1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Featured Teaching of the Apostle John

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by agedman, Sep 26, 2015.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Agedman,

    It is most sad that you resort to subterfuge to defend the pre-trib-dispensationalism of John N. Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, yourself, etc. by claiming that the premillennialism of some in the early Church was pre-tribulational in nature. That is simply false agedman. These Saints had the correct view of the Church. Pre-trib-dispensationalism makes the Church a "parenthesis", an interruption, in GOD's program for Israel. {http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/tt9.html}

    GOD called and used Israel for the purpose of {1}being a witness of HIM to the Gentiles and {2}being the vehicle through which HE would bring Jesus Christ into the world. They failed completely in the first and really had no choice about the second. Once they had crucified Jesus Christ their mission was complete and they were like all other peoples. Like the Gentiles they were always in need of a Savior and in GOD's own time the elect were redeemed by HIS power.
     
  2. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well of course pre-mil existed before Darby. It seems clear that Irenaeus and Martyr held to pre-mil. I haven't read all the pre-mil threads on this forum, but I don't think I seen anyone who claimed Darby invented pre-mil. I have seen the the pre-trib-dispensational claim, but not the "Darby invented pre-mil" claim. Of course pre-mil existed before Darby. I don't contest that. While I'm not a pre-trib-dispensationalists, I do see merit in a pre-mil view, and I also see tons of merit in a post-trib pre-mil view. The Amill view is not without support either. The post-trib and Amil views are the most acceptable to me, but all 3 land in realm of orthodox.

    I just think it is a bad idea to claim since Irenaeus believed pre-mil, Apostle John must have as well. That puts is Baptists in a bad spot regarding other doctrines.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  3. Reformed

    Reformed Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2012
    Messages:
    4,960
    Likes Received:
    1,694
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Bingo! If we use early church practice to determine our doctrine, then Baptists have painted themselves into a corner when it comes to baptism, the Trinity, and even the deity of Christ.
     
  4. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Because I DID NOT post that was the teaching of the early church, and it is ASSUMED by you that I did, this part of your post is highly inaccurate.


    However, all that first part of the post aside, are you admitting that the Revelation should be viewed from the perspective of the pre-mil return of Christ and a literal 1000 year reign?

    That is exactly what the earliest members were taught as born out in the first hand accounts.



    This is all agreeable. Nothing wrong. In fact, I hold that Israel has ALWAYS been "like all other people" in need of being "redeemed by HIS power."

    But your presentation just isn't the complete story.

    Pre-mil takes what you wrote and continues the story of ALL people to the end of time.

    Why do folks even consider accepting a view that the Apostles did not hold nor teach?

    Certainly, if the a-mil or post-mil views were correct, then NONE of the earliest folks directly and indirectly schooled by the Apostles would have been Pre-mil, would they?
     
  5. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist
    But reformed, it is not a matter of determining other doctrines, because ultimately the Scriptures were / are taken with a great deal more literalness and even authority in those areas. For example, Baptizo - literally means to dip, sink, put under and immerse. No room for discussion and argument - only preference and availability of the elements.

    The Apostles and those directly taught and influenced by the Apostles did not argue over matters of baptism, Trinity, and the deity of Christ. They were taken as either fact or if someone was not taking them as fact was declared "in error."

    That is what is at stake on this thread. It is whether one is going to apply the same standards and thinking found the very earliest days of the church to the matter of eschatology.

    What this thread proposes to demonstrate is that the earliest accounts support the Pre-mil view. That the Apostles and those schooled and influenced by them were making consistent standards of literal application, unlike what is done with the a-mil and post-mil positions that lay vast amounts of the Scriptures in the fields of allegory and misty surrealism. So, if one did not take the Pre-mil view, they would be considered "in error."



    This next part is a side issue, and one that I take as my opinion, only. It is based upon observation, reading, and listening to a lifetime of people espousing one view over another.
    There is also a consideration of what is the human factor involvement of each view. The basic, bottom - line, doctrinal view of the early church was that of all praise, authority, honor and preservation rested upon the Trinity. That God's wrath was not appointed to the church, but the church would feast while God punished the world (psalm 23) - all care was in the authority of God, alone. The same with the Pre-mil view. It is the only view that has all authority, power, honor, and preservation resting upon the Trinity alone to bring it to pass. Both the a-mil and post-mil views have some human involvement in which the world eventually reaches the redemptive state.
     
