Some strong hard evidence for The Mark of the Beast

[Yeshua1]

You might attempt to support your statements with Scripture. There are Bibles online if you don't have one!

Already quoted tou youy peter in Acts 3, and he was inspired by God to state that when Isreal receives Jesus as their messiah, restoration and blessing on this earth will haooen!

 

[OldRegular]

Already quoted tou youy peter in Acts 3, and he was inspired by God to state that when Isreal receives Jesus as their messiah, restoration and blessing on this earth will haooen!

You are like all pre-trib dispensationalists you filter all Scripture through the erroneous doctrine of Darby!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are like all pre-trib dispensationalists you filter all Scripture through the erroneous doctrine of Darby!

Actually, filter it thru Jesus/Isaiah/Paul/peter/John, as don't view darby as being inspired, but some do seem to get their theology from other sources then just the bible, eh?

 

[DHK]

I have stated on numerous occasions that the doctrine of pre-trib dispensationalism does not come from the study of Scripture. Scripture teaches that after the Fall GOD dealt with mankind by HIS Grace and through Covenants. That is true and cannot be denied. However, pre-trib dispensationalism is strictly man made doctrine and an individual must be taught that doctrine. DHK states: Of course he means that DHK has attempted to "school" me in the doctrines of pre-trib dispensationalism and I refuse to be converted to the false doctrine of pre-trib dispensationalism. GOD is indeed good and I thank HIM daily that I was not exposed to this doctrine until I was sufficiently learned in Scripture to reject it.

A new believer, eager to grow and be a leader, asked for a systematic theology book to help him with his understanding of Scripture. Now, depending on the theology book he could have turned out to be amil or premil; pretrib or posttrib, or maybe even a Preterist. I am glad that the right kind of theology book was recommended and he went on to be a pre-trib dispensationalist.
He learned from the Scriptures didn't he? Just like we all have.
Amil is not new. Covenantal theology is not new. Neither is dispensationalism.
They have all been around for sometime. To take this historical road and to prove you are right through history is ridiculous and impossible to do. It is an avenue you should drop.
You have strayed from sola scriptura.
You have demeaned yourself to character assassination just to make a point.
If you think you are right, then why not use the Bible to prove it.

I have posted on this Forum information by dispensational scholar and author Dr. Thomas Ice showing that John Nelson Darby, while convalescing from a "riding accident" at his sisters home, developed the concept of the pre-tribulation removal of the Church apparently based on his new understanding of Isaiah 32. Dr. Ice writes further regarding Darby:

Again, more character assassination.
More historical accounts.
But absolutely no scripture. Did you say once upon a time you believed in sola scriptura?

Ice writes elsewhere:

I don't care what Ice writes. I don't agree with him in most places.

WE see in Ice's remarks above the development within pre-tribulation dispensationalism the false concept of the two peoples of GOD, a concept directly in opposition to the teaching of Scripture {Ephesians 2:11-22}.

Well that is the first reference that you have given. It doesn't say much though.
God did call a nation out for himself in the OT--Israel.
God is calling out a nation for himself, distinct and different from Israel, in the NT, His Bride. It may well worth noting that John referred himself as a friend of the bride, and not a part of the bride because he was the last of the OT prophets, still a part of the nation of Israel. They are two distinct nations.

Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Chafer writes:

And I should care about this, why??

Charles C. Ryrie, quoted above, is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Ryrie writes:

And so??
More history; no scripture.

Now pre-trib dispensationalists generally "lose their cool, become incensed is perhaps more descriptive," when the Darby, Chafer, Ryrie doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church is mentioned.

I have not once admitted to belief in a "parenthesis church" have I? Can you point to post where I have?
But I can point to where you have posted from men and not from Scripture.

DHK,

The 19th Century gave us the the Watchtower Society [Jehovah's Witnesses}, the Seventh Day Adventists, the Church of Latter Day Saints [Mormonism} and Darby's pre-tribulation dispensationalism.

Hinduism was contemporary with Christ or first century Christianity.
Islam started in the seventh century.
Your point is??

