If this is true, Dispensationalism is a lie

[Biblewriter]

THe fact that you read Irenaeus and Lactantius and Darby means you don't "read only the Scritpures". YOu are really in a mental knot, fellow. You need to calm down. THere is obviously a lot to know about Ribera, just like there is a lot to know about Henry and Cromwell and what they thought of the Reformation, for other reasons. It is all useful and illuminating.

yOur reference to Irenaeus, anyway, is 180 which is a lot of time for things to become fuzzy when there are really major difficulties in daily life.

THe more you identify yourself as "the" pure interpreter, the less regard I have for you.

BTW, I don't know all the details how Darby got his scheme; I understand it to have been partly through Margaret MacDonald who was having prophetic utterances about it. There were, from Queen Elizabeth onward, many attempts to cool off the strife about Catholics. So it could have come from other sources not trying to 'chip the noses off of Catholic icons' every time they opened their mouths. You surely must be aware of such church history and that expression, or don't you read any of that because you "Just read the Bible" (which apparently excludes Rom 16 and Acts 13s sermon and others)?

To repeat: the kind of futurism that shows up here a lot is actually a construct of Ribera (Alcaraz places AC back in the 4th cent.) to preclude accusations that the pope was AC.

Source: BRinsmead, "JUstification by faith and the identity of Antichrist," PRESENT TRUTH, 1974.
Buchanan. The Doctrine of Justification.
Hitchcock. The BEasts and the LIttle HOrn. (HItchcock is a RCC author)
Tanner. Daniel and the REvelation. 1898
Ribera. Diputationes de controversies Christiane Fidei Adversus uius TEmporis Hereticos.
Berllarmine. "De Summo Pontifici" Disputationes.
Maitland. 1826. FIrst publication which accepted Riberan understanding and opposed the REformation.
Todd. Prof of HEbrew, dublin. 1850s. promoted Maitland.
Newman. (the anglican convert to rCC). VAlidated Todd in "The Protestant Idea of Antichrist". The Oxford, Tractarian movement.
IRving.
NOrton. THe REstaroation of Apostles and PROophets; in the CAtholic APostalic CHurch. 1861. Followed IRvign and accepted the future antichrist revealed through prophetic utterances.

(the server here can't keep up; sorry about CAps and typos)

In the first place, I dd not say that I read only the scriptures. I said I am only interested in them. I never bothered to read the ancient writers until I bumped into people claiming that my ideas were a relatively recent invention. Then I began to research the proof that this was a lie, and I found boatloads of it.

When I was young I studied extensively in the the writings of J. N. Darby and his close associate William Kelly. But I did not refer to them in the writing of my book, which was based on scripture, not anything men say. The similarity between what I wrote and what Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, and Lactantius wrote s based entirely on the fact that we used the same source, the Holy Scriptures, which you discard in favor of your interpretation of a few passages in the New testament which you imagine mean that God changed his mind about everything He said He would do.

I have treated the lie that Darby got his ideas from Margaret MacDonald here:

The Margaret MacDonald Lie
http://www.christianforums.com/t7276651-20/

 

[Biblewriter]

THe fact that you read Irenaeus and Lactantius and Darby means you don't "read only the Scritpures". YOu are really in a mental knot, fellow. You need to calm down. THere is obviously a lot to know about Ribera, just like there is a lot to know about Henry and Cromwell and what they thought of the Reformation, for other reasons. It is all useful and illuminating.

yOur reference to Irenaeus, anyway, is 180 which is a lot of time for things to become fuzzy when there are really major difficulties in daily life.

THe more you identify yourself as "the" pure interpreter, the less regard I have for you.

BTW, I don't know all the details how Darby got his scheme; I understand it to have been partly through Margaret MacDonald who was having prophetic utterances about it. There were, from Queen Elizabeth onward, many attempts to cool off the strife about Catholics. So it could have come from other sources not trying to 'chip the noses off of Catholic icons' every time they opened their mouths. You surely must be aware of such church history and that expression, or don't you read any of that because you "Just read the Bible" (which apparently excludes Rom 16 and Acts 13s sermon and others)?

To repeat: the kind of futurism that shows up here a lot is actually a construct of Ribera (Alcaraz places AC back in the 4th cent.) to preclude accusations that the pope was AC.

