Breaking news actually old news "Early church Fathers Taught the Pre-Trib" view

[blessedwife318]

No we see he taught a pre-trib view you don't see it that way, your free choice.

And yet you did not post the entire context or a link to where you got the information from. Why was that? The context shows especially with the first one that death is what is being talked about not the rapture. Only when you rip away the context and read the rapture into it can you argue that they were teaching pre-trib view.

 

[revmwc]

And yet you did not post the entire context or a link to where you got the information from. Why was that? The context shows especially with the first one that death is what is being talked about not the rapture. Only when you rip away the context and read the rapture into it can you argue that they were teaching pre-trib view.

No reason to give the link, gave the place in the writing where it was found that should be enough. Someone wants to find it they can like I did.

I find it I post it and OR and others just say it's a lie or false or ignorant or nonsense, so why bother to give the the link, they won't believe it anyway. Just like you offer your interpretation of it. I disagree on your point but I clearly made my interpretation known in the OP so no need to comment on it. All three were looking for Christ to come before the Tribulation in a Rapture. Each mentioned a catching away or being caught away of what I remember of it. Yet you say they were looking for death. Whatever you choose to interpret is your free choice just like salvation is a free choice.

 

[blessedwife318]

No reason to give the link, gave the place in the writing where it was found that should be enough. Someone wants to find it they can like I did.

I find it I post it and OR and others just say it's a lie or false or ignorant or nonsense, so why bother to give the the link, they won't believe it anyway. Just like you offer your interpretation of it. I disagree on your point but I clearly made my interpretation known in the OP so no need to comment on it. All three were looking for Christ to come before the Tribulation in a Rapture. Each mentioned a catching away or being caught away of what I remember of it. Yet you say they were looking for death. Whatever you choose to interpret is your free choice just like salvation is a free choice.

The context shows they were talking about death. You should go back and explain why in the larger context death is not what is being talked about. Your the one that made the claim that it is the rapture so why are you not defending the claim now that more information is out there for all to see what they are really talking about.

And giving a link is just common courtesy, as people can say anything they like but having proof to back up what you say gives it more weight. If you were writing a paper you would have had to site your source, more so then just the name.

And by the way I'm reformed so I believe Salvation is all of God, not based on the work of my free choice but anymore will send us into the cal vs arm territory

 

[revmwc]

The context shows they were talking about death. You should go back and explain why in the larger context death is not what is being talked about. Your the one that made the claim that it is the rapture so why are you not defending the claim now that more information is out there for all to see what they are really talking about.

And giving a link is just common courtesy, as people can say anything they like but having proof to back up what you say gives it more weight. If you were writing a paper you would have had to site your source, more so then just the name.

And by the way I'm reformed so I believe Salvation is all of God, not based on the work of my free choice but anymore will send us into the cal vs arm territory

Every pre-tribber agreed with what it said, that was rapture teaching. Every amil, pranmil believes what they want to believe. No reason to go back and restate what was said. No reason to offer any comment but one word yet I offered more.
Since you are the robot of OR you will agree with him 100% on everything he says.

 

[blessedwife318]

Every pre-tribber agreed with what it said, that was rapture teaching. Every amil, pranmil believes what they want to believe. No reason to go back and restate what was said. No reason to offer any comment but one word yet I offered more.
Since you are the robot of OR you will agree with him 100% on everything he says.

Interesting since I am Pre-Mill and yet OR is A-Mill.
But you seem to agree that Pre-tribbers all run in lock step together since "Every pre-tribber agreed" so who is being the robot?
And how does that add to the debate?

 

[revmwc]

The context shows they were talking about death. You should go back and explain why in the larger context death is not what is being talked about. Your the one that made the claim that it is the rapture so why are you not defending the claim now that more information is out there for all to see what they are really talking about.

And giving a link is just common courtesy, as people can say anything they like but having proof to back up what you say gives it more weight. If you were writing a paper you would have had to site your source, more so then just the name.

