Post tribulation arguments

[blessedwife318]

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Mat 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

It appears this entire passage refers to the rapture, an event that we have no idea when it will take place. For in such an hour as you think not the Son of man comes.

Well then if you want to say this is the rapture, and I would agree that is a better interpretation, it puts the timing of the rapture at the end of the tribulations. Unless you are going to say that Matt. 24 is not in chronological order.

 

[DHK]

Well then if you want to say this is the rapture, and I would agree that is a better interpretation, it puts the timing of the rapture at the end of the tribulations. Unless you are going to say that Matt. 24 is not in chronological order.

Yes, that is my view. Not everything in Matthew 24 is chronological.

 

[blessedwife318]

Yes, that is my view. Not everything in Matthew 24 is chronological.

OK fair enough.
Why do you think its not in chronological order?

 

[percho]

Note: I am not attempting to derail the thread, but a question that some of you might consider (or not).

Remember when the Lord Jesus spoke about two being in bed one taken the other left, two in the field one taken the other left...

Consider if the one taken has the hope of the pre-tribulation rapture, and the one left is post or a-mil - having to endure to the end because they deny the truth of the Scriptures... :flower:

Just wondering out loud while verifying the warranty and working order of my recliner.

In the context of Matthew do you want to be taken or left?

 

[revmwc]

Matthew Henry on 1 Thessalonians 4:

They shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air, 1 Thessalonians 4:17. At, or immediately before, this rapture into the clouds, those who are alive will undergo a mighty change, which will be equivalent to dying. This change is so mysterious that we cannot comprehend it: we know little or nothing of it, 1 Corinthians 15:51. Only, in the general, this mortal must put on immortality, and these bodies will be made fit to inherit the kingdom of God, which flesh and blood in its present state are not capable of. This change will be in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye (1 Corinthians 15:52), in the very instant, or not long after the raising up of those that sleep in Jesus. And those who are raised, and thus changed, shall meet together in the clouds, and there meet with their Lord, to congratulate him on his coming, to receive the crown of glory he will then bestow upon them, and to be assessors with him in judgment, approving and applauding the sentence he will then pass upon the prince of the power of the air, and all the wicked, who shall be doomed to destruction with the devil and his angels.

It appears Mr. Henry spoke of a rapture occurring. He connected with the second coming nut he used the term rapture and saw the believers meeting the Lord in the Air.

The we see Mr. Henry again in Revelation 4:

To prepare John for the vision, a trumpet was sounded, and he was called up into heaven, to have a sight there of the things which were to be hereafter. He was called into the third heavens. (1.) There is a way opened into the holiest of all, into which the sons of God may enter by faith and holy affections now, in their spirits when they die, and in their whole persons at the last day. (2.) We must not intrude into the secret of God's presence, but stay till we are called up to it.
3. To prepare for this vision, the apostle was in the Spirit. He was in a rapture, as before (Revelation 1:10), whether in the body or out of the body we cannot tell; perhaps he himself could not; however all bodily actions and sensations were for a time suspended, and his spirit was possessed with the spirit of prophecy, and wholly under a divine influence. The more we abstract ourselves from all corporeal things the more fit we are for communion with God; the body is a veil, a cloud, and clog to the mind in its transactions with God. We should as it were forget it when we go in before the Lord in duty, and be willing to drop it, that we may go up to him in heaven... He saw four-and-twenty seats round about the throne, not empty, but filled with four-and-twenty elders, presbyters, representing, very probably, the whole church of God, both in the Old Testament and in the New Testament state; not the ministers of the church, but rather the representatives of the people. Their sitting denotes their honour, rest, and satisfaction; their sitting about the throne signifies their relation to God, their nearness to him, the sight and enjoyment they have of him. They are clothed in white raiment, the righteousness of the saints, both imputed and inherent; they had on their heads crowns of gold, signifying the honour and authority given them of God, and the glory they have with him. All these may in a lower sense be applied to the gospel church on earth, in its worshipping assemblies; and, in the higher sense, to the church triumphant in heaven. 5. He perceived lightnings and voices proceeding out of the throne; that is, the awful declarations that God makes to his church of his sovereign will and pleasure. Thus he gave forth the law on mount Sinai; and the gospel has not less glory and authority than the law, though it be of a more spiritual nature.

This is something how Mr. Henry who lived hundreds of years before Darby is presenting a church Rapture from the very scriptures pre-tribulationalist-dispensationalist use in the Doctrine we teach. Mr. Henry seems to have believed in a pre-trib rapture seen tight here in Revelation 4. Taught years before Darby and others developed a systematic method to understand what scripture was telling us. From here the post millennial teaching fails so too do those who continue to say it is a doctrine created by Darby. I read through some of Darby's teaching today and what he said about a parenthesis invold the text not the church. He stated that several verses in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians could be taken in parenthesis as they emphasize the point Paul was making.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Matthew Henry on 1 Thessalonians 4:



It appears Mr. Henry spoke of a rapture occurring. He connected with the second coming nut he used the term rapture and saw the believers meeting the Lord in the Air.

