• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Darby = Dispensationalism

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
:thumbs: Darbyists and Darbyism. Easier to type than Dispensationalists and Dispensationalism. (although I do find Sensationalists and Sensationalism to be very fitting)

Ah, that might be right. Big words do present a problem for some people.

Thanks for the insight.

Originally Posted by Revmitchell View Post
He is not going to change his mind and he does not want a reasonable discussion.

That is comical if it were not tragically false.

Tragic, yes, but false...no.

You will not change your mind and you do not want reasonable discussion.

That doesn't just hit the nail on the head it drives it home.


The Rapture Ready folks in general are the most arrogant people in Christendom,

Just not true. The public record shows that it is from the anti-pretribulation crowd that insults, deflection, and ridicule come on a regular basis. And when someone fights fire with fire you cry foul.

You can dish it out...

more so than Roman Catholics.

Well of course you would defend your side. That's understandable.


The only two on this Forum posting currently that will reasonably discuss the doctrine are blessedwife318 and HankD.

Curious.


blessed wife318 has been repeatedly been insulted by Darrell C

Perhaps it can be viewed as insult, but you might consider what those posts deal with.

And I have not singled out this member, I have made all of you pre-trib deniers my pet project.

Don't it just give you a fuzzy feeling inside?


for her willingness to have a reasonable discussion

She has been far more reasonable than you, lol, and taken a little yanking with good grace.

You could learn from her. Unless you felt it was a usurping of the authority you think you have, lol.


and for outing, along with HankD, the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church.

It's a false argument looking for antagonists.

Because they were taught this it has what to do with the content and intent of every other members defense of the Pre-Trib view?


I posted on another thread:

Spam and self aggrandizement deleted.


Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
They exude an air of superiority-- like: "I know something you don't"!-

Well we do, lol.

We know there is a thousand year period between Christ's Return and the Great White Throne Judgment.

We know there are three resurrections in Revelation.

We know Christ's Return in Revelation 19 has not occurred yet.

We know Christ, not Angels...gather the Elect in the Rapture, and Angels gather them at Christ's Return.

We know how to actually understand the usage of the Greek and it's plentiful meanings so that we do not become hyper-literal sometimes, or spiritualize the text when convenient.

We know it is not a good idea to take away or add to Scripture.

Shall I go on?


God bless.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Ah, that might be right. Big words do present a problem for some people.

Thanks for the insight.



Tragic, yes, but false...no.

You will not change your mind and you do not want reasonable discussion.

That doesn't just hit the nail on the head it drives it home.




Just not true. The public record shows that it is from the anti-pretribulation crowd that insults, deflection, and ridicule come on a regular basis. And when someone fights fire with fire you cry foul.

You can dish it out...



Well of course you would defend your side. That's understandable.




Curious.




Perhaps it can be viewed as insult, but you might consider what those posts deal with.

And I have not singled out this member, I have made all of you pre-trib deniers my pet project.

Don't it just give you a fuzzy feeling inside?




She has been far more reasonable than you, lol, and taken a little yanking with good grace.

You could learn from her. Unless you felt it was a usurping of the authority you think you have, lol.




It's a false argument looking for antagonists.

Because they were taught this it has what to do with the content and intent of every other members defense of the Pre-Trib view?




Spam and self aggrandizement deleted.




Well we do, lol.

We know there is a thousand year period between Christ's Return and the Great White Throne Judgment.

We know there are three resurrections in Revelation.

We know Christ's Return in Revelation 19 has not occurred yet.

We know Christ, not Angels...gather the Elect in the Rapture, and Angels gather them at Christ's Return.

We know how to actually understand the usage of the Greek and it's plentiful meanings so that we do not become hyper-literal sometimes, or spiritualize the text when convenient.

We know it is not a good idea to take away or add to Scripture.

Shall I go on?


God bless.
Not only windy but deluded!
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
OR while I appreciate your support I don't think it is fair to say that Darrell C has been insulting to me. Snarky yes, but not insulting. And he really is just trying to engage in a legitimate debate, the only thing he is trying to make me play offense and present my own view when so far I have not done so, just been playing defense and poking holes in others arguments. But again thank you for the support.

Snarky?

Now that is insulting...

;)


God bless.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
You always connect the "Parenthesis Church" to the dispensationist and pre-tribbers, that is not a false statement.

