• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

John Nelson Darby vs Baptist Confessions of Faith

Status
Not open for further replies.

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Spurgeon said he had a disagreement with him on the atonement but he didn't say what it was. So unless we have more information about that doctrine the jury is still out. You can't call a person a heretic when you don't know what he believes. That is ridiculous. Again, you go by hearsay which is the greater sin.

I posted a part of Spurgeon's remarks in another thread but for your edification:

"Mr. Darby maintains that a part of Christ's sufferings on the cross, were what he calls 'non-atoning,' that is, that in 'smiting' him as the shepherd on the cross, God did not do so with a view to an atonement for our sins, until a particular point of time, while Christ was hanging on the tree, and that then the wrath of God, in its atoning character, coalesced with his legal wrath. In association with the doctrine that much of the sufferings of Christ on the cross were without any atoning object or effect, Mr. Darby, advancing a step farther, denies that the atonement for our sins consisted even in Christ's death. But as it is probable some persons will find it difficult to believe that any man, professing to hold evangelical principles, and especially the leader of an important religious sect, also professing to be sound in the faith, could entertain such notions, and that I must have misunderstood Mr. Darby's meaning—it is due to him, and may be desirable for the reader, that I should quote his own words. They are given, in substance the same as in his monthly organ, 'The Present Testimony,' for August, 1866, a later date than that in which his other publication, 'The Sufferings of Christ,' made its appearance, and, therefore, notwithstanding all the remonstrances addressed to him by some of his followers against that dreadful doctrine, they are proved to have been without effect. He then stands before the religious world as still adhering to these fearful doctrines:—

"'There was, too, to him,' says Mr. Darby, 'in addition to the pain of the death, the legal curse appended, by God's righteous judgment as King of Israel, to the form of the death; as it is written, 'Cursed is every one that hangeth upon a tree.' But this curse of the law was not the same thing as the wrath, when he cried out, 'My God, my God, why has thou forsaken me?' The thieves bore it as he did; that thief, too, who went with him to paradise the same day, and who could go there to be with his Lord, because he, the Prince of Life, had borne the wrath due to sin in his own body on the tree. But the cross had been endured by many an unrepentant rebel against man and God; and the cross in itself would not take away sin. Yea, more, while the time in which he endured the cross was the period in part of which the wrath came on him (when he endured the wrath of God's judgment against sin), he only of the three that were crucified together, could or did bear the wrath; and the agony of that wrath, if his alone of the three then and there crucified, was distinct from, though present to him at the same time as the agonies (infinitely lesser) of the cross of wood!'

"The italics are not mine; they are those of the Rev. W. H. Dorman, who was for twenty-eight years the friend and admirer of Mr. Darby, and resigned the pastorship of a Congregational church in Islington to join his section of the Plymouth Brethren.

"The same sentiments are expressed in various other portions of Mr. Darby's writings; and even in some respects in language more objectionable still. That part of his theory, that Christ suffered much and long on the cross before there was anything of an atoning nature in his agonies, and simply as lying under the wrath of God in his character as King of Israel, is brought out more fully and more plainly than in the extract I have given. This is, in effect, to say that Christ actually had sins of his own in virtue of the relation which he sustained to the Jewish nation, as their king or head. There is something inexpressibly painful in the idea that our Lord suffered on the cross in any other capacity than as the Substitute or Sin-bearer for us. There is not a sentence in the word of God which gives the slightest sanction to it, but the contrary:—'While we were yet sinners Christ died for us;' 'He was made sin for us who knew no sin.' Mr. Darby says he did know sin as the King of Israel. 'He died for our sins and rose again for our justification; he died for our sins according to the Scriptures;' 'Who gave himself for our sins;' 'He is the propitiation for our sins;' 'Who bore our sins in his own body on the tree;' 'Who washed us from our sins in his own blood,' etc.

"The effect of this fearful theory of Dr. Darby, believed in and taught, be it remembered, by all the Brethren of his party, would be (?) as is well remarked by the author of a pamphlet written in reply to the theory, in the following words:—'Let the reader distinctly notice that in place of the single view of Christ's obedience unto death which the apostles set before us, who see God in the cross only as the smiter of his own fore-ordained Lamb, the sufferer is, by this teaching, placed under a triple necessity of dying under the hand of God. He kills him as Messiah; he smites him as the companion of others on the cross, and apart from atonement; and he makes him also an atoning substitute.' What a strange theological jumble, to say nothing of its pernicious tendencies wherever adopted.

"To say that our Lord suffered on the cross in any other way than as our sin-bearer, or as paying for us the debt which we owed to the justice of God, would be, to the poor law-condemned and self-condemned sinner, to divest the sufferings of Christ on the cross of much more of the grace and glory of his atoning sacrifice than language can express; while it would be to deprive the believer in them, in a corresponding measure, of that supreme comfort which he derives from looking back to the cross, and feeling that all that Christ suffered on the cross was solely for his disciples. . . .

"There is one of their doctrines which I regard as so vital that it appears to me it would, were it true, prove fatal to the whole scheme of man's redemption.

"The doctrine to which I allude is, that Christ's obedience to the law was not vicarious—was no part of the work which he wrought out for those for whom he became surety; in other words, that believers are in nowise interested in his obedience. Until Mr. Darby advanced this astounding doctrine, I am not aware that the notion was ever before even hinted at.

