history lesson

[BobRyan]

2. Majority of theological community (Post-millennial and Amillennial) has regarded

Dispensationalism as a modernist aberrational (disorder of the mind) interpretation.

In Walter Martin's book "Kingdom of the Cults" in the appendix where he deals with the topic of Adventists and points out the glaringly obvious fact that they are a rock solid Christian group -- he makes this observation about millerites and the Adventists that came afterward.

Martin states that the primary objection to both Millerites and Adventists in the 1800's was that they were premillennial and in the U.S the dominant view by far was either post-millennial or amillennialism.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

E. Seventeenth - nineteenth centuries - gradually revived earthly millennium view.

F. Nineteenth & twentieth centuries.

1. J.N. Darby (Plymouth Brethren), followed by D.L. Moody, C.I. Scofield, H.A. Ironside

I found some research on the rapture that ties in with that -

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1116224&postcount=80

(Dallas Theological Sem.), developed theological system of Dispensationalism

incorporating earthly millennium and pre-tribulation rapture of Church. Became a

primarily American theological phenomenon.

2. Majority of theological community (Post-millennial and Amillennial) has regarded

Dispensationalism as a modernist aberrational (disorder of the mind) interpretation.

Adventits are Pre-mill.

But we do not teach a millennial kingdom on earth.

At the second coming the saints are raptured to heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Bob]

Adventits are Pre-mill.

But we do not teach a millennial kingdom on earth.

At the second coming the saints are raptured to heaven.

in Christ,

Bob

Amen Bob Ryan............:thumbs:

 

[Brother Bob]

No less than four times have I brought to your attention that there are historical errors in this list, and mentioned the disparaging pejorative crack of the last sentence. Yet you continue to post this. Is there a good reason for this??

I have not once suggested that one has to believe any of the doctrines of dispensationalism, nor that to not believe such is anything less than orthodox. In fact, I have specifically said that these doctrines are not necessarily right (even though I believe they are basically Biblical), and that the existence of such, even from the earliest days does not make them (or any other doctrine, for that matter) correct.

But, once again, it does make them historical. (Since that seems to be such a 'hard concept' for some to grasp.)
I still have yet to see that any Biblical doctrine is established by a poll of "most preferred".

Ed

It makes the historical to the majority Ed; That is why I keep posting them, as you seem to just overlook this historical record.

BBob,

 

[Ed Edwards]

Brother Brother Bob:
Have you ever mentioned what the
Dispensationalism is that you don't like?

Chances are, I don't like it either
nor does the other Ed.

Here is my essay on dispendsationalism that
I believe:

-------------------------
Dispensation in the NT, KJV1769 version:

1 Corinthians 9:17 (KJV1769):
For if I do this thing willingly, I have a reward:
but if against my will, a dispensation of the gospel
is committed unto me.

Ephesians 1:10 (KJV1769):
That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might
gather together in one all things in Christ, both
which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him:

Ephesians 3:2 (KJV1769):
If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God
which is given me to you-ward:

Colossians 1:25 (KJV1769):
Whereof I am made a minister, according to the dispensation
of God which is given to me for you, to fulfil the word of God;

The Holy Spirit hasn't shown me a lot more than is
here. I do know the Greek word being translated here
as 'dispensation' is the Greek word from which we get
'economy'.

I do know this is what the economy of God is like:

Bible Prophetic times:
'hour' = the appropriate time
'day' = the appropriate time
or '1 day' = 1,000 years
'½-week' = 3½-years
'week' = 7 years
'month' = the appropriate time
year = the appropriate time

Other 'economy of God facts':

the blind see
the dead live
the deaf hear
the lame leap like deer
the first is last
the last is first
Jesus Saves (totally!)
God Rules!!
--------------------------------

If you don't agree, please tell me
what you don't like about my
dispensationalism. Thank you.

Mat 11:4-5 (KJV1611 Editioin):
Iesus answered and saide vnto them,
Go and shew Iohn againe those things
which we doe heare and see:
5 The blind receiue their sight,
and the lame walke,
the lepers are cleansed,
and the deafe heare,
the dead are raised vp,
and the poore haue the Gospel preached to them.

 

[BobRyan]

I find scripture to refute the PTR rapture view for all the reasons I gave -- starting with John 14 "IF I go .. I will come again" not "again and again" and not "If I go I will recieve you then later come again".

(As the start of a long list of problems for the PTR view).

But I do agree with a pre-mill second coming -- just not a millennial kingdom on earth.

The kingdom on earth begins with the New Earth of Rev 21.

 

[jilphn1022]

post-trib a recent view?

