The "Rapture Hoax" Theory

[Biblewriter]

I've never understood how the history of dispensationalism has anything to do with its validity. To me, if some totally valid dispensational truth were discovered today, it would be just as truthful as one discovered 200 years ago. History is interesting but it sure doesn't count for much as far as truth is concerned.

I ABSOLUTELY agree. I delve into these things ONLY to disprove the false claims that Dispensationalism is a new doctrine.

 

[Biblewriter]

If Lewis Way believed modern Jews would come to faith in Christ through the Church, then his understanding of the word "dispensation" would be the same as mine.

The greatest error of modern Dispensational Theology is the claim that modern Israelites will come to faith outside of the Church, which is found in Matthew chapter 16.

I will leave it to you to pronounce "willful intentions to deceive" in your condemnation of me, because I have spoken the truth on this part of your doctrine.

Branches broken off of the Olive Tree will wither and die unless they are grafted back into the Olive Tree.

Lewis Way and I are in agreement.
Your claim that he was a promoter of your doctrine could be compared to what you have accused me of...

.

I take that as your admission that you have ever actually read what Lewis Way wrote.

 

[Biblewriter]

If Lewis Way believed modern Jews would come to faith in Christ through the Church, then his understanding of the word "dispensation" would be the same as mine.

The greatest error of modern Dispensational Theology is the claim that modern Israelites will come to faith outside of the Church, which is found in Matthew chapter 16.

I will leave it to you to pronounce "willful intentions to deceive" in your condemnation of me, because I have spoken the truth on this part of your doctrine.

Branches broken off of the Olive Tree will wither and die unless they are grafted back into the Olive Tree.

Lewis Way and I are in agreement.
Your claim that he was a promoter of your doctrine could be compared to what you have accused me of...

.

You have just proved that you have not actually read what Lewis Way wrote. For he taught a fully developed Dispensationalism.

 

[ac28]

"If Lewis Way believed modern Jews would come to faith in Christ through the Church, then his understanding of the word "dispensation" would be the same as mine."

So??? what???

 

[Biblewriter]

Lewis Way, who was not just a participant, but an organizer, of the Albury conferences, was ALREADY teaching Dispensationalism BEFORE the conference, at which the detractors of Dispensationalism falsely claim that Darby got it from Irving, because they were both at the conference. But at the time of that conference, Way was already teaching Dispensationalism and Irving had not yet begun to teach it.

So the claim that Darby got his Dispensational ideas from Irving at that conference is simply not correct.

 

[BABerean2]

Lewis Way, who was not just a participant, but an organizer, of the Albury conferences, was ALREADY teaching Dispensationalism BEFORE the conference, at which the detractors of Dispensationalism falsely claim that Darby got it from Irving, because they were both at the conference. But at the time of that conference, Way was already teaching Dispensationalism and Irving had not yet begun to teach it.

So the claim that Darby got his Dispensational ideas from Irving at that conference is simply not correct.

I have read excepts from Way sometime in the past, when you posted it before.


Your definition of Dispensationalism is not the same as that of both Way and myself, if you are claiming modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church.


Anyone reading Irving's commentary, which he added onto Lacunza's book, cannot honestly deny the connection between what was taught by Irving at the Albury and Powerscourt Conferences and the content of Lacunza's book. Nor can anyone read F.R. Coad's paper and honestly deny the connection between the Irvingites and Darby.


Darby's main contribution was to divide scripture into that for the Jews and that for the Church.


I never could figure out he got around the reference to the Church in Matthew chapter 16 and the Great Commission to the Church at the end of the book.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
http://www.regal-network.com/dispensationalism/pdfs.htm

Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

 

[Biblewriter]

If Lewis Way believed modern Jews would come to faith in Christ through the Church, then his understanding of the word "dispensation" would be the same as mine.

.

Actually, Lewis Way, while he actively encouraged evangelism to the Jews, very clearly taught that the restoration of Israel would come AFTER, not BEFORE the end of "the present Christian era," and AFTER, not BEFORE Christ returned.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have read excepts from Way sometime in the past, when you posted it before.


Your definition of Dispensationalism is not the same as that of both Way and myself, if you are claiming modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church.


Anyone reading Irving's commentary, which he added onto Lacunza's book, cannot honestly deny the connection between what was taught by Irving at the Albury and Powerscourt Conferences and the content of Lacunza's book. Nor can anyone read F.R. Coad's paper and honestly deny the connection between the Irvingites and Darby.


