The Secret Rapture return of Christ approaches

[OldRegular]

Rev 3:10-Because you have kept My command to persevere, I also will keep you from the hour of trial which shall come upon the whole world, to test those who dwell on the earth.

No Old testament passage on the tribulation even mentions the church why is that? Refer to Deut 4:29-30, Jer 30:4-11, Dan 8:24-27.

Putting the verses you mention in more context.

Deuteronomy 4: 26-31
26. I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed.
27. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.
28. And there ye shall serve gods, the work of men’s hands, wood and stone, which neither see, nor hear, nor eat, nor smell.
29. But if from thence thou shalt seek the LORD thy God, thou shalt find him, if thou seek him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.
30. When thou art in tribulation, and all these things are come upon thee, even in the latter days, if thou turn to the LORD thy God, and shalt be obedient unto his voice;
31. [For the LORD thy God is a merciful God;] he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Have you never read Judges, Samuel, Kings. How many times did GOD have to chasten Israel? How many times did Israel serve other gods? How many times did Israel sacrifice their children to other gods?

As for tribulation the "true Believers" have always undergone tribulation. Jesus Christ tells us: John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

You are grasping at straws.

Jeremiah 30 says that Israel will return from captivity. They did that, at least part of them. So your point is????

I would simply note that Jeremiah 31:31-34 tells us of the New Covenant instituted by the crucifixion of Jesus Christ through the connivance of the Jews with Rome.!

31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD:
33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Also no New Testament passage on the tribulation mentions the church why is that? Mt 13:30, 39-42, 48-50; 24:15-31; 1 Thes 1:9-10; 5:4-9, 2 Thes 2:1-11.

Consider Matthew 13:30 in context:

Matthew 13:24-30
24. Another parable put he forth unto them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man which sowed good seed in his field:
25. But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way.
26. But when the blade was sprung up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also.
27. So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?
28. He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up?
29. But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them.
30.Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.

So what is your point?? Perhaps you should read further to the explanation of Jesus Christ of the above parable:

Matthew 13:36-43
36. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.
37. He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38. The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39. The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40. As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41. The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42. And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43. Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Above we have a wonderful picture of the work of Jesus Christ in the Salvation of the elect. The Good Seed, the redeemed elect are translated into the Kingdom of the Son as shown in Colossians 1:13. Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

At the end of the world we have a picture of the Resurrection of all the dead both both the righteous, the good seed, and the unrighteous, the tares, followed by the White Throne Judgment.{John 5:28, 29} The righteous shall enter the Kingdom of GOD, the New Heavens and new Earth, the unrighteous with Satan shall be cast into the Lake of Fire.

The scripture in 1 Thes 5:9, and Rom 5:9 state that the church is not destined for wrath, so why would the church go through the great day of God's wrath? Please think about this question for you reply, and look up the verses. No I will quote them.

1 Thes 5:9-9 For God did not appoint us to wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,

Rom 5:9-9 Much more then, having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.

I know of no one who says the "true believer" is subject to the wrath of GOD. This is clearly shown in the above passage from Matthew, the redeemed enter the New Heaven and New Earth, the unbeliever is cast into the Lake of Fire as is Satan.

This is just a general synopsis but it provides enough evidence to persuade those whom think rationally about this and the scripture of the pre-trib view.

Not a single word, that means not ONE word, in the above post proves a pre-trib rapture.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Secret rapture but there are signs to indicate it is near????

Ah ha ha ha Ohhhhhhh yea:laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

Darby and Dispensationalism

Following is an excerpt from JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE
by Thomas Ice. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

Ice is a dispensational scholar and coauthored with LeHaye the book Charting the End Times. This excerpt deals primarily with Darby's experience while convalescing at his sisters home from a riding accident. A careful reading of the information presented clearly shows that Thomas Ice regards Darby as the father of Dispensationalism. I also believe that a careful reading shows that Darby is claiming more than just an understanding of Scripture but a new revelation from God, particularly of Isaiah 32. It takes either a vivid imagination or an epiphany to get the doctrine of a pre-trib rapture and the doctrine of an eternal difference between the Church and Israel from Isaiah 32. I have posted this information before but apparently few if any read it.

This period of Darby’s life is known among Darby scholars as “The Convalescence” during which he experienced “The Deliverance.”34 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.”35 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.”36
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,” which caused “the scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me.” 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.”41 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.”

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 the 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.”48 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.” Isaiah was a very influential part of his studies and change of views during this time. He notes:

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.

