Featured THE NINTH COMMANDMENT

I thought this thread was on the Ninth Commandment, but because it seems to be determinedly opened to a discussion of how one views the Scriptures in other matters, then I will oblige.

There ARE some on the board who are NOT Darby dispensationalists, who DO hold to dividing or "outlining" the Scriptures into "dispensational" sections. Some may or may not align with the typical "Darby" chart. Such have been labeled as Darby being their father or some other ridiculousness.

Imo, most have not read "Darby" but merely find a similar line of being able to section the Scriptures into periods of timing or eras. There work was not from a man, but their own efforts (as was mine) and it (imo) was inappropriate for some label, a claim made in order to discredit, and even, when showed proof that the claim was not correct, continued to beat that drum in mighty effort to attain some recognition of authority and superiority.

Not all who believe in a rapture, second coming, and literal millennial reign of Christ are "Darby" dispensationalists.

Dispensationalists have one "fit all" definition. They consider that God related (relates) to humankind under different covenants and therefore in different ways. What MUST be acknowledged is that this is also the thinking of those that would scorn "dispensation" thinking and endorse "Covenant" thinking.

Essentially the Covenant folks believe the SAME way! The dispensational folks merely divide the time line by economy and social / political scheme rather than by which covenant God happens to have invoked. BOTH groups divide the Scriptures and the manner in which God relates to Humankind.

That one group touts out some superiority or scorn over another group is fleshly and frankly not Scriptural.

Now it is clear that the opening of this thread (the OP) was going to point to a rather healthy discussion of the ninth commandment. I was looking forward to reading that discussion.

Can it now be assumed that the OP is offered under the guise of a different agenda? Is the OP offered in attempt to display some on the BB as "underhandedly" dishonest and deceitful?

 

Just because one states a certain aspect of their view and in part that aspect may be aligned with a certain aspect of some other labeled scheme does not mean they are wedded in every aspect to the total of all aspects of that labeled view or scheme.

SO WHAT some hold to some aspects of "dispensation" that doesn't make them a clone of Darby, or John Mac, or anyone else. I personally hold to the literal post tribulation second coming of Christ to rule for a literal 1000 years on this earth. Does that automatically make me a follower of "Darby?" Nope

I divide the Scriptures into various economic / social / political patterns. Does that automatically make me a follower of "Darby?" Nope

Here is the problem.

There are some on this board who want to proclaim great superiority and authority by placing labels on pigeon holes and then shoving folks into them, even if the label is wrong and the pigeon hole doesn't fit.

In the previous post, I stated that both the typical "dispensation" view, and the typical "covenant" view divide the Scriptures in to periods of emphasis. It is what is used for the division of emphasis that distinguishes the lines of dividing.

Neither scheme is superior to the other. Neither has some grand claim of being more "Scriptural" than the other. Both are merely tools used to describe a timeline.

That one may or may not use those tools in different posts and in different settings, and which tool they use, is not and should not be claimed by any other BB member as deceitful, and more, in violation of the ninth commandment.

What IS important is that there are some who would make the gentile church a replacing of Israel - that is a violation of Scriptures.

What IS important is that there are some who would make the gentile church a separate group from Israel - that is a violation of Scriptures.

What IS important is that there are those who recognize those areas of violation and are moving to meet out a much better scheme and one that hopefully will emerge as far more faithful to the Scriptural authority than any of the past 2000 years.

 

OK, I get it now. You say someone is a dispensationalist, someone else replies, "no I'm not". You, or Old Regular launch into a tirade about Darbyism, the person who is the object of your scorn says "I don't know anything about Darby" and then you label them a "Darby dispensationalist" and if they deny it, you say they are bearing false witness.

Got it.

I remember those threads now.

 

Because scorn is an apt description of the attitude taken by you and Old Regular to people who adhere to dispensationalism (or parts of dispensationalism). If you like I think I can dig up some threads via Google and lay bare the whole thing to the board. Frightful waste of time, I've got better things to do...

