Understanding Hebrews -2

[Invicta]

This is a lie.
You know it is a lie, for the issue has been proven many times in other threads.

Dispensational teaching was in existence before Darby or Scofield.
It is therefore impossible that they were the originators.

You need to stop repeating this lie which you know to be a lie.

That however has no bearing on whether or not it is scriptural.
Certainly the rubbish that some here call Dispensational is absolute trash.

 

That is not a lie.  It has never been shown, only alleged.  You can only write that as one who is ignorant of the history.  

[Invicta]

 

A coupla quotes from Larkins book on Dispy -

 

The "Preterist School"-originated with the Jesuit Alcazar. His view was first put forth as a complete scheme in his work on the Apocalypse, published in A. D. 1614*[notice note below] . It limits the scope of the Apocalypse to the events of the Apostle john's life, and affirms that the whole prophecy was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus, and the subsequent fall of the persecuting Roman Empire, thus making the Emperor Nero the "Antichrist." The purpose of the scheme was transparent, it was to relieve the Papal Church from the stigma of being called the "Harlot Church" and the Pope from being called the "Antichrist." It is a view that is now but little advocated.

 

The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into OBlivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "Anti-Types" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.

 

So Jesuits started this mess?

 

[*Just a little 'eye opener' on this 'fact', in 1560 the bible notes were 'preterist'. That was a little before 1614.]

 

 

It was well before 1614 when Alcazar published his work.  He died in 1613.  The following extract will give some idea.

 

 

Next we come to consider the time of the rise of the Futurist system as we now have it, and the occasion which led to it.
    So great a hold did the conviction that the Papacy was the Antichrist gain upon the minds of men, that Rome at last saw she must bestir herself, and try, by putting forth other systems of interpretation, to counteract the identification of the Papacy with the Antichrist.
    Accordingly, towards the close of the century of the Reformation, two of her most learned doctors set themselves to the task, each endeavouring by different means to accomplish the same end, namely, that of diverting men's minds from perceiving the fulfilment of the prophecies of the Antichrist in the Papal system. The Jesuit Alcasar devoted himself to bring into prominence the Preterist method of interpretation, which we have already briefly noticed, and thus endeavoured to show that the prophecies of Antichrist were fulfilled before the Popes ever ruled in Rome, and therefore could not apply to the Papacy. On the other hand the Jesuit Ribera tried to set aside the application of these prophecies to the Papal Power by bringing out the Futurist system, which asserts that these prophecies refer properly not to the career of the Papacy, but to that of some future supernatural individual, who is yet to appear, and to continue in power for three and a half years. Thus, as Alford says, the Jesuit Ribera, about A.D. 1580, may be regarded as the Founder of the Futurist system in modern times.
    It is a matter for deep regret that those who hold and advocate the Futurist system at the present day, Protestants as they are for the most part, are thus really playing into the hands of Rome, and helping to screen the Papacy from detection as the Antichrist. It has been well said that "Futurism tends to OBliterate the brand put by the Holy Spirit upon Popery." More especially is this to be deplored at a time when the Papal Antichrist seems to be making an expiring effort to regain his former hold on men's minds. Now once again, as at the Reformation, it is especially necessary that his true character should be recognized, by all who would be faithful to "the testimony of Jesus."

From Daniel and the Revelation: The Chart of Prophecy and Our Place In It, A Study of the Historical and Futurist Interpretation, by Joseph Tanner, published in London by Hodder and Stoughton, 1898, pages 16,17.

 

 

[wretched]

Many in this thread base your faith on men's ideas. It is shockingly pathetic.

 

Get in the Book. Be learned of God and not of men.

 

The most grossly overt in men's learning are OBvious in these threads. Bible study to them is what I have mentioned before - muttenhead's ideas in books sold as filthy merchandise of God. 

[Genevanpreacher]

Many in this thread base your faith on men's ideas. It is shockingly pathetic.

 

Get in the Book. Be learned of God and not of men.

 

The most grossly overt in men's learning are OBvious in these threads. Bible study to them is what I have mentioned before - muttenhead's ideas in books sold as filthy merchandise of God. 

 

Can you tell us which one's you are referring to, please.

[DaveW]

That is not a lie. It has never been shown, only alleged. You can only write that as one who is ignorant of the history.

John Edwards 1637 - 1716
Pierre Poiret 1646 - 1719
Isaac Watts 1674 - 1748
John Taylor 1994 - 1751
John Fletcher 1729 - 1785
John Priestly 1733 - 1804
David Bogue 1750 - 1825
Adam Clarke 1762 - 1832

Not to mention Justin Martyr and Irenaeus had teachings of differing administration's, both of whom were between about 100 and 200 AD.

These all had some form of dispensational style teaching.

John Darby 1800 - 1882

John - note this list and this post so that next time this false information is posted you can point to it.

This kind of stuff has been poster before and I know he knows this because he was involved.