And by the way I'm reformed so I believe Salvation is all of God, not based on the work of my free choice but anymore will send us into the cal vs arm territory

Cyprian

“We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”

Clearly he uses the Greek term Harpazo is seen in the portion in red, that is the Greek term Paul used for the catching away of the Church. In Thessalonians and Corinthians.

Ephraim,
“We ought to understand thoroughly therefore, my brothers, what is imminent or overhanging. Already there have been hunger and plagues, violent movements of nations and signs, which have been predicted by the Lord, they have already been fulfilled (consummated), and there is not other which remains, except the advent of the wicked one in the completion of the Roman kingdom. Why therefore are we occupied with worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of worldly business, and why is our mind held fixed on the lusts of the world or on the anxieties of the ages? Why therefore do we not reject every care of earthly actions and prepare ourselves for the meeting of the Lord Christ, so that he may draw us from the confusion, which overwhelms all the world? Believe you me, dearest brother, because the coming (advent) of the Lord is nigh, believe you me, because the end of the world is at hand, believe me, because it is the very last time.

Nothing here speaks of death as being the way out unless you think he was advocating suicide, He says "the Lord Christ...He may draw us" again the Greek term "Harpazo" can be seen clearly.

No where does this advocate death unless you believe he was advocating suicide or that Jesus meets each of us as we die and takes us to heaven. It says He was coming to snatch us and draw us those clearly reflect Paul's teaching of a "Harpazo" and they saw it as prior to the Tribulation.

 

[revmwc]

Interesting since I am Pre-Mill and yet OR is A-Mill.
But you seem to agree that Pre-tribbers all run in lock step together since "Every pre-tribber agreed" so who is being the robot?
And how does that add to the debate?

That the problem OR believes pre-tribbers march in step. He continually associates that Darby taught a "Parenthesis Vhuirch" yet now he says he didn't say Darby did. Yet I found several instances where He saidthose exct words. The only references I find to the "parentheis Church" were used as analogies (illustration) to explain the Peak to Peak that the prophets saw with a valley in between. Both analogies for the mystery of the church not being seen by the O.T. prophets. Clearly Paul in Ephesians 3 taught of the dispensation of Grace which had been a mystery to the O.T. prophets.

Scripture clearly shows it yet many refuse to believe it.

 

[blessedwife318]

That the problem OR believes pre-tribbers march in step. He continually associates that Darby taught a "Parenthesis Vhuirch" yet now he says he didn't say Darby did. Yet I found several instances where He saidthose exct words. The only references I find to the "parentheis Church" were used as analogies (illustration) to explain the Peak to Peak that the prophets saw with a valley in between. Both analogies for the mystery of the church not being seen by the O.T. prophets. Clearly Paul in Ephesians 3 taught of the dispensation of Grace which had been a mystery to the O.T. prophets.

Scripture clearly shows it yet many refuse to believe it.

He didn't say that Darby taught a 'parenthesis view' only that his dispensational view is the father of that view. It is a direct out cropping of his teaching, which is exactly what I was taught in Bible College.

Feel free to quote where he said Darby taught that view, since you said you have found several instances where he said those exact words. I'm going to assume those exact words are that "Darby taught a Parenthesis view".

 

[revmwc]

He didn't say that Darby taught a 'parenthesis view' only that his dispensational view is the father of that view. It is a direct out cropping of his teaching, which is exactly what I was taught in Bible College.

Feel free to quote where he said Darby taught that view, since you said you have found several instances where he said those exact words. I'm going to assume those exact words are that "Darby taught a Parenthesis view".

Post #36 "The Apostle Peter on the Second Coming of Our LORD"
He stated "Peter's point is that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby; a false, pernicious doctrine which has seduced millions of people in this country, just as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, and Christian Science have!"

I think we can all see this one let me repost just that portion so there will be no doubt "the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby."

I believe he definitely said it.

 

[blessedwife318]

Cyprian

“We who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. Do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an early departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent? Let us greet the day which assigns each of us to his own home, which snatches us hence, and sets us free from the snares of the world and restores us to paradise and the kingdom.”

