ECT Unshackled: How Darby Stumbled Upon Dispensational Truth

[Danoh]

You are certainly free to make any assertion you want … but, at the end of the day it is just that … an assertion … with nothing offered to support it at this point.





I was not “churched” so to speak. My parents were agnostic so I came to encounter the Bible much later in life on my own. As time went by I learned to be grateful for this circumstance in that I didn't have to unlearn anything about what the Bible said. My life's circumstance was such that I was blessed to be able to study the Bible and do nothing else but that for three years. That is literally all I did … well, beside eat, drink and bathe. At the end of this time I felt familiar enough with the Bible to begin to brace my fellow man on the subject. I soon encountered the myriad species of denominational thought and my encounters with each drove me back to the Bible to better understand why I agreed or disagreed with what I encountered initially. Inevitably it lead me to try to understand the history of the various points of contention regarding denominational thought.

As fate would have it one of my first such encounters was with a friend of mine whom I had played in a couple of bands with and who considered himself a Christian. His father was a Methodist preacher. He spoke to me of the notion of a pretrib rapture and I was completely taken aback. I could not understand where he could have gotten such a notion and, without thinking, immediately had him read Matt 24. Several months later he abandoned the notion of a pretrib rapture. Then he went to work on his dad. It would have been fun to have been a fly on that wall. Suffice to say, if I am deceived in what I came to believe, as they say here in Texas, “I came by it honest.”




I understand that a branch of dispensationalism has come to hang their hat on Paul at the expense of the rest of the Bible as each successive step in the development of dispensational thought carries it's adherents further and further away from any notion that non-pauline writings are pertinent to them. Obviously I think this notion mistaken and have spent no small amount of time offering scripture that I think argues against this notion. Most, but not all of it, to no avail. To me, offering Paul's words as preeminent over Jesus' in any application you should choose has the tail wagging the dog. I would also suggest that, just because a person has reached a different conclusion than you is not evidence, a priori, that they are not objective.




… and there are those that would suggest that you have done the same … I guess you could say one man's parrot is another man's sage.

Its interesting, my own journey is in many ways similar to your above description of your own.

And yet, here we are - two flies on a wall at odds with what each asserts he has observed.

And MAD is not Romans thru Philemon.

Rather, Genesis through Revelation in light of Romans through Philemon.

At least my own is; as with anything in life, you'll have to ask each individual for their own take on that.

Say, what kind of music did you play? You still into any of that? My older brother was a lead singer in a local band back in his day. Lol, girls used to follow him home from school, to my mom's pride and amusement.

"Beh-neh, beh-neh - buh, buh, Benny and the Jets.."

Oh yeah! Lol

 

[fzappa13]

His slander, being an accuser of the brethren, per his daddy the devil's orders:

"Not to mention, Darby followers deny that Christ Jesus' one time sacrifice for sin was good enough. They claim people in the future will have to sacrifice animals for sin atonement."-Craigie Tet.

Scripture is full of prophecy that precludes Preterism (full or partial) unless you are willing to embrace some really far fetched and truly less than obvious historical events as having a biblical significance that was not considered until it was offered as biblical fulfillment of prophecy after the notion of Preterism gained footing with some.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

It is kept, but not as it was given under the law.

LA

Made up. Sit.

Not made up.

The river of Ezekiel comes from the throne of God into all of the world.

You would have it that it is made of literal water, but it is the river of life--

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

LA

 

[john w]

That Paul and his Gal 1:8-9, what did he know anyway? Hmf.

A "pre-emptive strike," musty:

Tellalie: You are in denial....Darby....I was a dispensationalist, for 25, 26, 39 years....close enough.....since Bam Bam proposed to Pebbles, when I found out that it is a "false belief system, taught by fallible men," and have since been taught by infallible men, and women, since I never follow men, you see, well, uh, urr......Bullinger....

 

[musterion]

A "pre-emptive strike," musty:

Tellalie: You are in denial....Darby....I was a dispensationalist, for 25, 26, 39 years....close enough.....since Bam Bam proposed to Pebbles, when I found out that it is a "false belief system, taught by fallible men," and have since been taught by infallible men, and women, since I never follow men, you see, well, uh, urr......Bullinger....

