It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Darby-ism, What is It, Who Started It, and Are Believers in It Doomed?

page: 1
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 01:50 PM
link   
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Considering the proliferation of links posted on this sub-forum of Chuck Missler YouTube videos, I thought it would be helpful to discuss what it is he is promoting, namely, dispensationalism, which I am calling Darby-ism, after its inventor.
John Nelson Darby, according to Wikipedia, decided at some point in his college career, training to be a lawyer, to become a Christian. He later decided to become a deacon and then a priest in the Church of Ireland but left in protest when the church officials were required to recognize the U.K. sovereignty, by its bishop. He then decided that the Old Testament prophecies were not about Christianity.
According to this article, he seems to have been a founding member of the Plymouth Brethren, who believed the churches were corrupt. They set up a new system which eschewed normal Christian practices like the Eucharist, in favor of more mundane ways of carrying it out, though there was an exclusivity attached to partaking, just like any other church.
[color=DarkSlateGray]..Referring to the Wikipedia article on the Plymouth Brethren, once it became somewhat established, Darby created a break up where it split into two camps. The Darbyites are associated with the more exclusive of the sects and seem to be also more associated with the term, Plymouth Brethren, as opposed to just, the Brethren. One of the characteristics of the members of the sect is that they prefer to call themselves just Christians.
Traits of the "Brethren" in the US include being nondenominational and the use of the word, Chapel, in the name for the "open" type chuches, while the "closed" type use words like, hall, or meeting. Doctrines include things like "Once Saved, Always Saved", and Mercy, as opposed to Law, while adopting tons of their own laws while claiming to be Antinomian. As for their eschatology, I will quote Wikipedia since it would be impossible to say it more succinctly, "The Plymouth Brethren are generally dispensational, pre-tribulational, premillennial in their theology and have much in common with other conservative evangelical Christian groups."
[color=DarkSlateGray]..After this excursus, let me get back to the history of this particular person, Darby, and it might help to explain that he was doing these things back in the 1800's, his godfather (where his middle name comes from) was Lord Nelson, Darby himself being related to an Admiral in the Navy. I will quote an entire paragraph here from Wikipedia that describes some of what he did to establish his personality on the religious scene of the world.

Darby traveled widely in Europe and Britain in the 1830s and 1840s, and established many Brethren assemblies. He gave 11 significant lectures in Geneva in 1840 on the hope of the church (L'attente actuelle de l'église). These established his reputation as a leading interpreter of biblical prophecy. The beliefs he disseminated then are still being propagated (in various forms) at such places as Dallas Theological Seminary and Bob Jones University and by authors and preachers such as Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye.
Back in his day, Pastor Charles Spurgeon criticized Darby's views which "rejected the vicarious purpose of Christ's obedience as well as imputed righteousness." So it was not just eschatology but all beliefs, that he messed with including making his own translation of the Bible.

edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:20 PM
link   
Can I assume this is another anti-rapture thread?

I'd rather just ask outright now, rather than wasting my time since I've been down this road before a few dozen times, thanks.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
Can I assume this is another anti-rapture thread?

I'd rather just ask outright now, rather than wasting my time since I've been down this road before a few dozen times, thanks.


You are correct, you don't have to assume any more. JM Dewey believes the rapture can't happen because the Jews are not really Jews and the Church replaced them in 70 AD. The world has already gone through the millennial reign and the great tribulation is never going to happen because all is wonderful within Replacement Theology.

Take a note of my sarcasm there. But you are not assuming anything you thought, you were correct in your thoughts.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


thanks for the heads up warmin, i appreciate your candor.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 03:59 PM
link   
What does Eschaetology have to do with Justification?



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by schadenfreude
Can I assume this is another anti-rapture thread?

I'd rather just ask outright now, rather than wasting my time since I've been down this road before a few dozen times, thanks.
I wasn't thinking along those lines but mainly wanted to discuss where the idea came from, and it seems to be this one person, Darby. At this point I'm not sure if that is true or not. If you have information to show that is not the case, then I would be happy to hear about it.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

JM Dewey believes the rapture can't happen because the Jews are not really Jews and the Church replaced them in 70 AD. The world has already gone through the millennial reign and the great tribulation is never going to happen because all is wonderful within Replacement Theology.