Clearly he uses the Greek term Harpazo is seen in the portion in red, that is the Greek term Paul used for the catching away of the Church. In Thessalonians and Corinthians.

More context of that quote for those who would like to have more information.

24. It is for him to wish to remain long in the world whom the world delights, whom this life, flattering and deceiving, invites by the enticements of earthly pleasure. Again, since the world hates the Christian, why do you love that which hates you? And why do you not rather follow Christ, who both redeemed you and loves you? John in his epistle cries and says, exhorting that we should not follow carnal desires and love the world. Love not the world, says he, neither the things which are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world is the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, which is not of the Father, but of the lust of the world. And the world shall pass away, and the lust thereof; but he who does the will of God abides for ever, even as God abides for ever. 1 John 2:15 Rather, beloved brethren, with a sound mind, with a firm faith, with a robust virtue, let us be prepared for the whole will of God: laying aside the fear of death, let us think on the immortality which follows. By this let us show ourselves to be what we believe, that we do not grieve over the departure of those dear to us, and that when the day of our summons shall arrive, we come without delay and without resistance to the Lord when He Himself calls us.
25. And this, as it ought always to be done by God's servants, much more ought to be done now— now that the world is collapsing and is oppressed with the tempests of mischievous ills; in order that we who see that terrible things have begun, and know that still more terrible things are imminent, may regard it as the greatest advantage to depart from it as quickly as possible. If in your dwelling the walls were shaking with age, the roofs above you were trembling, and the house, now worn out and wearied, were threatening an immediate destruction to its structure crumbling with age, would you not with all speed depart? If, when you were on a voyage, an angry and raging tempest, by the waves violently aroused, foretold the coming shipwreck, would you not quickly seek the harbour? Lo, the world is changing and passing away, and witnesses to its ruin not now by its age, but by the end of things. And do you not give God thanks, do you not congratulate yourself, that by an earlier departure you are taken away, and delivered from the shipwrecks and disasters that are imminent?

People can decide for themselves what he is talking about, but they should be given enough evidence to make an informed decision.
Link for anyone that wants even more context.

 

[Scott J]

It is interesting to me that those opposed to pre-millennial point to the Early Church Fathers as "proof" positive that no one believed it. History is always a function of what happened, the interpretation of what happened, and who controlled the transmission of that interpretation. That's a bunch of "ifs".

First, how many early generation copies of their writings do we have? Do we know there's no corruption to satisfy someone else's belief later regardless of what the earlier belief was?

Second, how many times have even well-intentioned Christians misinterpreted or misapplied prophetic scripture to their specific time? Weren't there people at the end of the first millennium ready for the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ when Satan was to be unleashed?

Lastly and most importantly, imagine that the circumstances of communication, civilization, and communication were the same today as then. If the "beliefs" of "all" Christians over the past 100 years were ONLY derived by the 100 most prominent writers from the most powerful church that calls itself "Christian" and then only from those who lived in areas that were not subsequently overrun by another religion, what would people 1500 years from now think we believed?

The Church Fathers are not without value. They certainly help us understand the development of doctrine and church history. But to say something that can be derived from the scriptures either was not previously believed or is false because of an absence of authority from the fathers... doesn't hold water. And remember that many of these citations come before any real form of systematic theology.

The belief in salvation by grace through faith as we understand it was virtually lost for centuries during the middle ages. Did that mean no one believed it or that it is false?

My zeal on this issue when it comes to condemning other views is greatly tempered by the fact that the most learned and devout Jews who memorized the OT and studied messianic prophecy as a career.... missed Jesus because He wasn't what they were expecting.

 

[OldRegular]

No reason to give the link, gave the place in the writing where it was found that should be enough. Someone wants to find it they can like I did.

I find it I post it and OR and others just say it's a lie or false or ignorant or nonsense, so why bother to give the the link, they won't believe it anyway. Just like you offer your interpretation of it. I disagree on your point but I clearly made my interpretation known in the OP so no need to comment on it. All three were looking for Christ to come before the Tribulation in a Rapture. Each mentioned a catching away or being caught away of what I remember of it. Yet you say they were looking for death. Whatever you choose to interpret is your free choice just like salvation is a free choice.

