christian and likely won't change. Intellectually, the arguments against my beliefs are somewhat sound. Heartwise and heartfelt, I am unconvinced. And thats the bottom line,really. For me at least. I judge men more based on their heart and soul than I do based on their intelligence. And these feelings come out of longtime posters...you can sense it through the words that they write. At least I do.

how does favoring a scripture confirm lack of thought?

The question was: Are you encouraged to think for yourself. If Dispensationalism - or your particular congregation - is a cult, it would probably discourage you from thinking about anything but its own prescribed doctines. How wise do you have to be to recognize wisdom?The "context of your belief" seems to be that Father Knows Best. You seem to be looking for a cult, whether you've found one or not.

I can't speak of others here at EvC. You are, as far as I am aware, the only member we have who routinely starts threads to discuss himself.

In your message 24 upthread you have these two statements together:

quote:

---

As far as thinking for myself...yes, I DO think for myself within the context of my belief. One of my favorite scriptures is this one:

​

Proverbs 3:5-6~Trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways submit to him, and he will make your paths straight.

---

It is not your favoring a piece of scripture that confirms a lack of thought but the juxtaposition of the two statements.That first statement says that you do think. In this context this means that you order and analyze your own thoughts, experiences and understandings.Then you immediately write the second statement, one of your favorite scriptures, like it was some kind of example verifying your fist statement. But this piece of scripture from Proverbs says quite openly to not think. Do not order and analyze your own thoughts, experiences and understandings, but, instead of thinking, "trust" in the lord. And it gets worse still since trusting in the lord without thinking means you are taking someone else’s interpretation of what the lord said and wants without reference to your own understanding.So we have you saying that you indeed do think.And your example of this is a favored scripture that says,"don’t think."There is conflict between these two statements which does not make any sense.But, it's OK since this is expected from religion. Most religious people have no problem living by conflicting statements since most them take the Proverbs injunction to heart and don't think.

Yes.Here is a better summation of what Mid Acts dispensationalists believe:

quote:

---

Grace Bible College's constituents differ from most other dispensationalists in their understanding of the ministry of the Apostle Paul. Whereas most fundamentalists and dispensationalists regard the ministry of Paul to be an outgrowth of the ministry of Christ and Peter, the college interprets the Pauline mission as a distinct break from the past. In the view of the college and others in the "Grace Movement," Christ and Peter's mission was solely directed to the nation of Israel and sought to fulfill Old Testament promises of a messianic kingdom to Israel. Paul's mission is distinct in that it is directed to the entire world, with no nation or peoples occupying a privileged position, and has as its realization a spiritual and universal "Church, the Body of Christ," which consists of all Christians in the current dispensation (as opposed to the "Kingdom Church" of Christ and Peter). Christ is the "head" of the Church, the Body of Christ, not the "king," as he is for the Kingdom Church.

​

The College teaches that prior to Paul, a mission to the world, with the unification of Jews and Gentiles into one Body, was a "mystery" that had no antecedents in Biblical revelation. As such, the epistles of Paul are of particular importance for the Church, the Body of Christ. All scripture is "for" members of the Body of Christ, but only the Pauline epistles are "to" the Body of Christ. Accordingly, even Christ's and Peter's teachings and practices may not be strictly normative for Christians today, especially if they are not consistent with the teaching of Paul. For example, Christ worshipped on the Sabbath and, prior to the ministry of Paul, Peter continued to regard Jewish dietary regulations as Christian virtues. Instead, Paul rejected the mandatory observance of the Sabbath and Jewish dietary regulations. Particularly important is the sacrament or ordinance of water baptism. The College maintains that Paul never regarded water baptism as necessary for full participation in the Christian community and that, as he continued to receive revelation from Christ, it became obsolete. Instead, "baptism by the Spirit," which brings Christians into the Body of Christ, is the only baptism that is now in effect for this dispensation (though transitional elements are found in Paul's ministry, when Paul still practiced water baptism early in his ministry to the complete cessation of baptism by the end of his ministry). On the other hand, the College still regards the Lord's Supper as a Church ordinance.

---

I was spurred back into this discussion after reading comments about Calvinism in another thread. Upon re-reading the Five Points Of Calvinism I was convinced that I too disagreed with much of Calvinist ideology and yet I was moved to go back to the roots of what I have been taught to see if it made more logical sense. So far it does. Not only is it an issue whether or not people get their ideas from the Bible rather than other like minded believers, it is a definite issue as to how reliable the Bible is as a source versus human wisdom, logic, reason, and reality. I differ from many of my fellow believers in that I am unafraid to use logic, reason, and reality to a point. I do believe, however, that God exists, that He desires to interact with humanity (through Jesus Christ and the words of the Bible) and that He also is rational, logical, and hopefully reasonable. I agree.

And this gets back to the issue of critical thinking versus belief. I have raised the question as to whether a critical thinker could also be a believer. As far as "Father Knows Best", one would think that belief in God presupposes that God knows more than we do, no? Unless of course one studies gods and theology from the bias that humans created all of these entities through literature. I personally do not believe that.

Actually, I recently heard a great sermon on your scriptural quote. The Cross And Our Self-Will - Zac Poonen Zac says that that scripture--your favorite about Lacrosse--is found in all four Gospels. He maintains that while many Christians profess to give their minds and emotions to God...far fewer aspire to give God their will on any consistent basis.A daily decision to follow Christ and deny oneself is not accomplished through impartation nor magic. It is (as you have mentioned) based on what we do. And I readily admit that much of my prayer life focuses on Phat more than others---this is a problem for me and one that I am aware of.

And I have answered to the effect that you can't be a sincere believer until after you have examined the available evidence critically. Although the Father metaphor has its limitations, I think it's clear that a child is expected to grow up and take upon himself the resonsibilities that his father once upheld for him.

Lets examine how Jesus related to His father..and...as He often said..."Our Father." As humans, we obviously grow up and inherit the position and responsibilities that our earthly fathers once managed for us. As adult believers, we are not expected to be helpless children--I can agree with this in context. Scripture does say, however, that we are to be as children in regards to faith and trust. In regards to faith and trust, what available evidence do we have? Moreso, from what sources are we to gather this evidence?

Yes, let's. Remember the Trinity, where Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "different but equal"? If God is our Father and Jesus is the Son of Man (our Brother) then where's our excuse for not growing up to be like our Father? You can trust your father forever. It's not the same as relying on him. Seek and ye shall find. We have a responsibility to look everywhere we can think of for evidence. We can say we haven't found any evidence yet but that's not an excuse to give up the search. Conclusions based on the evidence are tentative, so faith based on lack of evidence must be tentative too.

Because we are not to be as gods, for one thing. There is a subtle yet definite difference between being in communion with God and acting as if you are a god. Jesus never claimed to be God but did show full and total communion with God. The Trinity is an example of communion rather than tritheism. Having said all this, I will agree that Jesus gives us a great example of how to follow God. The scripture says: Luke 9:23-24 (NIV)-23 Then he said to them all: Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it.We are not called to be gods..rather...to take upon ourselves the life of Christ. It ain't easy and it involves more than spare change. The way I read it, Jesus always relied on His Father.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Why not?