Amillennialism Debate -Part Three

It is not "scarsam". It is not even sarcasm. It is the truth. As I stated earlier I posted separately on the previous thread all the times you Darbyites had used those names in reference to those who disagreed with you.

I suspect that you Darbyites think that if you are continuously insulting you will be left alone to wallow, or is it waller, in your false doctrine.

 

Solomon the Preacher

Proverbs 1:22 How long, ye simple ones, will ye love simplicity? and the scorners delight in their scorning, and fools hate knowledge?

Paul the Preacher

1 Corinthians 14:37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

1 Corinthians 14:38 But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.

Carl the Preacher

It's a waste of time to deal with a fool or a heretic more than twice based on the PREACHERS' statements as found in Pro. 14:7 and Titus 3:10. </font>[/QUOTE]Carl the Preacher?

You prove my point. Instead of quoting Scripture, even one pssage, to support a pre GRRReat TRRibulation "so-called rapture" you hand out insults. Just quote one passage of Scripture that proves a pre GRRReat TRRibulation "so-called rapture".

Anyone can post insults, even EE and DD. In fact I believe that DD has you and EE beat but perhaps he has more practice!!!!!! </font>[/QUOTE]We have a imbibing, car driving, Afro-American state legislator here in Montgomery who you remind me of. He is against the Christian right who are pushing to have a law against same sex marriage. He thinks it's nobody's business what goes on in anyone's bedroom EVEN IF they're having sex with an animal. He DEFIANTLY asked for anyone to show him where the Bible stated that marriage was between a man and woman only. When shown, he gave the classic answer. That's NOT my interpretation of the passage. (The passage was Gen.2, where man and woman, joining flesh, leaving father and mother are found.)

Old Reg, those weren't insults, but INSIGHTS from the Scriptures concerning fools and heretics.

Quote:
Instead of quoting Scripture, even one pssage, to support a pre GRRReat TRRibulation "so-called rapture" you hand out insults.
Unquote.

[Personal attack snipped]. Those aren't insults either. They are scriptural statements about people who don't believe what they read and reject what they read. (See Isaiah)

You had two passages from Thessalonians to be compared with statements and terms, found in two passages in Matthew and Luke. You DISMISSED both without comment stating REDUNDANT FALSEHOOD due to your own IGNORANCE. (Nobody has shown me a verse.)

[Personal insult snipped]

[ March 03, 2005, 01:25 PM: Message edited by: Dr. Bob ]

 

Carl and all other Darbyites
                      
I repeatedly asked on the previous thread and also on this thread that adherents of Darbyism/Scofieldism/classic dispensationalism/ultra dispensationalism, whichever you prefer, quote just one verse of Scripture that teaches a pre GRRReat TRRibulation so-called rapture. You still have not done so and are apparently unable to do so. Strangely you are under the dillusion that because someone posted part of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 you have proven the pre GRRReat TRRibulation so-called rapture. Nonsense!

Your exegesis of Scripture is nonexistent, your eisegesis of Scripture is questionable. Also you are extremely juvenile when it comes to passing out insults.

 

I am one of "them." So do be careful, please. I was a pretribulationalist long before I heard of Darby. And Darby never influenced my beliefs one iota. You have a logical dilemma called a universal negative--the same kind of (ill)logic that the atheist uses.

The atheist says: "There is no God"
But how can he prove that? Has he looked everywhere? Every square foot of this earth? Under every rock, every pebble, in every sea, lake pond, on the ocean floor? Having done that, he can search the universe starting with our solar system and moving out to each successive galaxy. Has he looked everywhere and demonstrated that there is no God?

Have you? Have you looked every where? Absolutely everywhere, in every library in the world, in every book ever produced in all the languages of the world written throughout all the generations--to see if anyone has ever believed in pretribulationism before Darby. Once you have finished your research, and can honestly say that you have done it; then and only then can you make such an audacious statement that Darby was the founder of pre-tribualtionism.
So for now, I would keep the propogating of a lie to yourself--unless you prove your lie to be a truth.
DHK

 

DeafPosttrib: "You cannot find a single verse in the Bible teaching Christ shall come before tribulation. Bible clear teaching us, that we must go through tribulations first before Christ comes."

