John Nelson Darby vs Baptist Confessions of Faith

[revmwc]

Read it again!

Seems the tribe of Benjamin existed.
Paul says in Romans 11:
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

He was of the Tribe of Benjamin, many of the Samitans were from the different tribes who had married Gentiles. That is why the Jews felt the way they did toward the Samaritans. The Jews in most cases today can track their linage all the way back to the son of Jacob they descended from.

Jesus says in the tribulation God will track them back to their tribe to seal 12,000 from each tribe listed. thus making up the 144,000, 12,000 from each tribe noted. That means God still has a plan for Israel.

 

[OldRegular]

There is no reason not to believe the 12 tribes still existed.
The southern tribes or Judah only consisted of Judah and Benjamin.
Jesus, Mary, Joseph, were all of Judah of course. So were all the relatives mentioned in Matthew 13:55.
Saul was a Benjamite.
Of the Northern tribes (Israel):
Acts 4:36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,
--Barnabas was a Levite.

Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;
--Anna was of the tribe of Asher.

And there are others. The authors of the NT were not so much interested in giving ancestral details about Jewish believers because it was irrelevant and unimportant information to the gospel message. In fact it would hinder it because we are one in Christ (once saved).
The information that we do have is enough evidence to demonstrate that when an Israelite needed to, they could demonstrate their heritage.


That simply means that people like Ahab and Jezebel (the most wicked King and Queen of Israel) were not true Israelites because they really did not believe in Jehovah. He is speaking of Israel, not believers in Christ. He is speaking of OT Israel.

No. He is saying the exact same thing that we would say: "Not all Christians are Christians." Some are Christians in name only. That is what he means. And if you call that having two "Christianities" then so be it. It is one "in name only," and one that is true and Biblical. So it was then.


The "spiritual" Israel are simply those Israelites that believed compared to the "Ahabs" that did not. It has nothing to do with NT believers. It is still an OT illustration.

Yes, taking the Bible at face value was never your strong suit. If God says he has 7,000 men, you would prefer to say: "but O God, I know you meant something else--let me allegorize that for so that it sounds better and fits with my theology!"
--Again it is still an OT illustration, not speaking of the NT believer.

Romans chapter 2 is speaking of the Jews, specifically unsaved Jews as the first few verses indicate. Now near the end of the chapter, he is still speaking of national Israel. Acceptance with Jehovah, even in Israel, was with the heart not with the flesh.

This interpretation is verified as one continues into chapter three:
Romans 3:1 What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

Paul was praying for his entire nation, the Israelites, just as you would pray for your fellow Americans. He was praying for his nation, the nation of Israel:

Romans 9:4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
--Paul was a Benjamite not from Judah "from whom Christ came."

Paul was praying for their salvation.
He would gladly spend an eternity in Hell, accursed from God, for the salvation of his nation. They were lost. Such love is incomprehensible. What love for his nation that they should be saved. They had rejected the Messiah. He prays for their salvation.
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.

That is not the case here. These had rejected the Messiah and he is praying for their salvation. This very scenario shows the futility of Calvinism.

And thus Paul prays for the entire nation of Israel, though they had rejected the Messiah. There is still hope for them. God does not have two loves, but one; not two wills, but one--one desire that all might be saved. Thus he prays for the salvation of them all.

No one said he did. You are barking up the wrong tree.

Then Paul is a lunatic still praying for the nation that still lived 25 years after the event of the crucifixion.
He prays:
Romans 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved.
He prays for these ones, ethnic Israel that conspired with Rome to put to death Christ. You have too many contradictions in your religion to reconcile.

DHK,
You apparently think that because Paul prayed for national Israel that rescinds what Jesus Christ told the Jews:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

It does not!

 

[OldRegular]

Seems the tribe of Benjamin existed.
Paul says in Romans 11:
1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

He was of the Tribe of Benjamin, many of the Samitans were from the different tribes who had married Gentiles. That is why the Jews felt the way they did toward the Samaritans. The Jews in most cases today can track their linage all the way back to the son of Jacob they descended from.

Jesus says in the tribulation God will track them back to their tribe to seal 12,000 from each tribe listed. thus making up the 144,000, 12,000 from each tribe noted. That means God still has a plan for Israel.

