John Nelson Darby - False Teacher/False Prophet?

[Gxg (G²)]

St. Ephraim says: “At the time when the serpent [the Antichrist] shall come, there will be no calm on the earth; there will be great affliction, consternation, disorder, death and famine unto all the ends of the earth.”
“He will come as one humble, meek, a hater (as he will say of himself) of unrighteousness, despising idols, giving preference to piety, good, a lover of the poor, beautiful to an extreme degree, constant, gracious to all… He will not accept bribes, speak with anger, show a gloomy countenance, but with a decorous exterior he will take to deceiving the world, until he has become king”


“When the many classes and the people see such virtues and power, suddenly all will conceive the same thought, and with great joy will proclaim him king, saying among themselves: ‘Can another man so good and righteous be found?’”

“[Christ] will not leave the human race without His preaching, in order that all will be without answer at the Judgment”

[The Antichrist] will show partiality towards Christians, “promising them every sort of protection in return for their acknowledgment of his leadership.”

“Those not comprehending Christianity will see in him a representative and champion of the true religion and will join with him” Those who remain faithful to Christ will incite his wrath “and then this serpent will become proud in his heart and vomit forth his bitterness” Such will be the tribulation of that time that “all men will call blessed the dead and those already buried before this great sorrow came upon the earth”.

Then the faithful remnant of Christians “will flee into the wilderness and mountains and caves—praying day and night in great humility.., that they may be delivered from the serpent,.. And this will be granted them from the holy God”.


“For by permission of the Holy God, [Antichrist] will receive the power to deceive the world, because impiety will have filled the earth, and everywhere every sort of horror will be committed”


“A courageous soul will be required, that will be able to keep its life in the midst of these temptations, For if a man is proved to be even a little careless, he will easily be exposed to assault and will be captured by the signs of the evil and cunning beast”

Simply Orthodox ☦ - Selected prophecies of St. Ephraim the Syrian on the Last Days

I think St.Ephraim the Syrian - in his thoughts on End Times - is very interesting due to considering his other thoughts in conjunction. His views have always been amazing when it comes to the nature of the Lord and what the ramifications of the Incarnation are for the believer:

• 
  East Meets East: St Ephraim's Model of the Incarnation
  
  

Ephrem the Syrian was truly brilliant in how he succeeded in a unique way to reconcile the vocation of the theologian with that of the poet (more shared here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc).

 

[squint]

None of that, as said before, either objectively addresses what Wright said - or shows that what he noted with the Rapture is off. It's called Poisoning the Well - in addition to Begging the Question where it's assumed someone's wrong before ever showing them to be.

Wright runs everything through an unrequired entirely personally subjective historical filter. Not just in his eschatology, but to a butchering degree in his underlying theology.

Quite entirely worthless.

But this path is very common in the higher educational systems. They have to justify their systems and their paychecks somehow don't they? And them books. Yes, must sell books.

Thus, as said before, if one thinks Wrigth is off on the Rapture and that the Rapture can be proven, all one needs to do is show such from scritprue/history

Funny, I responded before I read that paragraph.

Wrights theology is so utterly bashed up by the impositions of 'his'story of history it is beyond credible recognition to many. Seriously seriously damaged. But hey, he has a high vocabulary word score! I guess that makes him entirely credible doesn't it?

Till then, talking on how one thinks Wright is "subjective" or how all doctrines have an aspect of truth doesn't address the issue and misses the point.

Yeah, whatever. It appears you too have a fondness for a lot of words.

I prefer harsh quick cuts to the chase. Just me.

s

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Wright runs everything through an unrequired entirely personally subjective historical filter. Not just in his eschatology, but to a butchering degree in his underlying theology.

Quite entirely worthless.

As said before, nothing here dealt whatsoever with Wrigth - and it is again ad hominem via ridicule rather one focuses on argumentation via emotional responses but never deals with the actual content of what was said.

It does nothing claiming someone is subjective even as you make subjective claims and don't deal objectively with scripture.

But this path is very common in the higher educational systems. They have to justify their systems and their paychecks somehow don't they? And them books. Yes, must sell books.



