Problems Within Dispensationalism

[Biblewriter]

I can cut to the bottom line for you.

If the Thessalonians continued to think after their first letter from Paul that the rapture had already occurred, then they thought Paul missed it too! That is beyond credibility.
So Paul was not writing in 2 Thessalonians to correct their view that the rapture had occurred, but to correct their view that the rapture was imminent, for he presented certain events which had to occur before the rapture, and which had not occurred, so Paul told them to get back to work instead of idly waiting for an imminent rapture.

This is an INTERPRETATION of scripture, not scripture. And it contradicts the explicit statements of other scriptures.

I have posted a general answer to your denial that Dispensationalism is scriptural in a
New thread.

 

[Clare73]

This is an INTERPRETATION of scripture, not scripture. And it contradicts the explicit statements of other scriptures.

I have posted a general answer to your denial that Dispensationalism is scriptural in a
New thread.

Which has nothing to do with NT Christians mistakenly thinking Jesus would return in their lifetime.
You failed to demonstrate your assertion above. Talk is cheap.

Assertion without Biblical demonstration is assertion without Biblical merit.

 

[BABerean2]

I have posted a general answer to your denial that Dispensationalism is scriptural in a
New thread.

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)



The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?


1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants?


2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

.

 

[Clare73]

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)

It's not "Replacement" Theology anyway, it's Fulfillment Theology.

The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?
1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants?
2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

.

 

[Josheb]

I have already conclusively proved that your last statement quoted here is completely incorrect.

But aside from that, whether :the rest of "Christendom" agrees or does not agree with a doctrine is not a valid test of a doctrine. The ONLY valid test is whether or not it agrees with scripture. and Dispensationalism is the ONLY system of interpretation that is based on ACTUALLY BELIEVING the explicitly stated promises that God UNCONDITIONALLY made in the Bible.

First, the only conclusive proof provided is in your own mind because I don't find it the post "proof" of anything. Watson's book examined elements of what later became Dispensationalism. He did not prove Dispensationalism's prior existence.

Second, When a doctrine comes along that ignores and openly defies 20 centuries worth of long-held, well-established Church doctrine that is a problem and a legitimate concern for those relying on scripture, not consensus. When the outlying doctrine is reached solely through an entirely new and different hermeneutic, that too is rational and legitimate reason for concern.

Third, God didn't make unconditional promises. That is just one of the many wrong teachings found within Dispensationalism. It is assumed because no conditions were mentioned the first time God initiated His covenant with Abram that none exist. That is an argument from silence and the facts of scripture are that in all other mentions of that covenant conditions are clearly stated. You use the word "stated" but Dispensationalism constantly teaches its adherents to ignore what is stated. DPism teaches a literal reading of scripture but is much more inconsistent with that precept then most.

 

[Dan Perez]

First, the only conclusive proof provided is in your own mind because I don't find it the post "proof" of anything. Watson's book examined elements of what later became Dispensationalism. He did not prove Dispensationalism's prior existence.

Second, When a doctrine comes along that ignores and openly defies 20 centuries worth of long-held, well-established Church doctrine that is a problem and a legitimate concern for those relying on scripture, not consensus. When the outlying doctrine is reached solely through an entirely new and different hermeneutic, that too is rational and legitimate reason for concern.

Third, God didn't make unconditional promises. That is just one of the many wrong teachings found within Dispensationalism. It is assumed because no conditions were mentioned the first time God initiated His covenant with Abram that none exist. That is an argument from silence and the facts of scripture are that in all other mentions of that covenant conditions are clearly stated. You use the word "stated" but Dispensationalism constantly teaches its adherents to ignore what is stated. DPism teaches a literal reading of scripture but is much more inconsistent with that precept then most.

And there UNCONSITIONAL promises , which mean that their FULFILLMNT depends on God and NOT on the NATION of Israel .

There are 3 promises yet to be fulfilled , the Palestinian Covenant , the Davidic Covenant and the HEW COVENANT .

Dan p

 

[Biblewriter]

First, the only conclusive proof provided is in your own mind because I don't find it the post "proof" of anything. Watson's book examined elements of what later became Dispensationalism. He did not prove Dispensationalism's prior existence.

