1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rapture and Transformation

Discussion in 'General Debates' started by InChrist, Jan 28, 2020.

  1. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +302
    Religion:
    Christian
    This isn't true. Darby, 1800-1882, was no different than any other believer. He would be influenced by what had gone before. Yes, Darby was the first to develop a pre-millennial dispensational eschatology into systematic form. But he didn't dream this up on his own. He would have been influenced by others who had the same views on prophecy and end times events.

    Early Protestant doctrine emphasized soteriology as they broke away from the Roman Church. Their views of eschatology or end times events, pretty much stayed the same as that of the Roman Church, which was Ammillennial.

    When Napoleon came along many Christians began viewing him as the anti-christ. This created interest in prophecy and many such Bible conferences were held. One Lady Powerscourt held and sponsored Bible conferences on prophecy in Scripture. And to these conferences in 1831-1833, came John Nelson Darby. As a result of these conferences Darby definitely developed his pre-millennial dispensational eschatology and was the first to systematize it. But, he wasn't the first to recognize it in Scripture. Others had already, such as James R. Graves, 1820-1893. And James H. Brookes, 1830-1897.

    So, dispensationalism would be spread as a result of these types of conferences. Such as the Niagara Bible Conferences in 1878-1909.

    You certainly don't have to believe Dispensationalism. That is up to you. But I do. And I believe that the claims Darby made Jesus and Paul would agree with.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
    #61 Good-Ole-Rebel, Feb 2, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
  2. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +9,410
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    While this is informative, it supports what I have been saying. That it was an emerging theological perspective at that time that Darby made popular, is still saying the same thing I did. This was not a view that was held about scriptures prior to that time. In other words, its a modern theology, born in modern times, reading scripture through the lens of modern history of the time, searching for parallels to modern times.

    That someone can read the scripture today in the light of that modern theology and say, "I can see it in scripture myself", is that sleight of hand magic trick I described above. Read outside that view colorizing what is seen, and you don't have the Dispensationalist view. You didn't for the previous 1800 years, as I mentioned and you confirmed above.

    This same thing can be seen again and again in modern theologies, such as finding "fulfillment" of prophecies in the OT, seeing cars on the freeways as prophesied by Amos about how we shall run to and fro in the last days (I've heard this one preached), and countless other examples of biblical sleight of hand illusions which look like "wow" when you read it, until you realize the magic trick involved and how it works.

    Pretty much all of modern fundamentalist theologies are created and sustained this way. Until they are critically examined. Reconstruction of early Christian beliefs, are not just a matter of looking for things that sound familiar to us in the context of our world today, like imagining Napoleon is the antichrist and that biblical prophecy was about our time in history today. The fact they started there, betrays the uncritical, mythological nature of all that follows.

    It's basically just pattern recognition, seeing faces in the clouds and imagining that to be the truth about clouds. Modernity examines the how clouds are made of water molecules, and then examines how the mind mistakes its pattern recognitions as the truth of the clouds. That it is a sustaining mythology today, just shows how it caters to the anxiety levels of modern times. It's not a critical understanding of what early Christians actually believed however.
     
    #62 Windwalker, Feb 2, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
  3. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
    Their whole world changed.. It was the end of Temple Judaism and the beginning of Rabbinic Judaism.
     
  4. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
    The Scofield crowd also claimed every pope and JFK were the anti Christ and Russia was Gog and Magog.

    The theology of an untrained, convicted felon (Scofield) came from the dream of a teenaged girl in the 1820. A rogue preacher named Darby started the Plymouth Brethren broke from the church..

    John Nelson Darby - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Darby_(evangelist)
    John Nelson Darby (18 November 1800 – 29 April 1882) was an Anglo-Irish Bible teacher, one of the influential figures among the original Plymouth Brethren and the founder of the Exclusive Brethren. He is considered to be the father of modern Dispensationalism and Futurism. Pre-tribulation rapture theology was popularized extensively in the 1830s by John Nelson Darby and the Plymouth Brethren, and further popularized in the United States in the early 20th century by the wide circulation of the Scofield Referen…



    snip

    Margaret MacDonald (visionary) - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDonald_(visionary)

    Margaret MacDonald was born in 1815 in Port Glasgow, Scotland and died around 1840. She lived with her two older brothers, James and George, both of whom ran a shipping business. Beginning in 1826 and through 1829, a few preachers in Scotland emphasized that the world's problems could only be addressed through an outbreak of supernatural gifts from the Holy Spirit. In response, Isabella and Mary Campbell of the parish of Rosneath manifested charismatic experiences such as speaking in tongues. A…
     
    #64 sooda, Feb 2, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2020
  5. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +302
    Religion:
    Christian
    No, it doesn't support what you are saying. The Second Coming of Christ was always held by the Church. Many other truths surrounding it were being learned. You seem to think because the Bible is complete, everyone has complete knowledge of it. They don't. Just as the Canon of Scripture was developed over time, so also the truths found in the Bible. Knowledge was always progressive. Always to be compared with Scripture, but always learning.

