I find that sometimes my spell-check corrects it to the wrong word. Sometimes I miss the “correction”.
Isaac Watts
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by David Kent, Jan 29, 2019.
Page 2 of 2
-
Is it "millenium" or millennium?
Is it "premillenialism" or Premillennialism?
Is it "dispensatiionalism" or dispensationalism?
Really! So much for your brag to fame on handling the English!
On a more serious note, there are no other schemes outside of dispensationalism that teaches a literal millennial reign of Christ.
I think you are considering that "Dispensation" is that which was pushed by Darby, and popularized by preaching of the last century or a bit.
Paul used "dispensation" at least four times as an indication of a period of time.
That is all dispensationalism does. It outlines history into periods of time. It can be varied as much as by who is writing.
Even Peter stated that "...at this time God winked at..." Peter was outlining the Scripture historically into dispensations.
Covenant theology uses grouping and I have seen Darby dispensation charts that also showed the standard covenants in agreement.
This is nothing new.
What was "new" was the popular "Darby dispensation" thinking which has (imo) two problems. One the segregation of the church as separate rather than grafted into believing Israel, the second the assumption of a pre-wrath rapture.
Neither of those are for a discussion on this thread.
Just because they did not use a "Darby" scheme did not prevent them from being dispensational.
Not true.
Darby was first a lawyer, and as such was skilled at evidentiary gathering and presentations. He did a good job, and caused a lot of folks to sit up and take notice.
Some time ago, I started reading through much of his work. It is exhausting!
However, in the investigating (in which I encouraged all members of the BB to participate) not a single doctrinal error in which one could assign heresy has been found in all his writings.
Certainly there are disagreements, yet there is no doubt he was brilliant and scholarly.
However, here is a truth.
I cannot find a single instance in which Darby was original. That is he took from others (as we all do) and produced volumes of works in which have stood the test of other scholars reading and approval.
Darby did not invent "dispensation."
Darby did not invent the thinking of a "rapture."
Darby did not invent the "tribulation."
Darby, as a scholar put a scheme together that brought attention to the matters of the end times that incorporated from thinking and teaching that went before him. -
It is unfortunate that some consider all things dispensational are from "Darby."
That just erroneous thinking, when dispensational schemes are basically a means of outlining. The same can be said of any outlining scheme such as using the covenants, or using such terms as Iron Age.
One can use dispensational thinking and not be holding to all the typical "Darby" view.
However, one cannot be pre-millennial and hold to any other views of the last days. Pre-millennialism is rather exclusive.
As such, because Darby presented a systematic and understandable approach, then the word dispensation has been linked to Darby. -
David Kent Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
No Darby did not invent the thinking of a "rapture." The first I came across the teaching was on a copy of a letter from Robert Baxter to "Mr Armstrong" dated August 3rd 1835, quoted in a book by Robert Baxter, Irvingism in its Rise, Progress, and Present State, 1836.
When we mention dispensationalism we are not speaking about earlier writers using the word dispensations, we understand it as a system promoting futurism and a future pre tribulation rapture. Great Historicist writers of the 19th like E B Elliott and henry Grattan Guinness mentioned dispensations, but I don't recall them mentioning what they meant by dispensations. asMy guess is that they referred to The old testament dispensation and the current dispensation. They were also pre mil. All this is similar to the writings of the early church writers. Both the ECW and Historicists took the book of Revelation and Daniel as figurative.
You said
- "I disagree. Certainly, they were premillennial, but they also recognized the dispensational thinking of the catching away of believers out of this world, the presentation of a final anti-christ, that believing gentiles were no longer excluded from the believing Israel, and so forth."
They taught that the Roman empire would be divided into 10 kingdoms which it was, and that the antichrist would come out of those 10 kingdoms, which he did.
I also apologise for my typing. I try to type too fast I guess seeing as have arthritis in my hands and also cataracts. Chrome also used to check my spelling but doesn't now. I suppose it has given up on me. -
David Kent Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
David Kent Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
- Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn’t mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
1. It's anonymous. So the author did not have the guts to make his or her accusations openly.
2. The title--if I'm a member of a cult, who is the leader, where is the top-down control, and where is the false doctrine of Christ? (Does Dallas TS control us dispensationalists? Hmm. Never been there.)