Second, When a doctrine comes along that ignores and openly defies 20 centuries worth of long-held, well-established Church doctrine that is a problem and a legitimate concern for those relying on scripture, not consensus. When the outlying doctrine is reached solely through an entirely new and different hermeneutic, that too is rational and legitimate reason for concern.

Third, God didn't make unconditional promises. That is just one of the many wrong teachings found within Dispensationalism. It is assumed because no conditions were mentioned the first time God initiated His covenant with Abram that none exist. That is an argument from silence and the facts of scripture are that in all other mentions of that covenant conditions are clearly stated. You use the word "stated" but Dispensationalism constantly teaches its adherents to ignore what is stated. DPism teaches a literal reading of scripture but is much more inconsistent with that precept then most.

The fact that the promise to Abraham was unconditional is not an argument from silence, but is rather EXPLICITLY stated in scripture.

13 For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself,
14 saying, "Surely blessing I will bless you, and multiplying I will multiply you."
15 And so, after he had patiently endured, he obtained the promise.
16 For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute.
17 Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath,
18 that by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us. Hebrews 6:13-18

And again the promise to David was SO unconditional that God himself said that even sin could not cancel it.


30 "If his sons forsake My law And do not walk in My judgments,
31 If they break My statutes And do not keep My commandments,
32 Then I will punish their transgression with the rod, And their iniquity with stripes.
33 Nevertheless My lovingkindness I will not utterly take from him, Nor allow My faithfulness to fail.
34 My covenant I will not break, Nor alter the word that has gone out of My lips. Psalm 89:30-34

Isaiah 55:3, calls this promise "the sure mercies of David."

And again, God said of his promises, long before the time of David,

19 "God is not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? Numbers 23:19

But, regardless of what you claim, in my book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth," I demonstrated, to the satisfaction of very many people, that the central essence of Dispensationalism was STANDARD Christian doctrine for the first few centuries of the church.

They INSISTED that Bible prophecy shuld be interpreted LITERALLY.

They taught that "the Jews" would be brought back to their ancient homeland, and that they would be converted after returning.

They also taught an end time prophetic program for "the Jews" that was completely different from that for "the church."

This included explicitly stated teaching that the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks remained to be fulfilled in the end times.

And finally, some of them also clearly taught that the church would be "suddenly caught up" BEFORE "the great tribulation.

So the "20 centuries worth of long-held, well-established Church doctrine" exists only in your imagination. The doctrine that you call by that label did not become accepted in the church until around the fifth century.

 

[thomas15]

In my mind the whole argument comes down to how one treats the actual words of the Bible in general and the covenants promised to the Sons of Abraham in particular.

It cannot be denied that Jesus spoke of the New Covenant in the upper room. What those outside of dispensationalism want to believe is that the actual terms of the New Covenant were changed by Jesus to mean salvation by grace through faith to the mostly gentile church. This ignores the terms and conditions of the New Covenant and the overall teaching of the NT.

In my view the hardest thing for a believer today to do is to simply trust the Word of God and believe it to the exclusion of what others, smart as they may be, say. If Jehovah made promises to the Sons of Abraham but changed His mind to give that which he promised the Jews to the gentile church, by what feat of logic do modern members of the Church think that He couldn't change His mind regarding promises to the Church? Is the modern Church more deserving, more righteous than any other group in human history?

 

[BABerean2]

In my mind the whole argument comes down to how one treats the actual words of the Bible in general and the covenants promised to the Sons of Abraham in particular.

It cannot be denied that Jesus spoke of the New Covenant in the upper room. What those outside of dispensationalism want to believe is that the actual terms of the New Covenant were changed by Jesus to mean salvation by grace through faith to the mostly gentile church. This ignores the terms and conditions of the New Covenant and the overall teaching of the NT.

In my view the hardest thing for a believer today to do is to simply trust the Word of God and believe it to the exclusion of what others, smart as they may be, say. If Jehovah made promises to the Sons of Abraham but changed His mind to give that which he promised the Jews to the gentile church, by what feat of logic do modern members of the Church think that He couldn't change His mind regarding promises to the Church? Is the modern Church more deserving, more righteous than any other group in human history?