Your understanding of Scripture is filtered by the false doctrine of pre-trib dispensationalism and that is the reason, pure and simple, why you will never be able to teach me anything. Sadly others ignorant of Scripture will enter the morass of pre-trib dispensationalism just as millions have because of Scofield and his SRB and Darby"s convalescence.[/b]

More character assassination.
More history (so-called).
But no scripture. You have given no scriptural proof for your position.

If you want historical proof for your position I have already given it.
The first Amillennialist (like yourself) was the heretic Origen, sometimes referred to as the Father of Arianism, who also believed in universalism, and many other heresies. He is the first also to develop the heretical method of allegory as a method of interpretation of the Bible. Before him the ECF always interpreted the Bible literally. So you follow in his footsteps.
You see, I can fight the same fight.
But the weight of scripture is given to the pre-trib rapture, and I am willing to go with that without reference to others.

 

[quantumfaith]

Are you being serious or is this sarcasm?

I just keep imagining a seminary student listing Lahaye and MacArthur as a scholarly sources...

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

Dude, any book on this will be far beyond what you usually read. This is as close to a popular level explanation of the apocalyptic genre as you will find by a top notch scholar. Plus, we all know you are on a book buying freeze.

2 suggestions: either get a really cheap tablet to read pdf files like this one OR print out the 13 pages of content so you can read.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[quantumfaith]

Maybe we should also read some articles on the symbolic nature of Rev. Try Beale's article on symbolism in Rev.

BTW... the point of the genre apocalyptic is not to be read literally. That is why you need to study the genre. Until you get that, you'll never get Rev. Christians in the last 2 centuries are the only ones who have mucked up this ancient literature w/ literalism.

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[Yeshua1]

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

At least they both hold to the full inspiration and ineranncy of the Bible, unlike some whose texts are used to teach st seminary levels do!

 

[Yeshua1]

You are like all pre-trib dispensationalists you filter all Scripture through the erroneous doctrine of Darby!

You do realise that the early Church would not have seen your Covenant theology/A mil views as what the bible taught, correct?

That it took origen and later on Augustine to get the church to stop viewing the bible in literal terms, and in the views of spiritualising the texts?

 

[OldRegular]

A new believer, eager to grow and be a leader, asked for a systematic theology book to help him with his understanding of Scripture. Now, depending on the theology book he could have turned out to be amil or premil; pretrib or posttrib, or maybe even a Preterist. I am glad that the right kind of theology book was recommended and he went on to be a pre-trib dispensationalist.

I assume you are talking about yourself and you prove my assertion that pre-trib dispensationalism does not come naturally from Scripture. It must be taught. Scripture shows clearly that God deals with mankind through Covenants and always by HIS Grace![/QUOTE]

 

[OldRegular]

1. You have strayed from sola scriptura.

2. More historical accounts.

3. But absolutely no scripture. Did you say once upon a time you believed in sola scriptura?

4. Well that is the first reference that you have given. It doesn't say much though.

5. More history; no scripture.

6. More history (so-called).

7. But no scripture. You have given no scriptural proof for your position.

Above is the essence of your last post. I have presented more Scripture than you or anyone else on this BB to defend my beliefs. I post it in the color of blood to remind myself, and hopefully others what that Scripture cost. But if that Scripture does not comport with pre-trib dispensationalism you reject it or say:

t doesn't say much though.

More about that later.

You tout "sola Scripture" but I would remind you and every pre-trib dispensationalist on this BB that not one verse of Scripture has ever been posted that supports the pre-tribulation removal of the Church. That is the fictitious doctrine invented out of "whole cloth" by John Nelson Darby and I present history to prove it. Now is your "big moment" DHK. You can prove me and history wrong if you can produce Scripture to defend the doctrine of pre-trib removal of the Church.

As for history, I present the writings of pre-trib dispensationalists to prove that pre-trib dispensationalism is from the mind of man, starting with Darby, continuing with such as Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, and Thomas Ice.