    Even the disciples in Jesus presence didn't always get it. (Mark 8:14-21) (John 6:60-68) (Luke 2:47-50)

    When Jesus first came He emphasized the Kingdom to Israel and Himself the rightful King. The disciples understood what he was saying. The Pharisees and religious leaders understood what He was saying and viewed Him as a threat to their position. What none of them understood was that in rejecting Him and putting Him on the Cross, they were ignorantly playing into God's hand. Just as satan and his angels played into God's hand in provoking the Cross.

    They understood Christ as King over Israel. They didn't understand His dying for the sin of the world. And this message Christ kept silent except to the disciples at times but it always went right over them. Why? Because had they are the leaders known they wouldn't have allowed Christ to go to the Cross. (1 Cor. 2:7-8) "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." In other words, there was a time when it was to be kept silent. And then there was a time when it is made known.

    So, the same is true with dispensationalism and the Second Coming of Christ. Dispensationalism is not adding any thing new to Scripture. It is coming to an understanding of Scripture. And it is understanding it at the time when God opens it to be understood.

    The only myth is your post.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  6. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +302
    Religion:
    Christian
    What's the matter? Post #(58) too difficult to respond to. Again, you have failed to prove the motive of Scofield in promoting dispensatinalism and the Bible which bears his name was political and for the furtherance of Zionism.

    All you can prove is that you don't like Dispensationalism and so you, like the others, attack the proponents of it.

    Again, you made the allegations. Still waiting for the proof.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  7. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +9,410
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    You yourself quoted that, "Early Protestant doctrine emphasized soteriology as they broke away from the Roman Church. Their views of eschatology or end times events, pretty much stayed the same as that of the Roman Church, which was Ammillennial.". Amillennialism is not the same as dispensationalism. Those two are very different, even if they have "2nd coming" as a central theme. They are not the same. So saying early Christians believed in the 2nd coming, does not mean early Christians believed in Darby's doctrines.

    You understand this don't you?

    Oh my. Why would you assume I think everyone has complete knowledge of the Bible? Is this something you do? I sure don't. I can say this though, that the more you know, the more you don't know. And when it comes to the assurance of fundamentalists in their reading of scripture, I conclude they don't know much of anything at all. Their self-assurance it's "What God says" betrays their deep lack of knowledge.

    I certainly can claim you don't get any of it either, based on my understanding of the Christian message. But I think you understand it in the way it makes sense to you. Just like anyone does based on their life experiences and knowledge.

    This is such an extraordinary statement I have to focus on it. You make God sound like a manipulator, ****ing around with people to prove He's got all the power over those little peons. "Me God, you see! Damnit!" :) "Playing into God's hands", is a very, very strange way of thinking about or imagining the nature of God. I cannot relate to that on any level. I don't see God as needing to prove himself to others or play games with them.

    Were your parents like this with you? Our basic image of God stems from how we saw our parents relationship with ourselves as children.

    That's not really sound reasoning here. The Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons all say the same things here. In the fullness of time, God restored the truth to the world. You're as much a victim as they are to this line of reasoning.

    You don't think I wrote it? :)
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +302
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yes, I understand it. It is what I just said. The point is that knowledge of Scripture is progressive. Which went over your head.

    Oh my. You're the one that refuses further knowledge concerning the Bible, which is what Dispensationalism is. So, I'm not assuming anything. I'm just going by what you said.

    You miss or ignore the point. The disciples didn't always understand what Jesus was saying. It took time. Thus it is no big deal that the early church didn't know of the doctrines of what is now called Dispensationalism. It would come in time, based on when God was ready and their progression in that knowledge. My knowledge of Dispensationalism and the Second Coming is based solely on the Bible.

