John Nelson Darby - False Teacher/False Prophet?

[Gxg (G²)]

That really has nothing to do with it.

IF you buy the story that Wright has, that an understanding of history is the only way we can really understand the scriptures, I can only say that is Wrights impositions of a singular filter.

That does not mean his filter is

A. A reguirement

B. The requirement

C. the only avenue

get it?

The man is quite fond of history because

THAT IS HIS AREA OF SCHOLARSHIP.

s

Red herring in what you said - as it avoids the fact that it was never claimed that Wright was the ONLY one others had to listen to nor was it said that he was the golden rule..and thus what you did was create a false scenario/strawman. For others noting where they don't support a Rapture eschatology and then having others discuss other scholars who advocated the same isn't the same as saying those scholars are the only ones you have to support. What you did was come into the discussion with prior bias against Wright and assuming what he noted in agreement with others on the Rapture just had to be off because you chose to not listen to him in general.

What you also did was skip past the main issue of how there's no way to avoid where you're already skipping past the bottom line reality that you already agree with Wright when it comes to objectively dealing with what Wright said.

For as said before, the bottom line is that no amount of railing against the man changes the fact that you already agree with him when claiming you have a "here and now"theology as you already said earlier - for Wright holds/advocates the same...and unless you support the Rapture, it's not a very complicated issue to understand Anyone truly aware of what Wright has said and not avoiding of history in the Church or scripture can easily see where things already lined up and people going against that may have more interest in being against someone than dealing with the facts.

It is what it Your earlier claim:

Originally Posted by squint

When it comes to eschatology, I'm in the here and now camp...

No agenda. Do I believe Darby? Hardly. Not even close.

​

And as said before, you would be in line with Wright in supporting what you did ...had you actually read/addressed what he said . For Wright has a theology focused on the present/here (as shared beffore in ( #50 )

N.T. Wright on Heaven & Rapture Theology ​

 

[Gxg (G²)]

By your reasoning , the RCC nailed Luther's note to the door. Bad reasoning. Luther did it in full awareness of what he was doing. The right or wrong of it not withstanding.

What Darby taught was simply bad theology. How he arrived at it matters little. He arrived at a bad theology. To lay blame elsewhere and for it to be valid would require everyone else to also have come to that same conclusion. Everyone else did not. I wouldn't even blame Darby for those following that theology. We are not robots. We can and do think with our own minds. Where an apple falls is not where it needs to remain. It can be picked up and tossed in the trash.

Good analysis...

 

[squint]

So. Is that what your trying to do?

Do I think the man had nothing of interest to bring to the table?

No. I think he has a lot of valid and interesting things to say.

Just laying down a basis of 'how and why' we might listen to someone other than orthodoxy.

Shifting blame is what children do. "Johnny made me do it". By your reasoning ,

Uh, no. It just means that I am not required to take only what your sect sez and the filters they alone require all understandings and knowledge to be sifted through.

Is that simpler for you?

And the 'why' this is so for me is pretty easy. Because the people and their 'orthodox' systems were proven to be evil killers in the past and taught some very very bad things and did some very very bad things.

Is THAT simpler for you?

the RCC nailed Luther's note to the door. Bad reasoning. Luther did it in full awareness of what he was doing.

I'd be the last guy in the room to say Martin Luther had the whole enchilada. That is just as lame as claiming orthodoxy has it.

The right or wrong of it not withstanding.

I prefer the most honest approach. That nobody has it all, myself included first and foremost.

And I am always suspect of claimants to 'all' knowledge, power and authority. Because such are simple liars on the face of such claims.

What Darby taught was simply bad theology.

I have spent a great deal of personal time (quite a few years back) in the eschatology arena. In any of the major dissections there is some truth and some that does not work in every aspect.

Was Darby entirely wrong in every avenue on every statement? Assuredly NOT. The same can be said of amillenialism. Any of those 6 or 7 very broad categories of eschatology can only truthfully be described as 'best attempts.'

They all have their flaws as well.

Why buy a best guess? Better to just recognize them all for what they are.

How he arrived at it matters little.

We all know that orthodox members are not allowed to listen. If such adherents are really following their rules they are not to heed heretics. Everyone outside their sect is a heretic.

Game over at that point for everyone in orthodox land on these subjects.

Only the hierarchy is allowed to intelligently converse. They have. Their determinations are done. They are not subject to further questioning or sights.

Anything Darby has to say should be immediately discarded by any orthodox member of the non-clergy class. You perhaps are not in that category, seeing your 'rev' term attached to your name so maybe you can actually look at some of Darby's stuff?

He arrived at a bad theology.

Even orthodoxy recognizes that heretics will have 'some' truth Randy. Come on.

To lay blame elsewhere and for it to be valid would require everyone else to also have come to that same conclusion.

Reality sez that is probably not going to happen. Regardless of some claims that it is so, it's not as a reality.

Everyone else did not.