Several days ago Ed Edwards gave the impression that the "post-tribulation" view is recent, perhaps even more recent that the "pre-tribulation" view. I soon recalled that Dr. John Walvoord, long-time head of Dallas Seminary, said much the same thing in one of his books and claimed that there are four different kinds of post-tribs that all contradict each other. Well, there still is a paper on the web showing that Walvoord grossly saw distinctions without real differences - a paper entitled "Walvoord's Post-Trib Varieties - Plus" that is on the Google engine. If I were a betting person, I would bet that Ed has been influenced by Walvoord either directly or indirectly since he sounds so much like him. Ed showed recently that he has been influenced also by Dr. LaHaye.

 

[Ed Edwards]

//Ed showed recently that he has been influenced also by Dr. LaHaye//

Back up your accusations with quotes of what I said
and what you thought I meant. Give exact post #s
and Topics (pointers go a long way).

I do recall saying something about Lahaye that
shows your statement to be a switch & wait poor debate
tactic. I said the best Book I'd looked at by LaHaye
(I read a lot of fiction books) was HOW TO STUDY THE BIBLE.
It is no problem for most people if a person learns how
to study from the Bible AND studies from the Bible.
That is where my learning comes from: the Bible.

 

[Brother Bob]

Brother Brother Bob:
Have you ever mentioned what the
Dispensationalism is that you don't like?

I don't like any doctrine that says the Messiah has not come. I don't like any doctrine that says the 1000 year reign is not Spiritual. I don't like any doctrine that says Christ will be coming back 2 to 4 times more. I believe He will come back once to redeem His Bride and pass judgement upon the world and Satan and his angels.

 

[Ed Edwards]

I don't like any doctrine that says the Messiah has not come.

This is now what dispensationalism.
Your doctrine is not Biblical.
It contradicts 2 Thessalonians 2. The
Messiah has not come yet unless the
rapture2 has occurred and the man of sin
is revealed.

I don't like any doctrine that says the 1000 year reign is not Spiritual.

This is now what dispensationalism means.
Your doctrine is not Biblical; IMHO the
1,000 year Messinic Reign is future & physical.

I don't like any doctrine that says Christ
will be coming back 2 to 4 times more.

This is a result of the right doctrine of dispensationalism.
This is the doctrine I believe the Bible teaches.

I believe He will come back once to redeem His Bride and pass judgement upon the world and Satan and his angels.

I believe 'once' is wrong.
I do believe He will come twice both
the same day, week, 70th week of Daniel,
7-years, Day of the Lord, Tribulation Period,
Tribulation Judgement Day, etc.

And none of this has anything to do with the history
of these doctrines.

According to your eschatology, does Jesus
spiritually rule the whole earth now?
If so, is this from heaven or from earth?

According to your eschatology, is Satan
bound or unbound now?
Is that binding in a spiriltual or physical mode?

 

[BobRyan]

. I believe He will come back once to redeem His Bride and pass judgement upon the world and Satan and his angels.

Me too!

That is why I am post-trib, Premill.

But I think Rev 19 is literal.

Rev 20 resurrection is literal
Rev 20 1000 years is a real 1000 years
Rev 21 New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven is literal

Rev 20 resurrection after the 1000 years is literal

Rev 20 lake of fire is literal

etc etc.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Brother Bob]

That is why I am post-trib, Premill.

But I think Rev 19 is literal.

Rev 20 resurrection is literal
Rev 20 1000 years is a real 1000 years
Rev 21 New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven is literal

Rev 20 resurrection after the 1000 years is literal

Rev 20 lake of fire is literal

etc etc.

in Christ,

Bob

Well I am post trib for sure for I do believe we will live thru the tribulations for no flesh would be saved, except those days were shortened for the elect's sake.

I believe the resurrection is of both the just and unjust.

I believe the 1000 years is Spiritual and already happened.

I certainly believe in New Jerusalem coming down and I believe it to be the bride of the Lamb, the church. Part of its in Heaven and part of its here.

I believe in the Lake of Fire for the unbelievers, Satan and His angels, those that work abomination and those that make a lie.

Then I believe the earth will pass away with a great noise.

 

[Ed Edwards]

What is the history of those beliefs?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Well I am post trib for sure for I do believe we will live thru the tribulations for no flesh would be saved, except those days were shortened for the elect's sake.

I believe the resurrection is of both the just and unjust.

I believe the 1000 years is Spiritual and already happened.

I certainly believe in New Jerusalem coming down and I believe it to be the bride of the Lamb, the church. Part of its in Heaven and part of its here.

I believe in the Lake of Fire for the unbelievers, Satan and His angels, those that work abomination and those that make a lie.

Then I believe the earth will pass away with a great noise.

