Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Standing Firm In Christ

The Widow's Mites

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Her Salvation was standing in her presence.  He warned of the thieving scribes.  Yet, she put the mites in their treasury, showing her devotion to their teachings.

 

yes, she was showing signs of being a proselyte.

You assume a lot that is not in evidence, it is simply your assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim, 

You accuse me of painting the picture with a broad brush.  I submit that were you not reading with a tunnel-vision bias toward a commendation of a widow supporting a corrupt institution, you might see the big picture.

 

you are taking one piece of a puzzle and forming s picture that looks nothing like the complete story.

5 minutes ago, Jim_Alaska said:

You assume a lot that is not in evidence, it is simply your assumption.

I have presented the evidence that supports my view.  No assumption on my part at all.  I do, however, notice you assuming that Jesus was praising the widow's actions.

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jesus pronounced 8 "woes" (exclamations of grief) or grievances against the scribes and Pharisees in Matthew 23.  In the two accounts of the widow's mites (Mark 12:38-44 and Luke 20:45-47 - Luke 21:1-4), Jesus warned the disciples to "beware of the scribes...." and repeated some of those grievances from Matthew 23 as to why. 

The entire context of those two accounts of the widow's mites were WARNINGS about the scribes and Pharisees, NOT a COMMENDATION of praise to the widow for giving out of her poverty.  Why was the widow poor in the first place?  Could it be because the corrupt religious system demanded not only her house, but her money?

Mark 12:38 And he said unto them in his doctrine, Beware of the scribes, which love to go in long clothing, and love salutations in the marketplaces,
Mark 12:39 And the chief seats in the synagogues, and the uppermost rooms at feasts:
Mark 12:40 Which devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayers: these shall receive greater damnation.

Luke 20:45 Then in the audience of all the people he said unto his disciples,
Luke 20:46 Beware of the scribes, which desire to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the markets, and the highest seats in the synagogues, and the chief rooms at feasts;
Luke 20:47 Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation.

 

 

Edited by LindaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎11‎/‎20‎/‎2015 at 8:53 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus knew the intents of the heart, no doubt.  However, the text does not indicate the intent of the widow's heart.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 8:33 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Jesus had just said that the Temple had become a den of thieves.  The next day, He returns to the Temple, warning others of the thieves.  Along comes a widow, giving under the assumption that she was giving to God. (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:07 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

She was manipulated into giving to thieves, just as many church members are manipulated into giving ten percent of their monetary income to thieves..  Both the widow and the church goers are deceived into believing God requires it.  (emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

 

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:22 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

That was not my question.  My question was whether or not she thought in her mind and believed in her heart that she was giving a gift unto God.

 

On ‎12‎/‎15‎/‎2015 at 9:30 PM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The text does not say what she thought in her mind.  It only reveals that thieves were robbing her and that she was putting money into the treasury of a den of thieves.
(emphasis added by Pastor Scott Markle)

15 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

there is nothing in the text that the Lord was commending the widow.  Even the Greek word for 'threw in' in The Mark 12 text and the Greek for 'cast' the Luke 21 text, "ballo", carries with it the picture of a violent or intense action.  It is as if the woman is thinking, "They don't care that this is all that I have to live on," then violently throwing the money into the receptacle,... "Ballo" seems to give more credence to the thought that the woman was being forced to give her money to the thieves.

So does the text NOT reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, or DOES it?  And if the text DOES reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, does it reveal that she believed and thought positively that she was giving unto God; OR does it reveal that she believed and thought negatively that the scribes were taking her necessary welfare?

In some postings you indicate that the text does not reveal what was the intent or belief of the widow's heart or what was the thinking of her mind.  Yet in other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with an assumption (of heart and mind, presumably) "that she was giving to God," having been "deceived into believing" that God required it.  Yet in still other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with the thought of disgust against the scribes because they did not care about her welfare.

 

On ‎12‎/‎5‎/‎2015 at 8:06 AM, Standing Firm In Christ said:

The forced taxation did little to hurt the rich, yet it oppressed the poor greatly, taking away from that which they needed to survive.

By the way, I have done some historical research in order to discern what I am able about a "forced taxation" unto the temple at the time.  What I have been able to learn thus far is that there was indeed such a temple tax, but that it was only administered against the adult Jewish men, never against the women, the children, the Samaritans, or the "heathen" (Gentiles).

______________________________________________

Brother Robey,

At the present I do not have the time to formulate the entire posting (pastoral responsibilities take priority); however, in the future I intend to provide a posting concerning the Biblical evidence that the Greek verb "ballo" does not inherently or necessarily include the idea of disgust and/or violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that the widow heard Jesus warning is obvious.  And yet, she ignored it.