Francis Newman, who served as a tutor for the Pennefather children for fifteen months during 1827 and 1828, confirms the timing of Darby’s textual and doctrinal discoveries. As a tutor in the household daily, he would have been at the Pennefather residence during Darby’s convalescence.52 Newman speaks of Darby’s influence upon him while at the Pennefathers, during Darby’s three-month convalescence. “Darby’s realization in 1827–28 that earthly Jewish promises should not be appropriated by the Christian church is circumstantially corroborated in Frank Newman’s letter to B. W. Newton (17 April 1828),” notes Stunt, “written after Darby’s deliverance experience, where he makes a similar distinction between the promises made to Israel and those made to the Church.”

It is helpful to have a witness by another party that basically supports the information provided by Darby during such a formative moment in his life. Such a testimony supports Darby’s overall credibility in addition to bolstering these specific claims.

Benjamin Wills Newton (1807–99), writes of his Oxford tutor and friend Frank Newman, “While I was at Oxford and we were friends, F. Newman went to Ireland (1827) and there made the acquaintance of John Darby.”54 Thus, Newton says that Newman returned from his stay in Ireland, having been influenced by Darby in relation to prophecy, and that Newman wanted Darby to share this prophetic information with his friends at Oxford. This is a second source that confirms Darby’s doctrinal discoveries occurred during his convalescence during December, 1827and January, 1828.

 

[OldRegular]

Darby and Dispensationalism, continued

Following is the continuation of an excerpt from JOHN NELSON DARBY AND THE RAPTURE
by Thomas Ice. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

A third source, John Gifford Bellett (1795–1864), also had interaction with Darby during his convalescence. He wrote the following about Darby:

In the beginning of 1828 I had occasion to go to London, and then I met in private and heard in public those who were warm and alive on prophetic truth, having had their minds freshly illumined by it.

In my letters to J. N. D. at this time, I told him I had been hearing things that he and I had never yet talked of, and I further told him on my return to Dublin what they were. Full of this subject as I then was, I found him quite prepared for it also, and his mind and soul had traveled rapidly in the direction which had thus been given to it.

Bellett stated that he discussed “prophetic truth” with Darby. It was noted earlier in a footnote that in addition to a letter J. G. Bellett wrote to Darby, he also penned one to his brother George and spoke of his impending visit with Darby. The Bellett letter was dated January 31, 1828. John wrote to George saying, “I hope on Friday to see John Darby. You will be grieved to hear that he has been laid up for nearly two months from a hurt in his knee. His poor people in Calary miss him sadly.” Bellett’s statement that Darby was “quite prepared for it also” is a reference to prophetic discussions during his visit with Darby while Darby was recuperating from his injury. Very likely the phrase, “his mind and soul had traveled rapidly in the direction which had thus been given to it” is a reference to the discoveries that Darby learned through his personal Bible study.

DARBY’S NEW THEOLOGICAL PARADIGM

These five biblical discoveries noted above are the basis upon which Darby builds his new theological paradigm that includes dispensationalism and pretribulationalism. From the beginning of Darby’s dissent from the established church, these items were core essentials upon which he began to build his unique theology. Stunt concludes, “it was in these months that finally the questions in his mind began to resolve themselves. Central to his faith from now on was the belief that he and all Christians were ‘united to Christ in heaven’, and delivered ‘by the power of His resurrection.’” Carter sees “its radical distinction between the Jewish and Gentile dispensations—‘the hinge’, as Darby referred to it, . . . the distinction between these two dispensations forms the basis for Darby’s understanding of both ecclesiology and eschatology.” These items are important since pretribulationism is built upon first one’s view of ecclesiology that is set within a certain eschatological framework. Darby perceives a clear distinction between Israel and the church. “It is important to notice here that Darby came to the realization of these points alone, without the influence of other men,”59 surmised Weremchuk. “Darby’s views, when fully developed later, would prove to be in many points contrary to the ones normally accepted by the church at large.”60 It was during Darby’s convalescence that the original spark of his ideas burst forth from his personal Bible study and fanned into the flames of his theology during the next decade and beyond.

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.”62 This ecclesiastical realization forms the heart of Darby’s theology and spiritual hope that extended throughout the rest of his life.

The first two essays written by Darby were both about ecclesiastical issues, which further demonstrates his focus upon understanding the Church. The first, though not published until much later, was the one expressing his disagreement with Archbishop Magee’s petition and the second, from Dublin in 1828, was “Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ.”

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.

