What Did The ECF Believe About End Times

[LittleLambofJesus]

Oh Brother..... here we go again.

Same song, different dance......

I agree. But I cannot let false accusations continue without confrontation.

It is simply disagreement.......that is what debating is all about. You defend your position and others defend theirs.
As one wise man said:

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

.

 

[brinny]

Same song, different dance......

It is simply disagreement.......that is what debating is all about. You defend your position and others defend theirs.
As one wise man said:

View attachment 245618

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

.

Hahaaa i've never heard that.....i WANT that mug

 

[Biblewriter]

And all of your claims above rest upon an ignorance of the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24.

How much did you write about the fulfillment of the New Covenant in your latest book?


Daniel Chapter 9: Dr. Kelly Varner

.

The discussion in this thread is not about which interpretation of scripture is correct, but about what a certain group of writers said about them. But, as usual, you are trying to derail the discussion by again posting what has already been thoroughly disproved.

You can quote a hundred people making claims about when or how dispensationalism began. But all f them put together cannot trump the actual quotation of the ECFs clearly teaching most of the major tenants of dispensationaism in the second through the fifth centuries.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

...............You can quote a hundred people making claims about when or how dispensationalism began. But all f them put together cannot trump the actual quotation of the ECFs clearly teaching most of the major tenants of dispensationaism in the second through the fifth centuries.

I notice you have a thread on that doctrine, so I will put in a plug for ya with the link:

Dispensationalism is not new

That aside and respectively, I call dispensationalism the "spider wed" doctrine as put forth so well on this site:

Dispensationalism – Grace Online Library

.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking. So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place.........

I became a Preterist when I first read the Bible thru in 2003.
Dispy's trying to come out of that doctrine after having been entrenched in it for so long is like a RC converting to Protestantism and having to leave all the excess carnal baggage of Roman Catholicism behind.
Here is a testimony from one convert to Preterism....praise God!

The Partial Preterist Non-Pre-Mid-Trib-Post-Trib Rapture Believers Safe House

.............
I used to be a hardcore classical dispensationalist until I read that book. When I became a Christian, it was within a dispensationalist church. My first Bible was a NASB Ryrie Study Bible. I went to a dispensationalist university and studied under Thomas Ice. In fact, I've probably read close to 60 monographs/commentaries from dispensationalist authors like Hitchcock, Walvoord, Ryrie, Morris, Bock, Feinberg, etc. I even listened to Chuck Smith preach through the entire Bible! I was VERY committed to a futurist view.

,

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Hahaaa i've never heard that.....i WANT that mug

It was doing a search for "can't stand heat get out of kitchen" and that popped up.......

 

[brinny]

It was doing a search for "can't stand heat get out of kitchen" and that popped up.......

It's hilarious.

(Makes sense, doesn't it?)

 

[BABerean2]

The discussion in this thread is not about which interpretation of scripture is correct, but about what a certain group of writers said about them. But, as usual, you are trying to derail the discussion by again posting what has already been thoroughly disproved.

You can quote a hundred people making claims about when or how dispensationalism began. But all f them put together cannot trump the actual quotation of the ECFs clearly teaching most of the major tenants of dispensationaism in the second through the fifth centuries.

And like your claims that Irenaeus promoted the pretrib doctrine, it is based upon your very selective interpretation of the text.

The truth of the matter is that modern Dispensational Theology had its origins in Edward Irving's translation of the Jesuit book "Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty". Darby picked up the doctrine after Irving died in 1834, and claimed it as his own.
He later brought the doctrine to America about the time of the Civil War.
It was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Since this history has become widely available on the internet, modern proponents of the doctrine have attempted to re-invent the history of the doctrine.
Yours is one more attempt.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
(Paper written in 1966.)
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Genesis of Dispensational Theology

.



.

 

[Biblewriter]

And like your claims that Irenaeus promoted the pretrib doctrine, it is based upon your very selective interpretation of the text.

