Nang's SPOTD is Tet's Hit Out of the Park!
- Thread starter Nang
- Start date
- Status
musterion
Well-known member
http://freegracefreespeech.blogspot.com/2011/11/darby-vs-moody-on-limited-atonement.html
Let's see how much Nang hates Darby now.
Let's see how much Nang hates Darby now.
musterion
Well-known member
The cult clownshow just keeps getting worse.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
Darby was never Reformed. He was anti-Arminian. The Plymouth Brethren are rabidly anti-Arminian and hate with a passion the teachings of Billy Graham.
Moody was Arminian, and the Moody people love Billy Graham.
I am Reformed, which all Arminians oppose. Because Reformers do not agree with the teachings of Moody, or Billy Graham.
I am not Dispensationalist, being a student of Covenant Theology, so I do not agree with Darby or Dispensationalists, either . . mainly for the same reason Spurgeon opposed Darby's dispensationalism that denies the doctrine of "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness."
So your attempt to create a linear relationship amongst these factions goes nowhere and can get quite confusing.
Reformers opposed the Roman Catholic Church that teaches faith plus works. Reformers are those who believe in Justification by Faith, alone and Faith being sovereignly gifted to men, by the grace of God alone, through the cross work of Jesus Christ, alone, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures, alone, to the glory of God, alone:
Sola Fide
Solis Gratia
Solus Christus
Sola Scriptura
Soli Deo Gloria
If Darby disagreed with the doctrine of "Imputation of Christ's Righteousness." as I understand it, I disagree with him on that as well.
Well then call me a reformer though I am aware you and I have some differences on the sovereignty of God.
The more I read about Darby the more I find that I have never agreed with much of what he taught. Tet needs to quit accusing people falsely.
I never read anything from Darby yet, TeT keeps accusing me
of being a Darby follower! I don't get it?
musterion
Well-known member
Same here. I've never read a thing the man wrote and knew only dimly he was a Calvinist. So is Chafer but it doesn't seem to get in the way so I enjoy reading his stuff. Charles F. Baker was a stauncher Calvinist than Chafer; so is Robert Brock, both brilliant mid-Acts dudes. But Darby? I never owned or read a thing. However, I am now curious what his view of imputation actually was. The reformed opposing it may or may not be a bad thing; I'll let the man speak for himself.
musterion
Well-known member
If you [meaning Nang and Tetzo] can convince yourself Darby or whoever invented dispensationalism (and he didn't "invent" it), then everyone who is a dispensationalist is automatically a Darbyite whether they know it or not. It's really lazy, childish logic, but that's the attraction: it's easy to use as a club and you don't have to do your own research. Just label them and slander them. It's about all you can expect.
glorydaz
Well-known member
:e4e:
musterion
Well-known member
Also notice that upon learning Darby (reportedly) was as hardline a Calvinist as she is -- making Darby have more in common with HER than with us on some very important salvation issues -- Nang simply waves that aside and dismisses it. Why? The destruction of dispensationalism trumps all other concerns because she is Israel. Calvinist or not, Darby questioned that, to some extent...so he must be destroyed.
glorydaz
Well-known member
It is a trick. :chuckle:
To the natural man, his own volition is just that.... his own. He is only made to do something by his own selfishness. Therefore he gets to take all the credit for bearing the burdens of others, etc. What Tet refuses to acknowledge is that the love of God is shed abroad on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We are new creatures....all things are new. The old man cannot show forth the love of God no matter how hard he tries BECAUSE he doesn't have it IN him.
So, whatever "burden bearing" the natural man does (not being indwelt by the Spirit) is nothing more than "filthy rags". They may look good to the eyes of men, but they are without true agape LOVE ..... without the fruit of the Spirit.
No trick, just the words of Paul
(Rom 12:1 KJV) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.
Do you know what the word "beseech" means?
Maybe a modern version will help you:
(Rom 12:1 NIV) Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.
What is Paul urging the brothers and sisters to do?
Your previous explanation was very bad. You claimed believers are a living sacrifice. You somehow failed to see that Paul was talking to people already saved.
Nang
TOL Subscriber
What are your reasons for calling these men "Calvinists?"
Believing in a form of predestination is not cause. Islamics believe in fatalistic predestination, and that does not make them Calvinists.
Baker and Chafer were hyperdispensationalists.
So I question what your definition of "Calvinist" really is . . .
Darby and Scofield are best known for publishing their own versions of the Bible and adding commentary to revise all to fit their faulty Eschatology.
One of Craigie the clown's continual, deceitful, "arguments" against dispensationalism, an "argument" on which I've challenged him , ever since he started spamming it, years ago, when he went insane, and which punts addressing, continuing to spam it, is that since "no one taught" dispensationalism, until the "mid 1800's," citing it's "origin" with Darby,Bullinger, it is thus false, and what he refers to, as "invented"-that's his cute little word, of sophistry, which he thinks "clinches the deal." It's a deceptive ploy, at best, and, at worst satanic. To wit:
1. When you discover objective truth, has no bearing as to the veracity of objective truth. And belief makes nothing true, and lack of belief, makes nothing false. Faith trusts the truth, that has already existed, despite anyone knowing it/not knowing it/believing it/not believing it, but it does not determine it.
Repeating
iscovery, realizing, understanding, objective truth, has no bearing on objective truth. Objective truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge(ignorance=lack of knowledge) of it. Gravity existed prior to Isaac Newton being "ignorant" of it, for eg., and............."No, it's because of Bullinger. Not one person ever taught the ridiculous notion that the seven extant churches in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) that are addressed in Revelation are yet future churches....More Bullinger rubbish "-Craigie the Clown
If it did:
-"God the Father," was not "God the Father," according to Tet., as no one taught it, until the Saviour arrived on the scene...
