The Widow's Mites

[Invicta]

 

On 17/12/2015 at 6:01 PM, Ronda said:

In regard to dispensationalism: It truly is an IFB teaching.
The prominent Protestant view is "covenenant theology" (replacement theology)
 

Absolutely not.  For the first sixty or seventy years it was a Calvinist teaching, and not only Calvinist but an extreme for of Calvinist.  If you were not in hat sect, even as a family member you couldn't meet with the family.  One of our deacons had a grandmother who was in hat sect.  As a child he used o go every Wednesday to his grandmother after school. When he reached the age of 13 he was told that as he was now of age, as they considered it, he could not go there as he was  not a part of their assembly.  

Towards the end of the end of the 19h century in England, the teaching was widely considered to be a heresy.  At about that time it reached the USA and was spread through various groups including Presbytarians and Assemblies of God adopted it, although the AOG dropped it later.  It passed through various groups until it eventually reached the baptists. But it didn't make much progress until Scofield introduce HIS bible which was distributed Free to all Bible Schools in America.  Then the advance of the teaching was rapid.  

Those who began the teaching were the Exclusive Brethren under J N Darby, but it was also picked up by the Open Brethren,.  The exclusives are still exclusive but the open  are often now called Evangelical Churches or Christian Fellowships, and many have adopted  various forms of charismaticism but still keep the PTR doctrine, and no doubt it has infiltrated some of the more liberal baptist Churches here.

[Genevanpreacher]

Invicta,

I don't know why anyone would think any different.

Dispensationalism is a dangerous false teaching. Period.

Just watch the responses to this and you will notice how unbrotherly-like it gets here.

I know I get attacked over this, it makes me go willy! Just imagine what dispy's go through.

Edited December 20, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[No Nicolaitans]

22 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Just watch the responses to this and you will notice how unbrotherly-like it gets here.

You're probably right...

...especially when you post a message publicly (that could have been sent privately) and worded in a way to goad the majority of people on this forum. That kind of sounds unbrotherly-like to me...but that's me.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

Transliteration: oikonomia

Pronunciation: oi-ko-no-mē'-ä 

Part of Speech: feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology): from G3623

Outline of Biblical Usage:

1. the management of a household or of household affairs

   1. specifically, the management, oversight, administration, of other's property

   2. the office of a manager or overseer, stewardship

   3. administration, dispensation

KJV Translation Count:

7 Total

dispensation 4, stewardship 3

Strong's Definitions: οἰκονομία oikonomía, oy-kon-om-ee'-ah; from G3623; administration (of a household or estate); specially, a (religious) "economy":—dispensation, stewardship.

 

so, there are dispensations (economy's) in the Bible after all,...

 

Dispensation of Grace

Dispensation of Judgment (Jacob's Trouble)

Dispensation of the Gospel, etc..

 

hmmmmm

[John81]

On 12/20/2015 at 7:04 PM, Invicta said:

 

Absolutely not.  For the first sixty or seventy years it was a Calvinist teaching, and not only Calvinist but an extreme for of Calvinist.  If you were not in hat sect, even as a family member you couldn't meet with the family.  One of our deacons had a grandmother who was in hat sect.  As a child he used o go every Wednesday to his grandmother after school. When he reached the age of 13 he was told that as he was now of age, as they considered it, he could not go there as he was  not a part of their assembly.  

Towards the end of the end of the 19h century in England, the teaching was widely considered to be a heresy.  At about that time it reached the USA and was spread through various groups including Presbytarians and Assemblies of God adopted it, although the AOG dropped it later.  It passed through various groups until it eventually reached the baptists. But it didn't make much progress until Scofield introduce HIS bible which was distributed Free to all Bible Schools in America.  Then the advance of the teaching was rapid.  

Those who began the teaching were the Exclusive Brethren under J N Darby, but it was also picked up by the Open Brethren,.  The exclusives are still exclusive but the open  are often now called Evangelical Churches or Christian Fellowships, and many have adopted  various forms of charismaticism but still keep the PTR doctrine, and no doubt it has infiltrated some of the more liberal baptist Churches here.