Did Peter address the crowd as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:36? The Gentiles were not grafted into the Church until several years later.

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)



The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?


1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Galatians 3:8)


2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

.

 

[thomas15]

Reading is FUNdamental.

But not everyone can do it.

 

[Dan Perez]

Did Peter address the crowd as "all the house of Israel" on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2:36? The Gentiles were not grafted into the Church until several years later.

Who is really teaching “Replacement Theology” ?

(Did God fulfill His promises to the Jewish people at Calvary? Matthew 26:28, John 19:30)



The advocates of modern Dispensational Theology often accuse others of promoting “Replacement Theology”, or some may even say “Antisemitism”. What does the Bible say about their accusations?


1. Who is replacing Christ as the seed of Abraham through which all the families of the Earth would be blessed in Genesis 12:3, with Abraham’s modern descendants? (See Galatians 3:8)


2. Who is replacing the one people of God in John 10:16, with two peoples of God ?


3. Who is replacing the one seed (Christ) in Galatians 3:16, with the many seeds?


4. Who is replacing the children of the promise in Romans 9:8, with the children of the flesh?


5. Who is replacing the faithful “remnant” of Israelites in Romans 11:1-5, with the Baal worshipers?


6. Who is replacing the word "so" in Romans 11:26, with the word "then"?


7. Who is attempting to replace the Church made up of all races of people, with one made up only of Gentiles? Why did Peter address the crowd as “all the house of Israel” in Acts 2:36, when about 3,000 Israelites accepted Christ on the Day of Pentecost?


8. Based on Hebrews 9:15, the New Covenant cannot be separated from the Messiah’s death. Is the covenant in Daniel 9:27 connected to the Messiah’s death in Daniel 9:26. Is the covenant with the “many” in Daniel 9:27 the same covenant with the “many” in Matthew 26:28? If it is, some have replaced the New Covenant in Daniel 9:27 with a future covenant made by an antichrist not found in Daniel chapter 9. (See the 1599 Geneva Bible used by the Pilgrims.)


9. Those promoting the Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology often accuse others of teaching “Replacement Theology”, but are they the masters of it? Are they promoting a form of Dual Covenant Theology based on race? (See “genealogies” in Titus 3:9)



10. Watch the YouTube video “Genesis of Dispensational Theology” to see the origin of this man-made doctrine, which is less than 200 years old. It was brought to the United States about the time of the Civil War by John Nelson Darby. The doctrine was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible, and then spread through much of the modern Church.



Dallas Theological Seminary in Dallas Texas was created in part to promote John Darby’s Two Peoples of God doctrine of Dispensational Theology.

Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first president of Dallas Theological, had the following to say about the difference between Israel and the Church:



“The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism (Dallas, Seminary Press, 1936), p. 107.


Chafer states that, ‘Israel is an eternal nation, heir to an eternal land, with an eternal kingdom, on which David rules from an eternal throne,’ that is, on earth and distinct from the church who will be in heaven.”

Lewis Sperry Chafer. Systematic Theology. 1975. Vol. IV. pp. 315-323.


John Walvoord, another prominent voice of Dallas Theological stated…


"...it is an article of normative dispensational belief that the boundaries of the land promised to Abraham and his descendants from the Nile to the Euphrates will be literally instituted and that Jesus Christ will return to a literal and theocratic Jewish kingdom centred on a rebuilt temple in Jerusalem. In such a scheme the Church on earth is relegated to the status of a parenthesis.”

John F. Walvoord, The Rapture Question.1979, p. 25

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are there two peoples of God in John 10:16? (See also 1 John 2:22-23, 2 John 1:7-11.)

What is the land promise to the Old Testament Saints in Hebrews 11:15-16?

Based on 2 Peter 3:10-13, is this earth “eternal”? Will it be replaced by a new earth?

Based on Acts 2:36, and Romans 9:6-8, and Romans 11:1-5, and Hebrews 12:22-24, and James 1:1-3, can faithful Israel and the Church be separated into two different groups?

Who is the New Covenant promised to in Jeremiah 31:31-34, and Hebrews 8:6-13?