Source: BRinsmead, "JUstification by faith and the identity of Antichrist," PRESENT TRUTH, 1974.
Buchanan. The Doctrine of Justification.
Hitchcock. The BEasts and the LIttle HOrn. (HItchcock is a RCC author)
Tanner. Daniel and the REvelation. 1898
Ribera. Diputationes de controversies Christiane Fidei Adversus uius TEmporis Hereticos.
Berllarmine. "De Summo Pontifici" Disputationes.
Maitland. 1826. FIrst publication which accepted Riberan understanding and opposed the REformation.
Todd. Prof of HEbrew, dublin. 1850s. promoted Maitland.
Newman. (the anglican convert to rCC). VAlidated Todd in "The Protestant Idea of Antichrist". The Oxford, Tractarian movement.
IRving.
NOrton. THe REstaroation of Apostles and PROophets; in the CAtholic APostalic CHurch. 1861. Followed IRvign and accepted the future antichrist revealed through prophetic utterances.

(the server here can't keep up; sorry about CAps and typos)

In the first place, I dd not say that I read only the scriptures. I said I am only interested in them. I never bothered to read the ancient writers until I bumped into people claiming that my ideas were a relatively recent invention. Then I began to research the proof that this was a lie, and I found boatloads of it.

When I was young I studied extensively in the the writings of J. N. Darby and his close associate William Kelly. But I did not refer to them in the writing of my book, which was based on scripture, not anything men say. Until I got to the appendix, the only places I used anything mere men said was when I was discussing the meanings of ancient words or the identification of ancient nations or places.

The marked similarity between what I wrote and what Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, and Lactantius wrote is based entirely on the fact that I used the same source they did. We all based our conclusions on the Holy Scriptures, which you discard in favor of your interpretation of a few passages in the New testament which you imagine mean that God changed his mind about everything He said He would do.

I have treated the lie that Darby got his ideas from Margaret MacDonald here:

The Margaret MacDonald Lie
http://www.christianforums.com/t7276651-20/

 

[Interplanner]

I'll take those few chapters any day because they are self-organizing about the Bible. I could count prob 10 "Bible Centered D'ist" professors at the Bible college I grad'd from who: 1, did not try to find self-organizing passages, and: 2, used the strangest of exprersions of the ones they chose, like Eph 1's 'dispensation of the fullness of time.' (which they said was future), I mean, this was a portal for them; they did not correlate it to the others that i mention a lot. OR worse, they absolutely shredded places like ROm 9:24 instead of accepting what it says AND WHY which you have done with tens of pages of "explanations." The GOspel's tenets are simple enough that 'he who runs can read them' (Hab 2).

It doesn't come down to MIss MacDOnald anyway; you missed the point. The point is there are major TRactarians and guys in the Oxford movement (reinstating RCC there behind the scenes) who totally embraced the futurist antichrist and prophetic utterances, in their own histories of those developments, not someone elses' with an axe to grind! It remains that the futurism so many tinker with today is a construct of a RIbera to defeat the accusations of the REformation about the papacy, whether they were on target or not. It was not held by Protestants or by anyone current to him; he had to construct it.

AS I said yesterday, the really strange thing is that RIbera (working in the late 1500s) could have neutralized the REformation accusation with the historical position about the 1st century and Mt 24 & //s. Possibly the papacy did not want to appear too sympathetic to jews and was glad to think of a jewish aC coming.

It's OK if you share the protection of the pope. But you must see, at some point, that over the next 300 years (1861 is the date of the last item BRinsmead cited before Darby, so far as I can tell) the re-energized RCC movement enjoyed the doctrine until finally, in Darby and Scofield, it is embraced by those who would not agree with the papacy about justification from our sins. IT is not at all "pure and simple" Bible students holding on to it down through time. It developed this way, and the RCC movement enjoyed prophetic utterances of their own, completely apart from IRving and MAcDonald.

 

[Biblewriter]

I'll take those few chapters any day because they are self-organizing about the Bible. I could count prob 10 "Bible Centered D'ist" professors at the Bible college I grad'd from who: 1, did not try to find self-organizing passages, and: 2, used the strangest of exprersions of the ones they chose, like Eph 1's 'dispensation of the fullness of time.' (which they said was future), I mean, this was a portal for them; they did not correlate it to the others that i mention a lot. OR worse, they absolutely shredded places like ROm 9:24 instead of accepting what it says AND WHY which you have done with tens of pages of "explanations." The GOspel's tenets are simple enough that 'he who runs can read them' (Hab 2).

