• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Misplaced, irrevelant, and erroneous attack.

Discussion in 'Eschatology - Endtimes & Prophecy Forum' started by Biblewriter, Feb 23, 2015.

  1. Straightshot

    Straightshot Member

    +293
    Christian
    "To deflect attention away from the serious flaws in amillennialism would be my guess"


    That for sure, and also to protect other dogmas like preterism, "PRE-TR rapture" refutation, and replacement theologies

    .... but why is this done?

    The root ambition ..... what is the real motive?

    Are those that do this just deceived by false teachers, have written books for material gain, or something more perverse beyond human ambition?
     
  2. ThatTrueLight

    ThatTrueLight John 1:9

    +48
    Christian
    Married
    That's a tough one, the LORD knows the motives of the heart.
     
  3. Straightshot

    Straightshot Member

    +293
    Christian
    He does .... no doubt

    Most likely a combination of all of these things in the professing Church

    But the Muslims hold the prize for the biggest sham of all

    .... and the devil must have an interest and investment for his purposes
     
  4. KrAZeD

    KrAZeD Newbie

    391
    +12
    Non-Denom
    Private
    the real motive in my opinion is spiritual warfare some are blindly caught in- getting as many as possible to potentially give up hope and faith in their belief when things start happening that do not align with their views but are aligned exactly as the word of God has projected I.e. a gathering of the saints instead of unbelievers, a 3rd temple, extreme famines, enormous hail storms, non potable water, all nations deciding to attack a very small portion of land in the middle east. If and when these type of events happen, sadly many will say that it's not God and its not His doing- thus denying Him through the obvious actions that we are all forewarned of.
     
  5. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,130
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    Enjoy your Kool-Aid.

    I gave you a whole series of people that taught various versions of this, including even two between 1810 and 1820. But you are so taken up with the love of this lie that you will listen to nothing.

    A quick summary for others:

    The alleged vision of Margaret MacDonald was only a partial rapture, and thus materially different from the doctrine popularized by J. N. Darby.

    The system of eschatological doctrine that grew up around the alleged vision was completely different from the system of eschatological doctrine that grew up around the teaching of J. N. Darby.

    The alleged date of the alleged vision was after, and in some cases long after, numerous historical statements of various versions of a rapture before the time that the Lord comes to judge the world.

    After over a hundred years of desperate searching, not a single person has ever been able to find even one historical statement made by anyone that conclusively proves that J. N. Darby even knew about the alleged vision.

    And yet the allegation thrives and lives on, not because it can be proved, but because so many people simply want to believe it.

    If J. N. Darby had based anything he said, taught, or even thought, on the alleged vision, he would have been going against all his most basic principles. He consistently insisted that the only source of truth (of course, he meant spiritual truth) is the scriptures themselves. He taught that any kind of dream or vision is a totally unacceptable source for any doctrine of any kind. He plainly stated his personal judgment that the alleged "gifts" in MAcDonald's church were Satanic in origin, rather than of God. And he rejected as satanic and evil, the entire group of which Margaret MacDonald's little church was a part.
     
  6. Straightshot

    Straightshot Member

    +293
    Christian
    "the real motive in my opinion is spiritual warfare some are blindly caught in"

    I would agree
     
  7. BABerean2

    BABerean2 Newbie Supporter

    +4,394
    Christian
    Married
    Brother BW,

    You have done an excellent job of replacing William Kelly as chief Darby disciple and apologist on this forum. He also did everything in his power to condemn the Irvingites.

    We should all find it strange that Darbyites, who are drunk on the Dispensational Kool-Aid, all claim absolutely no connection between Darby and the Irvingites.
    The one exception would be Dr. Charles Ryrie who admitted that Darby became interested in prophecy while attending one of the Albury conferences.

    However, we have multiple members of the Irvingites and Brethren, that were eyewitnesses to the events of the early 19th century, who say that Darby's "Secret Rapture" teaching came from the Irvingites.

    Do we take the word of Darby and his apologists or that of the multiple unbiased and sober eye witnesses?


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

    You have offered a quote from Meade and claimed it shows a pretrib rapture teaching. You can force Meade's quote to fit your desire.
    You have done the same thing with Irenaeus.
    Grant Jeffrey was so desperate to show an early pretrib teaching that he was willing to fabricate it.
    Dr. Tommy Ice states in a YouTube lecture on the history of Dispensational Theology, that he was informed of the PsuedoEphraem quote by Grant Jeffrey.
    It is also in this lecture that he claims Darby came up with the pretrib doctrine on his own, while recovering from a riding accident in 1827.