Funny, I responded before I read that paragraph.

Wrights theology is so utterly bashed up by the impositions of 'his'story of history it is beyond credible recognition to many. Seriously seriously damaged. But hey, he has a high vocabulary word score! I guess that makes him entirely credible doesn't it?

Again - avoiding the issue. Whether others write books or go to seminary has nothing to do with showing whether a concept is objectively supported in the scriptures. And to bring it up no more deals with the issue than one would be dealing with it when saying "All those scholars in seminary only knowing about the Lord but never knowing HIM!!! simply because research was done noting that Christ indeed was Jewish/kept many aspects of Jewish culture and others didn't want to objectively prove otherwise when it opposition.

Prayerfully better can be done in the future - but thus far, it's a pity what was offered.

Yeah, whatever. It appears you too have a fondness for a lot of words.

I prefer harsh quick cuts to the chase. Just me.

As you just gave a lot of words (and have done so before/been noted for such before on differing occassions, a bit humorous to even try bringing it up like it means anything - or shows that one actually deals with the issue

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Btw, there were a couple of church fathers that believed in the 1000-year reign, but even they knew it was their own opinion and not the consensus of the Church, which is what is needed for it to be a doctrine, and would have to have always been taught and revealed to them from the beginning, which makes it dogma, and since this wasn't, it is neither of the two.

Pretty much...

 

[squint]

As said before, nothing here dealt whatsoever with Wrigth - and it is again ad hominem via ridicule rather one focuses on argumentation via emotional responses but never deals with the actual content of what was said.

O please spare me. You dragged him into the conversation.

Want an extensive critique?

Unlikely.

And I don't appreciate the rookie spin either.

You cut and paste masters are not that much fun when it comes down to it.

It does nothing claiming someone is subjective even as you make subjective claims and don't deal objectively with scripture.

Again - avoiding the issue.

The fine man of God in question here is Darby.

It is probably important when we think of Darby to remember how utterly corrupt the church and education systems of his time were.

Donchathink?

Darby had some biting and very much required criticism for convention. His legacy in this way is excellente.

The orthordox churches were infiltrated and over ran quite a number of centuries ago, but some people still worship at those altars.

s

 

[Gxg (G²)]

O please spare me. You dragged him into the conversation.

Want an extensive critique?


Want an extensive critique?

Unlikely.

And I don't appreciate the rookie spin either.

You cut and paste masters are not that much fun when it comes down to it.

Please spare with more of the arguments via emotional response rather than objectively dealing with what Wright actually said - which you've yet to do. You've already done cut/paste and were called on it - thus making any attempt at bringing it up a MOOT point as well as a distraction to what has been said since none of that was done thus far - and talking on not appreciating "rookie spin" is not really a sign of being able to handle material seriously as one would do professionally since it's the same as what many always do when they can only say they don't like something - but can't verify when actually questioned (Proverbs 18:17)

Proverbs 18:17


17 The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.


​

As said before, all of the railing against Wright is rather pointless and interesting enough in light of what he noted. And as said earlier, it makes a difference when taking time to actually see what others have said rather than attempting to poison the well by claiming someone's just off (in your view) BEFORE you even deal with it.

Your earlier claim:

Originally Posted by squint

When it comes to eschatology, I'm in the here and now camp...

No agenda. Do I believe Darby? Hardly. Not even close.

​

And as said before, you would be in line with Wright in supporting what you did ...had you actually read/addressed what he said . For Wright has a theology focused on the present/here and now and not supporting Darby - and thus, if you'd prefer to claim all of what he says is wortheless/not dealing with scripture, you effectively claim the same of yourself. Obviously, that is not your goal - but it is what it is


If you feel Wright doesn't agree with you, prove it and actually square up in dealing with what he said. Others were brought up for verification of points - and if you have issue with that, square up/objectively show where they didn't line up with the Word. For anyone can claim "I just don't like them" and think that shows anything. It doesn't

The fine man of God in question here is Darby.

It is probably important when we think of Darby to remember how utterly corrupt the church and education systems of his time were.

Donchathink?

Darby had some biting and very much required criticism for convention. His legacy in this way is excellente.