    Yes, you focus, or cherry pick my statements that you think you can address. You leave out the context of what is said as it disproves the emptiness of your position. A common tact. The point of what I said is that had the disciples known, or if the leaders knew, or if satan had known, that the point of Christ coming the first time was the Cross, if it had been revealed to them, they would not have crucified Christ. And I gave your Scripture for it, which you of course ignore. (1 Cor. 2:7-8) "But we speak the mystery of God....Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." So, do you see? Understanding of what all was going on would come later with the disciples and the Church. Meaning that just because Dispensationalism was not known by the early Church means nothing. It, just like Christ's sacrifice is the product of believers progressive knowledge of the Bible.

    If you want to call God manipulative, that's fine. He does manipulate history. He does not need to prove Himself and doesn't go about to prove Himself. He will reveal Himself to His people. He doesn't play games and He will accomplish His work.

    As I said, Dispensationalism added nothing to Scripture. It is coming to an understanding of Scripture.

    Of course you wrote it. It is in the category of myth.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
    #68 Good-Ole-Rebel, Feb 3, 2020
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2020
  9. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
    Soteriology is about salvation NOT the Scofield heresy.

    Wrongly dividing the word of truth: The uncertain soteriology of the Scofield Reference Bible
     
  10. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
    Progressive Revelation | Reformed Bible Studies ...
    https://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/progressive-revelation
    Progressive revelation means that we who live in the new covenant era are blessed to know more about God’s plan and its outworking than those who lived under the old covenant. That does not mean, however, that we ignore the old covenant revelation, for Scripture cannot be broken (John 10:35).

    [video]
     
  11. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +302
    Religion:
    Christian
    As usual your statements are empty and do not address what is being said. You don't know what to say, but feel you must say something.

    Why do you enter upon another's argument and ignore your own? Why don't you respond to post #(58)? I will tell you. Because you can't. Your allegations that you love to constantly repeat have been shown to be made up by you and others like you who hate dispensational theology.

    You are of those who think if you can say it enough people will believe it. But when challenged....you have nothing.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  12. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
    So you are a strict Calvinist?

    Plymouth Brethren - Wikipedia
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plymouth_Brethren

    The Brethren movement began in Dublin, Ireland where several groups of Christians met informally to celebrate the Lord's Supper together in 1827–28. The central figures were Anthony Norris Groves, a dentist studying theology at Trinity College; Edward Cronin, studying medicine, John Nelson Darby, a curate in County Wicklow; and John Gifford Bellett, a lawyer who brought them together. They did not require ministers or even an order of service, as their guide was the Bible alone.

    Wikipedia · Text under CC-BY-SA license

    Scofield pushed the idea of "progressive revelation"..
     
  13. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
    Doctrinal Statement What We Believe – Scofield Prophecy ...
    https://scofieldprophecystudies.org/doctrinal-statement-what-we-believe
    – Taking into account progressive revelation – Recognizing the glory of God as the ultimate purpose of God in the world [Eph.1:10 3:2, 9] On Current Issues. We believe that corruptive influences have always been working against the Church, the body of Christ. Along with anti-moral forces, Scofield Prophecy Studies repudiates the man created ...
     
  14. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
  15. Windwalker

    Windwalker Veteran Member
    Premium Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2013
    Messages:
    13,478
    Ratings:
    +9,410
    Religion:
    Love, Light, and Life
    It apparently went over your head when I cited the Mormon's "progressive knowledge". Do you believe in the golden tablets? That's new theology too. If your argument makes Darby's theology true because it is new to Christianity, then that means you should be preaching the golden tablets theology too. They claim support in scripture too. So do the Baha'i in their progressive knowledge. So do all modern "We found the truth of scripture" claimants in all their many-colored varieties.

    There are tons of conflicting modern beliefs today that can all lay claim to your argument to support themselves. What makes your true, and theirs wrong? Because you believe it, and you are one of the chosen few for God's special truths? Darby has it right, because you believe it is true and saw the magic proofs in scripture? But when they do the same with their modern beliefs, they're magically wrong, while you know you're right?

    I refuse further knowledge concerning the Bible? I spend a lot of time researching what modern scholarship tells us about the formation of early Christian beliefs, within a multiplicity of disciplines; anthropology, ethnology, sociology, etc. Do you examine these? Are you sure you're not the one who refuses further knowledge when it comes to you in the form of modern Biblical criticism?

