A-millennialism still reigns supreme -

Trail;
My comments were by design, absurd.
Much like your lumping Russell, Smith, Eddy, and White in with Darby.

In HIS service;
Jim

 

Trailblazer, why do you fear interaction with me? Why can't you answer basic questions? Why are you a gnostic? Why do you sit in judgment upon God's word?

I have demonstrated countless times that premillenialism can be dated all the way back to the disciples of John himself. Do you get that? Can you comprehend such information? Is this going over your head?

JOHN'S DISCIPLES WERE PREMILLENIAL.

The roots of amillenialism can be seen in the writings of the heretic, gnostic Origen. This was quickly followed by the gnostic Augustine.

So, if you want to argue history, man up and deal with the issues and not these mindless retorts about cult leaders. I can trace my beliefs to the disciples of John. I can trace your beliefs to a couple of gnostics.

Time to man up and stop pretending you are the gingerbread man.

 

I don't know about some on this forum but I trace my beliefs back to Jesus Christ. In John 5:28, 29, Jesus Christ, through the writing of the Apostle John, tells us in very clear unambiguous language:

28 Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

At a certain hour sometime in the future Jesus Christ tells us that all, not some, that are in the graves shall hear His voice and come forth they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Jesus Christ makes it so simple, there will come a specific time in history when all the dead, both saved and unsaved, will be resurrected. This resurrection will be followed by the Great White Throne Judgment [Revelation 20:11-15; Matthew 25:31-46].

What is it about the perverse nature of man that makes him want to listen to cunningly devised fables invented by cunning mankind, the likes of John Nelson Darby and E. I. Scofield.

 

I have never read any of the works of Darby or Scofield.

John 5 tells us that the time is coming when those who are in the grave will come forth and face the judgment.

I agree with that. I don't know of any premillenialist that disagrees.

Now, can you answer any of the texts I gave you?

Matt, you are still struggling with the issue of inerrancy. When you have that settled, then you may understand other theological issues.

 

trailblazer, I have two of Irenaeous' books in my desk. I suggest your study go a little beyond the hack you have attempted so far.

Christ also said something in Matthew 19:28. Where does that fit in your little scheme? Hmmmm? Btw, it doesn't.

Further, I couldn't care less about Darby. I have not read any of Darby's works. I am premill and believe in imminence, like Irenaeous as well.

Don't come bringing your amill to the game. You will be shut out.

 

I told you I have his books. Am I supposed to type out his books? Do a little study yourself. You seem bent on the amill garbage without any actually study. I shouldn't be surprised.

 

DD, so far you have cited the mispelled names of three ECFs whom you say support pre-millenialism; you also on your own authority go on to call two further ECFs heretics and gnostics because they disagree with you. You have however adduced no evidence in support of your contentions. Please cite the references that lead you to conclude that Polycarp, Irenaeus and Ignatius were chiliasts eg: Letter to the Trallians, Martyrdom of Polycarp, Against Heresies, and those that lead you conclude that Origen and Augustine were heretics. Bear in mind also that Irenaeus refers to Jesus being 50 years old at the time of His death; he frequently cites the doctrines of his gnostic opponents as a rhetorical device before criticising them and it is often difficult to discern what he believes and what he is debunking.

So, let's have the references, please

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Sorry Trailblazer, you argue amiss.
Here seems to be your argument:

I did not get my eschatology from Origen.
I got it straight from the Bible.
If you don't understand the Bible like i do
then you got your eschatology from Darby.

Well, here is a counter argument that i won't
make because i see how two-faced it is.

I did not get my eschatology from Darby.
I got it straight from the Bible.
If you don't understand the Bible like i do
then you got your eschatology from Origen.

 

Trailblazer: "And would it also be accurate for
us to say that your beliefs are rooted in
Darbyology, Mariology, and Popology?"

Such leaps of logic are illogical.
What really strains your logic is that you are
offended when the same tactic is used on yourself.
Oh well, we are all incouraged to get more exercise.
"Jumping to Conclusions" is good exercise

 

DD, some quotes (with citation references) from some ECFs, including two of the three you particularly like:-

Ignatius of Antioch


"I have no taste for corruptible food nor for the pleasures of this life. I desire the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David; and for drink I desire his blood, which is love incorruptible" (Letter to the Romans 7:3 [A.D. 110]).

"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).


Justin Martyr


"We call this food Eucharist, and no one else is permitted to partake of it, except one who believes our teaching to be true and who has been washed in the washing which is for the remission of sins and for regeneration [i.e., has received baptism] and is thereby living as Christ enjoined. For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nurtured, is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnated Jesus" (First Apology 66 [A.D. 151]).


