• 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!

John Nelson Darby and Pre-trib-dispensationalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Many have questioned the role of John Nelson Darby in the beginning of pre-trib-dispensationalism. Dr. Thomas Ice {http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/ttcol.html} is a current dispensational scholar who has much to say about Darby.


JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE {http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

by Thomas Ice

Supporters of pretribulationism generally believe that John Nelson Darby (1800– 1882) revived this lost New Testament teaching through intense Bible study during convalescence from a riding accident in December 1827 and January 1828. Evangelical opponents of pretribulationism often put forth theories that cast Darby in a bad light. For example, some say Darby got it from Edward Irving (1792–1834), while others say it originated from the prophetic utterance of a fifteen-year old Scottish lassie Margaret Macdonald (1815–1840). Both sources are understood to be tainted since Irving was considered exocentric and heretical and Macdonald’s prophetic utterance is thought to be demonic. What is the evidence that Darby developed his view from his own personal study?

//snip//

A PROVIDENTIAL ACCIDENT

At this time, Darby was experiencing a disappointment from a failed spiritual and physical austerity phase in his life, the reality of an Erastian31 church that he believed was in ruins and differed little from the unbelieving world, and his search for an assurance of salvation in his conscience. “Darby’s Christian understanding and experience were about to change radically,” notes Brethren historian Tim Grass. As one who began his ministry as a high churchman, Darby was on the verge of becoming an evangelical dissenter when he experienced a riding accident. Darby describes it as follows:

page4image30472

"As soon as I was ordained, I went amongst the poor Irish mountaineers, in a wild and uncultivated district, where I remained two years and three months, working as best I could. I felt, however, that the style of work was not in agreement with what I read in the Bible concerning the church and Christianity; nor did it correspond with the effects of the action of the Spirit of God. These considerations pressed upon me from a scriptural and practical point of view; while seeking assiduously to fulfil the duties of the ministry confided to me, working day and night amongst the people, who were almost as wild as the mountains they inhabited. An accident happened which laid me aside for a time; my horse was frightened and had thrown me against a door-post."

This period of Darby’s life is known among Darby scholars as “The Convalescence” during which he experienced “The Deliverance.” After the accident, Darby was taken to the home of Susannah Pennefather (1785–1862), his older sister, in Dublin in order to recover. Darby’s convalescence was a time when “the questions in his mind began to resolve themselves.” He wrote: “I was troubled in the same way when a clergyman, but never had the smallest shadow of it since.” He declared: “I judge it as Satan: but going from cabin to cabin to speak of Christ, and with souls, these thoughts sprang up, and if I sought to quote a text to myself it seemed a shadow and not real. I ought never to have been there, but do not think that this was the cause, but simply that I was not set free according to Romans viii. As I have said, I have never had it at all since.”

The three or more months Darby spent recuperating from his accident were undoubtedly the most formative period in his life and remarked upon it. In one account he states:

I am daily more struck with the connection of the great principles on which my mind was exercised by and with God, when I found salvation and peace, and the questions agitated and agitating the world at the present day: the absolute, divine authority and certainty of the Word, as a divine link between us and God, if everything (church and world) went; personal assurance of salvation in a new condition by being in Christ; the church as His body; Christ coming to receive us to Himself; and collaterally with that, the setting up of a new earthly dispensation, from Isaiah xxxii. (more particularly the end); all this was when laid aside at E. P.'s in 1827; the house character of the assembly on earth (not the fact of the presence of the Spirit) was subsequently. It was a vague fact which received form in my mind long after, that there must be a wholly new order of things, if God was to have His way, and the craving of the heart after it I had felt long before; but the church and redemption I did not know till the time I have spoken of; but eight years before, universal sorrow and sin pressed upon my spirit. I did not think to say so much of myself; but it is all well. The truth remains the truth, and it is on that we have to go; but the Lord's dealings with the soul, connected with the use of truth, have to be noted.

Further identification of the date and what Darby believed happened to him spiritually during that time is seen in another statement by Darby in a letter in which he wrote, “I believe at my deliverance from bondage in 1827–8, God opened up certain truths needed for the church.”38 What did Darby claim he realized during his convalescence during December 1827 and January 1828? He enumerates five things.

First, Darby says that he realized “the absolute, divine authority and certainty of the Word, as a divine link between us and God,”39 which caused “the scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me.”40 Darby confirms an evangelical view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Second, he states: “I came to understand that I was united to Christ in heaven, and that consequently, my place before God was represented by His own.” Again he wrote, “personal assurance of salvation in a new condition by being in Christ; the church as His body.”