There is only two possibilities for someone who posts that Darby was the inventor of this.
Either he is ignorant of the historical facts, or he is being deliberately deceitful.

I know he has read lists such as this before ...... you figure out what it means.....

And by the way - if ONLY ONE of these men is found to have followed a dispensational style of theology it means his statement is false.
So Mr Invicta - start discrediting the men on the list.
When you are done with them I will post more.

Darby is not the inventor of dispensationalism.
You are either ignorant or a liar - and I know you have read this info before......

By the way - none of this has any bearing on whether or not dispensational teaching is true.
That needs to be based on the Bible.

But it does say a lot about those who make false representations.

[Genevanpreacher]

Bro. Dave, I remember this list too. But just because someone else believed it, does not have any weight on the truth, whether for or against.

My bible leans heavily towards partial preterism in the notes of the gloss, and it predates even the so-called dates of the 'origin' of dispensationalism

by Clarence Larkin.

 

I know nothing about Clarence, and I am sure he was a great teacher of some import, but he still is not God.

So even if Justin Martyr believed it, that means nothing to me. 

 

There were people in Peter's day and Paul's day that taught 'anti-christ' teachings, and we put no import on them.

 

It's all in the scriptures, that's where the import is, and if what I believe to be the proper 'view' of scripture, that is for me, it may not be for you.

But can we discuss it? Maybe there is something that you or I can say that might open the eyes of some.

Or maybe my eyes will be opened to your belief.

 

Preaching makes 'sense' of what the scriptures say, that's what they did. [Nehemiah 8:7&8] And they were all brethren doing it.

 

8:7 Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodijah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Hanan, Pelaiah, and the Levites, caused the people to understand the law: and the people stood in their place.

8:8 So they read in the book in the law of God distinctly, and gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

[wretched]

Can you tell us which one's you are referring to, please.

 

The folks that keep quoting men, it is sad. Regardless of century, they are just muttenhead's like us with the same wretched flesh we have. Not to mention THEY ALL WANTED PAYMENT.

 

Where in God's Word does He even hint at us writing about Him and His Word? Making merchandise of God is all He says of it. His Word is complete and any additional books about Him is outrageously arrogant.

[Genevanpreacher]

The folks that keep quoting men, it is sad. Regardless of century, they are just muttenhead's like us with the same wretched flesh we have. Not to mention THEY ALL WANTED PAYMENT.

 

Where in God's Word does He even hint at us writing about Him and His Word? Making merchandise of God is all He says of it. His Word is complete and any additional books about Him is outrageously arrogant.

 

Read post #111 the bottom verses. I know they didn't write, but they did expound the scriptures.

In the NT they searched the scriptures daily. You are correct about men and their writings though, it's all a money thing.

 

But I don't study men's books on the bible, and I came up with what some men call 'false doctrine'.

 

Yet they 'prove' my error by quoting men's teachings.

 

What's a guy to do?

[DaveW]

GP - that is actually stated in my post - the origin of the teaching is irrelevant - if it is Biblical, it is biblical: if it is not, then it is not.

But he lies about the origin of it.

I have no idea who most of the men on the list are or what they believe otherwise - but they all predate Darby, and all have a form of dispensational teaching.

I actually don't agree with most of what has been presented as dispensational teaching here, to the point that I don't consider myself to be a dispensationalists at all.
But when this guy in particular says IFB are wrong because they follow Darby, then I must point out the error.
I don't recall ever hearing the name Darby before such accusations were passed around on this site.
But I don't follow him, and I certainly don't agree with his general teachings.

This HAS been presented before, and he continues to lie about it.
I know that sounds harsh, but he is not ignorant of the facts - that leaves only one option....

[Covenanter]

 

DaveW

John Edwards 1637 - 1716
Pierre Poiret 1646 - 1719
Isaac Watts 1674 - 1748
John Taylor 1994 - 1751
John Fletcher 1729 - 1785
John Priestly 1733 - 1804
David Bogue 1750 - 1825
Adam Clarke 1762 - 1832

 

That list was discussed in the link my post #105 above.

 

 

Steve Schwenke

That is what Walker and I are communicating.  We are not saying that the men he listed taught a system that was anything like what we teach today, but rather that there were similar elements within their body of teaching that fits into some areas of our teaching that today are considered uniquely "dispensational."  Watts idea of a restoration of Israel and a future millennium do not fit within the scheme of modern "covenant theology" teachings, but rather into the mold of modern "dispensational" teaching.   The words I have bolded should help you distinguish the main idea being advanced.

 

[DaveW]

That list was discussed in the link my post #105 above.

The list is one I compiled from a few sources this morning.

I absolutely concede that these men may be wonky.
I absolutely concede that Darby did not copy his stuff directly from them.

What the list proves is that dispensationalism was known before Darby was even born.

It doesn't in any way prove that it is true (or false!)

