A Doctrine for Cowards

[SolaSaint]

Amen DHK!:thumbsup:

 

[Protestant]

This entire post is a total non sequitor in reference to the rapture, where it is in reference to the Great Tribulation, (pre, mid, post), if it is, etc. It is totally irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the rapture whatsoever.

Au contraire, my recent posts have everything to do with the Rapture as part and parcel of the Great Tribulation.

That you do not grasp the connection is alarming.

At issue is the final Word given to His people.

A Word which demands by its title a revealing, as opposed to a hiding.

Futurists claim to have discovered what no others have seen in Scripture: a hidden, secret doctrine called the ‘Pre-Tribulation Secret Rapture of the Church.’

Though claiming the authority of Scripture alone, the ‘Pre-Tribulation Secret Rapture of the Church’ doctrine denies:

1. The one-time, visible, personal, earth-shaking return of Christ in Judgment.

2. The advent of Antichrist preceding the advent of Jesus Christ.

3. The translation of the saints occurring at the last Trump.

4. The translation of the saints occurring after all the dead in Christ are resurrected, which is the first Resurrection.

5. The wheat and the tares will both be present on Earth at the end of the Age.

6. The tares will be gathered first.

Furthermore, Futurists deny:

7. There is no distinction between Jew or Gentile in Christ.

8. The historical truth that a very real Great Tribulation has been ongoing for centuries.

9. The united truthful Holy Ghost testimony of the saints and martyrs of centuries past as to the identity of Antichrist.

10. The identity of Antichrist, though centuries of historical proofs confirm fulfillment of the prophetic Scriptures.

I quote the words of English biblical scholar, textual critic, and theologian, S.P. Tregelles, an ex-member of the Plymouth Brethren and once close friend of John Nelson Darby:

When a new doctrine is taught as if it were a revealed truth, it behooves every Christian to inquire on what Scripture testimony it rests; and unless this is satisfactorily set forth, what is taught ought not to be accepted. This will apply very definitely to the system of the secret rapture and secret coming…….

Is it not surprising that men with their Bibles in their hands, can be led to adopt a theory of doctrine which not only adds to Scripture, but contradicts it at all points? This is just the simple and natural consequence of the acceptance of the one leading addition to Scripture, that there shall be a secret coming of the Lord, and a secret rapture of His Church…….

I am not aware that there was any definite teaching that there would be a secret rapture of the Church at a secret coming, until this was given forth as an "utterance" in Mr. Irving’s Church, from what was there received as being the voice of the Spirit. But whether any one ever asserted such a thing or not, it was from that supposed revelation that the modern doctrine and the modern phraseology respecting it arose. It came not from Holy Scripture, but from that which falsely pretended to be the Spirit of God, while not owning the true doctrine of our Lord’s incarnation in the same flesh and blood as His brethren, but without taint of sin. (The Hope of Christ’s Second Coming by S.P. Tregelles, 1864)

The entire book may be read online: http://community.logos.com/forums/t/55634.aspx

P.S. Tregelles’ last comment was in reference to Edward Irving’s heretical view of the incarnation of Christ for which he was deposed as a minister of the Church of Scotland.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

They will shed my blood one day, if I live to see the Tribulation.

Sounds like Peter before he denied Christ 3 times.

 

[DHK]

From Wikipedia, and validated by other sources:

Life

Tregelles was born at Wodehouse Place, Falmouth, of Quaker parents, but he himself for many years was in communion with the Plymouth Brethren and then later in life became a Presbyterian (or perhaps an Anglican).[1] He was the son of Samuel Tregelles (1789–1828) and his wife Dorothy (1790–1873) and was the nephew of Edwin Octavius Tregelles. He was educated at Falmouth classical school from 1825 to 1828.
For a time Tregelles worked at the ironworks, Neath Abbey, Glamorgan, where he devoted his spare time to learning Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and Welsh. His interest in Welsh developed from a desire to spread the Christian gospel and especially to combat the influence of atheism, Roman Catholicism, and Mormonism in Wales.[2] Tregelles became a private tutor in Falmouth, and finally devoted himself to scholarship until incapacitated by paralysis in 1870.
In April 1839 Tregelles married Sarah Anna Prideaux (born 22 September 1807). They had no children. Tregelles received an LL.D. degree from St Andrews in 1850 and a pension of £200 from the civil list in 1862. He died at Plymouth.
Works

