Featured John Nelson Darby and Pre-trib-dispensationalism

Absolutely, true.

From my own dealing with folks, I personally can state that with most scholars, those who have dispensational thinking (though they may not be "Darby dispensationalists"), desire to be shown by Scriptures the error of a teaching, and not what some "authority" says.

Imo, those on the BB that have a dispensational background (whether such a system is still held or not) have that same attitude. They (We) hold the Scriptures as not only the final authority but the vital authority.

That is exactly my own experience.

I could not reconcile the church as a separate "parenthesis" in God's plan.

Perusing back through history, there is no doubt that the dispensational teaching (NOT that of Darby style) has been like a thread in which (imo) is more often was used (as I do) to outline various social / economic trends in Scriptures and also the way God "talked" to humankind. And each scholar used and modified such a scheme to their own needs.

Dispensation thinking and teaching can be found in any of the eschatology points of view.

On this thread, the statements of Ice and Ryrie indicate that dispensationalism viewed as a doctrine is "fathered" by Darby.

That can be conceded IF and ONLY IF that excludes ALL other forms outside of "Darby Dispensation."

He DID NOT "father" historic premillennialism, post millennialism, nor a millennialism. He (imo) took what he knew from premillennial teaching and produced a chart with some extras. He needed a catchy name and used "dispensation."

That way, all those who were already using dispensation could look at a chart as a comparative to their own scheme(s).

What my argument has always been (and I think that of some other posters) is that "Darby dispensation" isn't the ONLY of dispensational thinking nor should it be taught as the only.

It is THAT message that is missing and the overreaching bias of some who have posted on the BB. Some on the BB just can't seem to get past the hurdle that one can claim to be a dispensationalist and not be associated with anything Darby or not even know of the man's writing.

On a side:

For those who want a very good chart on the four major views of eschatology, try this from "Five Solas."
Within the body of the chart, one can get a good understanding of the prominent folks who speak from that perspective.

Keep in mind that there are those of us that don't "fit" in the chart. We are dispensational and covenant. We take the Scriptures as literally as possible, and find it difficult to get along with anyone who would place them in the light of make believe.

 

Since that time I have been reading Charles Ryries book on Dispensationalism and last night read a chapter on dispensationalism in the book Faith Works by Mac whom defended the system.

 

Interesting.

I'll have to read through the information you gave and I "snipped" to shorten my response on this thread.

In going through "What I have learned," (by Darby) that I posted a link, yesterday, I didn't catch anything, but then I was reading very fast, and often don't catch the small stuff in that reading mode.

 

So, OR and I have had a few spirited discussions concerning “dispensationalism”.

In my usual manner I skipped over most of the posts after a discernment of what I thought is really going on (rightly or wrongly) with the direction of the subject matter – a diatribe against Dispensationalism.

I accept the label but somewhat reluctantly. Like Calvinism it has the reputation of Heinz 57 varieties of soups.

My college theology platform days were based upon the seven volume (eighth being an index) Systematic Theology by Lewis Sperry Chafer, a staunch dispensationalist which I chose because my local church origin was hyper fundamentalist and used the KJV Bible edited by CI Scofield (1917 edition) and yes we were KJVO as well (strange but true).

Calvary Bible College and Theological Seminary (KCMO) my “Alma Mater” appears from their Statement of Faith to have remained dispensational. At the time of my attendance and graduation they were considered almost an extension of Dallas Theological Seminary, the Vatican of Dispensationalism.

Some essential theological dogma in Christendom has had a bumpy road history in the saga of the Church of Jesus Christ.

e.g. The doctrine of the Trinity which was not resolved for three hundred plus years and of course is still not universally accepted in Christendom and even when “accepted” there are marked differences and variations from the traditional Nicaean doctrine.

I’m not giving dispensationalism the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity just showing by a similar historical illustration that dispensationalism also has had a bumpy road history and in fact and IMO it is still evolving as in the manner of other church dogma. Much of dispensational teaching has fallen by the wayside as well it should have. e.g. The “Parenthesis of the Church” , the two gospels – one to Jew, one to gentiles and other teachings.

My own view is not what I call the “cookie cutter” view of dispensationalism (Dallas Theological Seminary) and had I a choice would label myself (though I don’t like labels) a “covenantalist” but alas I would then be mistaken for a Covenant Theology advocate which in its traditional sense I am not.