    I'm hearing projection here, saying I'm doing what in fact you are doing. Example, when I earlier in another thread cited the work of John Dominic Crossan in my thread, you basically dismissed all of it as the views of an "unbeliever". The fact of what I was saying, shows that I do except further knowledge beyond what I'm just told is true by a bunch of modern preachers who lack the level of knowledge necessary for understanding more about the Bible, or about the earth itself for that matter in their rejection of science. They seem more interested in affirming what they've already chosen to believe because it's the product they chose as consumers in the marketplace of religions. "Progressive revelation" is something they all claim as a rationalization for their consumer choices.

    Refusing knowledge, is not my sin.

    Have you looked into becoming a Baha'i? They say the same things. So do all those who needed some "progressive revelation" to show us what the early disciples didn't get, but these moderns magically do now. I see no difference between Darbyism, Mormonism, Bahaism, Restored Churchism, New Revelations, new prophets, restored doctrines, etc. It's all the same phenomenon, and you're just one of the uncritical consumers of it in the marketplace of their modern theologies.

    You do realize, they all believe they have the truth just like you do believe you do? What makes you different? You have the Bible? So do they. Anything else? Self confidence? They have that too. Anything special to set you apart from them that they can't equally claim for themselves?

    This sounds exactly like the Baha'i, and a long list of progressive revelation upstart religions during the exact same time of Darby, all showing us what the Bible really meant, but the modern prophet had to show us. These were all happening at the same time in modern history, with 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Baha'i, Pentecostalism, restored truth movements, etc. They all claim to be bring to light the truth of scripture that was lost to the church. They all are the same. They all claim scripture supports them.

    I've noticed you doing this with my posts. To my knowledge, I'm not ignoring anything you've said.

    I did see this, but didn't reply to it as it seemed so blindly flawed, I didn't bother to waste space correcting it. But since you insist. Are you saying that if the truth had been revealed to them, they wouldn't have crucified Jesus? Are you serious? Have you never read the exchanges of Jesus with the religious leadership of his day? They were being told the truth, but they could not hear it because of their own sins. That's as true today as it was then. It's not because of a lack of truth being revealed. It's because of the hardness of their own hearts. I could look up the verses for you, if you need me to?

    I have no problem with that verse being taken as true. What I have a problem with is your claim that it was because it wasn't revealed to them. That is false.

    "The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

    The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."​

    As you can clearly see above, the truth was revealed to them. But they couldn't see it. Are you saying Darby is Enlightened, and the rest of Christianity that didn't see "Dispensationalism" in the Bible were refusing Christ? What a strange predicament you have here.

    It doesn't mean nothing. It means everything. Place it into context of the day and age where you had all manner of new revelations about scripture going on, many different and conflicting cults of Christianity popping up all over like a pot of popcorn on the stove of the 1800s. Darby fits right in there with them. Yet, he is right and they were all wrong, according to you? How does that work?

    I didn't call God manipulative. You did that. I was calling out that as a very strange view of God. A frightening one, actually. Do you manipulate others and call that righteous in your mind? If this is your image of God, it is an image of yourself as well.

    "He doesn't play games...." "They played right into his hands". This is a contradiction. You said both of these things. If they played right into God's hands, that means he was playing a game and manipulated them into God winning that game.

    Sincerely, this is a really terrible view of God. I would run away from a god like this. Yuk. Love does not play with others to their own ends to prove a point. "Love works no ill". "God is Love".

    It most certainly did add something to it. It added a particular filter through which you and other uncritical believer read the Bible. It colorized it. For 1800 years prior to that time in modern history, that color did not exist. Again, you are missing the magic trick. They don't add words to scripture. They supply a new view of it. And all modern cults do this. All of them are finding what was "there the whole time" in scripture.

    It's clear to me you do not understand what mythology is.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    23,969
    Ratings:
    +12,626
    Religion:
    None
    And this from one who believes in noahs ark.
     
  17. Audie

    Audie Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    23,969
    Ratings:
    +12,626
    Religion:
    None
    Progressive revelation makes sense as something to
    promote if you want to promote your own revelations.
     
    • Winner Winner x 2
  18. sooda

    sooda Veteran Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2019
    Messages:
    13,284
    Ratings:
    +4,397
    Religion:
    Christian
    Yep.. you can make it up as you go and attribute it to God.
     
  19. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +302
    Religion:
    Christian
    I don't know what that has to do with anything other than change the subject.

    Good-Ole-Rebel
     
  20. Good-Ole-Rebel

    Good-Ole-Rebel Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2019
    Messages:
    2,611
    Ratings:
    +302
    Religion:
    Christian
Loading...