Darby = Dispensationalism

I find that there are periods of time in history, some of them quite lengthy, where men (yes, even men of God), are quite resistant to change. They simply accept one another's doctrine as just that--"the accepted doctrine," and never question it. That holds true for not only eschatology, but also for ecclesiology, and pneumatology, as well as a few other doctrines which we have seen changes to over the past few decades. The Bible doesn't change, but our doctrines change (historically). Who is right? Those living in the Dark Ages? I hope not. Was B.F. Westcott right? Many of the men of the 17th to 19th centuries did not have a good grasp of eschatology and a few other doctrines as well. They simply followed the theology of those who went before. It was the "accepted," the "traditional" doctrine.
Yes, you quote was the "traditional" Baptist doctrine of many years gone by. That doesn't make it the "right doctrine." It simply means it was popular.

In this country Roman Catholicism is popular; atheism and Wicca also are growing in popularity. That doesn't make any of them right. "Might does not make right."

What is right is what is according to the Bible.
What is according to the Bible is not always popular.

 

The US of A is vastly seperated in many ways which leads to different religious traditions. In the NE where I'm from all religion is taking a back seat to secularism. Unless you are Catholic....then you are a dominant religion. In the South you have the Bible belt.....most of us in the NE make jokes about that.......you cant throw a rock without hitting a Baptist church....or some such church. So its probably less relevant to a northerner to go to church since most non Catholic or independent Baptist churches are a long drive.....out of their communities.....and that's my own personal problem, I don't want to leave my own Community.There should be a church here that preaches the word, but there isn't.

 

That is a lie. It is plain stupid of you to claim you know what I believe.

 

What you believe is constantly presented in your posts, OR.

What you are saying, in effect, is "...you and I both know I am not actually presenting my beliefs in an understandable format."


God bless.

 

Not one church preaches the word, you say. That Jesus died was buried and rose again from the Dead. To pay the penalty for sin? Not one?

 

What are you talking about?

 

Originally Posted by Earth, Wind & Fire View Post
The US of A is vastly seperated in many ways which leads to different religious traditions. In the NE where I'm from all religion is taking a back seat to secularism. Unless you are Catholic....then you are a dominant religion. In the South you have the Bible belt.....most of us in the NE make jokes about that.......you cant throw a rock without hitting a Baptist church....or some such church. So its probably less relevant to a northerner to go to church since most non Catholic or independent Baptist churches are a long drive.....out of their communities.....and that's my own personal problem, I don't want to leave my own Community.There should be a church here that preaches the word, but there isn't.

In answer to this!

 

It is just going to happen that sometimes people can be hurt in corporate worship, because any time more than one person is involved there is usually conflict.

This is the case with this member, who has had some bad experiences, as well his family, which are legitimate in what I have seen.

I am sure there are fellowships that do preach the Gospel, but he has not found one yet. Hopefully one day he will, and perhaps we should pray to that effect. My own father went through some things with a particular fellowship and the fact that he ever went back is a testimony to him, in my view.


God bless.

 

The two biggest problems in my opinion with covenant theology is first it relies on Jehovah breaking his covenant promises with the Jews and second it insists on a covenant of redemption which is not found anywhere in the Bible.

Both of these are big problems regardless of the fact that over the centuries great men of the faith have either explained them away or ignored them totally.

I do not understand why the covenant/replacement crowd considers it fair game to tar men like Darby but claim to hold The Word of God as the final authority of their faith. Show where Darby strays from the clear teaching of the Bible and stick to that.

 

Not in my community......oh Im sorry, there is the catholics

 

That is a shame no one teaches the Blood of Christ paid for sins. Do they all teach a salvation by works?

 

So you admit that GOD deals with people through Covenants.

It is not the covenant/replacement crowd. Consider what GOD through the Apostle Paul tells us in the following Scripture:

Galatians 3:16-18
16. Now the promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as referring to many, but rather to one, “And to your seed,” that is, Christ.
17. What I am saying is this: the Law, which came four hundred and thirty years later, does not invalidate a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to nullify the promise.
18. For if the inheritance is based on law, it is no longer based on a promise; but God has granted it to Abraham by means of a promise.

So the promise was to the "SEED", Jesus Christ. Then we read:

Galatians 3:28, 29
28. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
29. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.

