Misplaced, irrevelant, and erroneous attack.

[Biblewriter]

The "full court" attack on the doctrine of the Pre-tribulation rapture, which has recently been pressed in thread after thread, has been completely off the subject in most of the threads where it has popped up.

This attack has been irrevelant, because where Darby got the ideas he taught is wholly immaterial. Even if Darby got his ideas from Irving, and through him Lacunza, the cogent question is whether or not he was correct, not where the ideas came from.

And the attack is completely incorrect because most of the ideas on prophecy which are currently thought to be unique to dispensationalism, were clearly taught in some of the oldest Christian writings that have come down to us.

This has included the eventual conversion of all the Jews, the temple in "the earthly Jerusalem" being rebuilt, the Antichrist showing himself to be God in this rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, a calculation of the years of the seventy weeks prophecy based on Jewish years instead of solar years, And that there shall be great tribulation "when the church is suddenly caught up."

All of these except the calculation of the seventy weeks based on Jewish years were clearly set forth during the first two centuries of the church.

 

[Straightshot]

The devil is in the building .... some one left the back door open BW

The Darbyite story hoaxters are all over the message boards to day as you must know

Just another sign of the times and to be expected

I say ignore them and they will flee .... sometimes you just have to let them go

There are very few of the Lord's true ecclesia living on the earth today and they know and are looking for His promise .... He will deliver

For the balance of 8 billion humans on the earth it really does not matter .... even those of the professing "church" .... which is riddled with apostasy

The Lord's true ecclesia have holy spirit insight and do not need to be convinced

For those who do not know where they are going, any road will take them there

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Whilest most of them embrace amillennialism, so it's not like they're standing up for the truth or anything.

 

[Notrash]

Just goes to show you that the faulty literal futurist-prophetic hermeneutic of the epistles has been around since Ireneous.

However, one thing BW neglects is that these early futurist commentators ALL projected their futurist understandings to be accomplished at the fall of the roman empire world which they all believed would be accomplished within by @ 400-500 AD.

NONE, that I know of, applied the writings to an end of a church age in the manner that the dispensatiinal model does.

One of the writers even wrote that the revelatiin applied to the end of the jewish ecomomy, but that a second application would apply to the fall of the Roman empire. I had though this quote referred to Victorinus, but I havn't been able to support that though, nor find the quote again for about a year.

Anyone have this quote?

 

[Jipsah]

because where Darby got the ideas he taught is wholly immaterial.

And that primarily because the stuff that Darby was peddling was immaterial as well. Who cares where he got it?

All of these except the calculation of the seventy weeks based on Jewish years were clearly set forth during the first two centuries of the church.

The "Jewish Year" wasn't a year at all, i was a calendar, and not an astonishingly good one. A year is 365.25 days, by God's design, no matter how many days anyone's calendar may have in it. The idea of a "Jewish Year" is yet another bit silliness connected with Dispensational Futurism.

 

[Jipsah]

Whilest most of them embrace amillennialism, so it's not like they're standing up for the truth or anything.

As far as you know, anyway.

 

[BABerean2]

The "full court" attack on the doctrine of the Pre-tribulation rapture, which has recently been pressed in thread after thread, has been completely off the subject in most of the threads where it has popped up.

This attack has been irrevelant, because where Darby got the ideas he taught is wholly immaterial. Even if Darby got his ideas from Irving, and through him Lacunza, the cogent question is whether or not he was correct, not where the ideas came from.

And the attack is completely incorrect because most of the ideas on prophecy which are currently thought to be unique to dispensationalism, were clearly taught in some of the oldest Christian writings that have come down to us.

This has included the eventual conversion of all the Jews, the temple in "the earthly Jerusalem" being rebuilt, the Antichrist showing himself to be God in this rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, a calculation of the years of the seventy weeks prophecy based on Jewish years instead of solar years, And that there shall be great tribulation "when the church is suddenly caught up."

All of these except the calculation of the seventy weeks based on Jewish years were clearly set forth during the first two centuries of the church.

I have sat in a Sunday-school class and a pew and heard from Brothers that I love that the pretrib doctrine came from Paul.
I have heard the same thing here.
In this regard, it does matter where it came from, because all of us deserve to hear the truth.

You yourself have stated repeatedly that what the ECF have said is not on an equal footing with scripture.
You have demonstrated that Irenaeus and others held to a futurist interpretation of Daniel.

Your proof of a pretrib rapture viewpoint from the ECF has been hot air.

We know that Grant Jeffrey was so desperate to show a pretrib view from the ECF that he was willing to fabricate it.
This type of behavior should be pointed out for what it is by all of us, including you.
Jeffrey lied.
If a doctrine must be supported by lying, it is not scriptural.

Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf


If this doctrine comes from the writings of the ECF, but is not fully supported by what is plainly written in God's Word, then it is a fairy-tale and should be abandoned.

It is very unlikely that anyone who has written and published books on Dispensational Theology, will ever be able to abandon the doctrine.

Most false doctrines continue, even when it is shown that they are not scriptural, because legalism takes over and our pride will not allow us to say those difficult words...


I was wrong.

..............................................................................

Our Brothers and Sisters sitting in the pews of the evangelical churches in America need to hear the truth, whatever it is.

If Darby's doctrine matches up with scripture, they need to hear it.

If Darby's doctrine does not match up with scripture, then they need to hear the truth on this point also.

.............................................................................

Any doctrine that must use the following methodology has to be a corruption of God's Word.


1. Deny or ridicule the origin of the doctrine.

2. Twist, ignore, change, divide or cherry pick scripture to make the doctrine work.

3. Make a personal attack upon those who dare to question the doctrine.




All three of the above have been used on this forum to defend Darbyism.


.

 

[Danoh]

I have sat in a Sunday-school class and a pew and heard from Brothers that I love that the pretrib doctrine came from Paul.
I have heard the same thing here.
In this regard, it does matter where it came from, because all of us deserve to hear the truth.

You yourself have stated repeatedly that what the ECF have said is not on an equal footing with scripture.
You have demonstrated that Irenaeus and others held to a futurist interpretation of Daniel.

Your proof of a pretrib rapture viewpoint from the ECF has been hot air.

We know that Grant Jeffrey was so desperate to show a pretrib view from the ECF that he was willing to fabricate it.
This type of behavior should be pointed out for what it is by all of us, including you.
Jeffrey lied.
If a doctrine must be supported by lying, it is not scriptural.

Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf


If this doctrine comes from the writings of the ECF, but is not fully supported by what is plainly written in God's Word, then it is a fairy-tale and should be abandoned.

It is very unlikely that anyone who has written and published books on Dispensational Theology, will ever be able to abandon the doctrine.

Most false doctrines continue, even when it is shown that they are not scriptural, because legalism takes over and our pride will not allow us to say those difficult words...


I was wrong.

..............................................................................

Our Brothers and Sisters sitting in the pews of the evangelical churches in America need to hear the truth, whatever it is.

If Darby's doctrine matches up with scripture, they need to hear it.

If Darby's doctrine does not match up with scripture, then they need to hear the truth on this point also.

.............................................................................

Any doctrine that must use the following methodology has to be a corruption of God's Word.


1. Deny or ridicule the origin of the doctrine.

2. Twist, ignore, change, divide or cherry pick scripture to make the doctrine work.

3. Make a personal attack upon those who dare to question the doctrine.




All three of the above have been used on this forum to defend Darbyism.


.

All three above are also your continued self-portrait, Babs...in fact, further back in posts then some on here who came later... carry on B2

 

[Danoh]

The "full court" attack on the doctrine of the Pre-tribulation rapture, which has recently been pressed in thread after thread, has been completely off the subject in most of the threads where it has popped up.

This attack has been irrevelant, because where Darby got the ideas he taught is wholly immaterial. Even if Darby got his ideas from Irving, and through him Lacunza, the cogent question is whether or not he was correct, not where the ideas came from.

And the attack is completely incorrect because most of the ideas on prophecy which are currently thought to be unique to dispensationalism, were clearly taught in some of the oldest Christian writings that have come down to us.

This has included the eventual conversion of all the Jews, the temple in "the earthly Jerusalem" being rebuilt, the Antichrist showing himself to be God in this rebuilt temple in Jerusalem, a future fulfillment of Daniel's seventieth week, a calculation of the years of the seventy weeks prophecy based on Jewish years instead of solar years, And that there shall be great tribulation "when the church is suddenly caught up."

All of these except the calculation of the seventy weeks based on Jewish years were clearly set forth during the first two centuries of the church.

Well-stated... and, brace yourself and yours... for you well know that where these gainsayers are concerned their "legion" will only continue to wax worse and worse year after year as this Mystery age continues to move nearer and nearer "the fulness of the Gentiles..."

 

[ThatTrueLight]

I like what one poster said in some other thread recently.

Just post what you believe and leave it at that. It's not like anyone here is going to change their mind etc.

If some enjoy posting in their beliefs about the pretrib rapture and they're convicted that this is the truth, then present your case.

If some enjoy posting in their beliefs about the church being Israel and that this is the kingdom of God, and you're convicted that it's the truth, then present your case.

This is why I am convicted that this is the truth etc.

Why would that be difficult?

What is accomplished by continuously attacking one doctrine while not substantiating your own?

It's better to win a case with evidence than it is with smearing or attacking the subjects etc.