Whether dispensationalists or non-dispensationalists, all recognize for dispensationalism the importance of the distinction between God’s rule for Israel and His rule for the church.

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.67 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.

 

[Revmitchell]

I actually found the error frequently. When you connect two independent clauses w/ a conjunction, you didn't add the comma. It is always a comma and a coordinating conjunction.

How does that advance the conversation? Seems pretty insignificant

 

[Greektim]

How does that advance the conversation? Seems pretty insignificant

Because he asked me.

 

[DHK]

OR, Though your last post wasn't as bad as your previous ones, why do you harp on this theme? Why is it even relevant to you?

Let me ask you this:
Are you going to denigrate, make fun of, and possibly even slander Dr. John MacArthur simply because he had an accident. And when he was laid up in the hospital recovering from that accident he had the opportunity to do a lot of thinking about the Charismatic Movement. It was during that time that he gathered much of his material and composed his book "Strange Fire."

That is not unlike Ice's account of John Darby.
Why not go on and on about MacArthur and denigrate him and make him the object of your scorn. The same thing happened to MacArhur as did to Darby. But you say what you say simply because of your hatred for premillennialism and dispensationalism.

You attack the man instead of the doctrine. It doesn't earn you any brownie points. It simply makes you look foolish. If you want to defend your doctrine please do so without attacking others.

 

[convicted1]

I was working one night a few years ago at another hospital. One of the CCU nurses and I were talking about the end times. She was clearly a dispensationalist when she asked me a bunch of questions she answered herself. At the end of them, she asked me,"where did I find this?" In the book "Left Behind" by Tim LaHaye. I left thinking to myself, "she should've used her bible instead of LaHaye."

 

[DHK]

I was working one night a few years ago at another hospital. One of the CCU nurses and I were talking about the end times. She was clearly a dispensationalist when she asked me a bunch of questions she answered herself. At the end of them, she asked me,"where did I find this?" In the book "Left Behind" by Tim LaHaye. I left thinking to myself, "she should've used her bible instead of LaHaye."

Let's put this in perspective.
I remember the different threads that popped up here when Mel Gibson (a Catholic) produced his movie "The Passion of Christ." For all the accurate details of the death of Christ itself it got an "R" rating. Because of his Catholic background there were some things thrown in there that one could not agree with. But overall there was much approval, and many posters said they were going to take their friends (especially unsaved) so they would be exposed to the gospel.
In reality the gospel is a very simple message. Why not just use the Bible??
It is simple to turn to a few gospel passages and explain the gospel message to anyone, even a Muslim, J.W., Hindu, Mormon, etc. It doesn't take much effort.

But to explain one's eschatological view is much more detailed. If one is convinced that they are right about the pre-trib, pre-mil, and dispensational view, is there anything wrong about saying: watch "Left Behind." It will help you to understand our position.

If you advocate one, why the hypocrisy in not being able to advocate the other, as long as you agree with both positions. At least LaHaye is a believer, whereas Gibson is not.

 

[OldRegular]

I was working one night a few years ago at another hospital. One of the CCU nurses and I were talking about the end times. She was clearly a dispensationalist when she asked me a bunch of questions she answered herself. At the end of them, she asked me,"where did I find this?" In the book "Left Behind" by Tim LaHaye. I left thinking to myself, "she should've used her bible instead of LaHaye."

That is the point I am trying to make. Classic Dispensationalism came from the mind of John Nelson Darby while he was recovering from a riding accident. I assume he fell from the horse but perhaps it was something else. In any event he credits his doctrine of the pre-trib rapture and the millennial reign to a New Understanding of Isaiah 32. How he came to arrive at his doctrine from that chapter is a mystery. I suggest a revelation {Perhaps a word of knowledge as the charismatic name it and claim it crowd have.} and Darby himself implies as much when he says:

"but the truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit, by reading His word."

I believe that it is very strange that the Holy Spirit had been silent for 1800 years about a pre-trib removal of the Church.

As for Thomas Ice it is obvious that like many others, he has bought hook, line, and sinker, in fact the whole fishing pole, of Darby's dispensational doctrine. That is obvious by checking his web site which I previously referenced: http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/ttcol.html

One of the most disturbing things about the dispensationalism of many "rapture ready" Christians is their obsession with Israel. I suppose Hagee is the worst of these. Jesus Christ died for the Church. I find no Scripture that says HE died for National Israel!

In an aside I believe the "Left Behind Fictional Series" are an abomination.