If that is the requirement Randy we all remain a long long way from home don't we?

Too funny.

I wouldn't even blame Darby for those following that theology. We are not robots. We can and do think with our own minds. Where an apple falls is not where it needs to remain. It can be picked up and tossed in the trash.

Too bad you see things that way. Darby does have some interesting and LEGITIMATE sights. Much more than other sects that I know...

Is everything he said and did Gospel? Of course not.

s

 

[Rev Randy]

Do I think the man had nothing of interest to bring to the table?

No. I think he has a lot of valid and interesting things to say.

Just laying down a basis of 'how and why' we might listen to someone other than orthodoxy.

Uh, no. It just means that I am not required to take only what your sect sez and the filters they alone require all understandings and knowledge to be sifted through.

Is that simpler for you?

And the 'why' this is so for me is pretty easy. Because they people and their systems were evil killers in the past and taught some very very bad things and did some very very bad things.

Is THAT simpler for you?
I'd be the last guy in the room to say Martin Luther had the whole enchilada. That is just as lame as claiming orthodoxy has it.

I prefer the most honest approach. That nobody has it all, myself included first and foremost.

And I am always suspect of claimants to 'all' knowledge, power and authority. Because such are simple liars on the face of such claims.

I have spent a great deal of personal time (quite a few years back) in the eschatology arena. In any of the major dissections there is some truth and some that does not work in every aspect.

Was Darby entirely wrong in every avenue on every statement? Assuredly NOT. The same can be said of amillenialism. Any of those 6 or 7 very broad categories of eschatology can only truthfully be described as 'best attempts.'

They all have their flaws as well.

Why buy a best guess? Better to just recognize them all for what they are.

We all know that orthodox members are not allowed to listen. If such adherents are really following their rules they are not to heed heretics. Everyone outside their sect is a heretic.

Game over at that point for everyone in orthodox land on these subjects.

Only the hierarchy is allowed to intelligently converse. They have. Their determinations are done. They are not subject to further questioning or sights.

Anything Darby has to say should be immediately discarded by any orthodox member of the non-clergy class. You perhaps are not in that category, seeing your 'rev' term attached to your name so maybe you can actually look at some of Darby's stuff?

Even orthodoxy recognizes that heretics will have 'some' truth Randy. Come on.

Reality sez that is probably not going to happen. Regardless of some claims that it is so, it's not as a reality.

If that is the requirement Randy we all remain a long long way from home don't we?

Too funny.

Too bad you see things that way. Darby does have some interesting and LEGITIMATE sights. Much more than other sects that I know...

Is everything he said and did Gospel? Of course not.

s

Your understanding of what the Orthodox church teaches is very flawed. We are not, repeat, not forbidden to listen , examine or even study in great detail any matter of faith. Do you know what the Orthodox Church sees as acceptable in eschatology? Look it up as it may surprise you.
I am not saying that every word Darby spoke was a complete lie. The devil, himself can't even uphold that much imperfection. Can we read him? Sure. Should we consider him a teacher? No. Just a man saying what he believes.
I have read the quran. No one has forbidden me to do such. Do I see it as having not a single word of truth to it? No. But I still consider it a lie in it's whole.
You seem to think that the orthodox Church believes in people being infallible. We DO NOT. We correct our clergy and even put some out. We are not required to follow blindly and are allowed to speak against wrongs done even by leaders in our church. The Laity can be the determining factor in these matters and ultimately are.
When I do a wrong being a priest, it does not make the office of the priest wrong. It makes me wrong and I would expect to be corrected.
It's not Darby's end time views that even concern me. It's his teaching s on how he came to that view. The view is merely a theory. The teaching as to why his theory is correct is simply bad theology.
I do not see pre-mill, rapture or the like as heresy. I see it as a guess. I see amill and partial preterism as the same. It's not the theory but the basing of our entire theology on them that leads to false teaching.
When we have to twist scripture to make our theology work, we're going about things backward.
Joseph Smith could have had no followers if he had not used scripture to back up his theology. But he sure twisted it making him false in both teaching and prophecy. Now was every word spoken by Smith a lie? No. Just based on one.

 

[Gxg (G²)]

The "very foundation of the Darbyite philosophy was a belief that all manifestations of the decay or degeneration of civilization were but further signs of the imminent return of Christ to 'rapture' His saints." [4]