It doesn't come down to MIss MacDOnald anyway; you missed the point. The point is there are major TRactarians and guys in the Oxford movement (reinstating RCC there behind the scenes) who totally embraced the futurist antichrist and prophetic utterances, in their own histories of those developments, not someone elses' with an axe to grind! It remains that the futurism so many tinker with today is a construct of a RIbera to defeat the accusations of the REformation about the papacy, whether they were on target or not. It was not held by Protestants or by anyone current to him; he had to construct it.

AS I said yesterday, the really strange thing is that RIbera (working in the late 1500s) could have neutralized the REformation accusation with the historical position about the 1st century and Mt 24 & //s. Possibly the papacy did not want to appear too sympathetic to jews and was glad to think of a jewish aC coming.

It's OK if you share the protection of the pope. But you must see, at some point, that over the next 300 years (1861 is the date of the last item BRinsmead cited before Darby, so far as I can tell) the re-energized RCC movement enjoyed the doctrine until finally, in Darby and Scofield, it is embraced by those who would not agree with the papacy about justification from our sins. IT is not at all "pure and simple" Bible students holding on to it down through time. It developed this way, and the RCC movement enjoyed prophetic utterances of their own, completely apart from IRving and MAcDonald.

What they did or did not do has absolutely zero bearing on the question of what the scriptures say. The modern "futurist" movement is a return to the doctrine originally held by the church, before the rise of the papacy. This return was most absolutely not made due to studying what any papists said or did not say. It was made due to studying what God said in his word, the Holy Bible. This is a simple matter of fact.

 

[Interplanner]

funny how no one, protestant or jesuit, knew anything about it at their time. real research means being in touch with things you wish did not exist.

that's quite a bibliography you just dismissed. Is that what you typically do in your research? (Unless they are already D'ist and futurist?)

I just go with the ordinary language, self-organizing chapters of the NT, and none of them sound like the hodge podge of geo-political guessing that goes on here. If the nT says nothing about EZek 40-48, I'm not going to either! So, i'm glad to say, I "just" go with the Bible as well.

 

[Interplanner]

you're a real puzzle BW. i conceded that it does not depend on Miss MArgaret, and you still don't realize what you're reading. The futurism we now know is a product of several streams of RCCism, not Melancthon or RAmm or Spurgeon. YOu can't honestly say it doesn't matter; you may say it was conciliatory (given the strife of religion in Europe at the time) that Darby decided to go with it.

 

[Biblewriter]

funny how no one, protestant or jesuit, knew anything about it at their time. real research means being in touch with things you wish did not exist.

that's quite a bibliography you just dismissed. Is that what you typically do in your research? (Unless they are already D'ist and futurist?)

I just go with the ordinary language, self-organizing chapters of the NT, and none of them sound like the hodge podge of geo-political guessing that goes on here. If the nT says nothing about EZek 40-48, I'm not going to either! So, i'm glad to say, I "just" go with the Bible as well.

I did not dismiss the bibliography because it was not significant as to the history of doctrine. I did, and do, totally dismiss it as the source of modern futurism. Your claim in post #40 that " the kind of futurism that shows up here a lot is actually a construct of Ribera" is blatantly false. It was clearly taught by Justin, Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Victornius, and, according to Jerome, "all the commentators of the Christian church" prior to the early part of fifth century. (Commentary on Daniel,” by Jerome, as found in “Jerome’s Commentary on Daniel,” pg. 77, translated by Gleason L. Archer, Jr., Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, 1958.) And as Eusebius said that Irenaeus followed the ideas of papias, it is safe to conclude that these same ideas were also taught by Papias, even though we do not have his writings.

Our doctrines are based on scripture, not on the teachings of men.

But even if they had been based on the teachings of men, you have absolutely zero basis for claiming that Darby got his ideas from Ribera instead of from men like Irenaeus, Hyppolytus, Victornius, and "all the commentators of the Christian church" up to the time of Jerome.

 

[Choose Wisely]

you're a real puzzle BW. i conceded that it does not depend on Miss MArgaret, and you still don't realize what you're reading. The futurism we now know is a product of several streams of RCCism, not Melancthon or RAmm or Spurgeon. YOu can't honestly say it doesn't matter; you may say it was conciliatory (given the strife of religion in Europe at the time) that Darby decided to go with it.

