John Nelson Darby and Pre-trib-dispensationalism

[HankD]

Yeah I knew someone was going to quote Satan's temptation of Jesus, and I'll say the same thing now that I said in the thread where that originally came up, I don't consider the father of lies a credible source.

Neither do I but Jesus did not correct him and it is evident what he meant :

John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Prince - Grk. archon Friberg Lexicon:Leader, ruler, lord, prince.

In addition the "physical earth" is in bondage as well awaiting the sovereign decision of God to bring it back to its pristine glory of first creation.

Romans 8
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Scientifically Blessedwife this is called entropy or the nuclear death of the material universe. The subatomic particles have been corrupted. Apparently (so it seems) at the fall and sentence of death of mankind also. It does not reflect the words:

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

"And 1 John is talking about the world system, not the physical earth".

My apology - I'm sorry, I used the word which you used:

"Adam gave the world over to Satan at the fall".

Blessedwife I'm not trying to unconvince you of anything except to clarify some things which IMO transcend this Donnybrook related to the moving target called dispensationalism.

In fact it's a good thing in my estimation when people recognize the errors of any of the follies of dispensationalism or any other body of teaching.

Personally I look at it following the old saying:"Its like eating a fish - throw out the bones, enjoy the meat".

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

I have showed and posted quotes from Irenaeous showing that he believed in a pre tribulation rapture.

But believing in a pre-tribulation rapture does not equate to all that dispensationalism teaches. Believing in a pre-tribulational rapture does not necessarily suggest a denial of replacement theology.

Obvously then Darby cannot be the inventor of the Pre-trib rapture.

He isn't. But he is the father of modern dispensationalism in the sense that he took many disjointed theories and put them together to establish his hermeneutic of dispensationalism (and, yes, dispensationalism is a hermeneutic). And he popularized that hermeneutic to the point that a significant portion of evangelicalism has adopted it with very little critical examination.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

But believing in a pre-tribulation rapture does not equate to all that dispensationalism teaches. Believing in a pre-tribulational rapture does not necessarily suggest a denial of replacement theology.

He isn't. But he is the father of modern dispensationalism in the sense that he took many disjointed theories and put them together to establish his hermeneutic of dispensationalism (and, yes, dispensationalism is a hermeneutic). And he popularized that hermeneutic to the point that a significant portion of evangelicalism has adopted it with very little critical examination.

He stated in other threads that Darby came up with the rapture... which is a lie. Perhaps Darby did popopularize dispensationalism, But OldRegular has gone beyond that, anytime someone posts anything about a rapture, Oldregular comes along claiming Darby created the idea.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Jordan,

I missed the Irenaeus quote. Can you repost it of give me the post number!




Sent from my LGLK430 using Tapatalk

it was from a different thread. but here it is:

On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”

Irenaeus in this passage describes the church leaving the sinful world just before unprecedented disasters. Note his use of the term “caught up” which is Rapture terminology as that is the meaning of harpazo, the term for “caught up” in the King James Bible describing the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4. He then quotes Matthew 24:21 where The Lord Jesus Christ says: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” And it is during this time that those who convert to Christianity during the final years will receive the incorruptible crown mentioned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:25. In Irenaeus’ belief, the Rapture took place prior to the end times Great Tribulation.

http://beginningandend.com/what-did-ancient-church-fathers-believe-about-the-rapture/

 

[percho]

Neither do I but Jesus did not correct him and it is evident what he meant :

John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

Prince - Grk. archon Friberg Lexicon:Leader, ruler, lord, prince.

In addition the "physical earth" is in bondage as well awaiting the sovereign decision of God to bring it back to its pristine glory of first creation.

Romans 8
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.

Scientifically Blessedwife this is called entropy or the nuclear death of the material universe. The subatomic particles have been corrupted. Apparently (so it seems) at the fall and sentence of death of mankind also. It does not reflect the words:

Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

"And 1 John is talking about the world system, not the physical earth".

My apology - I'm sorry, I used the word which you used:

"Adam gave the world over to Satan at the fall".

Blessedwife I'm not trying to unconvince you of anything except to clarify some things which IMO transcend this Donnybrook related to the moving target called dispensationalism.

In fact it's a good thing in my estimation when people recognize the errors of any of the follies of dispensationalism or any other body of teaching.

Personally I look at it following the old saying:"Its like eating a fish - throw out the bones, enjoy the meat".