The we see Mr. Henry again in Revelation 4:

This is something how Mr. Henry who lived hundreds of years before Darby is presenting a church Rapture from the very scriptures pre-tribulationalist-dispensationalist use in the Doctrine we teach. Mr. Henry seems to have believed in a pre-trib rapture seen tight here in Revelation 4. Taught years before Darby and others developed a systematic method to understand what scripture was telling us. From here the post millennial teaching fails so too do those who continue to say it is a doctrine created by Darby. I read through some of Darby's teaching today and what he said about a parenthesis invold the text not the church. He stated that several verses in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians could be taken in parenthesis as they emphasize the point Paul was making.

Being staunchly amill, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with what Brother Henry wrote in your post, monsieur.

 

[blessedwife318]

It is not what Darby taught that I necessarily disagree with. It is the rhetoric and false accusations that OR brings against Darby. Let's look at it a bit more objectively.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Victorian England's best-known Baptist minister, was born on June 19, 1834 in Kelvedon, Essex.
--Most here are well acquainted with the beliefs of Spurgeon, that he was a Calvinist, etc. However, Spurgeon did believe in a rapture or a Second Coming very distinct from the resurrection of the damned. He did believe in an earthly millennial kingdom of one thousand years. Both of these OR denies. His theology resembles that of Darby, but it could be argued that he in no way got his theology from Darby. He lived in the same time period and heard of his teachings. But he had his own.

Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist. He was a Historical Premillennialist.

Could you point out where he state Spurgeon is a Dispensational Premillennial?

If you have been following the discussion between DHK and OR for anytime you know that OR points out that Darby is the founder of Dispensationalism and DHK disputes that claim. That is the “false accusation the OR brings against Darby. He then talks about Spurgeon as you can see in my post were I quote him. He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s.
I then proceeded to point out that one cannot put Spurgeon in the Dispensational camp. It’s fairly straight forward.

And this is the typical response that we see from a-millennials, particularly the member in view in DHKs response: you are not even addressing what is said, and seeking to argue about something everyone else is sick of hearing.

See above. Although I don’t think everyone is sick of hearing this. And this is a debate forum, so just because you are sick of hearing this doesn’t mean I have to stop.

You owe DHK an apology for your error.

If DHK is offended by my post then he can let me know and we will resolve it between the two of us.

Perhaps if you had read his post and responded to what he said you would not have wasted this space: a distinction was drawn, and the views compared, not said to be the same.

I did read, but your attack is noted.

You are the one who does that in your inability to comprehend what is being said.

And as far as a dispensational view being incompatible with a historical premillennial view, perhaps if you spent more time in your Bible than reading the theologies of men you might come to understand how ignorant such a statement is.

Again your attack is noted.

You will not refute that there are differing Ages or Economies in Biblical History;

You will not refute that there is a Rapture;

You will not refute there will be a Tribulation which is distinct period prophesied;

You will not refute that there will be a one thousand year period following the Tribulation;

You will not refute that Israel was not the Church;

And you will not refute any First Century Biblical teaching, which all of these are.

If you want to try...step up. But don't bring the words of men...we will examine these issues in the Word of God.

I have no intention of doing any of the above, as I’m not that much of a glutton for punishment. Already you have shown a taste of the personal attacks that would come my way if I tried. The only intention I have is to show that one cannot place Spurgeon and Watts into the same camp as Darby. It apparently hit a nerve with you. Why is that? If you are so sure of your position it should not matter to you that Spurgeon and Watts do not agree with you.

Continued...

 

[blessedwife318]

Originally Posted by blessedwife318
The central issue of Dispensationalism is the distinction between Israel and the Church.

No...it isn't.


Just because you sit under teachers who are greatly biased and confused, and have muddled your thoughts with junk theology greatly tinged with hatred...doesn't mean the nonsense spouted is relevant to anyone in this thread in this discussion.

What hatred? That only anger I sense is from you, toward me.
But onto this discussion, if anyone is going to have an honest debate then terms have to be defined.
When the 2 people debating have different definitions of a given word it makes debate impossible.
When terms are used, such as Dispensationalism, it only make sense to allow the major proponents and teachers of the view definition stand in a debate.
That would be like someone saying they are a Calvinist but they don’t believe in Pre-destination, and any time someone pointed to Calvin, saying that his views don’t matter but I’m still a Calvinist. It would make no sense to the person they were debating and just cause people to go around in circles as each try to define their terms.
So you don’t like the way that the major proponents of Dispensationalism define it, that’s fine, but then your issues is with them, not me, because they are the ones teaching these things under that banner that you want to be under

What is a dispensation?