The orthordox churches were infiltrated and over ran quite a number of centuries ago, but some people still worship at those altars.

Again, arguments via emotion - positive or negative - do not show objectively what happened. Saying Darby is wonderful doesn't show such, nor does saying the "Churches of his day were corrupt" really establish that he was automatically better and that what he said was in line with scripture. That's begging the question.

 

[Rev Randy]

Others like Gregory Boyd - who has long advocated that the U.S is not a Christian Nation and that it is a myth to say so - has noted often in Evangelical circles and Catholic circles which support the Rapture.

Rapture aside, The US is not a Christian nation. It is a nation in which Christianity exists. Without doubt, most of the founders were Christian and it was originally set up upon Christian values but not as a "Christian nation".

 

[squint]

Please spare with more of the arguments via emotional response

Stop right there.

I gave you just a TAD of fact about 'why' Wright is off his rocker.

That 'fact' is his pathetically subjective views of historical filter.

Now, you can try to spin that as 'emotional.'

It is a proven fact if one has the inclination to spend any time at all with an 'objective view' of what the man says.

Emotion response?

zzzzzzzzzzz

You are quite the trip. Someone spoils yer cut and paste party and you git all uppity.

s

 

[squint]

Rapture aside, The US is not a Christian nation. It is a nation in which Christianity exists. Without doubt, most of the founders were Christian and it was originally set up upon Christian values but not as a "Christian nation".

The orothodox brought people like Darby upon themselves.

And once the door to question false evil authority opened...

the flood of attempts at TRUTHful exchange began.

Everything is questioned. No stone is unturned.

They were just early in the process.

s

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Stop right there.

I gave you just a TAD of fact about 'why' Wright is off his rocker.
That 'fact' is his pathetically subjective views of historical filter.

Now, you can try to spin that as 'emotional.'

It is a proven fact if one has the inclination to spend any time at all with an 'objective view' of what the man says.

Emotion response?

zzzzzzzzzzz

You are quite the trip. Someone spoils yer cut and paste party and you git all uppity.

s

Saying how you feel he's subjective and that you don't like him doesn't deal with what he said - or show objectively from scripture that what he said was incorrect.

Again, one can either deal with it - or don't. But saying "I don't like them" doesn't cut it in accusation. You already claimed earlier that you had a "here and now" mindset - and thus, you agree exactly with what Wright said ( #50 ). Simple as that. That said, as said before, it's a rather moot point trying to do argumentation via ridicule as if throwing out "copy paste" either shows such has occurred - or really addresses the issue. It is attempt at distraction/red herring - and one that doesn't support your claim since you already have done cut/paste dozens of times and were called on it. Saying someone's "uppity" is on the level of personal commentary negatively - as well as something rather rude and ironic in light of your claiming others in educational settings don't like being questioned/tend to attack ..and yet you chose to do just that.

Would advise you to stop - and either focus in dealing with what was said ...or sitting down.

 

[squint]

Saying how you feel

Did I say 'feel?'

What is it you don't understand about Wright and his pathetic attempts to sell his version of history as the filter required to buy into his gigs?

Any nitwit with any historical interest could drive a MACK TRUCK through nearly the entirety of the 'novelty' he's tried to play.

AND he has taken some very legitimate heat from numerous serious scholars.

Oneupmanship is part of how these guys make their living. But at some point they get a little 'out there' in their theories.

Wright is in that category. Out there. Dangling. By the threads of his own weaving.

s

 

[Rev Randy]

The orothodox brought people like Darby upon themselves.

And once the door to question false evil authority opened...

the flood of attempts at TRUTHful exchange began.

Everything is questioned. No stone is unturned.

They were just early in the process.

s

Darby is not upon Orthodoxy. People have been questioning since the beginning of time. You'll have to find someone else to blame darby on. Perhaps Darby himself? Geesh.

 

[squint]

Darby is not upon Orthodoxy.

The entire alt Prot ground of which Darby certainly sprang from came from a 'legitimate' requirement to separate from evil corrupt orthodoxy.