 

[Biblewriter]

Any doctrine that must use the following methodology has to be a corruption of God's Word.


1. Deny or ridicule the origin of the doctrine.

2. Twist, ignore, change, divide or cherry pick scripture to make the doctrine work.

3. Make a personal attack upon those who dare to question the doctrine.




All three of the above have been used on this forum to defend Darbyism.

It makes me sad to say it, but this is nothing more than a slight modification of your systematic attack upon dispensationalism in general, and the pretribulation rapture in particular.

You deny and ridicule the ancient origins of the doctrine of a rapture before the time when Christ comes to judge the world.

You twist, ignore, and cherry pick scripture to support your doctrine.

And you repeatedly, and in full disregard to the rules of this forum, repeatedly launch personal attacks upon Darby in particular, dispensationalists in general, and those who defend either dispensationalism or the pretribulation rapture.

I have long said, that if you want to know the sin in a person's heart, listen to what he keeps accusing others of doing.

 

[TPeterY]

On that day when Christ come for His own, He'll decide who is ready based on their heart and reward them based on their deeds.

Jeremiah 17:10 (NIV) “I the Lord search the heart and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct, according to what their deeds deserve.”

Matthew 5:8 {NIV) Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God.

1 Thessalonians 3:13 (GNT) In this way he will strengthen you, and you will be perfect and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all who belong to him.

Proverbs 22:11 (NIV) One who loves a pure heart and who speaks with grace
will have the king for a friend.​

Some will be ready, some will not. A Christian name tag is not the deciding factor.

Romans 2:5 (NIV) But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed.​

.

 

[BABerean2]

It makes me sad to say it, but this is nothing more than a slight modification of your systematic attack upon dispensationalism in general, and the pretribulation rapture in particular.

You deny and ridicule the ancient origins of the doctrine of a rapture before the time when Christ comes to judge the world.

You twist, ignore, and cherry pick scripture to support your doctrine.

And you repeatedly, and in full disregard to the rules of this forum, repeatedly launch personal attacks upon Darby in particular, dispensationalists in general, and those who defend either dispensationalism or the pretribulation rapture.

I have long said, that if you want to know the sin in a person's heart, listen to what he keeps accusing others of doing.

Brother BW,

You have got me over a barrel this time.

Confession is always good for the soul.

As to the first charge of attacking dispensationalism in general and the pretrib rapture. GUILTY.


As to the second charge of attacking the doctrine of a rapture before Christ returns to judge the world. GUILTY.


As to the charge of twisting, ignoring, and cherry picking scripture.
The jury was hung on this charge, due to the fact that some on this forum would disagree with the charge.


As to the charge of making personal attacks upon Darby and Dispensationalists in general.

Did I call Grant Jeffrey a liar? GUILTY.
The evidence presented proves his guilt.


Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf




Unless evidence can be presented showing a personal attack upon Darby himself, we will have to address that charge at another time.
Do I think he slanted the history of the doctrine to distance himself from the Irvingites in his writings? GUILTY

Have I attacked Darby's doctrine? GUILTY

It is my understanding that doctrine is fair game on this forum.

..........................................................................................

Have personal attacks been launched upon me on this forum for daring to disagree with Darbyism?


Do the words, Liar, Fool, Blind, Blatant Falsehood, Troll, Child, Arrogant, or Sin ring a bell?


.

 

[Straightshot]

The behavior displayed is all based upon individual motive

All who come to state their views and then to bicker argue about it to the point of boredom should be suspect

Some lavish the prideful banter [my dog is bigger than yours], and others are not comfortable with their own positions and actually lack confidence in the same

So they argue over and over attempting to convince themselves, and when another view comes along to the contrary they become defensive thinking that some how their own salvation depends upon their position .... and when threatened they begin to question that maybe something has gone wrong, and that they have been mislead by others

These motives are never a part of the make up of one of the Lord's true ecclesia who speak with confident and holy spirit leading

 

[Danoh]

Brother BW,

You have got me over a barrel this time.

Confession is always good for the soul.

As to the first charge of attacking dispensationalism in general and the pretrib rapture. GUILTY.


As to the second charge of attacking the doctrine of a rapture before Christ returns to judge the world. GUILTY.


As to the charge of twisting, ignoring, and cherry picking scripture.
The jury was hung on this charge, due to the fact that some on this forum would disagree with the charge.


As to the charge of making personal attacks upon Darby and Dispensationalists in general.

Did I call Grant Jeffrey a liar? GUILTY.
The evidence presented proves his guilt.


Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf




Unless evidence can be presented showing a personal attack upon Darby himself, we will have to address that charge at another time.
Do I think he slanted the history of the doctrine to distance himself from the Irvingites in his writings? GUILTY

Have I attacked Darby's doctrine? GUILTY

It is my understanding that doctrine is fair game on this forum.