Is it a division of people?

Or Ages and ministries of God?

Nice word play there. But I did not say Dispensation did I? I said DispensaionaLISM. There is a difference as you well know. But you don’t want to get into Dispensationalism do you?

And that is precisely DHKs point in regards to OR...an incessant hang-up with Darby despite the fact...no-one even quotes Darby.


Dispensational Theology has a central focus on the differing ministrations, and how the Church and Israel play into that is only one aspect of a multi-faceted view based on a more literal rendering of Scripture, which, I will throw in, is how men have always rendered the Word of God.

Well we are getting a little closer now. At least you are giving a partial definition of Dispensationalism here.

So Ryrie places a distinction between Israel and the Church first you think that is the central issue.

Great.

No I don’t think that is the central issue, but Ryrie does. And apparently you have an issue with that so I suggest you take that up with Ryrie, not me. I’m just the messenger telling you what top proponents of Dispensationalism think.

Now let's set Mr. Ryrie and Dispensationalism aside and actually look at what Scripture teaches.

Ok Great! When there is Scripture bring discussed I will discuss it. There wasn’t in DHK post that I was responding to, just like there is not any in you post to me.

And I will guarantee you that Dispensational will far closer to substantiating their views than your teacher...OR. I would say you but you don't seem to know what to believe. Ever get that worked out?

Oh I love the snark here. Of course you know what they say when you resort to attacking your opponent.
As far as your guarantee, go for it. Start a tread defending Dispensationalist views. Although given that you have already shown you disagree with some of the major teachings of that view and jumped on me for their views that would be amusing to see.

This might surprise you, but some of us could care less what Mr. Spurgeon has to say. At least...we don't put his views above what Scripture actually teaches.

As to your not so veiled attack that I put his views above Scripture, I would point out to you that I was just responding to DHK statement about Spurgeon. He brought him up and I responded in kind. Again if Scripture is presented I would have responded with Scripture. Although since that seems to be your standard where is your Scripture in your response to me?

By the way, the post you responded to plainly stated that Spurgeon was a Calvinist.

Ok what does that have to do with anything?

I hate to say it, but the above shows quite a bit of confusion. Prince of Preachers? lol

Well now we just have one more thing you and I disagree on.

A distinction between Israel and the Church does not mean "the Lord has not some children best beloved, some second-rate offspring, and others whom he hardly cares about," it has to do with the revelation provided to each group and the ministry God was effecting during those times.

And they are different.

Even prior to Israel being created, God was ministering differently among men.

If you care to discuss this, perhaps you might better understand something that I am sure Mr. Spurgeon understands better now.

No I have no interest in getting involved in your disagreement with Spurgeon.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318
Bold Mine

Not quite the word I would think is appropriate.

I’m not even sure why you would put this here. It is customary you know that if you bold something in a quoted passage that you acknowledge when you put something in bold as opposed to letting the reader think the quoted author put it in Bold.

And he was wrong.

So you think. Col. 3:11 and Gal 3:28 shows he is correct.
But again you missed the point I was making. Spuregon and Darby can in no way be in the same camp.

Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ. Every member of the Church is.

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?! I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture. Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.

And I would ask you...are you saying that all of Israel was saved? Do you not understand that only the faithful of Israel were counted as just? And that even though counted just through faith...they were still in need of Atonement?

I’m not saying anything, I’m quoting Spurgeon to show that he cannot be placed inside the same camp as Darby.
But to answer your questions, No not all Jews were or are saved (although some in the Dispensational camp would argue with that, so you might want to take that up with them).
Yes I do understand that. Of course they still needed Atonement, the Book of Hebrews makes that clear. But then again you are the one the just said a few lines up that no Jew was eternally redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

I can understand you not understanding the difference between a people who to a man died not having eternal redemption through Christ, but Spurgeon? Thanks for the quote. I will put that up there with his charismatic tendencies.

Honestly I don’t even understand what point you are trying to make here (besides the obvious attack which I will give you is slightly ironic given that I don’t understand what you are saying here) I think there might be a typo here but I’m not sure.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318
That itself is enough to put him firmly outside of the camp of Dispensationalism.

You're the only one putting him in there.

No the definitions set up by the proponents of Dispensationalism put him there. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them, not me.

But I am used to you debating something completely irrelevant to the topic at hand.

Not really but your attack is noted nonetheless.

A truer word was never spoken, "for the sake of argument," and unfortunately, that's all you are able to offer right now.

Once again Ironic coming from the poster who has a tread where he is looking for antagonist.

No, that is a mark of careful study of First Century teachings of the Bible.

Except it’s not. Careful study of the Bible has always lead me away from the pre-trib rapture.

Any time you want to actually discuss what the Bible has to say about it let me know. If you would like to present a Biblical presentation to substantiate an A-mil view, or a mid-Trib view, or a poet-trib view...let me know.