There is little question about that fact is there? Well, yes, there is if one is orthodox and doesn't care much for looking at what orthodoxy really did. That is why such need their tinfoil, blinders and ear plugs.

I don't expect members of orthodoxy to actually look at their own history in the light of what Darby taught...heaven forbid.

It probably pays to remember that church members and states were not that long prior busily engaged in furiously trying to kill each others.

s

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Did I say 'feel?'

What is it you don't understand about Wright and his pathetic attempts to sell his version of history as the filter required to buy into his gigs?

Any nitwit with any historical interest could drive a MACK TRUCK through nearly the entirety of the 'novelty' he's tried to play.

AND he has taken some very legitimate heat from numerous serious scholars.

Oneupmanship is part of how these guys make their living. But at some point they get a little 'out there' in their theories.

Wright is in that category. Out there. Dangling. By the threads of his own weaving.

s

Again, more arguments via emotion - and not dealing whatsoever with what Wright said when choosing to attack him rather than address what he said. That will never do for good argumentation - and you've done much of what you already have been claiming of them.

Proverbs 18:17


17 The first to present his case seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.


​

As said before, all of the railing against Wright is rather pointless and interesting enough in light of what he noted. And as said earlier, it makes a difference when taking time to actually see what others have said rather than attempting to poison the well by claiming someone's just off (in your view) BEFORE you even deal with it.

Your earlier claim:

Originally Posted by squint

When it comes to eschatology, I'm in the here and now camp...

No agenda. Do I believe Darby? Hardly. Not even close.

​

And as said before, you would be in line with Wright in supporting what you did ...had you actually read/addressed what he said . For Wright has a theology focused on the present/here (as shared beffore in ( #50 )

N.T. Wright on Heaven & Rapture Theology ​

Thus, every and any attempt at trying to distance onself from Wright as you're doing is pointless when you already agree with what he has said directly. And every category you've sought to apply to Wright would be essentially placing yourself in the same. Obviously, that is not your goal - but it is what it is

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Rapture aside, The US is not a Christian nation. It is a nation in which Christianity exists. Without doubt, most of the founders were Christian and it was originally set up upon Christian values but not as a "Christian nation".

More than agree.

As said elsewhere ( #3 , #23 ,#74, #78, #109 , and #111 ), a nation with Christian principles and Christian imagery is not the same as a Christian nation. The only true example of a Christian Nation (or the closet I've seen) is the Byzantine Empire - but in the U.S, so many things occurred that were always far from being CHristian. Manifest Destiny being one of the greatest, as well as the treatment of Indigenious First Nations groups and Blacks.

FreeMasonry/other corrupt religious actions were accepted by the Founders in our country since day 1---something that has NEVER been Christian in our nation and has harmed the U.S since it was allowed and participated in---no different than Israel when it allowed idolatry and witchcraft into the land. All of that is something that goes along with the theocracy dynamic since men accepted FreeMasonry believing they could still have God lead/rule the nation through them...and that's never cool.

And it's present everywhere. It's no surprise that the land has always had the drama it has and has landed up where it is today since many cursings were brought in from the very beginnings-----for it was already an issue when a curse was brought due to the bloodhshed/mistreatment of other groups in the U.S (something many noted would bring God's judgement)....but the evil of Freemasonry sealed a lot.


And when seeing many global issues arising, you'll often see FreeMasonry arising in the background as being connected to and a part of it. For reference:

• "Mystical Sites - U.S Captitol / Vigiliant Citizen" ( )
• "Educate Yourself /Vigiliant Citizen"
• THOUSAND LIES - THE NATIVE AMERICAN
• Sins against Native Americans - PoliticsInHeaven"
• -"The Hidden Hand that Shaped History | The Vigilant "( )
• Monumental Myth « The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

Psywar: The Real Battlefield is the Mind
Eye of the Phoenix: Secrets of the Dollar Bill
The Hidden Faith Of The Founding Fathers​

One man of God I'm aware of - known as G.Craig - actually sought to touch on that one when talking on the ways our culture has been cursed with the tendency to deify others because of precedent

G.Craig Lewis: The Leaven of Herod
G.Craig Lewis: The Leaven of Herod Pt. 2
G.Craig Lewis: The Leaven of Herod Pt.3 ​

A lot of folks from that era noted that having religious principles found in the Bible is not the same as practicing fully what the Bible said or what CHristianity was meant to be about - and that's seen in the sheer amount of times things were discussed in regards to FreeMasonry as well as making room for paganism/Enlightenment Thinking..which was humanist in nature/only acknowledged the Bible as far as it seemed to support moral values all accepted.