That is not true. You need to read Revelation Revelation 7:1ff again.

 

[revmwc]

That is not true. You need to read Revelation Revelation 7:1ff again.

Revelation 7:4-8
4 "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand."

Explain how it is not!

 

[DHK]

DHK,
You apparently think that because Paul prayed for national Israel that rescinds what Jesus Christ told the Jews:

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

It does not!

There is often a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. And this is one place where those phrases make a definite difference.
Jesus here is speaking of a spiritual kingdom (the kingdom of God).
The kingdom of heaven will indeed be given to the Jews. Read the OT. God is not a liar. He will restore the kingdom to the Jews--the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth--a Millennial Kingdom.

 

[OldRegular]

Revelation 7:4-8
4 "And I heard the number of them which were sealed: and there were sealed an hundred and forty and four thousand of all the tribes of the children of Israel.
5 Of the tribe of Juda were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Reuben were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Gad were sealed twelve thousand.
6 Of the tribe of Aser were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Nephthalim were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Manasses were sealed twelve thousand.
7 Of the tribe of Simeon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Levi were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Issachar were sealed twelve thousand.
8 Of the tribe of Zabulon were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Joseph were sealed twelve thousand. Of the tribe of Benjamin were sealed twelve thousand."

Explain how it is not!

These sealed are described as coming from all the tribes of the children of Israel. Notice, however, that not all the tribes are included. The tribe of Dan is missing. The tribe of Joseph is included as is the half tribe of Manasseh. Since the tribe of Joseph, the father of Ephraim and Manasseh, is included why is the half tribe of Manasseh included? Expositors who want to interpret this passage literally have attempted to explain the absence of Dan, the inclusion of both Manasseh and Joseph, and the absence of Ephraim in various ways. However any attempt to interpret this passage literally creates problems. The salient fact is that the twelve tribes of Israel are not all listed. Therefore the simple solution to the apparent problem is that the passage is written to be interpreted symbolically.

 

[DHK]

Read it again!

I did:

Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
I believe Scripture shows that the only people who came back out of captivity were the Jews and the Levites and certain others from Benjamin and perhaps Simeon who were part of the Southern Kingdom. Whether Paul had in mind the twelve tribes, assuming they still existed, is unknown. Certainly the Jews, the tribe of Judah, still existed.

And I proved you wrong.

Judah and Benjamin are the only two tribes that make up what is known as Judah.
Now what about:

Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

The tribe of Asher is from the Israel or the northern tribes.
She is but one example. The very fact that her tribe is recorded would give credence to believe that they all could give the tribe from which they came. Just because the Bible doesn't tell us which tribe each individual came from does not mean they didn't know it. That is only an unwarranted assumption on your part. You are reading into the scriptures something that isn't there.

 

[OldRegular]

There is often a difference between the kingdom of God and the kingdom of heaven. And this is one place where those phrases make a definite difference.

That is not correct. Compare Matthews use of the Kingdom of Heaven in some of the parables with the writers of the other Gospels use of the Kingdom of God in the same parables. GOD is not the author of Confusion!

Jesus here is speaking of a spiritual kingdom (the kingdom of God).
The kingdom of heaven will indeed be given to the Jews. Read the OT. God is not a liar. He will restore the kingdom to the Jews--the Kingdom of Heaven on this earth--a Millennial Kingdom.

And GOD is not the author of Confusion!

 

[DHK]

That is not correct. Compare Matthews use of the Kingdom of Heaven in some of the parables with the writers of the other Gospels use of the Kingdom of God in the same parables. GOD is not the author of Confusion!


And GOD is not the author of Confusion!

No he isn't. I am not confused. Why are you?

 

[OldRegular]

I did:

And I proved you wrong.

Judah and Benjamin are the only two tribes that make up what is known as Judah.
Now what about:

Luke 2:36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity;

The tribe of Asher is from the Israel or the northern tribes.
She is but one example. The very fact that her tribe is recorded would give credence to believe that they all could give the tribe from which they came. Just because the Bible doesn't tell us which tribe each individual came from does not mean they didn't know it. That is only an unwarranted assumption on your part.