So I can get more personal attacks on my intelligence and Bible Study. Gee how could I pass that up.

Continued...

 

 

[blessedwife318]

What a lot of fluff. lol

At the very least, we can see that Spurgeon believed in a specific time of tribulation.

We have already established that you disagree with Spurgeon.
And yes that’s why he would fit into the historical pre-mill camp.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318
This quote alone shows that Spurgeon believes we will be on earth during the tribulation

And that makes it a Biblical truth? Lol

Please quote where I said that Spurgeon is on par with Scripture? I’ll wait.

Got any Bible passages to back up this view?

I’m not in the same camp as Spurgeon on this issue, so I see no need to defend his views. If you are curious as to why Spurgeon thought this way feel free to look up his writings.

Oh that's right, your just arguing. No need to bring the Bible into this.

And where have you brought the Bible into this discussion with me?

That was actually spoken to Israel, though we see it applies to Gentiles who are born again in the Tribulation.

The point being...Israel was the intended audience when Christ taught it then.

Want to argue about that?

No I don’t want to get into your disagreement with Spurgeon. Although feel free to start a tread on everything you disagree with Spurgeon about.

I would have to disagree with Spurgeon, very little fear, very little dread, but...

...strong delusion and hope in their god, the antichrist.

We do see moments when fear arises, but the general attitude of the unbelieving will be one of trust in Antichrist.

I believe it has already been established that you disagree with Spurgeon.

I am sure this tickled many ears, perhaps still does, but not something that particularly impresses me. Especially in a discussion centered on post-trib arguments.

Ok we get it you don’t like Spurgeon.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318
This sermon shows that if Spurgeon had a view on the rapture it was post-trib.

And where do you see a rapture...at all?

Did you not see the word IF?

That is true, but where does he speak of a post-trib rapture...anywhere in these quotes?

Again I used this little word IF.

You can't even get a post-trib view.

But again, arguing, I understand.

Yeah IF. But I’m glad to see you acknowledge that Spuregon was not pre-trib. I will view that as progress.

Now show how your point is relevant to what DHK posted, and explain why you do not address what he actually said.

I actually did that at the beginning of my reply to you.

God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

So let's see what the actual teaching is. We can trace that back to men inspired of God to convey truth.

Instead of arguing over what men say.

So where is your Bible passages?
And I’m just trying to define terms so that people can be on the same page. But I already explained this up a few post.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318

1. First, historic premillennialists believe in New Testament priority in which the New Testament interprets/reinterprets the OT.

You don't?

Actutally I do, which is why I’m not a Dispensationalist.

You don't see the New Testament as not only holding new revelation, but clarifying the Old?

If you believe this then there is another issue you need to take up with the proponents of Dispensationlism.

If you don't, my sympathies.

Well since I do believe that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament you can keep you sympathies for the proponents of Dispensationlism that don’t see this.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318

2. Second, historic premillennialists believe the church is the new Israel

Do you?

No but I’m also not a historic pre-mill, and I have no desire to argue someone else's position. I’m just defining terms.

Do Dispensationalists?

No they want to make a clear distinction between Israel and the Church despite Paul saying that there is no Jew, nor Greek in Christ.

And this is relevant because...?

Defining terms so that there can be honest debate.

Because you thought DHK said Spurgeon was a Dispensational premillennial?

That was the argument he was making to OR.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318

3. Third, unlike dispensationalists, historic premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of national Israel.

Paul is a true Historical Premillenial believer, and he most certainly believed in the future restoration of Israel.

Just defining terms, feel free to find a historic pre-mill to argue with if you want.

But again...relevance to this thread, or even DHKs post?

I established that in the beginning of my replies to you. Feel free to look it up.

None whatsoever. Your teachers have taught you well, you replicate their own confusion.

Your attack is noted.

First...nothing is curcial to dispensational thought. Just had to get that out of the way.

Secondly, the Pre-Trib Rapture is not crucial, but simply an element within dispensational theology. It is a distinctive, but takes a backseat to the concept of differing ministries in differing Ages. The building of the Church began at Pentecost on the framework of faith in the death of Christ.

Then you have another issue to take up with the proponents of Dispensationalism.

Find that in the Old Testament. Find one person in the Gospels that believed in Christ.

Dare ya.

Find Faith in the Old Testament: that’s easy
“4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” Hab. 2:4
Now tell us again how Jews are saved, since you said “Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ”

Tell that to these Presbyterians.

Of course, they sound a little vitriolic and biased in their presentation, which might interest you.

We disagree, plain and simple. But your attack on me is once again noted.

And that means what, exactly? lol

And curious how one can call someone a Calvinist and show similarities in views and that means one is a dispensationalist. So is that it? Did you mean to say "One doesn't even have to use the word dispensation to be called one"?