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




    Margaret's so-called partial rapture fits perfectly with the version promoted on this forum by Lamad, who claims that those of us who do not believe the pretrib version will be "left behind" to face the beheading of antichrist.
    Therefore, he has turned the doctrine into a cult.
    You, however have not gone to this extreme.



    I am a little baffled by your statement of Darby not knowing about Macdonald's vision.
    It was my understanding from you that Darby had admitted visiting the Macdonald's.
    We also know from his own words in his 1829 paper that he was reading "The Morning Watch", which was the periodical of the Irvingites.
    Margaret's "Secret Rapture" was first mentioned in the September 1830 edition.
    We also know from Coad's 1966 paper and others that the "Secret Rapture" teaching was discussed by those who attended the conferences which met at Powerscourt, starting in 1831.


    Darby, J. N., Reflections (1829), Prophetic No. 1
    Reflections upon the Prophetic Inquiry and the views advanced in it

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


    As with all manmade systems of Bible interpretation, whether it be Calvinism, or Dispensationalism, it's adherents never fail to defend the one claimed to be founder of the system.

    However, like all of us they were men, made of rotten flesh.



    Rom 3:4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

    .


    .
     
  8. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,130
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    You claim that your multiple sources are "unbiased and sober eye witnesses," but that is demonstrably incorrect. There was not even one of them, including the first one (Tergelles) to make the charge, that was not already a dedicated enemy of both dispensationalism and the concept of a pre-trib rapture, long before they began to circulate the charge.

    A man who is a dedicated opponent of a man (or an idea) is no more an "unbiased" witness that a dedicated supporter.

    You have already clearly demonstrated that you have basically zero knowledge of original sources. You rely entirely on what various people have said about these old documents.

    Darby himself indeed openly wrote about having visited MacDonald's church, and even mentioned her as a speaker at the time he visited. And Darby indeed attended at least some of the Albury conferences. And Darby indeed read at least some articles in "The Morning Watch."

    But Darby's own comments indicated that he only attended MacDonald's church as an unbelieving visitor, and apparently only on a single day, although it is possible he may have visited several different days. And not even one of the sources you are using has found even one witness that said that Darby was present at any time when this doctrine was mentioned.

    Tim Warner based his conclusion that it was discussed when Darby was present on the statement of a witness that Warner claims was there, but he provided zero documentation to back up that claim. And the single short quotation he gave from that witness said nothing about Darby being present at the meeting he was discussing. And it did not say that the pretribulation rapture was mentioned at that same meeting.

    So Tim Warner's conclusion was backed up only by documentation that, in his opinion, made it a fair assumption that Darby knew about the doctrine.

    And not even one of your sources has ever been able to find even one witnesses that claims that Darby ever made even one comment specifically about the alleged vision.

    The only hard fact, and I repeat, the only hard fact that all this research has produced is evidence that both the alleged vision and its publication pre-dated anything that Darby published about his doctrine of a pretribulation rapture.

    But you resolutely refuse to admit that the doctrine of a pretribulation rapture existed before the alleged time of the alleged vision, even though this has been thoroughly documented with actual quotations from original sources.

    You attempt to impune the entire process of answering this charge by quoting a single individual (Grant Jeffery) who made claims that were demonstrably incorrect, and backed them up with out-of-context quotations. But you have refused to admit that your own main source of information, Dave MacPherson, not only made claims that were demonstrably incorrect, but libelously pressed the false charge that Darby covered up his visit to Margaret MacDonald's church. And, considering the amount of research that he invested in his book, "The Incredible Cover-Up," it is inconceivable that he did not know that his charge was false.

    So, while one of the many witnesses against this lie has indeed been demonstrated to have presented assumptions as facts, the same is true of every witness you have produced, and the main leader of them at this time not only presented assumptions as fact, but published (and continues to publish) what appears to be a willful lie about the foundation facts involved.

    What you do not want to understand, but is unquestionably true, is that eschatology was a relative small part of the extensive ministry of J. N. Darby. I told you my personal library contained more than sixty volumes by Darby, but I did not mention that only about half a dozen of these were about prophecy, and his entire writing about the pretribulation rapture doctrine was not even enough to fill one such volume. He devoted his entire life to Christian ministry, and Ecclesiology was a far greater part of his ministry than eschatology. And Christolgy, Pneumatology, and Soteriology all occupied major portions of his ministry.