"In connection with the Plymouth Brethren's rejection of the doctrine—most surely believed by all evangelical denominations in every age of the church's history—of the vicarious purpose of Christ's obedience, there is the equally unreserved rejection of another doctrine which the great bulk of believers regard as one of vital importance. I allude to the doctrine of the imputed righteousness of Christ. Not contented with pronouncing this doctrine as entirely unscriptural, the Plymouth Brethren seem to regard it with special aversion. . . .

"With the deadly heresies entertained and taught by the Plymouth Brethren, in relation to some of the most momentous of all the doctrines of the gospel, and to which I have adverted at some length, I feel assured that my readers will not be surprised at any other views, however unscriptual and pernicious they may be, which the Darbyites have embraced and zealously seek to propagate. Among these, is the doctrine that the moral law is a thing with which believers in Christ have nothing to do, not even as a rule of life. This doctrine pervades the writings of the Darbyites, as well as their oral 'teaching.' . . .

http://www.spurgeon.org/s_and_t/dbreth.htm


If it is premillennial it is dispensational.
That is absolutely false. Surgeon held to a premillennial doctrine but rejected dispensationalism. Classic or historic premillennialism {they are the same} holds to the Biblical view of the Church. Pre-trib-dispensationalism developed the doctrine of the Church as a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for ethnic or national Israel to fit their pre-trib-"snatching away" of the church.

That is obvious. The Millennial Kingdom is a dispensation. What follows is a dispensation. What is "pre" is a dispensation. Obviously, there are dispensations. This fact you cannot deny.
The millennial kingdom of classic or historical premillennialists is one in which the Church reigns with Jesus Christ. In the premillennial kingdom of dispensationalists the Jews Reign!

I never said anything about a "parenthesis" in God's program.
That is the doctrine of classic dispensationalism and I have presented quotes from such as Ryrie, Chafer, Ironside and others to prove it.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=80260

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=94639


I don't ever remember RevM agreeing to a belief in such a doctrine.
I have no idea who RevM is.

Yet you continue to harp on such a thing.
You are like little Tommie Spurgeon who has so many wrong conceptions about both dispensationalism and premillennialism just because you have a chip on your shoulder for one reason or another.
You are entitled to your opinion even when it is wrong!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Scripture has been posted but one more time:

Jesus said their would be a literal tribulation,
Matthew 24:20-22,
20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

Those remarks relate to GOD's judgment of the Jews for their rejection of Jesus Christ which was fulfilled in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem!

Then He made a promise to all believers that is those who keep the word of His patience that is believe on Him have Faith in His word.

Revelation 3:10 "Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth."

Same as verse 22 the "Tribulation that is coming upon ALL the world, earth"

"horas tou parismou" Hour of the Trial, that is time of Trial or Tribulation.
It goes to say "mellousEs erchesthai" one being about to come on the whole earth.

That is a promise to the whole church by Christ and Christ taught this way before Darby. Day=hemera=the last day of the present age, the church age is ending and the church has been called home at this point. She is not seen again until Revelation 19:7-8,
7 "Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.
8 And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints."

What takes place is God's wrath poured out upon the whole world as has never happened before. Jesus and Paul both taught of a Pre-trib rapture.
A period that was always in God's plan. Always in God time no parenthesis in Gods timetable for man as you keep saying is the church age. Never was a parenthesis never will be, God foreknew the period of the time of the church would come. He foreknew the Tribulation would take place and He foreknew the Kingdom age would come. He wrote the terms of Earth's redemption upon the scroll in Heaven that Jesus takes in His hand and unseals the seven seals and the terms of the earth's that is creations redemption must be met in the Tribulation. For Christ is the Redeemer of all creation and that is what the Kingdom on earth is all about. He in knowing that gave promises to Israel of a coming Kingdom and that is seen as I have shown in Revelation 20.

That is what has been revealed to us all through Scripture by the Holy Spirit.

Paul in Romans 5:8-10, 8 "But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life."
What is that wrath, the same greek word for wrath is seen in
Revelation 6:17 "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"
The Tribulation is the day of God's wrath which comes under the terms of earth's redemption contained in the book with 7 seals. These terms must be met and are through the events of the Tribulation.

Not sure if Darby ever taught it that way but that is what Revelation contains and is. The Kingdom comes to a redeemed earth with Christ reigning in Jerusalem during the 1000 year period seen in Revelation 20.

Jesus Christ also promised the "true believers": John 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.