I meant what I said. Lots of people use the word “Dispensation” but it doesn’t make them a Dispensationalist. In fact I just used the word but I doubt you would argue that it makes me a Dispensationalist. It’s pretty simple.

And the relevance of this to a post trib argument?

To DHKs post?

DHK made the claim that Watts was a Dispensationlist. I showed that Watts was not. Again pretty simple.

It doesn't change the fact that the same general views predate Darby. Labeling Darby as the father of Dispensationalism and denying those views prior, which is what was said in the post, boils down to absurdity.

Not absurdity, Honesty.

Show me Dispensational teaching that affirms this in regards to Atonement.

Show me any other issue where the type is not considered shadow.

I am not a Dispensationalist so it’s not my job to defend their views.

Continued...

 

 

[blessedwife318]

Isn't that what a-millennials do?

The Old Testament contains shadow, parable, and figure of what God would do in this Age.

Agreed, so now you have another issue to take up with the Proponenets of Dispensationlism.

Israel is a picture of the Church, but we would be foolish to ascribe Israel as the Church. She is not.

I agree with Watts' views. He is correct, though we would have to have more to see if the "replacing" of Israel speaks of the type yielding to the antitype.

Wow I quoted someone you agree with. Mark this day down. Ironic since I have quoted quite a few Dispensationalist in these post and you disagreed with them.

We can say with some authority that based on Prophecy Israel will be active as a Nation in the Millennial Kingdom. That does not preclude the fact that all believers in that day will be the Church of Christ, for only those born again, something that did not take place in Old Testament Economies...can be called the Church.

Jews who are saved following Pentecost become members of the Church, but, those Jews do not shed their heritage, nor do they relinquish the promises made to them as a Nation, for every promise of God will be fulfilled to the letter.

So now you are disagreeing with what you said earlier where you said “Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ”

So the above quote is a little obscure, and would have to have more of his view explained in order to see if it is consistent with Scripture.

Well feel free to look up Watts writings. I was just posting to show that he cannot be put into the Dispensationalist camp.

]And that is not consistent with Scripture.




If that is true then Watts is in error.

So apparently you no longer agree with Watts.

But that would not exclusively deny his holding to Dispensational Distinctives. Nor does it negate the points made by DHK.

Only if you want to redefined Dispensationalism to differ with the proponents of Dispensationalism.

It would seem the quotes make it clear he makes a distinction. Sounds dispensational to me. The view that Israel was the type is the distinction.

Only if you redefine what makes Israel distinct as opposed to what proponents of Dispensationlism says makes it distinct.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318

And you really can't if you believe that the Church has replaced Israel which is why Watts cannot be counted among the Dispensationalist camp.

According to your human source.

How about actually discussing The Source.

Are you saying you think Watts is talked about in Scripture?
DHK brought Watts up, and I responded, although if Watts is in Scripture I would love to know where.

Then perhaps your hang-up with Dispensationalism might take a back seat.

So where is all your Scripture references, so that you hang ups on my views might take a back seat.

How many dispensations are there? People today quibble over the same thing. Why should that be a point of controversy?

Irrelevant. Except to point out that this view is not exclusive to a dispensational view.

You quoted DHK there not me. But I’m sure DHK is happy to know you think his point was Irrelevant.

Be glad to: Israel will be preserved in the wilderness for 3 1/2 years.

Not the Church.

Want to go back further? Read Romans 9-11.

Oh look our first Scripture reference from you. Yea!!!
Ok you want to discuss Romans 9-11 start a tread on it. That was one of the passages I read over and over again, because I could not get it to fit the Dispensationalist paradigm. So when I started letting Scripture speak for itself instead of trying to impose a paradigm on it, I was lead further and further away from the Dispensationalist camp and more and more into the Reformed camp.

Perhaps if you had actually read the post you would see that the correlation to Darby's views and views that precede them can be seen.

I did read the post, but your attack is noted.

And if you actually read your Bible once in a while you would see that the views of Dispensationalism correlate to Biblical Truth far better than an A-millennial view, a Mid-Trib view, or a Post-Trib view.

Oh another attack, two in a row. And it was reading the Bible, particularly Romans that started me out of Dispensationlism but you will never believe me when I say that.

True Historical Premillennialism is derived from the New Testament, not the works of men. And when you can show why a pre-trib rapture does not correspond to Biblical Teachings, then perhaps you might have something.

I have no problem with Historical Premill. Its Dispensationalism that I have a problem with.

But you cannot. You know it, I know it.

No you don’t know it, you just think you do, as you attacks throughout your reply to me show.

What he did is put these things all together. We build on those who have gone before us. Revelation is progressive. He didn't find anything new. He simply put things together that others believed before him. And yet he is castigated for this, and unfairly so. OR calls him a heretic full of false doctrine, and the cause of the downfall or heresies of many. He is not in any place to say such things.

Again if that is true

If it is true?

