A-millennialism still reigns supreme -

[trailblazer]

- Moody was a Darbyite.

- Spurgeon did not bring in a "new gospel."

- Nero was not even a Christian.

 

[av1611jim]

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

In HIS service;
Jim

 

[trailblazer]

Jim,

In my post on the roots of dispensationalism and the era of its birth, I stated that it was phenomenon that occurred with in about a 40-70 year period of time when the major false religions of today got started – and I might also add, that they seemed to all originate on the east coast of the USA. It was not an attack on dispensational roots but was in a “proceed with caution and check your roots” precautionary measure for you to seriously consider. I would hope that a Christian brother would do that for me if I were not confident that Amillenialism was the predominant doctrine of the Christian church for 1,800 years.

I have not included the 16-year old visionary, Margaret MacDonald, which actually was the springboard for J. N. Darby’s idea of a secret rapture nor am I trying to state that dispensationalism is a cult as JW’s are. I am also not saying that dispensationalists are not Christians. I leave that up to God. I am saying, though, that the doctrine is in grave error and does justify a serious investigation if one is dedicated to following the Word of God in one’s belief system.

JOSEPH SMITH
Raised a Christian in Vermont and New York, Joseph Smith was the prophet and founder of the Mormon Church. According to Smith's account, he had a vision from God when he was fourteen years old. A messenger directed him to a hillside in rural New York… Smith, using the [suddenly discovered] stones, translated the word of Mormon to form the new canon of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (also called the Mormon Church or LDS), founded in 1830.

CHARLES T. RUSSELL
Active in the Christian Congregationalist church in Pennsylvania, Charles T. Russell broke off and formed an independent congregation in 1880. Russell wrote and lectured on Biblical prophecy, preaching that the return of the invisible spirit of Jesus Christ happened in 1874. Russell believed that Jesus would rule for 1,000 years, and that all people (living and dead) would eventually be divinely judged.

MARY BAKER EDDY
After a sudden recovery from a serious injury in 1866, Mary Baker Eddy began to formulate the ideas that would lead her to form the Church of Christ, Scientist. Beginning in the 1870s she wrote extensively, publishing Science and Health in 1875. In 1889 she chartered the Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Massachusetts.

ELLEN G. WHITE (Name at birth: Ellen Harmon)
Ellen G. White is one of the founders of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, which was officially organized in 1863. Although raised as a Methodist, Ellen Harmon was influenced by the "Adventist" movement of New England in the 1840s. Led by William Miller, a Baptist preacher, Adventists believed that Jesus would return to earth in either 1843 or 1844 (some pinned it down to 22 October 1844). In 1846 Harmon married a minister, James White, and together they devoted themselves to preaching religious principles based on visions she believed to be revelations from God.

JOHN NELSON DARBY
A “particular interpretation of Christ's return ... was developed by an Irish Protestant, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)." Darby saw a second coming of Christ, which he "believed would precede the time of troubles, or 'tribulation,' mentioned in several New Testament passages, [which] he called the 'secret rapture.'

Darby began to develop his seven-age dispensationalism about [1830]. By 1835 he added 'secret rapture,' and had gradually added dispensations up to 1838.

John Nelson Darby spread his beliefs while visiting the United States and Canada 1859-1877. At first he tried to win members of existing Protestant congregations to his sect, but met with little success.

Geographically, the doctrine moved from its original foothold in the large cities of New York, Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis to the northeast and Midwest. Later it spread to the West and South.

C. I. SCOFIELD
Darby, as well as his teachings, probably would be unheard of today were it not for his devoted follower, Scofield.. Scofield came to know him and became enamored by his teachings. Scofield wrote many books, founded what is now called the Philadelphia College of the Bible, and, in 1909, published his Scofield Reference Bible. All these efforts inculcated the Plymouth Brethren teachings learned from Darby.

MOODY BIBLE INSTITUTE OF CHICAGO
In 1890, C. I. Scofield began a Comprehensive Bible Correspondence Course, later taken over about 1914 by the Moody Bible Institute (Dwight. L. Moody, founder of the Moody Church, had converted Scofield, and Scofield preached and presided at Moody's funeral in 1899). While in the US, Darby was invited to speak at D. L. Moody's church in Chicago.

DALLAS THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
Walvoord was the Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary for over fifty years. He also served as the President of the seminary from 1953 to1986.

The two men who most influenced Walvoord, as he developed as a thinker, were Lewis Sperry Chafer, the first President of Dallas Theological Seminary, and C.I. Scofield of the Scofield Reference Bible. Walvoord actually served on the committee to produce the New Scofield Reference Bible (1967).

So, be the roots and the era of new teachings, and various promoters. These are not trumped up theories, they are facts that can be found anywhere in books and on the internet.

[ February 15, 2005, 04:46 PM: Message edited by: trailblazer ]

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

 

[Daniel David]

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]

Daniel David,

1) Would you please provide us with a website that we an search for ourselves so we can determine the accuracy of your statements.

