Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

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

The Gap (Daniel 11:33-35)


LindaR

Recommended Posts

  • Members

I've found no reason to believe dispensationalism is biblical or the concept existed prior to Darby. As I've studied the concept of dispensationalsim comes up as beginning with Darby, as even many of his contemporaries attest. At the time Darby put forth his ideas of dispensationalism virtually all conservative pastors/churches rejected what they called a new and unbiblical teaching. It was only a few of the liberal pastors/churches who accepted this, most of them being of the Brethren. Further study indicates the idea of dispensationalism didn't really catch on in any broad manner, or outside the more liberal churches, until Scofield adopted the idea and incorporated it into his study Bible. Of course Scofield also incorporated an evolutionistic gap in the creation account too.

At the same time, I've also studied the history of Baptists. While some new Baptists came out of the Reformation, even many of them came about because of the existence of Baptists prior to the Reformation. At least several hundred years prior to the Reformation there were Baptists, as even is evident by the writings of some in the RCC who had spent those years persecuting Baptists. Prior to that, there is no direct evidence of any Christians known as Baptists, but there is some possible evidence to show where Christians known by other names earlier on were among those who eventually came to be known as Baptist. There is room for debate on some matters between those Christians from the time of the Apostles to the time when some were actually known as Baptists, but there is no room for debate as to whether or not there were Baptists prior to the Reformation.

Now, I point this out, per your example, as an example of how my own studies have progressed from not knowing Baptists had been around that long to studying the evidence and learning they have. At the same time, I've also studied dispensationalism and as I've mentioned, I've not found proof of it prior to Darby.

When I study a subject or topic I study to see where the evidence leads, not to prove something is or isn't true. Thus far, as stated above, I've found the evidence proves Baptists existed prior to the Reformation, but I've not found proof that dispensationalism existed prior to Darby.

That said, in yet another post you jump to wrong conclusions and fail to take the opportunity to teach, if you have anything to teach in this area.

Look, John, all I am telling you is
1. you are applying a different definition to dispensationalism so that you don't have to admit that there were those who held to a form of it prior to Darby (I gave you the definition and demonstrated it);
2. You are too busy reading what MAN has to say about it, rather than just taking the Scriptures;
3. Just as many Baptists have their history wrong, so do most dispensationalists....I gave you a book reference that confirms this;
4. You demand that I "teach" you, but then state you have been studying it for 30 years, and state EMPHATICALLY that you do not accept it. How do I "teach" someone that has already made up their mind??? That would be about as silly as me trying to go down to the local college and attempting to "teach" the local Evolution Professor about Creation....
5. You accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" but don't tell me WHERE or HOW;
6. You have jumped to quite a few conclusions about my character and ministry...kind of a double standard, if you ask me!
7. Your assumption that I might not have "anything to teach" on this subject is based upon what, John? Just because I choose not to get into a running battle with someone who has already rejected the idea doesn't mean I can't teach on it. I choose not to HERE on THIS FORUM because (a) time constraints, and (B) most people here have already made up their mind.
8. You have some strange ideas about the obligations of the pastor. I am called to lead LIBERTY BAPTIST CHURCH, not "onlinebaptist forum." My obligations and priority are (1) family, and (2) ministry. This forum thing is just a nice diversion. I have absolutely NO OBLIGATIONS to anyone here.
So I am asking you "nicely" to stop placing the obligations of the Pastor's office to an internet forum participant!

Goodbye.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 199
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

before the reformation I cannot find they were called Baptists.

They were called Paulicians, Cathari, Publinani, Albigenses, Bogomils, Waldensians, Pauvre, Humiliati, Petrobrussians, and other names. Justin Martyr mentions Baptism. Even Rome's ambassador who converted England to RCism, Augustine, I call him Austin, (which was probably how it was pronounced) to distinguish hime from the other Augustine, practised baptism. Austin baptised 10,000, we read, in the Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent, and another 10,000 in the river Swale in Yorkshire, including the king of Northumbria. 10,000 seems somewhat doubtful as when I seen the number in Roman numerals, it was XM which acording to my understanding is 990.

There are writings of a Catholic priest during the time of the Reformation who says that if the RCC hadn't been persecuting Baptists for the past 300 years the troubles of that time (Reformation) would be much worse.

I think I've posted the actual quote and source here before but I can't find it offhand.

As to any source of any called Baptist prior to that, I've not found any. Beyond that, most who claim a Baptist line to the Apostles list off several other groups under different names as their connecting line.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Look, John, all I am telling you is
1. you are applying a different definition to dispensationalism so that you don't have to admit that there were those who held to a form of it prior to Darby (I gave you the definition and demonstrated it);
2. You are too busy reading what MAN has to say about it, rather than just taking the Scriptures;
3. Just as many Baptists have their history wrong, so do most dispensationalists....I gave you a book reference that confirms this;
4. You demand that I "teach" you, but then state you have been studying it for 30 years, and state EMPHATICALLY that you do not accept it. How do I "teach" someone that has already made up their mind??? That would be about as silly as me trying to go down to the local college and attempting to "teach" the local Evolution Professor about Creation....
5. You accuse me of "jumping to conclusions" but don't tell me WHERE or HOW;
6. You have jumped to quite a few conclusions about my character and ministry...kind of a double standard, if you ask me!
7. Your assumption that I might not have "anything to teach" on this subject is based upon what, John? Just because I choose not to get into a running battle with someone who has already rejected the idea doesn't mean I can't teach on it. I choose not to HERE on THIS FORUM because (a) time constraints, and ( B) most people here have already made up their mind.
8. You have some strange ideas about the obligations of the pastor. I am called to lead LIBERTY BAPTIST CHURCH, not "onlinebaptist forum." My obligations and priority are (1) family, and (2) ministry. This forum thing is just a nice diversion. I have absolutely NO OBLIGATIONS to anyone here.
So I am asking you "nicely" to stop placing the obligations of the Pastor's office to an internet forum participant!

