THE NINTH COMMANDMENT

[Iconoclast]

I haven't been following those threads. But it doesn't matter. If someone labels someone as being such-and-such and they deny it and if you continue to say the same thing about them, that is false witness.

I'm sure you wouldn't take kindly if someone were to say, "Iconoclast holds to the doctrines of grace and God's absolute sovereignty and control of everything, therefore Iconoclast believes God is the author of sin."

For example, I don't know anyone on BB that is an Arminian (and that definition includes the possibility of someone losing their salvation) yet that term is used with some regularity to describe many here on BB. That's false witness.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.

Because someone deny something doesn't mean it's not true there are people on here who are dispensational in the teaching and when someone says all that's dispensationalism they denied it but in fact everything they are teaching is dispensational so
they can deny whatever they want it doesn't make it false witness.

 

[agedman]

Are you saying you have not seen dispensationalists in this last two months alone, ....deny...they hold to that system???
As soon as OR zeroed in on them...then they claimed to not believe that system. Do you deny this???

I thought this thread was on the Ninth Commandment, but because it seems to be determinedly opened to a discussion of how one views the Scriptures in other matters, then I will oblige.

There ARE some on the board who are NOT Darby dispensationalists, who DO hold to dividing or "outlining" the Scriptures into "dispensational" sections. Some may or may not align with the typical "Darby" chart. Such have been labeled as Darby being their father or some other ridiculousness.

Imo, most have not read "Darby" but merely find a similar line of being able to section the Scriptures into periods of timing or eras. There work was not from a man, but their own efforts (as was mine) and it (imo) was inappropriate for some label, a claim made in order to discredit, and even, when showed proof that the claim was not correct, continued to beat that drum in mighty effort to attain some recognition of authority and superiority.

Not all who believe in a rapture, second coming, and literal millennial reign of Christ are "Darby" dispensationalists.

Dispensationalists have one "fit all" definition. They consider that God related (relates) to humankind under different covenants and therefore in different ways. What MUST be acknowledged is that this is also the thinking of those that would scorn "dispensation" thinking and endorse "Covenant" thinking.

Essentially the Covenant folks believe the SAME way! The dispensational folks merely divide the time line by economy and social / political scheme rather than by which covenant God happens to have invoked. BOTH groups divide the Scriptures and the manner in which God relates to Humankind.

That one group touts out some superiority or scorn over another group is fleshly and frankly not Scriptural.

Now it is clear that the opening of this thread (the OP) was going to point to a rather healthy discussion of the ninth commandment. I was looking forward to reading that discussion.

Can it now be assumed that the OP is offered under the guise of a different agenda? Is the OP offered in attempt to display some on the BB as "underhandedly" dishonest and deceitful?

 

[agedman]

Because someone deny something doesn't mean it's not true there are people on here who are dispensational in the teaching and when someone says all that's dispensationalism they denied it but in fact everything theteaching is dispensational so
they can deny whatever they want it doesn't make it false witness.

Just because one states a certain aspect of their view and in part that aspect may be aligned with a certain aspect of some other labeled scheme does not mean they are wedded in every aspect to the total of all aspects of that labeled view or scheme.

SO WHAT some hold to some aspects of "dispensation" that doesn't make them a clone of Darby, or John Mac, or anyone else. I personally hold to the literal post tribulation second coming of Christ to rule for a literal 1000 years on this earth. Does that automatically make me a follower of "Darby?" Nope

I divide the Scriptures into various economic / social / political patterns. Does that automatically make me a follower of "Darby?" Nope

Here is the problem.

There are some on this board who want to proclaim great superiority and authority by placing labels on pigeon holes and then shoving folks into them, even if the label is wrong and the pigeon hole doesn't fit.

In the previous post, I stated that both the typical "dispensation" view, and the typical "covenant" view divide the Scriptures in to periods of emphasis. It is what is used for the division of emphasis that distinguishes the lines of dividing.

Neither scheme is superior to the other. Neither has some grand claim of being more "Scriptural" than the other. Both are merely tools used to describe a timeline.

That one may or may not use those tools in different posts and in different settings, and which tool they use, is not and should not be claimed by any other BB member as deceitful, and more, in violation of the ninth commandment.