HankD

Because it was before the foundation of the world, the lamb was slain, before the foundation of the world, it was foreordained the lamb without spot and without blemish would shed his precious blood, the shed blood being the, in hope, spoken of in Rom 8:20 it was the, very good that was made, that was subjected to vanity. The verse itself says Adam did not subject himself to vanity.

I believe Satan before the man was created was the prince of this world.

Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

If not the world to come, then what world?

 

[agedman]

Then you need to read more agedman!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you present one passage of Scripture that shows the CHURCH, for which Jesius Christ died, is a parenthesis, an interruption, in GOD's program for naionsl Israel? If it is not in the Bible then it is the invention of fallible man!!!!!! If you can then please, please do so! If you can't then confess that pre-trib-dispensationalism is the invention of man and is as false as the lie that the pope is the vicar of Jesus Christ!

Israel was chosen for the single purpose of bringing Jesus Christ into the world. After that their task was complete and they are no more precious in the sight of GOD than any other ethnic group.

OR, here is the problem with your thinking.

First, Agedman does not view the church as a "parenthesis," rather a part of the culmination of the plan God gave to Adam and Eve as a promise.
Second, This church age is one part of that plan that unfolding. The church is not the end, is not the beginning of the end, but, as this age is now unfolding, the end is beginning (to paraphrase a portion of a great leader).

Your scheme has Israel as a national entity merely a cast away tool, and that God's promises and covenants are not to be considered as vows that are unbreakable to a people He called by His name.

OR, get this:

• agedman has NEVER suggested that ANY scheme that presents either soteriology or eschatology was other than a human invention and subject to modification as believers adjusted to the rendering of Scripture.
  
• agedman has stated little care what the scheme may be. There is failure if that scheme does not conform to the statements of Scripture.
  
• YOUR scheme is just as "Fallible" as any that was ever considered. Your attempt to puff your view above others is not only silly, but a monstrous error of judgment.

In your bias, you can't read statements that run counter to your own as truthful, but desire everyone to bow down to what you perceive as truth. Are you so exalted and puffed up?

Witnessing to a wonderful Jewish lady professional this last week. She is intelligent, highly skilled in her career, and, as she and I have talked throughout the two years since we became acquainted, has gradually awakening to not only the prophetic statements of the suffering messiah, but that of the victorious King of Kings.

Could that witness present the truth of prophecy through what I take as your view? Nope.

Could that witness present her the truth of the claims of Christ in what I take as your view? Nope.

So, which view should be taken as foundation and aligned with all Scriptures? Certainly not yours.

However, you can't get past this stumbling block - that agedman is not one who views Darby Dispensation scheme as the only. That agedman is eclectic in things of the future.

Why would Paul place great emphasis in Romans upon the believers being "grafted into" if there were nothing in which to be grafted? Certainly, he is speaking of believing Israel, but did the believing Israeli loose their national identification as a Jew at the resurrection of Christ? Does not Paul himself state in Romans that is just not the truth?

Did not Paul identify himself as a Jew sent to the Gentile nations?

Agedman would rather stand upon the Scriptures as the authority, and not some misty rendering that places all into some grandiose story telling involving myth and legend, of fairy tale and dragons, of a king with no kingdom.

But what you have already proven is that by your over emphasis in this post grasps at delusion in attempts to malign what agedman views or doesn't, because you actually cannot understand.

Thread readers, if this seems harsh, then know that OR usually does have some wonderful understanding of Scriptures, however, he has continued to try to force agedman into a position that has repeatedly shown that the alignment is unwarranted. He has done so irregardless of all attempts to prove the contrary.

 

[agedman]

TC, it is good to link the Sword and Trowel article for the edification of all: Sword and Trowel, June 1869, Mr. Grant on "The Darby Brethren"

One of Darby's more egregious departures from orthodoxy regarding the atonement is stated in this except from the Sword and Trowel article:



Darby's view of the atonement results in part of Christ's time on the cross being suffering without any atoning work. This is contrary to scripture:

1 Peter 2:21-25 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

He (Christ) bore our sins in His body on the cross. Injecting the theory that part of Christ's time on the cross was non-atoning is an assault upon the text.

Apparently you didn't read my response to the article TCassidy posted the link.

Would you go back a page or two and read the response and show were I may have misread?

 

[agedman]

That quote from "Against Heresies" actually supports a post-trib rapture (which I reject), not a pre-trib rapture. Please do yourself a favor and engage in some real research instead of cutting and pasting from hack websites like beginningandend.com and raptureready.com. It really is quite embarrassing.

For the readers interested in what "Against Heresies" actually states, here is a link to the text.

