Dispensationalist Only Explicit Teachings of Dispensationalism in Ancient Documents

[Copperhead]

What is your proof? from primary sources only with links, please.

Have you actually read anything about church history? It is not my job to take you to grammar school. Do your own research. There is tons of material for you to spend a lifetime studying about church history.

Start with the history of the persecution of the reformers by the institutional church. And how Queen "Bloody" Mary of England killed, mostly by burning alive, 283 reformers. And that is just a drop in the bucket. The accounts of what was done under the direction of the Papacy is well documented and known.

 

[Blade]

I read somewhere that Rapture was developed by Francisco Riberia (1537-1591).

I went digging(had to come back to this..lol not real digging but searching) one time.. read this scroll .. like 300-400 ad. Talked about CAUGHT UP before the tribulation. I would have to look it up again.. I forget his name. What lol made me feel good.. was some time later this man (Christian) on TV talked about this man and this same scroll and even early scrolls about "caught up" before the tribulation.

Now that in it self does not prove anything. Other then .. it WAS talked about preached about. The 1st one was a preacher. This stuff posted here.. I love to read and try to see through their eyes..how they seen all this.. so wonderful

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I went digging(had to come back to this..lol not real digging but searching) one time.. read this scroll .. like 300-400 ad. Talked about CAUGHT UP before the tribulation. I would have to look it up again.. I forget his name. What lol made me feel good.. was some time later this man (Christian) on TV talked about this man and this same scroll and even early scrolls about "caught up" before the tribulation.

Now that in it self does not prove anything. Other then .. it WAS talked about preached about. The 1st one was a preacher. This stuff posted here.. I love to read and try to see through their eyes..how they seen all this.. so wonderful

Your right it was Joseph Smith running with those gold plates. smile

 

[Daniel Marsh]

Have you actually read anything about church history? It is not my job to take you to grammar school. Do your own research. There is tons of material for you to spend a lifetime studying about church history.

Start with the history of the persecution of the reformers by the institutional church. And how Queen "Bloody" Mary of England killed, mostly by burning alive, 283 reformers. And that is just a drop in the bucket. The accounts of what was done under the direction of the Papacy is well documented and known.

Whatever

 

[thomas15]

I have been reading/studying the origins of dispensationalism for some time now. First it should be stated plainly that if the Bible teaches something as doctrine of the faith then it's doesn't matter how old or new that doctrine has been taught in the church nor does the Christian character of those opposed to the doctrine matter. If the Bible teaches it as truth then that is all that matters.

I don't mean to disparage anyone but there are certain things that really bother me and one of those things happens to be the way the Synod of Dort was administered. So what does that have to do with dispensationalism? Simple, those that shout the loudest that it (dispensationalism) is not true embrace the synod and associated canons as an authority and use them to settle theological arguments. It is true that the Synod was asked to decide Reformed vs. Arminian thought. However the victory of the Reformed paved the way for covenant theology being infused into Protestantism.

We have on the one hand dispensationalism and on the other hand Covenant theology. The aspect of evangelical theology that I personally find hardest to accept when I read my Bible is how and where in the Bible does the new covenant get transferred to the church? I have found that even well respected dispensationalists sometimes find a way to put some or most the new covenant into the church. But it would seem that there is no clear teaching in the Bible where such a transfer takes place.

I would summarize my view here in that I agree the ECFs taught a form of dispensationalism and were pre-mill.. While this is important and answers the often stated criticism that dispensationalism is a modern invention, it doesn't change the fact that if the Bible is our sole source of authority then it matters not who or what teaches anything. What matters is what the Bible teaches. As others in this thread have said there is a ton of material out there to dispute the claims that Darby invented dispensationalism. We can shout that until we turn blue in the face but unless that individual who is at odds with us on this is willing to put in the effort then we are wasting our time.

 

[Biblewriter]

I have not personally studied the Synod of Dort. So I cannot voice an opinion on your statements about it. But I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said in this post.

 

[thomas15]

I don't want to be too critical of the 16th century reformers. However as I study the questions surrounding the origins of dispensationalism and the very much related covenant theology with its' predisposition to A-MIL thinking, I cannot escape the feeling that the reformation didn't go far enough.

True, the reformers paid a great personal cost for their actions. I cannot take away from that. Still, we have a body of believers today that are convinced that they fully embracing "Sola Scriptura" when in fact they look no further than what others say, write or think.

Most of us, evangelicals I refer to, have a collection of Bibles, commentaries, dictionaries and other reference books and resources. We take them out and we read them. We take notes and look up verses. We consult the writings of famous expositors and preachers of the word.