You are using two different meanings of "tribualtion" here which
you confuse together. Your first 'tribulation' is a
period of time. Your second 'tribulations' is a condition.

---------------------------------------------
The Five Tribulations
of the Holy Bible
Contrasted and compared
by ed

The following terms are used in the Holy Bible to denote
tribulation: tribulation, distress, afliction, trouble

1. tribulation due to the human condition
WHO: all the sons and daughters of Adam & Eve
WHAT: heartaches, pains, troubles, distresses, disappointements,
affliction, trouble, ordeal, suffering, wretchedness,
misfortune, worry, care, hardship, agony,
anguish, torment, adversity,
travail of a woman giving birth, disease, cancer,
famine, plague, fatigue, depression, etc.
WHEN: From Adam's explusion from the Garden of Eden
to the day a new heaven & new earth is created by
God, AKA: time as opposed to eternity
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: God only knows why, it is just the way things are,
maybe it has to do with the fall of man in the Garden of Eden?

2. tribulation of Christian Martyrdom
WHO: those Christians chosen by the Holy Spirit for special honor
WHAT: persecution by non-Christians: Pagans, athiests, and
even people who call themselves "Christian" but aren't
WHEN: 33AD to the start of the millinnial kingdom of Jesus
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: many are called to follow Jesus;
few are chosen to the honor of the spiritual
gift of martyrdom

3. tribulation of the Jews scattered among the Gentiles
WHO: Yisrael dispersed among the goy
WHAT: persecution by non-Christians: Pagans, athiests, and
usually people who call themselves "Christian" but aren't
WHEN: during the time of the Gentiles
(from Mount Calvary to Mount Olivet)
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: punishment for rejecting Messiah Jesus

4. "The Tribulation period" of those ruled by the Antichrist
WHO: citizens of the world
WHAT: a fate worse than death (Rev 6:15-17, Rev 9:6)
WHEN: during the 70th week of Daniel (first half)
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: punishment for rejecting Lord Jesus

5. "The Great Tribulation period" of those ruled by the Antrichrist
WHO: people who take the mark of the beast
WHAT: the wrath of God
WHEN: during the 70th week of Daniel (last half)
WHERE: worldwide
WHY: punishment for rejecting Lord Jesus

Here are the names/descriptions of the Tribulation
Period found in the O.T.:

The tribulation in Deut 4:30
the day of Israel's calamity in Deut 32:35, Obadiah 1:12-14
the indignation in Isaiah 26:20, Daniel 11:36
the overflowing scourge in Isaiah 28:15,18
The Lord's strange work in Isaiah 28:21
The year of recompence in Isaiah 34:8
The day of vengeance in Isaiah 34:8, 35:4, 61:2
The time of Jacob's Trouble in Jeremiah 30:7
The day of darkness in Joel 2:2, Amos 5:18, 20; Zephaniah 1:15
See also Zephaniah 1:15-16.:

 

DARBYITES OR NOT?

I take issue with whether or not it is a legitimate label for any individual that believes a particular doctrine that can be attributed to one particular person if it is a historical fact that the originator is largely responsible for the spread of that doctrine whether or not he knows the "name" of that individual or not that spread it.

Remember, there were those that tried to follow John but he said "no, don't follow me, follow Christ."

If any doctrine is an aberrant doctrine from sound scriptural interpretation, that individual's name is given to the doctrine as well as those who accept it - just as Christ was the "person" who brought in a whole new perspective on the OT, His followers who accept that doctrinal perspective are called "Christians."

Follower's of Charles Taze Russell are called "Russellite" as he brought in a new perspective of scripture that was aberrant doctrine. Most all modern day "Jehovah's Witnesses" have never heard of Charles Taze Russell, yet, would anyone like to tell me that they are not "Russellite?"