You might be surprised what Scripture teaches if you would abandon the false doctrine of Darby! For your edification I would also note that the wrath Paul was talking about was the judgment of GOD on unbelievers!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I posted a part of Spurgeon's remarks in another thread but for your edification:
I read what Spurgeon quoted of Darby and then Spurgeon's complaint of Darby's belief, and I don't see the connection.
Be that as it may, I am not a follower of Darby, neither am I of Spurgeon.
It really doesn't matter to me.
That is absolutely false. Surgeon held to a premillennial doctrine but rejected dispensationalism.
What "kind" of dispensationalism did he reject? No doubt he rejected the kind of dispensationalism that you believe in. But he did not reject all dispensationalism. Anyone who is premillennial in doctrine believes in dispensations by the very nature of the premillennial doctrine. It can't be otherwise.
Classic or historic premillennialism {they are the same} holds to the Biblical view of the Church.
I don't believe you know what the biblical view of "The Church" is. There is no "Church," only "churches." That is the biblical view. The word is "ekklesia" and means assembly or congregation. The definition of the word forbids a meaning of "The Church."
Pre-trib-dispensationalism developed the doctrine of the Church as a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for ethnic or national Israel to fit their pre-trib-"snatching away" of the church.
Again, show me anyone, any one person on this board, who has made an affirmation in the belief of this "parenthesis" that you keep bringing up.
Either that or retract your statement.
The millennial kingdom of classic or historical premillennialists is one in which the Church reigns with Jesus Christ. In the premillennial kingdom of dispensationalists the Jews Reign!
In fact the Bible says that in Revelation 19 the saints will come with Jesus from heaven. The enemies of the Jews will be conquered and the Jews as a nation will enter into the Kingdom victorious. The believers will rule with Christ. That scene is given in Revelation 20 as well. But the Jews will also be in an exalted place above all other nations, as is indicated by many passages throughout the OT. So both are true.
That is the doctrine of classic dispensationalism and I have presented quotes from such as Ryrie, Chafer, Ironside and others to prove it.
I don't know exactly what they believe. I know what the Bible teaches. Deal with that.
I have no idea who RevM is.
No not at all! You just address him every day. The last time you addressed him this way: "revmwc"
It looks fairly similar to me. The first four letters are the same aren't they?
You are entitled to your opinion even when it is wrong!
That works both ways.
I can back up my beliefs with Scripture. Most of the time yours is allegory.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I never said anything about a "parenthesis" in God's program.

I know you haven't and I suspect that many who believe in the pre-trib-removal of the Church do not even realize that the "parenthesis" Church is a part of classic dispensationalism. However, Darby based his claim for a new Jewish dispensation on Isaiah 32:

1. Behold, a king shall reign in righteousness, and princes shall rule in judgment.
2. And a man shall be as an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the tempest; as rivers of water in a dry place, as the shadow of a great rock in a weary land.
3. And the eyes of them that see shall not be dim, and the ears of them that hear shall hearken.
4. The heart also of the rash shall understand knowledge, and the tongue of the stammerers shall be ready to speak plainly.
5. The vile person shall be no more called liberal, nor the churl said to be bountiful.
6. For the vile person will speak villany, and his heart will work iniquity, to practise hypocrisy, and to utter error against the LORD, to make empty the soul of the hungry, and he will cause the drink of the thirsty to fail.
7. The instruments also of the churl are evil: he deviseth wicked devices to destroy the poor with lying words, even when the needy speaketh right.
8. But the liberal deviseth liberal things; and by liberal things shall he stand.
9. Rise up, ye women that are at ease; hear my voice, ye careless daughters; give ear unto my speech.
10. Many days and years shall ye be troubled, ye careless women: for the vintage shall fail, the gathering shall not come.
11. Tremble, ye women that are at ease; be troubled, ye careless ones: strip you, and make you bare, and gird sackcloth upon your loins.
12. They shall lament for the teats, for the pleasant fields, for the fruitful vine.
13. Upon the land of my people shall come up thorns and briers; yea, upon all the houses of joy in the joyous city:
14. Because the palaces shall be forsaken; the multitude of the city shall be left; the forts and towers shall be for dens for ever, a joy of wild asses, a pasture of flocks;
15. Until the spirit be poured upon us from on high, and the wilderness be a fruitful field, and the fruitful field be counted for a forest.
16. Then judgment shall dwell in the wilderness, and righteousness remain in the fruitful field.
17. And the work of righteousness shall be peace; and the effect of righteousness quietness and assurance for ever.
18. And my people shall dwell in a peaceable habitation, and in sure dwellings, and in quiet resting places;
19. When it shall hail, coming down on the forest; and the city shall be low in a low place.
20. Blessed are ye that sow beside all waters, that send forth thither the feet of the ox and the ass.


If there is a new Jewish dispensation taught in Isaiah it is indeed a mystery. However, the concept of a "parebnthesis" Church as an interruption of GOD's program for Israel had to be invented to justify this new Jewish Dispensation, a millennial reign where Jews ruled, not the Church contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

Matthew 19:27, 28
27. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30
28. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30. That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I know you haven't and I suspect that many who believe in the pre-trib-removal of the Church do not even realize that the "parenthesis" Church is a part of classic dispensationalism. However, Darby based his claim for a new Jewish dispensation on Isaiah 32:


If there is a new Jewish dispensation taught in Isaiah it is indeed a mystery. However, the concept of a "parebnthesis" Church as an interruption of GOD's program for Israel had to be invented to justify this new Jewish Dispensation, a millennial reign where Jews ruled, not the Church contrary to the teaching of Jesus Christ in the New Testament.

Matthew 19:27, 28
27. Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?
28. And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

Luke 22:28-30
28. Ye are they which have continued with me in my temptations.
29. And I appoint unto you a kingdom, as my Father hath appointed unto me;
30. That ye may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
What makes you think we follow the same line of thought?
As I have told you repeatedly I have never read Darby, and there are many kinds of dispensationalists.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Those remarks relate to GOD's judgment of the Jews for their rejection of Jesus Christ which was fulfilled in 70AD with the destruction of the Temple and Jerusalem!

Jesus Christ also promised the "true believers": John 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.

You might be surprised what Scripture teaches if you would abandon the false doctrine of Darby! For your edification I would also note that the wrath Paul was talking about was the judgment of GOD on unbelievers!

You must have missed this, Matthew 24:28-30,
28 "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

When in history did we see the Sign of the Son of Man in Heaven, in 70 A.D. the tribes of the earth didn't mourn the fall of Jerusalem, most of them didn't care.