George Washington was a freemason and a deist. He wouldn’t take communion with his wife. ...and he was also what's known as a Unitarian ..and due to his Unitarian views, held stances that supported both Christian principles and non-Christian beliefs such as Deism and other things. For reference:

• Realistic Visionary: A Portrait of George Washington.
• George Washington, David Barton and Unitarianism
• American Revolution: "I Think, Therefore I Am...a Unitarian"

One can also go here and here. John Adams spoke harshly at times about Christianity and religion in general in his private correspondence. He was a Christian Unitarian that believed the church service was good for everyone because it promoted morals and values among the masses. Thomas Jefferson, as a Diest, went so far to deny the divinity of Christ. He even created his own compilation of Jesus’ life from the gospels, which he entitled, “The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.” He removed all evidence of the “supernatural” for a presentation of Jesus as a good moral teacher who is only to be admired, not worshipped. And there are other examples of where things they did/began were FAR from being what the Lord had in mind with Biblical laws​

In example, there are pictures showing the Founding Fathers as gods..which is not surprising seeing that most of the Founding Fathers were very much into demonic things such as Freemasonry. There was one statue I remember seeing of George Washington IN D.C that had him in the form of a Greek GOD when I was visiting the place back in 2009. Seemed like they were trying to express the regal nature the president seemed to have and take it to another level, just as others have done often..

Additionally, the dome of the Capitol features in its occulus an incredibly significant painting that reveals the philosophical, spiritual and political aims of the Founding Fathers. Right in the very centre of the cast iron dome in the U.S Capitol is a painting of George Washington, ascended to the pantheon of ancient greek deities.

​

​

Astonishingly poor theology for 'one nation under God', but evidence of the high esteem George was held in by his 19th century successors. The building was completed (from memory) in the 1820s.

And there are many others besides that.

It's not hidden. I'm surprised many more don't talk on the ways the Founding Fathers were often deified multiple times and no one said anything on it for centuries. I'd wager that many don't tend to look for it due to assumptions they've already accepted on the Founding Fathers being fully dedicated believers and soldiers for Christ as has often been said by others in the Religious Right and others who had an idea of Christianity in mind which they supported/felt the FOunders did as well ( with the use of Biblical Language/scripture in their speeches being what influences others to see the history of the nation as being Christian in origin ), thus causing confirmation bias and people seeing what they have already been trained to see/zoom in on....even when the other darker aspects of what were present in the nation's founding/consistently growing are out in the open...from the monuments of our capitol to the things presidents swear into before taking office (like Bohemian Grove, if not aware of it - very dark reality )...and a lot of other mess.

Some of those things I honestly was not aware of until I went to D.C for myself...with it being the case that read my Bible that morning on idolatry and what King Josiah did in II Kings 22-23 when loving the Lord and yet having no clue as to the many things surrounding him that were evil...and although I was aware of things like FreeMasonry and other things present, some of the other things I witnessed there really made me feel VERY uncomfortable/perplexed as to how open it was and yet no many caught it.

And when I saw that, it made so much sense as to why people tended in our nation to do the things they did - and still do.

Nothing that has happened is really new...

 

[squint]

Again, more arguments via emotion

You can spin your little tale all you please on that attempt.

It is abundantly well known (to anyone with interest) that Wrights entire schema rests on historical filters of his own makings.

This is just a simple known fact.

And as we know the study of 'history' not only can be, but IS entirely subjective to the handlers of same.

Were proven historical fact or proven archeological fact the measures of Christianity there would be none.

- and not dealing whatsoever with what Wright said

I 'merely' pointed out one of the underlying 'flaws' in Wrights sights.

You might understand that if the foundation block is taken away, an entire edifice crumbles.