The truth of the matter is that modern Dispensational Theology had its origins in Edward Irving's translation of the Jesuit book "Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty". Darby picked up the doctrine after Irving died in 1834, and claimed it as his own.
He later brought the doctrine to America about the time of the Civil War.
It was later incorporated into the notes of the Scofield Reference Bible.

Since this history has become widely available on the internet, modern proponents of the doctrine have attempted to re-invent the history of the doctrine.
Yours is one more attempt.


PROPHETIC DEVELOPMENTS
with particular reference to the early Brethren Movement.
F. Roy Coad (Brethren Historian) pages 10-26
(Paper written in 1966.)
http://brethrenhistory.org/qwicsitePro/php/docsview.php?docid=418


Genesis of Dispensational Theology

.



.

The hard truth is that the claim that Darby got his ideas from Irving is 100% pure speculation. We know that Darby read Irving's translation of Lacunza's work. But we also know that he read essentially everything that was published on the subject. As we know this included the writings of William Lowth, it would also have been very unlikely that he had not also read at least some of the two dozen writers who taught a pre-trib rapture during the 1600s and 1700s, as listed by William Watson on page 178 of his book, "Dispensationalism Before Darby."

And we know that Lewis Way, who spoke at meetings Darby attended, published a fully developed Dispensationalism well before Irving published anything on the subject.

We also know that Irving quoted Way in the "Preliminary Discorse" to his translation of Lacunza's work. And that William Lowth, who was highly praised by Darby, taught some of dispensationalism's main precepts before Lacunza was even born.

So basically, every detail of your oft repeated claim about the origins of dispensationalism has been thoroughly disproved.

Dispensationalist Only - The Dispensationalism of Lewis Way

Dispensationalist Only - The Dispensational Futurism of Theodore Beza

While the men who wrote the articles you keep posting may have honestly thought that their statements were correct. Now that you have actually seen the HARD PROOF that they are not correct, is is simple dishonesty for you to keep posting them.

If this were simply a matter of a difference of opinion, I would not say such things. But you have already seen HARD PROOF of what I am saying.

You pretend that my "very selective interpretation" of the text of Irenaeus presents a warped picture of what he taught. But the truth is that I am, as far as I know and believe, the only person who has ever presented a thorough examination of everything Irenaeus said, in his entire 12 chapters on the subject, about the people whom he said would be passing through this future time period he foresaw. A systematic review of every statement made about these people cannot even rationally be called a "very selective interpretation."

What I demonstrated was that Irenaeus taught that "the church" would be "suddenly caught up" after the Antichrist appeared and had "put the church to flight," but before he began a three and a half year "reign of terror," which period Irenaeus called "great tribulation." And he also taught that "the Jews" would be brought back to their homeland, and would be converted, but not till later. And the only way anyone can make it seem that Irenaeus taught anything other than this, is by using "very selective interpretation" of some of his statements, while ignoring others.

Dispensationalist Only - Ancient teaching of a rapture before the great tribulation.

 

[BABerean2]

We also know that Irving quoted Way in the "Preliminary Discorse" to his translation of Lacunza's work.

On what page is that quote found in the Preliminary Discourse?

I have read it before, but maybe I missed that point.

Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files

.

 

[BABerean2]

The hard truth is that the claim that Darby got his ideas from Irving is 100% pure speculation. We know that Darby read Irving's translation of Lacunza's work. But we also know that he read essentially everything that was published on the subject. As we know this included the writings of William Lowth, it would also have been very unlikely that he had not also read at least some of the two dozen writers who taught a pre-trib rapture during the 1600s and 1700s, as listed by William Watson on page 178 of his book, "Dispensationalism Before Darby."

And we know that Lewis Way, who spoke at meetings Darby attended, published a fully developed Dispensationalism well before Irving published anything on the subject.

We also know that Irving quoted Way in the "Preliminary Discorse" to his translation of Lacunza's work. And that William Lowth, who was highly praised by Darby, taught some of dispensationalism's main precepts before Lacunza was even born.

So basically, every detail of your oft repeated claim about the origins of dispensationalism has been thoroughly disproved.