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    All one need do is read the early Baptist Confessions to understand that the early Baptists were not pre-trib-dispensationalists. That false doctrine entered the Churches through the efforts of Darby, Scofield, Moody, Pentecost, Ironside, Chafer, Walkover, Ryrie, and others. The worst offender is probably Scofield's Reference Book because a lot of people did not recognize where Scripture ended and Scofield started!!
     
    #26 OldRegular, Sep 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2015
  7. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    It is dishonest, to put it mildly, to identify the premillennial view of the Early Church Fathers with the pre-tribulation-dispensationalism developed by John Nelson Darby in about 1830. You know that as well as I do agedman!
     
  8. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Ah, Old Regular, you have a bit of a problem with your alignment

    Pre-mil was from the beginning. Along the way, there were those who also had hope of a pre-wrath (meaning pre-tribulation) rapture, but that was not a part of the main stream Pre-mil view.

    I personally do hope for a pre- trib rapture, I can also agree with those who would find a mid or even at the end of the tribulation rapture. But again, those are not doctrine, they are views in which no one can make large secure stands (imo).

    BUT that in no way departs from the hope and security of the doctrine of the Pre-mil return of Christ.

    You are apparently blending the work of eminent men that taught and wrote about the pre-trib rapture and such views, with all that Pre-mil believers hold as doctrine.

    I will state again, the Pre-mil rapture views are just that - views. And Darby was not the originator, but took from what was already and made it more popular (which he was schooled in doing). For a good read on the history of the development of this view see The Rapture Theory - Its Surprising Origin.

    The Pre-mil doctrine is NOT a view, nor is it considered a view but sound doctrine in which the founders and initial churches believed accurately depicted the end time return of Christ and 1000 year reign on this earth.

    NOT ALL Pre-mil folks are pre-tribulational rapture holding, nor agree with all that the hyper-dispensational camp(s) propagate.

    The argument presented on this thread is NOT about the pre-tribulation dispensationalistic views, rather the statement of fact that the earliest believers were Pre-mil, and definitely not a- or post - mil.

    That, friend, is not dishonest, deceitful or in any manner a slight of hand. But what IS dishonest are those of the a-mil and post mil who would make such a claim. Such is very far from honesty.

    Don't forget that as DHK showed in one post, even those who are scholarly and know the truth of history admit that Pre-mil was what the earliest church fathers embraced. A-mil and post-mil have a rather dark and political history at their founding and propagation (imo).
     
    #28 agedman, Sep 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2015
  9. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I really don't want to be unkind, but brother, you are making yourself ridiculous with these increasingly desperate attempts to discredit Biblical eschatology.
    Do you really think that we don't know that 1 Corinthians 6 is in the Bible?
     
  10. agedman

    agedman Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2011
    Messages:
    11,023
    Likes Received:
    1,108
    Faith:
    Baptist

    Martin, I placed a quote by Polycarp on the post.

    What conclusions you draw are your own responsibility.

    Are you actually stating that believers are not going to "judge the world" as 1 Corinthians 6:2 states?
    "Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? If the world is judged by you, are you not competent to constitute the smallest law courts?"

    So, Paul was quoted by Polycarp. And accurately so.

    In doing so, he demonstrated that NO other eschatological scheme allows for such judgment period other than that of Pre-mil or Chilism as he probably would call it - for that was the term contemporary at that time for Pre-mil doctrine.

    Though that may not have been the focus of his message at that particular time, the use of that passage definitively shows the basic supporting doctrine from which he was presenting the message. It may not have been the only doctrine supported in the message, but that wasn't the pressing issue of the thread.

    You use the term "biblical" eschatology. As if I am "discrediting" something biblical!

    Martin, there can be ONLY one "biblical eschatology."

    It is not some desperation on my part to clearly show the historical accuracy of what the early Church held as Biblical.

    I am certain from the accounts of the character of the Apostle John and the witnesses of his life, that he would not be so kind as to attach "biblical" to any eschatology that did not agree with his teaching.

    As I have shown, there is only ONE view that is from the founding of the earliest days of the church that John would have agreed upon.
     
  11. Martin Marprelate

    Martin Marprelate Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,817
    Likes Received:
    2,106
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Do you really think that? Don't be so silly!
     
  12. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    We do not know John was pre-mil. Just because Irenaeus was does not mean John was. Irenaeus was paedobaptist. We do not make the claim John was based upon Irenaeus view. We also have no proof John even talked to Irenaeus in person about anything, much less the millennium. I think highly of Post trib- pre mil, so I am not disagreeing with you on your millennial view. Just the implied insistence that the Apostle John held to pre-mil based upon Irenaeus' view.