Darby's main contribution was to divide scripture into that for the Jews and that for the Church.


I never could figure out he got around the reference to the Church in Matthew chapter 16 and the Great Commission to the Church at the end of the book.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
http://www.regal-network.com/dispensationalism/pdfs.htm

Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

So, you know what Way taught, even though you have never read anything he wrote, except a few excerpts?

Further, you obviously have essentially zero personal knowledge of the doctrines of either Darby or Irving. Anyone who had actually read them both, as I have, would know that they are different at a fundamental level, and not just in detail.

But you WILL just keep on pushing your disinformation, simply ASSUMING accuracy for the prejudiced accounts you are relying upon, regardless of ALL proof to the contrary. Well, have fun. But realize that no one here is taking you seriously. And realize that no one will EVER take you seriously until you begin to actually rely on original sources, and become completely honest in your allegations about facts.

 

[BABerean2]

e

But you WILL just keep on pushing your disinformation, simply ASSUMING that Coad's account is correct, regardless of ALL proof to the contrary.Well, have fun. But realize that no one here is taking you seriously.

I seem to be in good company...


Dr. Charles C. Ryrie, former professor at Dallas Theological, who literally wrote the book on "Dispensationalism"...


F. R. Coad, Brethren Historian who had access to the written history of the Brethren...


Benjamin Newton, one of the founding members of the Plymouth Brethren and one time friend of John Darby...


Samuel Tregelles, one of the founding members of the Plymouth Brethren and witness to the events of that time...


George Mueller, one time member of the Brethren who later built an orphanage which helped rear and educate thousands of young people. He said he had to make a choice between Darby and his Bible and decided to pick the Bible...


And you claim all of these are wrong, even the ones present during the time of Darby, and you know more than them...


How would this testimony be judged in a court of law?


.

 

[Biblewriter]

ALL the "witnesses" you have listed, other than Charles Ryrie, who obviously had no first hand knowledge of the subject, were fervent enemies of John Nelson Darby and his doctrines, and particularly of the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture. I could draw up a similar list of others who said, and very clearly said, the very opposite to what these men said. Two that immediately come to mind are his close friend and colleague, William Kelly, and Andrew Miller, the author of "Short Papers on Church History." The actual fact is, that no one that is even slightly familiar with the actual doctrine of the nineteenth century Plymouth brethren, or of their debates with these men, would give any credence whatsoever to the accusations made by these anti-dispensationalists. They would be received by ALL such with the scorn they so richly deserve.

And I will state unabashedly that I am very considerably more versed on this subject than Charles Ryrie. He is indeed an expert on Dispensationalism, but is woefully ignorant on the history of its origins. I, on the other hand, am a widely recognized expert on the history of the Plymouth brethren, having devoted literally decades to the study of their writings, and having written many highly detailed papers on them.

 

[BABerean2]

I, on the other hand, am a widely recognized expert on the history of the Plymouth brethren

Pro_29:23 A man's pride shall bring him low: but honour shall uphold the humble in spirit.


.

 

[GoodGRACEshus]

posted in error, apologies

 

[Biblewriter]

It is not pride to simply state a fact. The fact that I spent many years studying Plymouth brethren writings does indeed make me much more of an expert in this particular field of knowledge than anyone who has not done the same. And I stated this fact ONLY to stress that I, indeed, am much more of an expert in this particular field of knowledge than the man (Charles Ryrie) that BABerean2 claims should be listened to because he is a leading Dispensationalist.

I grew up in a Plymouth brethren church, and was encouraged to study the writings of their founders. As a result, I spent about 30-45 minutes a day studying their writings for well over a decade. And I wrote paper after paper about their history. These papers were widely circulated in Plymouth brethren circles, and I became well know in such circles.

But this has zero bearing on both Dispensationalism and Eschatology, so I will not discuss it further here. I mention it ONLY to prove that I am indeed an expert on the history of the Plymouth brethren. And THAT, while a fact, has zero bearing on the truth or falsehood of ANY doctrine. I say these things ONLY to disprove false claims about the history of both the doctrine of the rapture before the great tribulation and of Dispensationalism. I have PROVED that these claims are simply not correct. And this proof DOES NOT depend on my expertise in the history of Christian doctrine. Rather, my expertise has helped me assemble this proof.