"They shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory." Please show in recorded history where they saw the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven and with power and great glory.

However, Revelation 20 tells us He will come, Revelation being written in Circa A.D. 96 says He hasn't come therefore the Tribulation He spoke of has yet to occur. 11 "And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
12 His eyes were as a flame of fire, and on his head were many crowns; and he had a name written, that no man knew, but he himself."

"Jesus Christ also promised the "true believers": John 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."

We have tribulation even today, you don't think so look at the believers being beheaded by ISIS, or thrown overboard, or imprisoned in middle Eastern countries.

But what did Jesus say that you apply to 70 A.D.
Matthew 24:20-22,
20 "But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

The "great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" the whole world didn't go through this type tribulation in 70 A.D. and yet Jesus said it would be world wide.

Romans 5:3 "And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;"

Paul says we will have Tribulation, but Jesus was talking about a world wide Tribulation. The wrath of God upon the whole world which would meet the terms of Redemption for the earth. That is exactly what the Tribulation in Revelation is for. These vials and bowls and plagues connected with the Trumpets of Judgment come as the seals of the scroll containing the terms of the earths redemption are opened.

"For your edification I would also note that the wrath Paul was talking about was the judgment of GOD on unbelievers!"

As in another post we see the word used by Paul in the Greek for wrath is the same word used in Revelation 6:17.

Romans 5:9 "Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him."

Notice we shall be saved, not that we are saved from wrath, but shall be saved from wrath. At salvation we are saved from the wrath of the Lake of Fire and Eternal separation from God. Yet Paul says we would be saved that is believers at a future time would be saved from a yet future wrath. I don't know about you but when

Notice too 1 Thessalonians 10:10, 10 "And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, even Jesus, which delivered us from the wrath to come."

First we see we are to "Wait for His Son from Heaven right there we see Christ will be coming from Heaven for us, that is what scripture teaches and the Holy Spirit reveals to me. Second Jesus, "delivered us from the wrath to come" Not from wrath as we are delivered from wrath at salvation but from the wrath to come. When does it come?

Revelation 6:17 "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"

Right here in Revelation 6:17 "the wrath of God comes upon the whole world".

Paul was not talking about was the judgment of GOD on unbelievers at Salvation but during the redemption of the earth under the terms for the kinsman redeemer Jesus who will redeem the possession of mankind, the earth during the Tribulation.

That is what the Tribulation is all about.

The Church or dispensation of Grace as Paul called it,

Ephesians 3:1"For this cause I Paul, the prisoner of Jesus Christ for you Gentiles,
2 If ye have heard of the dispensation of the grace of God which is given me to you-ward:
3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)"

Was a mystery to most Old Testament prophets, Salvation was not a mystery, the mystery was the church why because God didn't reveal it to them. Was it in His plan you bet it was, no parenthesis as you claim, but the plan of God from eternity past and a mystery to the O.T. prophets but the church as a mystery was revealed to Paul

All very clear in scripture. Still praying God will reveal His truths to you and help you get through your hatred for fellow believers.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
You must have missed this, Matthew 24:28-30,
28 "For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:
30 And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with power and great glory."

When in history did we see the Sign of the Son of Man in Heaven, in 70 A.D. the tribes of the earth didn't mourn the fall of Jerusalem, most of them didn't care.

No! I did not miss it! You pre-tribbers make a big deal out of "rightly dividing" then learn to rightly divide!

Read the first three verses of Matthew 24:

1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Read verse 3 again. Notice the disciples ask Jesus Christ two questions:

1. Tell us, when shall these things be? That is, when will the temple be destroyed. Jesus Christ did not say 70 AD but that is when it happened!

2. what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

*****************************

Not that pre-cribbers will understand but GOD has always dealt with people through HIS Grace!

****************************
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Sadly it seems no one wants to discuss the historic Baptist Confessions but believe the false doctrine of one John Nelson Darby and deny the doctrine of these old Saints who endured persecution from Roman Catholics and Protestants alike to define Baptist beliefs!

{Note: the 1644 statement is from http://www.oldschoolbaptist.org/Articles/1644LondonConfessionOfFaith.htm; the rest of the statements are from Lumpkin’s Baptist Confessions of Faith which omits the statement from the 1644/1646 Confession!}

THE LONDON CONFESSION OF 1644/46

Article LII.

There shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust, and everyone shall give an account of himself to God, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.


THE MIDLAND ASSOCIATION CONFESSION [1655]

Article 16 [page 200].

“That at the time appointed of the Lord, the dead bodies of all men, just and unjust shall rise out of their graves, that all may receive according to what they have done in their bodies, be it good or evil.”


THE SOMERSET CONFESSION [1656]

Article XL [page 214]

“That there is a day appointed, when the Lord shall raise the unjust as well as the righteous, and judge them all in righteousness, but every man in his own order, taking vengeance on them that know not God, and obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, whose punishment will be everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord.”


THE STANDARD CONFESSION [1660]

Article XX [page 231]

“That there shall be [through Christ who was dead but is alive again from the dead] a Resurrection of all men from the graves of the earth, both the just and the unjust, that is, the fleshly bodies of men, sown into the graves of the earth, corruptible, dishonourable, weak, natural, [which so considered cannot inherit the Kingdom of God] shall be raised again, incorruptible, in glory, in power, spiritual, and so considered, the bodies of the Saints [united again to their spirits] which here suffer for Christ, shall inherit the Kingdom, reigning together with Christ.”

Article XXI [page 231]

“That there shall be after the Resurrection from the graves of the earth, An eternal Judgment, at the appearing of Christ and His Kingdom, at which time of judgment which is unalterable, and irrevocable, every man shall receive according to the things done in his body.”


The SECOND LONDON CONFESSION [1677]

Chapter XXXI. Of the State of Man after Death and of the Resurrection of the Dead [page 293]

“1. The Bodies of Men after Death return to dust and see corruption; but their souls [which neither die nor sleep] having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them; the Souls of the righteous then being made perfect in holiness, are received into Paradise where they are with Christ, and behold the face of God in light and glory; waiting for the full redemption of their bodies; and the souls of the wicked, are cast into hell; where they remain in torment and utter darkness, reserved to the judgment of the great day; besides these two places for Souls separated from their bodies, the Scripture acknowledgeth none.

2. At the last day such of the Saints as are found alive shall not sleep but shall be changed; and all the dead shall be raised up with the self same bodies, and none other; although with different qualities, which shall be reunited with their Souls again forever.

3. The bodies of the unjust shall by the power of Christ be raised to dishonour; the bodies of the just by His Spirit unto honour, and be made conformable to His own glorious body.”


Chapter XXXII. Of the Last Judgment [page 294]

“1. God hath appointed a Day wherein He will judge the world in Righteousness, by Jesus Christ; to Whom all power and judgment is given of the Father; in which Day not only the Apostate Angels shall be judged; but likewise all persons that have lived upon the Earth, shall appear before the tribunal of Christ; to give an account of their thoughts, Words, and Deeds, and to receive according to what they have done in the body, whether good or evil.

2. The end of Gods appointing this Day is for the manifestation of the glory of His Mercy, in the Eternal Salvation of the Elect, and of His Justice in the Eternal damnation of the Reprobate who are wicked and disobedient; for then shall the Righteous go into everlasting life, and receive the fullness of Joy, and Glory, with everlasting reward in the presence of the Lord; but the wicked who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into Eternal torments, and punished with everlasting destruction, from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.

3. As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a Day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin and for greater consolation of the godly, in their adversity; so will he have that day unknown to Men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour, the Lord will come; and may ever be prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus, Come quickly, Amen.”
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
No! I did not miss it! You pre-tribbers make a big deal out of "rightly dividing" then learn to rightly divide!

Read the first three verses of Matthew 24:

1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Read verse 3 again. Notice the disciples ask Jesus Christ two questions:

1. Tell us, when shall these things be? That is, when will the temple be destroyed. Jesus Christ did not say 70 AD but that is when it happened!

2. what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

*****************************

Not that pre-cribbers will understand but GOD has always dealt with people through HIS Grace!

****************************
I contend that not only Revelation but all the writings of John were written after 90 A.D. I don't know if you are prepared to tackle all of his writings and to date them.
The apostles asked him "When shall the end of the world be?"
John was still living long past "the end of the world" according to you.
It didn't come. The end of the world is not the end of Jerusalem. That just doesn't fit.

And as it has been pointed out there is far more destruction now, in this world now, then there ever was in the time of Titus. It can't even begin to compare. The earthquake in Nepal alone killed over 5,000. Add to that the horrible results of the wars of ISIS, and all the other civil wars of this world and the end-result is staggering.

What shall be the sign of the end of the world.
The destruction of the Temple was simply a partial fulfillment. It was not the fulfillment.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
No! I did not miss it! You pre-tribbers make a big deal out of "rightly dividing" then learn to rightly divide!

Read the first three verses of Matthew 24:

1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Read verse 3 again. Notice the disciples ask Jesus Christ two questions:

1. Tell us, when shall these things be? That is, when will the temple be destroyed. Jesus Christ did not say 70 AD but that is when it happened!

2. what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

*****************************

What shall the sign of his coming be and the end of the world?
Not that pre-cribbers will understand but GOD has always dealt with people through HIS Grace!

****************************

First when shall these things be?
The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 that we know. What did He answer? According to what you say He said when the Romans attack Jerusalem destroy the temple. But He didn't say that!

He did answered the second part of the question clearly:
What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Matthew 24:5-8, lets rightly divide this:

First the period of the church, the period in which we live,

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

That has been and is still occurring today! Let ask you OR is that a correct statement? David Coresh comes to mind, Jim Jones.


6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

We see wars and rumors of wars today, Iraq, Afghaniustan etc. True or not OR?

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Happening today true or not OR?

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

These happen throughout our age, is the beginning of sorrows for believers.

At this point the Church is removed.

Then the Tribulation as backed up by Revelation 6-19,
Matthew 24:9-22;

9 "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
If this occured in A.D. 70 the we must be in the Great Tribulation right now, not in the Kingdom because it says,

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Yet there was no world wide tribulation, no Great Tribulation upon the whole earth.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

The days were not shortened but for the elect sake they would be shortened, what happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to believers in Jesus? They were not there, yet for the elect sake the Great Tribulation will be shortened.

Why would that be if this was for Israel only, Gods wrath upon Israel, why would it be shortened for the sake of the elect unless this is yet a future world wide Tribulation in which people are saved?
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I contend that not only Revelation but all the writings of John were written after 90 A.D. I don't know if you are prepared to tackle all of his writings and to date them.
I quoted Matthew not John!