"Geographically, the doctrine moved from its original foothold in the large cities of New York, Boston, Chicago, and St. Louis to the northeast and Midwest. Later it spread to the West and South, where it is very strong still. The doctrine is not taught in the liberal Protestant denominations but is taught in independent nondenominational and full-gospel churches and in some evangelical churches. Fundamentalist churches do not realize how relatively new the doctrines are." [5]
"The term 'fundamentalist' has replaced the term 'conservative' in common usage, and the prime division within Protestant Christendom is now held in the public mind to be one between 'liberals' and 'fundamentalists', all the latter being Darbyite in doctrine." [6]
"But what is this Darbyism? We need to go to the British Isles to trace its roots. John Nelson Darby (1800-1882) was trained at Trinity College in Dublin, but soon became dissatisfied with institutional Christianity and its various denominations. At the age of 28 he started a small association devoted to Christian evangelism, and that group grew quickly, soon starting a second branch in Plymouth, England. By 1930 the group was given the name 'The Plymouth Brethren,' and the association continued to grow to form a number of chapters.
"Darby began to develop his seven-age dispensationalism about this time. By 1835 he added 'secret rapture,' and had gradually added dispensations up to 1838. One can imagine the excitement during those years as these men worked on their theories--it must have seemed as if God had unlocked the secrets of the Bible to them. Yet even a superficial study of the Brethrens' proceedings reveals that their road was a very rocky one, full of dissension and acrimony. Napolean Noel's two-volume The History of the Brethren (Denver: W. F. Knapp, 1936), in fact, documents one of the most contentious histories imaginable for a Christian fellowship. It is easy to conclude that Darby ran his organization with an iron hand, and was ruthless when one of the Brethren contradicted him on a fine point of his system." [7]

Darby's System




Darby's "system eventually became known as 'dispensationalism,' although it is more properly described as 'seven age dispensationalism' to distinguish it from the biblical 'two age dispensationalism' that recognizes two 'ages'" (Mt. 12:32, Gal. 1:4, Heb. 6:5). The system itself hardly needs explanation due to its immense popularity in modern Christian circles In short it offers the following seven dispensations (Scofield Bible note on Gen. 1:28):

• 1 - Gen. 1:28 - Innocence
• 2 - Gen. 3:7 - Conscience or moral responsibility
• 3 - Gen. 8:15 - Human Government
• 4 - Gen. 12:1 - Promise
• 5 - Ex. 19:1 - Law
• 6 - Acts 2:1 - Church
• 7 - Rev. 20:4 - Kingdom

"Darby divided the Bible into seven periods of time (dispensations) and eight ages. The present 'age' is not among them, it being unforeseen by Daniel and the rest of the Old Testament prophets and which is a great parenthesis inserted between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel. Advocates vary on whether the 'secret rapture' is to occur in the beginning, middle, or end of the 70th week."

"Darby's system provides for two tracks of salvation--one for Jews, and one for Gentiles. This had been the cause of another of the Brethren's internal battles, centering on B. W. Newton (1807-1899), who regarded this idea as a 'full fledged heresy.' Newton's voice would be echoed in our own era by modern theologian Bernard Ramm who wrote, 'The sharp division of the church and Israel, each going its own unique course through history into eternity is a remarkable piece of theological heresy.' Perhaps Darby had taken Rom. 11:26, 'And so all Israel will be saved,' out of its context--a passage intended to get Gentiles in Rome who had been treating Jews as second class citizens to understand through the olive tree allegory that God's glorious plan (the 'mystery' of Rom. 11:25) provided salvation for both Jews and Gentiles through Christ Jesus. Some of the Roman house churches were working at cross purposes with God by their treatment of the Christians of Jewish ancestry, and Paul wanted them to accept the Jews into their churches with the same love that they had for non-Jewish Christians (Rom 15:7)."

John Nelson Darby - SourceWatch

Darby supposedly had a vision of the Rapture and ideas he got. So did Joseph Smith. In fact, around the same time as Darby, Smith was around. Sounds like a crazy time.

Here is a podcast of the Orthodox view of this whole mess.

The Rapture Part 2 - The Man in Black Orthodox Podcast - Icon New Media Network

The podcast you linked to was interesting - and with Darby, I have a good level of sympathy for what the man experienced. For in light of the lamentations of Protestant reformers three centuries earlier, he believed that the Church of England had lost any notion of salvation by grace and that it had forsaken biblical ideas of what church should be. For Darby it was time to start afresh with a new church and prepare for Jesus' imminent Second Coming - and that resulted from Darby's departure and opening the door to a new way of viewing the church and history that still pervades much of evangelical Christian thought. Eventually, after going to differing places for training and feeling discouraged with the Anglican Church, the man went into groups more akin to where he was at.

For he joined a group of similarly disillusioned Christians who called themselves simply "Brethren" who were committed to operate by what they felt were strict biblical methods, as the group had no professional ministers, rejected denominationalism, believed the Holy Spirit would lead worship, and focused their meetings on simple Communion services, served by a different individual each week. Though officially no more a leader than anyone else in the group (now called the Plymouth Brethren because of their gathering in that city), Darby quickly became its most prominent voice and his pamphlet The Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ (1828), which described their beliefs and practices, quickly spread throughout the West. It seemed Darby quickly gained a platform that made him as prominent a figure as others in the Church he was against - and the former priest traveled to churches in Western Europe, North America, Australia, and New Zealand condemning denominationalism and calling believers to his new ecclesiology.

