Was Clarence Larkin a liberal or simply confused?

Daniel for some here who are ignorant (including myself) could you state the differences in your view and Larkins.
Murph

 

Not only do I find your last statement very divisive and without substance, but also hypocritical to say the least. Since you are so "up" on anti-anything, it might do well to explain what exactly it is that you mean without your element of insult. Clarence Larkin used his magnificent ability to chart what he was given from the Bible. What is it exactly you are saying?

[ May 04, 2003, 09:50 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

I find it very difficult to believe that a "hyper-dispensationalist" could be a "liberal" -- unless "liberal" is simply used as a derogatory name for someone who does not believe the way you do.

 

Re: Clarence Larkin:

Link

Clarence Larkin lived for 74 years and walked closely with the Lord the majority of those years. His attitute, as noted above, was a "kind and gentle man." (not arrogant). I've said it before & will note again, Clarence Larkin probably had a closer & longer walk with the Master than many who post on this Board, myself included.

 

What is the motive of the originator of this thread? We all can see that the defamation of Clarence Larkin is at the forefront. Maybe Daniel David has some superior knowledge worth the endeavor?

Since Brother Larkin isn't here to defend his stand, maybe this endeavor proves to be fruitless. It's just my personal opinion in this particular matter, but to discuss hyper-dispensationalism by defaming an individual serves absolutely no purpose but only a means to lift oneself up by putting another down.

A debate or a discussion can be entailed without the mentioning of names of the deceased as to prove a point! How sad!

 

Quote from Daniel David:

The "lie" you speak of is called the "Gap" Theory. There have been a lot of good men of God who have believed this theory - including my departed dad - who now knows the truth.

One of the reasons this theory was proposed - was to rationalize the 24/6 creation account in Genesis 1 with the millions/billions of years that the so called "scientists" of today propose.

I believe Larkin was wrong in his "earth, the chaotic earth, and then the present earth" stance - but his books and research have much value to them.

I own several of Larkin's books - given to be by my dad - he first was introduced to Larkin's work at Pratical Bible Training School (now Pratical Bible College) in Binghamton, NY.

I do not think that I have ever found a Bible teacher/preacher that I have completely agreed with - including John MacArthur - whom I think is one of the best.

God bless each of us as we "rightly divide the Word of Truth."

In Christ,
Dan Todd

 

Maybe Daniel David/Kal El/Preach the Word is a liberal?

 

I think I read this guy's book. It was a huge book with lots of charts. He lost me when he said that Jesus Christ was coming back in 2001 or something like that. I'll have to re-borrow the book and look it up again unless one of you have the book and know where it is. I just can't take someone seriously who tries to date the return of the Lord. I just wish everybody would stop guessing and maybe he would come back. It seems to me the book was about 100 years old, and a very large folio-type book.

Jason

 

DD please answer my question about the differences in your view and his. I honestly don't know about the man and on my screen his charts are so small that I can't read the print very well. Please tell me more about his theory. Concerning the gap theory if this is his belief I too would consider such a person to have a liberal view of scripture. Some other poster mentioned that this theory was an effort to rationalize the scientists millions of year theory. So that in itself leads me to say they are liberal for the Bible should not be rationalized. Once again please tell me more on this subject but be careful not to throw stones even a dead people. And please don't remind people that nobody is forcing them to post, we all know this is a free exchange.
Murph

 

I believe the gap theory is false; but it is not liberal. Those who believe in the gap theory generally do so because they want to hold on to the literal creation account. They do not generally claim that it is a myth; nor that God was 'accommodating' his language to 'simple' men; nor that the 'six days' are allegorical; but simply assert that some unspecified amount of time ellapsed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2.

Bart notice my post I said I would consider this a liberal view and even after your reply I still do. I appreciate your opinion that people have held this view in an attempt to hold a literal 6 day creation but that in itself is describing their belief as liberal. A liberal in my view is one who looks at the literal statement of scripture and instead of accepting it they fabricate an alternative understanding of the scripture. The Bible says 6 days so what is wrong with that?
Murph

[ May 05, 2003, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Ethics of character "force" me to participate. I believe your motive needs to be exposed.

I have gained much knowledge from Dr. Larkin, though I don't agree with everything he's said, I have the utmost respect for his endeavors to try and explain what the Lord has given him. When I see some one such as you demeaning the character of such a well renowned individual, I have a hard time NOT participating by my direct opposition to the demeanor, Why? your topic isn't open for discussion? Only open to those who agree with you? Or maybe also to those you feel you can overide with confidence that you convince them to be the less informed? Isn't this a public domain? where the posts are viewed openly and within the guidelines of the rules set forth open to reply?

Ah-hah! A very closeminded approach to discussion we have here!


Try and explain either contrary or in agreement with the Anti-diluvian age,

***aggressive comments removed***

[ May 05, 2003, 10:37 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

I'm pretty sure that Daniel David is correct that Larkin taught salvation by grace + works for the tribulation people. I have found a few websites that have taught such and they all reference (and only reference) Larkin's "Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth". Anytime someone uses that phrase (much less write a book entitled such) you can usually guess they are ultra-dispensational. I use that term for those who believe we are only saved by grace in the church age. They generally believe Hebrews, James, and Peter were not written for church age saints but for tribulation saints (and hence, make easy the works and losing your salvation tension that can arise in these books). I am only stepping lightly here because I haven't actually found this being taught by Larkin himself, only second hand sources of his teaching.

If true though, I will defend Daniel David that Larkin had some messed up theology. That doesn't mean he wasn't "godly" in his actions or sincere, just that he wasn't perfect and the Holy Spirit does not lead to perfect theology (otherwise there would be a little more agreement on this board). I will defend John Calvin under the same light though surely we disgaree with much of his theology.

 

I would like more references to proofs instead of one's opinion Let's hear the issues and try to discuss them ***attacks removed***Clarence Larkin would have to backslide to fellowship with most conservatives today.

[ May 05, 2003, 11:02 PM: Message edited by: C.S. Murphy ]

 

Okay, calm down, and give me a little time. The copyright is up for "Rightly dividing the Word of truth" we might be able to find it online.