 

This shows a mind that is devoted to the corrupt scribes despite the fact that they were robbing her.

 

further, she threw the money in rather than dropping it in.  The Greek suggests a violent action.

 

questions would have to be addressed, such as,  Why throw the money in as opposed to just dropping it in?  Why ignore the warning?  

 

Here is a woman who has lost her home, forcibly appropriated by the corrupt leaders in Israel, bringing all she had to live on to the organization governed by her oppressers.

 

Ignoring Jesus's words, she throws the money into the treasury with purpose.  They'd taken her home from her, they may as well have the rest.  The fact that she threw the money in as opposed to merely dropping it in implies anger and/or disgust.

 

and yes, the rich threw their money in as well.  They were made to give into the system just as the widow was.  The difference between the two?  The rich love their money.  The poor need their money.  But the widow's money was more precious,... it was all her living.

 

This year, in Florida, an elderly cancer patient was put out of his apartment by the church that owned the apartment,... even though the patient was up-to-date on his rent..  The church subsequently sent the cancer patient a bill for alleged owed funds.  A perfect picture of what had happened to this poor widow.  She'd lost her home as this man did.  To top it off, the corrupt system robbed the man afterwards through alledged dues just as this widow was being robbed further.

 

interesting that so many show no regard to the plight of the poor.  If they don't give to the institution, the poor are accused of being in the wrong and looked down on.  And so, out of manipulation and/or fear, they give.

 

Sorry Scott, but your view of the account just does not make sense.  As I said previously, you will never convince me of the alleged commendation you teach.  

Edited by Standing Firm In Christ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/15/2015 at 6:28 AM, swathdiver said:

A Ruckmanite, Hyper-Dispensationalist.  His doctrines are protestant and not baptistic.  Ever listened to his sermon on "The Deeps"?

As for the widows mites, these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical.  Another example of why knowledge of english and grammar rules are so important.  

To "Swathdiver": In regard to Peter Ruckman:  I have not, (nor will I) listen to or read a "sermon" or teaching by that man, as he was not qualified to even be a pastor, having been divorced twice and married 3 times, and it is a disqualification of him being a pastor according to the word of God. 

In regard to pastor Peacock: I do not agree with his teaching on "the deeps".
I did not say I agree with everything the man teaches. Nor do I agree with EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouth of any one IFB preacher.  However, I do agree with the majority of IFB tenets and principles of teaching. There are IFB pastors who do teach against tithing, which is I brought his name up as an example of one (of several) IFB pastors who teach against tithing.

In regard to dispensationalism: It truly is an IFB teaching.
The prominent Protestant view is "covenenant theology" (replacement theology)
So to say that pastor Peacock's doctrines are "protestant and not baptistic" is not truthful, since most Baptists do understand and teach dispensationalism (rightly dividing as 2 Tim. 2:15 tells us), whereas most other protestant churches do not teach dispensationalism.

As far as whether or not pastor Peacock himself is a "hyper-dispensationalist"... that depends on your definition of "hyper-dispensationalists", as those opinions vary. As I stated previously, I agree with some, but not ALL off this pastors teaching. I (myself) believe in following 2 Tim. 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."  So for me (myself) I believe we are to study like a workman (it takes time and prayerful devotion to study like a workman, and not just a quick once-over, but in depth, in context study, which also require line-upon-line and precept upon precept comparison and contrast from other relevant subject matter located throughout the bible), and I (myself) also believe in rightly dividing... noting where a dispensation has an obvious difference to another dispensation, noting the "rules" God used toward mankind in each dispensation which differ from the past dispensation, etc. So I don't know if you consider this to be "hyper-dispensationalism", there are differing opinions on what the term even means. 

In regard to the widow's mites you stated: "these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical"
An issue arose over whether or not the word "widow" in Mark 12:40 was in fact relevant to the "widow" noted in Mark 12:42-44.
When taken IN CONTEXT (since the verses are 2 verses apart), I believe it is no coincidence Jesus uses the word "widow" in all the verses in context.
Had the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred someplace else in the bible, I might have come to the conclusion that it could be a commendation. However, since the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred in context with the verses of the widow's houses being devoured... I conclude there IS a contextual connection.