Context is King. I notice you split my sentence in half. Why would you do that unless you wanted to try to make me say something I did not. So here is my full sentence for all to see. Again if that is true that all Darby did was put "these things together" you should be able to show a clear historical trend of Dispensational teaching.

Don't you know whether or not revelation is progressive or not?

Of course its progressive. Do you know that its progressive?

Let's not gloss over that point and jump straight to "putting facts together."

Lets not ignore that you took my statement out of context.

You can see it in the Bible. Just how much more historical can one get?

Well apparently for 1800 years people could not see Dispensationalism in the Bible. I’m always suspect of New teachings.

No, you don't, not really. You have been shown on several occasions that I know of, and concluded you were going to join the A-millennial camp.

Oh are still upset that you got the privilege of being the final push into a different camp.

And who cares what your "bible" college taught. That is your primary problem, the teachings of men given more time than the teachings of Scripture.

Your attack is noted.

Perhaps you should go back and teach them the difference.

Why they were correct in not making claims to Classical Premill?

So far the results your "professors" have had are not all that impressive.

I think you are just upset with them because they were not fully able to convince me into your camp of pre-trib dispensationalism.

If you cannot see the correlation between Darby's views and Scripture, and instead would rather take a derisive attitude towards a theological system that by far correlates to Scripture than the A-mil, Mid, and Post trib position, help yourself.


God bless.

Ok that is all of your long post. I will reply to the rest later.

 

[Jerome]

Originally Posted by blessedwife318:

Spurgeon....was a Historical Premillennialist.

Originally Posted by blessedwife318:

historic premillennialists do not believe in a future restoration of national Israel.

Huh?

Spurgeon. "The Restoration and Conversion of the Jews":

"The meaning of our text, as opened up by the context, is most evidently, if words mean anything, first, that there shall be a political restoration of the Jews to their own land and to their own nationality. And then, secondly, there is in the text, and in the context, a most plain declaration, that there shall be a spiritual restoration, a conversion in fact, of the tribes of Israel."

:null::null:

 

[Darrell C]

Good quotes blessedwife
also you notice the long-winded bloviating nasty unkind response to your solid post
and quotes of Spurgeon showing that they use them out of context that's like these guys they try to make Spurgeon into an Arminian Spurgeon
also you know they just can't take the truth.... good job patiently patiently weeding through it and answering in a proper way

So history will repeat itself. Bothers you when someone is honest with your friends, doesn't it.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Note: I am not attempting to derail the thread, but a question that some of you might consider (or not).

Remember when the Lord Jesus spoke about two being in bed one taken the other left, two in the field one taken the other left...

Consider if the one taken has the hope of the pre-tribulation rapture, and the one left is post or a-mil - having to endure to the end because they deny the truth of the Scriptures... :flower:

Just wondering out loud while verifying the warranty and working order of my recliner.

That teaching is best associated with Christ's return, as mention of the deaths of those taken does not correlate to the Rapture, where all are made alive.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

It is dishonest for the pre-trib-dispensationalist to attempt to unite the historic or Covenant Premillennial eschatology with the eschatology of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Ryrie, etc.

Speaking of dishonesty:

Note: I am not attempting to derail the thread, but a question that some of you might consider (or not).

Any time a thread even hinting at the Rapture pops up, the same members show up and derail the thread, turning to their own personal vendetta against the Pre-Tribulational Rapture.

I have shown repeatedly on this Forum that the dispensationalism of Darby/Ryrie {called classic dispensationalism} believes and teaches that God has two distinct peoples: an earthly people, Israel; and a heavenly people, the Church. That is false doctrine, period. The Bible teaches that GOD has only one people, those whose names are written in the Book of Life, chosen unto salvation in Jesus Christ before he foundation of the world.

It's not a false doctrine, it's simply Biblical Truth.

But because you hate certain Dispensationalists, you charge all Dispensationalists and all Dispensationalism as being false.

Humorous coming from one who will not address this issue Scripturally.

The fact that God has one people in the eternal view does not change the fact that National Israel was not the Church, but was under a different Ministry. They were in relationship with God through the Covenant of Law, not the New Covenant, which was not established until Christ died, and formalized at Pentecost when Christ sent the Comforter.

National Israel, both elect and non-elect...all died in need of redemption of their sins. They were not made perfect as every member of the Church is at salvation, until after Christ died. This doesn't change the fact that they were of the People of God, but nor does the fact that the Nation of Israel was the People of God in that Age change either.

Similarly it us false and unBiblical doctrine to teach that the elect of Israel prior to the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ were not redeemed by HIS sacrificial death. Scripture teaches that all redeemed are justified by faith.

Anyone teaching that would be in error, however, to say they were redeemed then is also error.

Only the Elect of Israel, the Just...were redeemed, and that only after Eternal Redemption was secured for them by Christ with His own Blood (Death). That does not make them the Church "Of that Day," but simply the picture of what God was going to do in establishing the New Covenant.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Jerome tries to oppose Calvinism again.