I don't know about this statement, "Jews are not really Jews", because I think it is a little irrelevant who the Jews are but I don't think all Jews are automatically blood descendants from one of the Twelve Patriarchs named Judah.

I don't know if the rapture and the Jews being in the same sentence was intentional but I don't see a correlation between the two things. You might, because of your sectarianistic beliefs, but I do not share them to where I can see how the one thing is dependent on the other. Apparently there is some sort of rapture event in the Bible in connection with Judgement Day where it looks like at judgment, you would be taken to an elevated platform of some sort, if you are being decided on in a positive way, as in going to continue to live from that point on.

Millennium being something found only in Revelation, I take it like everything else in that book, which is figuratively. So I don't take it as a literal thousand years but just something said which indicated an incoming reign, where you would greet the new king upon his coronation by saying, "Reign a thousand years, Oh King!"

The tribulation already happened, and people who were killed at the fall of Jerusalem and the other wars connected to that event would be represented by the 144,000 in Revelation. That would be the most literal thing in Revelation to my way of thinking.

What you are calling Replacement Theology is just normal Christianity to normal Christians and only seems odd to Dispensationalists.
edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

What does Eschaetology have to do with Justification?

In this thread on Darby and his religion, they are related by both being things he changed from normal Christianity as it was before he came along.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 05:52 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 



You do realize that no one is really reading anything you write. So, for one more time...read the link I send you because it is what you need to understand.

Error of Replacement Theology

How many times must I have to ask you to read the link?

Are Jews, Jews, and is Israel, Israel in the New Testament? Do They Still Have a Covenant with God? ABSOLUTELY. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON THIS. The Jews are Israelites, not Gentiles (Rom. 9:4). To Israel still belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises (Rom. 9:4). The gifts and calling of God for Israel are irrevocable (Rom. 11:29). There are 77 references to Israel in the NT and none of them refer to the Church. Try replacing the words, "the Church," where Israel is mentioned and the passage is rendered unreadable and silly, e.g., Rom. 10:1, "Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel is, that they might be saved." If you put "the Church" where Israel is mentioned, then it is redundant. The Church is the body of saved believers, so how could Paul's prayer be for the Church to be saved? Psalm 105 has a seven-fold affirmation of God's promises of Canaan to Abraham. This is an everlasting promise, as was Genesis 12:1-3. Jeremiah 31:35-37 speaks of the everlasting nature of God's promises to and for Israel, the Jewish people, which is as sure as the sun that shines by day and the moon and stars that glow in the night. The end-time prophecies, which speak of the return of the House of Jacob to their land (Israel) and its restoration, have overwhelmingly been fulfilled in Israel and the Jewish people in the past 120 years. (See, Isa. 11:11-12; Eze. 37:1-14; Eze. 36; Eze. 35:1, Isa. 43:5,6; Jer. 16:14-16; Isa. 60:9-11; Isa. 49:22-23, etc.). The Gospel and Yeshua came "to the Jews first, then the Greek" (Rom. 2:9,10; Matt:10:5-7;15:24). There is a distinction in roles between the two. Galatians 3:28 says: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." This is speaking of everyone's standing before God as equals, because we are all sinners saved by God's grace and the atoning work on the Cross. Nevertheless, our roles here on earth are definitely distinct; e.g., men and women, mothers and fathers, husbands and wives, etc. all have distinct roles to play. Likewise, Jews and Gentiles have distinct roles to play.


There are enough verses there for you to go through and read.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:08 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Do They Still Have a Covenant with God? ABSOLUTELY. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON THIS.

Where is this clear?
Paul says the world would be blessed by Abraham's seed, singular, as in one person who is the descendant of Abraham, namely, Jesus.
Paul says that the promise to Abraham has been expanded to include the whole world and is open to all who will have faith in Jesus, changing the old covenant, and making the New Covenant. This is where we get the names for the two parts of the Bible, where New Testament means New Covenant.
No, Paul says they were cut off, and room made at the root for new branches, which is the body of Christ.
So all the promised things in the OT are fulfilled in the NT. There are no old prophecies lying about waiting to be fulfilled. We are in the promised land but we need to do those things required to make it that way for everyone and to not be selfish.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

How many times must I have to ask you to read the link?

OK, I looked at the link and here is what I found:

These attitudes result in anti-Semitism in word and deed.
So basically we need to just step down and not be Christians because if we are then we can not avoid becoming haters.