3. It's full of mistakes about dispensational teaching and practice.
4. At the end it says, "Most of these aberrations will, if seriously considered, end in the denial of the everlasting gospel." I defy--I double dare--anyone to prove from dispensational writings that our Gospel is wrong. -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
David Kent Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Your dad wrote that screed?
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Famous Baptist pastor Lee Roberson also came to a premil pretrib position simply by studying the Scriptures. He wrote, "One Sunday morning a man heard me preach and said, ‘You are a premillennialist.’ I replied that I was not sure what he meant but I was simply trying to preach the plain Word of God. At that time I was not aware of the various divisions of thought, postmillennialists, a-millennialists, and premillennialists. I preached what the Bible revealed to me. I am still preaching it today. I have not a doubt in my mind regarding this great theme of the Word of God.”[1]
[1] Lee Roberson, Double-Breasted (Murfreesboro: Sword of the Lord, 1977), 35. -
Martin Marprelate Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
This may be of interest to some. Concerning Cults-Exclusive Brethren – Taylorites | Evangelical Times -
John of Japan Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
Covenanter Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
As Southall was a largely immigrant, Asian town, the other groups also closed & we were allowed to use the hall for 20 years on a maintenance basis - offered rent-free after the "rapture" :) The other group sold the building to the local Baptist Church. Eventually the building we were using was sold to a Grace Baptist group for a church plant. -
David Kent Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
I then got into motor Bikes and went from bad to worse. Then one day I remembered a preacher from the previous mentioned church asking me "How are you with the Lord?" I realised I was far from the Lord and remembered Peter when he was sinking calling "Lord Save me." I realised I was sinking and called "Lord Save me."
From that moment I know I was saved. But what church to attend? I was sitting in a café near where I lived and a couple of young men were discussing their church. They mentioned their Bible Study. I got talking to them. They said their church was Elim, which I had never heard of, but seemed interesting, till one of them said he had hit a woman with his car and killed her. He said it was her fault and he felt no remorse. I thought if that wa me it would trouble me every day, so I didn't go to their church.
About that time I met a group with a van handing out tracts. Someone told me they were JW's but in fact they were Brethren. As they were a group I was familiar with I went to their church, or assembly as they called it. When my dad heard, he said to me "Beware of the Brethren, their teaching of the second coming is false." However when we moved to a new town I joined the Brethren where eventually I met my wife who had been converted from an Atheist family, at a covenanter summer camp when she was 14.
After we were married we went to a number of meetings on prophecy locally and in London. Then one evening one of our elders was speaking on one of the prophecies of Daniel and afterwards my wife said " He said this was going to hapen, then this was going to hapen, then that was going to happen, and I had my bible open expecting to see it written and could not see it there." I looked at the passage again and replied "No it is not." Then I remembered my dad's words "Beware of the Brethren, their teaching of the second coming is false."
At that point I began to look into the teaching and eventually agreed with him,
Martin regarding the your post from the ET regarding the name Plymouth Brethren,
- A man who dominated the movement in the early years was J. N. Darby (1800-1882) but in 1848 there was a deep division between Darby and the Plymouth brethren. The differences between the two groups were not insignificant. Darby insisted on separating from people who disagreed with his interpretations of Scripture, and a significant number of believers endorsed Darby’s policy and followed him. Those who followed Darby were known as ‘Exclusives’. They believed in a universal worldwide network of fellowships, with strong central leadership and a tight control of members.
- In contrast, the Plymouth Brethren were called ‘Open Brethren’. For them, each local assembly is independent. The fellowship enjoyed between assemblies is spontaneous and spiritual, without impinging on the autonomy of the local assembly. The believers locally are themselves directly responsible to the Lord, not a human leader. This represents a major difference between the two sections of the Brethren movement.
There was a man in our previous church whose parents were Exclusives. He sometime went to a meeting an a nearby house that was Exclusive. A man from our church who was an undertaker said they were the only religious group apart from the JWs who wouldn't let the UTs into the service.
There is a timber shop in Canterbury run by Exclusives who would not accept any form of payment card as "They are the work of the devil" as well as mobile phones. But I have not been there for some years so that may not be the case
Page 2 of 2