What IS important is that there are some who would make the gentile church a replacing of Israel - that is a violation of Scriptures.

What IS important is that there are some who would make the gentile church a separate group from Israel - that is a violation of Scriptures.

What IS important is that there are those who recognize those areas of violation and are moving to meet out a much better scheme and one that hopefully will emerge as far more faithful to the Scriptural authority than any of the past 2000 years.

 

[InTheLight]

Because someone deny something doesn't mean it's not true there are people on here who are dispensational in the teaching and when someone says all that's dispensationalism they denied it but in fact everything theteaching is dispensational so
they can deny whatever they want it doesn't make it false witness.

OK, I get it now. You say someone is a dispensationalist, someone else replies, "no I'm not". You, or Old Regular launch into a tirade about Darbyism, the person who is the object of your scorn says "I don't know anything about Darby" and then you label them a "Darby dispensationalist" and if they deny it, you say they are bearing false witness.

Got it.

I remember those threads now.

 

[Iconoclast]

OK, I get it now. You say someone is a dispensationalist, someone else replies, "no I'm not". You, or Old Regular launch into a tirade about Darbyism, the person who is the object of your scorn says "I don't know anything about Darby" and then you label them a "Darby dispensationalist" and if they deny it, you say they are bearing false witness.

Got it.

I remember those threads now.

Actually I'm glad I refresh your memory but as I look at your post it is kind of funny but why do you say someone has to be the object of scorn if we just correctly identify is a historic facts of how premillennialism in the dispensational form came about
why can't we just identify that without you saying the object of our scorn.

 

[InTheLight]

Actually I'm glad I refresh your memory but as I look at your post it is kind of funny but why do you say someone has to be the object of scorn if we just correctly identify is a historic facts of how premillennialism in the dispensational form came about
why can't we just identify that without you saying the object of our scorn.

Because scorn is an apt description of the attitude taken by you and Old Regular to people who adhere to dispensationalism (or parts of dispensationalism). If you like I think I can dig up some threads via Google and lay bare the whole thing to the board. Frightful waste of time, I've got better things to do...

 

[Iconoclast]

Just because one states a certain aspect of their view and in part that aspect may be aligned with a certain aspect of some other labeled scheme does not mean they are wedded in every aspect to the total of all aspects of that labeled view or scheme.

SO WHAT some hold to some aspects of "dispensation" that doesn't make them a clone of Darby, or John Mac, or anyone else. I personally hold to the literal post tribulation second coming of Christ to rule for a literal 1000 years on this earth. Does that automatically make me a follower of "Darby?" Nope

I divide the Scriptures into various economic / social / political patterns. Does that automatically make me a follower of "Darby?" Nope

Here is the problem.

There are some on this board who want to proclaim great superiority and authority by placing labels on pigeon holes and then shoving folks into them, even if the label is wrong and the pigeon hole doesn't fit.

In the previous post, I stated that both the typical "dispensation" view, and the typical "covenant" view divide the Scriptures in to periods of emphasis. It is what is used for the division of emphasis that distinguishes the lines of dividing.

Neither scheme is superior to the other. Neither has some grand claim of being more "Scriptural" than the other. Both are merely tools used to describe a timeline.

That one may or may not use those tools in different posts and in different settings, and which tool they use, is not and should not be claimed by any other BB member as deceitful, and more, in violation of the ninth commandment.

What IS important is that there are some who would make the gentile church a replacing of Israel - that is a violation of Scriptures.

What IS important is that there are some who would make the gentile church a separate group from Israel - that is a violation of Scriptures.

What IS important is that there are those who recognize those areas of violation and are moving to meet out a much better scheme and one that hopefully will emerge as far more faithful to the Scriptural authority than any of the past 2000 years.

I think you raise a lot of good points in this post
I don't agree with everything you say but you do raise some good discussion points
the point being why can people not own up to whatever camp they are .
in
if someone is in the amill camp and someone gives a critical view against amillennialism it would be a cop out for that person to say oh well I don't hold to every verse of amillennial view cause everyone has different points of view cause people have a different take on the verses
but that doesn't mean that the other person would not be found soundly in the middle of that camp

 

[Iconoclast]

Because scorn is an apt description of the attitude taken by you and Old Regular to people who adhere to dispensationalism (or parts of dispensationalism). If you like I think I can dig up some threads via Google and lay bare the whole thing to the board. Frightful waste of time, I've got better things to do...