Not all Israelites were carried into captivity. Some of those who remained behind married those sent into replace the captives. So we have the Samaritans. As I recall when Ezra returned he called on the Israelites to put away their spouses who were not of Israel. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all those left behind married outside their ethnic group!

You are reading into the scriptures something that isn't there.

I am a novice compared to the pre-tribbers, DHK!

 

[OldRegular]

No he isn't. I am not confused. Why are you?

You are confused if you say that there is a difference between the Kingdom of GOD and the Kingdom of Heaven. Many dispensationalists have discarded that error years ago! But you cling to it, ignore what the parables say, and believe someone who wrote Scripture is confused!

 

[DHK]

Not all Israelites were carried into captivity. Some of those who remained behind married those sent into replace the captives. So we have the Samaritans. As I recall when Ezra returned he called on the Israelites to put away their spouses who were not of Israel. Furthermore, it is unlikely that all those left behind married outside their ethnic group!

I am a novice compared to the pre-tribbers, DHK!

I am glad, for once, you admit you are a novice. It gives one a reason to believe why you are so confused in your comprehension of Scripture.

1. Look you admit that not all were carried into captivity.
2. But then you make the inference that the ones left behind "all" intermarried and became Samaritans. No, some of them did. Many of them kept their identity, never lost it. You are simply making too many assumptions.
3. By putting away foreign wives Ezra purified the nation, and they kept their identity.

It seems to me you have no faith in God.

Look again at what the Scriptures say:

Luk 2:1-4 (EMTV)
(1) And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the empire.
(2) This census was the first one while Quirinius was governing Syria.
(3) And all were traveling to be registered, each to his own city.
(4) Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,
--The KJV reads "to be taxed" but it was actually a census.
Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah, specifically of the family of David. Therefore they had to go to Bethlehem to enroll in this census.
Each person had to do the same thing. It was imperative that they know their genealogy. They had to. It was a requirement. Something of such value was never lost on a Jew.
Look at the detailed history that Saul was able to give when called upon.
The same was true of Anna coming from Asher.

You have absolutely no evidence to say that any of their heritage was lost.

 

[Marooncat79]

http://founders.org/fj09/the-history-of-dispensationalism-in-america/

 

[OldRegular]

I am glad, for once, you admit you are a novice. It gives one a reason to believe why you are so confused in your comprehension of Scripture.

1. Look you admit that not all were carried into captivity.
2. But then you make the inference that the ones left behind "all" intermarried and became Samaritans. No, some of them did. Many of them kept their identity, never lost it. You are simply making too many assumptions.
3. By putting away foreign wives Ezra purified the nation, and they kept their identity.

It seems to me you have no faith in God.

Look again at what the Scriptures say:

Luk 2:1-4 (EMTV)
(1) And it came to pass in those days that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that a census be taken of all the empire.
(2) This census was the first one while Quirinius was governing Syria.
(3) And all were traveling to be registered, each to his own city.
(4) Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem, because he was of the house and family of David,
--The KJV reads "to be taxed" but it was actually a census.
Mary and Joseph were of the tribe of Judah, specifically of the family of David. Therefore they had to go to Bethlehem to enroll in this census.
Each person had to do the same thing. It was imperative that they know their genealogy. They had to. It was a requirement. Something of such value was never lost on a Jew.
Look at the detailed history that Saul was able to give when called upon.
The same was true of Anna coming from Asher.

You have absolutely no evidence to say that any of their heritage was lost.

Actually it wasn't Saul but Doctor Luke and he only wrote what GOD told him!

 

[OldRegular]

http://founders.org/fj09/the-history-of-dispensationalism-in-america/

Thanks much for the link. I thought I wold post some remarks about Southern Baptists though most of Reisinger's remarks are related to the impact of Darby on the Presbyterians.

This is a Southern Baptist journal, therefore, I must say something about Dispensationalism in Southern Baptist churches. Historically, the Southern Baptist churches were not Dispensational in theology. None of our leading seminaries or colleges ever taught Dispensationalism and to the present day they do not teach Dispensationalism.