Link: Against Heresies

Go down to section XXVIII and have fun reading. Don't stop until about the end of the work.

As it relates to the thread, I love to point out this quote:

"If, however, any shall endeavour to allegorize [prophecies] of this kind, they shall not be found consistent with themselves in all points, and shall be confuted by the teaching of the very expressions [in question]."​

Is he in fact calling all who would "endeavour to allegorize" heretics?

Just asking.

 

[agedman]

Given Darby's error on the atonement, I can understand why Dispensationalists would want to distance themselves from him.

Just a question to clarify.

Are you relying upon what Darby actually wrote and preached, or are you relying upon what Spurgeon reports?

I have been spending my free time skimming through the writings of Darby, and although far from finished (though exhausted by the exhaustive) have yet to find that Darby was in heretical error - that is error rising to the level of heresy.

For example: I specifically took the statement that Spurgeon quoted and parsed it for TCassidy when asking in what manner was Darby wrong?

Perhaps you will look back a page or two at that post and show where I missed the error.

 

[OldRegular]

TC, it is good to link the Sword and Trowel article for the edification of all: Sword and Trowel, June 1869, Mr. Grant on "The Darby Brethren"

One of Darby's more egregious departures from orthodoxy regarding the atonement is stated in this except from the Sword and Trowel article:



Darby's view of the atonement results in part of Christ's time on the cross being suffering without any atoning work. This is contrary to scripture:

1 Peter 2:21-25 21 For you have been called for this purpose, since Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example for you to follow in His steps,22 WHO COMMITTED NO SIN, NOR WAS ANY DECEIT FOUND IN HIS MOUTH;23 and while being reviled, He did not revile in return; while suffering, He uttered no threats, but kept entrusting Himself to Him who judges righteously;24 and He Himself bore our sins in His body on the cross, so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness; for by His wounds you were healed.25 For you were continually straying like sheep, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Guardian of your souls.

He (Christ) bore our sins in His body on the cross. Injecting the theory that part of Christ's time on the cross was non-atoning is an assault upon the text.

I have already been accused by DHK of besmirching Darby; I suppose because I said he had a riding accident and sponged "offen" his sister for several month instead of working. I did not want to bring in his "unorthodox" views of the atonement as poined out by Spurgeon lest I be condemned to hell or banished from the BB!

 

[OldRegular]

OR, here is the problem with your thinking.

First, Agedman does not view the church as a "parenthesis," rather a part of the culmination of the plan God gave to Adam and Eve as a promise.
Second, This church age is one part of that plan that unfolding. The church is not the end, is not the beginning of the end, but, as this age is now unfolding, the end is beginning (to paraphrase a portion of a great leader).

Your scheme has Israel as a national entity merely a cast away tool, and that God's promises and covenants are not to be considered as vows that are unbreakable to a people He called by His name.

OR, get this:

• agedman has NEVER suggested that ANY scheme that presents either soteriology or eschatology was other than a human invention and subject to modification as believers adjusted to the rendering of Scripture.
  
• agedman has stated little care what the scheme may be. There is failure if that scheme does not conform to the statements of Scripture.
  
• YOUR scheme is just as "Fallible" as any that was ever considered. Your attempt to puff your view above others is not only silly, but a monstrous error of judgment.

In your bias, you can't read statements that run counter to your own as truthful, but desire everyone to bow down to what you perceive as truth. Are you so exalted and puffed up?

Witnessing to a wonderful Jewish lady professional this last week. She is intelligent, highly skilled in her career, and, as she and I have talked throughout the two years since we became acquainted, has gradually awakening to not only the prophetic statements of the suffering messiah, but that of the victorious King of Kings.

Could that witness present the truth of prophecy through what I take as your view? Nope.

Could that witness present her the truth of the claims of Christ in what I take as your view? Nope.

So, which view should be taken as foundation and aligned with all Scriptures? Certainly not yours.

However, you can't get past this stumbling block - that agedman is not one who views Darby Dispensation scheme as the only. That agedman is eclectic in things of the future.

Why would Paul place great emphasis in Romans upon the believers being "grafted into" if there were nothing in which to be grafted? Certainly, he is speaking of believing Israel, but did the believing Israeli loose their national identification as a Jew at the resurrection of Christ? Does not Paul himself state in Romans that is just not the truth?

Did not Paul identify himself as a Jew sent to the Gentile nations?

Agedman would rather stand upon the Scriptures as the authority, and not some misty rendering that places all into some grandiose story telling involving myth and legend, of fairy tale and dragons, of a king with no kingdom.