Baptist pastor Spurgeon, preaching during this time period, had much to say on this matter.

[wretched]

On 12/20/2015 at 8:04 PM, Invicta said:

Absolutely not.  For the first sixty or seventy years it was a Calvinist teaching, and not only Calvinist but an extreme for of Calvinist.  If you were not in hat sect, even as a family member you couldn't meet with the family.  One of our deacons had a grandmother who was in hat sect.  As a child he used o go every Wednesday to his grandmother after school. When he reached the age of 13 he was told that as he was now of age, as they considered it, he could not go there as he was  not a part of their assembly.  

Towards the end of the end of the 19h century in England, the teaching was widely considered to be a heresy.  At about that time it reached the USA and was spread through various groups including Presbytarians and Assemblies of God adopted it, although the AOG dropped it later.  It passed through various groups until it eventually reached the baptists. But it didn't make much progress until Scofield introduce HIS bible which was distributed Free to all Bible Schools in America.  Then the advance of the teaching was rapid.  

Those who began the teaching were the Exclusive Brethren under J N Darby, but it was also picked up by the Open Brethren,.  The exclusives are still exclusive but the open  are often now called Evangelical Churches or Christian Fellowships, and many have adopted  various forms of charismaticism but still keep the PTR doctrine, and no doubt it has infiltrated some of the more liberal baptist Churches here.

Where do you get this nonsense. Certainly not from the Word. I suppose you believe everything you hear on the news and read in newspapers too?

If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to.

[Genevanpreacher]

13 minutes ago, wretched said:

Where do you get this nonsense. Certainly not from the Word. I suppose you believe everything you hear on the news and read in newspapers too?

If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to.

Bro. Wretched? Of course he didn't get it "from the word". This is stuff men have written from their own experiences down through the years. Just because it's not holy writ doesn't mean it isn't true. Many historical comments from both sides can be used as 'proof', yet sometimes one is mentioned much more often in older writings than the other. But comments from older sources are better than suppositions, and should be treated as such.

And as for this comment - "If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to."

That can be said for the other side as well.

Russ

 

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           

5 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

You're probably right...

...especially when you post a message publicly (that could have been sent privately) and worded in a way to goad the majority of people on this forum. That kind of sounds unbrotherly-like to me...but that's me.

Yeah...I know.

I am not "goading", just speaking what everyone already knows.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[wretched]

3 minutes ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Bro. Wretched? Of course he didn't get it "from the word". This is stuff men have written from their own experiences down through the years. Just because it's not holy writ doesn't mean it isn't true. Many historical comments from both sides can be used as 'proof', yet sometimes one is mentioned much more often in older writings than the other. But comments from older sources are better than suppositions, and should be treated as such.

And as for this comment - "If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to."

That can be said for the other side as well.

Russ

 

 

Nonsense Russ, you and this Invicta fella constantly quote external sources written by some "whocares" dudes who write about how some other "whocares" dudes are wrong about this or that. Invicta nor you have never once proven anything accept how much you misinterpret Scriptures based on man made up suppositions.

Sorry bro, you are simply wrong on dividing Scripture and dispensations and you are wrong because some "whomever" taught you to be wrong and you refuse to let it go.

[Ukulelemike]

22 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

Invicta,

I don't know why anyone would think any different.

Dispensationalism is a dangerous false teaching. Period.

Just watch the responses to this and you will notice how unbrotherly-like it gets here.

I know I get attacked over this, it makes me go willy! Just imagine what dispy's go through.

[Invicta]

16 hours ago, wretched said:

Where do you get this nonsense. Certainly not from the Word. I suppose you believe everything you hear on the news and read in newspapers too?

If you would ditch the suppositions you base your doctrines on which came from men and not God and all the books you read written by "whomever", you would start understanding God the way He intends you to.

I don't get it from the internet or from books.  I was brought up in the Brethren who invented this teaching,  I was taught it for the first 20 years of my life. The dispensational teaching came from earlier  futurist teaching from the Irvingites which they got from the futurist teaching of a Jesuit.  