Discovering that the textus receptus did not rest on ancient authority, Tregelles decided to publish a new version of the Greek text of the New Testament based on ancient manuscripts and the citations of the early church fathers, his work paralleling that of German philologist and textual critic, Karl Lachmann. Tregelles first became generally known through his Book of Revelation in Greek Edited from Ancient Authorities (1844), which contained the announcement of his intention to prepare the new Greek New Testament. In 1845 he went to Rome intending to collate the codex belonging to the Vatican. Although he was not allowed to copy the manuscript, he did note important readings.[3] From Rome he went to Florence, Modena, Venice, Munich, and Basel, reading and collating manuscripts. He returned to England in November 1846, continuing to collate manuscripts in the British Museum. Tregelles also visited Paris, Hamburg, Berlin (where he met Lachmann), and Leipzig (where he collaborated with Constantin von Tischendorf), Dresden, Wolfenbüttel, and Utrecht.
Most of his numerous publications had reference to his great critical edition of the New Testament (1857-1872). They include an Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament (1854), a new edition of T. H. Horne's Introduction (1860), and Canon Muratorianus: Earliest Catalogue of Books of the New Testament (1868). Tregelles was a member of the English revision committee overseeing the preparation of the Bible translation known as the Revised Version (or English Revised Version) of which the New Testament was published in 1881, six years after his death.
Tregelles also wrote Heads of Hebrew Grammar (1852), translated Gesenius's Hebrew Lexicon (1846, 1857) from Latin, and was the author of a little work on the Jansenists (1851) and of various works in exposition of his special eschatological views including Remarks on the Prophetic Visions of Daniel (1852, new ed., 1864) and The Hope of Christ's Second Coming (1864).[4] Like his cousin by marriage, Benjamin Wills Newton, who was instrumental in Tregelles's conversion and who helped finance publication of his books, Tregelles was a post tribulationist.[5]
An acquaintance said of Tregelles that he was "able to shed a light upon any topic that might be introduced," but that to ask him a question was dangerous because "doing so was like reaching to take a book and having the whole shelf-full precipitated upon your head."[6] Despite his erudition, Tregelles was also a warm-hearted evangelical who wrote many hymns, now largely forgotten, the earliest of which were published in the Plymouth Brethren's Hymns for the Poor of the Flock (1838)

He was a man that criticized the Bible and attacked its authority. He spent most of his life doing that. At the end of this article it comes out and says that he was post-tribulational--a biased point of view to start with. It was the accepted point of view without questioning in the mid-1800's. He probably just copied everyone else.
The main problem is his attitude toward God's Word--a critic. I wouldn't trust his work with a ten foot pole (or longer).

 

[DHK]

Au contraire, my recent posts have everything to do with the Rapture as part and parcel of the Great Tribulation.

That you do not grasp the connection is alarming.

At issue is the final Word given to His people.

The Scripture you have been posting has to do with Christian living; not final warnings. They are out of context. Learn to rightly divide the Word of truth.

A Word which demands by its title a revealing, as opposed to a hiding.

Futurists claim to have discovered what no others have seen in Scripture: a hidden, secret doctrine called the ‘Pre-Tribulation Secret Rapture of the Church.’

Not so. Do you think with millions of Christians missing world wide it will be "secret"? Hardly! It will be anything but secret! I have posted Scripture for this already in another forum. Neither is the doctrine secret. It is irrefutable.

Though claiming the authority of Scripture alone, the ‘Pre-Tribulation Secret Rapture of the Church’ doctrine denies:

1. The one-time, visible, personal, earth-shaking return of Christ in Judgment.

There is no such promise. He will come for his own--a coming of comfort (1Thes.4:16-18--comfort one another)
He will come in vengeance for the unbeliever (2Thes.1:6-10). You can't reconcile those two passages can you?

2. The advent of Antichrist preceding the advent of Jesus Christ.

Yes, but not the rapture. There will be no believers in the Great Tribulation, also known as Jacob's Trouble. They will be raptured before that time begins. God has not appointed us to wrath.

3. The translation of the saints occurring at the last Trump.

"The trump of God" in 1Thes.4 is not necessarily the last trump. Do you have solid evidence that it is?

