Jump to content

Talk:Dispensationalism: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) to Talk:Dispensationalism/Archive 2) (bot
Line 62: Line 62:


Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

== "Harmony" not Encyclopedic ==

''"Dispensationalists demonstrate the '''harmony of history''' as focusing on the '''glory of God''' and put God at its center"''

This just sounds awful; like it was lifted directly from some cheesy brochure you find stuck to your door on Sunday morning. Flowery, dramatic and overblown, like the Article's intended audience are the adherents, or believers, of this. I came here to find out what a "dispensational christian" is, and got smacked in the head by this phrase, pretty much derailing any motivation to continue reading. I note that one of the primary objectives of the Lede is to inspire the Reader to continue to read. This word choice, and it's early placement in the Lede, has the exact opposite effect. Besides that, it's totally meaningless; one of those flowery "jargon phrases" that require you to read even more flowery jargon later on in the work in order to have some idea of what meaning is intended to be conveyed. I don't read those Sunday morning brochures, either. Please fix this.[[Special:Contributions/2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB|2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB]] ([[User talk:2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB|talk]]) 20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:14, 17 July 2018

No Christian teaching of a "rapture" before ~1830? Not according to...

See Raputre#Doctrinal_History which describes the Cotton family preaching a similar doctrine in the late 17th, about 150 years before Darby. 76.126.137.85 (talk) 03:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article on Dispensationalism, which as a system was developed in the 1830s. There is no evidence for any historical connection between Darby and the Cottons, and Darby repeatedly insisted that dispensationalism needed to be treated and accepted as a complete system. Thus the statement is accurate. Atterlep (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you can push the doctrine back 150 years (which I would question), the system as a whole is still a novelty in the overall scheme of church history. This article seems to avoid that critique.63.155.106.197 (talk) 12:42, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. It is a relatively recent novelty that was invented in the US, and was therefore never a part of Christianity prior to about 1830, and is not part of the major tradional denominations - Roman Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran, etc., and is peculiar to the recently concocted evangelical denominations found mainly in rural areas in the mid-western parts of the US (and spilling northward into mid-west Canada). Although most of the US media equate US evangelicalism with Christianity itself, thus notably giving a false impression that is often parroted by those non-Christians who hate Christianity, it is a fact that the vast majority of Christians worldwide dismiss dispensationalism as absurd nonsense, if they have heard of it at all. This article seems to have been written by proponents of dispensationalism, and therefore does not reflect the fact that dispensationalists are a modern fringe element that is far away from traditional Christianity.77Mike77 (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty is not a problem for dispensationalists. It is seen merely as the most recent recovery of truth begun during the Reformation. The Reformation began with a recovery of soteriological truth and continued with Dispensationalism's recovery of ecclesiastical and eschatological truth.71.90.33.41 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this article only about Protestant dispensationalism, or is it intended to have greater scope?

After a discussion on Christianity.stackexchange.com, it became apparent that this page is very specifically about Protestant dispensationalism developed in the early 1800's and not about dispensationalism expressed or beleived in any other church. Most notably (because I am a member), the LDS Church is dispensational, but not believing in the Tribulation and Rapture as Protestants do and having different names for the dispensations we don't exactly match the article as presented. If the article is intended to only be about dispensationalism developed in and promulgated through Protestantism, may I recommend the article be reworded appropriately to narrow its focus. If the article is intended to address dispensationalism universally, in what way should we incorporate the variations within different sects?JBH (talk) 23:27, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Disclosure: I reject dispensationalism.) You are correct that this article represents an extremely narrow denominational focus re dispensationalism, and fails to mention that (a) there are a variety of versions of it, and (b) it is not a part of traditional mainstream Christianity.77Mike77 (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dispensationalism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dispensationalism. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Harmony" not Encyclopedic

"Dispensationalists demonstrate the harmony of history as focusing on the glory of God and put God at its center"

This just sounds awful; like it was lifted directly from some cheesy brochure you find stuck to your door on Sunday morning. Flowery, dramatic and overblown, like the Article's intended audience are the adherents, or believers, of this. I came here to find out what a "dispensational christian" is, and got smacked in the head by this phrase, pretty much derailing any motivation to continue reading. I note that one of the primary objectives of the Lede is to inspire the Reader to continue to read. This word choice, and it's early placement in the Lede, has the exact opposite effect. Besides that, it's totally meaningless; one of those flowery "jargon phrases" that require you to read even more flowery jargon later on in the work in order to have some idea of what meaning is intended to be conveyed. I don't read those Sunday morning brochures, either. Please fix this.2605:6000:6947:AB00:754E:2206:73F3:22BB (talk) 20:14, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]