I believe I am safe in saying that Dr. Wally Amos Criswell has been the most influential and articulate Southern Baptist Dispensationalists. Dr. Criswell is one of the great, esteemed and respected leaders of our denomination and every Southern Baptist is deeply indebted to him as a defender of the Bible and conservative Christianity. Where and how this great leader got his Dispensationalism I do not know. I do know that he did not get it at Baylor in his college days. He did not get it at Southern in his seminary days, and he did not get it from his great predecessor, George W. Truett, who pastored the First Baptist Church in Dallas, for 47 years before Dr. Criswell. George W. Truett was a postmillennialist.

There are other good men in the Southern Baptist Convention who have Dispensational views, but they did not get these views in our schools or seminaries. They did not get them from our Baptist fathers or from our Baptist historical roots.

We cannot overlook the accomplishments of Dispensationalism. It has given rise to Bible colleges and independent churches all over the land. It has spawned numerous independent missions, independent preachers and missionaries.

If we apply the pragmatic test and ask the question, “Does it work?” The answer is, “yes.”

If we apply the same test and ask the same question to:
Jehovah’s Witnesses, the answer would be yes.
The Mormons, the answer would be yes, it works.
The Roman Catholic Church-yes, it works.
The Charismatic movement-yes, it works.

They all have many converts and followers. They build schools, churches and have missionaries and great accomplishments-but, there is another, more important question that needs to be asked. Is it true, is it Biblical? This question will bring a different answer.

The issue before us is not a few minor differences or disagreements between those who hold basically the same position. It is not just a difference in eschatology. It is the whole system of theology that touches every major doctrine of Christianity. What is at stake is the saving gospel of Jesus Christ and the sinner’s assurance that he is living according to God’s plan for history.

There are many being rescued from the errors of Dispensationalism and I pray that God will use these studies to awaken many more to ask the right question.

In our next study we will return to the Lordship controversy.

Thirty or forty years ago our church had a young assistant pastor who had attended Southwestern Seminary. He told me one night he was concerned that Criswell would be unduly influenced by the people at Chafer's Dallas Theological Seminary. Apparently his concern was justified!

 

[DHK]

Actually it wasn't Saul but Doctor Luke and he only wrote what GOD told him!

Yes, but when he quoted Paul, he quoted him word perfectly. Paul stated many times his own pedigree, and not just in the book of Acts.

Php 3:5 Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;

Rom 11:1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.

Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
Act 22:3 I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers, and was zealous toward God, as ye all are this day.

Act 26:4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
Act 26:5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee.

These are Paul's own words, what he says about himself in the different letters he wrote, or what Luke records when he quotes him word for word.

 

[revmwc]

Thanks much for the link. I thought I wold post some remarks about Southern Baptists though most of Reisinger's remarks are related to the impact of Darby on the Presbyterians.



Thirty or forty years ago our church had a young assistant pastor who had attended Southwestern Seminary. He told me one night he was concerned that Criswell would be unduly influenced by the people at Chafer's Dallas Theological Seminary. Apparently his concern was justified!

So Criswell saw the light of truth and followed it?

 

[OldRegular]

So Criswell saw the light of truth and followed it?

No! And neither have you!

It is apparently "verboten" to mention John Nelson Darby as the father of pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church-dispensationalism on this Board but that is the truth.

From {http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE, 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//

PART #1

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 Erastian 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:

//snip//

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.

//snip//.0

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.” What did Darby claim he realized during his convalescence during December 1827 and January 1828?

//snip//

In my retreat, the 32nd chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly, on God's behalf, that there was still an economy to come, of His ordering; a state of things in no way established as yet. The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me the present heavenly portion of the glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forth the corresponding earthly part. I was not able to put these things in their respective places or arrange them in order, as I can now; but the truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit, by reading His word.​

Darby summarized his views that he discovered during his convalescence retreat in Dublin in an issue of The Bible Treasury writing:

Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a David reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years’ time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. D., knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven. Then what was I waiting for? J. G. B. came up and said they were teaching some new thing in England. “I have it!” I said.​

It has been long recognized that pretribulationism is built upon one’s view of ecclesiology as much or more than one’s eschatology. The greatest pretribulationist scholar of the twentieth century was the late John F. Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary, who recognized the central place of ecclesiology in support of pretribulationism. Walvoord writes:

What is essential to premillennialism becomes an indispensable foundation in the study of pretribulationism. It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church, and any consideration of pretribulationism that does not take this major factor into consideration will be largely beside the point.​

The point that should not be missed regarding Darby’s convalescence discoveries is that they centered on ecclesiology. Darby was concerned about what was happening to the church in which he was involved in Ireland and searched the Bible for answers to his concerns. Stunt notes that one of the assurances Darby received “was the assurance that he (together with all Christians as opposed to Christendom) was risen and spiritually united with Christ in heaven.” This ecclesiastical realization forms the heart of Darby’s theology and spiritual hope that extended throughout the rest of his life.