Irenaeus


"If the Lord were from other than the Father, how could he rightly take bread, which is of the same creation as our own, and confess it to be his body and affirm that the mixture in the cup is his blood?" (Against Heresies 4:33–32 [A.D. 189]).

"He has declared the cup, a part of creation, to be his own blood, from which he causes our blood to flow; and the bread, a part of creation, he has established as his own body, from which he gives increase unto our bodies. When, therefore, the mixed cup [wine and water] and the baked bread receives the Word of God and becomes the Eucharist, the body of Christ, and from these the substance of our flesh is increased and supported, how can they say that the flesh is not capable of receiving the gift of God, which is eternal life—flesh which is nourished by the body and blood of the Lord, and is in fact a member of him?" (ibid., 5:2).

...

I take it therefore that you also agree with them on the Catholic doctrines of the Real Presence and Baptismal Regeneration, as set out above? And, since you consider Origen to be a heretic, that you disagree with his doctrine of the Trinity, affirmed at the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, and the touchstone of Christian orthodoxy ever since?

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Please be carefull, Brother Matt Black.
The a-mill here have brought a John Nelson Darby
of 19th Century (1801-1900) England to the table.
Because of what you did (claiming that someone
who mentions a person MUST believe all the herecies
they believed) your friends are going to have enough
arguments (against which they have no defense) to
cover them over

 

Matt and Trailblazer, this is good stuff. You see, this is the kind of stuff we need. I love when you amills try to delve into history and theology. Your view is so hopelessly pathetic, it borders on obsene.

I know you both just used google to find your info. However, a student wouldn't be so reckless.

As to Irenaeus regarding Eve and Mary, I just read that passage last night in fact. Right before it, he mentioned how Christ's obedience will undo Adam's disobedience. Then, he taught how the virgin's (Mary) obedience was what God wanted instead of the disobedience of Eve. He then went on to say that the Cross was going to undo what the Tree of the knowledge of good and evil did.

So you see, he was making three comparisons between the fall and salvation. He was very strong in his position on the virgin birth. He went so far as to say that a denial of it really meant one wasn't saved. You know what? He was right.

Also, his use of Baptism must be determined by context. He frequently spoke of Spirit baptism being the same as the washing of regeneration. So when he uses baptism for salvation, his theology is that of regeneration. Again, a student would know this instead of some hack amill site that wants to discredit Christianity's first systematic theologian.

Get a copy of his books. Do the research. Stop being ignorant (amill). Come out of shadow and into the light.

I can recommend a few good books that deal with early christian theology.

As to the other fathers, Eusebius (an amill) concedes that they were premill. This is an accepted point. Why would I try to 'prove' this to you? Other amills concede. Get a clue guys.

 

People who believe in the Sovereign Grace of God in Salvation are called Calvinists because John Calvin was the dominate force after the Reformation in formulating that Biblical doctrine. The Prince of Baptist preachers, Spurgeon, said of Calvinism: "it is just a nickname for the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation".

John Nelson Darby was the initiator of a doctrine which I believe is unbiblical. [He perhaps was influenced by others who shared similar views. Martyn Lloyd-Jones in his book, The Church and Last Things, asserts that Darby was influenced by Edward Irving, a charismatic Scottish preacher, who established a new church in London called the Catholic Apostolic Church. As reported by Lloyd-Jones [page 138] Irving was apparently the originator of "the secret rapture" which is the bedrock of dispensational eschatology.] However, it is a fact that he is the father of the doctrine commonly known as dispensationalism.

Since those who call themselves dispensationalists follow the teachings of Darby it is only natural that they be tagged with the title Darbyites and their doctrine be correctly labeled as Darbyism. They may not like the label but they are stuck with it, they can run but they cannot not hide. Being a Baptist and believing as Spurgeon did that Calvinism is just a nickname for the Biblical Doctrine of Salvation I do not like the label Calvinist, nevertheless I am stuck with it.

It is very likely that the false doctrines of Darbyism would have died without the influence of the Scofield Reference Bible but sadly Scofield made his mark.

 

Oldreg, you are stopping short in your little history timetable. You assume too much to be credible. Premillenialism can be dated to disciples of John. I notice you didn't answer when I gave you their names. Figures.

Anyway, Covenant theology as a system didn't exist until a century prior to dispensationalism.

I can give you quote after quote that Christ will reign for 1000 years on earth, the antichrist, daniel's 70th week, etc, are still future.

This all predates Darby by hundreds and hundreds of years. Well over a millenium.