Dispensationalist Only - The Dispensationalism of Lewis Way

Dispensationalist Only - The Dispensational Futurism of Theodore Beza

While the men who wrote the articles you keep posting may have honestly thought that their statements were correct. Now that you have actually seen the HARD PROOF that they are not correct, is is simple dishonesty for you to keep posting them.

If this were simply a matter of a difference of opinion, I would not say such things. But you have already seen HARD PROOF of what I am saying.

You pretend that my "very selective interpretation" of the text of Irenaeus presents a warped picture of what he taught. But the truth is that I am, as far as I know and believe, the only person who has ever presented a thorough examination of everything Irenaeus said, in his entire 12 chapters on the subject, about the people whom he said would be passing through this future time period he foresaw. A systematic review of every statement made about these people cannot even rationally be called a "very selective interpretation."

What I demonstrated was that Irenaeus taught that "the church" would be "suddenly caught up" after the Antichrist appeared and had "put the church to flight," but before he began a three and a half year "reign of terror," which period Irenaeus called "great tribulation." And he also taught that "the Jews" would be brought back to their homeland, and would be converted, but not till later. And the only way anyone can make it seem that Irenaeus taught anything other than this, is by using "very selective interpretation" of some of his statements, while ignoring others.

Dispensationalist Only - Ancient teaching of a rapture before the great tribulation.

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons ‘as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance—in fact, as nothing;’ so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, ‘There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.’ For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.” (“Against Heresies,” by Irenaeus, Book V, chapter 29, paragraph 1.)

Here we find a clear teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture."

Your claim of a "clear teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture", is not found in the words of Irenaeus.
You are turning the word "tribulation" into a "tribulation period" in order to make your doctrine work.


Joh_16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

Act_14:22 Confirming the souls of the disciples, and exhorting them to continue in the faith, and that we must through much tribulation enter into the kingdom of God.

Rom_5:3 And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;

Rom_8:35 Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?

Rom_12:12 Rejoicing in hope; patient in tribulation; continuing instant in prayer;

2Co_1:4 Who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we ourselves are comforted of God.

2Co_7:4 Great is my boldness of speech toward you, great is my glorying of you: I am filled with comfort, I am exceeding joyful in all our tribulation.

1Th_3:4 For verily, when we were with you, we told you before that we should suffer tribulation; even as it came to pass, and ye know.

Rev_1:9 I John, who also am your brother, and companion in tribulation, and in the kingdom and patience of Jesus Christ, was in the isle that is called Patmos, for the word of God, and for the testimony of Jesus Christ.


As for the book "Dispensationalism Before Darby", I ordered a copy of the book after you recommended it, and it contains the same type of supposition that you have used above.


I also believe that the unbelievers will be destroyed after the Church is caught up.
The very same idea is found in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, when Christ returns "in flaming fire" taking vengeance on those who do not know God.

.

 

[Biblewriter]

On what page is that quote found in the Preliminary Discourse?

I have read it before, but maybe I missed that point.

Lacunza, Manuel, “Coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty“
PDF Files

.

I misspoke when I said Irving "quoted" Way. I should have said he "cited" him.

"Now let this book be read as a voice from the Roman Catholic Church, and let the Palingenesia and Basilicus’ Letters of my friend be read as a voice from the Church of England, and let the substance of my discourses for the last year, as given above, be read as a voice from the Kirk of Scotland; and when the coincidence of sentiment and doctrine is perceived in the diversity of personal character and particular interpretations, let any one if he dare, reject the whole matter as the ravings and dreamings of fanciful men."

"The coming of Messiah in Glory and Majesty," by Manuel Lacunza, tran. by Edward Irving, pg 14.

This is part of Irving's "Preliminary Discourse" in the front of the two volume book.

It was, in actual fact, this statement that led me to Lewis Way. For I began to search for Palingenesia and Basilicus’ Letters, and found them to have been written by Lewis Way. And when I read them, I found that, although painfully wordy, they indeed presented a fully developed Dispensationalism.