Third, Darby understood more fully his present standing with Christ in heaven. Such a heavenly standing becomes the basis for much of Darby’s theology that sees the believer already positioned with Christ in heaven. “I was in Christ, accepted in the Beloved, and sitting in heavenly places in Him. This led me directly to the apprehension of what the true church of God was, those that were united to Christ in heaven.”43

Fourth, he says that he realized that he should daily expect the Lord’s return. “At the same time, I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Saviour, in order to be set, in fact, in the glory which is already his portion ‘in Christ.’” Further he says, “I saw in that word the coming of Christ to take the church to Himself in glory.” Darby speaks of “being in Christ; the church as His body; Christ coming to receive us to Himself; . . . all this was when laid aside at E. P.'s in 1827.” Again Darby says of his convalescence discovery: “The coming of he Lord was the other truth which was brought to my mind from the word, as that which, if sitting in heavenly places in Christ, was alone to be waited for, that I might sit in heavenly places with Him.”
Such a cluster of beliefs that were formulated at this time provides the rationale for a pretribulational rapture. Darby had seen the importance of an imminent return of Christ for His bride.

Fifth, Darby saw a change in dispensation. This could mean that it was at this time that shifted in his eschatology from postmillennialism to premillennialism. “Christ coming to receive us to Himself; and collaterally with that, the setting up of a new earthly dispensation, from Isaiah xxxii. (more particularly the end); all this was when laid aside at E. P.'s in 1827.” He writes of his studies in Isaiah: “Isaiah xxxii. brought me to the earthly consequences of the same truth, though other passages might seem perhaps more striking to me now; but I saw an evident change of dispensation in that chapter, when the Spirit would be poured out on the Jewish nation, and a king reign in righteousness.”
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
[QUOTE="OldRegular, post: 2186127, member: 3326"

Supporters of pretribulationism generally believe that John Nelson Darby (1800– 1882) revived this lost New Testament teaching through intense Bible study during convalescence from a riding accident in December 1827 and January 1828. [/QUOTE]

So, you are stating from the first that he didn't invent, "father" or some other term to show it didn't exist prior to the early 1800's?

That it is NOT some Papist plot, and certainly not some view that is heretical, but actually a New Testament teaching?

OR, are you considering embracing Dispensational Pre-Millennialism?

:)
 

OldRegular

Well-Known Member
Supporters of pretribulationism generally believe that John Nelson Darby (1800– 1882) revived this lost New Testament teaching through intense Bible study during convalescence from a riding accident in December 1827 and January
[QUOTE="OldRegular, post: 2186127, member: 3326"

Supporters of pretribulationism generally believe that John Nelson Darby (1800– 1882) revived this lost New Testament teaching through intense Bible study during convalescence from a riding accident in December 1827 and January 1828.

So, you are stating from the first that he didn't invent, "father" or some other term to show it didn't exist prior to the early 1800's?

That it is NOT some Papist plot, and certainly not some view that is heretical, but actually a New Testament teaching?

OR, are you considering embracing Dispensational Pre-Millennialism?

:)[/QUOTE]

Only in my worst nightmare!
 

Rippon

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
You are a liar and a deceiver.
Stop your lies.
God hates lying lips, they are an abomination to him.
Jordon, what has you all riled up? Do you object to Darby's own words quoted by Thomas Ice?

You better be careful with those accusations of yours. Will you be man enough, and more importantly, Christian enough, to admit you are wrong and apologize for your intemperate words?
 

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
Many have questioned the role of John Nelson Darby in the beginning of pre-trib-dispensationalism. Dr. Thomas Ice {http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/ttcol.html} is a current dispensational scholar who has much to say about Darby.


JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE {http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

by Thomas Ice

Supporters of pretribulationism generally believe that John Nelson Darby (1800– 1882) revived this lost New Testament teaching through intense Bible study during convalescence from a riding accident in December 1827 and January 1828. Evangelical opponents of pretribulationism often put forth theories that cast Darby in a bad light. For example, some say Darby got it from Edward Irving (1792–1834), while others say it originated from the prophetic utterance of a fifteen-year old Scottish lassie Margaret Macdonald (1815–1840). Both sources are understood to be tainted since Irving was considered exocentric and heretical and Macdonald’s prophetic utterance is thought to be demonic. What is the evidence that Darby developed his view from his own personal study?
Perhaps Jordan gets upset about OR's deliberate misrepresentation.
What he said is not true.

I doubt if Jordan believes the following statement; I know I don't.