2) As I said before when you threw that erroneous defense out, I never heard of Origen in my entire Christian life until you attempted to attribute my beliefs to him on an earlier post.

3) Origen lived 1,800 years ago! Please do not do diservice to Christ's explicit words in scripture where HE says in His own words in Luke 17:22-35 & 21:25-28, Mark 13:24-27, and Matt 24:29-31, Matt 25:31-32, that at His Second Coming, separation, judgment of the wicked, rapture of the elect, destruction of the world with fire will be one and the same event, because he clearly says - "so will it be on the day" of His appearing in clouds of glory. And that alone is where I get my beliefs from. If you cannot say the very same words, then the onus is on you to prove that Christs Second Coming did not orriginate with Darby.

4) You can label my beliefs as originated from the Klu Klux Klan if you wish because I was brought up in North Carolina, but because they were my neighbors does not make my beliefs the same as theirs.

5) I showed a consistent thread back to Darby in my above post - you just toss out ridicule.

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[trailblazer]

DD,

So you have no website or writings of his for us to verify the accuracy of your claims?

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

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]

Daniel David,

I see you made this claim earlier.

posted by Daniel David December 25, 2004 09:17 PM

The timing of rapture was NEVER discussed by the fathers. How could you make the statement that they weren't pretrib?
Is that another of your arguments from silence? Give me a break.

If the fathers NEVER discussed the timing of the rapture, how is it then that you claim Amillenialism was rooted in Origen which was from that "silent period"? Are you not contradicting yourself when you in turn base your arguments from silence?

Now, I did a little research on Iraneous, and came up with a couple items of interest. Thought you might be interested since you seem to base your beliefs with Iraneous.

St. Iraneous said of her: "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."

Therefore, would it be accurate for us to say that your beliefs are rooted also in Mariology?

…but the first, second, third, fourth and later century fathers, in their writings, refer to Peter as the first Pope: i.e. Iraneous, Polycarp, Ignatius, Martyr, Origin, Augustine and others.

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

by Daniel David. “trailblazer, I have two of Irenaeous' books in my desk.”

Daniel David, …Did you miss those sections on Mary and the Pope?

Now, about this earlier statement.

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

Notice your original statement above was about Origen. Yet, when asked to provide proof of your claims so we could verify the accuracy of them, you resorted to merely saying that you “have two books of Iranesus’ in your desk” which had absolutely nothing to do with your original claim.

Still waiting for a website or writings of Origens for us to verify the accuracy of your claims?”

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

 

[Matt Black]

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

 

[Ed Edwards]

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

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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.

 

[Daniel David]

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.

 

[trailblazer]

Originally posted by trailblazer:
Daniel David,

I see you made this claim earlier.
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />posted by Daniel David December 25, 2004 09:17 PM

The timing of rapture was NEVER discussed by the fathers. How could you make the statement that they weren't pretrib?
Is that another of your arguments from silence? Give me a break.

If the fathers NEVER discussed the timing of the rapture, how is it then that you claim Amillenialism was rooted in Origen which was from that "silent period"? Are you not contradicting yourself when you in turn base your arguments from silence?

Now, I did a little research on Iraneous, and came up with a couple items of interest. Thought you might be interested since you seem to base your beliefs with Iraneous.

St. Iraneous said of her: "Being obedient she became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. The knot of Eve's disobedience was untied by Mary's obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith."

Therefore, would it be accurate for us to say that your beliefs are rooted also in Mariology?

…but the first, second, third, fourth and later century fathers, in their writings, refer to Peter as the first Pope: i.e. Iraneous, Polycarp, Ignatius, Martyr, Origin, Augustine and others.

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

by Daniel David. “trailblazer, I have two of Irenaeous' books in my desk.”

Daniel David, …Did you miss those sections on Mary and the Pope?

Now, about this earlier statement.

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

Notice your original statement above was about Origen. Yet, when asked to provide proof of your claims so we could verify the accuracy of them, you resorted to merely saying that you “have two books of Iranesus’ in your desk” which had absolutely nothing to do with your original claim.

Still waiting for a website or writings of Origens for us to verify the accuracy of your claims?”

</font>[/QUOTE]WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR A WEBSITE OR WRITINGS OF ORIGEN SO WE CAN VERIFY THE ACCURACY OF YOUR CLAIMS - IT APPEARS MORE AND MORE THAT YOU HAVE ABSOLUTELY NONE BECAUSE YOU'RE HIDING IN THE CAVES BECAUSE THE ROCKS ARE FALLING IN ON YOU. THEREFORE, THE FAULTY ATTEMPT AT PINNING ORIGEN TO PRESENT DAY CHRISTIAN TEACHING CAN ONLY BE MERE FABRICATION ON YOUR PART FOR THE PURPOSE OF A DIVERSIONARY TACTIC AND ULTIMATELY BASED ON UNTRUTH. THAT IS NOT THE CHRISTIAN WAY OF DISCUSSING AN ISSUE.