Darby saw history as a "progressive revelation," and his system sought to explain the stages in God's redemptive plan for the universe - something which isn't bad in/of itself since there was nothing especially radical about dividing history into periods (and on some things, theology is simply our best guess ) - but what separated Darby's dispensationalism was his novel method of biblical interpretation, which consisted of a strict literalism, the absolute separation of Israel and the church into two distinct peoples of God, and the separation of the rapture (the "catching away" of the church) from Christ's Second Coming.

With Darby's innovative views, it is interesting that Darby's return to England brought a split to the Plymouth Brethren - and that the thing he condemned in other churches when it came to ignoring differing views with merit was played out by him in the example of his becoming riled at a member's differences on issues of prophecy and church order - with Darby excommunicating him even after the man admitted and repudiated his error. ...and trying to get the church to enforce his ideas solely as the basis for Communion ...and resulting in Bethesda church refusing to comply with the demand and Darby refusing to receive any of its members.

And when seeing how Darby's followers created a tight group of churches known as Exclusive Brethren (also called Darbyites), while the others, maintaining a more congregational church government with less stringent membership standards, were called Open Brethren - it simply seems to similar to what happens today when others come out of places and go from obscurity to promienence ......having good points on some things but no real accountability and eventually becoming despots/dictators in movements that were originally started on the basis of all men being equal.

The background Darby came from and the struggle he had seems to be reflective of what happens when you see flaws in one area - but then respond the wrong way and open the door for deception in another. Obviously, it's not the case that there isn’t a place for deconstructing the church/doing self-critique when there are issues believers must grow in.....especially among those who are asking questions and are open to rethinking. However, if we’re not careful, we can easily set ourselves up against those that don’t meet like us or share the same vision for the church and we can easily build more walls than open up doors.

The struggle Darby had seemed very similar to what happens today with many places that have others joining the Organic Church due to being disillusioned with Traditional Churches and feeling that they're not doing the Work of Christ in having urgency/making a difference - and yet they often do exactly the same as they condemn.... or over-react (as others in the Organic Church have noted when sharing some of the negative sides to the movement). Making claims that the church in its contemporary, institutional form neither has a biblical nor a historical right to exist...or claiming Institutional Churches (including those with Ancient Christianity) are all about exalting themselves - and yet there are entire conferences where the books/teachings of Organic leaders are focused on and they're treated like celebrities and no one says anything

Prelude-Pagan Conversations
Interview Part 1
Interview Part 2
Interview Part 3
Interview Part 5
Summary -
Howard Snyder's Review of 'Pagan Christianity'
Reformed Baptist - Refuting Extremes of House-Church Movement
​

Because there is an exclusive mindset developed, it leads the way in making room for other doctrines developed to make it seem as if their cause is the just one. Many Organic Churches - feeling isolated or not liking others joining with traditional churches/not being swayed - went from saying they wanted to live life differently to having to say "All the traditional churches are unbiblical/corrput and WE alone are living out what the NT Church was about" - and thus, you see many teachings developed on how Christ only endorsed the Organic/Simple Church model or avoidance of where other churches they condemn were quite biblical. It's human nature to exalt yourself when you feel threatened and step away from what's mainstream - and have to resort to exaggeration.

Having experiencing that first hand, Darby's example saddened me. Saw it with friends and family joining on to other toxic versions of the House Church/Organic Church movement - ignoring where the good versions of it continually were saying that simply being against all things traditional Church was flawed. They'd often talk on the need for having equality and all members able to share - and yet even with that claim, there were some members more equal than others.....as they'd be the main ones talking and influening others to side with them in a group setting. And in time, when others deferred more to them, it became a matter of group think - and anyone disagreeing kicked out. Even After they had said that traditional churches did that unfairly.

And later, as they became more isolated, they had to give themselves a better image by claiming all the churches besides them were either going to Hell or missing the Lord. One member actually gave me a horrible book on the issue that advocated for how evangelism needed to occur in traditional churches so that others were "rescued" from the system - and yet the man advocating such was essentially making himself the focus.

Darby seems to be exactly in the same camp on differing levels..

 

[squint]

Your understanding of what the Orthodox church teaches is very flawed.

Haven't said much about it really, other than they are self standing and self officiating. And have proven themselves and their system to be quite evil in practice.

We are not, repeat, not forbidden to listen , examine or even study in great detail any matter of faith.

For the E.O. side of the equations that may be true.

I would not say that is the case for RCC members. But site owners get mad if those facts are brought out. Reduces hits apparently.

Do you know what the Orthodox Church sees as acceptable in eschatology? Look it up as it may surprise you.

Generally speaking orthodoxy is amil.

I am not saying that every word Darby spoke was a complete lie. The devil, himself can't even uphold that much imperfection. Can we read him? Sure. Should we consider him a teacher? No.

No, categorically not. Where Prots and orthies will depart is as usual.