Read the first three verses of Matthew 24:

1. And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple.
2. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.
3. And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


Read verse 3 again. Notice the disciples ask Jesus Christ two questions:

1. Tell us, when shall these things be? That is, when will the temple be destroyed. Jesus Christ did not say 70 AD but that is when it happened!

2. what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?


The apostles asked him "When shall the end of the world be?"
John was still living long past "the end of the world" according to you.
It didn't come. The end of the world is not the end of Jerusalem. That just doesn't fit.
I did not say the end of the world came in 70 AD. Wake up DHK!

I said that the disciples asked two questions. He answered both. But show me where I said the end of the world came in 70 AD!

And as it has been pointed out there is far more destruction now, in this world now, then there ever was in the time of Titus. It can't even begin to compare. The earthquake in Nepal alone killed over 5,000. Add to that the horrible results of the wars of ISIS, and all the other civil wars of this world and the end-result is staggering.

What shall be the sign of the end of the world.
The destruction of the Temple was simply a partial fulfillment. It was not the fulfillment.

Just to show you that the earthquake in Nepal is not the worst consider the following:

GREATEST NATURAL DISASTERS


The 10 worst natural disasters in terms of death toll are extracted from a list of 66 compiled by David B. Hall. The complete list is available on the internet. I have yet to find an appropriate way to reference the work by Mr. Hall. Sadly, though not a natural disaster Mr. Hall fails to mention the millions of unborn children aborted world wide each year, 50 million slaughtered in the United states alone since the 1973 Roe v Wade decision by the Supreme Court. Strangely approximately one third of all pregnancies in this country are terminated by abortion which comports with the one third mentioned in Revelation 9:15-18.



EGYPT AND SYRIA, 1201

The deadliest earthquake in history hit the eastern Mediterranean in July 1201. Approximately 1.1 million people were killed, mostly in Egypt and Syria. This makes it close to one of the ten worst natural disasters in recorded history.


MOST OF EUROPE AND BEYOND, 1347-1350

Approximately 25 million lost their lives through the "Black Death" - the bubonic plague. Between 25 and 33% of the entire population of Europe at that time, plus millions in Asia and North Africa lost their lives.


WESTERN HEMISPHERE, MOSTLY 16TH - 18TH CENTURIES

Untold millions of lives of American Indians were lost through the various sicknesses brought over from Europe (to which they had no previous exposure or resistance.) It's very difficult to get figures on this that are not politically infected one way or another (very high or very low).


INDIA, 1769

About ten million people lost their lives from a famine in Bengal.


CHINA, 1876 - 1879

The deadliest drought in recorded history was in China between 1876 and 1879. Rivers were dry, so most crops and livestock died. There was no food production in a 1-million km2 area of 9 provinces. The drought caused the death of an estimated nine million people.

WORLD-WIDE, 1918 - 19

Influenza pandemic takes somewhere between 35 million and 75 million lives (some reports estimate around a hundred million, but those can't be confirmed) - at least 16 million people died in India alone. This is clearly the worst disaster - at least in the last thousand years.


CHINA, 1935

Another Yellow River flood "caused 27 counties inundated and 3.4 million victims".* How many actual lives were killed we don't know. If you have facts, let us hear from you


CHINA, 1958 - 61

As many as 20 million people died in this famine. *

* We received the following response to this post

Sirs: I would ask that you consider re-characterizing the 20-30 million who died in China during the period 1959-61 as a political blunder rather than a famine. Famines are typically understood to be the result of diminished food production due to weather or other natural disasters. This was not the case in China. Food production was for the most part normal during this period. What changed was the desire of local cadre wanting to look good and reporting increased food production following Mao's politics of "right" practices. Mao's government simply took their share of the harvest, 50%. But since the reported harvest was in fact inflated, what resulted was the entire production being shipped to Beijing. This more accurately could be labeled Mao's Holocaust.* Respectfully, Doug Searles


AFRICA, 1981 - 1984

Rivers and lakes dried up from the drought that had incredible impact on twenty African nations. During one season about 20,000 were starving to death EACH MONTH.* 150 million were facing starvation if help didn't come right away. People from around the world began to respond to this crisis - but for hundreds of thousands of people, it was too late. (If you have figures for this, please let us know. When combined with other relatively recent African famines, the fugure is well over 1,000,000)


NORTH KOREA, 1995-98

Over 3 million are said to have died from famine and floods in North Korea.

So you see, DHK, the history of the world has been one of tribulation and will be until Jesus Christ returns. At HIS return all the dead are resurrected {John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15, 1 Corinthians 15}, the Great White Throne Judgment takes place, Satan and his are cast into the Lake of Fire, and the redeemed of all time dwell in the New Heavens and New Earth with the Triune GOD!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
First when shall these things be?
The Temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 that we know. What did He answer? According to what you say He said when the Romans attack Jerusalem destroy the temple. But He didn't say that!

I did not say Jesus Christ mentioned the time or the Romans! You really need to read and think before you respond!

Read verse 3 again. Notice the disciples ask Jesus Christ two questions:

1. Tell us, when shall these things be? That is, when will the temple be destroyed. Jesus Christ did not say 70 AD but that is when it happened!

2. what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

He did answered the second part of the question clearly:
What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
Matthew 24:5-8, lets rightly divide this:

First the period of the church, the period in which we live,

5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

That has been and is still occurring today! Let ask you OR is that a correct statement? David Coresh comes to mind, Jim Jones.


6 And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.

We see wars and rumors of wars today, Iraq, Afghaniustan etc. True or not OR?