But what you have already proven is that by your over emphasis in this post grasps at delusion in attempts to malign what agedman views or doesn't, because you actually cannot understand.

Thread readers, if this seems harsh, then know that OR usually does have some wonderful understanding of Scriptures, however, he has continued to try to force agedman into a position that has repeatedly shown that the alignment is unwarranted. He has done so irregardless of all attempts to prove the contrary.

\

agedman, get this!. You were a little more humble durng your illness. Now after your recovery you are even more arrogant to the point of being obscene!. You refer to yoirself as a third person: Pathetic!

Any doctrine that makes the CHURCH, for which Jesus Christ suffered and died, an afterthought, a parenthesis, an intercalation, is false doctrine. Any doctrine that elevates the tribe of Israel above the CHURCH is false doctrine and that is a fact. Jesus Christ did not die for Israel any more than he died for the Arab and that is a fact.

You must understand that most of the nation Israel went into captivity never to return. Only the tribe of Judah through which GOD would bring the Saivor was providentally bnrought out of captivity.

Following is a little histoy lesson AM but it will have to wait since I am going to my daughters home for Thanksgiving!

 

[McCree79]

it was from a different thread. but here it is:

On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:

“Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”

Irenaeus in this passage describes the church leaving the sinful world just before unprecedented disasters. Note his use of the term “caught up” which is Rapture terminology as that is the meaning of harpazo, the term for “caught up” in the King James Bible describing the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4. He then quotes Matthew 24:21 where The Lord Jesus Christ says: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” And it is during this time that those who convert to Christianity during the final years will receive the incorruptible crown mentioned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:25. In Irenaeus’ belief, the Rapture took place prior to the end times Great Tribulation.

http://beginningandend.com/what-did-ancient-church-fathers-believe-about-the-rapture/

Jordan,

Reformed is right. Irenaeus is referring to a post trib rapture.

"There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be." For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption"

The righteous are still on earth per Irenaeus. We have no reason to assume he is referring to converts during the tribulation. He never mentions such. However in chapter 35 he is much clear about his post trib view.

" For all these and other words were unquestionably spoken in reference to the resurrection of the just, which takes place after the coming of Antichrist, and the destruction of all nations under his rule; in [the times of] which [resurrection] the righteous shall reign in the earth, waxing stronger by the sight of the Lord:...."

The parousia will not happen until after the tribulation per Irenaeus.

He them continues on in chapter 35....no words skipped, this is a continuation.

"....and through Him they shall become accustomed to partake in the glory of God the Father, and shall enjoy in the kingdom intercourse and communion with the holy angels, and union with spiritual beings; and [with respect to] those whom the Lord shall find in the flesh, awaiting Him from heaven, and who have suffered tribulation,"

Sent from my LGLK430 using Tapatalk

 

[agedman]

I will go back and look at your post. I apologize if I missed it previously.

P.S. Please tell me what post # you are referring to. I cannot seem to find the one you are referencing?

It was further back than I thought. I remember it is around post 93 - sometimes I loose short term memory in just the time it takes to find and write this response.

 

[agedman]

I have already been accused by DHK of besmirching Darby; I suppose because I said he had a riding accident and sponged "offen" his sister for several month instead of working. I did not want to bring in his "unorthodox" views of the atonement as poined out by Spurgeon lest I be condemned to hell or banished from the BB!

I really do need to be pointed to specific writing by Darby of what you find unorthodox.

Not what someone states is their opinion of his writing as is done in "Sword and Trowel" by taking a short paragraph and attaching (what I think I showed) thinking that the author of the quote did not even imply.

Perhaps I am wrong. I have asked others to go back (I believer to post 93) and see if I made an error in that post and be specific about what the error was.

 

[agedman]

\

agedman, get this!. You were a little more humble durng your illness. Now after your recovery you are even more arrogant to the point of being obscene!. You refer to yoirself as a third person: Pathetic!

Pathetic for using third person? Really?

Look in the mirror and see who is so arrogant as to post and post and re post and then re post again, nauseously attempting to put agedman into the same position over, and over....

Such is "to the point of being obscene!"

Any doctrine that makes the CHURCH, for which Jesus Christ suffered and died, an afterthought, a parenthesis, an intercalation, is false doctrine. Any doctrine that elevates the tribe of Israel above the CHURCH is false doctrine and that is a fact. Jesus Christ did not dfie for Israel any more than he died for the Arab and that is a fact.