Matthew 5:16 KJV
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Mark 8:38 KJV
Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.
Luke 2:49 KJV
And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?
John 1:14 KJV
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
John 6:27 KJV
Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Craigie Tet., to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he refers to most of the time as "Jesus," in a demonstration of disrespect:
"Jesus...Not one person ever taught the ridiculous notion that God is a 'Father,' that God should be addressed as 'God the Father,' until you 'invented' it. Therefore, your 'theory' is rubbish." "God the Father" is an "invention."
-The LORD God's Name," as revealed to Moses, was not such, until Moses discovered it.
-the earth was flat, at one time, until it was discovered to be "spherical." Before that, this notion of a spherical earth was an "invention."
-the principles of the "Reformation," of the 1500's, was an "invention," until then.
And on, and on...
_________________
2. This slick, "subtil"(survey Genesis 3 KJV) "invent" ploy, deceptive tactic-assuming, for the "sake of argument," that we concede that dispensationalism did have it's "origin," with Darby(only an assumption)in the mid 1800's.....Again-only an assumption, to drive home a point, re. this "invent/invention" stumper of his...
"Apples to oranges.Hanegraff didn't invent Preterism. It's indisputable that Darby invented Dispensationalism.
I challenge anyone to show me proof of who invented Preterism. If no one can, then Preterism wasn't invented like Dispensationalism was."-Craigie
I challenged him. Define "invent," you engager in sophistry. Are not all false doctrines, "invented," you child of the devil? Why do you, in your emotional, grade school, MO, find it necessary, to allegedly disprove MAD, by adding "invent?" That does NADA, for your "argument," or anyone's.
I will tell you why. He is so obsessed with allegedly disproving dispensationalism, he will resort to lying, deception, sophistry, false dichotomies, emotional pleas, crying, whining, .....
Craigie now asserts that God invents.
J. Stewart Russell "invented" AD 70-ism, by that "definition."
I've shown him proof, in thread after thread, shown this deceitful liar, the "origins" pf "AD 70-ism," which were from Stewart's book, "The Parousia," but Tet., on marching orders from his father the devil, the father of all lies, continue to lie about it.
Fallible men "invented" Preterism. They made it up.
See how that works, Craigie?
Go on record, and claim that no one taught you "AD 70-ism" and that you learned it on your own, from the bible.
He also employs this tactic, with his "of men" spam.
"You follow the inventions/theories/teachings of men."-Craigie
Again, as if that does anything for his, or anyone else's argument. I've asked him over and over:
-Who should teach us? Women? Aliens?
-Why do you add "of men" in your "argument?" Do you deny the proper place for men teachers in the body of Christ?
It's an "argument" of sophistry, and deceit, and implies that his teachings, what he has been taught, were never received by him from men-they were received directly by him from the LORD God-infallible teachings. And yet, observe the deception. I asked him, 2 1/2 years ago:
"...who taught you?"-John W
His response:
"Reading the Bible
Listening to sermons by pastors
Reading books and commentaries about the Bible
Bible Studies
Theology classes
Interacting on TOL
Having conversations with other believers
=teachings from men
The point-all false doctrines, by definition, are "invented," and that does NADA for his "argument," or anyone elses'. Truth is discovered, not invented.
His spamming "of men" is also a deceptive ploy of his obsession.All he has to do, is argue why he thinks dispensationalism if false, lay out his case, "produce" his "cause," "bring forth" his "strong reasons," and be done with it. But he does not do that, and spams "Darby...Bullinger....no one taught it before him.....teachings/inventions/theories of men " blah blahh blah, and therefore, it is false.
3.And, he lies about it:
"That's not my argument. I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Wimpy Tet.
vs.
"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.
"No matter how hard you try, you can't take away the fact that dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby in the mid 1800's...Why are most dispensationalists afraid and/or embarrassed to acknowledge that Darby invented what they believe?"-Deceiver Tet.
"... Deep down you know that your belief system has only been around for not even 50 years, and that it was "developed" by men..."-con artist Partial Preterist Soddy Tet.
"...Your false teachings of men is a false teaching since [/B]there is not one trace of it in the first three centuries. None of the early church fathers taught your theory, its only about 50 years old."-con artist Partial Preterist Soddy Tet.
"MAD didn't exist until the mid 1800's"-con artist Partial Preterist Tet.
"No, it's because of Bullinger. Not one person ever taught the ridiculous notion that the seven extant churches in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) that are addressed in Revelation are yet future churches....More Bullinger rubbish."-Craigie the Clown
Last edited:
The main points of Dispensationalism are the rapture/7 year Trib/Millennium, and the demarcation line between the church and Israel.
Nobody but Dispensationalists believe in the rapture.
Whether Acts 2, Acts 7, Acts 9, Acts 29, or any other chapter in Acts, all Dispies believe in a rapture.
The rapture was invented by Darby, and it was based on a vision.
You believe in a rapture, and you believe Israel is under a different program than the church.
No one taught either of these things until Darby did.
Confirmed again, by this demon: when you discover objective truth, determines its veracity. Thus, Cragie the Clown, again, on record, by that "argument," asserts that:
Since the concept of "God the Father," was not taught, until the Saviour arrived on the scene, it is a false doctrine.
Demon. Deception.
So what? You keep going on to me specificly about the rapture as if it were something I spend time worrying about. That is just nutty!
- Status