Featured The Apostle Peter on the Second Coming of Our LORD

Thus Darby began the doctrine of the Parenthesis church is what your statement infers.

Now if it wasn't Darby then show us who did and the context it was used in. You see context shows us a great deal of what the person said. Such as an illustration it simply a way of showing what might or how something might occur, but is not inferring that as a doctrine.
So what is the context?

 

Actually OR you are the one insisting on the premise that Darby is the father of the church "parenthesis" of which I don't know of anyone here yet at the BB who accepts it (maybe they can step forth), I don't accept it.

So it doesn't matter to me and whether I like it or not it is not an issue for me because I don't accept it or the intercalation theory even though I am pre-trib, pre-mil.

In fact, it seems unusual to me that Darby believed an associate of his, a girl Margaret MacDonald, who claimed to have visions of the rapture which he apparently believed. That's a waving red-flag to me and I don't blame you but credit you for questioning his views.

A have done research in the 20,000 pages (plus) of the early Church Fathers and found several that supported The Rapture, The Tribulation and the millennium (but not all three in the same breath) and I posted them here on the BB. I may try to find just one of them and repost it.

But what does it matter OR? We both agree that if it can't be proven with scripture or even the possibility of it then it should be rejected.

No one says to them self - well I think I'll go deceive my self now by believing in the preterist view or the pre-trib, pre-mil view.

Belief in some of the major elements of dispensationalism have existed from the early church it is not a new thing but an old with a different nomenclature.

HankD

 

So if Darby didn't the father of the Parenthesis church please show who taught it first and the context. Since you claim it is part of the foundation of dispensationalism.

 

Haven't seen the answer what post? What was the direct context please show what post!

 

And who did Jesus die for?

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

Israel was to be winning the souls of all mankind, they failed. God removed custody of His word from them for a little while and gave it to the Gentiles.

Jesus died for all mankind, that was always God plan. He died for every unbeliever as well as every believer.

 

The next two verses say:

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Note that it is apparent that the ones that he was speaking to were only the chief priests and the Pharisees.
Secondly, and more importantly, he was speaking to them in parables. Are you willing to derive your eschatological theology from parables??

 

It is better to say that He paid the price of salvation for everyone because it has scriptural support.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Nevertheless, though He bought them they bring upon themselves swift destruction.

HankD

 

I don't understand why you have to make that jump.
"If he died for all, THEN all would be saved."
Why?

 

The Gospel is the message of the Kingdom.

Matthew 4:23 "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people."

Matthew 9:35 "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people."

But then He said,
Matthew 24:13 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."

So what changed from Jesus' early ministry to the point in Matthew 24 where the gospel would be preached to the whole world. Israel rejction of Him, therefore the gospel was removed from their custody and given to the Gentile nations.

As for as His death for all humanity we see:

Romans 3:24-26, 24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Appears Jesus made the issue of sin past by becoming the propitiation for sin, sin became past that would paid for and Christ justifies all by faith in Him.

We see too,
1 John 2:1-3, 1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."

Appears John says Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. Not just those who have faith in but everyone who has lived and He made sin past. By Grace through Faith in Christ is one saved.

So what is the world.

John 3:17-18,
17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

According to this those who reject Christ that is believe not are condemned, not because of the sin in their lives, but because of unbelief. Why because the issue of sin never condemned anyone, the only sin which condemns is unbelief.

Jesus became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

 

Why?

where is the chapter and verse for your statement?
It is nowhere. you have made an assumption that because it sounds logical God must abide by it.

That is not what the passage indicates.
It plainly says He bought them.
But they went into destruction anyway (of themselves).

For whatever reason some of those whom He bought will end up in destruction.

Why should anyone object to this especially calvinists. God is sovereign and does whatever He pleases. Who are we to say otherwise?

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

He bought them and they are His possession to do with whatever He pleases.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

What does it matter to God who objects?

HankD