Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Jordan Kurecki, Aug 4, 2014.
You could find the church fathers supporting lots of thoughts and ideas if you picked the right passages.
Isn't it against the rules to post ONLY a link without any kind of description?
Regardless I assume the link tries to demonstrate that the early church were pre-trib. If so that is nonsense.
Pre-millennial? Sure, most were.
But pre-trib? Nope.
Even most pre-trib teachers admit as much.
You're on to them RL, that's exactly what the article is trying to do.
But I wasn't about to click a random link with no other information provided, and from a website I don't recognize, just to find out.
I googled the website name "BeginningAndEnd" and see this description of the site:
Yeah, no way I'm going to that site.
I did not know that was against the rules, I figured the title would be sufficient.
I'm not certain. It may not be.
I looked for it under the rules page and I admit I didn't find anything. I may be thinking of another board I used to go to.
Any Mods want to confirm or deny the permissibility of posting just a link?
OK. So I messaged DHK and it seems I was mistaken. I must have been thinking about another forum I visit. Below is DHK's response:
This link is typical of many.
Start with a false premise and it ends with a false conclusion. Isn't it odd how that invariably consistently happens?
It is the anti-dispensational crowd who love to attribute dispensationalism to Darby and Scofield. They do so blindly following Calvinistic instruction (like said link) without doing their own honest research.
Those who use the ECF to defend their doctrine the most happen to be the RCC. From the ECF they defend transubstantiation, purgatory, baptismal regeneration, and many other heresies.
One of the ECF (I can't remember who) apparently believed that Jesus lived on the earth until he was 80 and then ascended into heaven.
The ECF not only contradict one another they often contradict themselves as their positions changed throughout their lifetimes. Tertullian, for example, became a Montanist during the latter part of his life and changed his view on baptism, and probably many other things.
Take a look at Paul Enns' book, "The Moody Handbook of Theology." In it you will find plenty of authors pre-dating Darby that believed in dispensationalism, and also in the pre-trib rapture. Some of them had views almost identical to what Scofield published.
It is commonly known that the many of the ECF believed in Chiliasm, or Millennialism. The only question then that remains is where they placed the rapture and the Second Coming.
One thing is for sure, dispensationalism did not originate with Darby and Scofield, as is commonly alleged. That is just false. I believe the Bible refers to it as "tale-bearing."
Proverbs 26:20 Where no wood is, there the fire goeth out: so where there is no talebearer, the strife ceaseth.
At least you are honest to admit a solid majority were holding to a pre mil age to come..
Think that view changed big time when Augustine corrupyed it with his take that the church is the Kingdom, and so brought into A mil approaches...
Talk about a false premise... so anti-dispensational automatically makes one a Calvinist? I'll have you know I was antidispy before I was a calvie. :laugh:
Irenaeus is the ECF you are thinking of I believe. But to just dismiss the usefulness of reading ECF writings just because the RCC quotes them is not valid reasoning. They were closer to the time and they can provide very useful information. It seems as if you have bought into the lie that the early church really was the Roman church. That is not true.
Sounds like American evangelicalism. :laugh:
Historic pre-millennialism (post-trib, pre-mill) is so named for a reason.
The propagators of dispensationalism are the tale bearers.
Why would I be dishonest about it? I'm pre-mill myself.
As I understand it, Augustine did not create amillennialism, but he did make it popular.
But that doesn't change the fact that most (not all), but most Calvinists are not dispensationalits. It seems that there are a few on this board who have nothing better to do than voice their hatred of dispensationalism which is truly sad.
Closer to the time does not ensure accuracy to the truth. That is a common fallacy. It is just as true that they were closer to error as to the truth, that is many of them were closer to being influenced by the many heresies that were floating around at that time. Remember that they all were not carrying around a neatly bound and printed "Scofield Bible" to help them with their dispensationalism.
This is a typical immature response. As I have previously said, you need to do some honest research into this subject.
I previously posted this link.
There is good valid information there.
It's pretty clear from Paul's epistles that the harpazo occurs before the man of sin (Antichrist) is revealed.
The Tribulation is a necessary transition period for Israel to go through for National salvation and their role in the Millennial Kingdom.
It's not hard to figure out, unless you have bought into this "Replacement Theology".
That is true.
I did not say that their closer relation in time to the NT ensured accuracy. I said they can provide useful information. There is much that they taught that I disagree with. Big shocker.
And I don't know that they are any closer to error than the church today. None of the 1st century heresies went away, they just got new names. We are surrounded by an ocean of heresy, just as they were.
Well the gnostics and judaizers might have, thus prompting Paul's letter to the Galatians. :smilewinkgrin:
You called those who accurately point out the history of the system tale-barers. I was merely replying in kind.
I am well aware of what dispensationalism teaches. I don't know how many times I must remind you, I used to believe it. It's all I was taught from childhood. I know the doctrine.
I would love to see where that is made "pretty clear."
It is not accurate "history" to point out Darby and Scofield as the founders of dispensationalism. That is a falsehood. That is what my link points out, and that is what I originally posted.
Oh come on DHK! Those little bits you posted there prove positively nothing!
First, no sources are provided, just uncited claims. Useless.
Second, whoever compiled the list seems to assume any use of the word "dispensation" translates into a form of the doctrine of dispensationalism. Nonsense.
I used the term "honest research," something most people are beyond doing. The internet is a valuable tool and its search engine very simple to use.
Try this link:
This article contends that Scofield was influenced by Isaac Watts more than by Darby:
Here's the problem:
OK great. That actually agrees with me. Those men were not dispensationalists. Sure they may have had concepts that sound similar, but there is nothing in the provided quotes that a NCT or CT believer would disagree with. I agree entirely with Augustine that sacrifice was acceptable in the Old Covenant but not now. That's not the issue. You said that there are "plenty of authors pre-dating Darby that believed in dispensationalism." That is almost certainly (99.999999999%) false.
Regarding Pierre Poiret. The linked article says he was a "philosopher" when in reality he was a mystic. That's a substantial difference. I also notice that he gives no citation (beyond the book title) for the 7 fold division asserted there. I believe I found the correct book online, but I can't read French and cannot find an English translation. I would think that if this man truly systematized Dispensationalism pre-Darby, then his work would be significantly more influential and available.
Do you have his work in English? Or at least a page number so I could stick it in Google translator?