4. The translation of the saints occurring after all the dead in Christ are resurrected, which is the first Resurrection.

They happen at relatively the same time. Paul, in 1Cor.15 describes the event, time wise, "in the twinkling of an eye." In 1Thes.4, Paul describes the order, but to us it happens so fast that order has no relevance.

5. The wheat and the tares will both be present on Earth at the end of the Age.

But who is that referring to? Do you really think that is referring to the Bride of Christ? Or are you part of the Bride?

6. The tares will be gathered first.

So the first resurrection is the resurrection of the unsaved. That is not what my Bible teaches. You are so confused.

Furthermore, Futurists deny:

7. There is no distinction between Jew or Gentile in Christ.

In Ephesians Paul teaches that we are all one in Christ.
In 1Cor.10 Paul teaches that we are all one in Christ.
In 2Cor.5 Paul teaches that we are all one in Christ.
Do you have a problem with Paul's teaching?
Don't make false accusations.

8. The historical truth that a very real Great Tribulation has been ongoing for centuries.

That is absurd. You just mentioned a coming antichrist that will be revealed before the Coming of Christ. The Coming Tribulation will come after the revealing of the Antichrist and will last for 7 years--Daniel's seventieth week.

9. The united truthful Holy Ghost testimony of the saints and martyrs of centuries past as to the identity of Antichrist.

That is the heretical teaching of allegory introduced by the heretic Origen.
It is not the historical method of interpretation of the Early Church Fathers.
All who live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
That doesn't mean all will go through the Great Tribulation.

10. The identity of Antichrist, though centuries of historical proofs confirm fulfillment of the prophetic Scriptures.

You are one confused person.

 

[Rippon]

From Wikipedia, and validated by other sources:

He was a man that criticized the Bible and attacked its authority. He spent most of his life doing that.
The main problem is his attitude toward God's Word--a critic. I wouldn't trust his work with a ten foot pole (or longer).

It is very strange that you quote an article that extols the virtues of Tregelles as a erudite scholar and a warm-hearted Evangelical and yet make determinations that are completely at variance with your "support."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself DHK. I rebuked you for your lies about Tregelles, Westcott, Hort and others back in 2011. Yet you still persist.

It was just a day or so ago that I was moved when Dan Wallace spoke of his admiration of Samuel Tregelles --then you come along and demean the man --as is your fashion.

Tregelles needs to be respected as a man who loved God's Word. He was a conservative textual critic --a man who sought to please the Lord in his work.

 

[DHK]

It is very strange that you quote an article that extols the virtues of Tregelles as a erudite scholar and a warm-hearted Evangelical and yet make determinations that are completely at variance with your "support."

You ought to be ashamed of yourself DHK. I rebuked you for your lies about Tregelles, Westcott, Hort and others back in 2011. Yet you still persist.

It was just a day or so ago that I was moved when Dan Wallace spoke of his admiration of Samuel Tregelles --then you come along and demean the man --as is your fashion.

Tregelles needs to be respected as a man who loved God's Word. He was a conservative textual critic --a man who sought to please the Lord in his work.

I admit I am not the expert on the man's life. I read about half a dozen biographical sites to find out what he believes and the main thing that I found in common was information like this:

Discovering that the textus receptus did not rest on ancient authority, Tregelles decided to publish a new version of the Greek text of the New Testament based on ancient manuscripts and the citations of the early church fathers, his work paralleling that of German philologist and textual critic, Karl Lachmann.

IMO, this is an attack on the Word of God. Others may not see it that way, but I do.

 

[Rippon]

I admit I am not the expert on the man's life. I read about half a dozen biographical sites to find out what he believes

And your main source was...let me guess...KJVO sites.

IMO, this is an attack on the Word of God. Others may not see it that way, but I do.

He certainly did not attack God's Word. He was a textual critic --not a higher critic. He was not the Bart Ehrman of his day. He was devoted to the Lord and worked hard at his craft.

I know you are a fan of David Sorenson who wrote "Touch not the unclean thing." But in a review, here is a snip of what Doug Kutilek said about Tregelles:

"His contribution to Christian scholarship was immense and his theological orthodoxy is beyond quibble or dispute."