Really all that matters is what the Bible says. I don't care if the beliefs came from 15 minutes ago, if they are correct.

I find it strange that there is a view called futurist. Why not just call it the truth. We can prove it countless ways. Other views such as preterist and such are just a waste of time. It takes about 15 minutes to disprove it as nonsense. I find it strange that a rational person could fall into such nonsense.

 

[Interplanner]

it's called futurism because it skips so much history. I'd study the 2500 quotes of the OT a lot longer than 15 mins before saying the NT is not true. These people look the OT or Mt 24 and immediately jump to the future.

so BW, RIbera must have just been vain then. Couldn't give credit to any other fathers about futurism? FUnny how the RCC didn't know they already had answers! DOn't forget your own favorite Martyr already knew other C'ians did not agree. (that might help you stop saying 'we are based on Scripture, not on men'). I'm based on SCritpure sir! it's called 2500 quotes or allusions to the OT. I don't know any of those places that sound like futurism. No place for Judaica in the 2nd coming or a millenium on earth. Nada, zip. those quotes and allusions are based directly on the 40 days. THey are not human speculation about what happened at the DofJ by wellmeaning church fathers.

Darby didn't accept it directly from the RCC; i'm sure it was incremental. I'm sure, given how much discord there was with RCC he thought it was conciliatory. but you must be aware that it is not what the Reformation taught; it is not what Schaeffer thought the reformation taught nor what he did. It is not reflected in Handel's MESSIAH which puts the enthronement of CHrist after the res, not in the future. That's another thing about those guys: I never find them actually talking about beliefs 200 years before them. IT's just all of a sudden they have the direct truth about modern Israel.

The BRethren accepted prophetic utterances about other things. Luther had to write nastily against such and speaking in tongues and 'the Spirit, the SPirit' in his time. Good thing too (not the nasty part): one group moved to Muenster and said it was the NEw Jerusalem.

 

[Interplanner]

BW, it has been very clear to me for the past months debating with you on this that the Bible as you use the term = the Bible + early church fathers who allowed for futurism. I can show this over and over. Literally. When I say the Bible I mean the 40 days. Do we understand each other?

 

[Literalist]

The prime movers of preterist and post-tribulation exegesis use the following argument to support their folly

Ken Gentry and David Macpherson are examples who promote this false teaching

The claim that Darby borrowed Margaret MacDonald's alleged "vision" to support His pre-tribulation "rapture" view is a hoax

This ruse is actually based upon a false reading of the vision by those who want to use it for discrediting the pre-tribulation/dispensational view

The vision obviously has the church going thru the tribulation period, so the game changers must rely upon the ignorance of those who buy their story

This is a pathetic manipulation of fact for the purpose of fooling those unaware of the hobgoblin that has been concocted

Here is the related part of the vision [the full vision can be accessed on the Internet]:


"I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold."


The pre-tribulation/dispensational view is the biblical view in scripture which was recorded long before Darby or any other presenter interpreted the prophetic scriptures .... even before the early traditional teaching of the RCC which holds a similar exegetical view

Any one like Macpherson who resorts to the concoction of a bold face lie about Macdonald's purported vision and uses it to deceive those ignorant of the facts is not to be trusted

 

[Biblewriter]

it's called futurism because it skips so much history. I'd study the 2500 quotes of the OT a lot longer than 15 mins before saying the NT is not true. These people look the OT or Mt 24 and immediately jump to the future.

Your implied accusation that we do not believe the New Testament is a flat lie. Futrtism is called futurism because it believes what the Bible says, that these things will happen in the future. It is based on all the Bible, including the New Testament and the Old Testament, not just a warped view of the New testament that imagines it negates what the Old Testament said would happen.

And futurism does not skip history. I points out the differences between what the Biblle says will happen and what has happened. You find an event in history that simehoe resembles what the Bible said would happen and falsely claim that was a fulfillment, as you did with Sennacherib. We look at the details of what both say and point out the radical differences, so you are the ones that ignore history, not us.

Darby didn't accept it directly from the RCC; i'm sure it was incremental. I'm sure, given how much discord there was with RCC he thought it was conciliatory.

There was zero conciliation between Darby and the RCC. Darby was conciliatory with no one, not even his own group, which he divided twice.

but you must be aware that it is not what the Reformation taught; it is not what Schaeffer thought the reformation taught nor what he did. It is not reflected in Handel's MESSIAH which puts the enthronement of CHrist after the res, not in the future.