 

[Yeshua1]

That is the point I am trying to make. Classic Dispensationalism came from the mind of John Nelson Darby while he was recovering from a riding accident. I assume he fell from the horse but perhaps it was something else. In any event he credits his doctrine of the pre-trib rapture and the millennial reign to a New Understanding of Isaiah 32. How he came to arrive at his doctrine from that chapter is a mystery. I suggest a revelation {Perhaps a word of knowledge as the charismatic name it and claim it crowd have.} and Darby himself implies as much when he says: I believe that it is very strange that the Holy Spirit had been silent for 1800 years about a pre-trib removal of the Church.

As for Thomas Ice it is obvious that like many others, he has bought hook, line, and sinker, in fact the whole fishing pole, of Darby's dispensational doctrine. That is obvious by checking his web site which I previously referenced: http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/ttcol.html

One of the most disturbing things about the dispensationalism of many "rapture ready" Christians is their obsession with Israel. I suppose Hagee is the worst of these. Jesus Christ died for the Church. I find no Scripture that says HE died for National Israel!

In an aside I believe the "Left Behind Fictional Series" are an abomination.

By that logic, the Holy Spirit was silent about what the real Gospel was for about 1000 years, from time of Augustian /RCC until the reformation!

And was isaac watts after that time darby had his "revelation?"

You are saying NONE saw the Bible in those ways until darby?

Wouldn't it be more truthful to say NO Reformed did, as how can you when under Covenant theology?

 

[OldRegular]

Why not go on and on about MacArthur and denigrate him and make him the object of your scorn. The same thing happened to MacArhur[sp] as did to Darby. But you say what you say simply because of your hatred for premillennialism and dispensationalism.

Because MacArthur did not invent pre-trib dispensationalism, Darby did! I have said that Darby fell from a horse and while convalescing at his sisters house he came up with the pre-trib removal of the Church and the concept of two peoples of GOD. I simply base that observation on the writing of dispensational scholar Thomas Ice. If I am denigrating Darby then so is Ice who as I said earlier

has bought hook, line, and sinker, in fact the whole fishing pole, of Darby's dispensational doctrine.

I have never said I hated either dispensationalism or historic {Covenant} premillennialism. Covenant premillennialism has a Biblical view of the Church; pre-trib dispensationalism does not. Therefore, I respect Covenant premillennialism though I believe it to be incorrect regarding the millennium.

 

[OldRegular]

By that logic, the Holy Spirit was silent about what the real Gospel was for about 1000 years, from time of Augustian /RCC until the reformation!

That is utterly false. In fact it is beyond ridiculous.

And was isaac watts after that time darby had his "revelation?"

Darby is the father of pre-trib dispensationalism, Watts is not!

You are saying NONE saw the Bible in those ways until darby?

Read Thomas Ice and find out for yourself!

Wouldn't it be more truthful to say NO Reformed did, as how can you when under Covenant theology?

I cannot interpret the above sentence.

 

[DHK]

Because MacArthur did not invent pre-trib dispensationalism, Darby did! I have said that Darby fell from a horse and while convalescing at his sisters house he came up with the pre-trib removal of the Church and the concept of two peoples of GOD. I simply base that observation on the writing of dispensational scholar Thomas Ice. If I am denigrating Darby then so is Ice who as I said earlier

I have never said I hated either dispensationalism or historic {Covenant} premillennialism. Covenant premillennialism has a Biblical view of the Church; pre-trib dispensationalism does not. Therefore, I respect Covenant premillennialism though I believe it to be incorrect regarding the millennium.

Your words, full of hate, betray you.
If the topic were about the Charismatic Movement would you denigrate and scorn MacArthur the same way you treat Darby? Yes or No. A simple answer will do.

I have said that Darby fell from a horse and while convalescing at his sisters house he came up with the pre-trib removal of the Church and the concept of two peoples of GOD. I simply base that observation on the writing of dispensational scholar Thomas Ice. If I am denigrating Darby then so is Ice who as I said earlier

This is childish. "Monkey see monkey do." "He did it, therefore I can too."
If he jumps over a cliff then why don't you follow him?
Do you believe everything this man says? Really? Is he God?

Take pre-trib out of the equation.
Look at pre-mil, dispensational thought. Isaac Watts believed it. The ECF believed it. It was known as Chiliasm.
There are many dispensationalists today that put the rapture as mid-trib or post-trib. They are still dispensational. They still believe in a rapture. They still believe that the rapture is separate from the resurrection of the unbelievers.
The ECF believed that way. It is you who believe differently. Your beliefs came along much later; not theirs. Dispensationalism has been around a long time.