And that is what it is always about with you...defending one System of Theology and condemning all others, with a few favorites.

But when he posts this link it gives the classic understanding of dispensationalism that both DHK and DC. deny over and over.

It is not a classic definition of dispensationalism that is objected to, it is the absurdity of the denial that a premillennial and Pre-Tribulational view was invented by Darby.

The tenets which might make one seem to be dispensational can be seen in Scripture. Both Old and New Testaments.

And when you want to actually discuss what the Bible teaches, instead of what men (and women) teach, let me know.

DHK seems to believe that the whole Christian world has to adopt DHK explanation ...whatever that is......

He is no different than anyone else on this Christian Doctrinal Discussion Forum.

If you had more interest in that than trying to make friends perhaps we would not see the same pattern in the same members year after year.

Maybe a little growth might take place.

DC...thinks he is above everyone speaking condescending ly I about Spurgeon.

I am not a fan of Spurgeon. I am not a fan of any preacher that leans to a more dramatic posture. He is beloved by many and that's great for them, but that doesn't mean a quotation from Spurgeon settles an issue.

The Bible, not Spurgeon...is the Last Word.

And it makes it worse when he irrelevantly quoted.

...of course DC...feels he knows better.....lol

I do.

I do know better than people who make Israel the Church.

I do know better than people who deny God has ministered in at sundry times and in divers manners.

I do know better than people who refuse to understand the Mystery of Christ.

I do know better than people who cannot distinguish between the Covenants.

I do know better than people who charge Pre-Tribulational believers with heresy.

I do know better than people who incessantly derail threads until they are closed. Making it impossible for others of similar beliefs to have a discussion. And what makes this worse is not one of your little club can address these issues with a Scriptural Presentation.

Which makes the last point:

I do know better than to try to build my Theology on what men think.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Thank you Icon.
Its clear to me that I hit a nerve with at least one poster.

If you are referring to me, you might be right. The nonsense you post, along with a few of your buddies, truly gets on the nerves of not just me, I am sure.

I counted at least 11 personal attacks that were made, but that is ok.

I must be slipping.

I found them highly amusing,

Not surprising for someone who only has a goal a ministry of instigation.

although my husband no so much.

You should invite him on.

We need to be honest about our views and if someone is going to claim that Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist

You think it is honest to say DHK said Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist in his post?

they should be able to back it up with his actual sermons, and or writings. To many people just take claims at face value, instead of looking at the source material.

Right. Quotes of men. Church History.

That is a fundamental flaw with many involved in Reformed Theology, who have thrown away Scripture and made Church Fathers their gods.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Well any person in the Pre-trib camp will tell you that the passage in Matthew talking about two being int he field with one taken and one left, is not the rapture but the second coming with the one begin taken to judgement.

Not everyone, some view this as a Rapture passage. It could be argued that due to the fact that this event seems to come unawares, whereas the Lord's Return will be fairly predictable by the time they are almost through the Tribulation, that this may refer to the Rapture.

I don't, but some do, and that doesn't make them dispensational.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

:

It is not what Darby taught that I necessarily disagree with. It is the rhetoric and false accusations that OR brings against Darby. Let's look at it a bit more objectively.

Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Victorian England's best-known Baptist minister, was born on June 19, 1834 in Kelvedon, Essex.
--Most here are well acquainted with the beliefs of Spurgeon, that he was a Calvinist, etc. However, Spurgeon did believe in a rapture or a Second Coming very distinct from the resurrection of the damned. He did believe in an earthly millennial kingdom of one thousand years. Both of these OR denies. His theology resembles that of Darby, but it could be argued that he in no way got his theology from Darby. He lived in the same time period and heard of his teachings. But he had his own.

Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist. He was a Historical Premillennialist.

Quote:
Could you point out where he state Spurgeon is a Dispensational Premillennial?

If you have been following the discussion between DHK and OR for anytime

Can you not get away from Church History long enough to visit the pages of your Bible once in a while?

What do past discussions have to do with my address of your response?

I addressed you falsely charging DHK with saying Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist.

You just quoted it, and still deflect.

you know that OR points out that Darby is the founder of Dispensationalism and DHK disputes that claim.

I do too.

And if you would look at the similarities as pointed out, you would see that.

That is the “false accusation the OR brings against Darby.

It is a false accusation when the views of Darby are said to be original exclusively to Darby and held by no-one until Darby shows up.

Secondly...that is not even relevant to the thread.

You have learned from your master well, young padawan.

He then talks about Spurgeon as you can see in my post were I quote him. He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s.

So why say he said Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist? Why be honest in this statement and dishonest in the other?

I can tell you why, you simply want to argue, you want to sound like someone who knows what they are talking about, and you have learned to like pats on the back from your club members.