7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

Happening today true or not OR?

8 All these are the beginning of sorrows.

These happen throughout our age, is the beginning of sorrows for believers.

At this point the Church is removed.

Then the Tribulation as backed up by Revelation 6-19,
Matthew 24:9-22;

9 "Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name's sake.
10 And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.
12 And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.
13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
If this occured in A.D. 70 the we must be in the Great Tribulation right now, not in the Kingdom because it says,

21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.

Yet there was no world wide tribulation, no Great Tribulation upon the whole earth.

22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened."

The days were not shortened but for the elect sake they would be shortened, what happened in Jerusalem in 70 A.D. to believers in Jesus? They were not there, yet for the elect sake the Great Tribulation will be shortened.

Why would that be if this was for Israel only, Gods wrath upon Israel, why would it be shortened for the sake of the elect unless this is yet a future world wide Tribulation in which people are saved?

I suggest you read the above response to DHK.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
I quoted Matthew not John!

I did not say the end of the world came in 70 AD. Wake up DHK!

I said that the disciples asked two questions. He answered both. But show me where I said the end of the world came in 70 AD!

Just to show you that the earthquake in Nepal is not the worst consider the following:

So you see, DHK, the history of the world has been one of tribulation and will be until Jesus Christ returns. At HIS return all the dead are resurrected {John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15, 1 Corinthians 15}, the Great White Throne Judgment takes place, Satan and his are cast into the Lake of Fire, and the redeemed of all time dwell in the New Heavens and New Earth with the Triune GOD!
Matthew 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Two Questions:
The first one was answered, but likely only in part. Their question came after Jesus had described to them the destruction of the temple.
Most of what is written in that chapter never happened. There is no time or place in history where most of those events happened.

Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
--For example: is this past or future? It certainly hasn't happened yet.
Where in history has it happened? Point to the event.
 

Squire Robertsson

Administrator
Administrator
I'll leave Darby out of my comments as I don't know enough about the man to make any educated remarks about him.

However, I would note. Unlike our Reformed brethren, Baptists for the most part are not a confessional grouping. Yes, we have written them and find them useful from time to time.

Historically, one of our Distinctives has been:

  • Bible- the only rule for Faith and Practice
Further, Baptists have been resistent to the sacralism ariseing from the identification of the Church with ethnic Israel.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Matthew 24:27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.
--For example: is this past or future? It certainly hasn't happened yet.
Where in history has it happened? Point to the event.
Show me where I said it has happened! I have said GOD executed temporal judgment on Israel in 70AD.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
I'll leave Darby out of my comments as I don't know enough about the man to make any educated remarks about him.

However, I would note. Unlike our Reformed brethren, Baptists for the most part are not a confessional grouping. Yes, we have written them and find them useful from time to time.

Historically, one of our Distinctives has been:

  • Bible- the only rule for Faith and Practice
Further, Baptists have been resistent to the sacralism ariseing from the identification of the Church with ethnic Israel.

As far as I am concerned the only connection between Baptists and ethnic Israel is Jesus Christ. Furthermore I believe that when Jesus Christ was born and crucified by Rome, at the instigation of the Jews, GOD's purpose for ethnic or national Israel was finished. GOD of course has his elect among Israel just as HE does in all peoples!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Some thoughts from a reformed dispensationalist!

ISRAEL and THE CHURCH

by William E. Cox



We come now to a study of the biblical relationsip between national Israel and the Christian church. A correct understanding of this relationship is absolutely essential to a correct understanding of the Bible. While opinions vary on many individual points, there would seem to be two main schools of thought on this subject. The first of these may be called the historical Christian view, being that view held by the great majority of the church fathers, Protestant reformers, and Bible commentaries. The second view origniated with John Nelson Darby around A.D. 1830, and is best known today as dispensationalism. I feel that the historical Christian view is biblical and sound, while the more recent view (which view I once held) is artificial and forced. Let us look at these two interpretations.

The historical Christian teaching always has been that national Israel was a type of the church, and that the church replaced Israel on the Day of Pentecost. This view holds that God made two sets of promises to Israel -- natujral promises and spiritual promises. All earthly promises to Israel have been either fulfilled or invalidated because of disobedience. All spiritual promises are being fulfilled through the church, which is made up of Jews and Gentiles alike.

Main Points of Historical Christian Teaching

1. God has always had but one spiritual people, represented by the remnant in every generation.
2. God's promises to Israel were conditional.
3. All earthly promises to Israel have been either fulfilled or invalidated through disobedience and unbelief.
4. Israel was a type of the church and was superseded by the church.
5. The church was prophesied in the Old Testament, in Old Testament language.
6. Christ was, and is, the" only Hope of Israel. And Israelites (Jews) will be saved only if they accept him during this age.
7. The first advent of Christ completed Israel's redemption, and manifested the Israel of God (the church) referred to in Galatians 6:16.
8. Christ institued a Jewish-Gentile church.
9. All unfulfilled spiritual promises to Israel are being fulfilled through the Christian church.
10. This does not represent a change in God's plan, but evidences progressive revelation.

Dispensationalists teach that God has two separate peoples -- Israel and the church -- and two separate plans for them. Israel, they say, is "an earthly people," while the church is "a heavenly people." Not only does God have two separate plans for these peoples, but two distinct destinations. They teach that Israel will spend her eternity on the earth, following an earthly millennium of one thousand years, while the church will spend eternity in heaven after the millennium. They say the Israel was indeed a type of the church, but then fo on to teach that this is the one and only type in the entire Bible which wqas never meant to have an antitype (fulfillment)! Dispensationalists teach that Jesus, at his first advent, offered to Israel an earthly millennium; that Israel rejected this offer; that God then postponed his plans for Israel; and that the church was instituted as a temporary (parenthetic) plan until after the second advent.