Let's talk about Calvinism the same way you talk about Dispensationalism.
Do you know that Calvinism was "invented" by a murderer, a reprobrate legalist that appointed the death penalty on those that did not obey his government in the church-state that he imposed in Geneva. He was nothing but a murderer, and that is whose religion you follow. It is not Biblical, but that of a murderer.
If only Calvin had never lived we would not have Calvinism and the Reformed movement today.

That is how you sound when you speak about dispensationalism and Darby. If every time I speak about Calvinism I attack the man, what good does it? It only gets others angry. It does no good at all. But you continue your tirade against Darby all to no avail.
You need to stop.

 

[OldRegular]

Your words, full of hate, betray you.

Dispensationalists are good at spewing hate to anyone who disagrees with them but I have experienced more hate from you than anyone!

If the topic were about the Charismatic Movement would you denigrate and scorn MacArthur the same way you treat Darby?

MacArthur is not a charismatic.Perhaps you should read his book Charismatic Chaos.

Yes or No. A simple answer will do.
This is childish. "Monkey see monkey do." "He did it, therefore I can too."
If he jumps over a cliff then why don't you follow him?
Do you believe everything this man says? Really? Is he God?

Are you talking about Ice or Darby. Is Darby God? You follow his teaching!

I think both are wrong just as I do all dispensationalists. God deals with mankind through Covenants and GOD has always dealt with mankind through His Grace. That is what Scripture teaches. He is now dealing with mankind through the New Covenant first prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31f, restated in Hebrews 8:8f, and instituted by the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, through the connivance of the Jews with Rome.

Take pre-trib out of the equation.

As I have stated on many occasions pre-tribulation removal of the Church is not the major problem with dispensationalism. The major problem is their false notion of a "parenthesis Church", the Church for which Jesus Christ died, as an interruption in GOD's program for Israel.

Look at pre-mil, dispensational thought. Isaac Watts believed it.

Isaac Watts did not believe in a "parenthesis Church. I have already shown that!

The ECF believed it. It was known as Chiliasm.

That is false! Chialism is not dispensationalism!

There are many dispensationalists today that put the rapture as mid-trib or post-trib. They are still dispensational. They still believe in a rapture. They still believe that the rapture is separate from the resurrection of the unbelievers.

They are all wrong. As long as anyone believes that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel they are wrong and that is the truth.

The ECF believed that way. It is you who believe differently. Your beliefs came along much later; not theirs. Dispensationalism has been around a long time.

Darby is the father of pre-trib dispensationalism. Darby is the father of the two separate peoples of God. Darby was wrong!

Let's talk about Calvinism the same way you talk about Dispensationalism.
Do you know that Calvinism was "invented" by a murderer, a reprobrate legalist that appointed the death penalty on those that did not obey his government in the church-state that he imposed in Geneva. He was nothing but a murderer, and that is whose religion you follow. It is not Biblical, but that of a murderer.
If only Calvin had never lived we would not have Calvinism and the Reformed movement today.

Say what you want about Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist. I do believe the Biblical Doctrines of Sovereign Grace but GOD is the author of those.

That is how you sound when you speak about dispensationalism and Darby. If every time I speak about Calvinism I attack the man, what good does it? It only gets others angry. It does no good at all. But you continue your tirade against Darby all to no avail.
You need to stop.

Say what you want to about Calvin, I could care less. Now some on the BB may take exception but that is up to them. I have not attacked Darby unless calling him the father of pre-trib dispensationalism is considered pejorative.

 

[DHK]

Say what you want to about Calvin, I could care less. Now some on the BB may take exception but that is up to them. I have not attacked Darby unless calling him the father of pre-trib dispensationalism is considered pejorative.

I have no problem with you calling him the father of pre-trib dispensationalism, though I will disagree with you.
What I have a problem with is you attacking his character to arrive at that conclusion.

It goes like this: "If only Darby had not fallen off his horse and hit his head senseless then we would not have pre-trib dispensationalism."
You have put it that way in the past.
It is a ridiculous attack on his character.
It is the same way that MacArthur would be attacked by you if you were to be consistent, and Calvin perhaps should be attacked as well.
Why? To arrive at your conclusions you are attacking the person and not, either defending your doctrine or explaining why the other doctrine is wrong. You don't have to mention names. Stick to the Word of God. Can you do that?