Will modern Orthodox Jews ever be saved outside of the New Covenant Church?

.

And on your point #7 , Acts 2:41 and Acts 2:47 explains , that ADDED / PROSTITHEMI ismin the Greek IMPERFECT TENSE , ACTIVE VOICE , and in the INDICATIVE MOOD .

If anyone can google what the IMPERFECT TENSE means and it means that God was ADDING and then stop ADDING >

The Active Voice means that some else is producing the action , God .

The INDICATIVE MOOD mean that Acts 2:47 is a FACT >

The Greek word in verse 47 is EKKELESIS and not Church , period .

The word to replace Church , is ASSEMBLY .

Check VINE;S DICTIONARY and see .

The BODY of Christ is not found in Matthew through Acts .

dan p

 

[GoldHorde]

The point of discussion at the moment is not whether or not Dispensationalism is correct, but whether or not it was a "new" doctrine in the 1800s.

What I PROVED, was not that the early Christians were correct in their doctrines, but that they did, in actual fact, teach a "rapture" before "the tribulation." What I posted was from pages 90 to 97 of my book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth."

Irenaeus was only one of three truly ancient writers that we know about, who taught this doctrine. How many others taught it, we can only guess. All we know, of a certainty, is that the works of these three writers survived the purges made by the monks of the dark ages. It is a well documented fact that these monks systematically purged the church libraries of documents that they did not agree with.

Other things I clearly PROVED in my book were that the most ancient Christian writers on Bible prophecy whose works have been preserved, EXPLICITLY taught that the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy would not be fulfilled until the end times, and that Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally.

Whether or not these doctrines are correct is a different question, for a different debate. The point here is the HARD PROOF that these doctrines were NOT, as has been FALSELY alleged, "new" doctrines in the 1800s.

 

[GoldHorde]

Biblewriter: Thank you for your research. The Irenaeus context is certainly fodder for debates on a PreTribRap - however it does not weigh in on the whole cloth of Dispensationalism itself. QUESTION: Did John Darby provide a bibliography of his resources for the doctrine of dispensationalism?

 

[Biblewriter]

Biblewriter: Thank you for your research. The Irenaeus context is certainly fodder for debates on a PreTribRap - however it does not weigh in on the whole cloth of Dispensationalism itself. QUESTION: Did John Darby provide a bibliography of his resources for the doctrine of dispensationalism?

NO. He did not. Darby only made a few comments about previous writers. But statements he made from time to time indicated that he was in the habit of reading essentially all of the extensive body of literature about Bible prophecy that was being published during the early 1800s.

One of these statements was that there was only one writer among all of them them that, in his opinion, treated Bible prophecy "soberly." After much searching, I discovered that he was speaking of Lewis Way, who had written a series of papers about Bible prophecy. Although his writing was extremely wordy, he had spoken at length of the restoration of the Jews to their ancient homeland around the year 1815.

Darby also commented about "the calm and judicious Lowth." After extensive searching, I finally found that he was speaking of an Episcopal clergyman named William Lowth, who had written a series of commentaries on the Old Testament prophets in the early 1700s. He had stressed at great length that the Jews would be restored to their ancient homeland.

And Darby made reference to a book supposedly written by a Jew named Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra. At the time Darby spoke of it, he seems to have not known who its real author was. This turned out to be a Jesuit priest named Immanuel Lacunza.

Other that that, Darby's only other reference to previous writers that I remember was one general statement about all of "the Early Church Fathers." The form of his statement implied that he had read the entirety of the published set of their writings. And as he was an avid reader. this was probably the case.

Although Darby mentioned these books in his writings, he did not say that any of his ideas came from any of them. He attributed his ideas only to the Bible itself, pointing out where the Bible taught them.

But as to the ancient teaching of Dispensational concepts in general, see my book titled "Ancient Dispensational Truth." And for teachings of these concepts during the 1600s and 1700s, see "Dispensationalism Before Darby, by William C. Watson. Both of these books are available from most online book sources.

 

[BABerean2]

And Darby made reference to a book supposedly written by a Jew named Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra. At the time Darby spoke of it, he seems to have not known who its real author was. This turned out to be a Jesuit priest named Immanuel Lacunza.