    So why would a multi-faceted man, who dealt regularly in basically all portions of Christian truth, compromise his entire self and being by, in a single point, going against everything he stood for?

    For if Darby had placed any significance whatsoever in the alleged vision, even if he knew about it, that would have been a rejection of his most basic internal principles. He would have been throwing away his entire career for a single point that was, in actual fact, a relatively minor part of his ministry.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2015
  9. BABerean2

    BABerean2 Newbie Supporter

    +4,394
    Christian
    Married
    If you are going to accuse someone, at least get your facts straight before you do so.

    I have clearly stated that Morgan Edwards wrote a paper while in seminary on the possibility of a pretrib removal.
    He did this before 1827.
    How can you make the statement highlighted above with a straight face?

    Then you claim I have based my view on what people have said about the original sources without providing the original sources.
    Again, I am surprised that you can come up with such an accusation.


    I have provided links to Darby's 1829 paper numerous times.

    Darby, J. N., Reflections (1829), Prophetic No. 1
    Reflections upon the Prophetic Inquiry and the views advanced in it

    I have provided a link to Lacunza's book which also contains Edward Irving's Preliminary Discourse promoting many of the major doctrines of Dispensational Theology.

    Lacunza’s book “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“ is available at…
    PDF Files

    Pastor Tim Warner's article on the origin of the doctrine contains an Appendix with the original sources and a complete bibliography of the sources and the U.S. seminaries where they can be found.

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

    The article on Grant Jeffrey's revision contains quotes from the ECF and also contains a complete bibliography of their writings which were used in the paper.

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

    Brethren historian F.R. Coad's paper from 1966 has confirmed the history of the doctrine that some would like to remain hidden from those sitting in the pews of the evangelical Church. It also contains a bibliography of the sources that he used in writing the paper.

    PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
    with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
    F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) read pages 10-26

    http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418

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


    Rather than being upset that I have presented only what others have said about the events, what you are most upset with me about is the exact opposite.
    I have presented links to the original historical documents which you do not want the readers of this forum to see.



    I am going to avoid the hyperbole of accusations such as "willfull fraud", "willful lie", etc.

    At one point some time ago you called me a liar, but later apologized and plainly stated that it was a sin.
    Now, due to our heated discussion, you seem to be headed down the same road again.

    You also referred to other posters as "trolls" in the past.


    Comments of this type add heat to our discussion, but not any light.



    .
     
  10. Danoh

    Danoh Newbie

    +260
    Christian
    Single
    In a sense it is good you started this thread, BW.

    Now you, BAB2, will have a thread you can link, together with a comment, when you comment about these issues on others threads, without having to derail them, and people can read on these issues at length on this thread.

    Personally I have nothing against those who rail against Dispensationalism.

    I don't care for their methods, but I don't care for many of the methods on Dispensational side either.

    People see what they see, given where they believe they should be looking at the things from, and so on.

    Some years back I got to wondering what the various views out there were on 1 John.

    Read tons about how it was "all to do with the Gnostics," or "about restoring fellowship with God," and so forth.

    Remained where I was when I first began comparing my view with all that - that John was addressing the same types in 1 John that he'd related in John chapter 8 and that Matthew was dealing with in Matthew 13.

    My point - you two carry on with your approach...

    Me, I have a Bible for all that, and its Nehemiah 8, Acts 17 process of Induction [information gathering as to scope and context towards identifying a] Premise [towards] Deduction [of] Conclusion [and its resulting] Assertion.

    Whether Darby or whomever got what ever from whomever - I - sincerely doubt - I- could - care - less - about.

    I have a Bible, and know how to examine its content from within its scope and context as to its intended sense...

    Its called time in That Book seeking from That Book how to do Just That from That Book Alone...

    Perhaps in the eyes of some I am wrong to actually want to trust the Word ALONE as to 2 Timothy 3:16, 17 objectively, over the words of men and their knowing willingness to distort a thing, but I think I'll stick to The Book.

    Of course, I am being tongue in cheek there - as I could care less about the notions about Scholastic Mysticism on actual, "Sola Scritura."

    I post it only that some might follow suit...

    BW, thank you for your effort...

    BAB2, thank you for yours...

    Carry on...
     
  11. Straightshot

    Straightshot Member

    +293
    Christian
    "Personally I have nothing against those who rail against Dispensationalism."


