• 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!

Isaac Watts

MartyF

Well-Known Member
It is not true that ALL others either have no millennial reign, or think the millennium is present or past. Premillenialism was taught by the eartly church, thousands of years before dispensatiionalism was invented.

I am no way a dispy. I have always believed in a literal millenium. If you care to check, Henry Grattan Guinness and E B Elliott, great expositors of Prophecy taught a literal millenium and also mentioned dispensations.

While we are here you said "If your interested" It should be "If you're interested, or "If you are interested."
Not getting at you in particular but it really bugs me when people get it wrong.

You're = You are
Your. Beloning to you.
Also there.
There = Over there
Their = Belonging to them
They're = They are.

My daughter teaches private English lessons to British and foreign students one of them wrote the folllowing aide memoire:

I find that sometimes my spell-check corrects it to the wrong word. Sometimes I miss the “correction”.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is not true that ALL others either have no millennial reign, or think the millennium is present or past. Premillenialism was taught by the eartly church, thousands of years before dispensatiionalism was invented.

I am no way a dispy. I have always believed in a literal millenium. If you care to check, Henry Grattan Guinness and E B Elliott, great expositors of Prophecy taught a literal millenium and also mentioned dispensations.

While we are here you said "If your interested" It should be "If you're interested, or "If you are interested."
Not getting at you in particular but it really bugs me when people get it wrong.

You're = You are
Your. Beloning to you.
Also there.
There = Over there
Their = Belonging to them
They're = They are.

My daughter teaches private English lessons to British and foreign students one of them wrote the folllowing aide memoire:

I almost busted out laughing. That post is so humorous. You are so picky about my usage of "your" rather than "you're" or "you are" but the speck in my eye did not compare to the beam in yours!

Is it "millenium" or millennium?

Is it "premillenialism" or Premillennialism?

Is it "dispensatiionalism" or dispensationalism?

Really! So much for your brag to fame on handling the English!

On a more serious note, there are no other schemes outside of dispensationalism that teaches a literal millennial reign of Christ.

I think you are considering that "Dispensation" is that which was pushed by Darby, and popularized by preaching of the last century or a bit.

Paul used "dispensation" at least four times as an indication of a period of time.

That is all dispensationalism does. It outlines history into periods of time. It can be varied as much as by who is writing.

Even Peter stated that "...at this time God winked at..." Peter was outlining the Scripture historically into dispensations.

Covenant theology uses grouping and I have seen Darby dispensation charts that also showed the standard covenants in agreement.

This is nothing new.

What was "new" was the popular "Darby dispensation" thinking which has (imo) two problems. One the segregation of the church as separate rather than grafted into believing Israel, the second the assumption of a pre-wrath rapture.

Neither of those are for a discussion on this thread.

Not true. As somebody once said, that is being economical with the truth. The early church writers wer pre millenial, but no way dispensationalism.

Historicists were also pre mil. Later ones may not be. Certainly Guinness and Elliott were.

I disagree. Certainly, they were premillennial, but they also recognized the dispensational thinking of the catching away of believers out of this world, the presentation of a final anti-christ, that believing gentiles were no longer excluded from the believing Israel, and so forth.

Just because they did not use a "Darby" scheme did not prevent them from being dispensational.

Pre mil is not a dispy view, they purloined the teaching as did SDA and Bristish Israelites..

Typical of the modern thinking, everything dispensational started with Darby!

Not true.

Darby was first a lawyer, and as such was skilled at evidentiary gathering and presentations. He did a good job, and caused a lot of folks to sit up and take notice.

Some time ago, I started reading through much of his work. It is exhausting!

However, in the investigating (in which I encouraged all members of the BB to participate) not a single doctrinal error in which one could assign heresy has been found in all his writings.

Certainly there are disagreements, yet there is no doubt he was brilliant and scholarly.

However, here is a truth.

I cannot find a single instance in which Darby was original. That is he took from others (as we all do) and produced volumes of works in which have stood the test of other scholars reading and approval.

Darby did not invent "dispensation."

Darby did not invent the thinking of a "rapture."

Darby did not invent the "tribulation."