Listen you don't have to go back and pick up anything I really dislike dispensationalism as a system I think it's destructive to Christians and church I make no bones about it
and I was instructed in the dispensational system to begin with now you don't have to go back you could just anytime if you see something I post that you think is either scornful or inaccurate comment on it right there and give a biblical reason for your comment not just a little snide remark and sneak away like others do
just stand there and say look I think you're wrong and tell me why
that's all I would ask this is what this board is about we can disagree and we can go over things not not just make sneaky comments and then run for the hills

 

[Iconoclast]

I thought this thread was on the Ninth Commandment, but because it seems to be determinedly opened to a discussion of how one views the Scriptures in other matters, then I will oblige.

There ARE some on the board who are NOT Darby dispensationalists, who DO hold to dividing or "outlining" the Scriptures into "dispensational" sections. Some may or may not align with the typical "Darby" chart. Such have been labeled as Darby being their father or some other ridiculousness.

Imo, most have not read "Darby" but merely find a similar line of being able to section the Scriptures into periods of timing or eras. There work was not from a man, but their own efforts (as was mine) and it (imo) was inappropriate for some label, a claim made in order to discredit, and even, when showed proof that the claim was not correct, continued to beat that drum in mighty effort to attain some recognition of authority and superiority.

Not all who believe in a rapture, second coming, and literal millennial reign of Christ are "Darby" dispensationalists.

Dispensationalists have one "fit all" definition. They consider that God related (relates) to humankind under different covenants and therefore in different ways. What MUST be acknowledged is that this is also the thinking of those that would scorn "dispensation" thinking and endorse "Covenant" thinking.

Essentially the Covenant folks believe the SAME way! The dispensational folks merely divide the time line by economy and social / political scheme rather than by which covenant God happens to have invoked. BOTH groups divide the Scriptures and the manner in which God relates to Humankind.

That one group touts out some superiority or scorn over another group is fleshly and frankly not Scriptural.

Now it is clear that the opening of this thread (the OP) was going to point to a rather healthy discussion of the ninth commandment. I was looking forward to reading that discussion.

Can it now be assumed that the OP is offered under the guise of a different agenda? Is the OP offered in attempt to display some on the BB as "underhandedly" dishonest and deceitful?

The original post is meant to deal directly with this issue as I think there is a lot of 9th commandment violations taking place on Baptist board

 

[Iconoclast]

Because scorn is an apt description of the attitude taken by you and Old Regular to people who adhere to dispensationalism (or parts of dispensationalism). If you like I think I can dig up some threads via Google and lay bare the whole thing to the board. Frightful waste of time, I've got better things to do...

And by the way as far as scorn being the appropriate word I think if you go back and look at any of those threads you'll see that oldregular used the correct and historic teaching what's today call dispensational premillennialism
the scorn was against those who was telling him that was not accurate when in fact that he was completely accurate
and Google search alone will show what he was saying was true

 

[Iconoclast]

You said:

we have on this board, dispensationalists who claim they are not. semi peligians who say they are not, arminians who say they are not ,etc....that is a fact, not false witness.

When someone says, "I'm not a peligianist" and you reply YES YOU ARE! that is the very definition of false witness. You don't get to go around labeling people with labels they know don't apply to them.

that is not bearing false witness...to describe something accurately if being a true witness.

 

[Iconoclast]

RM

You are a Dispensationalist if you claim it.

If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...its a duck. If has nothing to do with it...

You are an Arminian if you claim it.

If you believe arminian teaching exactly, but are inconsistent and plead the fifth[osas]...you are Arminian

You are a Pelegian if you claim it

If someone teaches a works gospel, and never heard of Pelagius ...they are Pelagian

Well you know if you deny what you really are then you are like criminals who deny who they are.[

If you believe something own it, do not deny it when questioned because you cannot defend it.