    Neither do I

    The behavior gives a contrast that is easy to teach against

    .... opposite ends of the spectrum ..... one past, the other future

    Most who seriously study will get the Idea that the Lord is a "futurist" .... He is a Zionist, not a preterist
     
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2015
  12. Biblewriter

    Biblewriter Senior Member Supporter

    +1,130
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    CA-Conservatives
    I also have zero interest in the subject, except to counter the lie that it came from a demon-inspired vision.
     
  13. Straightshot

    Straightshot Member

    +293
    Christian
    I also have zero interest in the subject, except to counter the lie that it came from a demon-inspired vision.


    And this should be done at evey turn .... preterism and post-tribulation thinking are both deceptive religions with potentially dangerous underpinnings which can be very misleading

    This can be done easily without feeding the proponents in such a way that promotes redundant argumentation which both like to demonstrate
     
  14. BABerean2

    BABerean2 Newbie Supporter

    +4,394
    Christian
    Married
    As a former pretribber, Pastor Irvin Baxter explains why he had to abandon the pretrib doctrine.

    He and I do not agree on Daniel 9, however he does an excellent job overall on the topic of rapture timing.





    Pastor Irvin Baxter: The Rapture and the Tribulation
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ef_WMAJbyVg

    .
     
  15. Straightshot

    Straightshot Member

    +293
    Christian
    Irving Baxter is not a reliable source of biblical truth in my opinion

    He is a charismatic [tongue speaking] United Pentecostal"oneness" minister with some very questionable interpretations of scripture

    So to rely upon him regarding "rapture" and related timing events is not a good idea
     
  16. Riberra

    Riberra Well-Known Member

    +590
    Christian
    Married
    Based on all the failed rapture timing predictions done by the pre-trib rapturists. It is clear that the pre-trib rapture doctrine come in head of the list about deceptive doctrines with potentially dangerous underpinnings which can be very misleading. :p

    Edited to add:
    The pre-tribulation rapture doctrine sounds like a wholly seductive perversion of the Scripture (Gen 3:4 -you will surely not die) - (You will surely not be there but in Heaven during the trib.).I agree with you that the "Pre-Trib" rapture "religion" procure a seductive feeling good sensation ...those fully embracing the "pre-trib" rapture doctrine are like wholly hypnotized by the concept.

    Based on all the failed pre-tribulation rapture timing predictions done by the pre-trib rapturists ,... well... It would be wise to not put your soul and your money on it !!! A good plan of emergency ie being spiritually prepared in the eventuality that the pre-trib rapture will never happen seem a wise move.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015
  17. BABerean2

    BABerean2 Newbie Supporter

    +4,394
    Christian
    Married
    Pastor Mark Fitzpatrick is a former Dispensationalist.

    He speaks on the history of the doctrine.



    The Jesuit Origins of Dispensationalism...
    Pastor Mark Fitzpatrick
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbWsk5mvby8
     
  18. Straightshot

    Straightshot Member

    +293
    Christian
    Big deal .... just like you right?

    Most preterists were once one thing ..... and then another thing .... this story gets old

    Read you Bible .... do not hand off the football
     
  19. Interplanner

    Interplanner Newbie

    +96
    Non-Denom
    Single
    These two centuries are by nature not clear, BW. There is plenty of reason to think that the apostles thought the 70 weeks to have happened, and that the battle mentioned in the last verse of Dan 9 was to happen after them as Christ said in the full wrath of God of Lk 21 on that generation.
     
  20. ebedmelech

    ebedmelech My dog Micah in the pic Supporter

    +476
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Constitution
    This is because it's NO WHERE in scripture! It's a contrived teaching!
    I can agree...however what is material is where is it in scripture?
    That *could* basically be true. Even if it is though, error brings more error. There have been and will be many theologians that have errors in their theology/eschatology. How *old* a teaching is, is irrelevant if it can be shown it's error.
    These have all been debated THROUGHOUT Christian history, and will continue to be debated. You're not raising a new issue Biblewriter.
    That doesn't make it correct though! Look at all the error Jesus had to correct when He did His earthly ministry...and that which He corrected was what was being taught to the people for the most part.

    THERE IS NO GAP IN THE SEVENTY WEEKS...it has to be contrived!

    Moreover, it doesn't matter that you deem it a "Misplaced, irrevelant, and erroneous attack" because an erroneous teaching should be attacked.

    Many of the NT epistles are the apostles correcting error and setting the record straight for the church!
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2015
Loading...