ECT Dispensationalism Defined

[john w]

The other thing that Smith, Russell, and Darby have in common, is that each man taught that he had a special revelation directly from God.

John Nelson Darby - "For my part, if I were bound to receive all that has been said by the Millenarians, I would reject the whole system, but their views and statements weigh with me not one feather. But this does not hinder me from enquiring by the teaching of the same spirit... what God has with infinite graciousness revealed to me concerning His dealing with the Church" - J. N. Darby, 'Reflections Upon the Prophetic Inquiry, and the Views Advanced in It', Collected Writings., Prophetic I, Vol. II. pp. 6-7.

"That's not my argument.I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Wimpy Tet.

“I never said it was wrong for how old it is.”-Tet.


Vs.


"My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.

 

[Danoh]

Joseph Smith - ""I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old."

Ellen White - "Time is almost finished. Get ready, get ready, get ready.' ...now time is almost finished...and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months."

Charles Taze Russell - "we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914"

John Nelson Darby - "We insist on the fact that the house has been ruined, its ordinances perverted, its orders and all its arrangements forsaken or destroyed; that human ordinances, a human order, have been substituted for them; and what merits all the attention of faith, we insist that the Lord... is coming soon in His power and glory to judge all this state of things"

From July 22nd, 2011, 06:37 PM, Post #11, by Hilston, on the link below…

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=75224

Originally Posted by Hilston
Again, this explanation does not even come close to addressing even the small sample of glaring contrasts I outlined above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai, previously
This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
None of these teachings were ever taught before Darby.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
Regardless of what we're talking about -- whether it's a future tribulation or Calvinism -- it doesn't matter who taught what and when, as long as it is taught in Scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
Nowhere in the Bible does God tell Paul that He is going to keep all the really important stuff hidden for 1,800 years.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
It is your assumption that it has been hidden. I don't believe it has, but it's irrelevant. If the Scriptures teach it, that suffices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
You will claim that I am basing my argument on silence. However, you are making your argument on speculation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
The difference is, it's not my argument. I'm merely showing how absurd your argument is. If the Bible teaches it, that is sufficient, regardless of whether you can find some flawed, fallible, partisan human being to corroborate it or not. You are a respecter of men and of flawed human consensus, as is evidenced by your desire to defer to some extra-biblical authority to tell you what to believe. It isn't rationally sound, it underestimates human fallibility, and commits a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
I can prove I read a book, but I can't prove I didn't read a book. You want me to prove that these teachings didn't exist. No one can prove a negative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
On the contrary, I want you to see the absurdity of your argument. I want you to see and acknowledge that Calvin faced the same charges that you are launching at me. They were not relevant then, and they're not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston
All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston
And you can't love and cuddle the bathwater with the baby, which is what you're doing by granting so much authority to your so-called "fathers."

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
God tells us that pastor teachers will be gifted with the Holy Spirit to teach. That means that even though many false teachers have come and gone throughout history, the truth has been passed down by some pastor - teachers.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston
What you've basically said here is that the Scriptures are insufficient in and of themselves. When Paul describes the giving of gifted men to the church, he is not saying that we should blindly follow them or defer to their consensus opinion. He is merely describing the way the Body of Christ operates, in contrast to the patriarchal and sacerdotal hierarchy taught in the circumcision gospel. The final arbiter of whom should be considered a pastor-teacher, evangelist, etc. is the Word of God, not the consensus of men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
Which means that some of the men had to teach the truth, which means that an absence of the truth for 1,800 years cannot have happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston
That's what the papists said to Calvin. Here is what Calvin wrote in the introduction to The Institutes:

Quote:
Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracle it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. ... in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 8).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston
Don't you see? You're making the same argument that was laid against Calvin, 475 years after Calvin originally first penned it. At the time, Calvin was up against 1,500 years of church history. Why was it not okay for the papists to challenge Calvin with 1,500 years of church history, yet it's okay for you to challenge me with 1,800 years of church history?

Hilston


No, Hilston, apparently Teltelestai does not see - but what can you expect from the double-talk that is Teltelestai's ideas out of books, at the same time he erroneously asserts his seemingly endless ignorance that the Spirit is still revealing things to men outside of the Word.

 

[andyc]

identifying "physical people" on earth is glorifying in the flesh

=you assert the resurrection is glorifying in the flesh

=satanic

Obviously there is a transformation as explained by Paul in 1Cor 15.
The first Adam was made of dust (flesh), but the second Adam wasn't.
And as we've born the image of the first Adam (flesh), so we must bear the image of the heavenly man.

All the more I see you glorifying flesh.

 

[john w]

Joseph Smith - ""I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old."

Ellen White - "Time is almost finished. Get ready, get ready, get ready.' ...now time is almost finished...and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months."