Darby was intensely aware that his teachings were not what the reformation taught.

That's another thing about those guys: I never find them actually talking about beliefs 200 years before them. IT's just all of a sudden they have the direct truth about modern Israel.

That is absolutely correct. they had the Bible, so they did not need what anyone said before. They based their doctrine on the Bible, the Bible alone, and all of the Bible, not just part of it.

The BRethren accepted prophetic utterances about other things. Luther had to write nastily against such and speaking in tongues and 'the Spirit, the SPirit' in his time. Good thing too (not the nasty part): one group moved to Muenster and said it was the NEw Jerusalem.

This is flatly and absolutely false. The Plymouth brethren did and do flatly reject any and all pretenses at modren revelations of any kind. They did not and do not speak with tongues. and no faction of Brethren ever moved to another city or called any place on earth the New Jerusalem.

 

[Biblewriter]

BW, it has been very clear to me for the past months debating with you on this that the Bible as you use the term = the Bible + early church fathers who allowed for futurism. I can show this over and over. Literally. When I say the Bible I mean the 40 days. Do we understand each other?

I have been citing the early church fathers lately as an answer to the false claim that futurism, and particularly dispensationalism and the doctrine of the pre-tribulation rapture are something relatively new. The truth is that I do not think I ever read even one article by even one "church father" before I was around sixty years old, and had not begun to actually research what they said before I was nearly seventy. But I have been teaching extensively on Bible prophecy since before I was thirty.

When you say the Bible, you mean the New Testament, as you have warped its meaning to ignore all the Old Testament said would happen.

When I say the Bible, I mean all the Old Testament and all the New Testament books, without even one exception or deletion.

 

[Biblewriter]

The prime movers of preterist and post-tribulation exegesis use the following argument to support their folly

Ken Gentry and David Macpherson are examples who promote this false teaching

The claim that Darby borrowed Margaret MacDonald's alleged "vision" to support His pre-tribulation "rapture" view is a hoax

This ruse is actually based upon a false reading of the vision by those who want to use it for discrediting the pre-tribulation/dispensational view

The vision obviously has the church going thru the tribulation period, so the game changers must rely upon the ignorance of those who buy their story

This is a pathetic manipulation of fact for the purpose of fooling those unaware of the hobgoblin that has been concocted

Here is the related part of the vision [the full vision can be accessed on the Internet]:


"I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation, surrounded by nets and entanglements, about to be tried, and many about to be deceived and fall. Now will THE WICKED be revealed, with all power and signs and lying wonders, so that it it were possible the very elect will be deceived - This is the fiery trial which is to try us. - It will be for the purging and purifying of the real members of the body of Jesus; but Oh it will be a fiery trial. Every soul will he shaken to the very centre. The enemy will try to shake in every thing we have believed - but the trial of real faith will be found to honour and praise and glory. Nothing but what is of God will stand. The stony-ground hearers will be made manifest - the love of many will wax cold."


The pre-tribulation/dispensational view is the biblical view in scripture which was recorded long before Darby or any other presenter interpreted the prophetic scriptures .... even before the early traditional teaching of the RCC which holds a similar exegetical view

Any one like Macpherson who resorts to the concoction a bold face lie about Macdonald's purported vision and uses it to deceive those ignorant of the facts is not to be trusted

That man wrote an entire book to prove that Darby visited her church and then secreted that fact. The truth is that Darby not only did not "secret" the fact that he visited her church. He openly wrote about that visit, declaring that he found the group to be Satanic in its origin. And he didn't just openly write about that vivit, he published what he wrote.

Macphersen's entire book was a boldfaced lie from cover to cover.

 

[Literalist]

"Macphersen's entire book was a boldfaced lie from cover to cover"


This is a fact BW, and many have followed his perverted false teachings .... DM is a disgruntled man who has issues in his personal life and with his wayward relationship to the Lord that have caused him to resort to his behavior

The believer in Jesus Christ is told to "study thy self approved" and not to follow those who come in the name of Christ with intent to deceive

People need to be as bereans, to test everything in the light of the scriptures so that they ae not drawn off course

Especially in today's quagmire of confusion and apostasy fueled by the ambitions of those who would make merchandise of them