You will not find any teaching resembling modern pretribulationist  teaching before 1830 when the Brethren were just starting.  J N Darby as well as most other early Brethren were ex Anglicans.  Darby took over the emerging  Brethren movement and soon formulated the pretribulation and dispensationalist   theory.  Darby was an extreme Calvinist excommunicating other early Brethren leaders who didn't  agree with him like Benjamin Wills Newton.  Until the end of the 1800's in the UK, the teaching was mainly confined to the Brethren and was widely considered to be a heresy. In the meantime Darby and other Brethren visited the USA and took the teaching there.  Scofield, a Presbyterian Calvinist accepted the Darbyist teaching and produced HIS bible. The Scofield bible was given free to US bible schools who took up the teaching which, as they would say today, it went viral.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.  You won't look at scripture to check unlike the Bereans so I ask you to look at history.

[Standing Firm In Christ]

dispensation, i.e.; economy/administration.

 

only the willfully blind can't see it in the KJV text.

[Invicta]

44 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

dispensation, i.e.; economy/administration.

 

only the willfully blind can't see it in the KJV text.

Hmm.

Have you ever noticed that he separation of the saints and the unsaved is after the tribulation? Matt 24:29ff.

So all those before Darby were willfully blind? That is centuries of Christians.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Invicta

[Standing Firm In Christ]

have you ever noticed that God's judgment on Israel (stoning/death) for disobidience is different than it is for His Church?

[Genevanpreacher]

18 hours ago, wretched said:

Nonsense Russ, you and this Invicta fella constantly quote external sources written by some "whocares" dudes who write about how some other "whocares" dudes are wrong about this or that. Invicta nor you have never once proven anything accept how much you misinterpret Scriptures based on man made up suppositions.

Sorry bro, you are simply wrong on dividing Scripture and dispensations and you are wrong because some "whomever" taught you to be wrong and you refuse to let it go.

I am sorry you think that, but you are allowed to believe what you want.

By the way, I went to college to learn anImatIon - which has nothing to do with the teachings of the bible - and was never taught from anyone what I believe. Nobody in my life believed the way I believe about PTR or the return of Israel to their land or much of anything.

I was saved in a KJVO Independent Baptist Church in SE Indiana. Was taught PTR 1000 year reign of Christ and ALL the corruptions of the MV's.

So you can't blame anyone for my supposed errors Bro. I did not read books on doctrine nor listened to preachers on the type of preaching that I do. I just happened to find this path on my own, (through my own personal studying of God's word), by my own God given convictions.

I doubt many here can say the same.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[Ukulelemike]

3 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

I am sorry you think that, but you are allowed to believe what you want.

By the way, I went to college to learn anImatIon - which has nothing to do with the teachings of the bible - and was never taught from anyone what I believe. Nobody in my life believed the way I believe about PTR or the return of Israel to their land or much of anything.

I was saved in a KJVO Independent Baptist Church in SE Indiana. Was taught PTR 1000 year reign of Christ and ALL the corruptions of the MV's.

So you can't blame anyone for my supposed errors Bro. I did not read books on doctrine nor listened to preachers on the type of preaching that I do. I just happened to find this path on my own, (through my own personal studying of God's word), by my own God given convictions.

I doubt many here can say the same.

Well, you really don't have any way of knowing where people have received their training. Personally, I think it may be a mistake if ALL you know you got yourself. Not that we aren't to study-of course we are, but you're telling me then that you have either sought out pastors who only teach what you believe, or you reject ALL pastors as wrong, because they haven't received what you have? 

As for myself, while I certainly have set under many pastors, since I became a pastor myself I have learned a lot of things through my own study, in preparation for preaching, and have come to conclusions different from what I was taught-and I would suspect many pastors here have done the same. It is easy to just receive what is given to you when you are just a hearer, as it were, but when you have the burden of teaching, you tend to study harder to ensure that what you are teaching IS the truth. This is how I came to the rapture position I have taken. But it has never changed my thoughts on the millennial reign of Christ as a literal thing, and many other things I was taught before I have held to because in study, they still stand.