I am glad you agree. The doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for national/ethnic Israel is a false doctrine invented by certain pre-trib-dispensationalists! I have repeatedly posted their remarks.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I have said on hundreds of occasions over the past ten years that you people incorrectly understand the Scripture you claim shows the pre-trib-"snatching away of the Church. You are not using the literal hermeneutic pre-tribbers insist they use. You are spiritualizing it, reading something into it to support Darby's error!

I have also presented Scripture that using the dispensational hermeneutic of literal interpretation, what Ryrie calls "taking at face value" clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment. But rather than use the much vaunted literal hermeneutic you use the "splintering" hermeneutic dispensationalist love to use on Scripture that refutes their doctrine and discard the true teaching of that passage from GOD's Word. Of course I am talking about John 5:28, 29.

You claim you never heard of the "parenthesis" Church of pre-trib doctrine but I notice you found it in a valley after blessedwife318 and HankD outed you people. I have also noticed that since then you, like DC, are harassing blessed wife 318. Why not harass HankD. Is he too tough or too honest for you and DC to take on!



Actually HankD has shown he is interested in discussion on the issue.

Our exchanges have not only been reasonable, they have been quite pleasant.

Unfortunately your trolling shuts down conversation. Every thread is interrupted by your personal agenda which is obviously filled with a hatred that has no place in the heart of a Christian.


God bless.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Get into the Books of the Bible, my friend, and stay out of books about the Bible. Just try it for a month or so, you won't be sorry.

One thing is certain. You did not get your pre-trib-"snatching away"-of-the-"parenthesis"-church from the Bible because that doctrine is false! So you obviously got it from another pre-tribber who got it from another pre-tribber, and so on until Scofield or Darby show up.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
One thing is certain. You did not get your pre-trib-"snatching away"-of-the-"parenthesis"-church from the Bible because that doctrine is false! So you obviously got it from another pre-tribber who got it from another pre-tribber, and so on until Scofield or Darby show up.

It's only certain (minus the false argument of the parenthesis Church) in the minds of those who are Catholic in their approach to understanding the Word of God.

But for those of us who do not rely on the doctrines of men, but seek God through the only authoritative measure of truth available to man, the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is simply the only scenario that harmonizes, not just some of Prophecy, but all of it.


God bless.
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
It's only certain (minus the false argument of the parenthesis Church) in the minds of those who are Catholic in their approach to understanding the Word of God.

But for those of us who do not rely on the doctrines of men, but seek God through the only authoritative measure of truth available to man, the Pre-Tribulation Rapture is simply the only scenario that harmonizes, not just some of Prophecy, but all of it.


God bless.

Pre-trib-dispensationalism is the invention of John Darby. That is a historical fact. Moreover it is a schooled doctrine, it must be taught. It is not the outcome of a natural, literal, reading of Scripture since Scripture teaches that GOD deals with man through Covenants.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Pre-trib-dispensationalism is the invention of John Darby. That is a historical fact. Moreover it is a schooled doctrine, it must be taught. It is not the outcome of a natural, literal, reading of Scripture since Scripture teaches that GOD deals with man through Covenants.

The Doctrine of the Trinity was a creation of the Catholic Church.

Makes about as much sense as the statement above.

Both are untrue.

But thanks for once again showing your refusal to actually address posts.


God bless.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I believe Scripture lays it out quite simply.

First, although not mentioned in Scripture, the Jews will build a new temple in Jerusalem. Then....

The 'beast', 'antichrist', 'man of sin', or whatever else one wantsta call him, will cometa power, assisted by a miracle-working false prophet.

He will commit the 'abomination of desolation' in the new temple.

His deputy, the FP, will institute the marka the beast.

The greatest tribulation man has ever seen, or ever will, shall come upon the earth. The details are given in the Revelation.

Jesus will halt the great trib, and immediately afterwards will come a great cosmological disturbance, followed by Jesus' visible return in great power & glory, which'll be seen by EVERY eye. He will cast the antichrist & his deputy directly, bodily, alive into gehenna & destroy their army with the power of His spoken word. Then shall the millenium begin.
 

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Doctrine of the Trinity was a creation of the Catholic Church.

Makes about as much sense as the statement above.

Both are untrue.

But thanks for once again showing your refusal to actually address posts.


God bless.

The Holy Trinity doctrine comes from SCRIPTURE, which calls Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "God" in various places. While the actual term doesn't appear in Scripture, being an English term, the DOCTRINE is quite apparent.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I believe Scripture lays it out quite simply.

First, although not mentioned in Scripture, the Jews will build a new temple in Jerusalem. Then....