If you don't give a link don't expect everyone to accept your word. I sure don't!

 

[OldRegular]

Post #36 "The Apostle Peter on the Second Coming of Our LORD"
He stated "Peter's point is that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby; a false, pernicious doctrine which has seduced millions of people in this country, just as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, and Christian Science have!"

I think we can all see this one let me repost just that portion so there will be no doubt "the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby."

I believe he definitely said it.

The post reads as follows:

Peter's point is that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby; a false, pernicious doctrine which has seduced millions of people in this country, just as Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventism, and Christian Science have!

Yet you are still telling me the scoffers have seen millions of people suddenly disappearing, graves being opened, planes falling out of the sky, cars without drivers followed by "seven years of hell on earth" and they will say:

...........................................................................................:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:-:laugh:

The object of the initial verb "is": "that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction"

The subject of the clause is "the pre-trib-"snatching away"!

A prepositional phrase "of the so-called "parenthesis" Church" defines what is snatched away.

The verb is "is".

The object is "fiction".

The semantic smay be poor but that sentence does not say that Darby is the father of the "parenthesis" Church. I have made the point on numerous occasions that the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church was taught by people like Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. {http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99519}

And then there is the following from a thread from 2012:

Dispensational doctrine makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

Much of Dispensational doctrine is the invention of John Nelson Darby of Plymouth England in the early 19th Century, a century when many “Christian” Cults were started: Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Science are the most notable.

Dispensationalism denies that the Church is included in prophecy. Rather, the claim is made that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88]. The Church is often referred to as the ‘mystery parenthesis’ form of the Kingdom; mystery in that there is no prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the Church and parenthesis in that God found it necessary to interrupt His program for the Jews because their leaders rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah and He was unable to establish the Messianic kingdom.
{http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=80260}

No mention of Darby as the father of the "parenthesis" Church!

 

[revmwc]

The post reads as follows:


The object of the initial verb "is": "that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction"

The subject of the clause is "the pre-trib-"snatching away"!

A prepositional phrase "of the so-called "parenthesis" Church" defines what is snatched away.

The verb is "is".

The object is "fiction".



The semantic smay be poor but that sentence does not say that Darby is the father of the "parenthesis" Church. I have made the point on numerous occasions that the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church was taught by people like Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. {http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99519}

And then there is the following from a thread from 2012:


No mention of Darby as the father of the "parenthesis" Church!

You stated "created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby" what did you say "created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby".

First how is "Peter's point is that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church" referring to anything that you say was not taught at that time?
Next how was Peter showing that the teaching "is fiction created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby;"
Finally how is that all this is "a false, pernicious doctrine which has seduced millions of people in this country," .
So now explain how all that doesn't show you said that "the pre-trib teaching snatching away" of the so-called "Parenthesis Church" not saying it was all created by Darby. The punctuation doesn't prove it out.

 

[OldRegular]

You stated "created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby" what did you say "created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby".

First how is "Peter's point is that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church" referring to anything that you say was not taught at that time?
Next how was Peter showing that the teaching "is fiction created by the mind of a convalescing John Nelson Darby;"
Finally how is that all this is "a false, pernicious doctrine which has seduced millions of people in this country," .
So now explain how all that doesn't show you said that "the pre-trib teaching snatching away" of the so-called "Parenthesis Church" not saying it was all created by Darby. The punctuation doesn't prove it out.

Believe what you want. I don't care. You bore false witness for weeks saying there was no such doctrine as a "parenthesis" Church and then "lo and behold" you found it in a valley just like Darby found the pre-trib-"snatching away of the Church in Isaiah 32!

 

[revmwc]

Believe what you want. I don't care. You bore false witness for weeks saying there was no such doctrine as a "parenthesis" Church and then "lo and behold" you found it in a valley just like Darby found the pre-trib-"snatching away of the Church in Isaiah 32!