 

[Iconoclast]

"InTheLight,

I haven't been following those threads. But it doesn't matter. If someone labels someone as being such-and-such ., that is false witness.

Not necessarily...they could be hiding what they believe because they are being dishonest.
We have had some people do this very thing...when asked for clarification of what they believe,,,you hear crickets chirping.

I'm sure you wouldn't take kindly if someone were to say, "Iconoclast holds to the doctrines of grace and God's absolute sovereignty and control of everything,

This part would be true...

therefore Iconoclast believes God is the author of sin."

Now the person who does not understand the teaching comes to this false conclusion...that is on them.
So if I corrected them and they keep repeating it after being corrected...it is false witness.

For example, I don't know anyone on BB that is an Arminian (and that definition includes the possibility of someone losing their salvation) yet that term is used with some regularity to describe many here on BB. That's false witness.

they are Arminians who plead the 5th..osas...that is a seperate thread.

Sent from my Motorola Droid Turbo using Tapatalk.[/QUOTE]

 

[Iconoclast]

I thought this thread was on the Ninth Commandment, but because it seems to be determinedly opened to a discussion of how one views the Scriptures in other matters, then I will oblige.

That is what it was about ,until some came with an agenda.

There ARE some on the board who are NOT Darby dispensationalists, who DO hold to dividing or "outlining" the Scriptures into "dispensational" sections. Some may or may not align with the typical "Darby" chart. Such have been labeled as Darby being their father or some other ridiculousness.

Imo, most have not read "Darby" but merely find a similar line of being able to section the Scriptures into periods of timing or eras. There work was not from a man, but their own efforts (as was mine) and it (imo) was inappropriate for some label, a claim made in order to discredit, and even, when showed proof that the claim was not correct, continued to beat that drum in mighty effort to attain some recognition of authority and superiority.

Not all who believe in a rapture, second coming, and literal millennial reign of Christ are "Darby" dispensationalists.

The original dispute concerning Darby ...was OR gave the history and some tried to deny it...OR was correct

Dispensationalists have one "fit all" definition. They consider that God related (relates) to humankind under different covenants and therefore in different ways. What MUST be acknowledged is that this is also the thinking of those that would scorn "dispensation" thinking and endorse "Covenant" thinking.

Essentially the Covenant folks believe the SAME way! The dispensational folks merely divide the time line by economy and social / political scheme rather than by which covenant God happens to have invoked. BOTH groups divide the Scriptures and the manner in which God relates to Humankind.

That one group touts out some superiority or scorn over another group is fleshly and frankly not Scriptural.

You have some good points for discussion we will get to them in another thread,

Now it is clear that the opening of this thread (the OP) was going to point to a rather healthy discussion of the ninth commandment. I was looking forward to reading that discussion.

Can it now be assumed that the OP is offered under the guise of a different agenda? Is the OP offered in attempt to display some on the BB as "underhandedly" dishonest and deceitful?

Tommorow night ,Lord willing ...we will get this back on track

 

[Reformed]

You are a Dispensationalist if you claim it. You are an Arminian if you claim it. You are a Pelegian if you claim it


Well you know if you deny what you really are then you are like criminals who deny who they are.

Brother, I know you have an aversion to labels. We have discussed it before. But how far do you take that aversion? Does it only apply to theological labels or to all labels? What labels will you accept and which labels will you reject? Can I call you an American, or do you reject that label too? Please do not think I am being cheeky. I am trying to get to the issue of consistency. If you truly eschew all labels, and are consistent in doing so, I salute you. Personally I could never live like that, but you may have a level of discipline that escapes me.

For me using a label, term, or phrase is a whole lot easier that saying, "Bob believes that there are seven classic dispensations, that eschatologically culminates in a pre-tribulational rapture, a seven year tribulation, a 1000 year millennial kingdom, the second coming, and then the final judgment". Whew! Referring to Bob as a Classical Dispensationalist would save a lot of vowels and consonants. But back to the issue at hand.

Bob doesn't have to accept the term "Dispensationalist", but that does not mean I have born false witness against him. I described his theological position based on a review of his beliefs and used common vernacular to describe my conclusion. However, if I said, "Bob believes that all non-Dispensationalists are going to hell", and I have no evidence Bob ever said or wrote such a thing, I would be bearing false witness against him. I think that sort of thing occurs on this board far too often. One side or the other draws conclusions that are not based on fact, and turns them into accusations. This seems to happen when someone's emotional boiling point has been reached.

Just my two cents.

 

[Revmitchell]

Brother, I know you have an aversion to labels. We have discussed it before. But how far do you take that aversion? Does it only apply to theological labels or to all labels? What labels will you accept and which labels will you reject? Can I call you an American, or do you reject that label too? Please do not think I am being cheeky. I am trying to get to the issue of consistency. If you truly eschew all labels, and are consistent in doing so, I salute you. Personally I could never live like that, but you may have a level of discipline that escapes me.

For me using a label, term, or phrase is a whole lot easier that saying, "Bob believes that there are seven classic dispensations, that eschatologically culminates in a pre-tribulational rapture, a seven year tribulation, a 1000 year millennial kingdom, the second coming, and then the final judgment". Whew! Referring to Bob as a Classical Dispensationalist would save a lot of vowels and consonants. But back to the issue at hand.

Bob doesn't have to accept the term "Dispensationalist", but that does not mean I have born false witness against him. I described his theological position based on a review of his beliefs and used common vernacular to describe my conclusion. However, if I said, "Bob believes that all non-Dispensationalists are going to hell", and I have no evidence Bob ever said or wrote such a thing, I would be bearing false witness against him. I think that sort of thing occurs on this board far too often. One side or the other draws conclusions that are not based on fact, and turns them into accusations. This seems to happen when someone's emotional boiling point has been reached.

Just my two cents.

My aversion is not to labels. My aversion is to labels imposed on me or anyone not accepted by me or anyone. Quite frankly those who cannot seem to function theologically without these labels are like people who use curse words in their consistent rhetoric. Fact is they do so because they are incapable of dealing with individual people's doctrines any other way. It is an inferior attempt at discussions between opposing views, it is most often inflammatory, and most labels are used as and intended to be pejoratives. Those who intentionally use these labels about or toward someone are not following several portions of scripture some of which are the following:

1. Colossians 4:6
2. Romans 12:3
3. Galatians 6:3
4. Philippians 2:3

People have very good reasons for not identifying with the systematic type labels that many Calvinists seem to idolize. These discussions in which others are accusing others of belonging to this group or that groups is no different than what Paul addressed in I Cor 1:10-13. Further when you accuse someone who does not identify with one of these men you are in fact bearing a false witness. You are making an accusation that is false about someone who does not identify with your man made label and the man attached to that label. People are perfectly capable of identifying themselves with what and with whom they choose. It is not up to you and your personal systematic theology to do that for them. Such is the height of arrogance.

 

[InTheLight]

Listen you don't have to go back and pick up anything I really dislike dispensationalism as a system I think it's destructive to Christians and church I make no bones about it
and I was instructed in the dispensational system to begin with now you don't have to go back you could just anytime if you see something I post that you think is either scornful or inaccurate comment on it right there and give a biblical reason for your comment not just a little snide remark and sneak away like others do
just stand there and say look I think you're wrong and tell me why
that's all I would ask this is what this board is about we can disagree and we can go over things not not just make sneaky comments and then run for the hills

Ya know, when you are using the speech to text option on your phone you can insert periods, commas, question marks into your sentences, just by speaking them at the end of your sentences and then pausing for a second before continuing with your dictation. Like this:

"Listen you don't have to go back and pick up anything[period]"

"I really dislike dispensationalism as a system[period]"

"I think it's destructive to Christians and church I make no bones about it[exclamation point]"

It's pretty cool! Try it.

 

[kyredneck]

...scorn is an apt description of the attitude taken by you and Old Regular to people who adhere to dispensationalism (or parts of dispensationalism).

I consider it CONTEMPT that I have for the outright stupidity of dispensationalism, and I admit I've a real problem with constraining it, because you people comprise the most dangerous cult in the world.

 

[Reformed]

My aversion is not to labels. My aversion is to labels imposed on me or anyone not accepted by me or anyone. Quite frankly those who cannot seem to function theologically without these labels are like people who use curse words in their consistent rhetoric. Fact is they do so because they are incapable of dealing with individual people's doctrines any other way. It is an inferior attempt at discussions between opposing views, it is most often inflammatory, and most labels are used as and intended to be pejoratives. Those who intentionally use these labels about or toward someone are not following several portions of scripture some of which are the following:

1. Colossians 4:6
2. Romans 12:3
3. Galatians 6:3
4. Philippians 2:3

People have very good reasons for not identifying with the systematic type labels that many Calvinists seem to idolize. These discussions in which others are accusing others of belonging to this group or that groups is no different than what Paul addressed in I Cor 1:10-13. Further when you accuse someone who does not identify with one of these men you are in fact bearing a false witness. You are making an accusation that is false about someone who does not identify with your man made label and the man attached to that label. People are perfectly capable of identifying themselves with what and with whom they choose. It is not up to you and your personal systematic theology to do that for them. Such is the height of arrogance.

Is it OK to disagree with you without being "labeled" as arrogant? I know. A play on words there, but also truthful.

Try and view this as not a Calvinist vs. non-Calvinist discussion. When I read the writings of someone who advocates that God gives people a second chance at salvation after death, I know they are an Open Theist. If they reject being called this, and I am accused on violating the 9th commandment because of it, then I will just have to shrug my shoulders and move on. I certainly am not going to lose sleep over it.

And FWIW, I do not have a list of who is what. The only time such a thing comes up is when I encounter it. However I strongly reject that describing what a person believes (which is the function of a label or term) is a 9th commandment violation, unless it is done with a willful intent to deceive. I am content in disagreeing with you on this point.

 

[InTheLight]

And by the way as far as scorn being the appropriate word I think if you go back and look at any of those threads you'll see that oldregular used the correct and historic teaching what's today call dispensational premillennialism
the scorn was against those who was telling him that was not accurate when in fact that he was completely accurate
and Google search alone will show what he was saying was true

OK, here's some posts full of scorn from Old Regular. (Although in your previous post to me before this one, you said I didn't need to go back and look at anything. Make up your mind.)

Then why don't YOU admit it instead of sliming the Roman Catholics, assuming of course, that you believe in the Trinity! Do You?

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/darby-dispensationalism.93798/#post-2136329

Not really! I have posted the following on several occasions; even started a thread with this info yet you are still in denial! You are pathetic.

They tried to use Isaac Watts to prove it but the link they provided rose up and bit them. :tonofbricks:-:tonofbricks: The bite hurt so they are extremely sore!

Lovely Lady, perhaps I should not say this, but it is a real pleasure to see you tweak their nose. I am sure there are many on this Forum who feel the same way, even some dispensationalists. I find it hard to believe that some of these people who were "eddicated" in Dispensationalists Bible Colleges never heard of Darby.

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/amil-vs-pre-trib-pre-mil.93733/page-3

You will deny any Scripture that does not agree with the pre-trib teaching of John Nelson Darby! I repeat: Darby is the father of pre-trib-rapture-dispensationalism just as Ellen G. White is the mother of Seventh Day Adventism!

http://www.baptistboard.com/threads...and-the-second-coming-of-christ.92979/page-10

Much of the Bible is devoted to pointing out sin and error among the people of GOD. Pre-trib-dispensationalism is a grievous unBiblical error invented by John Nelson Darby who claimed new revelation so I am obligated to make that point when I can. When a doctrine calls the Church, for which Jesus Christ shed HIS blood, a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for ethnic Israel that is blasphemous to me and should be to every Christian!

The sad truth is that most pre-trib-dispensationalists [...] reject the clear teaching of Scripture and embrace the unBiblical "new revelation" of Darby there is no way they will accept the truth. There are none so blind as those who will not see and the Rapture-Ready people will not see!

Have you noticed how many Rapture Ready folks on this Forum have jumped to the defense of that erroneous doctrine. One would think they would attempt to refute the 95 thesis one at a time. But perhaps, just perhaps, they are smart enough not to engage in futility!

https://www.baptistboard.com/threads/john-nelson-darby-vs-baptist-confessions-of-faith.93640/

I could go on....these are just from the past 6 months.