 

[BABerean2]

It was, in actual fact, this statement that led me to Lewis Way. For I began to search for Palingenesia and Basilicus’ Letters, and found them to have been written by Lewis Way. And when I read them, I found that, although painfully wordy, they indeed presented a fully developed Dispensationalism.

Did Lewis Way claim that modern Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church?

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Did Lewis Way claim that modern Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church?

.

No. And neither did any other dispensationalist, with the POSSIBLE exception of John Hagee.

 

[BABerean2]

No. And neither did any other dispensationalist, with the POSSIBLE exception of John Hagee.

The quotes below prove otherwise.

Classic Dispensationalists believe God will again go back to dealing with the modern nation of Israel after the end of the “Church Age”. They claim the Church is a “parenthesis” in God’s dealings with the nation of Israel.


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


Great Errors in Dispensational Eschatology:
Pastor John Otis

.

 

[Biblewriter]

The quotes below prove otherwise.

Classic Dispensationalists believe God will again go back to dealing with the modern nation of Israel after the end of the “Church Age”. They claim the Church is a “parenthesis” in God’s dealings with the nation of Israel.


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


Great Errors in Dispensational Eschatology:
Pastor John Otis

.

Not even one of these says what you said. You are wresting a simple belief in the explicitly stated prophecies about a future earthly blessing of Israel, of which there are many, into a misrepresentation of what we teach about soteriology.

The scriptures could not be more plain in stating that the ancient nation of Israel will eventually be brought back to to their ancient homeland, and there will be brought to a true and living faith in Jesus. We teach this because the scriptures teach it, and teach it repeatedly and in explicit words. When you deny this, you are denying the express words of God.

 

[BABerean2]

Not even one of these says what you said. You are wresting a simple belief in the explicitly stated prophecies about a future earthly blessing of Israel, of which there are many, into a misrepresentation of what we teach about soteriology.

The scriptures could not be more plain in stating that the ancient nation of Israel will eventually be brought back to to their ancient homeland, and there will be brought to a true and living faith in Jesus. We teach this because the scriptures teach it, and teach it repeatedly and in explicit words. When you deny this, you are denying the express words of God.

I asked you if Way believed that modern Jews would come to salvation outside of the Church.
You said he did not.

You also claimed that most modern Dispensationalists do not believe that modern Jews will come to salvation outside of the Church.

Maybe you need to read Dr. Dwight Pentecost's book "Things to Come", to find our what Dispensationalists really believe.

https://www.amazon.com/Things-Come-...=8-1&keywords=things+to+come+dwight+pentecost

.

 

[Biblewriter]

You are the one who needs to go back and re-read this book. I challenge you to produce even one statement by any dispensational teacher that anyone will ever be saved "outside of the church." This is not a term that I have ever come across, even once, in almost sixty years of studying dispensational teaching. The only place I have ever ever met this term is in your continual ranting here.

But you are conflating soteriology with eschatology.

As you very well know, dispensationalists teach, and very clearly teach, that since the time that Jesus died, the sins of no individual will ever be remitted without a true and living faith in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary. Some claim that John Hagee denies this, but if he does, he is not a true dispensationalist.

You apparently define "the church" as "all who trust in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary." If this were indeed a correct definition of the church, then dispensationalists would indeed believe that the future Israelites would be part of "the church," and thus would not be saved "outside of the church."

But dispensationalists do not agree with your definition of "the church." They define "the church" as that group of individuals that at the present time trust in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary. They believe that the church will be physically removed from this planet, and that any who at a later time trust in that same blood Jesus shed at Calvary will be classified as a different group. They will still be considered sons or daughters of God, even as those who trust today, but they will be simply be part of a different group, the first part of which we sometimes call "tribulation saints." And we call the second part "Israel," because that is what God calls it.

We believe, because the scriptures explicitly state it in very many places, that after that the church is removed from this earth God will again bring all Israel back to their ancient homeland, and there bring them to a true and living faith in Jesus, including a faith in the blood He shed at Calvary. So the fact that we consider these Israelites as a different group from those that trust in that same blood today is not some kind of a different soteriology. It is simply a detail of eschatological belief.

