Featured The Secret Rapture return of Christ approaches

Too bad that you went from "rightly dividing the truth", to wrongly dividing it now though!

 

Many of the ECF believed in Chiliasm which is Millennialism, at the very least a belief in the existence of a one thousand year period of Jesus reigning on the earth.

You have probably read of some of the heretical beliefs of Origen before.
Let me remind you of some of them.
He was the first one to develop the mode of allegorizing the Scripture. Augustine popularized it.
He was called by many "the Father of Arianism."
He was a universalist.

Here is Origen's beliefs concerning eschatology:

http://christianityinhistory.blogspot.ca/2008/04/amillennialism-of-origen-ad-230.html

It is very possible that he was the first ammillenialist and the first Preterist.
Those are not and were not popularly held beliefs in the early centuries.
But Origen was a heretic. Much of what he believed was heresy. He was so out in left field that even the RCC excommunicated him.

 

I guess Origen, the heretic, was just following Paul, the Apostle's, lead:

Galatians 4:24-26
24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[e] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

 

This is kind of funny. Well, in a sad way. You cannot be both an amillennialist and a preterist. It is one or the other. Believe me, I really wanted to stay longer in Amillennialism when I saw just how unpopular Preterism was.

But that is where I saw the scriptural dots leading to.

 

In Preterism when does the Millennium begin and end?

 

It seems to me that Origen was "reinstated" into Catholicism when the Emperor "embraced" Christianity as the State Religion.
It seems that these 1,500 year-old heretical ideas of Origen have now been "embraced" even by so-called modern-day "Baptists".
Clearly, it is a "sign of the times".

This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 2 Tim 3:1 & 7

 

I will be glad to answer this, but only after that you acknowledge that Paul used allegorization in Galatians. Or give me a reason why his use of "allegory" did not really mean "allegory".

Fair enough?

 

One thousand actual yeaes

One thousand actual years, here on Earth, ending with Armageddon.

 

What is the truth. It certainly is not the pre-trib removal of the Church from the mind of Darby. It is not two eternal peoples of GOD, en earthly people, the Jews, and a heavenly people, the Church, from the mind of Darby and others. Hebrews clearly shows that through His death Jesus Christ did away with the Old Covenant and Established the New Covenant! There is only one truth: The Triune GOD and HIS Revelation to mankind, the Bible.

Y1 you claim to be a Calvinist yet not one peep out of you when DHK posted the following in his post #54:

You dispensationalists are quick to circle the wagons when anyone points out the lack of Scripture supporting Darby and his pre-trib removal of the Church.

 

It is hard to hold a discussion with you.
Look carefully what I said:

this is the way you talk about Dispensationalism, and then I created an example by using Calvin. It was an example. That is not the way I speak about Calvin on the board, and you know that. What I said is that if I spoke about Calvin the same way you speak about Darby this is what I would sound like, or what my posts would look like.
But they don't. I don't post like you. You are deliberately trying to miscontrue my posts and make me sound like I said something I didn't.

 

Tom,

The truth is that dispensationalists allegorize, spiritualize, whatever is necessary, to justify their doctrine. They then criticize all who legitimately interpret Scripture the way it is written to be interpreted. Much of the book of Revelation is written in apocalyptic language, as are some books in the Old Testament yet the dispensationalist insists on a literal interpretation, or as Ryrie would say: "Take it at face value"!

 

It is not the modern day Baptists. They have endorsed the teaching of Darby and Bullinger. Historically Baptists believed in a General Resurrection and Judgment of all the dead as Jesus Christ teaches in John 5:28, 29. You can learn this by reading the Baptist Confessions of Faith.

 

I posted exactly what you wrote. Post #54 in case you want to check!

 

Thank you for directing me to the exact quote.
You left off the most important part. Please try to understand what I said in the context of why I said it:

 

Y! you cannot insult me by throwing around the name Roman Catholicism. I get my doctrine from Scripture not a man, even the pope! If Roman Catholics happen to get something right then we should all thank GOD!

If you can present even one verse of Scripture that supports the pre-trib removal of the Church I will apologize to one and all! But you cannot. Others and I have made this request repeatedly over the years with not one valid response.

If you can provide even one verse of Scripture that supports the doctrine that the Church is a "parenthesis" or intercalation in GOD's program for national Israel then I will apologize again, but you cannot. You dispensationalists foam a little at the mouth every time the "parenthesis" Church is mentioned. However Ryrie has written:

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

 

I have never said anything to impune the character of Darby. I said he fell of a horse and while convalescing at his sister's house read Isaiah 32 and came up with the pre-trib removal of the Church. I have called that doctrine false, contrary to Scripture, and perhaps foolish. No one has been able to prove me wrong by presenting a single passage of Scripture that supports this doctrine of Darby.

To the contrary you slimed not only the character of Calvin but the doctrine called Calvinism. I really don't care what you say about Calvin or Calvinism. I am not a Calvinist! I simply quoted what you said and that is a fact!

 

Which "Baptists" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
So, if the "Baptists" you are referring to want to "embrace" one-and-a-half millennia
old Catholic theology in the name of "ecumenicalism" then so be it.

 

This is impugning his character.
You keep inferring that it is his doctrine, and "his doctrine" came because he fell off a horse, was injured, and suddenly this revleation ("his doctrine") came to him while he was convalescing.
It is a childish attack on the character of Darby.

As I said, if I talked about Calvin or MacArthur or others in such a way it would create nothing but anger. But you don't get that. It doesn't even phase you when I give you a specific example.
You don't know how to present your case without attacking the person.

 

Galatians 4:24-26
24 Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar. 25 Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia;[e] she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children. 26 But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.

In another translation:
(Geneva) By the which things another thing is ment: for these mothers are the two testaments, the one which is Agar of mount Sina, which gendreth vnto bondage.

What Paul wrote was inspired of the Holy Spirit of God. The walls of Jericho fell down. Allegorically that means when the walls between a wife and husband are fallen they should get a divorce. If they don't they come under God's judgement and "soldiers" will run in over the walls and destoy them.
--Your allegories are not inspired. They often don't make sense. The Bible is meant to be taken literally unless it is specifically indicated that it should not be, as in: metaphors, similies, parables, other definite figures of speech.

 

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

I said somewhere on this Forum that we should be able to post more than 4 smilies!