Charles Taze Russell - "we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914"

John Nelson Darby - "We insist on the fact that the house has been ruined, its ordinances perverted, its orders and all its arrangements forsaken or destroyed; that human ordinances, a human order, have been substituted for them; and what merits all the attention of faith, we insist that the Lord... is coming soon in His power and glory to judge all this state of things"

“We now live in a new heaven and a new earth.”-Tet


“Preterism teaches that we are now in the new heavens and earth, and that not even enjoyed by most of the Apostles!”-Preterist Todd Dennis


"Did you ever regret the absence of the burnt-offering, or the red heifer, of any one of the sacrifices and rites of the Jews? No, because, though these were like the old heavens and earth to the Jewish believers, they have passed away, and we now live under a new heavens and a new earth, so far as the dispensation of divine teaching is concerned. The substance is come, and the shadow has gone: and we do not remember it." (C.H. Spurgeon, MP vol. 38, p. 354).


Why do you follow the inventions of fallible men, wimp Craigie?

 

[john w]

Obviously there is a transformation as explained by Paul in 1Cor 15.
The first Adam was made of dust (flesh), but the second Adam wasn't.
And as we've born the image of the first Adam (flesh), so we must bear the image of the heavenly man.

All the more I see you glorifying flesh.

=you assert the resurrection, the redemption of the body, and the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and bones today, as a man, is "glorifying in the flesh"

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssstanic.............

 

[andyc]

It's why the Dispensationalists have animal sacrifices for sin atonement in the future.

They have themselves ruling with Christ Jesus over these kingdom slaves.

In other words, Christ died in vain.
They end up worshiping the shadow forever. How dumb is that?

 

[john w]

From July 22nd, 2011, 06:37 PM, Post #11, by Hilston, on the link below…
Again, this explanation does not even come close to addressing even the small sample of glaring contrasts I outlined above.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai, previously

This belief is the teachings of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Bullinger, Sir Robert Anderson, Stam, and other men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston, previously
How is this relevant to what the Scriptures teach.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai

None of these teachings were ever taught before Darby.
Regardless of what we're talking about -- whether it's a future tribulation or Calvinism -- it doesn't matter who taught what and when, as long as it is taught in Scripture.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai
Nowhere in the Bible does God tell Paul that He is going to keep all the really important stuff hidden for 1,800 years.

It is your assumption that it has been hidden. I don't believe it has, but it's irrelevant. If the Scriptures teach it, that suffices.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai

You will claim that I am basing my argument on silence. However, you are making your argument on speculation.

The difference is, it's not my argument. I'm merely showing how absurd your argument is. If the Bible teaches it, that is sufficient, regardless of whether you can find some flawed, fallible, partisan human being to corroborate it or not. You are a respecter of men and of flawed human consensus, as is evidenced by your desire to defer to some extra-biblical authority to tell you what to believe. It isn't rationally sound, it underestimates human fallibility, and commits a logical fallacy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai

I can prove I read a book, but I can't prove I didn't read a book. You want me to prove that these teachings didn't exist. No one can prove a negative.

On the contrary, I want you to see the absurdity of your argument. I want you to see and acknowledge that Calvin faced the same charges that you are launching at me. They were not relevant then, and they're not relevant now. Anyone who embraces Calvin's anti-papist teachings on the basis of consensus is dishonoring the very spirit of Calvin's opposition to the papists.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hilston, previously

All of the so-called "early church fathers" taught things contrary to Scripture. Their antiquity is irrelevant to what the Scriptures teach. To measure the verity of one's doctrine according to the teachings of fallible men, whoever they may be, and however long ago they lived, is folly, according to the Scriptures. Let God be true, and every man a liar.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai

You can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
And you can't love and cuddle the bathwater with the baby, which is what you're doing by granting so much authority to your so-called "fathers."

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai

God tells us that pastor teachers will be gifted with the Holy Spirit to teach. That means that even though many false teachers have come and gone throughout history, the truth has been passed down by some pastor - teachers.

What you've basically said here is that the Scriptures are insufficient in and of themselves. When Paul describes the giving of gifted men to the church, he is not saying that we should blindly follow them or defer to their consensus opinion. He is merely describing the way the Body of Christ operates, in contrast to the patriarchal and sacerdotal hierarchy taught in the circumcision gospel. The final arbiter of whom should be considered a pastor-teacher, evangelist, etc. is the Word of God, not the consensus of men.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tetelestai

Which means that some of the men had to teach the truth, which means that an absence of the truth for 1,800 years cannot have happened.

That's what the papists said to Calvin. Here is what Calvin wrote in the introduction to The Institutes:

Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracle it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. ... in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty. (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 8).