 

[evangelist6589]

I have no problem with you calling him the father of pre-trib dispensationalism, though I will disagree with you.
What I have a problem with is you attacking his character to arrive at that conclusion.

It goes like this: "If only Darby had not fallen off his horse and hit his head senseless then we would not have pre-trib dispensationalism."
You have put it that way in the past.
It is a ridiculous attack on his character.
It is the same way that MacArthur would be attacked by you if you were to be consistent, and Calvin perhaps should be attacked as well.
Why? To arrive at your conclusions you are attacking the person and not, either defending your doctrine or explaining why the other doctrine is wrong. You don't have to mention names. Stick to the Word of God. Can you do that?

That's a false characterization as plenty of people agreed with Dispensationalism before Darby they just did not have a fancy word for the system. I would suggest Old Regular to read up and cite accurate facts. The Moody Handbook of theology refutes his remarks.

 

[DHK]

That's a false characterization as plenty of people agreed with Dispensationalism before Darby they just did not have a fancy word for the system. I would suggest Old Regular to read up and cite accurate facts. The Moody Handbook of theology refutes his remarks.

I agree. That, in part, is why I object to his posts.
But I object even more to the mischaracterization of the person.

 

[evangelist6589]

I agree. That, in part, is why I object to his posts.
But I object even more to the mischaracterization of the person.

Well at least he appears humble enough to read books and do research, quite unlike a former poster whom was recently banned and refused to read anything, but was set on a crusade of attacking certain types of christians.

 

[DHK]

Dispensationalists are good at spewing hate to anyone who disagrees with them but I have experienced more hate from you than anyone!

Learn the difference between correction and hate brother. Dispensationalism did not come from anyone riding a horse and falling on his head. That is a slanderous mischaracterization no matter which way you look at it. Put it behind you.

MacArthur is not a charismatic.Perhaps you should read his book Charismatic Chaos.

I never said he was a Charismatic. I suggest you read his book "Strange Fire," which he wrote from a hospital bed while recovering from an accident. (strangely the same circumstances as Darby came to his conclusions about dispensationalism). Maybe that's how God speaks to people--when they are forced to be quiet; when he takes all the "business" out of their lives. Have you considered that?

Are you talking about Ice or Darby. Is Darby God? You follow his teaching!

Actually I don't follow Darby. I have never read his commentaries. I simply go to bat for those that you slander. No one here has received any revelation by falling on their head as you claim. Why do you like to slander people? This is the problem I am addressing (at least one of them).

I think both are wrong just as I do all dispensationalists. God deals with mankind through Covenants and GOD has always dealt with mankind through His Grace. That is what Scripture teaches. He is now dealing with mankind through the New Covenant first prophesied in Jeremiah 31:31f, restated in Hebrews 8:8f, and instituted by the death of Jesus Christ on the Cross, through the connivance of the Jews with Rome.

I don't agree with Ice; I know that. And I don't agree with you.
But what I disagree with most is your treatment of a person.
It as if you are saying:
"If only Darby had never lived, dispensationalism would never exist," which is pure nonsense. It is not true. You are attacking the person to establish your doctrine. It doesn't work.

As I have stated on many occasions pre-tribulation removal of the Church is not the major problem with dispensationalism. The major problem is their false notion of a "parenthesis Church", the Church for which Jesus Christ died, as an interruption in GOD's program for Israel.

How many people here have ever admitted to you that they believe in a "parenthesis church"? Please give a number. I want an answer from you. I never said I believed in that. I haven't read of anyone to admitting to believing that. That is your claim, without foundation.

Isaac Watts did not believe in a "parenthesis Church. I have already shown that!

And so??
That does not mean he is not a dispensationalist.
He is and you know it. In fact sources say that his outlay of dispensationalism is much closer to Scofield's than Darby's was. If Scofield did get his information from anyone it would have been Isaac Watts, not Darby. They are that close.

That is false! Chialism is not dispensationalism!

Chiliasm is Millennialism.
It certainly is not amillennialism. They believe in a Millennial Kingdom. That is one dispensation. How many other dispensations do they believe in? They vary one from another. Dispensations are periods of time through which God works with man at different times and in different ways. They believed that. It is essentially what Heb.1:2 says.

They are all wrong. As long as anyone believes that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel they are wrong and that is the truth.

Who said anything about a "parenthesis church" on this board, except you?

Darby is the father of pre-trib dispensationalism. Darby is the father of the two separate peoples of God. Darby was wrong!

How about accepting the fact that you are wrong and the Bible is right. The Bible came before Darby.