Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Dorightchristians - The Anon Church And Back Row Baptist


Dr James Ach

Recommended Posts

  • Members

 I found this analysis:

 

DECEIVED, AND BEING DECEIVED by Dave MacPherson

 

 

I have found the translated text of two versions here:

 

Clearly P-E teaches that the "tribulation that is to come" is Hell-fire of the final judgement. Which agrees with Paul's teaching in 2 Thes. 1.

seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; and to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that OBey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; 10 when he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

 

I don't accuse anyone on IFB, but it seems to me that there is a serious element of dishonesty in those who promote Pseudo-Ephraem as a teacher of PTR. It is now easy to check on available sources.

 

Well, I would disagree with you, and as much as I do disagree with parts of the "sermon"...it seems rather OBvious when reading the whole of the "sermon" that he relates a Pre-Trib doctrine...

 

I'm not defending Pseudo Ephraem by the way...I know nothing about him other than this "sermon", and I've personally never met him.  :coffee2:

 

That's why I said in the original post when I referenced him..."make of it what you will".

 

In my view, he's espousing Pre-Trib, and even the article from WICKEDpedia admits that it is an ancient work from "at least" the 8th century...and that's a long time before this Darby character came on the scene.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 73
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

:ot: 

As for the female Mods lets says they wasn't mods, Dr. Ach should never use a coarse phrase the way he did in front of women. There was a time when men controlled how they spoke in front of women whether a man was saved or lost. I like reading Dr. Ach's articles. I joined wordpress so I could thank him for writing them. But he should never say "shove it" as a christian. He's human and made a mistake. We have all been there. 

 

Bro Matt set up a world style system of government for this site. The Biblical system being all male. Yes, that's a mistake. BUT that's his right as owner so while you are kicking him remember he doesn't have time to be on here because he is out preaching salvation to sinners and trying to warm back to life cold half dead christians. Are we out trying to win the lost or setting down complaining on a computer? 

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

 

So a thread that's about wolves attacking us online, moved to "there is no rapture". Can anyone see the irony? This is proof of what James is saying. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Personally, I have not read any of the P-E stuff.  All I know is that the pre-trib rapture can be seen by rightly dividing the word of truth.  It is in there, and it is what the Apostle Paul taught.  The Tribulation is the time of JACOB's Trouble - and the Church is not JacOB

 

Enough said...

If "we" are going to discuss pretrib vs <whatever else> then why not post some scripture or link an old discussion? Pseudo-Ephraim is interesting but I didn't see too much Bible. I was meaning to lurk and when I got to the end of the thread all I recalled was a brief 2 Thess 1 comment by Covenanter. Is this a continuation of a discussion on another thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry MountainChristian, but I do need to say one more thing, and then I'll drop it.

 

I don't know this Dave MacPherson character either, but I did notice (in that article Covenanter posted) that he spent an awful lot of time making personal attacks against people (whom I assume) teach a Pre-Trib rapture...making a lot of nasty accusations and dragging their names through the mud to make it even nastier...and using "I won't tell you about...", and then telling about it!

 

It always resorts to attacking the character. Everything he said might be true; I don't know. But what I do know is that he lost all respect and all credibility when he resorted to character assassination...at least, he did in my view. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The reason why this EP bloke is relevant is because he discusses pre-trib well before Darby and the other that Invicta lies about being the inventors.
That this argues it well or even biblically is not actually relevant.
Invicta said Darby invented it.
When this Irving bloke was pointed out, Invicta changed his tune slightly.
Now someone from at least the 8th century refers to someone from the 4th century who talks about pre-trib.

Whether this guy is right or wrong about what he says about pre-trib is actually irrelevant - that fact it was discussed at that time PROVE that it was known of a few years before Invicta's lying claims.

This has been pointed out before, but he still rolls out his lies about it.

Whether bit is true or not is another argument - the discussion was going on in 4th century at least.
It was not invented by this Darby chap, end of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The reason why this EP bloke is relevant is because he discusses pre-trib well before Darby and the other that Invicta lies about being the inventors.
That this argues it well or even biblically is not actually relevant.
Invicta said Darby invented it.
When this Irving bloke was pointed out, Invicta changed his tune slightly.
Now someone from at least the 8th century refers to someone from the 4th century who talks about pre-trib.

Whether this guy is right or wrong about what he says about pre-trib is actually irrelevant - that fact it was discussed at that time PROVE that it was known of a few years before Invicta's lying claims.

This has been pointed out before, but he still rolls out his lies about it.

Whether bit is true or not is another argument - the discussion was going on in 4th century at least.
It was not invented by this Darby chap, end of story.

 

I don't tell lies. So please don't call me a liar.  I may make mistakes and I may make misinterpretations, but I don't tell lies.  

 

I spent many years checking on and reading anything I could find on the various interpretations and where they came from.  And anything I have posted on the matter, I have placed it in good faith believing it it be true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Invicta, the prOBlem is that you have been saying for years now that Darby "invented" the pre-trib doctrine.  There have been plenty of people - myself included - who have provided sufficient evidence to the contrary.  Yet you continue to say that pre-trib doctrine started with Darby....and even here, in the face of more evidence, you do not apologize for your spreading of this falsehood, but rather cling to a lie that we have dismantled many times over....

 

What gives?  Why can you not simply admit that you are wrong on this point?  If you reject the pre-trib rapture of the church, it is your prerogative.  But don't go around spouting the same nonsense about Darby, when we have proven you wrong on so many occasions.  This is why the others have accused you of lieing - you continue to say Darby invented the pre-trib rapture, even though we have debunked that theory several times.

 

Maybe Darby SYSTEMATIZED what many had taught before him, and maybe Darby POPULARIZED what many had taught before him - but he did not INVENT the pre-trib rapture doctrine. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I don't tell lies. So please don't call me a liar. I may make mistakes and I may make misinterpretations, but I don't tell lies.

I spent many years checking on and reading anything I could find on the various interpretations and where they came from. And anything I have posted on the matter, I have placed it in good faith believing it it be true.


This kind of stuff has been shown here before.
You ignore it.
You continue to say Darby invented it when it has been shown before that it was known well before his time.
You still keep saying Darby invented it.
Your continuance in this leads to only two possible conclusions: either you are lying with your claim, or you are calling everyone who has shown this stuff before a liar.

It is not just this time. You have been shown before.
Wear it the way it fits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Maybe Darby SYSTEMATIZED what many had taught before him, and maybe Darby POPULARIZED what many had taught before him - but he did not INVENT the pre-trib rapture doctrine. 

 

Is this what's been shown then, that it was being taught in every century, or thereabouts?

 

I don't really follow this ongoing debate but I'm guessing that Invicta is making the claim that Darby 'invented' pre-tribulation rapture because he believes that if there were no believers before Darby and loads afterwards then this is evidence for it being a private interpretation. If that's what he's arguing, then finding one or two people in history who have believed in pre-trib rapture before Darby does no harm to that argument at all, and making the point that, technically, therefore, Darby can't be said to be the 'inventor' just sounds like pedantry.

 

What would harm the argument i.m.o would be showing that regularly throughout history there have been believers of pre-trib rapture doctrine. Or to show that the whole argument was irrelevant--i.e. the doctrine is true even if there has only been a large body of believers in recent years. Maybe those arguments have been made in spades, or others I can't think of, but I do have a bit of sympathy for Invicta in that folk seem to be majoring on a technicality here and then accusing Invicta of being a liar if he doesn't abandon his whole argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...