In regard to grammar and rules being important: Yes, they certainly are.  
Verse 40 notes the widow's houses being devoured, then verse 41, 42, and 43 start each verse/sentence with the word "And"
I believe the "AND" here in each verse is conjuctive denoting "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly."
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Ronda said:

In regard to the widow's mites you stated: "these verses used to support such a position are out of context and therefore not biblical"
An issue arose over whether or not the word "widow" in Mark 12:40 was in fact relevant to the "widow" noted in Mark 12:42-44.
When taken IN CONTEXT (since the verses are 2 verses apart), I believe it is no coincidence Jesus uses the word "widow" in all the verses in context.
Had the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred someplace else in the bible, I might have come to the conclusion that it could be a commendation. However, since the verses in regard to the widow giving her last 2 mites occurred in context with the verses of the widow's houses being devoured... I conclude there IS a contextual connection.

In regard to grammar and rules being important: Yes, they certainly are.  
Verse 40 notes the widow's houses being devoured, then verse 41, 42, and 43 start each verse/sentence with the word "And"
I believe the "AND" here in each verse is conjuctive denoting "used to connect words of the same part of speech, clauses, or sentences that are to be taken jointly."

Sister Ronda,

I recognize that your posting was directly specifically toward Brother "Swathdiver;" however, I wish to present a response unto your closing comments as quoted above.

Throughout my postings on the matter of Mark 12:38-44, I have not presented any denial of a contextual connection between Mark 12:38-40 & Mark 12:41-44.  In fact, I fully acknowledge that there is indeed a contextual connection between them.  However, I have expressed contention concerning the character of that contextual connection --

1.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides an example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As Brother Robey holds)

Or,

2.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides a contrast to the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As I myself hold)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now, there is a verse in Neh. 10, that states that part of the tithe would be taken into the treasure house. "And the priest the son of Aaron shall be with the Levites, when the Levites take tithes: and the Levites shall bring up the tithe of the tithes unto the house of our God, to the chambers, into the treasure house."  I am wondering why, if the tithe was ALWAYS foodstuffs, they would go into the treasure house, which I would assume was the same things as the treasury. Unless part was sometimes brought as money by those who perhaps didn't have the farm to bring the tithes from their fields, their 'tillage', so instead brought money for support.

And that brings my question, What was the treasury for? This is something mentioned in the OT, as well. I suspect it was much like what we do today in churches, money taken to maintain the temple, perhaps separate from the tithe, like our offerings given to support the ministries and building needs, bills, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Treasury - 214 'owtsar o-tsaw' from 686; a depository:--armory, cellar, garner, store(-house), treasure(-house) (-y). see HEBREW for 0686

 

The treasury in this verse was a storehouse where many things were stored.  

That it was a garner shows it held grain.  That it was an armory shows it held weapons.  And yes, it as a treasury as well in that it held the holy things of the Temple.  (See Nehemiah 13)

 

Tithe money instead of food?  No, the commanded tithe was food.  However, if one wanted to buy back the tithe with money, he could do so buy paying the assessed value of that which he wanted to buy back,... plus twenty percent more than the assessed value.

 

this money was redemption money.  Redemption money was not taken into the treasury.  It was given to Moses, and he distributed it as needed.

Sorry for the large text in the last post.  The copy of the Hebrew changed the format, and it would not let me decrease the size of the font when I tried.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Standing Firm In Christ said:

Treasury - 214 'owtsar o-tsaw' from 686; a depository:--armory, cellar, garner, store(-house), treasure(-house) (-y). see HEBREW for 0686

 

The treasury in this verse was a storehouse where many things were stored.  

That it was a garner shows it held grain.  That it was an armory shows it held weapons.  And yes, it as a treasury as well in that it held the holy things of the Temple.  (See Nehemiah 13)

 

Tithe money instead of food?  No, the commanded tithe was food.  However, if one wanted to buy back the tithe with money, he could do so buy paying the assessed value of that which he wanted to buy back,... plus twenty percent more than the assessed value.

 

this money was redemption money.  Redemption money was not taken into the treasury.  It was given to Moses, and he distributed it as needed.

Sorry for the large text in the last post.  The copy of the Hebrew changed the format, and it would not let me decrease the size of the font when I tried.

 

If you also lived a great distant from the temple you could give money instead of food.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Critical Mass said:

If you also lived a great distant from the temple you could give money instead of food.

Deuteronomy 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deuteronomy 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:

Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

If one lived a great distance away from where "the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name" (Deuteronomy 14:24b), that person could then turn that (tithe) food into money. In order to prevent the tithe from spoiling on the long journey, to the place where God chose, the tither was permitted to sell the tithe for money.  The money was to be used to purchase " whatsoever thy soul lusteth after..."  One could not just bring money (as a tithe) to the temple.  The tithe was to be eaten...it was always food, never money.