The 'beast', 'antichrist', 'man of sin', or whatever else one wantsta call him, will cometa power, assisted by a miracle-working false prophet.

He will commit the 'abomination of desolation' in the new temple.

His deputy, the FP, will institute the marka the beast.

The greatest tribulation man has ever seen, or ever will, shall come upon the earth. The details are given in the Revelation.

Jesus will halt the great trib, and immediately afterwards will come a great cosmological disturbance, followed by Jesus' visible return in great power & glory, which'll be seen by EVERY eye. He will cast the antichrist & his deputy directly, bodily, alive into gehenna & destroy their army with the power of His spoken word. Then shall the millenium begin.

Agree for the most part, though I do see the Temple of the Tribulation mentioned:



Matthew 24:15-16

King James Version (KJV)

15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)

16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:



2 Thessalonians 2:3-4

King James Version (KJV)

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.



Revelation 11

King James Version (KJV)

1 And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein.

2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months.



So since the topic is Darby and Dispensationalism, would you mind sharing when you believe the Rapture takes place or if you believe there will be a Rapture?


God bless.
 

Darrell C

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Holy Trinity doctrine comes from SCRIPTURE, which calls Father, Son, and Holy Spirit "God" in various places. While the actual term doesn't appear in Scripture, being an English term, the DOCTRINE is quite apparent.

I know that, and you know that, but not all know that.


God bless.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
I have said on hundreds of occasions over the past ten years that you people incorrectly understand the Scripture you claim shows the pre-trib-"snatching away of the Church. You are not using the literal hermeneutic pre-tribbers insist they use. You are spiritualizing it, reading something into it to support Darby's error!

I have also presented Scripture that using the dispensational hermeneutic of literal interpretation, what Ryrie calls "taking at face value" clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment. But rather than use the much vaunted literal hermeneutic you use the "splintering" hermeneutic dispensationalist love to use on Scripture that refutes their doctrine and discard the true teaching of that passage from GOD's Word. Of course I am talking about John 5:28, 29.

You claim you never heard of the "parenthesis" Church of pre-trib doctrine but I notice you found it in a valley after blessedwife318 and HankD outed you people. I have also noticed that since then you, like DC, are harassing blessed wife 318. Why not harass HankD. Is he too tough or too honest for you and DC to take on!


what I said, "I have read very little from Darby and never seen anything about a "Parenthesis Church" where I have found it was by another teacher and he used it as an analogy (illustration) to show what was being said, but never saying the church was a Parenthesis, there you are reading into what was taught."

The Parenthesis Church" as you call it is not a DOCTRINE. It is an analogy that is an illustration to make a point. The point is that the O.T. prophets didn't see the church, they knew there was something else but God hid the church from them.

Here is an example of an analogy, driving down the freeway you come upon a traffic jam, as you get almost to the top of a bridge you can see the next bridge ahead and traffic is moving. You know something ahead has caused the traffic jam, but what you aren't sure it is a mystery until it occurs. So too was the church a mystery until it came 10 days after Christ accession, then it was revealed to the all the followers of Christ.

Now I didn't create a new doctrine here I just used an analogy to help folks see what occured, so too is the "Parenthesis Church" used as an analogy, so to is the peak to peak with a valley used as an analogy.

You seem to believe it to be a Doctrine and it isn't, plain and simple. As far as I know Darby never used those analogies but I haven't read enough of his writings to know. I found the analogy you refer to in another pre-trib teachers writings.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
I am glad you agree. The doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for national/ethnic Israel is a false doctrine invented by certain pre-trib-dispensationalists! I have repeatedly posted their remarks.

Time for a Grammar lesson I see.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word comma comes directly from the Greek komma (κόμμα), which means something cut off or a short clause. A comma can also be used as a diacritic when combined with other characters.

Now what I said "You always connect the "Parenthesis Church" to the dispensationalist and pre-tribbers, that is not a false statement." The comma is a stop and means that your connection of the Parenthesis church" to dispensationalist, is false. That is what the comma conveyed.

Hope this helps you understand basic Grammar and the intent and use of a comma!
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
You seem to believe it to be a Doctrine and it isn't, plain and simple. As far as I know Darby never used those analogies but I haven't read enough of his writings to know. I found the analogy you refer to in another pre-trib teachers writings.

Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside teach it as a doctrine.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99519

And then there is this: {https://bible.org/seriespage/19-premillennialism-and-church}

The Church Age as a Parenthesis

One of the important questions raised by the amillenarians is whether the present age is predicted in the Old Testament. This they confidently affirm and find the kingdom promises fulfilled in the present church age. Premillenarians have not always given a clear answer to the amillennial position. While dispensationalists have regarded the present age as a parenthesis unexpected and without specific prediction in the Old Testament, some premillenarians have tended to strike a compromise interpretation in which part of the Old Testament predictions are fulfilled now and part in the future. In some cases they have conceded so much to the amillenarians that for all practical purposes they have surrendered premillennialism as well. It is the purpose of the present investigation to show the reasonableness and Scriptural support of the parenthesis concept.

Daniel’ s seventieth week for Israel. One of the classic passages related to this problem is Daniel 9:27, defining the last of Daniel’s weeks for the fulfillment of Israel’s program. As generally interpreted the time unit in the “weeks” or “sevens” is taken to be a year. Conservative scholars usually trace the fulfillment of the first sixty-nine sevens of years as culminating in the crucifixion of Christ, predicted in the terms that “the anointed one be cut off and shall have nothing” (Dan 9:26). While the most literal interpretation of the first sixty-nine sevens is thus afforded a literal fulfillment, nothing can be found in history that provides a literal fulfillment of the last seven or the seventieth week. It has been taken by many that this indicates a postponement of the fulfillment of the last seven years of the prophecy to the future preceding the second advent. If so, a parenthesis of time involving the whole present age is indicated.

This proposal has been rejected by the liberal, by the amillenarian, and by some premillenarians, particularly those who are not dispensationalists. Philip Mauro, an amillenarian, states flatly, “Never has a specified number of time-units, making up a described stretch of time, been taken to mean anything but continuous or consecutive time units.” [5] Philip Mauro, The Seventy Weeks and the Great Tribulation, p. 95.

It should be obvious to careful students of the Bible that Mauro is not only begging the question but is overlooking abundant evidence to the contrary. Nothing should be plainer to one reading the Old Testament than that the foreview therein provided did not predict a period of time between the two advents. This very fact confused even the prophets (cf. 1 Pet 1:10-12). At best such a time interval was only implied. In the very passage involved, Daniel 9:24-27, it is indicated that there would be a time interval. The anointed one, or the Messiah, is cut off after the sixty-ninth week, but not in the seventieth. Such a circumstance could be true only if there were a time interval between these two periods.

Many illustrations of parentheses in the Old Testament. As H. A. Ironside has made clear in his thorough study of this problem, [6] H. A. Ironside, The Great Parenthesis, 131 pp. there are more than a dozen instances of parenthetical periods in the divine program. In Luke 4:18-20, quoting Isaiah 61:2, obviously the present age now extending over 1900 years intervenes between the “acceptable year of the Lord” and the “day of vengeance of our God.” There is no indication in the Isaiah passage of any interval at all, but Christ stopped abruptly in the middle of the sentence in His quotation in Luke thus indicating the division. A similar spanning of the entire church age is found in Hosea 3:4 as compared to 3:5 and Hosea 5:15 as compared with 6:1 . Psalm 22 predicts the sufferings of Christ (Ps 22:1-21), anticipates the resurrection of Christ (Ps 22:22), and then in the remainder of the psalm deals with millennial conditions without a reference to the present age. This characteristic is found in much of Messianic prophecy in the Old Testament.

The prophetic foreview of Daniel 2 in Nebuchadnezzar’s image and the fourth beast of Daniel 7:23-27 likewise ignores the present age. Daniel 8:24 seems to refer to Antiochus Epiphanes (B.C. 170), whereas Daniel 8:25 leaps the entire present age to discuss the future beast of Revelation 13 who will appear after the church age is concluded. A similar instance is found in Daniel 11:35 as compared with Daniel 11:36. Psalm 110:1 speaks of Christ in heaven and Psalm 110:2 refers to His ultimate triumph at His second advent.

Ironside suggests that Peter stops in the middle of his quotation of Psalm 34:12-16 in 1 Peter 3:10-12 because the last part of Psalm 34:16 seems to refer to future dealings of God with sin in contrast to present discipline. [7] Ibid., p. 44. The truth of a parenthesis is implied in Matthew 24 where the present age is described as preceding and intervening between the cross and the sign foretold by Daniel 9:27 (cf. Matt 24:15). Acts 15:13-21, discussed in previous study of premillenniilism, makes sense when it is understood that the present age intervenes between the cross and the future blessing of Israel in the millennium.