..........................................................................................

Have personal attacks been launched upon me on this forum for daring to disagree with Darbyism?


Do the words, Liar, Fool, Blind, Blatant Falsehood, Troll, Child, Arrogant, or Sin ring a bell?


.

Does the shoe of those labels fit? Tailor made - with the fake leather of your "research" and the thread of your false accusations.

BW, was just being nice about it.

What do you do - the same, old same old - rationalize your actions once more in bright colors - your emotions the issue once more.

Other than calling you out for the sake of those you would mislead down your obviously willful error of straw men, words of various men who often did not see eye to eye, but put together as if they did, and endless sloppy seconds research - you continue to prove an arrogant, know it all waste of time, who's ears were long ago stopped up.

 

[BABerean2]

Does the shoe of those labels fit? Tailor made - with the fake leather of your "research" and the thread of your false accusations.

BW, was just being nice about it.

What do you do - the same, old same old - rationalize your actions once more in bright colors - your emotions the issue once more.

Other than calling you out for the sake of those you would mislead down your obviously willful error of straw men, words of various men who often did not see eye to eye, but put together as if they did, and endless sloppy seconds research - you continue to prove an arrogant, know it all waste of time, who's ears were long ago stopped up.

Mat_7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?



.

 

[Biblewriter]

Brother BW,

You have got me over a barrel this time.

Confession is always good for the soul.

As to the first charge of attacking dispensationalism in general and the pretrib rapture. GUILTY.


As to the second charge of attacking the doctrine of a rapture before Christ returns to judge the world. GUILTY.


As to the charge of twisting, ignoring, and cherry picking scripture.
The jury was hung on this charge, due to the fact that some on this forum would disagree with the charge.


As to the charge of making personal attacks upon Darby and Dispensationalists in general.

Did I call Grant Jeffrey a liar? GUILTY.
The evidence presented proves his guilt.


Grant Jeffrey’s revision of early Church Posttrib viewpoints
http://www.answersinrevelation.org/Jeffrey.pdf




Unless evidence can be presented showing a personal attack upon Darby himself, we will have to address that charge at another time.
Do I think he slanted the history of the doctrine to distance himself from the Irvingites in his writings? GUILTY

Have I attacked Darby's doctrine? GUILTY

It is my understanding that doctrine is fair game on this forum.

..........................................................................................

Have personal attacks been launched upon me on this forum for daring to disagree with Darbyism?


Do the words, Liar, Fool, Blind, Blatant Falsehood, Troll, Child, Arrogant, or Sin ring a bell?


.

My problem is not that you think that Darby got his pretribulationism from Margaret MAcDonald, but that you repeatedly make the claim that this has been proved. But even the paper by Tim Warner for which you repeatedly post the link, he admits that this is an inference. he thinks the inference is fair, but that is beside the point. An inference is not proof.

Yet you continually represent this as proved fact, which it unquestionably is not. The truth is, that the paper by Tim Warner does not contain one iota of hard proof that Darby even knew about the alleged vision.

But whether he knew about it or not, from the beginning the basis of the doctrine was scripture, not an alleged vision.

And it has already been conclusively and repeatedly proved, right here in this forum, that a number of other Christian teachers had written about a rapture a significant time before the Lord's coming in judgment before the alleged time of Margaret MacDonald's alleged vision. If J. N. Darby or Mr. T. Tweedy, that he alleged had first suggested it to him, had originally gotten the idea from another source, it could as easily have come from any of half a dozen or so other writers as it might have come from reading about the alleged vision.

These other sources included ancient writings and writings from both early and late medieval times, as well as after the reformation but before 1800. And finally, there was even one or two more (other than Irving and his group) that wrote of it during the first thirty years of the nineteenth century. That is, during Darby's lifetime, but before the alleged date of the alleged vision.

All this has been proved, right here in this forum, but you have simply rejected the proof, because you prefer to believe that the doctrine is of Satanic origin.

 

[Straightshot]

The "Darby" rant is bogus and worthless

A story deliberately concocted to support false teaching

And when one discovers this fact then all of what is spread around by those who do it renders them non-players in the pursuit of discovering biblical truth .... no one will believe them about anything

 

[ThatTrueLight]

Then again, when all one has is amillennial doctrine to stand on, it's a lot easier to throw stones at the beliefs of others rather than make a case for that.

I don't ever hear these people speaking of the evidence to support that the church is now Israel or how this is the kingdom of God on earth.

The reasons are pretty clear I think.

 

[Straightshot]

Always easier to point a finger which reveals much about a poster who does it

Yes ..... very clear

The pursuit of winning an argument should never be the primary focus and ambition