Don't you see? You're making the same argument that was laid against Calvin, 475 years after Calvin originally first penned it. At the time, Calvin was up against 1,500 years of church history. Why was it not okay for the papists to challenge Calvin with 1,500 years of church history, yet it's okay for you to challenge me with 1,800 years of church history?

Hilston


No, Hilston, apparently Teltelestai does not see - but what can you expect from the double-talk that is Teltelestai's ideas out of books, at the same time he erroneously asserts his seemingly endless ignorance that the Spirit is still revealing things to men outside of the Word.

Yes, and Hilston pounded Craigie in the "debate"(knock out of Tet.), as he "punted" the debate, promising to "pick it up" after his vacation. But he "scurried like a cockroach as the light was shone on him"(he taught us that). That's his MO on TOL-swoop in, spam, habitually lie, fly away, back to reading his Preterist commentaries.

He's a punk, and fraud. Even he knows it.

 

[tetelestai]

They glorify the carnal kingdom slaves according to their flesh, in order to remove every verse applying to the BOC,

Correct.

It's why they can't handle this famous verse from James:

(James 2:17) Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

In fact they use this verse in their attempt to separate themselves from the kingdom slaves.

 

[andyc]

=you assert the resurrection, the redemption of the body, and the Lord Jesus Christ, in flesh and bones today, as a man, is "glorifying in the flesh"

Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssssssstanic.............

There's obviously a transformation where the outside reflect the inner glory of what God has done inside. Right now we do not know what this will be, as John says.

We are talking about a spiritual realm, which is why Paul talks about our need for a spiritual body, and this suggests it's not made of dust.
Adam was created with the same substance as his environement, but Jesus was originally not from this environment. And so Paul explains that we must be further clothed with a covering suitable for that environment.

You are glorifying Adam's shamed covering (gnosticism).

 

[tetelestai]

In other words, Christ died in vain.
They end up worshiping the shadow forever. How dumb is that?

If the future animal sacrifices for sin atonement can't convince a Dispie that John Nelson Darby was wrong, I don't know what else can.

However, they double down with Darby, and defend his false teachings.

Usually they start to get real nasty with the animal sacrifices because they know it's a false teaching that is contrary to the Bible, but because they choose to defend Darby, they start attacking me personally to try and divert from actually talking about the actual animal sacrifices they claim will happen in the future.

To prove my point, just read Johnny's posts.

 

[Danoh]

Joseph Smith - ""I prophesy in the name of the Lord God, and let it be written--the Son of Man will not come in the clouds of heaven till I am eighty-five years old."

Ellen White - "Time is almost finished. Get ready, get ready, get ready.' ...now time is almost finished...and what we have been years learning, they will have to learn in a few months."

Charles Taze Russell - "we consider it an established truth that the final end of the kingdoms of this world, and the full establishment of the Kingdom of God, will be accomplished by the end of A.D. 1914"

John Nelson Darby - "We insist on the fact that the house has been ruined, its ordinances perverted, its orders and all its arrangements forsaken or destroyed; that human ordinances, a human order, have been substituted for them; and what merits all the attention of faith, we insist that the Lord... is coming soon in His power and glory to judge all this state of things"

I can see why you would leave this one out - John Calvin's use of your same argument concerning those Scriptural truths the Protestant Reformation had sought to restore:

John Calvin - "Nevertheless, they cease not to assail our doctrine, and to accuse and defame it in what terms they may, in order to render it either hated or suspected. They call it new, and of recent birth; they carp at it as doubtful and uncertain; they bid us tell by what miracle it has been confirmed; they ask if it be fair to receive it against the consent of so many holy Fathers and the most ancient custom; they urge us to confess either that it is schismatical in giving battle to the Church, or that the Church must have been without life during the many centuries in which nothing of the kind was heard. ... in calling it new, they are exceedingly injurious to God, whose sacred word deserved not to be charged with novelty." [John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, p. 8).

Face it, Tel, yours is a willful double-standard.

 

[tetelestai]

I can see why you would leave this one out - John Calvin's use....

Calvin wasn't a contemporary of Darby like the other people on the list were, and Calvin, nor Calvinists, make doomsday predictions like Mormons, Dispensationalists, JW's, and SDA's.

Try to pay attention.

 

[john w]

So ask yourself this, W.
Will all the kingdom saints come back to the earth naked?
If not, why do they require coverings?

Man will have to live on the earth still enslaved by his carnal desires for ever and ever and ever?

If you just stopped and thought a moment about all the nonsense you throw out here, you might just have an epiphany.

Translated: Humanism=I, candyandy, don't "get it," understand it, because of 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV, so I do not believe it, and it is false.

That is how atheists dismiss the concept of hell, your future dwelling.