Or that Paul was speaking merely figuratively, with no evidence of that whatsoever.

 

[john w]

Not made up.

The river of Ezekiel comes from the throne of God into all of the world.

You would have it that it is made of literal water, but it is the river of life--

Rev 22:1 And he shewed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb.
Rev 22:2 In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

LA

Made up.


"left of all nations....rain....Jerusalem..."

LALaw:I dig Lewis Caroll's "Alice in Wonderland:"


"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means what I choose it to mean-neither more nor less".

"The question is", said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be the MASTER...that's all....When I make a word do a lot of work...I always pay it extra."

The Queen, to Alice: "The word means what I say it means."

Have a seat-the back row.

 

[Danoh]

Scripture is full of prophecy that precludes Preterism (full or partial) unless you are willing to embrace some really far fetched and truly less than obvious historical events as having a biblical significance that was not considered until it was offered as biblical fulfillment of prophecy after the notion of Preterism gained footing with some.

Told ya JohnW - Preterism is an extreme form of Reformed Theology.

Score for Barney Fifth!

 

[john w]

Or that Paul was speaking merely figuratively, with no evidence of that whatsoever.

Tellalie: Don't you believe the bible/Paul?.......You really think (fill in the blank) means...................................?...Darby....You are in denial....

 

[tetelestai]

:rotfl: how about that now - your take on how you take things to mean other than what the other party had meant by them.

There's no "take" on it Danoh.

In fact, it's really simple.

Dispensationalism claims the temple in Ezekiel is a future temple that will be built during the alleged millennial kingdom.

There are numerous verses in Ezekiel 40-48 that specifically describe animal sacrifices for sin atonement.

That creates a really big problem for Dispensationalism.

Yes, this is just one example, but it is one of numerous examples, and when added up, show that Dispensationalism cannot stand up to scripture.

You are like many of the other Dispies on TOL. You have no explanation for the verses in Ezk 40-48. That's why you have never attempted to give an explanation for them. Instead, you attack me for bringing it up.

 

[tetelestai]

That Paul and his Gal 1:8-9, what did he know anyway? Hmf.

Little Johnny W doesn't use quote tags for a reason. He took what I said, and cut off the main point.

Here is what Little Johnny W posted:

"Nick M, Butterfly, John W, and STP (maybe others) have all said that Godrulz is not saved because he doesn’t understand the Gospel the way it is supposed to be understood......."

And here is the remaining part that Little Johnny W left off on purpose:

".......according to MAD".

 

[whitestone]

Little Johnny W doesn't use quote tags for a reason. He took what I said, and cut off the main point.

Here is what Little Johnny W posted:

"Nick M, Butterfly, John W, and STP (maybe others) have all said that Godrulz is not saved because he doesn’t understand the Gospel the way it is supposed to be understood......."

And here is the remaining part that Little Johnny W left off on purpose:

".......according to MAD".

do you think your a cleaner rat?,,,

 

[tetelestai]

(Matt 24:24) For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.

Once again, the writings of Josephus confirm that what Christ Jesus prophesied in Matt 24:24 did in fact come true between 66AD - 70AD

"A false prophet was the occasion of these people's destruction, who had made a public proclamation in the city that very day, that God commanded them to get up upon the temple, and that there they should receive miraculous signs of their deliverance. Now, there was then a great number of false prophets suborned by the tyrants to impose upon the people, who denounced this to them, that they should wait for deliverance from God; and this was in order to keep them from deserting, and that they might be buoyed up above fear and care by such hopes. Now, a man that is in adversity does easily comply with such promises; for when such a seducer makes him believe that he shall be delivered from those miseries which oppress him, then it is that the patient is full of hopes of such deliverance." - The History Of The Destruction Of Jerusalem Book VI, Chapter V, Section 2

 

[fzappa13]

Its interesting, my own journey is in many ways similar to your above description of your own.

And yet, here we are - two flies on a wall at odds with what each asserts he has observed.

And MAD is not Romans thru Philemon.

Rather, Genesis through Revelation in light of Romans through Philemon.