Brothe Bob,

Have you not noticed, Bob Ryan perhaps might read your post, but he is so pre-occupied and smug with his own pre-prepared and ready at hand posts, you could just as well have spoken to the lamp post. I am so fed up with discourteous deafness I immediately forget courtesy myself. I hope you may fair better than I did. But you should remember, that whatever you may argue from the Bible, he as a SDA first weighs against mrs EG White. Think, to admit to one single little point that she could have been wrong - just humanly wrong like I and you so often go wrong - just once she is in the wrong, she is not inspired, and the whole in toto complete system of SDAtism goes up in pieces like a bomb destroyed it.

Keep on with your christian duty to preached the unadulterated Word. Just maybe you will see effect. I gaurantee you though you won't find it with any SDA. I cried myself to death so tired this past Sabbath Day, after having worshipped with them. It is just in vain.

But maybe someone else may benefit by the proclamation of the Truth of the Gospel.
God bless you, Brother Bob

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed Edwards
"I used it to develop my eschatology (by prayer & Bible Study).
I'm teaching my eschatology at the following two places in this Forum:..."

GE
Yes, Ed, that's why this thread was opened, I'm sure.
I have two beginning-problems with your 'eschatology'
One. That you haven't given any idea of what 'eschatology' means for you.
Two. That it is your, Ed Edwards', 'eschatology' which EE out of hand has decided shall be his and nobody else's. It's never Ed Edwards and the Bible only, because it is EE first and next the Bible. To put the Bible first, I, or Ed Edwards, must be put next or better still, last, so that others, may be allowed to have a turn to speak, too. If not heard in the Church, it is not the Word of God; it's 'my' own vice I hear and obey.

Oops, Sir, you totally missed what I was trying to communicate.

It is God's Eschatology that I got from studying the Bible.
I only called it 'mine' to distinguish from the history of the
first post. Although I've studied some history (the opening post
is largely wrong) I have never read a book by John Darby.
So I was trying to show that my Eschatology was NOT from
John Darby or anybody else except: Peter, Paul, John,
Daniel, King David, Solomon, etc. -- you know, those guys
who wrote God's Bible.

So what I was trying to communicate there is that I didn't copy
someone else's eschatology, especially John Darby.
(BTW, the history of the two branches of 'post-tribulation
resurrection2 ONLY -- one of them comes long after John Darby.
In fact, the Opening Post (OP) was written BY SOMEBODY
not on the BB (Baptist Board) and thoughtlessly copied here
-- about 1950. It is NOT an orginal writing. I could figure out
where it came from and get the bosses around here to get on
the case of the OP maker - but that isn't always my style.

So I didn't, unlike others, copy some other eschaatological
plan, but developed my own.

I said I was teaching the Eschatology that God's Bible intrusted
to me two other places (actually about eight now) in hopes
people would come over to one of the other topics.
I can keep all the topics open at once (lovely tab system of
Mozilla Firefox) but the titles get to be 4 letters long when I have
a dozen open.

So I was trying to say I got these teachings from the
Holy Bible, not from someone else save God and the human
authors of the New Testament & Old Testament.
I would also rather write this stuff in less than eight topics.
Thank you, Sir Gerhard Ebersoehn, for your input.

GE

I doubt I had an input. Nevertheless, You have not told us yet what 'eschatology' means, or is, for you -- YOU! Everybody has his own version of what eschatology is. What is yours?

It should't be impossible to say it in a few words, or in a few sentences at most?
After that, why do you not G-I-V-E us what you have elsewhere prepared straight away , HERE? If it is too much to say it here, in a few words or a few sentences at most, straight from your mind, it can mean only one thing, you don't really know yourself what you think you believe; you do not understand yet how to present it because there really isn't substance in what you believe. Like the SDAs you must enter into dozens of 'Biblestudies' to bring it to others' senses.

First characteristic of ALL Bible-truth, is its simplicity. That you can tell the whole of it in a few words to your grandchild before she falls asleep and even while half asleep understands what you are telling her, and tomorrow will remember clearly. That is what the Truth of Jesus Christ is like. It does not even need much of an IQ - for which fact I take myself of an example.

Therefore, what is eschatology to you, and then, explain it from the Bible in say fifty words. Just maybe, you will come to astonishing new insights yourself!

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Philip Schaff (1877)
"Though millenialism was supressed by the early church, it was nevertheless from time to time revived by heretical sects." (Schaff's History, pg. 299 )

http://www.christinyou.net/pages/millennium.html
II. Historical review of millennial thinking in Christian theology.
A. Early church (c. 100-250) - millennium not emphasized. Variety of views.

B. Early reaction to view of earthly millennium.

1. Origen (c. 185-254) attributed such thinking to heretic, Cerinthus

2. Montanist heresy (c.175) had excesses of earthly millennial views.

3. Rampant speculation to calculate end time.

C. Augustine (354-430) rejected his previous earthly millennial position and interpreted

"1000 years" of Rev. 20 as symbolic of entire period from first coming of Christ to

second coming of Christ.