Therefore all those who are redeemed by Jesus Christ inherit the promised made to Abraham whether Jew or Gentile. And since the blood of Jesus Christ is required for the redemption of all it makes no difference whether the redemption in time occurred before or after the Cross.

No replacement doctrine here, simply continuation of building the household of Faith, the Church.

Ephesians 2:18-22
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Now as for John Nelson Darby I have posted numerous times, quoting dispensational scholars, that he is the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism. Not only that but Darby claimed new revelation from GOD!

From {http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

Darby claims that after 1800 years of the Church GOD revealed to him the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church!

 

God made Israel His covenant People and it was an unconditional covenant. God said the land would be there's and that they would be His people. He put no conditions on that Covenant. It is a Covenant of Promise, the dispensation of Promise as dispensationalist call it. god promised Abraham the land where of he walked. God promised Him if he left Ur of Chaldee's and went to the land He would show it would belong to Him and His seed forever that is as long as there is time for man. Abraham went to Cannan and God reiterated that promise.

 

Peter tells us what really happened:
1Pe 2:4-10
(4) To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious,
(5) Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
(6) Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
(7) Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
(8) And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
(9) But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
(10) Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.

God chose a people called Israel. They were the elect of God. The entire passage revolves around the "Stone."
In verses 7-8 Peter quotes from Psalm 118:22. Christ is precious to those that believe. But those who have rejected Christ, the Stone, stumble because of their disobedience. This is a reference to the chief priests and Pharisees. Jesus had referred to this same Psalm in Mat.21:42.
Peter also quotes from Isa.8:14 in the second part of 2:8. Rejection of Christ is fatal. To disobey the message is to reject it. Because of sin all disobedient unbelievers are destined for a "stumbling" which will lead to eternal condemnation.

In verses 9-10 Peter reminds his readers that they are the elect of God, called to holiness. This is in contrast with the disobedient destined for destruction. They were a chosen people. This is an OT phrase used in Isa.43:20 and applied only to Israel. Now it is used of those who are called out as a nation in the NT--those in Christ.

See the contrast:
1Pe 2:9 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:
Believers in Christ are now a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation. This was the status of the Jews in the OT.
The Jews are still a nation. But these blessings are now in Christ. The churches are composed of both Jews and Gentiles that have come to Christ. They are one in Christ, and they make up a nation called out of God.
The nation of Israel, unbelieving Jews, still exists.

 

Why do you call Israel, believing or unbelieving, the Elect of GOD but demonize those who believe in the Doctrine of Sovereign Election of all who are the redeemed of Jesus Christ?

 

When Saul got saved was he a Jew or a Christian?
If a Christian why did he go into the Temple and take a vow?
Why did he go into synagogues regularly?
If you are part of Israel why don't you do the same thing?
When is the last time you have graced a synagogue with your presence?
They have not gone out of style yet; they are still here.

Paul was a Jew by his ethnicity. He was of the tribe of Benjamin. He could hold on to his heritage.
However, you have no relationship to the Israel. You are not even a part of Israel by "replacement" or continuation (almost the same thing, thus DC's accusation).

Salvation is through Christ. When Saul got saved he became Paul. His religion was no longer Judaism, but Christianity. There were some things that he could still do, but not all things. There were some things that were part of his heritage that did not transgress the principles of Christianity.

Today Israel still exists. If a Jew becomes a Christian he must forsake his religion, but not his identity or his heritage. Salvation is only through Christ.

At the end of the Tribulation, that unsaved remnant, the unbelieving nation of Jews will turn as a nation and trust Christ as their Savior, their Messiah.

Revelation 1:7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.

What do you call that nation over there fighting for its life in the mid-east against all those Arab and Islamic nations? They call themselves Israel. Are they lying? But you are not part of them.

 

Where exactly is the demonization?


God bless.

 

There are those that actually believe the Palestinians are the real Israel (Jews) and that those currently inhabiting the land are not genuinely Israel. This stems from the "Ten Lost Tribe" mythology which believes that the "Ten Lost Tribes" migrated and founded the white European countries we see today, thus are the true Israel (Ten Tribes of it, anyway).

Amazing what people can come up with, isn't it?


God bless.

 

And as the inspired writer of Scripture, the Apostle Paul says, the seed who inherited the promise was Jesus Christ. So according to Paul you are flat wrong!

 

You are not answering the question!