Goodbye.

Sorry you don't seem to get it and are prone to misunderstanding.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry you don't seem to get it and are prone to misunderstanding.

Well, John, that will have to fall on your shoulders for failing to clarify whatever it is that you are attempting to communicate with me....I just go by what you write in your posts, and respond accordingly.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Well, John, that will have to fall on your shoulders for failing to clarify whatever it is that you are attempting to communicate with me....I just go by what you write in your posts, and respond accordingly.

I don't know how one could have been any more clear than I was.

You go back to pacman, I'll not ask you any more.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John Darby did not "invent" dispensationlism he was just the first to lay it out in systematic form. The theology had been around in one form or another since 400 AD.

The fact that it took this long to lay it out in systematic form does not suggest that it is heresy but rather that the church was not ready for the teaching yet and that people were still crawling out from the imposed spiritual darkness of the Catholic Church for 1,500 years. Jesus said that the Comforter would reveal "things to come" and would bring things to rememberance to the believer. Well, he had a lot of catching up to do. Don't forget, in Darby's time the Exquistion (the last of the four of them) was just coming to an end. The same argument about being no evidence of dispensationalism before Darby is similar to the argument used against KJV bible believers about the location of the pure word of God before 1611. It's the same line of reasoning. Anotherwards that if you couldn't find it that means it must not be true.

Also, the fact that we are getting closer to the end and the day of the Lord and with Israel back in the land it only makes sense that these deeper truths of the scriptures would be revealed. Dispensationalism was a major reason the Jews were placed back in Palestine in 1918. Try studying that some time and you'll find it's true. So true that many so-called Christians are blaming C.I. Scofield for the mess in the Middle East right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

before the reformation I cannot find they were called Baptists.

They were called Paulicians, Cathari, Publinani, Albigenses, Bogomils, Waldensians, Pauvre, Humiliati, Petrobrussians, and other names. Justin Martyr mentions Baptism. Even Rome's ambassador who converted England to RCism, Augustine, I call him Austin, (which was probably how it was pronounced) to distinguish hime from the other Augustine, practised baptism. Austin baptised 10,000, we read, in the Swale in Kent, including the king of Kent, and another 10,000 in the river Swale in Yorkshire, including the king of Northumbria. 10,000 seems somewhat doubtful as when I seen the number in Roman numerals, it was XM which acording to my understanding is 990.

Almost every branch of Christianity - including heresies - practise baptism as an initiation rite into the church, so to call a church "baptist" was hardly a distinctive feature. Baptism of converts of all ages, & their families was normal. Children were claimed for Christ, rather than be seen as continuing in paganism.

The distinctive feature is the baptism of believers on profession of faith even if they had been baptised as infants by the state church - Catholic or Protestant. They were persecuted as "anabaptists" or re-baptisers because they were rejecting the authority of the state church. At first they baptised by pouring water over them. This soon evolved into immersion of believers. I think they were only allowed to be "Baptists" after the 1689 English revolution.

The practice of baptising believers is not limited to churches calling themselves "Baptist" but is widespread among Bible-believing Gospel churches.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

John Darby did not "invent" dispensationlism he was just the first to lay it out in systematic form. The theology had been around in one form or another since 400 AD.

The fact that it took this long to lay it out in systematic form does not suggest that it is heresy but rather that the church was not ready for the teaching yet and that people were still crawling out from the imposed spiritual darkness of the Catholic Church for 1,500 years. Jesus said that the Comforter would reveal "things to come" and would bring things to rememberance to the believer. Well, he had a lot of catching up to do. Don't forget, in Darby's time the Exquistion (the last of the four of them) was just coming to an end. The same argument about being no evidence of dispensationalism before Darby is similar to the argument used against KJV bible believers about the location of the pure word of God before 1611. It's the same line of reasoning. Anotherwards that if you couldn't find it that means it must not be true.

Also, the fact that we are getting closer to the end and the day of the Lord and with Israel back in the land it only makes sense that these deeper truths of the scriptures would be revealed. Dispensationalism was a major reason the Jews were placed back in Palestine in 1918. Try studying that some time and you'll find it's true. So true that many so-called Christians are blaming C.I. Scofield for the mess in the Middle East right now.

Can you put forth the evidence that dispensationalism was around since 400? What was believed prior to 400?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members


Can you put forth the evidence that dispensationalism was around since 400? What was believed prior to 400?


In 1844 E B Elliott, wrote a refutation of several types of futurism, which did not include darbyism as at that time it probably had not really spread far from the West Country. He did at one time make an oblique reference to a group in the west country who held strange views, and my copy has a pencil reference: "Brethren?" He also made a refutation of Praeterism, which strangely you can find on the praeterist site. http://www.preteristarchive.com/Books/1844_elliot_hours.html
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members
Wilchbla:
The facts that it was declared an heresy by the papists at the Council of Trent in 431 should tell you it was around.


Wilchbla - have you a reference to the condemnation of the heresy of dispensationalism at Trent or Ephesus? There was a Council of Ephesus in 431.

The Council of Trent was between December 13, 1545, and December 4, 1563
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Was there a papacy in 431? Certainly not of the kind we have now.

Wilchbla,

Would you like to give the wording of that condemnation, and a reference to where one can find it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 months later...
  • Members

Daniel 9:27 And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.

I have a question:

 

If this means Jesus, does that mean after the week, the convenant is null and void?

It is the prince that shall come from the people that destroyed the temple in 70AD that will confirm the covenant. It is the antichrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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



×
×
  • Create New...