Even in types, the interval is anticipated. The yearly schedule of feasts for Israel separates widely those prefiguring the death and resurrection of Christ and those anticipating Israel’s regathering and glory. In the New Testament, the use of the olive tree as a figure in Romans 11 involves the three stages: (1) Israel in the place of blessing; (2) Israel cut off and the Gentiles in the place of blessing; (3) the Gentiles cut off and Israel grafted in again. The present age and Israel’s time of discipline and judgment coincide and constitute a parenthesis in the divine program for Israel.

Sir Robert Anderson in regard to 1 Kings 6:1 finds the discrepancy of 480 years as opposed to 573 years, which was the actual length of time for the period from the departure from Egypt to the building of the temple, is solved by subtracting 93 years during which Israel was cast off as a nation—five different periods of time (Judg 3:8, 14; 4:2-3 ; 6:1 ; 13:1 ). If Anderson’s findings are accepted, it provides a clear illustration of time intervals embedded in a chronological program of the Old Testament.

The ultimate proof of the teaching that the present age is a parenthesis is in the positive revelation concerning the church as the body of Christ, the study of which will be undertaken next. The evidence for a parenthesis in the present age interrupting God’s predicted program for Jew and Gentile as revealed in the Old Testament is extensive, however. The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine. The kingdom predictions of the Old Testament do not conform to the pattern of this present age. Amillenarians from Augustine down to the present make no pretense of interpreting these prophecies in the same literal way as premillenarians. Those among the premillennial group who see clearly the issues involved would do well to divorce themselves from the amillennial method in dealing with the prophetic word, and interpret the prophecies of the Old Testament in relation to the millennium rather than the present age.

Dallas, Texas
 
Last edited by a moderator:

revmwc

Well-Known Member
One thing is certain. You did not get your pre-trib-"snatching away"-of-the-"parenthesis"-church from the Bible because that doctrine is false! So you obviously got it from another pre-tribber who got it from another pre-tribber, and so on until Scofield or Darby show up.

An anology can't be a false doctrine because it is not a Doctrine. The pre-trib doctrine is backed up by scripture we have shown them, you disagree with scripture. Adding the "parenthesis church" into the term doctrine is a misnomer because it is not a doctrine it is an analogy, time you learned that.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Pre-trib-dispensationalism is the invention of John Darby. That is a historical fact. Moreover it is a schooled doctrine, it must be taught. It is not the outcome of a natural, literal, reading of Scripture since Scripture teaches that GOD deals with man through Covenants.

God is dealing with man in the Dispensation of Grace by the Covenant of Grace.

He dealt with Israel as a nation by the Dispensation of Law with the Covenant of the Law.

He dealt with Abraham and His seed till they entered the Land by the Dispensation of Promise with the Covenant of Promise.

God deals with man with the use of dispensation by means of Covenants.

He will deal with man in the Tribulation period with the Covenant of His wrath.
 

revmwc

Well-Known Member
Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside teach it as a doctrine.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99519

And then there is this: {https://bible.org/seriespage/19-premillennialism-and-church}

Ryrie's quote, "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period)."

The church goes between the Law and the Tribulation that is what he says.
According to scripture that is a true context. The church which began at Pentecost and will end with the church being caught up according to Paul. It fits perfectly between the dispensation of Law governed by the Covenant of the Law and the dispensation of the Tribulation governed by the Covenant of the wrath of God.

the dispensation of Grace governed by the Covenant of Grace was in God's plan no where do they say it wasn't. It is an interval between. Let sees the analogy here, a Church has a early morning service, sunday school, and then an 11;00 Am.M. service. Sunday School is an interval between the two worship services. In that sense it is a Parenthesis Sunday School, it fits perfectly in the churches plan as an interlude between the two.

So that God placing the church in place as an interval in His plan of dealing with mankind, is an interval of Grace that is a dispensation of Grace governed by the Covenant of Grace. Before He brings judgment He first deals with mankind through a period of Grace.

Did He deal with the O.T. believers with Grace yes as far as their salvation goes. Because the Law of Moses never saved anyone. It did however reveal to man God's standard and that they couldn't meet that standard. Now the Standard was met through Christ and God's Grace flows forth out of His efficacious work on the Cross. Once God has allowed the dispensation of Grace to run its course in His plan that is His time He will then bring forth the Tribulation and deal with mankind by His wrath being poured out in judgment to meet the terms of the earth's redemption price.

Very clear now what the context is that you continue to not understand.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top