Darby, as a scholar put a scheme together that brought attention to the matters of the end times that incorporated from thinking and teaching that went before him.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It is unfortunate that some consider all things dispensational are from "Darby."

That just erroneous thinking, when dispensational schemes are basically a means of outlining. The same can be said of any outlining scheme such as using the covenants, or using such terms as Iron Age.

One can use dispensational thinking and not be holding to all the typical "Darby" view.

However, one cannot be pre-millennial and hold to any other views of the last days. Pre-millennialism is rather exclusive.

As such, because Darby presented a systematic and understandable approach, then the word dispensation has been linked to Darby.
 

David Kent

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I almost busted out laughing. That post is so humorous. You are so picky about my usage of "your" rather than "you're" or "you are" but the speck in my eye did not compare to the beam in yours!

Is it "millenium" or millennium?

Is it "premillenialism" or Premillennialism?

Is it "dispensatiionalism" or dispensationalism?

Really! So much for your brag to fame on handling the English!

On a more serious note, there are no other schemes outside of dispensationalism that teaches a literal millennial reign of Christ.

I think you are considering that "Dispensation" is that which was pushed by Darby, and popularized by preaching of the last century or a bit.

Paul used "dispensation" at least four times as an indication of a period of time.

That is all dispensationalism does. It outlines history into periods of time. It can be varied as much as by who is writing.

Even Peter stated that "...at this time God winked at..." Peter was outlining the Scripture historically into dispensations.

Covenant theology uses grouping and I have seen Darby dispensation charts that also showed the standard covenants in agreement.

This is nothing new.

What was "new" was the popular "Darby dispensation" thinking which has (imo) two problems. One the segregation of the church as separate rather than grafted into believing Israel, the second the assumption of a pre-wrath rapture.

Neither of those are for a discussion on this thread.



I disagree. Certainly, they were premillennial, but they also recognized the dispensational thinking of the catching away of believers out of this world, the presentation of a final anti-christ, that believing gentiles were no longer excluded from the believing Israel, and so forth.

Just because they did not use a "Darby" scheme did not prevent them from being dispensational.



Typical of the modern thinking, everything dispensational started with Darby!

Not true.

Darby was first a lawyer, and as such was skilled at evidentiary gathering and presentations. He did a good job, and caused a lot of folks to sit up and take notice.

Some time ago, I started reading through much of his work. It is exhausting!

However, in the investigating (in which I encouraged all members of the BB to participate) not a single doctrinal error in which one could assign heresy has been found in all his writings.

Certainly there are disagreements, yet there is no doubt he was brilliant and scholarly.

However, here is a truth.

I cannot find a single instance in which Darby was original. That is he took from others (as we all do) and produced volumes of works in which have stood the test of other scholars reading and approval.

Darby did not invent "dispensation."

Darby did not invent the thinking of a "rapture."

Darby did not invent the "tribulation."

Darby, as a scholar put a scheme together that brought attention to the matters of the end times that incorporated from thinking and teaching that went before him.
=

No Darby did not invent the thinking of a "rapture." The first I came across the teaching was on a copy of a letter from Robert Baxter to "Mr Armstrong" dated August 3rd 1835, quoted in a book by Robert Baxter, Irvingism in its Rise, Progress, and Present State, 1836.
When we mention dispensationalism we are not speaking about earlier writers using the word dispensations, we understand it as a system promoting futurism and a future pre tribulation rapture. Great Historicist writers of the 19th like E B Elliott and henry Grattan Guinness mentioned dispensations, but I don't recall them mentioning what they meant by dispensations. asMy guess is that they referred to The old testament dispensation and the current dispensation. They were also pre mil. All this is similar to the writings of the early church writers. Both the ECW and Historicists took the book of Revelation and Daniel as figurative.
You said
  • "I disagree. Certainly, they were premillennial, but they also recognized the dispensational thinking of the catching away of believers out of this world, the presentation of a final anti-christ, that believing gentiles were no longer excluded from the believing Israel, and so forth."
None of that is purely dispensational teaching, They taught things that were absolutely opposite to dispensational teaching. such as the let and hindrance in 2 Thess. 2. the 'what' was the Roman Empire and the 'he' was the Emperor.