But we never ask that critical question: Exactly where does the Bible teach this (fill in the theological question)? Sola Scriptura, not Dr. famous theologian so and so.

We make fun of those who pick up their Bible and tell us with a straight face that when Jesus returns, He will set up a kingdom that will last 1000 years. In one chapter of one book of the Bible it tells us six times that Jesus will set up a kingdom that will last 1000 years. Yet many believers think this is a mistake, that 1000 years that is impossible or it must be some other time period. But not 1000 years.

If Jehovah wanted to make it any more plain to us that Jesus would set up his kingdom of 1000 years, what words would he use? 999 years and repeat it 7 times?

The New Testament Church is not God's covenant people the Nation of Israel. This is the difference between Covenant Theology and Dispensationalism, Dispensationalism correctly identifies that given to the Jews and that given to the NT Church. Apparently it is not enough for some in the NT church to receive salvation based on the shed blood of Christ, rather it want's to take for itself that which was promised to another.

 

[thomas15]

BTW Biblewriter I greatly appreciate your labors on this very important subject. My main interest is in Church history and in particular doctrine. I'm far from an expert or authority, just a simple layman with an interest in history.

For years I looked at my bound collection of the ECFs and felt a sense of hopelessness, as in where do I start? The current movement of which you are a part of in digging deep into the writings of the past and picking out of the sea of words the appropriate passages is quite amazing. Thank you x 100.

 

[thomas15]

Even one of the greatest minds of all time, and a prolific commentator on scripture, especially latter days events, had this to say a full century before Darby was born:

"About the time of the end, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies of the Bible and insist on a literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition" - Sir Isaac Newton.

It is a privilege to be associated with such men of stature and knowledge. Newton wrote more commentaries on scripture than he wrote on mathematics and physics.

Very well put.

In my opinion it takes a lot more raw faith and courage to take a literal interpretation of the words of the Bible than a "this is symbolism for something maybe, maybe not, not sure".

I can't prove it to the satisfaction of everyone and science says something different but let the chips fall where they will and trust the Word.

 

[redleghunter]

Anyone hear of this church group?

EFCA Now Considers Premillennialism a Non-Essential

 

[Danoh]

Very well put.

In my opinion it takes a lot more raw faith and courage to take a literal interpretation of the words of the Bible than a "this is symbolism for something maybe, maybe not, not sure".

I can't prove it to the satisfaction of everyone and science says something different but let the chips fall where they will and trust the Word.

That being your belief, try it on the following - Scripture shows 3 Churches: Old Testament Saints; New Testament Saints; and the Body of Christ.

Nevertheless, Romans 5: 6-8 - In each our stead!

 

[Biblewriter]

deleted by poster

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
As the thread tag says this thread is Dispensationalist Only. If you are not a Dispensationalist, do not post in this thread.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Daniel Marsh]

I have not personally studied the Synod of Dort. So I cannot voice an opinion on your statements about it. But I wholeheartedly agree with everything else you said in this post.

https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf

 

[Biblewriter]

https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf

This is very interesting. But it only indirectly affects Dispensationalism. The Arminian-Calvanist debate is onky indirectly related to Dispensationalism. Some Dispensationalists are Arminian, some are Calvanistic. And ithers say that neither Arminaeus or Calvin was right, Arminaeus stressing human responsibility so much that it does away with Divine sovereignty. And Calvin stressing Divine sovereignty so much that it does away with human responsibility. I tend toward the third group.

But election, which is a bad word in Arminianism, is an essential part of understanding the future blessing of Israel, as is stressed in Romans 9-11. So Dispensationalism favors a Calvanistic slant.

 

[thomas15]

https://prts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Canons-of-Dort-with-Intro.pdf

This article gives a recap of the synod and canons. What it doesn't do is explain the actual administration of the synod. Basically in a nutshell, the synod was set up in such a fashion to ensure that the Calvinists won and the Arminians lost. Not in my opinion fair.

 

[Biblewriter]

This article gives a recap of the synod and canons. What it doesn't do is explain the actual administration of the synod. Basically in a nutshell, the synod was set up in such a fashion to ensure that the Calvinists won and the Arminians lost. Not in my opinion fair.

But, sadly, TYPICAL of religious courts. In religious courts, those holding the strings of power have almost NEVER given their opponents a fair hearing. The attitude is almost always, they are not only wrong, they are evil. and evil MUST be suppressed, in any way necessary, at all costs.