I have posted {#58}the remarks by Dr. Ice. He is at least honest in presenting the truth about pre-trib dispensationalism:

I have posted on this Forum information by dispensational scholar and author Dr. Thomas Ice showing that John Nelson Darby, while convalescing from a "riding accident" at his sisters home, developed the concept of the pre-tribulation removal of the Church apparently based on his new understanding of Isaiah 32. Dr. Ice writes further regarding Darby:

Dispensations, Israel, and the Church

From his earliest days, Darby, like Graves, believed not only in the future conversion of the Jews, but also restoration to their homeland. By taking promises to both Israel and the church literally, Darby thought that God' s single plan of salvation is harmonized for God' s two peoples- Israel and the church. Israel, God' s earthly people, are destined to rule over the Nations with Christ before their resurrection. The Church, God' s heavenly people, will reign with Christ in the same kingdom, but in resurrection bodies.

size=4]Darby' s distinction between God' s plan for Israel and the Church formed the basis for his most controversial contribution to Evangelical Christianity- the pretribulation rapture of the Church. Even strong opponents to this doctrine admit that it is logical if God is going to literally fulfill His ancient promises to Israel. The Church must be removed before God resumes His work with Israel, enabling the two programs to fully participate in the millennial kingdom.[/size]

Like many before him, Darby saw God' s progressive revelation of His plan in terms of dispensations. Unlike C. I. Scofield, Darby did not begin his first dispensation until after Noah' s flood.

Darby' s view of the church was crucial to his development of dispensationalism, especially his view (shared by many in his day) of the present ruin of the church. Elmore observed:

By separating any earthly governmental concepts from the Anglican doctrine of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, Darby maintained a high view of the gathered church without aligning it with any race or national government fashioned after Old Testament Israel. By emphasizing Pauline uniqueness, he separated the Church unto its heavenly destiny. (312-13)

DARBY'S CONTRIBUTION

Darby is the father of dispensationalism. " Although he was not a systematic theologian, he was an expositor of ' dispensational truth.' He synthesized exegetical truths to show the full story-line of the Bible, God' s activity in human history" (Elmore, 312). Darby' s employment of the hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation for all of Scripture, including prophecy, naturally led to the distinction between Israel and the Church. This resulted, of course, in the understanding that the hopes of Israel and those of the Church were of a different nature. (Crutchfield, 341)

Dispensationalism came to North America through Darby and other Brethren before the Civil War. After the war dispensational teachings captured the minds of a significant number of Christian leaders, and by 1875, its distinctives were disseminated throughout Canada and the United States. Dispensationalism spread through preaching, conferences, the founding of schools, and literature. By the turn of the century dispensationalism was well known and quickly became the most popular evangelical system of theology.
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/AShortHistoryOfDispensationalism.html

Now it is undeniable that Darby is the father of pre-trib dispensationalism. You can believe whatever you want but you are deluding yourself. Even more sad is the other Biblical illiterates you may lead into the morass of pre-trib dispensationalism.

 

[Yeshua1]

So there were NO prominent Christians leaders/teachers/theologians who spoke of pre Mil views until darby?

And the problem is that you spitualise away all of those scriptures that when seen in a literal way do support our position!

 

[OldRegular]

1. You have demeaned yourself to character assassination just to make a point.

2. Again, more character assassination.

3. More character assassination.

I am curious! Why is it character assassination to quote a pre-trib dispensationalist??????:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

In your post #64 you respond to my reference to Scripture:

WE see in Ice's remarks above the development within pre-tribulation dispensationalism the false concept of the two peoples of GOD, a concept directly in opposition to the teaching of Scripture {Ephesians 2:11-22}.

Well that is the first reference that you have given. It doesn't say much though.

I present that passage of Scripture in case you haven't read it and then you can choose to continue in your error!

Ephesians 2:11-22
11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Actually this passage says much and it leaves no room for the "parenthesis Church" and the two peoples of GOD of pre-trib dispensationalism. Now you claim you never use the term "parenthesis Church" yet you are an avid proponent of pre-trib dispensationalism and that is the doctrine that is developed by the founder of pre-trib dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, and his disciples Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie.

DHK

When you can present just one passage of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church then you will have something worth saying, otherwise you do not.:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

[DHK]

I assume you are talking about yourself and you prove my assertion that pre-trib dispensationalism does not come naturally from Scripture. It must be taught. Scripture shows clearly that God deals with mankind through Covenants and always by HIS Grace!

[/QUOTE]
No, I wasn't talking about myself. There are hundreds of graduates from varying Bible Colleges that believe in dispensationalism because they were taught by men who rightly divided the Word of Truth. Your hatred of dispensationalism doesn't even allow for a rational discussion of the existence of a millennial kingdom much less a pre-trib rapture which to you is just an after thought. The former must, of a necessity, come first.