Wright has one of the easiest foundation blocks to pull out. His faulted views of history. He is entirely subjective in those views. Yawningly so.

Only the ignorant OR those who are impressed with big words will buy in.

when choosing to attack

It's a critique. You are quite fond of phony spin aren't you?

Do I buy what Wright has to say? No. The man has a bad foundation of his own version of history. This is a simple fact.

s

 

[Gxg (G²)]

Darby is not upon Orthodoxy. People have been questioning since the beginning of time...

Spot on, Bruh - as I'ms surprised there'd even be attempt to try placing Darby on Orthodoxy.

You'll have to find someone else to blame darby on Perhaps Darby himself? Geesh

IMHO, when you're in love with a figure and supportative of them - prior to actually questioning him - it can be difficult to seeing objectively the impact of their actions. No one is of the mindset (as far as I can tell) that all things Darby were bad....but to exalt the man as being either flawless or not having anything that was an issue is a bit off.

 

[Rev Randy]

The entire alt Prot ground of which Darby certainly sprang from came from a 'legitimate' requirement to separate from evil corrupt orthodoxy.

There is little question about that fact is there? Well, yes, there is if one is orthodox and doesn't care much for looking at what orthodoxy really did. That is why such need their tinfoil, blinders and ear plugs.

I don't expect members of orthodoxy to actually look at their own history in the light of what Darby taught...heaven forbid.

It probably pays to remember that church members and states were not that long prior busily engaged in furiously trying to kill each others.

s

So. Is that what your trying to do?
Shifting blame is what children do. "Johnny made me do it". By your reasoning , the RCC nailed Luther's note to the door. Bad reasoning. Luther did it in full awareness of what he was doing. The right or wrong of it not withstanding.
What Darby taught was simply bad theology. How he arrived at it matters little. He arrived at a bad theology. To lay blame elsewhere and for it to be valid would require everyone else to also have come to that same conclusion. Everyone else did not. I wouldn't even blame Darby for those following that theology. We are not robots. We can and do think with our own minds. Where an apple falls is not where it needs to remain. It can be picked up and tossed in the trash.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

You can spin your little tale all you please on that attempt.

It is abundantly well known (to anyone with interest) that Wrights entire schema rests on historical filters of his own makings.

This is just a simple known fact.

And as we know the study of 'history' not only can be, but IS entirely subjective to the handlers of same.

Were proven historical fact or proven archeological fact the measures of Christianity there would be none.

I 'merely' pointed out one of the underlying 'flaws' in Wrights sights.

You might understand that if the foundation block is taken away, an entire edifice crumbles.

Wright has one of the easiest foundation blocks to pull out. His faulted views of history. He is entirely subjective in those views. Yawningly so.

Only the ignorant OR those who are impressed with big words will buy in.



It's a critique. You are quite fond of phony spin aren't you?

Do I buy what Wright has to say? No. The man has a bad foundation of his own version of history. This is a simple fact.

s

And thus, outside of again trying to subsitute attacks based on prior dislike of Wright (yet to be proven in regards to faulty history ) with addressment of Wright's words/statements , you again did the same thing you accused of.

And the bottom line is that no amount of railing against the man changes the fact that you already agree with him when claiming you have a "here and now"theology as you already said earlier - for Wright holds/advocates the same...and unless you support the Rapture, it's not a very complicated issue to understand Anyone truly aware of what Wright has said and not avoiding of history in the Church or scripture can easily see where things already lined up and people going against that may have more interest in being against someone than dealing with the facts.

It is what it

 

[squint]

And thus, outside of again trying to subsitute attacks based on prior dislike of Wright (yet to be proven in regards to faulty history ) with addressment of Wright's words/statements , you again did the same thing you accused of.

That really has nothing to do with it.

IF you buy the story that Wright has, that an understanding of history is the only way we can really understand the scriptures, I can only say that is Wrights impositions of a singular filter.

That does not mean his filter is

A. A reguirement

B. The requirement

C. the only avenue

get it?

The man is quite fond of history because

THAT IS HIS AREA OF SCHOLARSHIP.

s