Supporters of pretribulationism generally believe

I support pretribulationism, not OR's version of it. The lie that most us believe that that is the way it happened is uncalled for. That is not what most supporters "generally believe." Has he asked them?
 

beameup

Member
Prior to the Zionist Movement (Jews returning to the Holy Land), it was "unthinkable" that the Nation of Israel could ever exist again. Now, especially after 1948, it is simply "denial" that God is not performing a work in the Holy Land in preparation of the Second Coming and establishment of the Millennial Kingdom. Of course if you embraced the heresy of the Catholic Church perpetrated by Augustine, then it is a matter of "pride" to cling to your "Replacement Theology".
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I've been looking over one of the links that OR posted.

Usually folks post links to support their own view, but showing balance and willing to present both sides, OR posted the link that seems very fact based arguments against his own view. The link gives documented history, Scriptures, rational, ... and will take a great deal of time to work through all the information.

I came across this interesting tidbit that showed Darby wasn't the first, "dispensational" thinker, and (although I won't post it all) wasn't by far the originator of pre-tribulationism. It can be found in the link OR posted, and in this section of that link: HERE
Crude, but clear, schemes of ages and dispensations are found in ante-Nicene fathers such as Justin Martyr (110-165), Irenaeus (130-200), Tertullian (c. 160-220), Methodius (d. 311), and Victorinus of Petau (d. 304). Dispensationalist, Larry Crutchfield concluded that,

Regardless of the number of economies to which the Fathers held, the fact remains that they set forth what can only be considered a doctrine of ages and dispensations which foreshadows dispensationalism as it is held today.​

Further down in the writing he uses Ryrie as a reference and shows two theologians:

Dispensationalist, Charles Ryrie, has shown that for about 150 years prior to Darby, an increasing number of theologians were articulating dispensational schemes of Biblical history (Dispensationalism Today, 71-74).
Pierre Poiret's scheme is seen in his six volume work, The Divine Economy (1687) as follows:

I. Infancy- to the Deluge
II. Childhood- to Moses
III. Adolescence- to the prophets
IV. Youth- to the coming of Christ
V. Manhood- " some time after that"
VI. Old Age- " the time of man' s decay"
(V & VI are the church age)
VII. Renovation of all things- the millennium (Disp. Today, p. 71)​

Note that Poiret stressed the ruin or decay of the church, a major theme in Darby' s thinking.

Isaac Watts (1674-1748), the famous theologian and hymn writer, also wrote about dispensations in a forty-page essay entitled " The Harmony of all the Religions which God ever Prescribed to Men and all his Dispensations towards them." His definition of dispensations is very close to modern statements.

The public dispensations of God towards men, are those wise and holy constitutions of his will and government, revealed or some way manifested to them, in the several successive periods or ages of the world, where in are contained the duties which he expects from men, and the blessings which he promises, or encourages them to expect from him, here and hereafter; together with the sins which he forbids, and the punishments which he threatens to inflict on such sinners, or the dispensations of God may be described more briefly, as the appointed moral rules of God' s dealing with mankind, considered as reasonable creatures, and as accountable to him for their behavior, both in this world and in that which is to come. Each of these dispensations of God, may be represented as different religions, or at least, as different forms of religion, appointed for men in the several successive ages of the world.​

Watts dispensational scheme is as follows:

I. The Dispensation of Innocency
II. Adam after the Fall
III. The Noahic Dispensation
IV. The Abrahamic Dispensation
V. The Mosaic Dispensation
VI. The Christian Dispensation (Disp. Today, p. 73).​

It would seem "Darby" isn't that much of a "father of dispensation", nor of the one who developed a view of a church age.
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Viewing different eras of history does not a dispensationalist make. That would be like saying that viewing different covenant in history makes one a covenant theologians. There are distinctives between the two camps that dispensationalist seem determined to keep under wraps.
 

Internet Theologian

Well-Known Member
I've been looking over one of the links that OR posted.

Usually folks post links to support their own view, but showing balance and willing to present both sides, OR posted the link that seems very fact based arguments against his own view. The link gives documented history, Scriptures, rational, ... and will take a great deal of time to work through all the information.

I came across this interesting tidbit that showed Darby wasn't the first, "dispensational" thinker, and (although I won't post it all) wasn't by far the originator of pre-tribulationism. It can be found in the link OR posted, and in this section of that link: HERE

Further down in the writing he uses Ryrie as a reference and shows two theologians:

It would seem "Darby" isn't that much of a "father of dispensation", nor of the one who developed a view of a church age.

All you have here is a dispensationalist attempting to make others before him dispensationalists. Simply because others recognized the validity of 'dispensations of time' does not make them forefathers of the system of Dispensationalism. This is the (speaking of Ryrie) method used by those within this type of system; weak, readily dismantled arguments.
 
Last edited:

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Viewing different eras of history does not a dispensationalist make. That would be like saying that viewing different covenant in history makes one a covenant theologians. There are distinctives between the two camps that dispensationalist seem determined to keep under wraps.
So, perhaps you would like to "uncover" the distinctions?