My view allows for a “dispensation” only when there is a clear and unmistakable (for the most part) Covenant introduced (implicit or explicit) between God and man, God of course initiating said covenant.

Yes I still believe the Church (those born again) and redeemed Israel (those circumcised in heart) are distinct (but not separate) at least in the New Jerusalem.

Hebrews 12
22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.

Just some blathering FWIW.


HankD

 

Ok, I read Spurgeon, and lifted out the following quote that he used from the writing of Darby.

I may be wrong, but I don't see Spurgeon's point.

Darby is basically saying that:

• The cross was a commonly used tool and no significance should be attached to the wood or deed done by the Romans.
• The Bible states that anyone hung upon a tree is cursed and therefore the curse of the law was not the same as the wrath of God poured out for sin.
• Because Jesus bore the wrath of God due to sin in his own body, redemption is in Christ, not a piece of wood.
• Christ, although slain with others, was the only one that could bear and did bear the wrath of God.
• The wood of the cross was unimportant in comparison to that of the deed done by Christ.

Now, I know I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but frankly, I don't see the problem that Spurgeon is building his argument upon. There isn't anything in Darby's statement (unless I missed something) that I would find heretical.

The rest of the article is merely recounting the daily activity and testimony of living of the Brethern as a group and not specific as to any heresy taught by Darby.

If I missed something, please point it out.

 

I have read through a portion of James Grant's writing, and the argument seems to be about the place of the moral law in the life of the believer.

The Brethern apparently adopt the view that the 10 commandments (with the exception of the two restated by Christ) is not to be followed in the sense of having the power to condemn or even sway over the believer. They to take the Scriptures "For if those who are of the Law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise is nullified; for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation. (Romans 4) and view the law of God as having no specific bearing on them as believers.

Again, I am having a bit of difficulty finding fault with that thinking. Perhaps I am not finding the information that James Grant is citing, but what I read and what he is accounting seem too be different.

Paul said that from the perspective of a believer the purpose of the law was as a teacher that points to Christ. Is there some other purpose that shackles me to the law after Christ has unshackled me?

I realize this is a bit off topic of the thread.

But, I as yet have not adopted that Darby was a Heretic.

Perhaps some have further information or clarity that I am not seeing?

 

John MacArthur who also acknowledge that Darby is the father of Dispensationalism doesn't help your case that it predates Darby.

"Dispensationalism's earliest influential spokesmen included J. N. Darby, founder of the Plymouth Brethren and considered by many the father of modern dispensationalism;... Faith Works pg 223


MacArthur also agrees Ryrie that the key component of Dispensationalism is the clear Israel Church divide.

Quoting Ryrie he says "' The essence of Dispensationalism, then is the distinction between Israel and the church....' On these matters, it seems, Dr. Ryrie and I are in fundamental agreement." pg 221

So again all you have to do is point to anyone prior to Darby that held to a strict Israel/Church divide to prove it predates Darby. Ryrie does not point to anyone and neither does MacArthur.

 

[QUOTE="TCassidy, post: 2186624, member: 2704"
[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen this chart in decades. Had forgotten that the top of the chart lists a typical covenant view.

What I strongly disagreed with was the very bottom indications on the chart.

I thought, even then, that it presented a view that wasn't faithful to Scriptures, but attempted to use how God dealt with humankind as specific ways He would redeem humankind of that period. Use and redeem is two separate and not equal items.

Erase the bottom, and the chart does make a pretty good outline. But, like any tool, some would exercise great authority upon it rather than the Scriptures.

 

(Imo) perhaps the problem with appointing Darby as the "father of modern dispensationalism" is that some do see that the "ism" isn't the same as the "ist."

History is clear that there were and are many dispensationalists who do not hold to Darby dispensationalism.

What the writers such as Ryrie and MacArthur state is (imo) true, IF it is directed toward that of Darby, only, and the modern concept of a parenthesis church age, rapture, tribulation, ... However, again, Darby didn't invent dispensation thinking. He developed it.

Edison didn't invent electricity. He developed a tool that uses electricity so one could read the Scriptures at night.

Darby didn't invent dispensational thinking. He developed a tool to use with thinking that already had been going on for millennia.