 

Brother, I know you have an aversion to labels. We have discussed it before. But how far do you take that aversion? Does it only apply to theological labels or to all labels? What labels will you accept and which labels will you reject? Can I call you an American, or do you reject that label too? Please do not think I am being cheeky. I am trying to get to the issue of consistency. If you truly eschew all labels, and are consistent in doing so, I salute you. Personally I could never live like that, but you may have a level of discipline that escapes me.

For me using a label, term, or phrase is a whole lot easier that saying, "Bob believes that there are seven classic dispensations, that eschatologically culminates in a pre-tribulational rapture, a seven year tribulation, a 1000 year millennial kingdom, the second coming, and then the final judgment". Whew! Referring to Bob as a Classical Dispensationalist would save a lot of vowels and consonants. But back to the issue at hand.

Bob doesn't have to accept the term "Dispensationalist", but that does not mean I have born false witness against him. I described his theological position based on a review of his beliefs and used common vernacular to describe my conclusion. However, if I said, "Bob believes that all non-Dispensationalists are going to hell", and I have no evidence Bob ever said or wrote such a thing, I would be bearing false witness against him. I think that sort of thing occurs on this board far too often. One side or the other draws conclusions that are not based on fact, and turns them into accusations. This seems to happen when someone's emotional boiling point has been reached.

Just my two cents.

 

My aversion is not to labels. My aversion is to labels imposed on me or anyone not accepted by me or anyone. Quite frankly those who cannot seem to function theologically without these labels are like people who use curse words in their consistent rhetoric. Fact is they do so because they are incapable of dealing with individual people's doctrines any other way. It is an inferior attempt at discussions between opposing views, it is most often inflammatory, and most labels are used as and intended to be pejoratives. Those who intentionally use these labels about or toward someone are not following several portions of scripture some of which are the following:

1. Colossians 4:6
2. Romans 12:3
3. Galatians 6:3
4. Philippians 2:3

People have very good reasons for not identifying with the systematic type labels that many Calvinists seem to idolize. These discussions in which others are accusing others of belonging to this group or that groups is no different than what Paul addressed in I Cor 1:10-13. Further when you accuse someone who does not identify with one of these men you are in fact bearing a false witness. You are making an accusation that is false about someone who does not identify with your man made label and the man attached to that label. People are perfectly capable of identifying themselves with what and with whom they choose. It is not up to you and your personal systematic theology to do that for them. Such is the height of arrogance.

 

Ya know, when you are using the speech to text option on your phone you can insert periods, commas, question marks into your sentences, just by speaking them at the end of your sentences and then pausing for a second before continuing with your dictation. Like this:

"Listen you don't have to go back and pick up anything[period]"

"I really dislike dispensationalism as a system[period]"

"I think it's destructive to Christians and church I make no bones about it[exclamation point]"

It's pretty cool! Try it.

 

I consider it CONTEMPT that I have for the outright stupidity of dispensationalism, and I admit I've a real problem with constraining it, because you people comprise the most dangerous cult in the world.

 

Is it OK to disagree with you without being "labeled" as arrogant? I know. A play on words there, but also truthful.

Try and view this as not a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist discussion. When I read the writings of someone who advocates that God gives people a second chance at salvation after death, I know they are an Open Theist. If they reject being called this, and I am accused on violating the 9th commandment because of it, then I will just have to shrug my shoulders and move on. I certainly am not going to lose sleep over it.

And FWIW, I do not have a list of who is what. The only time such a thing comes up is when I encounter it. However I strongly reject that describing what a person believes (which is the function of a label or term) is a 9th commandment violation, unless it is done with a willful intent to deceive. I am content in disagreeing with you on this point.

 

OK, here's some posts full of scorn from Old Regular. (Although in your previous post to me before this one, you said I didn't need to go back and look at anything. Make up your mind.)

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/darby-dispensationalism.93798/#post-2136329

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/amil-vs-pre-trib-pre-mil.93733/page-3

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...and-the-second-coming-of-christ.92979/page-10

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/john-nelson-darby-vs-baptist-confessions-of-faith.93640/

I could go on....these are just from the past 6 months.