You have no choice in the matter other than to see the former Roman empire as the harlot as that is what the E.O. teaches. That is not subject to revision, period. Impossible as it may be to actually remedy that NOW, there are other ways to view this matter, and not lay it on orthodoxy, it's members, the RCC or even worldly governments, but none of that can be of any interest to you because this subject is done for you by orthodoxy and can not be changed or challenged.

Whatever you may read now can be nothing more than to gloat over orthox rightness and entertain yourself with the fantasies of heretics. (yeah, I'm kinda bad this way.)

Just a man saying what he believes.
I have read the quran. No one has forbidden me to do such. Do I see it as having not a single word of truth to it? No. But I still consider it a lie in it's whole.

I understand. Should anything outside what you are allowed to believe actually come up it is basically impossible for you to change it or have it authorized. It just won't work and can't work.

You seem to think that the orthodox Church believes in people being infallible. We DO NOT.

Obviously that term invokes considerable challenges to common sense.

We correct our clergy and even put some out. We are not required to follow blindly and are allowed to speak against wrongs done even by leaders in our church. The Laity can be the determining factor in these matters and ultimately are.

I probably would have to give the E.O. much higher marks across the board than their compatriots of orthodoxy (or not, depending on who is spinning the story.)

When I do a wrong being a priest, it does not make the office of the priest wrong. It makes me wrong and I would expect to be corrected.

I understand.

I also understand that priests waved their hands to executioners in the past and did so by the authority of their systems, both overtly and covertly.

Christianity and worldly politics have been quite interestingly intermingled over time regardless of any claims of present orthodoxy.

It's not Darby's end time views that even concern me. It's his teaching s on how he came to that view. The view is merely a theory. The teaching as to why his theory is correct is simply bad theology.

I would generally agree, but again, even amil has it's issues. It's nearly impossible to be right on every count with eschatology. But that's just my sights of it as well, and I admit to my own inabilities to grasp the entirety of the matters. Nor do I necessarily want to. To me it is a trap of a sorts, the quest of complete understandings.

I do not see pre-mill, rapture or the like as heresy. I see it as a guess.

I have conceded as much as well. See, it is not hard to agree is it?

I see amill and partial preterism as the same. It's not the theory but the basing of our entire theology on them that leads to false teaching.

Again agreed. The mass move of many (particularly out West) to various sights of pending doom with the only avenue left being imaginary escapism is quite disturbing to some, and disarming to those who stand there.

But in part it is almost being forced upon them by desperation. There is a lot of material hope being flushed down the material toilet around the globe. And it's been brewing for quite a long time.

When we have to twist scripture to make our theology work, we're going about things backward.
Joseph Smith could have had no followers if he had not used scripture to back up his theology. But he sure twisted it making him false in both teaching and prophecy. Now was every word spoken by Smith a lie? No. Just based on one.

There are a lot of Mormons where I live and I do business with quite a few of them, hard as that can be sometimes. They too have been rapidly withdrawing into themselves as the financial screws are being put to everyone and doing more within their own units. And for the most part they are responsible and upstanding citizens in my sights. Does that mean I agree with J. Smith. Uh, no, not a lick. Does that mean I condemn Mormons to eternal hell fire? Uh. No. That is against my beliefs.

s

 

[bbbbbbb]

You're welcome. The rapture idea came from a dream from a woman in Scotland named Margaret MacDonald, and Darby and his friend Scofield, the lawyer, got wind of it and ran with it in their elaborating this dream into a type of man-made doctrine on the rapture.

Dorothea, I am surprised that you continue to repeat myths that have long since been disproven. C. I. Scofield wasn't even born when John Darby died, so they could have hardly been friends. Likewise, there is absolutely no provable connection between Miss MacDonald and John Darby as they never even met each other.

 

[Rev Randy]

Haven't said much about it really, other than they are self standing and self officiating. And have proven themselves and their system to be quite evil in practice.

For the E.O. side of the equations that may be true.

I would not say that is the case for RCC members. But site owners get mad if those facts are brought out. Reduces hits apparently.

Generally speaking orthodoxy is amil.

No, categorically not. Where Prots and orthies will depart is as usual.

You have no choice in the matter other than to see the former Roman empire as the harlot as that is what the E.O. teaches. That is not subject to revision, period. Impossible as it may be to actually remedy that NOW, there are other ways to view this matter, and not lay it on orthodoxy, it's members, the RCC or even worldly governments, but none of that can be of any interest to you because this subject is done for you by orthodoxy and can not be changed or challenged.

Whatever you may read now can be nothing more than to gloat over orthox rightness and entertain yourself with the fantasies of heretics. (yeah, I'm kinda bad this way.)

I understand. Should anything outside what you are allowed to believe actually come up it is basically impossible for you to change it or have it authorized. It just won't work and can't work.

Obviously that term invokes considerable challenges to common sense.

I probably would have to give the E.O. much higher marks across the board than their compatriots of orthodoxy (or not, depending on who is spinning the story.)