Main Points of Dispentationalist Teaching

God has two bodies (peoples) -- Israel, and the church.
God's promises to Israel were unconditional, and therefore are still binding.
God's promises concerning the return to the land, rebuilding the temple, etc., were never fulfilled. They aare therefore still future.
Although Israel was a type of the church, they will always remain separate.
Christ instituted the church as a "parenthesis."
Christ came the first time to establish an earthly millennial kingdom with Israel.
Israel rejected him, then God postponed this plan until the second advent.
Christ instituted a Gentile church.
Israel is God's earthly people; the church is God's heavenly people.
Israel's destiny is to remain on earth forever; the destiny of the churchis to spend eternjity in heaven.

Many people confuse the real issue between dispensationalists and the majority of Christian Bible exegetes. The real issue is well stated by Dr. George E. Ladd: "We must first clarify the nature of dispensational theology. The heart of the system is not seven dispensations nor a pretribulation rapture of the Church. It is the notion that God has two people, Israel and the Church, and two programs -- a theocratic program for Israel and a redemptive program for the Church. Israel is a national people with material blessings and an earthly destiny; the Church is a universal people with spiritual blessings and a heavenly destiny." (Christianity Today, October 12, 1959).
http://www.neve-family.com/books/jews/Israel&TheChurch.html.

Incidentally Dr. Ladd is a Covenant Premillennialist!
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
As far as I am concerned the only connection between Baptists and ethnic Israel is Jesus Christ. Furthermore I believe that when Jesus Christ was born and crucified by Rome, at the instigation of the Jews, GOD's purpose for ethnic or national Israel was finished. GOD of course has his elect among Israel just as HE does in all peoples!

Jesus disagrees with you though on this, as he held that the father would be bringing his kingdom to Isreal at his second coming, as did Apostle peter!

And paul certainly held that God was not done with Isreal proper, so which do you believe in regarding this, the Confessions or the Bible?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
As far as I am concerned the only connection between Baptists and ethnic Israel is Jesus Christ. Furthermore I believe that when Jesus Christ was born and crucified by Rome, at the instigation of the Jews, GOD's purpose for ethnic or national Israel was finished. GOD of course has his elect among Israel just as HE does in all peoples!
Historians put the death of Christ at 33 A.D.
Pentecost was shortly after.
Possibly three years passed before Stephen was martyred and shortly after Saul was converted.
In 43 A.D. James was martyred by Herod the Tetrarch.
The Council at Jerusalem was in 49 A.D.
The earliest possible date that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans was 57-58.

Now 25 years after the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, of Christ, and Pentecost, Paul prays for all Israel to be saved. He isn't praying for "spiritual Israel." He is praying for his "kinsmen in the flesh," his brethren, for Israel as a nation. This is at least 25 years after Pentecost.

Here:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

and here:
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

This is the nation of Israel. It is not spiritual Israel. Paul went on his first missionary in 47 A.D., and then returned to Antioch. He met with those at Jerusalem in 49 A.D., and then set out for his second missionary journey in 50 A.D. He comes back and leaves for his third missionary journey in 53 A.D.
He spends some time in Ephesus, and then in Corinth, and in Corinth probably writes this letter. He has already won hundreds of Gentiles to the Lord and established scores of Gentile churches.
He is still praying that the nation of Israel be saved.
If Israel, by this time had not become one with the believers, it never would.
Either that or Paul was a lunatic to be praying this kind of prayer.
 

Yeshua1

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Historians put the death of Christ at 33 A.D.
Pentecost was shortly after.
Possibly three years passed before Stephen was martyred and shortly after Saul was converted.
In 43 A.D. James was martyred by Herod the Tetrarch.
The Council at Jerusalem was in 49 A.D.
The earliest possible date that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans was 57-58.

Now 25 years after the death, burial, resurrection, ascension, of Christ, and Pentecost, Paul prays for all Israel to be saved. He isn't praying for "spiritual Israel." He is praying for his "kinsmen in the flesh," his brethren, for Israel as a nation. This is at least 25 years after Pentecost.

Here:
Romans 9:3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;

and here:
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
2 For I bear them record that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
3 For they being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God.

This is the nation of Israel. It is not spiritual Israel. Paul went on his first missionary in 47 A.D., and then returned to Antioch. He met with those at Jerusalem in 49 A.D., and then set out for his second missionary journey in 50 A.D. He comes back and leaves for his third missionary journey in 53 A.D.
He spends some time in Ephesus, and then in Corinth, and in Corinth probably writes this letter. He has already won hundreds of Gentiles to the Lord and established scores of Gentile churches.
He is still praying that the nation of Israel be saved.
If Israel, by this time had not become one with the believers, it never would.
Either e inclusion of the gentiles into the Family of God would bring such results, how more that or Paul was a lunatic to be praying this kind of prayer.

Paul knew that if the Gentiles coming into the Covenant of God now made through the Cross of Christ, how much more so would the benefits be when the Jewish peoples and nation returned to God and welcome yeshua as promised messiah?

peter held to same views as paul, as he saw that God would fully restore all things back once national isreal finally accepted jesus as their Lord!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top