It proves that Invicta is 100% wrong in his statement regarding the origins of dispensationalism.

[Covenanter]

That list was discussed in the link my post #105 above.

 

 

The list is one I compiled from a few sources this morning.

I absolutely concede that these men may be wonky.
I absolutely concede that Darby did not copy his stuff directly from them.

What the list proves is that dispensationalism was known before Darby was even born.

It doesn't in any way prove that it is true (or false!)

It proves that Invicta is 100% wrong in his statement regarding the origins of dispensationalism.

 

Yes - your list isn't the same. I've just looked back at the link which had the list:

 

William Gouge - 1575-1653

Pierre Poiret - 1646-1719

Isaac Watts - 1674-1748

John Flechiere - 1729-1785

John Taylor of Norwich - 1694-1751

John Priestly - 1733-1804

David Bogue - 1750-1825

George Faber - 1773-1843

Adam Clarke - 1762-1832

David Russell - 1779-1848

 It comes down to a fruitless argument over words, & whether the use of "dispensation" means what modern (post Darby) dispensationalists teach. There are, presumably, elements of agreement in the various writers, such as the future salvation of Israel, & future millennium, tribulation, etc, but I do not propose to study them - I did consider Watts, & rejected the claim to him being a "proto-dispensationalist."

 

The essential agreement is that in this Gospel "dispensation" salvation is by grace, OBtained by repentance & faith in Christ, & evidenced by godly living; that salvation is secure; that Jesus will return for resurrection & judgement; and will establish his eternal kingdom of righteousness in a new heaven & new earth. 

 

In these Hebrews studies, it seems people are eager to pounce on what they consider heresy, rather than build up Scriptural understanding.

[DaveW]

My point to Invicta was always that the basic idea of dispensationalism - a difference in the way God interacts with men - has been seen historically prior to Darby or Scofield.
These two men were certainly the ones who formulated the specifics, but the general thesis of divisions of administration was well known prior to their works.

His basic argument is that it is wrong because Darby invented it.

My argument is that he is lying because he knows that is simply not the case.

Dispensationalism as has been promoted on this site by some (so called right dividers) is a vile misrepresentation of God's Word - but not because of some association with Darby - because it is unbiblical.

Lying about its origin makes no difference as to its veracity.

Let's for now ignore that associated doctrines of the men on the list.
They each divided God's interaction with men according to what many call dispensations today.

For instance Irenaeus I believe had four divisions, others of that list has six, I believe Scofield promotes seven???, and I assume Darby did, since Scofield apparently leaned heavily on Darby.

The number and precise divisions are unimportant - the basic idea of divisions was taught by men as far back as 100 - 200 AD.

[John81]

Where is the teaching of Dispensationalism from all these? Just because someone taught on one point that Dispensationalists believe doesn't mean they were a dispensationalist.

 

Some Calvinists hold to a view of eternal security the same as you and I but that doesn't make our views the same as Calvinist.

 

Dispensationalism is a broad system. Many hold to similar beliefs with regards to end times prophecy that some Dispensationalist do yet they reject dispensationalism itself. I know many pre-trib rapture Christians who reject dispensationalism as unbiblical.

 

Was Dispenationalsim as Darby taught and is held to by dispensationalists today something others put forth prior to Darby?

[John81]

The folks that keep quoting men, it is sad. Regardless of century, they are just muttenhead's like us with the same wretched flesh we have. Not to mention THEY ALL WANTED PAYMENT.

 

Where in God's Word does He even hint at us writing about Him and His Word? Making merchandise of God is all He says of it. His Word is complete and any additional books about Him is outrageously arrogant.

Just because someone quotes men doesn't mean they are following man or that they aren't studying the Word. If someone says we should believe something just because Polycarp, Wesley, Rice, Chappell, Stanley, Smith or Osteen said so, then that would be following men. However, gleaning from other men what they learned from the study of Scripture, even as we examine their work by Scripture ourselves, is not following men.

 

Some of what is being discussed in this particular thread has to do with whether or not there has been a particular teaching that's been consistently held to by Christians for centuries or if it's a relatively new teaching. That, in part, is a relevant means of study of the Scripture as well.

 

For example, If "A" has been consistently taught for 2,000 years but it seems "B" (which differs from "A") has only been a teaching for a hundred years, then we need to very closely examine this new teaching. In studying to see why some hold to "B" now, and looking to what those who taught "A" had to say, and then comparing it all with Scripture (in much prayer) we may grasp a more in-depth understanding of the Word as we come across things we may not have considered before.

 

As a study tool, the sermons and writings of some men can be beneficial. Yet in all things, Scripture is the only sure and final authority. Whether a favorite preacher or one we disdain, all they put forth must (or at least should) be measured by the Word of God.

 

Unless I've missed it, I don't think anyone is posting men's quotes in a manner to suggest they are following men, but rather as a part of the overall study of some issues.