Aside from textual matters, here is what Spurgeon said:

"Tregelles is deservedly regarded as a great authority upon prophetical subjects." (Commenting on Commentaries,pg,130)

 

[Rippon]

From Tregelle's book "The hope of his coming" I will submit a snip from his piece "Sentiment and emotion."

"The English Bible is thought to be enough for teachers. Exact scholarship is deemed superfluous if the original languages are looked at. How different is this from the real study of God's Word; from using and valuing each portion, however minute, as being from Him; as being that of which He can unfold to us the meaning by the teaching of His Spirit. How different is this from the practical application of the most definite rules of grammar which lead to absolute persuasion that the apostles and evangelists wrote nothing at random, but that even as to the delicate shades of thought they used the right cases, moods, and tenses. All diligent and careful inquiry, all laborious examination of authorities so as to know what were the very words in which the inspired writers gave forth the Scripture, is regarded as merely intellectual and secular.
--This is not healthy. Should not those who believe in the Divine authority of Holy Scripture know better than to neglect its critical study? And if it be truly inspired, ought they not feel it is of some importance to inquire what is its true text, and, as far as existing evidence can show, what were the very words in which the Holy Ghost gave it forth? It is most difficult to arouse Christians in general to a sense of the full importance of critical study of Scripture, especially when dreamy apprehensions are cherished and vague idealism has taken the place of truth, and sentimental asceticism is the substitute of Christian holiness.
--He who truly loves the Lord Jesus Christ and is guided by His Spirit will be the most subject to that which is written in the Word. True acquaintance with Scripture is the best check to mere sentimental emotion."

 

[DHK]

And your main source was...let me guess...KJVO sites.

Not one was KJVO. The first site was the old familiar Wikipedia. That is the one I posted from. Another was an Encyclopedia. They were mostly neutral and objective sources. Face it. The majority of his life was spent in attacking the TR and building a text based on the CT. We both know that.

He certainly did not attack God's Word. He was a textual critic --not a higher critic. He was not the Bart Ehrman of his day. He was devoted to the Lord and worked hard at his craft.

Even devoted people can be deliberately misled in their work.

I know you are a fan of David Sorenson who wrote "Touch not the unclean thing."

A total non sequitor.

But in a review, here is a snip of what Doug Kutilek said about Tregelles:

"His contribution to Christian scholarship was immense and his theological orthodoxy is beyond quibble or dispute."

Aside from textual matters, here is what Spurgeon said:

"Tregelles is deservedly regarded as a great authority upon prophetical subjects." (Commenting on Commentaries,pg,130)

From what I read he spent some time toward the end of his life writing about prophecy. He was a writer. But the great majority of his life was given to textual criticism with a great distaste for the TR. He started with that bias.

 

[prophet]

Sounds like Peter before he denied Christ 3 times.

Peter's blood was shed.

He was crucified.

What's your point?

Were all the martyrs deniers of Christ, as well?
Or are you just a scorner?

 

[DHK]

Quoted by Protestant:

I quote the words of English biblical scholar, textual critic, and theologian, S.P. Tregelles, an ex-member of the Plymouth Brethren and once close friend of John Nelson Darby:

So, what is you point?

Benjamin Wills Newton, who was instrumental in Tregelles's conversion and who helped finance publication of his books, Tregelles was a post tribulationist.

You prove post-tribulationism through a post-tribulationist?? Duh.
He wasn't always a Plymouth Brethren.

 

[prophet]

Quoted by Protestant:

So, what is you point?

You prove post-tribulationism through a post-tribulationist?? Duh.
He wasn't always a Plymouth Brethren.

Certainly (though this is purely 'anecdotal evidence, the story of one confused Bible scholar, pointing out the errors of another ), Darby did affect the Fundamentalists who followed after, helped in large part by Scofield, DTS, and the Protestant anti- NCC Fun.Movement.

We can't build a case for Pre-Wrath Post-Trib on his testimony, but we can build a case against Pre-Trib.

PWPT was the accepted belief of the day, prior to Darby.
Darby had issues with Textual Criticism.

This is indisputable.

This much we can glean from Protestants' posts.

 

[DHK]

Certainly (though this is purely 'anecdotal evidence, the story of one confused Bible scholar, pointing out the errors of another ), Darby did affect the Fundamentalists who followed after, helped in large part by Scofield, DTS, and the Protestant anti- NCC Fun.Movement.