Eze. 37:1-14; Eze. 36; Eze. 35:1,
Do you realize it was debated up into the forth century A.D. if Ezekiel should even be in the canon?
edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

What does Eschaetology have to do with Justification?

In this thread on Darby and his religion, they are related by both being things he changed from normal Christianity as it was before he came along.


But you have "are they doomed?" In the title of the thread. So my question is so what if Darby is wrong? Being pre or post-millennial had no bearing on Justification. Eschatology and Soeteriology are two completely different doctrines. Whether a person believes the harpazo to be pre or post-trib doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus died for them or not.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

But you have "are they doomed?" In the title of the thread. So my question is so what if Darby is wrong? Being pre or post-millennial had no bearing on Justification. Eschatology and Soeteriology are two completely different doctrines. Whether a person believes the harpazo to be pre or post-trib doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on whether Jesus died for them or not.
I think I learned not to say "go to hell" in the title because of all the anti-hell people.
Anyway, that was a question and I doubt there is one version of it anyway. I gave you the name of that book I am trying to read, A Case for Historic Premillennialism: An Alternative to "Left Behind" Eschatology. If you go to that web page on Amazon, there is a pretty good little discussion (in the Reviews section and read the comments on the reviews) about newer types of Dispensationalism that are not as bad as the type described in the book.
The two things traditionally went together, the salvation theory along with the rapture theory. He apparently was a believer in extreme double predestination or something and probably something you should check on since you seem to have picked up on some components of it.
A good example would be to look at Late Great Planet Earth and the last part where it goes into once saved, always saved. I remember when I read that book back in '73 and about freaked out since up 'til then, I had never heard of such a thing and it sounded ridiculous, and still does but it has lost a lot of its shock value.

edit on 10-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by jmdewey60
 


But irregardless, how is what version of Eschatology you subscribe to, or what doctrine of Ecclesiology or Israelology you adhere to have anything to do with Justification/Soeteriology? Those are all fun things to argue with back and forth, but at the end of the day they all have nothing to do with the doctrine of salvation. So where does this "Are they Doomed" nonsense come from?

I mean, there are probably people in Hell right now who have the correct Eschaetology or Ecclesiology but never trusted in Jesus or loved Him.



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by WarminIndy
 

Do They Still Have a Covenant with God? ABSOLUTELY. THE BIBLE IS CLEAR ON THIS.

Where is this clear?
Paul says the world would be blessed by Abraham's seed, singular, as in one person who is the descendant of Abraham, namely, Jesus.


Yes, this is true what you say, however God made more than one promise to Abraham. He made an everlasting land covenant with Abraham's natural seed, and the church wasn't a party to that covenant.


Paul says that the promise to Abraham has been expanded to include the whole world and is open to all who will have faith in Jesus, changing the old covenant, and making the New Covenant. This is where we get the names for the two parts of the Bible, where New Testament means New Covenant.


Isn't that a "Dispensation"? One way God deals with Jew and Gentile to another way God deals with Jew and Gentile? You've just pointed out a "Dispensation" ending and another one beginning. Are you now possessed by the "John Darby/Chuck Missler sin Smörgåsbord Cult" demons also?


No, Paul says they were cut off, and room made at the root for new branches, which is the body of Christ.


Outstanding revisionism!!! You cherry-picked what Paul actually says in one of my favorite chapters, Romans 11! THE very chapter that MAKES me reject Replacement Theology.

Let's look at most of the chapter for context shall we, starting of with VERSE 1: (My comment in parenthesis)

"1 I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin...

2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew...

5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace...

7 What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

(And that "blindness" both Christ and Paul say is NOT permanent)

11 I say then, Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid: but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to provoke them to jealousy...

(And what may I ask you is the purpose of "provoking them to jealousy" if you don't plan on redeeming them in the future as well? Makes no sense any other way.)

12 Now if the fall of them be the riches of the world, and the diminishing of them the riches of the Gentiles; how much more their fulness?...

(How much more their restoration?)

15 For if the casting away of them be the reconciling of the world, what shall the receiving of them be, but life from the dead?...

(Again in verse 15)

And here is the most important part of the verse, you've probably skipped over it most of the time since it's all icky-Jewy and stuff, but:


23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?