I quoted two pre-Darby theologians in the post above - was there something being covered up by these men that I missed when I copied what was reported as their work?
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Gotta be something else between these two very flawed man made belief systems.......until then, I accept neither. Don't even concentrate on them. Christ will return, this we know......and then we will all be reconstituted with pure spiritual bodies.

We will also not know the time & place of His return......He will come like a thief in the night. So why worry? :D
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So, perhaps you would like to "uncover" the distinctions?

I quoted two pre-Darby theologians in the post above - was there something being covered up by these men that I missed when I copied what was reported as their work?
Sure not a problem; I will let Charles Ryrie tell us all what makes a dispensationalist a dispensationalist.
Theoretically, the sine quo non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact that God has distinguishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world. Covenant theologians hold there are various dispensations (and even use the word) within the outworking of the covenant of grace. Charles Hodge, for instance believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall -- Adam to abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end. Berkhof writes, as we have seen, of only two basic dispensations--the Old and the New, but within the Old he sees four periods and all of these are revelations of the covenant of grace. In other words, a person can believe in dispensations and even see them in relations to progressive revelation, without being a dispensationalist.

Is the essence of dispensationalism the number of dispensations? No, for this is in no way a major issue in the system....

Perhaps the issue of premillennialism is determinative. Again the answer is negative, for there are those who are premillennial who definitely are not dispensational... At anyrate, being a premillennialist does not necessarily make one a dispensationalist. (however the reverse is true--being a dispensationalist makes one a premillennialist.)

What then is the sine qua non of dispensationalism? The answer is threefold.

1. A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct. This is stated in different ways by both friends and foes of dispensationalism. Fuller says that the basic premise of Dispensationalist is two purposes God expressed in the formation of two peoples who maintain their distinction throughout eternity.... Chafer summarized it as follows: "The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purpose: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved with is Christianity. "

This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will...

2. This distinction between Israel and the church is born out of a system of hermeneutics that is usually called literal interpretation. Therefore, the second aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is the matter of historical-grammatical hermeneutics...

3 A third aspect of the sine qua non of dispensationalism is a rather technical matter that will be discussed more fully later. It concerns the underlying purpose of God in the world.

Charles Ryrie, Dispensationalism 1995 pages 38-40
Italics in original
bold mine

So I say again viewing different ages does not a dispensationalist make.
To say it does is dishonest and one could just as easily argue that to believe in Covenants makes one a Covenant theologian.
It all comes down to how one views Israel and the church.

As far as I'm concerned if you claim to be a dispensationalist, Darby and Schofield are fair game to quote, just like if someone claims to be a Calvinist, then John Calvin is fair game.
 

blessedwife318

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
All you have here is a dispensationalist attempting to make others before him dispensationalists. Simply because others recognized the validity of 'dispensations of time' does not make them forefathers of the system of Dispensationalism. This is the (speaking of Ryrie) method used by those within this type of system; weak, readily dismantled arguments.
Which is really Ironic because when push comes to shove even Ryrie has to admit that seeing dispensations of times doesn't make one a dispensationalist, as I quoted in my last post. When I was rereading his book Dispensationalism I noticed him trying to show a longer history of Dispensationalism by trying to connect it to others that have divided the Bible, but then on page 38 he has to admit that viewing different ages does not make one a Dispensationalist and that it really all comes down to your view on Israel and the Church.
 

Internet Theologian

Well-Known Member
Which is really Ironic because when push comes to shove even Ryrie has to admit that seeing dispensations of times doesn't make one a dispensationalist, as I quoted in my last post. When I was rereading his book Dispensationalism I noticed him trying to show a longer history of Dispensationalism by trying to connect it to others that have divided the Bible, but then on page 38 he has to admit that viewing different ages does not make one a Dispensationalist and that it really all comes down to your view on Israel and the Church.

Exactly. It just shows that Ryrie wasn't being exactly honest in claiming those in the past as proponents of dispensationalism.
 

agedman

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
So I say again viewing different ages does not a dispensationalist make.
To say it does is dishonest and one could just as easily argue that to believe in Covenants makes one a Covenant theologian.
It all comes down to how one views Israel and the church.

As far as I'm concerned if you claim to be a dispensationalist, Darby and Schofield are fair game to quote, just like if someone claims to be a Calvinist, then John Calvin is fair game.

1). You haven't addressed what is covered up.
2). Now you also need to explain what is so different between the views of Isreal, because they both exclude Isreal and replace it with the church.
3). I've got no problems with quotes as long as they can be verified as accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top