First, I have not exhaustively read all of Darby's writing, but am working my way through them. I don't have any idea when I might be even close to done. But I can state that from what I have read, he is certainly not viewing the church as you would ascribe to him. Nor does he exalt any "tribe of Israel" or the national Israel above the Church. If you have specific documentation of his statements of such, please share them.

That claim can actually be laid at YOUR feet.
1) You replace all promises made to Israel as complete, fulfilled, or no longer, finished, done, over with. That God has washed His hands of the people that He chose, and that He called by His name.
2) It is YOUR scheme that exalts the church and places the church in isolation as replacing promises of prophecy specific to the nation Israel.

You must understand that most of the nation Israel went into captivity never to return. Only the tribe of Judah through which GOD would bring the Saivor was providentally bnrought out of captivity.

This is just not Scriptural, nor does it align with the prophecy given to any of the tribes that made up Israel.

Moreover, "providentially brought out of captivity" is exactly what has taken place in the last century to EVERY tribe of Israel, not just Judah. So, again, your scheme is misguided and not historically accurate.

Following is a little histoy lesson AM but it will have to wait since I am going to my daughters home for Thanksgiving!

What "little histo(r)y lesson?"

What you gave was bias and without fact in either Scripture or reality.

 

[agedman]

No worries, brother. I do not know how someone can get in trouble for simply quoting reliable sources and staying on topic.

"Quoting reliable sources and staying on topic" isn't the problem, and we both know it.

What happens is that the accompaniment of bully tactics and name calling is what infractions have been based upon.

Frankly, (imo) I would rather the "overseers" snip with explanation, a post rather than give private infractions. That way, the readers will know exactly why a post was inappropriate and the warning of an infraction being given is witnessed by all who read that post.

This is important, because the post is a public post, it follows that the post should be corrected and the infraction if given be specific and public, too.

That is my opinion which carries about as much authority as it would with my wife.

 

[Internet Theologian]

I have already been accused by DHK of besmirching Darby; I suppose because I said he had a riding accident and sponged "offen" his sister for several month instead of working. I did not want to bring in his "unorthodox" views of the atonement as poined out by Spurgeon lest I be condemned to hell or banished from the BB!

OldRegular would you say that Scofield has been claimed by fundies as one of their own? I'm not familiar with him but looking at things here it looks like not much is being missed!

 

[HankD]

Because it was before the foundation of the world, the lamb was slain, before the foundation of the world, it was foreordained the lamb without spot and without blemish would shed his precious blood, the shed blood being the, in hope, spoken of in Rom 8:20 it was the, very good that was made, that was subjected to vanity. The verse itself says Adam did not subject himself to vanity.

I believe Satan before the man was created was the prince of this world.

Heb 2:5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

If not the world to come, then what world?

"Before the foundation of the world" I will admit probably includes the creation of the time continuum and its boundaries.

Not sure what you are affirming or denying or perhaps just making commentary?

But Jesus here in the days of His flesh having entered the time continuum spoke of him (the devil) several times as the "prince" of this world.

John 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.

John 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me.

John 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged.

If not the world to come, then what world?

Good question seeing there are multiple worlds:

Hebrews 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Unless of course the word here for words (aion)
aion- Friberg - a segment of contemporary time which IMO is a synonym for dispensation.

Therefore Satan would presumably be the prince of this world (or aionas) until the Day of God which in dispensational thought begins on the first day of the Tribulation (during which time he is cast into the abyss) and lasts 1007 years then comes the eternal state.

HankD

 

[TCassidy]

He stated in other threads that Darby came up with the rapture... which is a lie.

I don't care what he said in this or any other thread. I was not responding to him. I was responding to you and your quotes from Irenaeus which you understand to indicate he believed in a pre-trib rapture (I don't think that is what he was saying - I think he was a classic chilliast who believed in a post-trib rapture) but that belief does not include the whole of dispensational thought.

 

[Internet Theologian]

There is a difference between the curse of the Law and the pouring out of God's wrath. In Darby's view Christ did not experience the Father's wrath until a specific point while on the cross. Darby's writings indicate that he believed the wrath of God did no abide on the Son until the Son cried out, "My God, my God, why has Thou forsaken Me?"

What biblical evidence would you cite that would prove that the Christ of God suffered the wrath of God? Some do not believe this to be true (I am not one of them though). I'm interested in your thoughts and some Scriptures.

*I made a new thread for this topic:

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/did-christ-experience-the-wrath-of-god.97097/