Nope. No one taught the Reformation principles before Luther.
Therefore, on record, you assert that the Reformation principles are false.
On record, Wimpy.
ECT Shazam, TOL! The Lord Jesus Christ already returned in 70 AD
- Thread starter john w
- Start date
Nope. No one taught the Reformation principles before Luther.
Therefore, on record, you assert that the Reformation principles are false.
On record, Wimpy.
musterion
Well-known member
Did your own source preach baptismal regeneration? Yes or No?
No, let me rephrase that.
Do you believe in baptismal regeneration?
More proof of a Darby Follower who lives in denial.
All you are doing is proving my point.
He won't touch that.
musterion
Well-known member
I have already told you that I will answer your question, after you answer my question first.
Is confessing with your mouth a work?
musterion
Well-known member
I know. He'd have done it years ago if he thought he could pull it off.
musterion
Well-known member
Do you believe salvation is impossible if one is not baptized with physical water? I bet you do.
A dispensation isn't a time period.
You live in denial about that too.
All one has to do is go to Wikipedia:
"It considers Biblical history as divided deliberately by God into defined periods or ages to each of which God has allotted distinctive administrative principles.....John Nelson Darby is recognized as the father of dispensationalism"
Denial, Denial, Denial........
You made it up. Why do all you Russell followers live in denial?
Why can't you girls be honest and admit that AD 70-ismdidn't exist before the late 1800's?No one taught, what you taught, until you "taught" it. You live in denial.There is a reason not one of you girls will be honest, and admit that AD 70-ism didn't exist before Russell.
Fun, silly devil boy Craigie!!!
musterion
Well-known member
That's what we've been trying to tell you. Thank you for finally admitting your error and agreeing with us.
Why are you so afraid of my question?
Is confessing with your mouth a work?
C'mon mysteryboy, how hard could this be for a Darby Follower such as yourself?
I can answer it very easily, and have answered it before.
You however, are scared to death to answer my question.
Is confessing with your mouth a work?
musterion
Well-known member
That's not what Darby taught, and that's not what Dispensationalism says.
Dispensationalism teaches time periods.
Right now, you believe we are in a secret parenthetical time period called "the mystery age", or "church age". It has a beginning (somewhere in Mid-Acts), and an end (the alleged rapture).
The fact that you can't admit it's a time period, is once again proof of how you not only live in denial, but shows how embarrassed you are of your Dispensationalism.
Kind of like asking a Mormon about polygamy.
Because when a thing existed or not, outside of THE Book does not matter.
You continually rely on external sources for what's what.
Musterion gave some examples of the hole in relying on external sources and how did you respond - right back into your external sources you went for your "proof."
This is how we see Darby. Most of us have not read him.
But whether we have or not, or whatever is NOT the issue.
The issue is "Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture?" Gal. 4:30.
If, when, and where Darby, or anyone else, including each of us, and you fit that, then ok.
If not, well back to the library of Congress you can take your entire collection of "books about" - they will just have to go.
Heck; even when we of Mid-Acts differ amongst ourselves - that ALONE is the issue - "Nevertheless, what saith the Scripture?"
Your problem is you do not subscribe to this no matter how you have fooled yourself into thinking that you do. You gainsayers all have this apostasy from THE Book in common accross the board.
You and your kind are forever stuck in Israel's problem...
Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
musterion
Well-known member
I can't find where Darby had advanced enough in his own dispensational thought to have come up with that, so it's speculative to say he defined it as a period of time, or that he defined the term at all. However...
Scofield DID say a disp. is a period of time, and most of us disagree with him on that.
You need to demonstrate that Darby himself ever defined the term, much less that he defined it as a period of time rather than God's acts of dispensing. But of course, every time we ask you to document from Darby's own writings some claim you make about Darby, you always refuse.
I've already told you that I'm not going to answer your question, until you first answer mine.
But in the meantime, there is this:
"I have no doubt at all, that a person, who never has been baptized, ought to be, before they break bread. If a person be inside without one's being aware of it, or even were dying, or only waiting the possibility of doing it, one might bear and wait, but it is clear that in scripture they came in externally by baptism. I have baptized a great many Quakers' and Baptists' children who never had been, and when I found un-baptized persons breaking bread, spoken with them, though then waiting till they saw clear" - John Nelson Darby
:rotfl: thank you for proving that we do not follow Darby...