Edited by LindaR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, LindaR said:

Deuteronomy 14:22 Thou shalt truly tithe all the increase of thy seed, that the field bringeth forth year by year.
Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deuteronomy 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:

Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,

If one lived a great distance away from where "the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name" (Deuteronomy 14:24b), that person could then turn that (tithe) food into money. In order to prevent the tithe from spoiling on the long journey, to the place where God chose, the tither was permitted to sell the tithe for money.  The money was to be used to purchase " whatsoever thy soul lusteth after..."  One could not just bring money (as a tithe) to the temple.  The tithe was to be eaten...it was always food, never money.

The money is still going to the temple. The pilgrimage wasn't just to go there and stuff your face.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Critical Mass said:

The money is still going to the temple. The pilgrimage wasn't just to go there and stuff your face.

That pilgrimage had nothing to do with the temple.  That particular tithe was a FEAST tithe. The second tithe was eaten before the Lord by the offerers.

Deuteronomy 12:17 Thou mayest not eat within thy gates the tithe of thy corn, or of thy wine, or of thy oil, or the firstlings of thy herds or of thy flock, nor any of thy vows which thou vowest, nor thy freewill offerings, or heave offering of thine hand:
Deuteronomy 12:18 But thou must eat them before the LORD thy God in the place which the LORD thy God shall choose, thou, and thy son, and thy daughter, and thy manservant, and thy maidservant, and the Levite that is within thy gates: and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God in all that thou puttest thine hands unto.

Deuteronomy 14:23 And thou shalt eat before the LORD thy God, in the place which he shall choose to place his name there, the tithe of thy corn, of thy wine, and of thine oil, and the firstlings of thy herds and of thy flocks; that thou mayest learn to fear the LORD thy God always.
Deuteronomy 14:24 And if the way be too long for thee, so that thou art not able to carry it; or if the place be too far from thee, which the LORD thy God shall choose to set his name there, when the LORD thy God hath blessed thee:
Deuteronomy 14:25 Then shalt thou turn it into money, and bind up the money in thine hand, and shalt go unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose:
Deuteronomy 14:26 And thou shalt bestow that money for whatsoever thy soul lusteth after, for oxen, or for sheep, or for wine, or for strong drink, or for whatsoever thy soul desireth: and thou shalt eat there before the LORD thy God, and thou shalt rejoice, thou, and thine household,
Deuteronomy 14:27 And the Levite that is within thy gates; thou shalt not forsake him; for he hath no part nor inheritance with thee.
Deuteronomy 14:28 At the end of three years thou shalt bring forth all the tithe of thine increase the same year, and shalt lay it up within thy gates:
Deuteronomy 14:29 And the Levite, (because he hath no part nor inheritance with thee,) and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow, which are within thy gates, shall come, and shall eat and be satisfied; that the LORD thy God may bless thee in all the work of thine hand which thou doest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/17/2015 at 1:01 PM, Ronda said:

To "Swathdiver": In regard to Peter Ruckman:  I have not, (nor will I) listen to or read a "sermon" or teaching by that man, as he was not qualified to even be a pastor, having been divorced twice and married 3 times, and it is a disqualification of him being a pastor according to the word of God. 

In regard to pastor Peacock: I do not agree with his teaching on "the deeps".
I did not say I agree with everything the man teaches. Nor do I agree with EVERYTHING that comes out of the mouth of any one IFB preacher.  However, I do agree with the majority of IFB tenets and principles of teaching. There are IFB pastors who do teach against tithing, which is I brought his name up as an example of one (of several) IFB pastors who teach against tithing.

In regard to dispensationalism: It truly is an IFB teaching.
The prominent Protestant view is "covenenant theology" (replacement theology)
So to say that pastor Peacock's doctrines are "protestant and not baptistic" is not truthful,
 

In Regard to Mr. Ruckman, you are 100% correct, I was simply providing a warning, not knowing you.

Regarding your statement that my characterization of Mr. Peacock is not being truthful, I take offense.  A broken clock is right at least twice a day, so we'll even agree with Creflo Dollar at some point.  However, I have studied these two men and their doctrines for years and watched my friends being drawn to their Bible Believer's universal, invisible, local churches and then watched their standards of modesty, dress, associations, music, separation, etc. collapse to where there's little differentiating them from the Protestants.  The mythical universal, invisible church is indeed a protestant doctrine, for this is where they get their authority to exist apart from the mother church from.  

One element of their Hyper-Dispensationalism is their heresy of many plans of salvation, excepting for the church age.  Another problem of poorly dividing the word of truth is The Deeps or their belief in the Gap Theory.

From your response, I gather that you have listened to The Deeps, what did you make of it?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Transliteration: oikonomia
Pronunciation: oi-ko-no-mē'-ä speaker18x12blue.png
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. :D

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

Edited by Genevanpreacher

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

STOOGES.thumb.png.c819df106aaf71cf082afa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...