It was Edward Irving who translated Lacunza's book into English, and Irving was teaching doctrine from the book at the 1826 Albury Prophetic Conference. According to Dispensationalist Dr. Charles Ryrie, John Darby attended at least one of the Albury Conferences. Darby adopted the doctrine after Irving died of TB during 1834, and then became the doctrine's greatest salesman.


Genesis of Dispensational Theology:

.

 

[Biblewriter]

It was Edward Irving who translated Lacunza's book into English, and Irving was teaching doctrine from the book at the 1826 Albury Prophetic Conference. According to Dispensationalist Dr. Charles Ryrie, John Darby attended at least one of the Albury Conferences. Darby adopted the doctrine after Irving died of TB during 1834, and then became the doctrine's greatest salesman.


Genesis of Dispensational Theology:

.

Basically, everything you post about the alleged history of Dispensationalism is second or third hand "information" that has already been CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN to be incorrect. On the other hand, almost everything I post on this subject is first hand information. That is, it is information that I have PERSONALLY found by reading the actual historical documents written by the historical individuals involved..

Although Edward Irving did indeed attend the Albury conferences, they were organized in part by Lewis Way, who had been teaching Dispensationalism for the previous 15 years, while Irving's FIRST publication of the subject had been made less than a year earlier. And, as would be obvious to anyone who truly understands Dispensationalism, Darby's teaching on the subject was FAR closer to that of Lewis Way than to that of Edward Irving

So - If indeed Darby HAD been influenced by a teacher at that conference, (which has been alleged, but NEVER demnstrated,) who would be more likely to be the one that influenced him, The one that had JUST taken up the subject, and who taught it differently from Darby, or the one who had been teaching it for fifteen years, and who taught it in a way very similar to Darby?

And, NO, Darby did not BEGIN to teach Dispensationalism in 1834. His earliest comments on the subject were published in 1829.

 

[Biblewriter]

Second, When a doctrine comes along that ignores and openly defies 20 centuries worth of long-held, well-established Church doctrine that is a problem and a legitimate concern for those relying on scripture, not consensus. When the outlying doctrine is reached solely through an entirely new and different hermeneutic, that too is rational and legitimate reason for concern.

My book titled "Ancient Dispensational Truth" gave 26 pages of actual quotations of ancient writers using the word "dispensations" in the same way that modern Dispensationalists use it. It then gave ten pages of actual quotations of ancient writers insisting that Bible prophecy should be interpreted literally. This was followed by 16 pages of actual quotations of ancient writers describing an unfulfilled prophetic program for "the Jews." and than it gave six pages of actual quotations of ancient writers teaching that in the end times there would be a spiritual revival of "the Jews."

This was followed by twenty pages of actual quotations of ancient writers teaching about the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks, most of which insisted that this seventieth week would be fulfilled in the end times. And then it gave sixteen pages of actual quotations of ancient writers teaching that the church would be "suddenly vaught up" BEFORE "the great tribulation."

Finally, a 34 page appendix traced the dispensational teachings of the early eighteenth century writer William Lowth and the early nineteenth century writer Lewis Way whose writings were mentioned by Darby, and who thus had influenced his dispensatinal thinking.

So, indeed, this book CONCLUSIVELY PROVED that the central concepts of dispensationalism were being widely taught in the second through the fifth centuries, and it PROVED that the (somewhat) modern writers that had influenced Darby went back to well before the writings of Edward Irving, whom some falsely claim to have been the source of Darby's ideas.

 

[BABerean2]

And, NO, Darby did not BEGIN to teach Dispensationalism in 1834. His earliest comments on the subject were published in 1829.

Your claim above has one key witness to be considered.
That witness is John Nelson Darby.

Darby's 1829 paper below was written from the Historicist/Amill perspective. In this paper Darby was opposed to Irving's Dispenational teachings.

I will say it again. Darby did not adopt Dispensational Theology until after Irving died of TB during 1834. We know Irving was promoting some form of Dispensational Theology from Lacunza's book at the Albury Conference held during 1826. How do we know it was Dispensational Theology? Look at the claims made by Irving, and made by Lacunza, which were presented by Irving at the Albury Conferences.