//snip//

Darby did not just develop an ecclesiology that was isolated from interaction with other areas of theology. Rather, he clearly set it against God’s plan for Israel. In one of his convalescence statements he said:

Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a Davidic reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years’ time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. D., knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven.​

Continued

 

[OldRegular]

So Criswell saw the light of truth and followed it?

No! And neither have you!

It is apparently "verboten" to mention John Nelson Darby as the father of pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church-dispensationalism on this Board but that is the truth.

From {http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE, 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?}

Part #2

Darby did not just develop an ecclesiology that was isolated from interaction with other areas of theology. Rather, he clearly set it against God’s plan for Israel. In one of his convalescence statements he said:

Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a Davidic reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years’ time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. D., knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven.​

Thus, Darby sees the church as distinct from Israel, since there would be a Davidic reign for Israel in the millennium, God’s earthly people. On the other hand, Darby saw that he was positionally united with Christ in heaven, a heavenly destiny.

Dispensationalists today see such a distinction as their sine qua non. Leading dispensational spokesman Charles Ryrie says, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” Ryrie explains:

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.​

Non-dispensational, covenant theologians recognize this essential about dispensationalists as noted by Michael Williams.

The Darbyist church/Israel distinction constitutes the one great organizing principle of classical dispensationalism. The metaphysical and historical distinction between the church and Israel is the axle upon which the theology of Darby, Scofield, and Chafer rides. It is the one great absolutely necessary or essential element of the system. The Darbyist metaphysical distinction between Israel and the church is the sine qua non of classical dispensational theology.​

From the time of his convalescence, Darby developed a theology that taught and supported a dispensational, premillennial, pretribulationism. Essentially Darby came to understand that his place or position was the same as Christ, which is in heaven. Thus, the church is a heavenly people, not an earthly people like the established church, in which he was a clergyman. Juxtaposed to the heavenly and spiritual church was Israel, who are composed of a spiritual, ethnic, and national people on earth who have a future in God’s plan after the church age.

Darby came to understand that the church could be taken to heaven at any moment without signs preceding that event, in what would later be known as the pretribulational rapture of the church. Darby’s realization of a change in dispensations laid the groundwork for the development of dispensationalism, since he saw a distinction between God’s plan for the church and His plan for Israel. By this time, Darby also developed a pessimistic view of the visible church, Christendom, and came to believe that it was in utter ruins.

By January 1828, February at the latest, John Nelson Darby had not only come to an understanding of the idea of pretribulationism, but, he had also come to see other components, along with a rationale to support this view. This does not mean that his ideas relating to pretribulationism came out of the womb fully developed along with no internal contradictions. There was still developmental work to be done. Stunt surmises: “In fact for some years after his experience of deliverance there was something decidedly ambivalent about some of the positions adopted by Darby.”68 It would take at least another decade for Darby to develop full confidence in his new views and their implications. The basics were in place by early 1828. This was too early to have received seminal influence from others regarding things Darby strongly contends he came to understand from personal Bible study alone during his Dublin convalescence.

 

[DHK]

Thanks much for the link. I thought I wold post some remarks about Southern Baptists though most of Reisinger's remarks are related to the impact of Darby on the Presbyterians.

Reading some biographical material on Reisinger, it wasn't the Bible that turned him away from dispensationalism.

As Ernie read more and more of the Puritans, and developed
relationships with Iain Murray and Martyn Lloyd-Jones, he faced
another theological dilemma. He was not finding Dispensational
teaching in any of them!

http://www.carolbrandt.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Ernest-Reisinger.pdf
I suppose if he would have read Charles Taze Russell's books he would have become a J.W.
Someone once said: "You are what you read."