At least my own is; as with anything in life, you'll have to ask each individual for their own take on that.

Yes. I think it both unproductive and self defeating to try and pile people in doctrinal boxes for the purpose of dismissing them. No two people agree on all points regardless of their doctrinal preferences and to lump them together precludes being able to hear that difference … and I think our differences offer the opportunity for learning if we can accept the notion that none of us knows it all.

Say, what kind of music did you play? You still into any of that? My older brother was a lead singer in a local band back in his day. Lol, girls used to follow him home from school, to my mom's pride and amusement.

"Beh-neh, beh-neh - buh, buh, Benny and the Jets.."

Oh yeah! Lol

I played it all … except Elton John, of course. :chuckle:


... and ABBA ...:nono:

 

[tetelestai]

do you think your a cleaner rat?,,,

Of course not.

I've already made it clear that I am the biggest sinner on TOL.

Little Johnny W is nothing. I've committed much bigger sins then he ever will.

 

[Nick M]

I'm curious, Nick, if you can recall the very first key distinction or two that you made on your own; without anyone having mentioned it beforehand.

Some people here absolutely helped in pointing out that the differences are in fact differences. What Paul says in Ephesians might be the most liberating thing there is. And it is not in line with what the Lord Jesus Christ, James, or Peter said.

Going into the distinctions was somebody who goes back and forth of whether or not he is "MAD" which is silly. But he like to show what Paul said in Galatians about James and the gospel, and then what James said in his letters. He even said "James is wrong". Well, no he isn't. It just isn't for me.

 

[whitestone]

Of course not.

I've already made it clear that I am the biggest sinner on TOL.

Little Johnny W is nothing. I've committed much bigger sins then he ever will.

were you saved at the cross at Calvary or do you think you were saved at some time between now and the time you were born?

 

[tetelestai]

were you saved at the cross at Calvary or do you think you were saved at some time between now and the time you were born?

(Eph 1:4) For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love

 

[Danoh]

Yes. I think it both unproductive and self defeating to try and pile people in doctrinal boxes for the purpose of dismissing them. No two people agree on all points regardless of their doctrinal preferences and to lump them together precludes being able to hear that difference … and I think our differences offer the opportunity for learning if we can accept the notion that none of us knows it all.




I played it all … except Elton John, of course. :chuckle:


... and ABBA ...:nono:

I can enjoy any kind of music but grunge, lol.

Country, soul, r&b, rock, classsic rock, rockabilly, metal, disco, rap, gangster rap, reggae, salsa, nortena, marriachi, opera, classical, jazz, big band, you name it...from Abba to Zz Top and everything in between.

Been fortunate in that..very fortunate..

Likewise with any and all theologies - I learn something from them all even in my difference with them.

All has helped me avoid the following...

Acts 17:22 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars hill and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious.

It is a principle that had enabled Paul's...

1Cor 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain the Jews; to them that are under the law, as under the law, that I might gain them that are under the law; 9:21 To them that are without law, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,) that I might gain them that are without law. 9:22 To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some.

 

[whitestone]

(Eph 1:4) For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love

you have made me cry and you don't know why,,,

 

[john w]

Little Johnny W doesn't use quote tags for a reason. He took what I said, and cut off the main point.

Here is what Little Johnny W posted:

"Nick M, Butterfly, John W, and STP (maybe others) have all said that Godrulz is not saved because he doesn’t understand the Gospel the way it is supposed to be understood......."

And here is the remaining part that Little Johnny W left off on purpose:

".......according to MAD".

Prove it, you soft little devil boy, effeminate, sickly looking loser, who habitually lies, on ervery thread.


Here is what you said, you punk:


"Nick M, Butterfly, John W, and STP (maybe others) have all said that Godrulz is not saved because he doesn’t understand the Gospel the way it is supposed to be understood."-Tellalie


You vile perverter, as you assert that you can ubderstand the gospel of Christ, any way that you want to. And lose the make up you wear, you feminine punk.And tell that to your chunky wife.


See how that works, you unemployed loser?

And learn how to spell, you high school drop out:

"Spelling was never one of my strong points."-James 2:3 KJV Craigie