(These "dead" branches will be grafted back in... and Paul is about to tell you when, remember Jesus alluded to it before entering Jerusalem on a donkey.)

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

("Musterion" in the Greek is not like we use "mystery" in English. It's not meant like some enigmatic thing that's hard to interpret. Musterion in the Greek means something that has been hidden until this point is now being revealed, like a combination for a safe, or a password for a computer. And "until" means it's not permanent, there will be an end to their "blindness" from verse 7.)

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:

(BTW, that's the return of Christ, Romans was after the ascention.)

27 For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their sins.

28 As concerning the gospel, they are enemies for your sakes: but as touching the election, they are beloved for the father's sakes.

(israel will be regathered and redeemed for the Father's sake.)

29For the gifts and calling of God are without repentance.

(Remember, Biblical repentance means changing one's mind, ^ God will never change His mind in regards to His calling and election.)



edit on 10-2-2012 by NOTurTypical because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 10 2012 @ 11:20 PM
link   
I don't need John Darby to be a Dispensationalist, I have Romans 11.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

So where does this "Are they Doomed" nonsense come from?

It come from the fact that the two things are not isolated but come as a package, where when someone accepts Darby-ism, they get the rapture along with the once saved always saved belief.
I should quote the part in Wikipedia where he defends Calvinist predestination.

Darby defended Calvinist doctrines when they came under attack from within the Church in which he once served. His biographer Goddard states, "Darby indicates his approval of the doctrine of the Anglican Church as expressed in Article XVII of the Thirty-Nine Articles" on the subject of election and predestination. Darby said:
"For my own part, I soberly think Article XVII to be as wise, perhaps I might say the wisest and best condensed human statement of the view it contains that I am acquainted with. I am fully content to take it in its literal and grammatical sense. I believe that predestination to life is the eternal purpose of God, by which, before the foundations of the world were laid, He firmly decreed, by His counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and destruction those whom He had chosen in Christ out of the human race, and to bring them, through Christ, as vessels made to honour, to eternal salvation."
en.wikipedia.org...
If you think about your salvation theory, God somehow knows ahead of time who will be saved and then hands that person over to Jesus for safekeeping, and from that point on, the person can not be lost. Now how is that different from predestination. All it is is predestination just spelled out a little differently to disguise it a something by throwing in a bit about declaring Jesus with your mouth to seal the deal.
edit on 11-2-2012 by jmdewey60 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 12:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NOTurTypical
 

So where does this "Are they Doomed" nonsense come from?

It come from the fact that the two things are not isolated but come as a package, where when someone accepts Darby-ism, they get the rapture along with the once saved always saved belief.


So what does that have to do with Jesus? He saves. His righteousness is what clothes us and we are washed and cleaned by His Spirit.


If you think about your salvation theory, God somehow knows ahead of time who will be saved and then hands that person over to Jesus for safekeeping, and from that point on, the person can not be lost.


Jesus said He would cast out no one who called upon His name. And all that the Father had given to Him would come.


Now how is that different from predestination.


It's a realization God exists outside of time, He sees the end from the beginning. It's understanding of Physics. John Calvin had no clue when he formulated his TULIP doctrine.


All it is is predestination just spelled out a little differently to disguise it a something by throwing in a bit about declaring Jesus with your mouth to seal the deal.


He is Lord, when you're saved you declare that.



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 08:39 AM
link   

And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.


God didn't abolish the old covenant, but created a new one. Both bottles are preserved. He doesn't want either bottle to be broken.

Here' is a better explanation.
edit on 11-2-2012 by 547000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 11 2012 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by 547000

And he spake also a parable unto them; No man putteth a piece of a new garment upon an old; if otherwise, then both the new maketh a rent, and the piece that was taken out of the new agreeth not with the old. And no man putteth new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish. But new wine must be put into new bottles; and both are preserved. No man also having drunk old wine straightway desireth new: for he saith, The old is better.


God didn't abolish the old covenant, but created a new one. Both bottles are preserved. He doesn't want either bottle to be broken.


You can't make these types of people believe. Their idea of heaven isn't worshiping Jesus with song and dance and listening to Him tell you all the things you ever said why about and much more, but sitting around drinking coffee, reading books, and talking with each other about how evil the Jews were (careful not to let Abraham hear mind you) and how the modern state of Israel was worse than Nazi Germany.




top topics



 
1
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join