Featured Breaking news actually old news "Early church Fathers Taught the Pre-Trib" view

And yet you did not post the entire context or a link to where you got the information from. Why was that? The context shows especially with the first one that death is what is being talked about not the rapture. Only when you rip away the context and read the rapture into it can you argue that they were teaching pre-trib view.

 

The context shows they were talking about death. You should go back and explain why in the larger context death is not what is being talked about. Your the one that made the claim that it is the rapture so why are you not defending the claim now that more information is out there for all to see what they are really talking about.

And giving a link is just common courtesy, as people can say anything they like but having proof to back up what you say gives it more weight. If you were writing a paper you would have had to site your source, more so then just the name.

And by the way I'm reformed so I believe Salvation is all of God, not based on the work of my free choice but anymore will send us into the cal vs arm territory

 

Interesting since I am Pre-Mill and yet OR is A-Mill.
But you seem to agree that Pre-tribbers all run in lock step together since "Every pre-tribber agreed" so who is being the robot?
And how does that add to the debate?

 

He didn't say that Darby taught a 'parenthesis view' only that his dispensational view is the father of that view. It is a direct out cropping of his teaching, which is exactly what I was taught in Bible College.

Feel free to quote where he said Darby taught that view, since you said you have found several instances where he said those exact words. I'm going to assume those exact words are that "Darby taught a Parenthesis view".

 

More context of that quote for those who would like to have more information.

People can decide for themselves what he is talking about, but they should be given enough evidence to make an informed decision.
Link for anyone that wants even more context.

 

It is interesting to me that those opposed to pre-millennial point to the Early Church Fathers as "proof" positive that no one believed it. History is always a function of what happened, the interpretation of what happened, and who controlled the transmission of that interpretation. That's a bunch of "ifs".

First, how many early generation copies of their writings do we have? Do we know there's no corruption to satisfy someone else's belief later regardless of what the earlier belief was?

Second, how many times have even well-intentioned Christians misinterpreted or misapplied prophetic scripture to their specific time? Weren't there people at the end of the first millennium ready for the end of the 1000 year reign of Christ when Satan was to be unleashed?

Lastly and most importantly, imagine that the circumstances of communication, civilization, and communication were the same today as then. If the "beliefs" of "all" Christians over the past 100 years were ONLY derived by the 100 most prominent writers from the most powerful church that calls itself "Christian" and then only from those who lived in areas that were not subsequently overrun by another religion, what would people 1500 years from now think we believed?

The Church Fathers are not without value. They certainly help us understand the development of doctrine and church history. But to say something that can be derived from the scriptures either was not previously believed or is false because of an absence of authority from the fathers... doesn't hold water. And remember that many of these citations come before any real form of systematic theology.

The belief in salvation by grace through faith as we understand it was virtually lost for centuries during the middle ages. Did that mean no one believed it or that it is false?

My zeal on this issue when it comes to condemning other views is greatly tempered by the fact that the most learned and devout Jews who memorized the OT and studied messianic prophecy as a career.... missed Jesus because He wasn't what they were expecting.

 

If you don't give a link don't expect everyone to accept your word. I sure don't!

 

The post reads as follows:

The object of the initial verb "is": "that the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the so-called "parenthesis" Church is fiction"

The subject of the clause is "the pre-trib-"snatching away"!

A prepositional phrase "of the so-called "parenthesis" Church" defines what is snatched away.

The verb is "is".

The object is "fiction".

The semantic smay be poor but that sentence does not say that Darby is the father of the "parenthesis" Church. I have made the point on numerous occasions that the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church was taught by people like Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. {http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99519}

And then there is the following from a thread from 2012:

No mention of Darby as the father of the "parenthesis" Church!

 

Believe what you want. I don't care. You bore false witness for weeks saying there was no such doctrine as a "parenthesis" Church and then "lo and behold" you found it in a valley just like Darby found the pre-trib-"snatching away of the Church in Isaiah 32!

 

I did not put words in your mouth. I simply questioned your veracity!

 

Huh?::null:

 

Thanks for doing all the research. Obviously you have great zeal for something or other.

It is apparent, assuming the truth of your quotes, that I have been sloppy in my semantics. {You could have easily supplied the source.} However, I will not apologize for those statements which connect Darby to the "parenthesis" church because the concept of the "Parenthesis" Church is the natural outgrowth of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. I have posted on several occasions the remarks of those men who have espoused the doctrine of the Church as a "parenthesis" or intercalation in GOD's program for Israel.

I would also note that in my initial thread about the "parenthesis" church I did not tie it to Darby but to the pre-trib-dispensational doctrine. The thread, I must add, created a firestorm of pre-trib-fury!
{http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=80260}

 

Simply outstanding.


God bless.