Sit down.

 

[andyc]

If the future animal sacrifices for sin atonement can't convince a Dispie that John Nelson Darby was wrong, I don't know what else can.

However, they double down with Darby, and defend his false teachings.

Usually they start to get real nasty with the animal sacrifices because they know it's a false teaching that is contrary to the Bible, but because they choose to defend Darby, they start attacking me personally to try and divert from actually talking about the actual animal sacrifices they claim will happen in the future.

To prove my point, just read Johnny's posts.

Yeah

It's because their understanding of grace is very warped.
As I said, they do not see grace as the ability to walk in the Spirit in order to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Instead, grace, to them is all about being in the flesh, but having zero accountability. They can boast about what Christ has done for them, but in reality its simply for the purpose of not wanting to do anything themselves.

The bible teaches that the flesh is corrupt and can do nothing, and so they accept this, and assume that faith in Christ (as knowledge alone, not experience), means that you acknowledge that God no longer looks at the natural you, but instead sees the Christ in you. This in effect leaves you to be carnal, but removes all the guilt associated with it. And this is why you never hear them talking about walking in the spirit. They don't know what this means.
They want to be in the flesh, but throw all the condemnation on Jesus.

 

[Danoh]

If the future animal sacrifices for sin atonement can't convince a Dispie that John Nelson Darby was wrong, I don't know what else can.

However, they double down with Darby, and defend his false teachings.

Usually they start to get real nasty with the animal sacrifices because they know it's a false teaching that is contrary to the Bible, but because they choose to defend Darby, they start attacking me personally to try and divert from actually talking about the actual animal sacrifices they claim will happen in the future.

To prove my point, just read Johnny's posts.

More of your duplicity - you very well know that not all within Mid-Acts show towards you the disrespect in your hostility that you show them even as they continue to hold their ground in refusing to stoop to your level.

 

[Danoh]

Yeah

It's because their understanding of grace is very warped.
As I said, they do not see grace as the ability to walk in the Spirit in order to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh. Instead, grace, to them is all about being in the flesh, but having zero accountability. They can boast about what Christ has done for them, but in reality its simply for the purpose of not wanting to do anything themselves.

The bible teaches that the flesh is corrupt and can do nothing, and so they accept this, and assume that faith in Christ (as knowledge alone, not experience), means that you acknowledge that God no longer looks at the natural you, but instead sees the Christ in you. This in effect leaves you to be carnal, but removes all the guilt associated with it. And this is why you never hear them talking about walking in the spirit. They don't know what this means.
They want to be in the flesh, but throw all the condemnation on Jesus.

Yep, Partial Preterism's one size fits all, at work once more.

 

[andyc]

Translated: Humanism=I, candyandy, don't "get it," understand it, because of 2 Cor. 4:4 KJV, so I do not believe it, and it is false.

That is how atheists dismiss the concept of hell, your future dwelling.

Sit down.

Well if you stopped and thought about this for a second, the old light bulb would come on.

Flesh cannot dwell in a moral governed environment. This is why A & E were told not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once moral restraint is introduced, the flesh rebels by nature.

How can you have a kingdom of righteousness occupied by a people who have a nature that wants to rebel against that very righteousness for ever and ever?

That would be a nation of people who are nothing more than hypocrites worshiping God in hypocrisy for ever and ever.

This is why Jesus explained that the Father was seeking those who will worship him in Spirit. There can be no hypocrisy in this.

 

[tetelestai]

And this is why you never hear them talking about walking in the spirit. They don't know what this means.

You're right.

It's why they deny the New Covenant.

It's why they deny Hebrews, James, and other NT books are written to the BOC.

Even if we only use Romans - Philemon, there are still verses they have to ignore

Example:

(Titus 3:14) And let ours also learn to maintain good works for necessary uses, that they be not unfruitful.

Dispies have been taught that "good works" is an evil that only is associated with the kingdom slaves.

Also, the verse in my signature sends the Darby followers scurrying.

 

[john w]

All roads lead to Darby.

Nobody taught this nonsense before Darby

"There are two great subjects which occupy the sphere of millennial prophecy and testimony - The Church and its glory in Christ, and the Jews and their glory as a redeemed nation in Christ - the heavenly people and the earthly people. The habitation and scene of the one being the heavens; of the other, the earth" - John Nelson Darby, The Christian Witness, April 1838, p. 164.

Nobody taught the satanic nonsense, that you "teach," on TOL, before you.

Name them.


Tet:


I thought so, punk.

 

[john w]

In other words, Christ died in vain.
They end up worshiping the shadow forever. How dumb is that?

In other words, Christ died in vain, because:

1. The law was followed in "early Acts"

2. "Yep, the law is ended."-you