I understand.

I also understand that priests waved their hands to executioners in the past and did so by the authority of their systems, both overtly and covertly.

Christianity and worldly politics have been quite interestingly intermingled over time regardless of any claims of present orthodoxy.

I would generally agree, but again, even amil has it's issues. It's nearly impossible to be right on every count with eschatology. But that's just my sights of it as well, and I admit to my own inabilities to grasp the entirety of the matters. Nor do I necessarily want to. To me it is a trap of a sorts, the quest of complete understandings.

I have conceded as much as well. See, it is not hard to agree is it?

Again agreed. The mass move of many (particularly out West) to various sights of pending doom with the only avenue left being imaginary escapism is quite disturbing to some, and disarming to those who stand there.

But in part it is almost being forced upon them by desperation. There is a lot of material hope being flushed down the material toilet around the globe. And it's been brewing for quite a long time.

There are a lot of Mormons where I live and I do business with quite a few of them, hard as that can be sometimes. They too have been rapidly withdrawing into themselves as the financial screws are being put to everyone and doing more within their own units. And for the most part they are responsible and upstanding citizens in my sights. Does that mean I agree with J. Smith. Uh, no, not a lick. Does that mean I condemn Mormons to eternal hell fire? Uh. No. That is against my beliefs.

s

Quite evil in practice? If thou believes so, oh well. You lump us quickly into Roman catholicism. Therein resides the problem. We are both Catholic but much ends with that.
Generally speaking orthodoxy is amil? Sorry. All three main views are within Her and accepted as proper. I can't say what is the most popular belief as it's not a matter we put much credence into. That's a Protestant trait we don't have. I'd say the majority are of the "wait and see school".
The RCC can speak for Herself. I accept them as brethren but have unresolved issues with them. I am allowed not to see the Roman Church as a harlot if I choose to. Matter of fact I do not see them as such. If former Orthodox do, that's their position. Not being in Communion with does not mean we all think they are evil. We simply disagree on a few matters important enough not to commune with them.
I also find Mormons as upright people. As to their Christianity I have questions. I do not assume none will be in heaven. Smith being a false prophet does not make them evil. Just followers of a false prophet. As to morality, I'd say they have a one up on the average Christian.
I don't expect you to change your views on the Orthodox. Your harboring some grudge that your not over yet. That's yours and not mine to deal with. I've already dealt with mine. Yep. I was also a non-supporter of anything even remotely Catholic at one time. Or at least I thought I was. Am I better than you for being Orthodox? Beats me. I'll leave that judgement to God.

So you assume nothing can be changed in Orthodoxy? You'd better check your history. I wish what you said were true as the ancient way is indeed the way. Without a doubt we are slow to change things. But when we come across things improper we address them. When you come across them, we don't. It's not an "us against you" mindset with us. We simply split from the Roman Church when it came to that point between us. And without a doubt, harsh words were used on both sides. Even more than words in some cases.It's a mindset we are against not men. I would say the Roman Church hold that position as well. They are not against me but my mindset.
I have not once preached against them. My only teaching against them (in my authority) is to teach that we are not in communion with them and that Orthodox Christians should not receive Communion from them until we are in full Communion. They do the same and that is proper.

 

[FireDragon76]

pre-trib Rapture = chiliasm = heresy . It's not just a little heretical, it's very much heretical, and turns Christianity into a cargo cult.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

pre-trib Rapture = chiliasm = heresy . It's not just a little heretical, it's very much heretical, and turns Christianity into a cargo cult.

What plane are you using to get that off the ground?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

pre-trib Rapture = chiliasm = heresy . It's not just a little heretical, it's very much heretical, and turns Christianity into a cargo cult.

Thanks for bumping this thread up!

Is Chiliasm the opposite of Amilleinism?

https://bible.org/article/phantom-heresy-did-council-ephesus-431-condemn-chiliasm
Did the Council of Ephesus (431) Condemn Chiliasm?

One popular Catholic apologetic resource states, “As far as the millennium goes, we [Catholics] tend to agree with Augustine and, derivatively, with the amillennialists… . In the 1940s the Holy Office judged that premillennialism ‘cannot safely be taught,’ though the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue.”1 On the other hand, one writer commenting on the history of millennial thought notes, “Following Augustine, the Church had long believed that the reign of the saints foretold by Revelation was already in operation through its own good offices, and shown little enthusiasm for the idea that Christ would return imminently to set up an earthly kingdom: indeed, the Council of Ephesus declared such a belief heretical in 431.”2

The problem here should be immediately evident. Did the Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 condemn Chiliasm as heresy or not? Surely, the truth of the matter must lie somewhere between “the Church has not dogmatically defined this issue” and “the Council of Ephesus declared such a belief heretical.”


.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

I like Darby's translation because he consistently attempted to use the closest English equivalent word to the Greek word. For example, the Greek word is translated as servant consistently in Darby's translation rather than the somewhat-misleading minister, servant, and deacon in other translations.