 

[Yeshua1]

In your post #64 you respond to my reference to Scripture:


I present that passage of Scripture in case you haven't read it and then you can choose to continue in your error!

Ephesians 2:11-22
11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Actually this passage says much and it leaves no room for the "parenthesis Church" and the two peoples of GOD of pre-trib dispensationalism. Now you claim you never use the term "parenthesis Church" yet you are an avid proponent of pre-trib dispensationalism and that is the doctrine that is developed by the founder of pre-trib dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, and his disciples Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie.

DHK

When you can present just one passage of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church then you will have something worth saying, otherwise you do not.:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

Again, the evidence that we keep giving will never be able to please you, as we see the scriptures to be understood in a literal fashion, while you go for symbolism!

And do you know ANY pre trib Dispy that states that Jews will be saved apart from the New Covenant now?

 

[DHK]

Above is the essence of your last post. I have presented more Scripture than you or anyone else on this BB to defend my beliefs. I post it in the color of blood to remind myself, and hopefully others what that Scripture cost. But if that Scripture does not comport with pre-trib dispensationalism you reject it or say: More about that later.

I simply answered you post, point by point. In your last point that was little if any scripture. Rather you are fixated on Darby and whatever you can to demean him. That is truly sad for any Christian and one who engages in debate or apologetics.

You tout "sola Scripture" but I would remind you and every pre-trib dispensationalist on this BB that not one verse of Scripture has ever been posted that supports the pre-tribulation removal of the Church. That is the fictitious doctrine invented out of "whole cloth" by John Nelson Darby and I present history to prove it. Now is your "big moment" DHK. You can prove me and history wrong if you can produce Scripture to defend the doctrine of pre-trib removal of the Church.

I will just repeat my answer again. After all you just proved my point:

I simply answered you post, point by point. In your last point that was little if any scripture. Rather you are fixated on Darby and whatever you can to demean him. That is truly sad for any Christian and one who engages in debate or apologetics.

I have presented many scriptures to you and so have others. It has all been laid out for you. You don't accept a literal reading of the scripture which is unfortunate. You deny it. What else can I do.

As for history, I present the writings of pre-trib dispensationalists to prove that pre-trib dispensationalism is from the mind of man, starting with Darby, continuing with such as Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, and Thomas Ice.

I believe in sola scriptura not sola Ice or Darby. So use the Scripture.
I tire of Darby bashing. So do the rest of us. The above writers don't prove much of anything. If you are unable to prove your case through Scriptures then it is your case, not mine, that doesn't stand. Here is your big chance OR, lay it out in Biblical fashion and in a logical fashion. I will refute any Scripture that you give if it is pulled out of its context.

I have posted {#68}the remarks by Dr. Ice. He is at least honest in presenting the truth about pre-trib dispensationalism:

I don't really care what he says. You also at one time said you don't agree with him. That doesn't say much for Ice does it?

Now it is undeniable that Darby is the father of pre-trib dispensationalism. You can believe whatever you want but you are deluding yourself. Even more sad is the other Biblical illiterates you may lead into the morass of pre-trib dispensationalism.

More character assassination.
More history.
More Darby-reliance.
But no scripture. Whatever happened to sola scriptura.
If you can't defend your position on Scripture alone then you have lost any battle you ever had.

 

[OldRegular]

Again, the evidence that we keep giving will never be able to please you, as we see the scriptures to be understood in a literal fashion, while you go for symbolism!

And do you know ANY pre trib Dispy that states that Jews will be saved apart from the New Covenant now?

Quit rattling on about literal and symbolic. Just present one Verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church. Until you do neither you nor DHK can say anything warranting a response!

 

[DHK]

I am curious! Why is it character assassination to quote a pre-trib dispensationalist??????:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Should I quote Calvin then conclude with: "and only someone like a murderer could receive such revelation like this."
That is what you do.
If it not were falling off a horse, knocking his head on a rock, etc., dispensationalism would have never been born.

Pure garbage! You should be ashamed of yourself. Don't say those are the facts. They are not.

 

[OldRegular]

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: