Jump to content

Photo

The Bible Only?


  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#101 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:13 PM

How can there be seven trumpts sounding during the tribulation AFTER the LAST trump is sounded when the rapture takes place at the beginning of the tribulation?  How many "Last" trumpets can there be?

 

Ukelemike, I studied prophecy back in 1998.  I am very rusty.  The "catching away" caught my attention.  I don't understand where you are going with this scripture.  It sounds like a twist of words on the subject.  Like I said, I spoke with my IFB church in Bible study and prayer, one Wednesday night, and told my brothers and sisters in Christ, that I knew of an IFB who didn't believe in a pre-trib "rapture."  My pastor was shocked, especially when I said he was an IFB preacher.

All posts like this due is fuel the Calvinists with their warped theology on preterism.  Sometimes, I have to wonder if I am still on an IFB site.  It is totally confusing.  

I feel like a gerbil on a treadmill.  OB, with it's varying opinions, make me so thankful that I attend a strong IFB church and can fellowship with like-minded believers.  I am also not the only one who feels this way.  Many former OB members are on Facebook and have no desire to come back to OB.

Like I stated, I don't have a problem with people who come on OB from different faiths to learn more about the word of God.  What I do mind is people who constantly promote false doctrine like "replacement theology" and nothing is done about it.  It appears they have now formed a little group, for moral support, and are thriving b/c their heresy has been accepted.  I will no longer talk about the "rapture" as it does nothing but cause problems.  You believe what you believe and I will hold to the position that I have held since 1998.  :) 



#102 HappyChristian

HappyChristian

    Waiting patiently (ahem) for grandchildren...

  • Moderators
  • 17,841 posts
2,007
Excellent

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:44 PM

Forums are places of discussion. And a variety of views will be presented because there are a variety of people on them.  Who look at scripture in a variety of ways.   There have been IFB for years who have believed in mid-trib and post-trib raptures, as well as pre-trib (the predominant view) and double raptures (pre- and mid-).  I'm not really surprised by much that people believe - especially IFB

 

In one of my college classes, we were discussing prophecy.  The president of this college was a good friend of Ian Paisley's, but did not agree with him on prophecy and infant baptism.  Paisley is a mid-tribber.  Anyway, the teacher in that class was showing us why Paisley was wrong in his trib beliefs - using the verses IP uses.  As we walked out of that class, I told another student that if I weren't convinced in my own mind in a pre-trib rapture, it would have been easy to sway me to believe in a mid-trib rapture.  That was absolutely not the effect the teacher was going for, but it was a result of looking at scripture the way a mid-tribber does.

 

That said: we all need to be convinced in our minds and hearts of what we believe, and it has to be grounded totally in scripture - rightly divided.  If we are not, a forum can simply mess us up.  And, while we are convinced in our own minds, if we are to be biblical, we must refrain from the type of confrontation that is conflict for the purpose of conflict (which many often use and claim it to be a defense of the "faith"). 

 

Verses can be applied in a variety of ways, prompting a variety of beliefs around that same topic.  Is it heresy?  Well, we need to be careful of flinging that word around. It's been applied on the forum lately like a battering ram.  Folks who don't agree with other folks on one little thing claim the others are heretics.  And vice versa.  Yes, there is real heresy presented at times.  But often the label is given because the labeler can't think of any other way to erm, uh - undermine the other person's point of view. We all want to be right (and I always am... :nuts:  :nuts: NOT!). But that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with us heretics.

 
 
And before I'm accused of moral relativism, just stop and think about what I've said, folks.  Jesus tells us "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another."  Yes, I know. Some folks think that blasting at others to browbeat or sarcasm them into agreement is defense of the faith and thereby love.  But it isn't. We can be firm without being obnoxious...
 
Look at some of the things that have been thrown around the forum lately.  Some of the wording, attitude, etc.  Some adults on here sound like children.  And I guarantee that you wouldn't allow your children to speak to each other in that manner. Well, not if you're a good parent, anyway. But it's justified on here in the name of defending the faith... Look at that verse again.  "Love one to another." 
 
Not for another. TO.  We can have love for someone and treat them awful.  As has been done multiple times on this forum of late.  OR we can be active and proactive and obey scripture.  TO is an active preposition, for is not.
 
Let's show love to one another. Yes, be firm in your stance.  Support your position with scripture.  But do it scripturally and not like a recalcitrant child would do.
 
It's not my intention to ruffle feathers, but if I have, so be it.  


#103 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,518 posts
1,983
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:47 PM

Ukelemike, I studied prophecy back in 1998.  I am very rusty.  The "catching away" caught my attention.  I don't understand where you are going with this scripture.  It sounds like a twist of words on the subject.  Like I said, I spoke with my IFB church in Bible study and prayer, one Wednesday night, and told my brothers and sisters in Christ, that I knew of an IFB who didn't believe in a pre-trib "rapture."  My pastor was shocked, especially when I said he was an IFB preacher.

All posts like this due is fuel the Calvinists with their warped theology on preterism.  Sometimes, I have to wonder if I am still on an IFB site.  It is totally confusing.  

I feel like a gerbil on a treadmill.  OB, with it's varying opinions, make me so thankful that I attend a strong IFB church and can fellowship with like-minded believers.  I am also not the only one who feels this way.  Many former OB members are on Facebook and have no desire to come back to OB.

Like I stated, I don't have a problem with people who come on OB from different faiths to learn more about the word of God.  What I do mind is people who constantly promote false doctrine like "replacement theology" and nothing is done about it.  It appears they have now formed a little group, for moral support, and are thriving b/c their heresy has been accepted.  I will no longer talk about the "rapture" as it does nothing but cause problems.  You believe what you believe and I will hold to the position that I have held since 1998.   :)

I can appreciate where you are, Candlelight. I held to the pre-tribulation position since the early days of the 1970's.  But even then, there were aspects to it that mildly bugged me, things it seemed were being kind of pushed to the side and never dealt with.

 

You know what? I am going to start a psot in this-not to fight or to try and convince anyone of my position, but more to lay out my journey, if you will, to being where I am today, very IFB, but particularly happy about the "I" (independent) part of the title. I will title it, "Why I Left Pre-Trib" or something like that.



#104 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 24 April 2014 - 05:07 PM

HC, so you don't believe that "Replacement Theology" is heresy?  I have said this before, but I feel like I am back in the RCC with the Calvinists on this site.  And, they DO NOT know how to "rightly divide the word of truth."  They should be labeled as heretics, b/c they are spewing false doctrine, from the depths of hell.  Yet, they continue to get away with this garbage on an IFB site and the rest of us are told that we are being contentious?  There is something seriously wrong with that.  Not only do former IFB's on Facebook not want to come back to OB, many on this site are not posting b/c of this nonsense.  It must be stopped.  It is not Biblical.  I was contacted by a young man, on Facebook, who goes to a non-denominational church. He is hungry for the word of God.  I was thinking about recommending this site to him, but thought again.  I certainly would not want him to pick up any false doctrine on this site.  The dogma that is spewed all the time by the Calvinists should be taken to CARM, where they would be welcomed with open arms.   



#105 ASongOfDegrees

ASongOfDegrees

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,085 posts
675
Excellent

Posted 24 April 2014 - 05:16 PM

How can there be seven trumpts sounding during the tribulation AFTER the LAST trump is sounded when the rapture takes place at the beginning of the tribulation?  How many "Last" trumpets can there be?

The last "trump" is the SOUND a trumpet makes. It does not mean "the last of seven trumpets".

 

Therefore, the rapture will take place after the last "trump" of a trumpet while the Second Coming will follow the last or seventh trumpet.

 

Notice in I. Thess. 4:6 where it is compared with the "voice of the archangel".

 

Also, in Revelation 4:1 where God's voice sounded like a trumpet and then John was told to "come up hither". 

 

This is a trumpet that "trumps" before the tribulation. It has nothing to do with the seven trumpets at the end of the tribulation.

 

trump2   [truhmp]  Show IPA Literary.
noun
1.
a trumpet.
2.
its sound.

Edited by ASongOfDegrees, 24 April 2014 - 05:18 PM.


#106 prophet1

prophet1

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
215
Excellent

Posted 24 April 2014 - 05:43 PM

Mat 24:31
31 And he shall send his angels with a great sound of a trumpet, and they shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other.

1Co 15:52
52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump:for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

1Th 4:16-17
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God:and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air:and so shall we ever be with the Lord.



Anishinaabe



#107 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,518 posts
1,983
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 24 April 2014 - 06:24 PM

 

The last "trump" is the SOUND a trumpet makes. It does not mean "the last of seven trumpets".

 

Therefore, the rapture will take place after the last "trump" of a trumpet while the Second Coming will follow the last or seventh trumpet.

 

Notice in I. Thess. 4:6 where it is compared with the "voice of the archangel".

 

Also, in Revelation 4:1 where God's voice sounded like a trumpet and then John was told to "come up hither". 

 

This is a trumpet that "trumps" before the tribulation. It has nothing to do with the seven trumpets at the end of the tribulation.

 

trump2   [truhmp]  Show IPA Literary.
noun
1.
a trumpet.
2.
its sound.

 

So what will the other trumpets do, quack? I suspect the seven trumpets of revelation will "trump" as well. So that means a trump before them can't be 'the' last trump. 

 

So again I ask, how many LAST trumps can there be? I suspect, having some small understanding the word 'last', that, like Highlander, there can be only one.



#108 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,382 posts
1,918
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 24 April 2014 - 06:35 PM

So what will the other trumpets do, quack? I suspect the seven trumpets of revelation will "trump" as well. So that means a trump before them can't be 'the' last trump.

So again I ask, how many LAST trumps can there be? I suspect, having some small understanding the word 'last', that, like Highlander, there can be only one.


Mike, that is a very narrow view of the word.
In a motor race for instance, is the guy who was last in the last race the last guy ever to come last? Or will there be another race next week in which someone will come last?

Last does not always mean last ever - it could be last of a particular set.

#109 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,382 posts
1,918
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 24 April 2014 - 06:44 PM

Forums are places of discussion. And a variety of views will be presented because there are a variety of people on them. Who look at scripture in a variety of ways. There have been IFB for years who have believed in mid-trib and post-trib raptures, as well as pre-trib (the predominant view) and double raptures (pre- and mid-). I'm not really surprised by much that people believe - especially IFB.

In one of my college classes, we were discussing prophecy. The president of this college was a good friend of Ian Paisley's, but did not agree with him on prophecy and infant baptism. Paisley is a mid-tribber. Anyway, the teacher in that class was showing us why Paisley was wrong in his trib beliefs - using the verses IP uses. As we walked out of that class, I told another student that if I weren't convinced in my own mind in a pre-trib rapture, it would have been easy to sway me to believe in a mid-trib rapture. That was absolutely not the effect the teacher was going for, but it was a result of looking at scripture the way a mid-tribber does.

That said: we all need to be convinced in our minds and hearts of what we believe, and it has to be grounded totally in scripture - rightly divided. If we are not, a forum can simply mess us up. And, while we are convinced in our own minds, if we are to be biblical, we must refrain from the type of confrontation that is conflict for the purpose of conflict (which many often use and claim it to be a defense of the "faith").

Verses can be applied in a variety of ways, prompting a variety of beliefs around that same topic. Is it heresy? Well, we need to be careful of flinging that word around. It's been applied on the forum lately like a battering ram. Folks who don't agree with other folks on one little thing claim the others are heretics. And vice versa. Yes, there is real heresy presented at times. But often the label is given because the labeler can't think of any other way to erm, uh - undermine the other person's point of view. We all want to be right (and I always am... :nuts: :nuts: NOT!). But that doesn't make anyone who disagrees with us heretics.


And before I'm accused of moral relativism, just stop and think about what I've said, folks. Jesus tells us "By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another." Yes, I know. Some folks think that blasting at others to browbeat or sarcasm them into agreement is defense of the faith and thereby love. But it isn't. We can be firm without being obnoxious...

Look at some of the things that have been thrown around the forum lately. Some of the wording, attitude, etc. Some adults on here sound like children. And I guarantee that you wouldn't allow your children to speak to each other in that manner. Well, not if you're a good parent, anyway. But it's justified on here in the name of defending the faith... Look at that verse again. "Love one to another."

Not for another. TO. We can have love for someone and treat them awful. As has been done multiple times on this forum of late. OR we can be active and proactive and obey scripture. TO is an active preposition, for is not.

Let's show love to one another. Yes, be firm in your stance. Support your position with scripture. But do it scripturally and not like a recalcitrant child would do.

It's not my intention to ruffle feathers, but if I have, so be it.

The only issue I have with this is the inconsistency.
(And I know it is hard).
This most recent SDA guy was not mean nor abusive in any way - yet was banned simply because he was defending his position.

Yet there are some here who have been contentious, mean, attacking, and bullying, and at most they are told to settle down, and often allowed to simply roam unhindered, apparently because they call themselves baptists.

There are threads I won't post in now because I can't be bothered fielding the flack these people will give me.
They win. There is no opposition to their lies not because they are right but because they get away with it.

Edited by DaveW, 24 April 2014 - 06:45 PM.


#110 LindaR

LindaR

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,115 posts
467
Excellent

Posted 24 April 2014 - 09:20 PM

Off topic...

 

DaveW...that SDA guy was banned from this forum twice...once as AWHN and then as banner over me was love.  It is obvious he was spamming his false SDA doctrine and came back on here under false pretenses.  He wasn't just "defending his position".



#111 DaveW

DaveW

    Resident Aussie and general dumb bloke

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,382 posts
1,918
Excellent
  • LocationI'm a West Aussie

Posted 24 April 2014 - 09:33 PM

Off topic...

DaveW...that SDA guy was banned from this forum twice...once as AWHN and then as banner over me was love. It is obvious he was spamming his false SDA doctrine and came back on here under false pretenses. He wasn't just "defending his position".


I know who and what he is, but the fact remains that he was this time participating in a civil and reasoned discussion. It most certainly was going to go the way of the previous - there is no doubt of that - but at the time he was banned the discussion was civil.
Contrast that with the actions of some on here and the bullying that has gone on and still does.

Inconsistency is what it is.
There are some here who promote false doctrines just like that guy, but they do it with spite and false accusations and misrepresentations and LIES, but because they CLAIM to be IFB - or not in some cases - they are allowed to continue along their merry, bullying ways.......

The mods have a really difficult job, but right now I think it is overwhelming them to some extent.

#112 Ukulelemike

Ukulelemike

    Just a Servant

  • Moderators
  • 2,518 posts
1,983
Excellent
  • LocationNE California

Posted 25 April 2014 - 12:50 AM

Mike, that is a very narrow view of the word.
In a motor race for instance, is the guy who was last in the last race the last guy ever to come last? Or will there be another race next week in which someone will come last?

Last does not always mean last ever - it could be last of a particular set.

Well, we ARE talking, generally, on the subject of "The Bible Only", right? The Bible says, its the last trump. It doesn't qualify that with any other description, as in, the last of the feast of trumpets in 2020, or the last trump of the seven or the last trumpet trump made by Sachmo-it just says, "the last trump." As such, to assume anything else, ESPECIALLY when a major set of events in the last days is seven major heavenly events which are associated with trumpets (trumping, I assume), there is every reason why it would be most natural to associate the last trump with the last trumpet sound mentioned in the Bible as part of the end of the world as we know it.. Anything other than this is mere conjecture.



#113 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,482 posts
561
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 25 April 2014 - 06:19 PM

You've got to be kidding me, Invicta.  Covenanter doesn't believe in the rapture of the saints.  He referred to it as the "fake rapture" in many posts.

I would like to see where Covenanter said that..He may have said that the pre trib rapture theory was fake, but he has said that he does believe we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the Air.  How could he believe any differently when that is what the bible says?  However whjat the scripture does not say is that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air before the tribulation.  

Besides, Calvinists aren't "rightly dividing the word of truth."  When are Calvinists going to see that preterism is not a Biblical doctrine?  

 

I don't know any preterists apart from Covenanter.  Darby the inventor of dispensationalism was a Calvinist and was a futurist, so I can't see you point here.



#114 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,482 posts
561
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 25 April 2014 - 06:52 PM

HC, so you don't believe that "Replacement Theology" is heresy?  I have said this before, but I feel like I am back in the RCC with the Calvinists on this site.  And, they DO NOT know how to "rightly divide the word of truth."  They should be labeled as heretics, b/c they are spewing false doctrine, from the depths of hell.  Yet, they continue to get away with this garbage on an IFB site and the rest of us are told that we are being contentious?  There is something seriously wrong with that.  Not only do former IFB's on Facebook not want to come back to OB, many on this site are not posting b/c of this nonsense.  It must be stopped.  It is not Biblical.  I was contacted by a young man, on Facebook, who goes to a non-denominational church. He is hungry for the word of God.  I was thinking about recommending this site to him, but thought again.  I certainly would not want him to pick up any false doctrine on this site.  The dogma that is spewed all the time by the Calvinists should be taken to CARM, where they would be welcomed with open arms.   

 

That is a somewhat abusive post,

 

I know of only one preterist who is a 'Calvinist' so I do not know why you connect them together.

 

I have a friend who is a charismatic, and he is also a dispensationalist.  So should I say that all sispies are charismatics?  I don't think so.  



#115 prophet1

prophet1

    Senior Member

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 701 posts
215
Excellent

Posted 25 April 2014 - 09:42 PM

That is a somewhat abusive post,

I know of only one preterist who is a 'Calvinist' so I do not know why you connect them together.

I have a friend who is a charismatic, and he is also a dispensationalist. So should I say that all sispies are charismatics? I don't think so.

I would say that all dispys are choking on a charismatic gnat.

Anishinaabe



#116 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 26 April 2014 - 10:02 AM

That is a somewhat abusive post,

 

I know of only one preterist who is a 'Calvinist' so I do not know why you connect them together.

 

I have a friend who is a charismatic, and he is also a dispensationalist.  So should I say that all sispies are charismatics?  I don't think so.  

 

By Covenanter's own testimony he admits it, Invicta.

This is from Ukelelemike's thread, that he opened up for discussion, on why he does not believe in a pre-trib "catching away."


 

"Without hijacking the thread, it may be helpful to explain my position & why I am here.
 
I was brought up in the church of England, where my understanding of eschatology was limited to the Apostles' Creed:
... he ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father Almighty:
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead ....... The resurrection of the body ....
I was converted at 18 (1957), I read through the Bible & was introduced to an Independent Evangelical church a few days before I went to university.
I joined the Christian Union, attended their meetings, including prayer, & was baptised at the local Evangelical church in in the university town in December 57. The CU was present there, & that was when my wife first noticed me.
 
I did not know that the subject of eschatology was controversial, until students with their Scofield Bibles talked about the  millennium. I asked my home Pastor, & he gave me "More than Conquerers" by Hendriksen, which dismisses the Preterist position, states the historical amil position - that NT Bible prophecy, particularly Revelation runs from Pentecost to the second coming. The book includes a Biblical critique of Scofield teaching. I accepted & agreed with what I read. My Pastor explained that the founder of the FIEC (churches & fellowships that had left their denomination to uphold the inspiration & authority of the Bible) was strongly premil, but on consultation the statement on the second coming was deliberately ambiguous.
The Lord Jesus Christ will return in glory. He will raise the dead and judge the world in righteousness. The wicked will be sent to eternal punishment and the righteous will be welcomed into a life of eternal joy in fellowship with God. God will make all things new and will be glorified forever.
 
After graduation & marriage, we moved to Southall & joined the local Evangelical church. After a time the teaching became strongly dispensational, influenced by a group who had joined just before we did, when their previous church joined the World Council of Churches. We left, & only rejoined when the church called an amil Pastor. For the next 20 years or so, my views were not challenged. In the 90s, I preached through Revelation from the amil historical viewpoint, using Hendriksen as my guide. The churches I attend hold to the amil position, not Preterist.
 
With the heightened interest in the last days - the popularity of "Left Behind" & such, I did take an interest in the detailed interpretation of eschatology, aided by my wife (of nearly 52 years), who took her degree in History & Theology. [My degree is in Chemistry.] I was also discussing these things on an Internet forum "Reachout Trust" which is concerned with heretical sects & questionable teaching - I met Invicta there. The late founder of the RT was strongly disp. That gave me what I believe to be a good understanding of all sides of the discusion, & led me into a "partial Preterist" position, whereby I believe OT prophecy is fulfilled in Christ & his redeeming work, that NT prophecy (Olivet, Thessalonians & Revelation) is largely fulfilled by the AD 70 destruction, & that in Christ the promises to Abraham are fulfilled - including Gen. 12:
2 and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
I further believe that the OT promises to Israel, national & land, include believing Jews & Gentiles as one redeemed people of God, who are called by the present Gospel, & will be perfectly fulfilled in the NH&NE when Jesus returns for resurrection & judgment.
 
Please don't allow the thread to be hijacked by replying to this post. I am simply telling you how I understand what I believe & teach."


#117 Invicta

Invicta

    Super Contributor

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,482 posts
561
Excellent
  • LocationWhitstable, Kent, England

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:06 PM

 

 

 

By Covenanter's own testimony he admits it, Invicta.

This is from Ukelelemike's thread, that he opened up for discussion, on why he does not believe in a pre-trib "catching away."


 

Exactly.  He doesn't believe in the pre trib "catching away", but then the church never did before 1800. He does believe that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, which is what the scriptures actually say.  

 

The pre trib view is false, and as one former dispensationalist wrote.

 

..........,we have here to do with a system of teaching which, whether true or false, is of the most radical sort.  Hence if true, it is most astonishing that not one of the godly and spiritual teachers of all the Christian centuries had so much as a glimpse of it; and if false, it is high time its character were exposed and the whole system dealt with accordingly.  And inasmuch as it contradicts what every Christian teacher, without a known exception, has held to be the indisputable truth of scripture concerning the gospel of God and the kingdom of God, it clearly belongs in the category of those "divers and strange doctrines," against which we are specially warned (# Heb 13:9).  For it is undeniably "diverse" from all that has been hitherto taught the people of God, and it is altogether "strange" to their ears.  This I deem worthy of specific emphasis, and hence would ask the reader to keep constantly in mind the fact of the absolute novelty of dispensationalism.  For here is modernism in the strictest sense; and it is all the more to be feared and shunned because it comes to us in the guise and garb of strict orthodoxy. 
 

 

 

The above writer also said in 1923, that the doctrine was brought to New York in about 1900, 

 

   
 
  From what I have been able to gather by inquiry of others (who were "in Christ before me") the new system of doctrine we are now discussing was first brought to the vicinity of New York by a very gifted and godly man, Mr. Malachi Taylor, (one of the "Brethren") who taught it with much earnestness and plausibility.  That was near the beginning of the present century, either a little before of a little after. 
 