 

[BABerean2]

And I wrote paper after paper about their history. These papers were widely circulated in Plymouth brethren circles, and I became well know in such circles.

How do you account for the differences between what you are saying and the paper that Brethren Historian F.R. Coad wrote in 1966?


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418



Coad claims to be a Brethren Historian and so do you???

.

 

[Biblewriter]

There are two differences between what I write and what Coad wrote. The first is that I quote only from original sources, including many that Coad obviously did not know about. And the second is that you prefer to believe those that say what you want to hear.

 

[BABerean2]

There are two differences between what I write and what Coad wrote. The first is that I quote only from original sources, including many that Coad obviously did not know about. And the second is that you prefer to believe those that day what you want to hear.

PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
http://www.regal-network.com/dispensationalism/pdfs.htm

The paper written by Coad agrees with the "Preliminary Discourse" which Irving added to the beginning of Lacunza's book and was printed in English during 1827. On pages 123-125 of the Preliminary Discourse, Irving revealed that he had presented concepts from Lacunza's book at the Prophetic Conference the year before.

Darby, J. N., Reflections (1829), Prophetic No. 1, pp. 1-31.

We know from Darby's 1829 paper that he was reading "The Morning Watch", which was the periodical of the Irvingites. In this same paper he makes references to Irving and Lacunza's book "Coming of Messiah...". However, at that point he was opposed to it.

Dr. Ryrie's statement about Darby becoming interested in prophecy during the Prophetic Conferences held in the UK during the late 1820s and early 1830s, agrees with those who lived during that time.

Newton, Tregelles, Mueller and others who were there at the time, all agree with Coad about the events of those days.

You have claimed in the past that others "before Darby" presented a fully developed "Dispensational System". However, when their writings are examined, it is revealed that they did not claim there would be a future time when modern Jews would come to faith outside of the Church.

Dr. Tommy Ice has claimed that Darby adopted the pretrib doctrine in 1827, after he had fallen from his horse.
However, Darby's 1829 paper is written from the perspective of an amill and does not even hint at a pretrib belief.

Based on the testimony of those such as Newton, Tregelles and Mueller who were present during the events of the 1820s and 1830s, Darby adopted the "Secret Rapture" doctrine of the Irvingites and then made his own unique contribution to the doctrine by dividing scripture into that for the Jews and that for the Church. After Irving died in 1834 Darby became the doctrines greatest salesman. He brought the doctrine to America about the time of the Civil War.

Over and over again, the claims made in defense of Darby, do not match the facts, but those who point this out are labeled as a "liar".


Origin of the Pretrib Rapture Doctrine
Pastor Tim Warner
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/pretrib_history.pdf

.

 

[Biblewriter]

BABerean2, you are simply resorting to childish argument. I have already presented hard evidence to prove that your allegations, while possibly true, are meaningless. For Lewis Way, whose work I have studied, and whose work you have admitted you have not read, indeed taught that the restoration of Israel would be after the end of "the present Christian era." And he had published this two years before he took part in organizing the Albury conferences.

So your claims that Darby HAD to have gotten his Dispensational ideas from Irving have been conclusively proven to be false.

Therefore, I am not going to continue this childish argument with you on this.

 

[BABerean2]

Lewis Way, whose work I have studied, and whose work you have admitted you have not read, indeed taught that the restoration of Israel would be after the end of "the present Christian era." And he had published this two years before he took part in organizing the Albury conferences.

Bring the work out here in context and let it be examined, if it is the truth.
Otherwise, it is most likely another horse accident story...

.

 

[Razare]

1. When your belief originates from a Roman Catholic, and especially a Spanish Jesuit, it is downright bad.

When your arguments have to slander other people as their first and primary counter-point, it is downright bad.

to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. - Titus 3:2

 

[ac28]

When your arguments have to slander other people as their first and primary counter-point, it is downright bad.

to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone. - Titus 3:2

I would certainly agree with the idea that getting any information from a Roman Catholic is a very bad idea. Probably 95% of their doctrine is fabricated by the Catholic Church. So the odds are about 20 to 1 that any doctrine given to you by a Roman Catholic has its basis in lies. They've had 1800 years to find questionable or difficult verses in the Bible and insert their damnable doctrines into them. Matthew 16:18-19 is a good example. I love Catholics but I detest their phony church and the worst of this very bad lot are the Jesuits. If the Romish church could get away with it, they would still be torturing and murdering the true Christians.