Now you are putting words in my mouth, I said I found it in another writers commentary not in Darby's.

I also said it is not a doctrine but an analogy an illustration just as the peak to peak with a valley is an analogy.

Do you need the definition of analogy to understand how it isn't a doctrinal teaching but an analogy an illustration of the church being a mystery.

Twist and turn as you always do trying to support your doctrinal stance.

I never saw it in the little I've read Darby. Nor in any of the reading I've found as a doctrine, an analogy yes but as part of the doctrine no.

If it is a doctrine find the specific teacher who says it is a doctrine, otherwise you are the one who must believe it to be a doctrine.

 

[OldRegular]

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Believe what you want. I don't care. You bore false witness for weeks saying there was no such doctrine as a "parenthesis" Church and then "lo and behold" you found it in a valley just like Darby found the pre-trib-"snatching away of the Church in Isaiah 32!

Now you are putting words in my mouth, I said I found it in another writers commentary not in Darby's.

I also said it is not a doctrine but an analogy an illustration just as the peak to peak with a valley is an analogy.

Do you need the definition of analogy to understand how it isn't a doctrinal teaching but an analogy an illustration of the church being a mystery.

Twist and turn as you always do trying to support your doctrinal stance.

I never saw it in the little I've read Darby. Nor in any of the reading I've found as a doctrine, an analogy yes but as part of the doctrine no.

If it is a doctrine find the specific teacher who says it is a doctrine, otherwise you are the one who must believe it to be a doctrine.

I did not put words in your mouth. I simply questioned your veracity!

Originally Posted by OldRegular
Believe what you want. I don't care. You bore false witness for weeks saying there was no such doctrine as a "parenthesis" Church and then "lo and behold" you found it in a valley just like Darby found the pre-trib-"snatching away of the Church in Isaiah 32!

 

[Jerome]

He didn't say that Darby taught a 'parenthesis view' only that his dispensational view is the father of that view.

Huh?::null:

You are a [snipped] and I don't use that word often. I have thrown nothing out of the Bible. If you are too simple minded to discuss scripture without lying then don't discuss Scripture. Why is it that you followers of Darby's doctrine of a parenthesis Church. . .

Pre-trib-dispensationalism started with Darby and so did the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis", an intercalation, an interruption in God's program for Israel!

The Church as a parenthesis, an interruption in God's program for Israel, started with Darby.
Since I am not a Calvinist I am not concerned about who started the doctrine attributed to him!

either Darby's-pre-trib-rapture or Darby's "parenthesis" Church.

 

[OldRegular]

Huh?::null:

Thanks for doing all the research. Obviously you have great zeal for something or other.

It is apparent, assuming the truth of your quotes, that I have been sloppy in my semantics. {You could have easily supplied the source.} However, I will not apologize for those statements which connect Darby to the "parenthesis" church because the concept of the "Parenthesis" Church is the natural outgrowth of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. I have posted on several occasions the remarks of those men who have espoused the doctrine of the Church as a "parenthesis" or intercalation in GOD's program for Israel.

I would also note that in my initial thread about the "parenthesis" church I did not tie it to Darby but to the pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. The thread, I must add, created a firestorm of pre-trib-fury!
{http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=80260}

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
He didn't say that Darby taught a 'parenthesis view' only that his dispensational view is the father of that view.

Huh?:

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
You are a [snipped] and I don't use that word often. I have thrown nothing out of the Bible. If you are too simple minded to discuss scripture without lying then don't discuss Scripture. Why is it that you followers of Darby's doctrine of a parenthesis Church. . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
Pre-trib-dispensationalism started with Darby and so did the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis", an intercalation, an interruption in God's program for Israel!

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
The Church as a parenthesis, an interruption in God's program for Israel, started with Darby.
Since I am not a Calvinist I am not concerned about who started the doctrine attributed to him!

Quote:
Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
either Darby's-pre-trib-rapture or Darby's "parenthesis" Church.

Simply outstanding.


God bless.