 
And among those who heard and were captivated by it (for truly there is some strange fascination inherent in it) was the late Dr. C. I. Scofield, who was so infatuated with it that he proceeded forthwith to bring out the new edition of the entire Bible, having for its distinctive feature that the peculiar doctrines of this new dispensationalism are woven into the very warp and woof thereof, in the form of notes, headings, subheadings and summaries.  There is no doubt whatever that it is mainly to this cleverly executed work that dispensationalism owes its present vogue.  For without that aid it doubtless would be clearly seen by all who give close attention to the doctrine, that it is a humanly contrived system that has been imposed upon the Bible, not a scheme of doctrine derived from it. 
 

 

 

Before 1800, almost all Baptists believed that the Pope is the antichrist, but after, the new teaching and Scofield changed all that.



#118 John81

John81

    Running to Win

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 60,977 posts
5,460
Excellent

Posted 26 April 2014 - 06:37 PM

Spurgeon wrote some things worthy of reading on the matter of the "new teaching (as Spurgeon called it) of dispensationalism which he said Darby introduced. According to Spurgeon, if Darby hadn't been such a gifted orator few would have given this new teaching an ear. As it was, some people took to the new teaching almost entirely due to Darby's oratory skills.

 

In any event, it's interesting to read what a contemporary of Darby thought of the matter as it was occurring.



#119 Genevanpreacher

Genevanpreacher

    Seeker of God's Wisdom

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 991 posts
261
Excellent
  • LocationIndiana, USA

Posted 26 April 2014 - 07:29 PM

A slightly different aspect which has spoken around but not directly addressed.

There are those here who seem to be bold in proclaiming that they ONLY use the Bible to study.

That is fine, and it should be our primary source.
And any other material used should be carefully considered in many aspects, of course.

But if you reject all other material, then you are losing out on understanding and depth from the Scriptures that is not available without certain outside information.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE THE BIBLE IN ANY WAY, but can bring a depth and richness to understanding what the Scriptures say.

 

Interestin' question!

 

I read and study the Geneva Bible, (1560 edition only). It clarifies everything Baptists that I know preach and teach. In my opinion it is so much more clear than studying commentaries that are from modern preachers, and the text does not support baptismal regeneration, of which I have had mega discussions with the 'church of christ' cult. It plainly tells that baptism does not save at all.

 

So to say 'bible only'? Yes, mine has a built in commentary, from the one's who translated the text.

 

I know most here will disagree with my stand, but that is MY stand, and I do not expect anyone else to do anything other than stand on their own convictions. I try not to be antagonistic, especially since first coming on here and getting lambasted by 'mean and angry' brothers that showed NO mercy.

 

I regret starting out that way, but that is in the past, and I am trying to listen and learn more, and keep my 'conviction' somewhat silent compared to previously.

 

I have really enjoyed things since. I am learning bunches and hope I do not get banned for being the same type of Christian, but using the Geneva 1560.

 

Have mercy.

 

By the way, I ran out of likes! So many good things in this thread, except the arguing.


Edited by Genevanpreacher, 26 April 2014 - 07:31 PM.


#120 candlelight

candlelight

    Super Contributor

  • *Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,358 posts
747
Excellent

Posted 27 April 2014 - 06:31 AM

Exactly.  He doesn't believe in the pre trib "catching away", but then the church never did before 1800. He does believe that we will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air, which is what the scriptures actually say.  

 

The pre trib view is false, and as one former dispensationalist wrote.

 

 

The above writer also said in 1923, that the doctrine was brought to New York in about 1900, 

 

   

 

Before 1800, almost all Baptists believed that the Pope is the antichrist, but after, the new teaching and Scofield changed all that.

 

You ignored the whole point of my post, Invicta.  Coevenanter is a "partial preterist" according to his testimony.  That is not Biblical, nor does it "rightly divide the word of truth."  Please re-read what I wrote.  It is painfully obvious that is the problem I have with him, not what he believes in eschatology as far as the "rapture" of the saints.   Convenater believes God is done with the Jews.  And, you have taken it upon yourself to speak for him.  "Birds of a feather..."  
 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

The Fundamental Top 500IFB1000 The Fundamental Top 500