1. Council of Ephesus (431) condemned earthly millennium interpretation as heretical

superstition.

2. Became orthodox view of Church for centuries.

D. Reformation (sixteenth century) - Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Anabaptists accepted symbolic

interpretation of "1000 years." Regarded Catholic Pope as Antichrist.

E. Seventeenth - nineteenth centuries - gradually revived earthly millennium view.

F. Nineteenth & twentieth centuries.

1. J.N. Darby (Plymouth Brethren), followed by D.L. Moody, C.I. Scofield, H.A. Ironside

(Dallas Theological Sem.), developed theological system of Dispensationalism

incorporating earthly millennium and pre-tribulation rapture of Church. Became a

primarily American theological phenomenon.

2. Majority of theological community (Post-millennial and Amillennial) has regarded

Dispensationalism as a modernist aberrational (disorder of the mind) interpretation.

GE

I accept C and D because both were born out of previous error. (For one reason)

 

[Brother Bob]

What is the history of those beliefs?

I use scripture Ed for my beliefs. Mostly I use what Jesus Himself said, that the hour is coming when all that are in the grave shall come forth, unto them that have done good the resurrection of life, and unto them that have done evil, the resurrection of damnation. That doesn't leave much room for doubt and several more comings of the Lord. If you read Rev. and it don't line up with what Jesus said, you need to start over, is how I study the scripture.

It seems to me that everyone would wonder why Jesus didn't teach all about the 1000 year reign?? He is already sitting on the throne of David, to fulfill the scripture that to His Kingdom, there would be NO end. All of Israel is now known as Jews, just one tribe. (Judah)
The Messiah, has already come to Israel. Jesus first came to His own. The "fullness of the Gentiles must of already come", what else is there to do to bring the Gentile in. Jesus has already broken down the middle wall of partition between the Jew and the Greek, to where they are no longer twain, but ONE.
Salvation today, is already to all of Israel, if they will BELIEVE.
BBob,

 

[BobRyan]

I think all views agree that everyone is raised - some to everlasting life and some to the lake of fire.

The question is who is raised in the "first resurrecion" as Rev 20 states vs those not raised until "AFTER the 1000 years are completed".

At the time that Christ speaks in John 5 those raised in Matt 27 are not yet raised (raised at his resurrection) and those raised in the future 1Thess 4 are "not yet raised".

So those are still two different events - just of the righteous alone if looking at John 5 to the exclusion of everything else.

But once you get down to the point in history where John is writing in Rev 20 about the future THEN at that point the FIRST resurrection in John's future is the one just before the START of the 1000 years. The one that happens after the Rev 19 event of the 2nd coming.

in Christ,


Bob

 

[Ed Edwards]

The coming of Christ in glory to the earth was
not the principal thing.[/b] The dead in Christ should
be raised, and then, with the living, should go to meet
the Lord in the air, before His manifestation, and return
with Him to the earth in glory; and thus should they
be ever with the Lord. This was the principal thing,
the Christian's portion; namely, to dwell eternally
with Christ and in heaven.

I have John Nelson Darby's notes on the Bible via
e-sword. I haven't read them much. I was looking
for his x-tribulation relationship with the rapture2
(a pretribulation event consisting of a resurrection1
followed closely by a resurrection2).

Well, as you can see from my quote Darby only hints
at a pretribulation rapture2. I sure wouldn't use Darby
to quote to 'prove' that smart guys believe in the
pretribulation rapture2 like I do.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The correct eschatology: pretribulation rapture2,
pre-millinnial Second Advent of Jesus (physical Millinnial
Kingdom) Futurist, is insperatable from the other Major
Doctrines. No Major doctrine is complete without the
pretirublation rapture1/resurrection1.

Recall these are the Major Doctrines:

Bibliology - The Study of the Bible
Theology - The Study of God the Father
Christology - The Study of God the Son
Pneumatology - The Study of God the Holy Spirit
Anthropology - The Study of Man
Hamartiology - The Study of Sin
Soteriology - The Study of Salvation
Ecclesiology - The Study of the Church
Angelology - The Study of Angels (& devils)

Eschatology - The Study of Last Things

Eschatology is interwoven with the other Doctrines
of the Bible. Obviously i spend all my time making
a living* and supporting the Pretribulation rapture/resurrection
eschatology on the internet, else i would write a book showing
how these great doctrines taught in the Bible all lead ONLY
to the correct Eschatology: pretrib, pre-mill, and futuristic.
(Well, till the Lord comes to glorify us at the pretribualtion
rapture1/resurrection1 - Then the whole Gentile Church will be
Preterists )

*Note - after I wrote this, I retired (in Aug 2006). But
I'm raising two grandchildren in Oct 2007 a 16-year-old boy
and a 10-year-old girl.