Agree. I go to Darby translation for Greek equivelant but it looks too {..} and {..} where he links English readings to make it easier to read to use as copy/paste.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

This guy along with others I'd read about and heard about, sound like false teachers during a time in history when much supposed "revelations" were happening in the UK and around that area. Here's some info on Darby:

A "particular interpretation of Christ's return ... was developed by an Irish Protestant, John Nelson Darby (1800-1882)."
Darby saw a second coming of Christ, which he "believed would precede the time of troubles, or 'tribulation,' mentioned in several New Testament passages, [which] he called the 'secret rapture.'.......................

Darby's System


Darby's "system eventually became known as 'dispensationalism,' although it is more properly described as 'seven age dispensationalism' to distinguish it from the biblical 'two age dispensationalism' that recognizes two 'ages'" (Mt. 12:32, Gal. 1:4, Heb. 6:5).

• 1 - Gen. 1:28 - Innocence
• 2 - Gen. 3:7 - Conscience or moral responsibility
• 3 - Gen. 8:15 - Human Government
• 4 - Gen. 12:1 - Promise
• 5 - Ex. 19:1 - Law
• 6 - Acts 2:1 - Church
• 7 - Rev. 20:4 - Kingdom

"Darby divided the Bible into seven periods of time (dispensations) and eight ages. The present 'age' is not among them, it being unforeseen by Daniel and the rest of the Old Testament prophets and which is a great parenthesis inserted between the 69th and 70th week of Daniel. Advocates vary on whether the 'secret rapture' is to occur in the beginning, middle, or end of the 70th week."


"Darby's system provides for two tracks of salvation--one for Jews, and one for Gentiles.............

The Rapture Part 2 - The Man in Black Orthodox Podcast - Icon New Media Network

All that makes me feel even more better being a Preterist, rather than being caught up in that spider web doctrine.

Everything you always wanted to know about Dispensationalism but were afraid to ask....and for good reason!

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/category/eschatology/dispensationalism/

Evaluating Premillennialism

No evaluation of Dispensational Premillennialism may ignore its teaching of a two-phased return of Christ, the first phase of which is commonly known as the rapture. This feature is its most widely known aspect. Popularized by such best-selling books as Hal Lindsey’s The Late Great Planet Earth, the film The Return,

.........Dispensationalism has a pervasive influence not only extensively, but also intensively. It is usually the case that those who embrace its teachings as a system are affected in almost every area of their theological thinking.

So pervasive is its effect on those who have become its pupils, that even those who have come to see the error of its basic presuppositions testify that dispensational cobwebs have remained in their thinking for a long time after the initial sweeping took place. My own experience bears witness to the truth of what I say.............


John Darby by William E. Cox

John Darby by William E. Cox

*SNIP FOR BREVITY*


It is impossible to understand fully the dispensational view of eschatology apart from some history of its origin and main spokesmen. Biographers of John Darby refer to him as the father of modern dispensationalism.......

The main teachings of dispensationalism, which will be dealt with in subsequent chapters, contrasted with the historic Christian beliefs. Perhaps a summary of their beliefs would be in order at this point. The following quotation (Arnold Black Rhodes, editor, The Church Faces the Isms, p.95) is pertinent.
In brief, the teachings of dispensationalism are as follows:

1. The Jews are to be saved by repentance; they are to be left here on earth as God’s earthly people
2. The Gentiles are to be saved by faith; they will be taken to heaven after the Rapture.
3. The church is a parenthesis in God’s plan and will end in apostasy.
4. The kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of God are sharply differentiated, the first being the Davidic kingdom and the latter being God’s universal world-wide kingdom.
5. God deals with men according to seven dispensations.

Only one of these five major doctrines of dispensationalism (number 2 above) in any way agrees with historic Christian teachings. Even that one would have to be explained, since historic Christians teach that, after the Rapture, Christians are to be taken to heaven permanently, whereas dispensationalists say it is only temporary at that time. Dispensationalists go on to teach that, after seven years, the church will be returned to earth, where it will take part in an earthly millennium...................

Even some of Darby’s best friends hesitated at some of his doctrines. He was accused of heresy a number of times............