Darby mentions Irving, and "The Morning Watch", which was the publication of the Irvingites, in his 1829 paper. Therefore, we know Darby was acquainted with the doctrine of the Irvingites, which was presented three years earlier at Albury.

However, I did not notice anything about Way in this paper.

If you can show papers presented at the Albury Conferences that were written by Way, please show them to us.

Darby's 1829 paper is found in the link below.
Reflections Upon The Prophetic Inquiry And The Views Advanced In It | Plymouth Brethren Writings


.

 

[BABerean2]

and it PROVED that the (somewhat) modern writers that had influenced Darby went back to well before the writings of Edward Irving, whom some falsely claim to have been the source of Darby's ideas.

Compare Darby's claims to those of Lacunza, and Irving below, and you will know the true source of Darby's doctrine.

Genesis of Dispensational Theology

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Compare Darby's claims to those of Lacunza, and Irving below, and you will know the true source of Darby's doctrine.

Genesis of Dispensational Theology

.

If you had bothered to go back and actually read the source documents, instead of simply believing what is being propagated by unquestionably prejudiced people, you would understand things far better.

Here are pages 105-107 from my book, "Ancient Dispensational Truth:"

Appendix
The source of J. N. Darby’s
Dispensational Concepts

Anti-dispensationalists often claim that the that the doctrine cannot be truth because the origins of dispensationalism have a double taint. For they claim that J. N. Darby, who is well known to have popularized the doctrine and is widely (but incorrectly) thought to be its originator, actually got his ideas from a widely disparaged writer by the name of Edward Irving. And they claim that Irving in turn got these ideas from a Jesuit priest named Manuel Lacunza, who had written a book titled “The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty.” Lacunza had published this book under the pen name of Juan Josafat Ben-Ezra, claiming to be a converted Jew. Edward Irving had translated it into English and published it, adding a very long “preliminary discourse.” And as Darby quoted from this “preliminary discourse,” and thus we know he read it, these people claim that this book is where Darby got the idea of Dispensationalism.

But Darby himself clearly stated the source of his first understanding of dispensational concepts. Speaking of the prophecies of Isaiah, he said:

“But I must, though without comment, direct attention to chapter 32 of the same prophet; which I do the rather, because it was in this the Lord was pleased, without man's teaching, first to open my eyes on this subject, that I might learn His will concerning it throughout - not by the first blessed truths stated in it, but the latter part, when there shall be a complete change in the dispensation, the wilderness becoming the fruitful field of God's fruit and glory, and that which had been so being counted a forest, at a time when the Lord's judgments should come down, even great hail, upon this forest; and the city, even of pride, be utterly abased. That the Spirit's pouring out upon the Jews, and their substitution for the Gentile church, become a forest, is here adverted to, is evident from the connection of the previous verses.”
Further, in 1874 the famous church historian Andrew Miller, who is well know to have been a member of Darby’s close-knit group, the Plymouth brethren, traced the beginnings of nineteenth century dispensational thinking in the following words:

“The study of prophetic truth was greatly revived in the early part of this century. In the year 1821 a short treatise, entitled ‘The Latter Rain,’ by the Rev. Lewis Way, made its appearance. The main object of the writer is to prove from scripture the restoration of Israel, and the consequent glory in the land. His poem entitled, ‘Palingenesia,’ or ‘The World to Come,’ appeared in 1824. Thoughts on the ‘Scriptural Expectations of the Church,’ by Basilicus, followed it in 1826. The author takes a wider range in this book than in the former, though the kingdom of Israel occupies a prominent place. In 1827 the Rev. Edward Irving endeavoured to arouse the professing church, but especially his brethren in the ministry, to a sense of their responsibility as to the truth of prophecy. He translated the work of Ben Ezra, a converted Jew, on ‘The Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty,’ with a long preliminary discourse. This book was originally written in Spanish, and first published in Spain in the year 1812.”

So Andrew Miller did not trace the origins of nineteenth century dispensational doctrine to either J. N. Darby or to Edward Irving, but to Lewis Way.

I will continue in my next post.