Twister: Caught In the Storm

[Josheb]

Darby was first.

What Dispensational Premillennialists do with their own history is another deceitful teaching. They write about the history of Dispensationalism and they write about the history of premillennialism, but they never write about the history of Dispensational Premillennialism (DP). The reason they do not write about Dispensational premillennialism and Dispensational premillennialism is because there is no history for the two combined motifs prior to John Darby. One way to recognize this is when their "history" books repeatedly say "dispensational" but never "dispensational premillennialist." Dispensational premillennialism is much, much different then Historical premillennialism. That is why the Historicists changed the name of their viewpoint! They were horrified when Darby (Scofield, etc.) started teaching their nonsense. They wanted nothing to do with Darbyism. They wanted everyone to know their premillennialism was the historic viewpoint. Dispensational premillennialism has no history before the early 1900s. It is a radically different theology than anything previously held to be true in Christian thought, doctrine, or practice. They, DPist teachers are not being fully forthcoming, and every sentence of silence about what I have just said is a lie of omission.

It is true the ECFs and other early theologians used the word "dispensation" but they always did so in the context of the covenant, never as something completely separate and different from the covenant(s). What Darby and later DPists did was invent a meaning for the word "dispensation," removing it from its covenant context(s), and use their newly invented term to parse the Bible. No one did that before Darby.

bump for @TMSO


And I respectfully suggest you and @Arial regather your exchange, restate your basic positions in a sentence or two and then restate the one or two current point(s) of disagreement (or specific inquiries each of you would like answered before the conversation proceeds).

 

[Arial]

bump for @TMSO


And I respectfully suggest you and @Arial regather your exchange, restate your basic positions in a sentence or two and then restate the one or two current point(s) of disagreement (or specific inquiries each of you would like answered before the conversation proceeds).

The conversation isn't going to proceed. I have already stated that. It wouldn't matter that if anything were restated as @TMSO went off track from what was stated in the OP to follow is own agenda and by repeatedly misstating what I had stated. As have you when you come in with Darby was first. I neither said he was first or not first in all of history to have ideas about the rapture (subject of OP and its possible detrimental effects on those who follow it) but that he was first in a specific thing.

 

[Arial]

Since my response to post #47 seems to have disappeared, here is a gist (at least the first part. I don't want to spend another 3 hours writing it again, since you aren't going to read it anyway. (nothing to do with you... all fingers pointed at me. [as the reason why no one cares. It is obviously me, to me.]

FROM ADMIN: No posts by @TMSO have been removed from public view.

 

[Arial]

It could be continued by you dealing with 1: at least acknowledge God's nature at stake with the 70 weeks (timeline ONLY) in the 70 week prophecy.

What that means is, not acknowledging God's nature at stake with the 70 weeks in the 70 week prophecy, but agreeing with your interpretation. Or is giving my interpretation. And I have told you, and did tell you, that I am not going to give my interpretation since you and I have already been through that in another thread and it was fruitless for me to do so then, and it will be again. It is completely within my rights for me to do that. And it is the reason I gave for what you are calling "moving the goal posts". That is not what the OP is about.

2. I actually wrote to the OP above. I can only consider that I was right in my observations in comment #46.

No you were not and I showed you why. For the sake of not derailing the thread into an endless, fruitless, discussion of the different interpretations of OT prophecy and using OT prophecy to interpret NT passages. That is improper Bible hermeneutics. It is the NT that reveals the mysteries in OT prophecy, Therefore, if one cannot support their claim of a seven or 31/2 year tribulation, and a pre-trib rapture of the church, and a thousand year reign of Christ on earth without the church present, from the NT, it indicates that not even the dispensationalist can do so.

You reason I said you shifted the goalposts is because I used the Old Testament as a premise to my argument (nothing substantial) and then you came out and said, Old Testament no longer allowed. Since that wipes out a premise, it is shifting the goal post.

You should not need that premise. See above. Even though I told you that in my post #47 where I defended myself against your claim that I moved the goal posts. And I also told you why I restricted the question which was an amended question, not a different question, and why it needed to be amended. I already knew why you said I moved the goal posts. I gave my defense. Your counter here is merely stating what you already said. Not addressing my defense.

As I said I don't want to go through all that writing again, even if I don't have a life. I do wonder what happened to the comment as that is just weird. (I would probably blame the system I am on.) Considering I actually brought up the OP, and you shut down, again, I feel justified for comment 46. Don't worry about it. I know it is about me and not you. (The reason why.) Always about me. A lesson well learned, and reinforced. (There is no sarcasm in what I just wrote.)

None of your posts were deleted. My guess is you wrote it, didn't save it, and didn't post it even though you thought you did. But if, as you say, it would take three hours to rewrite, there is no reason that it should, unless it contained irrelevancies such as repeating your interpretations of OT prophecy.