That is what the seriousness entails when what we are told by individuals bringing in new doctrine. Especially since, this new teaching had not been solid teaching by the Christian church for 1,800 years and only came in within the last 150 years and at a 40 year time period of 5-6 other aberrant teachings getting their foothold. We are commanded to examine "new teachings" - not just accept them from whoever says "this scripture says this." All false teachings use scripture.

It is the very heart of the effort of the JW's to rid themselves of the name "Russellites" because his false prophecies look ridiculous at this point. By the same token "Darbyites" don't like the term because of it's origins - but it doesn't change the fact that it is a fact of their history.

The term "Darbyite," to me anyway is not a slanderous word to be used for attacking anyone. When I use it, it is more of a plea to those who hold to his teachings that says "Please take seriously where those beliefs that you hold came from! Take the time to check it out. There is an abundance of information on the internet that you can use to do so."

I do not think that just because "the truth hurts" we should be forced not to bring out the truth - especially when that truth can be proven.

I do not believe in a misuse of that term, or any other term because it must be used in a manner that informs but does not slander.

This Board should not be playing the role of the Pharisees by trying to prevent truth from coming forward.

[ March 02, 2005, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: trailblazer ]

 

Thanks DPT. As Bill O'Reilly would say you are a "stand up guy". I have really appreciated your remarks on this forum.

I know who I believe and who I follow and am not embarassed to be called a Christian. Those who follow the dispensational doctrine should know where it came from.

 

Delude yourself as long as you choose. It is a fact that John Nelson Darby is the father of dispensationalism.

 

Trailblazer before you go around calling people names and making false accusations (as you have just done), provide the evidence. I am putting the onus on you to do so. Back up what you say. If you say the pre-trib position began with Darby then prove what you said. Bring forth your evidence. Otherwise keep your silence and opinions to yourself. As I have already demonstrated you are using a universal negative ("There was NO pre-trib position before Darby) which is impossible to demonstrate. It is logical fallacy. You have put yourself in a corner that you cannot get out of and therefore must resort to name-calling and insults. If this continues, your posts will be either edited and/or deleted.
DHK

 

An excellent post trailblazer. You did leave out one. Try calling a Church of Christ person a Campbellite, the founder of that group.

 

Dr Bob,

"It's a waste of time to deal with a fool or a heretic more than twice based on the PREACHERS' statements as found in Pro. 14:7 and Titus 3:10."

(posted on page 2 of this thread)

Now if "Darbyite" is uncalled for - how much more so this! I resent the implication that I am a fool or a heretic because I question the premillenial dispy scheme.

 

Dr. Bob,

Apparently you have a double standard on this forum. It is OK for those who believe in amillennialism to be called heretics; gnostics, quacks; liars; ignorant; devoid of reason, truth, reality, and intellectual honesty; obscene; evil and sinful; and finally from the most recent post by carlaimpinge I am either a lying dog or a blind drunk..

These remarks are all documented below and I posted them twice on the previous thread except those of March 1. Yet you have not found it necessary to publicly rebuke any of these people. Is it that you agree with their remarks? Is use of Darbyite really that pejorative? After all he is that father of dispensationalism. I won’t say what Scofield is.


Posted by carlaimpinge, March 01, 2005 10:44 PM

We have a imbibing, car driving, Afro-American state legislator here in Montgomery who you remind me of. He is against the Christian right who are pushing to have a law against same sex marriage. He thinks it's nobody's business what goes on in anyone's bedroom EVEN IF they're having sex with an animal.

You're either a lying dog or a blind drunk.

A man sucking the air out of an "intertube" left in our church parking lot could get more out of the Bible than you.


Posted by OldRegular, February 23, 2005 02:59 PM presenting a summary of remarks by Daniel David directed at various amillennialists. It is not necessarily complete.

The Meat in Daniel David Posts.

1. February 12, 2005 12:06 AM

Watchman, don't waste your time. I have used that verse and countless others to get amills out of their unbelief, but alas, they would rather believe a lie.


2. February 13, 2005 12:22 AM

Maybe amills can do more than some pathetic hacheneyed attempt to explain away truth.

