Jump to content
Dr James Ach

Dorightchristians - The Anon Church And Back Row Baptist

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alimantado

This argument has been going back and forth for YEARS on this forum....yes, you read that correctly...YEARS. 

For several years now, Invicta has been repeating this falsehood that Darby invented this doctrine. 

For several years now, the rest of us have debunked that theory in many - MANY - different ways. 

Yet...

he continues to repeat that lie as if nOBody has ever disproven it! 

It really is absurd.

That is why there is such a strong reaction to him when he drops that line on us repeatedly.  By now, we have sufficiently proven that he is wrong on that point, yet he still continues to repeat the claim. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, like I say, I haven't been following these debates very closely, Steve, but I have been on this forum since before Invicta joined, and whenever I've 'popped my head in' and noticed Darby being discussed, the response to Invicta has always seemed to take the form that I described in my last post, just as it has on this occassion too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did correct my earlier post, In that Darby invented dispensationalism.  By that I mean the system known now as dispensationalism.  Historicist writers like E B Elliott and H Grattan Guinnes mentioned dispensations but not as a system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Alimantado

This argument has been going back and forth for YEARS on this forum....yes, you read that correctly...YEARS. 

For several years now, Invicta has been repeating this falsehood that Darby invented this doctrine. 

For several years now, the rest of us have debunked that theory in many - MANY - different ways. 

Yet...

he continues to repeat that lie as if nOBody has ever disproven it! 

It really is absurd.

That is why there is such a strong reaction to him when he drops that line on us repeatedly.  By now, we have sufficiently proven that he is wrong on that point, yet he still continues to repeat the claim. 

I think Invicta has attributed the INVENTION of futurism to a Jesuit - seeking to refute the Protestant teaching that the Pope was the antichrist & man of sin, ex-officio. That doctrine being taken up by Darby & others & popularised by Scofield.

 

NN raised the question in this thread, with a quote from Thomas Ice to the effect that the pre-trib rapture (PTR) was clearly taught in a sermon by Pseudo-Ephraem dating from 400-700 AD. Ice clearly approaches S-Ephraem looking for PTR teaching, & sees it in this line:

"All the saints and elect of God are gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord, in order that they may not see at any time the confusion which overwhelms the world because of our sins."

That could be understood as teaching PTR, but during the 3 1/2 years trib he sees:

But those who wander through the deserts, fleeing from the face of the serpent, bend their knees to God, just as lambs to the adders of their mothers, being sustained by the salvation of the Lord, and while wandering in states of desertion, they eat herbs.

So, whatever he means by "gathered together before the tribulation, which is to come, and are taken to the Lord," the believers do go through the trib, "being sustained by the salvation of the Lord."

 

In his final section X, he describes the Lord's post-trib coming for resurrection of the saints & destruction of the wicked.

 

The significance of P-E for this forum is the assertion that he taught the PTR a thousand years before Darby & others. That certainly is NOT clear & unambiguous.

 

If forum members accuse Invicta of lying, [which must be against the principles of ths forum] then the accusers are themselves guilty of dishonesty in using P-Ephraem for their accusations. P-E is not an unambiguous teacher of the PTR. Unless, of course the "P" is POST, which is evident from $X of his sermon.

 

I remember another historical argument when many historical writers, including Isaac Watts, were claimed to be dispensationalists. Again the argument was spurious. 

 

Why are people so desperate to establish non-Biblical grounds for dispensationalism & PTR, & to accuse those who disagree with lying? Presumably because the Biblical grounds are inadequate to prove PTR, so you have to discredit the man.

 

We have the Bible. Lets use it.

1 Thes. 4:16 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. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

5:1 But of the times and the seasons, brethren, ye have no need that I write unto you. For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. For when they shall say, Peace and safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them, as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that that day should overtake you as a thief. Ye are all the children of light, and the children of the day: we are not of the night, nor of darkness. Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sOBer. For they that sleep sleep in the night; and they that be drunken are drunken in the night. But let us, who are of the day, be sOBer, putting on the breastplate of faith and love; and for an helmet, the hope of salvation. For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to OBtain salvation by our Lord Jesus Christ, 10 who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with him. 11 Wherefore comfort yourselves together, and edify one another, even as also ye do.

 

Notice - when we meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord the wicked will suffer sudden destruction [cometh upon them,] as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. Read on into 2 Thes. & it becomes clear that Paul is post-trib. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I disagree.  Paul was very much Pre-Trib.

Your opinion is worthless without Scripture support.

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.

 

The tribulation that comes after our Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven is the tribulation of Hell & everlasting destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the entire prOBlem with this conversation - no matter what evidence is cited, scriptural or historical, it is disregarded as "spurious."  This is the classic liberal position on full display.  They insist on the truth of their position, and demean and dismiss anyone who disagrees with them, and then pretend to be pious about it. 

 

You can lead a horse to water....

 

Invicta, If I were you, I would think long and hard about your choice of vocabulary so that you do not bring about so much confusion.  I know I have just to avoid having people choke over my terminology. 

Be more clear in your meaning.

 

The truth is you have brought this up before, and we have dismantled it before - yet you continue to run us back to Darby.  It is extremely dishonest. 

Choose a different line of reasoning!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

SFIC

I disagree.  Paul was very much Pre-Trib.

 

Your opinion is worthless without Scripture support.

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.

 

The tribulation that comes after our Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven is the tribulation of Hell & everlasting destruction.

 

SFIC

You've been given Scrtural support many times over the years, Covenanter. You ignore the proof given

Show me where I have been shown a PTR interpretation of 2 Thes. 1. I have quoted it several times, but don't remember ever seeing a reasoned Scriptural response.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have shown from John's Gospel that the saints would be raised on the last day and the last day is also the Day of Judgment.

 

Someone started a thread some time ago to say that all the church fathers taught the PTR.  I showed that that was completely false.  

 

Many years ago, a Baptist pastor told me that he was a sub editor of Grace Magazine and they were considering publishing and article on Antichrist.  He said he told them that they shouldn't publish it without a counter argument.  "Get on and write one then" they said.  So he asked me if I knew if any of the 'fathers' had considered that the let and hinderance in 2 Thess 2, were the Emperor and the empire.  I said I didn't know, but would look it up.  I went to the library and borrowed all the books I could on the ante Nicene writers, and found the all did teach that.  I supplied him with the information and he wrote the article.   Both articles appeared in Grace Magazine in June 1990.  

 

They taught that once the emperor and the empire were removed, Antichrist would come, then would come the end of all things (Tertullian).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sick of this....

 

The issue with Invicta is not whether or not pre-tirb, post trib, or amill etc is the right thing.

 

The issue is the he has once again rolled out that it was started with this Darby bloke - which has been shown time and again on this site that such a  claim is blatantly untrue.

 

 

It is not about doctrine in fact, it is about false historical claims - of course the appeal will be to history in this matter, for the claim is not a biblical one but an historical one.

He claims that pre-trib started with Darby - oh wait a bit with that other bloke a few years earlier - oh wait a bit maybe a bloke a few years earlier.

 

In fact, it has been shown already, not just in this thread that pre-trib was known of far far earlier than his repeated claims - yet he continues to make such claims.

 

Either he is right or he is wrong, but he is not "mistaken" - it has been shown, so either he is lying or everyone else is lying.

 

By all means have a biblical discussion on the matter, but his lying claim that "It all started with Darby" holds no water - discuss it on the Bible - like I did with Daniel's 70 years - not on false historical claims......

Remember that it was Invicta who introduced Darby into this thread once again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 45 Guests (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...