    I do see scriptural justification in Amil as well. I have gave it a fair amount of consideration and have no issue with people who hold it. I read Revelation alternatively with a Amill and Post-trib/pre-mil mind set. I find them both sold and orthrodox as many do.


    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  13. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I was thinking the same thing. All orthodox views manage this well inside their doctrine.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  14. DHK

    DHK <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    137
    The topic here is pre-millennialism, something you don't believe in. In fact you don't even believe in an earthly kingdom, a Millennial Kingdom of one thousand years. So your contribution to this discussion remains fairly small.
    Agedman has shown quite successfully that premillennialism has been around since the nicene fathers, and since Polycarp was taught by the Apostle John, he takes it right back to the Apostle. Almost all would agree that premillennialism was a doctrine believed by the ECF. It was called Chiliasm. It was the prevailing eschatological stance of that day.

    But what about amillennialism? When and where did it come from?
    1. It was first considered as a heresy (still is IMO).
    2. It had to use an allegorical method of interpretation, such as Augustine used.
    3. It came from Augustine.
    4. It has been the prevailing doctrine of the RCC throughout the ages.

    Those four points in and of themselves should be enough to make one run as far as possible from the doctrine.

    Premillennialism implies two things: That Jesus is coming again, and the he is coming before the Millennial Kingdom. And, secondly that there is a literal 1000 year Kingdom still in the future to be set up by Christ. Having at least this much basic information we may infer that these early believers were dispensationalists. The Kingdom is one dispensation. The eras on either side were other dispensations. It has been observed that people throughout history have differed how many dispensations there are. The number really doesn't matter; it is irrelevant. They believe that God works in different ways at different times through different people. (dispensationalism).

    The also believe in a rapture. Today people differ on the rapture: whether it is pretrib, midtrib, or post-trib. But they do believe in it. For many it is is simply called the resurrection of the just compared to the resurrection of the unjust. It is a matter of timing--when it takes place. The Chiliasts believed in the rapture. They may have believed it took place post-trib, as many still do today. They may have called it by another name.

    They spoke a different language and called things using different terminology. They didn't deny the trinity, nor did they use the word trinity. That came into usage later. The word "rapture" didn't come into usage until the 20th century. Would you expect a first century Christian to use a 20th century term? Well, maybe some on this board would!

    The premill, dispensationalism has been around since the end of the first century. There are plenty of historical facts to back it up so that it cannot be denied.
    The Amil position was originally cited as heresy. It was and is the official eschatological position of the RCC.
    I know which camp I would want to be identified with.
     
  15. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    For clarification, when you say "dispensationalism", do you mean pre-trib-dispensational/ pre-millenialism? Or just a period in time?

    That's not a fair argument. The RCC holds to the Trinity and we don't run away from that.



    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
  16. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    And Lo! GOD left HIS people ignorant for about 1800 years until along came "explainer-in-chief" John_Nelson_Darby, about on par with the current commander-in-chief, who explained that GOD really just had Jesus Christ die for a "parenthesis" until the Jews decided to be reasonable! Now many have been deceived by those who know the mind of GOD and have set dates when the Jews would decide to be "reasonable". But they are like the pig wallowing in mud for Lo! GOD did tell us through the "true believer", Saint Stephen:

    Acts 7:51. Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye.

    And those stiff-necked Jews did hit the "true believer", Saint Stephen, with stones until GOD did take Saint Stephen home.
     
  17. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    And LO! Like the "explainer-in-chief" John_Nelson_Darby his true disciples are able to read the minds, yea! even understand the souls, of those who dare question the decrees of the "explainer-in-chief" John_Nelson_Darby.
     
  18. percho

    percho Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2009
    Messages:
    7,304
    Likes Received:
    458
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Assuming John believed what Paul wrote and believed what he wrote in Rev 20 would that not mean he believed that, those who were Christ's would be resurrected at his coming and that resurrection would be followed by one thousand year reign of Christ and those who are Christ's?

    Would that not be, Pre Mill?
     
  19. McCree79

    McCree79 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2015
    Messages:
    2,232
    Likes Received:
    305
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course John believed what he wrote, but do we understand what he wrote. Amil's will just use Matthew 12 to say Satan is already bound.

    Amil's could just say "if we assume John believed what he wrote and what Jesus said, wouldn't that be Amil?"

    I find post mil ridiculous, but the other two doctrines have merit even though they both differ greatly.

    Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk
     
    #39 McCree79, Sep 27, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 27, 2015
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    The power of Satan has been limited by the advent of Jesus Christ!
     
Loading...