Oldreg, I encourage you to stop putting verses into a hat, shaking it up, and then picking one out and then starting over again to get your systematic theology down.

Try exercising thinking skills.


3. February 13, 2005 01:27 AM

Hardly a secret. It will be a world wide event. The Scriptures tell us that God will send a lie for people to believe after the rapture takes place.

Secret? Not likely.

Another mindless strawman that characterizes all amill thinking skills? Definitely.


4. February 13, 2005 09:59 PM

Amill theology wasn't even invented until the heretic Origen came along. I know history isn't your strongpoint, but those are the facts.

Amill theology reigned during the dark ages. Nice associations.

I don't expect an answer. To answer these issues truthfully would be to negate amill theology. In other words, to have integrity with the Scripture, you would cease to be amill.


5. February 14, 2005 07:48 PM

Nice to see you gnostics, errrggg, amills are still alive and well.

Deafposttrib, allow me to lay it out for you, as you have been theologically drugged by amill theology.

I don't understand why amills are so confused, so easily.

Oldreg
I realize you don't have a clue about history, so this point is really for those who have biblical integrity on this issue.

Matt, no one cares about your reconstruction of history and distortion of reality. Liberal theology is a waste of everyone's time. Your post is devoid of reason, truth, reality, and intellectual honesty.


6. February 15, 2005 07:36 PM

Trailblazer, why do you fear interaction with me? Why can't you answer basic questions? Why are you a gnostic? Why do you sit in judgment upon God's word?

I have demonstrated countless times that premillenialism can be dated all the way back to the disciples of John himself. Do you get that? Can you comprehend such information? Is this going over your head?

The roots of amillenialism can be seen in the writings of the heretic, gnostic Origen. This was quickly followed by the gnostic Augustine.

So, if you want to argue history, man up and deal with the issues and not these mindless retorts about cult leaders. I can trace my beliefs to the disciples of John. I can trace your beliefs to a couple of gnostics.


7. February 16, 2005 10:56 PM

Matt and Trailblazer, this is good stuff. You see, this is the kind of stuff we need. I love when you amills try to delve into history and theology. Your view is so hopelessly pathetic, it borders on obsene.

I know you both just used google to find your info. However, a student wouldn't be so reckless.

Again, a student would know this instead of some hack amill site that wants to discredit Christianity's first systematic theologian.

Get a copy of his books. Do the research. Stop being ignorant (amill). Come out of shadow and into the light.

I can recommend a few good books that deal with early christian theology.


8. February 18, 2005 07:51 AM

When you say there are no scriptures supporting the idea of a 1,000 year reign on earth, I know you are simply deceiving yourself.

Again, in Revelation 5:10, saints already in heaven are looking forward to reigning upon the earth. Get that? Reigning upon the earth. Get that? Reigning upon the earth.

I only repeat myself becuase amills lack good thinking skills. Hopefully repitition will aid them.

As for Matthew 19:28, that has to be the absolute worst job I have ever seen. That was almost funny, if it wasn't so tragic that you would actually come up with that stuff.

Sigh, such is the need for all who are gullible enough to believe amillenialism. It is so sad. I hope you don't teach anywhere, for that would be making others to be reckless with the word as well.


9. February 21, 2005 01:45 PM

dpt, amill is heretical teaching. Your inability to comprehend why doesn't nullify the fact.


10. February 21, 2005 02:04 PM

It is a gnostic doctrine. Gnosticism is evil and sinful, like your amill theology.


11. February 21, 2005 05:07 PM

I have already explained the gnosticism in amill theology in the other thread. If you really care, look it up.

Basically, it boils down to seeing the material as evil and the unseen as spiritual. Therefore the kingdom can't be a visible one.

It is thinking like that that moved the heretic Origen and then Augustine to invent amill theology.


12. February 21, 2005 05:45 PM

sorry oldreg, your little post is hardly the whole of amillenial theology. Whether your post has it or not, I couldn't care less. I was simply pointing out the historical development of amillenial theology.