I then proceeded to point out that one cannot put Spurgeon in the Dispensational camp. It’s fairly straight forward.

He didn't do that.

That was part of the point of the response, and you are still making the same false accusation.

Look, here is you giving an erroneous conclusion on DHKs statement: "I then proceeded to point out that one cannot put Spurgeon in the Dispensational camp."

Here is you giving a correct conclusion on DHKs statement: "He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s."

See the problem?

And this is the typical response that we see from a-millennials, particularly the member in view in DHKs response: you are not even addressing what is said, and seeking to argue about something everyone else is sick of hearing.

See above.

The statement stands without correction.

Although I don’t think everyone is sick of hearing this.

No, there are a few who get their jollies on it.

And this is a debate forum, so just because you are sick of hearing this doesn’t mean I have to stop.

Certain things you should stop, such as derailing a topic with false accusations.

The least you could do is attempt to address what is actually said.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
You owe DHK an apology for your error.

If DHK is offended by my post then he can let me know and we will resolve it between the two of us.

I didn't actually think you would agree with that, it was just an opinion, not a directive I thought you would follow up on.

Perhaps if you had read his post and responded to what he said you would not have wasted this space: a distinction was drawn, and the views compared, not said to be the same.

I did read, but your attack is noted.

You didn't, and I am sorry if truth feels like an attack. Perhaps you should consider why it comes across that way.

Your response did not address what he said, fact, and it was a waste of space, fact, and it is the same nonsense we see drawn into threads about the rapture quite often...fact.

You are the one who does that in your inability to comprehend what is being said.

And as far as a dispensational view being incompatible with a historical premillennial view, perhaps if you spent more time in your Bible than reading the theologies of men you might come to understand how ignorant such a statement is.

Again your attack is noted.

You are the one claiming you responded on point, so you make it, not an attack, but a fact. You verify that you did not comprehend what he said.

I will admit that spending more time reading the theologies of men might fall under speculation, but this is an opinion drawn from past conversations as well, where you have made many comments apart from a Scriptural basis, and refused to address the Scriptural presentations offered.

A little more Church History for you to consider.

You will not refute that there are differing Ages or Economies in Biblical History;

You will not refute that there is a Rapture;

You will not refute there will be a Tribulation which is distinct period prophesied;

You will not refute that there will be a one thousand year period following the Tribulation;

You will not refute that Israel was not the Church;

And you will not refute any First Century Biblical teaching, which all of these are.

If you want to try...step up. But don't bring the words of men...we will examine these issues in the Word of God.

I have no intention of doing any of the above,

Oh believe me, I already know that.

But thanks for proving my point...again.

as I’m not that much of a glutton for punishment.

It's more of an issue of not having the ability to first present a theological position, then secondly defending it.

You want to believe what you want to believe, despite what Scripture teaches.

And there are many like you, infatuated with Systems of Theology and loyal to them.

But what makes it more reprehensible is the attempt to undermine the beliefs of others, and apparently...because you get your jollies doing so. Compounding that offense is the fact that you will not address the Biblical presentations those people present to support their views.

Already you have shown a taste of the personal attacks that would come my way if I tried.

And I quote:

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
And this is a debate forum, so just because you are sick of hearing this doesn’t mean I have to stop.

Again, I am sorry the truth comes across as an attack. But, if you want to debate that issue, feel free. Your only hope is that the thread will be closed, so you will not have to actually address the issues raised.

It is certainly a shame when history repeats itself, over and over.

The only intention I have is to show that one cannot place Spurgeon and Watts into the same camp as Darby.

He didn't do that, and you know it:

"He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s."

It apparently hit a nerve with you. Why is that?

Well, I am just in the habit of trying to address those who think they can teach whatever they want apart from a Biblical support. I prefer Theological Discussion but sometimes it is necessary to address behavioral issues.

It is rather annoying to try to discuss something which applies to a divisive eschatological position/s, only to have irrelevancies interjected, which make it difficult for those trying to discuss those issues to do so.

And the thought that anyone who embraces a Pre-Trib Rapture, or that Israel was under a distinct ministry separate from the Ministry God is effecting today, is a Dispensationalist...is absurd.

And that these Doctrines are "new inventions" by one man rather that First Century teachings of Bible Writers is equally absurd.

My solution? Debate the Bible.

The solution of your club? Disrupt, derail, antagonize...until the thread is shut down. And do everything possible to avoid a Scriptural examination, except to post a few proof-texts.

If you are so sure of your position it should not matter to you that Spurgeon and Watts do not agree with you.

Quote:
Continued...

Not sure how you might conclude that I am not sure of my position. You should know I am. Of course, because you side-step any attempt to actually discuss Relevant Doctrine, I can see how you might remain in the confused state you have professed for some time now.

That fence must be getting very uncomfortable for you.


God bless.