We can't build a case for Pre-Wrath Post-Trib on his testimony, but we can build a case against Pre-Trib.

PWPT was the accepted belief of the day, prior to Darby.
Darby had issues with Textual Criticism.

This is indisputable.

This much we can glean from Protestants' posts.

He was quoting from Tregelles. Tregelles was not pre-trib; he was post-trib. It has nothing to do with the beliefs of Darby. That is a red herring. Deal with the facts at hand.
It is like Rippon saying I am going to prove that the ASV is the better translation because it is from the Critical text. The CT is the better text. Can't you see that the ASV is translated from it and therefore it is the better translation. "rolleyes"
--The circular reasoning used by Protestant is nonsense.
I am going to prove post-trib to by using a post-trib. Right!!

 

[prophet]

He was quoting from Tregelles. Tregelles was not pre-trib; he was post-trib. It has nothing to do with the beliefs of Darby. That is a red herring. Deal with the facts at hand.
It is like Rippon saying I am going to prove that the ASV is the better translation because it is from the Critical text. The CT is the better text. Can't you see that the ASV is translated from it and therefore it is the better translation. "rolleyes"
--The circular reasoning used by Protestant is nonsense.
I am going to prove post-trib to by using a post-trib. Right!!

Ok, you didn't understand my post, sorry, I'll write it in crayon next time.

I excused Tregelles' testimony as anecdotal evidence.

But History tells us that Darby was the vehicle for change ( from PW/PT to PreTrib) among Protestants and specifically Fundamentalist Movement Groups.

We are looking for a reason, in the Scriptures, for the change.

Everytime the light is shined on that period, it reveals that this change was interwoven with the onset of CT mania.

Darby and Tregelles had common ground, in the Nestle/Aland.

They didn't agree in how it affected eschatology.

Scofield backed up Darby in both.

These are the points worth looking at.

 

[DHK]

Ok, you didn't understand my post, sorry, I'll write it in crayon next time.

I excused Tregelles' testimony as anecdotal evidence.

But History tells us that Darby was the vehicle for change ( from PW/PT to PreTrib) among Protestants and specifically Fundamentalist Movement Groups.

I disagree. Those who argue against dispensationalism would have us falsely believe that but it is not true. Why reiterate a falsehood over and over again.
Read this link:
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

Dispensationalism was believed by many of the ECF and other scholars that preceded Darby. To say that Darby was the "inventor" of it is a falsehood, showing careless study, and the parroting of others.

We are looking for a reason, in the Scriptures, for the change.

What change are you talking about. We look to the Scriptures for the truth.

Everytime the light is shined on that period, it reveals that this change was interwoven with the onset of CT mania.

That doesn't make it right. An unsaved university professor with nothing to lose in this argument was presented with the evidence for the TR and then with the evidence for the CT. He concluded that the evidence for the CT would be laughed "out of court." The CT has no text, so to speak. It is completely eclectic or piecemeal, drawing from a piece here and a piece there. It isn't a text at all.

Darby and Tregelles had common ground, in the Nestle/Aland.

They didn't agree in how it affected eschatology.

Scofield backed up Darby in both.

These are the points worth looking at.

The textual issue isn't worth looking at. Take it to the versions forum where it belongs. The fact that Tregelles is a post-trib is the only fact that counts.
Protestant brought Tregelles into this argument. Rippon backed him up. The fact remains he is post-trip. The entire argument is moot. This discussion is not a textual issue. That is simply a red herring and derailing the thread. Go back to the OP.

 

[prophet]

I disagree. Those who argue against dispensationalism would have us falsely believe that but it is not true. Why reiterate a falsehood over and over again.
Read this link:
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

Dispensationalism was believed by many of the ECF and other scholars that preceded Darby. To say that Darby was the "inventor" of it is a falsehood, showing careless study, and the parroting of others.

What change are you talking about. We look to the Scriptures for the truth.

That doesn't make it right. An unsaved university professor with nothing to lose in this argument was presented with the evidence for the TR and then with the evidence for the CT. He concluded that the evidence for the CT would be laughed "out of court." The CT has no text, so to speak. It is completely eclectic or piecemeal, drawing from a piece here and a piece there. It isn't a text at all.