Further, I am not a "darbyite". For one, I believe in one people of God. That alone severs me from that connection, so your continued usage of that term toward me demonstrates a cowardice on your part to actually deal with the issues.


13. February 23, 2005 01:24 PM

The lengths you quacks go to to defend your catholic/gnostic theology is quite amazing.

 

I've seen this comment throughout these pages and it doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if you've heard of him or not, if Darby be the "father of dispensationalism" the influence is still there.

If he did come up with it, and he taught it, it influenced people and trickled down to where it is today. Nobody has to hear of him in order to be in line with him.

Continue......

 

OldRegular,
Let me answer that for you.
Do two wrongs ever make a right?
If one of your children come back from school, having seen some of the other kids smoking marijuana (or perhaps even cocaine) does that mean that it is ok for them to do it also? Yet that is precisely the kind of reasoning, that you as adults, are using. "DD can do it therefore I can too."

Just for your information, Daniel David's comments have not gone unnoticed. They are currently being discussed in the moderator's forum. It is likely that you won't see him posting those comments any longer.
DHK

 

After my above post we will see if there is a double standard on this forum. Daniel David, Ed Edwards, carlaimpinge, and DHK have attempted to insult me and all non dispensationalists on this forum. I have simply considered the source and ignored it but have been surprised that some of the name calling was tolerated by the moderators.

My posts may have been sarcastic on occassion but I have never called anyone a heretic, ignorant, drunk, unbeliever, illiterate, and a host of other names. I have on occasion used the name Darbyite to which they apparently strongly object. However, it is a fact that Darby is the father of dispensationalism.

On a previous forum in which I participated to question anyone's salvation was grounds for immediate dismissal. I had many vigorous debates with those of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox faiths on that forum but they never questioned my salvation. I must admit that my debates with these people were much more enlightening than debates with dispensationalists. In general dispensationalists would not question your salvation, because of the strictly enforced rule, but would do a good job beating about the bush. However, I must say that the disepnsationalists on that forum were in general mild compared to those on this forum. It has been my personal experience that dispensationalists look on all others as "liberals" or unbelievers.

I am not sure how much longer I will participate on this forum but I have certainly appreciated the posts of you, trailblazer, and DPT.

 

DHK, you misused my statement. I said “playing the role of the Pharisees.” Look up Pharisees in your concordance and read the context. The Pharisees are well-known for trying to suppress the truth that Jesus was bringing forward. To delete the truth of our claims about the origins of dispensationalism, as coming “primarily” from John Nelson Darby is a fact that is in abundant supply from his own writings and then by Scofield in his reference Bible, is to play the “role” of the Pharisees by trying to suppress it.

That was not name calling and you know it, nor was it a false accusation. What evidence are you looking for? The Pharisees? I just told you how to find out if that is what the Pharisees did or not. Darby doctrine originating from him? Sure. No problem, except for one thing, no matter how much is put forth it is just blown away and dismissed.

Are you going to hold everyone to that standard or just those that disagree with you? Is this not a forum for debating hot topics or not?

That simply is not true. If you take the time to do a search on this website alone, you will find Darbyism’s roots exposed.

I think I clarified that insults are not appropriate – informing is quite appropriate as well as scripturally taught.

 

I've seen this comment throughout these pages and it doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter if you've heard of him or not, if Darby be the "father of dispensationalism" the influence is still there.

If he did come up with it, and he taught it, it influenced people and trickled down to where it is today. Nobody has to hear of him in order to be in line with him.

Continue...... </font>[/QUOTE]It is true that a lot of dispensationalists don't know who Darby is. In fact many only know of the pretribulation rapture, so-called. They are unaware of the rest of the error he taught. However, people are responsible for what they believe.

It is a fact, however, that Scofield was converted by Darby to the Darbyite doctrine. Most people in this country, unfortunately many Baptists, were influenced to dispensationalism by the Scofield bible. They did not recognize where the Scripture ended and Scofield's notes started.

 

Then why was he not publically rebuked as I have been? Surely you would not equate Darbyite with the vitriol that he has spewed forth in every post.