They taught that the Roman empire would be divided into 10 kingdoms which it was, and that the antichrist would come out of those 10 kingdoms, which he did.
However, one cannot be pre-millennial and hold to any other views of the last days. Pre-millennialism is rather exclusive.
That is just not true. Pre-millennialism was a teaching of historicists long before dispensationalism was invented. What is exclusive to dispensationalism is the pre tribulation rapture.
I also apologise for my typing. I try to type too fast I guess seeing as have arthritis in my hands and also cataracts. Chrome also used to check my spelling but doesn't now. I suppose it has given up on me.
 

David Kent

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
However, the problem presented by both the covenantal and the Darby dispensational folks concerns the consideration of ethnic Israel. They both present ethnic Israel as either a separate grouping or one in which there is total rejection and no redemption.

Neither of these schemes fits the Scripture account of the Gentiles being grafted into believing Israel (as pictured by Paul as the breaking off of branches to make room for the gentiles), nor prophetic statements of a reestablished and recalled to be redeemed ethnic Israel, promised throughout the Scriptures. Such rejection is just erroneous.

Absolutely.
 

David Kent

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I find that sometimes my spell-check corrects it to the wrong word. Sometimes I miss the “correction”.

On the other hand you should be able to read this:
  • Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The early Brethren in Ireland considered that they were returnng to New Testament teaching when they began to teach that all believers, whatever denomination should meet to break bread every Lord's Day from house to house. That was long before P)lymouth and Darby.
Today dispensationalists have taken over that claim that they are a returtn to New Tedstament theology. But are they?
Dispensationalism: A Return to Biblical Theology or Pseudo Christian Cult – Part I by Gospel Plow – Grace Online Library
What a vicious article. I really don't want to be on this thread, but such a nasty article compels me to respond.

1. It's anonymous. So the author did not have the guts to make his or her accusations openly.
2. The title--if I'm a member of a cult, who is the leader, where is the top-down control, and where is the false doctrine of Christ? (Does Dallas TS control us dispensationalists? Hmm. Never been there.)
3. It's full of mistakes about dispensational teaching and practice.
4. At the end it says, "Most of these aberrations will, if seriously considered, end in the denial of the everlasting gospel." I defy--I double dare--anyone to prove from dispensational writings that our Gospel is wrong.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
No longer "mostly in America" as the dispensational heresy is spread by American preachers through the media, Christian broadcasting & missionary outreach to the extent that it is in danger of becoming evangelical orthodoxy.
So I'm a heretic? Really?
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
My dad came to view the Brethren a cult due to their dispensational teaching.
Sorry to hear that. In the history I've read, I see no sign of the Brethren being a cult. In fact, some of the Brethren have been wonderful influences for Christ. H. A. Ironside (a dispensationalist) was a splendid example, a true and gracious man of God (a friend of my grandfather, who was not a dispensationalist and was a Baptist).
 
Last edited:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
That is just not true. Pre-millennialism was a teaching of historicists long before dispensationalism was invented. What is exclusive to dispensationalism is the pre tribulation rapture.
This is not accurate. My grandfather came to a pretrib position simply through Scripture, and never was a dispensationalist.

Famous Baptist pastor Lee Roberson also came to a premil pretrib position simply by studying the Scriptures. He wrote, "One Sunday morning a man heard me preach and said, ‘You are a premillennialist.’ I replied that I was not sure what he meant but I was simply trying to preach the plain Word of God. At that time I was not aware of the various divisions of thought, postmillennialists, a-millennialists, and premillennialists. I preached what the Bible revealed to me. I am still preaching it today. I have not a doubt in my mind regarding this great theme of the Word of God.”[1]



[1] Lee Roberson, Double-Breasted (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1977), 35.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Covenanter

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The Exclusive Brethren were/are definitely a cult. I have know some people who came out of them in the late 1960s because of various abuses. The 'Open Brethren' however, are a Bible-believing group who share some distinctives with Baptists.
This may be of interest to some. Concerning Cults-Exclusive Brethren – Taylorites | Evangelical Times

We had close relations with the Brethren in Southall - except for one group who became Taylorite. That group lost most of their members to 2 other Gospel Halls, & sold out to SDAs.