Three things might be said in summary concerning this man with whom we differ so much:

1. He was able to do what he did only because there was a great need. One historian said of Darby: ‘His strength lay, now as ever, in the reality of the abuses he attacked.’ The church was corrupt, the clergy unconcerned. Liberalism had all but taken over. Prophetic teachings and sermons about the second coming of Christ were almost unheard of. Multitudes of people were spiritually starved and longed for biblical preaching and a message of hope. Darby was a man of the hour, and so the people heard him gladly.
2. John Darby, and the Plymouth Brethren in general, did much good for the church of Jesus Christ. They stimulated a much needed interest in Bible study. They exposed abuses in the church of their day. And, as time went on, they emphasized the second coming of our Lord.
3. The same thing could well be said about the Brethren and Darby that Paul said about the Judaizers of his day. They had a zeal for God, ‘but not according to knowledge’ (Rom 10:2), Many present day evangelicals would agree with many of Darby’s emphases, and certainly all of us would welcome his zeal for the cause of Christ. His zealousness, however, was not always based on a knowledge of the Scriptures, and, like the Sadducees of Jesus’ day, he erred, not knowing the Scriptures. Yet Darby’s zeal plus his systematic legally-trained mind enabled him to carry the common people along with all he proposed. This was mostly because of the conditions, that is, the lack of Bible training among the laymen, their hunger for change, the lethargic ‘professionalism’ among the established clergy of that day, and the like.

Conclusion:

In looking at John Nelson Darby, the ‘father of modern dispensationalism,’ we have tried to paint the whole man – bringing out his many good points as well as what we sincerely consider to have been his unscriptural teachings. The following caution (W. G. Turner, John Nelson Darby, p. 62) would seem to be an appropriate conclusion for this chapter. According to Turner:

Darby … commands the reverence and admiration of those who recognized in him a spiritual guide. But there is always need for caution lest this admiration of a Christian leader’s intellct and spiritual qualities should be allowed to pass (unconsciously at first perhaps) into an unwarranted and dangerous deference to his authority, or even into peaceful acquiescence in all his teachings as though it were impossible for such a man to err in any point of faith or practice.

.
​

 

[childofdust]

This guy along with others I'd read about and heard about, sound like false teachers during a time in history when much supposed "revelations" were happening in the UK and around that area.

That's Protestantism for you...anyone can come along with their brand-new idea of things, no matter how loony, and people will believe them.

 

[PaladinValer]

What plane are you using to get that off the ground?

Proven history, but really, I see no reason for this ridiculous thread getting resurrected.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

pre-trib Rapture = chiliasm = heresy . It's not just a little heretical, it's very much heretical, and turns Christianity into a cargo cult.

What plane are you using to get that off the ground?

Proven history, but really, I see no reason for this ridiculous thread getting resurrected.

Seriously? the only proven history on milleniumism will be far after we have an option of having an opinion on it.

 

[squint]

That's Protestantism for you...anyone can come along with their brand-new idea of things, no matter how loony, and people will believe them.

Born of necessity.

I shudder to think what horrors would have spread upon the balance of the world had protesters aka PROTESTANTS in the general sense not stepped in to defend at least their right to varying christian beliefs.

Anglicans protested Roman Catholicism. Darby protested Anglicans and Roman Catholicism. And so on it goes.

Some might try to spin Protestants as fashionable. And some founded our country (U.S.) on that basic human right. I think the latter had it correct and would protest any other view in classic Darby fashions more than likely.

Paul protested Judaism and even the shortsightedness of the earliest church hierarchy.

1 Thessalonians 5:21
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

And presumably that means getting rid of what ain't good.

Darby came to see that, in essence, traditional church hierarchy in most forms was, cough cough, perhaps a deterrent to the Spirit, and made that determination in part by viewing the atrocities committed by same.

I would generally agree with his assessment, spiritually speaking, of disassociation with various atrocities aka departing from iniquity.

s

 

[PaladinValer]

Seriously?

Yes.

the only proven history on milleniumism will be far after we have an option of having an opinion on it.

As someone with a degree, I know for a fact otherwise, especially since I have a copy of the primary sources on my bookshelf.

 

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Yes.



As someone with a degree, I know for a fact otherwise, especially since I have a copy of the primary sources on my bookshelf.

What book would that be? Darbys...because his views are a preclude to many views. Such as Finley and many others....but I'm not an inherant to the premill but rather to the midtrib.
Hurray for your degree btw, I'm sure there are many here that can profess the same but any degree of certainty as to millen (which is why your choose my post to claim absolute knowledge of the historical proof that premill is wrong) doesn't impress me, nor give me any information as to your position.

 

[PaladinValer]

What book would that be? Darbys...because his views are a preclude to many views.

Um, it appears that my posts, in this thread and elsewhere, need to be reviewed, because your post not only makes no sense in this thread, but also because it is based on a false assumption that I am somehow a Millennialist; nothing could be further from the truth. I have been one of the staunchest anti-Chiliast here for the last 10 years.

Such as Finley and many others....but I'm not an inherant to the premill but rather to the midtrib.
Hurray for your degree btw, I'm sure there are many here that can profess the same but any degree of certainty as to millen (which is why your choose my post to claim absolute knowledge of the historical proof that premill is wrong) doesn't impress me, nor give me any information as to your position.

Before criticizing my degree and my research skills, a review of your own research on this matter pertaining to what I believe and the actual content of my posts is very much in order.

Edit: Please tell us how I could possibly, logically, get any benefit from Darby's book (which, by the way? He wrote several things, including more than one book) since I'm an Amillennialist?