The textual issue isn't worth looking at. Take it to the versions forum where it belongs. The fact that Tregelles is a post-trib is the only fact that counts.
Protestant brought Tregelles into this argument. Rippon backed him up. The fact remains he is post-trip. The entire argument is moot. This discussion is not a textual issue. That is simply a red herring and derailing the thread. Go back to the OP.

You are answering a post with the word "dispensational" in it.

Mine was not that post.

 

[prophet]

I agree with Protestant on one point.

I believe that people want to believe in a Pre-Trib Resurrection, and gathering of those alive in Christ, because they fear the events detailed in the pouring out of God's Wrath.

We are not appointed to Wrath, and will not ever face it, and all who do are damned, anyway, cause they took the mark of the False christ.

Are Christians who experience fear, damned?
No, positionally, they have no imputed iniquity on their record, and will be Judged by that Record, and not their actions.

But....

2Th 2:1-4
Chapter 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means:for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Who is falling away here?

Unbelievers? Nowhere to fall from.

Since Eternal Security is a no-brainer, than this can only be believers, who adhere to some wind of doctrine, germaine to the end of the World.
IMO, this could be the falling away of the PreTrib doctrine, that began ( this major falling away, not the actual doctrine....there's nothing new under the sun) With Darby, and was catapulted into prominence by Scofield, Dallas Theological Seminary, MBI (Torrey), and Rice (SotL).

Here's where I stand...

Baptists need to back right back out of the Movement, largely fueled by the above mentioned Bible Correctors, and take a look at the Scriptures again.

I also believe that dispensational teaching, Darby and Scofield style,
are poisoned by the CT adherents who put them back on the Map.

 

[DHK]

I agree with Protestant on one point.

I believe that people want to believe in a Pre-Trib Resurrection, and gathering of those alive in Christ, because they fear the events detailed in the pouring out of God's Wrath.

We are not appointed to Wrath, and will not ever face it, and all who do are damned, anyway, cause they took the mark of the False christ.

You have just made your case for a pre-trib rapture. We are not appointed to wrath. We will never face it. Well; all those in the Tribulation will face it. It is a time of God pouring out His wrath upon all the earth without discrimination. There will be no "land of Goshen" for the believers.

The "falling away."
Jesus himself said, "When I come will I find faith on this earth."
It could be gradual, as it is now. Percentage wise fewer and fewer are coming to the Lord. Our nations are becoming more and more wicked, secular and anti-Christian. The falling away is gradual not sudden. It is happening now.

Are Christians who experience fear, damned?
No, positionally, they have no imputed iniquity on their record, and will be Judged by that Record, and not their actions.

Christians have faced sever persecution ever since the time of the apostles. Read about how they suffer in Islamic nations. Get a copy of "Voice of the Martyrs," and read it. There were more Christians persecuted and martyred for their faith in the 20th century then in all other centuries combined! But that doesn't put us in the Tribulation now, does it?

But....
2Th 2:1-4
Chapter 2
1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
3 Let no man deceive you by any means:for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.

Who is falling away here?

Unbelievers? Nowhere to fall from.

Since Eternal Security is a no-brainer, than this can only be believers, who adhere to some wind of doctrine, germaine to the end of the World.
IMO, this could be the falling away of the PreTrib doctrine, that began ( this major falling away, not the actual doctrine....there's nothing new under the sun) With Darby, and was catapulted into prominence by Scofield, Dallas Theological Seminary, MBI (Torrey), and Rice (SotL).

Here's where I stand...

Baptists need to back right back out of the Movement, largely fueled by the above mentioned Bible Correctors, and take a look at the Scriptures again.

Again you make the mistake of attributing Biblical truth to Darby. That is wrong. Have you ever heard of Chiliasm? That which the early church fathers believed? It is basic dispensationalism. Some of them also believed in a pre-trib rapture. I keep providing a link that no one pays attention to, probably because they don't want and it goes against their theology.

I also believe that dispensational teaching, Darby and Scofield style,
are poisoned by the CT adherents who put them back on the Map.

Dispensationalism has been around well over a thousand years longer than they were born.

 

[Rippon]

It is like Rippon saying I am going to prove that the ASV is the better translation because it is from the Critical text. The CT is the better text. Can't you see that the ASV is translated from it and therefore it is the better translation. "rolleyes"

Please don't use hypotheticals involving my handle. When I use your handle it deals with things you have actually said.