Thus, your pretension that this is some kind of a heretical doctrine that anyone could ever be saved without faith in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary is disingenuous. And the fact that you maintain this pretension even after having had this pointed out in the past reveals a basic and fundamental dishonesty underlying your entire campaign against dispensationalism. I do not know, nor do I judge, whether this dishonesty is a conscious attempt to deceive, or is merely what we sometimes call "intellectual dishonesty" that is, a matter of deceiving yourself. But either way, it is obviously there.

 

[BABerean2]

You are the one who needs to go back and re-read this book. I challenge you to produce even one statement by any dispensational teacher that anyone will ever be saved "outside of the church." This is not a term that I have ever come across, even once, in almost sixty years of studying dispensational teaching. The only place I have ever ever met this term is in your continual ranting here.

But you are conflating soteriology with eschatology.

As you very well know, dispensationalists teach, and very clearly teach, that since the time that Jesus died, the sins of no individual will ever be remitted without a true and living faith in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary. Some claim that John Hagee denies this, but if he does, he is not a true dispensationalist.

You apparently define "the church" as "all who trust in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary." If this were indeed a correct definition of the church, then dispensationalists would indeed believe that the future Israelites would be part of "the church," and thus would not be saved "outside of the church."

But dispensationalists do not agree with your definition of "the church." They define "the church" as that group of individuals that at the present time trust in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary. They believe that the church will be physically removed from this planet, and that any who at a later time trust in that same blood Jesus shed at Calvary will be classified as a different group. They will still be considered sons or daughters of God, even as those who trust today, but they will be simply be part of a different group, the first part of which we sometimes call "tribulation saints." And we call the second part "Israel," because that is what God calls it.

We believe, because the scriptures explicitly state it in very many places, that after that the church is removed from this earth God will again bring all Israel back to their ancient homeland, and there bring them to a true and living faith in Jesus, including a faith in the blood He shed at Calvary. So the fact that we consider these Israelites as a different group from those that trust in that same blood today is not some kind of a different soteriology. It is simply a detail of eschatological belief.

Thus, your pretension that this is some kind of a heretical doctrine that anyone could ever be saved without faith in the blood Jesus shed at Calvary is disingenuous. And the fact that you maintain this pretension even after having had this pointed out in the past reveals a basic and fundamental dishonesty underlying your entire campaign against dispensationalism. I do not know, nor do I judge, whether this dishonesty is a conscious attempt to deceive, or is merely what we sometimes call "intellectual dishonesty" that is, a matter of deceiving yourself. But either way, it is obviously there.

Your definitions of "the Church", and "Israel" fall apart based on the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

Your failure to deal with these New Covenant scriptures is the epitome of "intellectual dishonesty"...



The New Covenant: Bob George

.

 

[Biblewriter]

Your definitions of "the Church", and "Israel" fall apart based on the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in Hebrews 12:22-24, and 2 Corinthians 3:6-8.

Your failure to deal with these New Covenant scriptures is the epitome of "intellectual dishonesty"...



The New Covenant: Bob George

.

Actually, dispensationalism is BASED ON the new covenant.

 

[keras]

The scriptures could not be more plain in stating that the ancient nation of Israel will eventually be brought back to to their ancient homeland, and there will be brought to a true and living faith in Jesus. We teach this because the scriptures teach it, and teach it repeatedly and in explicit words. When you deny this, you are denying the express words of God.

This is where your error becomes apparent. You think the Jews are all Israel.
'The ancient nation of Israel' - Who are they now and where are they?
Do not forget that ancient Israel divided into 2 entities; The House of Judah and the House of Israel and they remain separate today. Proved by the yet to happen rejoining of Ezekiel 37 and the subsequent Blessings to them.

Israel are now the Christian peoples, Jesus did not fail in His mission. Matthew 15:24
Unregenerate and atheistic Judah now faces Judgement and punishment. Only a remnant who have accepted Jesus now, will survive.