What seems to me to be a problem is the desire to assign a person to the tool (for example: light bulb) and then suggest that all future (light bulbs) must pay homage to that person, even if there is no resemblance or engineering other than the what it does (illuminates), more over blame that person for any failures in the tool or how that tool is used.

 

Thank you.

I opened another thread that I think will be helpful in this discussion.

PLEASE, I value your wisdom, and desire whatever input you may offer.

Let's start with that topic of antinomainiam and visit.

What place has the moral law as seen by the Brethren as compared to Scriptures?

 

I will look at that quote. But Darby was by no means the originator of the dispensational POV as all he did was systematize concepts taught way before his time.

Look at the Dispensationalism book by Ryrie and the chart in the chapter on its origins. See many prior to Darby had a system.

 

All he or anyone can do is show that people before Darby broke the Bible into Dispensations, but Ryrie as I have quoted make it clear that viewing Dispensations does not make one a Dispensationalist. To prove that Dispensationalism exist before Darby, by both Ryrie And MacArthur standard you have to show someone that made a clear divide between Israel and the Church. That is what makes a Dispensationalist a Dispensationalist.

 

Perhaps the key work is not "Dispensationalism" but "modern."

That little word is a qualifier that removes it from stating that there was the nothing preexisting Darby.

That little word ("modern") would also be correct in that it is certainly "Darby" thinking that the last 150 years or more has brought the question of the future into reality with the modern news. Many modern christian books wouldn't be nearly as interesting a read if it were not for adopting at least a portion of the futuristic scheme of Darby.

However, there were futurists from the time of the Apostles. Such were those believers who got a bit misdirected and Paul had to give re-direction, too.

So, "futurist" thinking wasn't invented by Darby, either.

What did he actually "invent?" Not much in my opinion.

From what I have read so far, the man does more in combating the governmental and hierarchical driven church that is bound to government, policy, denomination, and / or some form of bishopric rather than Scriptures. His eschatology seems rather lesser in emphasis as a comparison at this point. He is somewhat "Separatist" in his teaching of Scriptures. Well, that is a general impression I have so far.

 

I would like to point out that there were those who held (even hold) to God in some manner rejecting, replacing, or cancelling all covenant relationships with Israel in favor of the "church."

Romans addresses this issue and so it was a problem of thinking even back then.

 

Little Buddy, I know it will be hard for you --but you have to let whom go in these instances. What do you have against who? It's perfectly acceptable.

 

Charles Spurgeon was decidedly against 'Brethrenism' but he admired some of them. He especially liked George Muller and met with him a number of times.

He said of William Kelly : "Kelly is a man who, born for the universe, has narrowed his mind by Darbyism."

Kelly wrote a book : Christ's Coming Again which, (according to Wikipedia)"vindicates the originality of Darby's teaching in regard to the Secret Rapture." [theory --Rip]

 

Hey, Rippon, should that be "vindicates" because I can't find "vinicates?"

 

Problem Tom: (my problem not yours): What is meant by "Christ directs us back to the law for regulation" when you/one says "law" what is meant? the Torah?

Here in my neck of the woods (WA State) there is a kind of messianic Christianity (comprised mostly of Gentiles) growing rapidly which say that we need to keep the "Torah" including the dietary law, the Sabbath, etc...

I reminded them (through Facebook) that there are 200-300 (according to Judaism 101) "mitzvouth" of the 613 which cannot be kept because there is no functioning temple in Jerusalem or identifiable levitical priesthood to administer temple upkeep.

Also the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council negates the necessity of Gentiles keeping the Law of Moses.

After a short delay the answer came back that we were to keep that which could be kept and that the Acts 15 council was only against the Pharisaical version of Talmudic Judaism.

Anything less that this constitutes antinomianism which label they gave to me as I am a Sunday keeper and an eater of pork, shellfish, etc...

Their motto seems to be "we must walk as Jesus walked - keeping Torah".

True this brings a wider scope than just dispensationalism because any Sunday keeper is cursed.

Looking forward to your response.

HankD

 

Excellent response, Hank.

I think this would be a great discussion!

Would you all mind holding it in the Darby thread I started.

It would serve well to explore this and any other area outside of eschatology in that thread.

Thanks,