As Southall was a largely immigrant, Asian town, the other groups also closed & we were allowed to use the hall for 20 years on a maintenance basis - offered rent-free after the "rapture" :) The other group sold the building to the local Baptist Church. Eventually the building we were using was sold to a Grace Baptist group for a church plant.
 

David Kent

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The other group sold the building to the local Baptist Church. Eventually the building we were using was sold to a Grace Baptist group for a church plant.

I believe that that was Grace Partnership? Is that the correct name? Whatever the name they took over a local village chapel, The moderator was told his help was not needed but later they left the church and the former moderator became the pastor.
The Exclusive Brethren were/are definitely a cult. I have know some people who came out of them in the late 1960s because of various abuses. The 'Open Brethren' however, are a Bible-believing group who share some distinctives with Baptists.
This may be of interest to some. Concerning Cults-Exclusive Brethren – Taylorites | Evangelical Times
I was brought upn in the Open Brethren, till I was 15 then we moved to a new town and attended a "Inter Denominational Church" the pastor of which was a well known preacher, Lindsay Glegg. I was not saved at that time.
I then got into motor Bikes and went from bad to worse. Then one day I remembered a preacher from the previous mentioned church asking me "How are you with the Lord?" I realised I was far from the Lord and remembered Peter when he was sinking calling "Lord Save me." I realised I was sinking and called "Lord Save me."

From that moment I know I was saved. But what church to attend? I was sitting in a café near where I lived and a couple of young men were discussing their church. They mentioned their Bible Study. I got talking to them. They said their church was Elim, which I had never heard of, but seemed interesting, till one of them said he had hit a woman with his car and killed her. He said it was her fault and he felt no remorse. I thought if that wa me it would trouble me every day, so I didn't go to their church.

About that time I met a group with a van handing out tracts. Someone told me they were JW's but in fact they were Brethren. As they were a group I was familiar with I went to their church, or assembly as they called it. When my dad heard, he said to me "Beware of the Brethren, their teaching of the second coming is false." However when we moved to a new town I joined the Brethren where eventually I met my wife who had been converted from an Atheist family, at a covenanter summer camp when she was 14.

After we were married we went to a number of meetings on prophecy locally and in London. Then one evening one of our elders was speaking on one of the prophecies of Daniel and afterwards my wife said " He said this was going to hapen, then this was going to hapen, then that was going to happen, and I had my bible open expecting to see it written and could not see it there." I looked at the passage again and replied "No it is not." Then I remembered my dad's words "Beware of the Brethren, their teaching of the second coming is false."

At that point I began to look into the teaching and eventually agreed with him,

Martin regarding the your post from the ET regarding the name Plymouth Brethren,
  • A man who dominated the movement in the early years was J. N. Darby (1800-1882) but in 1848 there was a deep division between Darby and the Plymouth brethren. The differences between the two groups were not insignificant. Darby insisted on separating from people who disagreed with his interpretations of Scripture, and a significant number of believers endorsed Darby’s policy and followed him. Those who followed Darby were known as ‘Exclusives’. They believed in a universal worldwide network of fellowships, with strong central leadership and a tight control of members.

  • In contrast, the Plymouth Brethren were called ‘Open Brethren’. For them, each local assembly is independent. The fellowship enjoyed between assemblies is spontaneous and spiritual, without impinging on the autonomy of the local assembly. The believers locally are themselves directly responsible to the Lord, not a human leader. This represents a major difference between the two sections of the Brethren movement.
Although my wife called them PB or Peeb. Brethren I have met call the Exclusives the Plymouth Brethren.

There was a man in our previous church whose parents were Exclusives. He sometime went to a meeting an a nearby house that was Exclusive. A man from our church who was an undertaker said they were the only religious group apart from the JWs who wouldn't let the UTs into the service.

There is a timber shop in Canterbury run by Exclusives who would not accept any form of payment card as "They are the work of the devil" as well as mobile phones. But I have not been there for some years so that may not be the case
 
Last edited:
Top