Theology Club: Darby On Romans 1-3 & 9-11

Danoh

New member
Though he may not have held to A9D distinctions to the extent that, say, we each understand them, personally, from what little I know of John Nelson Darby, I view him as one of our own, as much as the Apostle Paul was.

Darby’s having been established in the mutual faith is there in his writings; just not as fully developed as only later refinements in understanding make possible over time. But time eventually robs all men of said further distinctions; leaving any further refining for those who come after those men, and on their shoulders.

Whenever I reflect on these men, I have one same response :e4e:

The following are some of Darby's thoughts on the Apostle Paul as to Israel's status...

I have Tetelestai to thank for this thread. The fool has so often ranted against Darby, that I ended up fulfilling my own words to him "thanks for putting Darby's name out there; the more astute will look him up for themselves, and find you the fool you are."

Well, I did that, and found the following morsel, from one of our own: John Nelson Darby; much maligned by our common foes. Enjoy :)

I posted the words, because links at times can end up no longer accessible down the road some.

Here is the link, which contains the longer article.

http://bibletruthpublishers.com/exp...ed-writings-of-j-n-darby-expository-5/la62940

Keep in mind Darby wrote the following almost two hundred years ago…

Spoiler

Was the rejection then of Israel final? Surely not. The apostle then gives three proofs that it was not final rejection: a remnant was owned now; the reception of the Gentiles, to provoke the Jews to jealousy, not therefore to reject them; and, finally, the testimony that the Redeemer would yet come to Zion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob, and so Israel be saved as a whole-" all Israel "-not merely the Jew, nor yet as a remnant. With this the like responsibility of the Gentile is revealed. First, then (as himself of Israel according to the flesh, and blessed), he declares God has not cast away Israel; but as in the days of Elijah, when he even pleaded against them as wholly adversaries to God and His prophet, a remnant according to the election by grace had been preserved, so now, of which he, Paul, was a proof. But "if by grace, not by works, otherwise grace was no more grace." Israel had not obtained what they sought amiss, but the election had obtained it, and the rest were blinded. And so it was written, as Moses testifies (Deut. 29:4), and David, in spirit, in judgment on their rejection of Christ (Psa. 69:22, 23)-from the close of their history in the wilderness dealt with in patience till Messiah was rejected; and they now stumbled at the stumbling-stone and were blinded. But was it that they might fall? Was this God's purpose about them? Nay, but their fall was the occasion of salvation to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy.

This is the second proof it was no final purpose to cast them off. It was ordered to provoke them to jealousy, that is, not to cast them off. And so the apostle labored. His service to the Gentiles he magnified as tending to this; so far was he from thinking little of Israel. For if their casting away was the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their restoration and fullness? This leads the apostle to bring out the relative position of Jew and Gentile as to the place of promise in this world-a most important point, and bringing out the real position of the Gentile professing body in this world; and into this I must enter a little.

When, after the flood, men had (casting off God) set up to make themselves a name, that they might not be scattered, God scattered them in judgment and formed them into nations. They gave themselves to idolatry, and God called Abraham (Josh. 24)-when they were in this state-and made him the root of a separate family in which the promises were according to the flesh, or in Christ in a special way by grace. Up to that there had been, for good, no head of a race or family. For Adam was the father of sinners; Abraham, of the seed of God in the world. In him election, promise, and calling were thus established-not merely individually in grace, but as a root and tree of promises. He was the first-fruit, the root. The natural tree was Israel. Some of the branches, for he will say no more, were broken off. It is looked at as a continuing tree of promise, and Gentiles by grace grafted in in their place, to partake with them of the root and fatness of the olive tree. We have not here Jew and Gentile brought into one new man-one body in Christ; not a body united to Christ in heaven, where there is neither Jew nor Gentile; nor a mystery hidden from ages and generations, but Israel, the olive tree of promise, subsisting from Abraham, in possession of the promise, and now some broken off from the place where they were because of unbelief. The root remained in the same tree where they were, and Gentiles were grafted in among them; for they were not natural branches, but only had their standing by faith.

The Gentiles were not to be high-minded, but fear. God had not spared the natural branches; what of the Gentile, who was only grafted in? It is not the church as the body of Christ. There is no breaking off there. Then the Gentile is fully warned, and shown the principle of God's dealings- the goodness and severity of God on them which fell, the Israelitish branches cut off; " In thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness." Otherwise the Gentile branches would be broken off, as the Jewish. Have they so continued? Has Gentile profession continued in the faith and walk once delivered to the saints? If not, it will be cut off, as the Jews were-solemn word and warning to Christendom.

But the tree of promise remains, and the Jewish branches will be grafted in again into their own olive tree-the original place of Abrahamic promise, "for God is able to graft them in again." Not again into the church; for, so far from being there, they were broken off when it was founded (as touching the gospel, enemies, to let in the Gentiles); but still, for the fathers' sake, loved as a people chosen of God, elect ones- enemies as touching the gospel; that is, Jews (God's chosen people as such), but broken off for unbelief, as the Gentiles in similar case would be, and the Jews grafted in again. The Jewish system closed, we know, to let in the Gentiles. The Gentile will close, to let in the Jews back as such to the place of promise, which will then indeed extend, in its own way, over the earth. Not that there was any failure, nor could be, as to God's accomplishing His own work of grace; but blindness in part had happened to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles had come in, all the Gentiles who had part in Christ's glory-the true church, in a word-what completed the number thus brought in by the gospel.

Then the Gentile history of grace and the church would cease, and Israel be saved as Israel, as a nation (which of course cannot be while the church time is going on, where there is neither Jew nor Greek); and not only the Jews but all Israel; when Christ should come, the Deliverer, out of Zion-not from heaven to take to heaven, but turning away ungodliness from Jacob in the place of His power on the earth. The Gentile professing system will be cut off, unless popery and infidelity be continuing in God's goodness. And, note here, it is not God's goodness continuing. Only just then it is displayed in the fullest way; the fullness of the Gentiles will be come in, and taken up then to heavenly glory. But as a system on earth, they will not have continued in God's goodness, and, as such, they will be cut off. These are the ways of God on the earth, not the security of the saints for heaven. There is a place of promise and blessing into which men are introduced; and they outwardly partake of what can be participated in on earth, but are not necessarily really partakers of Christ; Heb. 6.

God's covenant to take away Israel's sins is sure. It shall be accomplished when Christ comes; for, note, the apostle speaks of Christ in Zion in a time yet to come; for God's gifts and calling suffer no change or setting aside, and Israel is His, by gift and calling, as a people. " As touching the gospel, they are enemies” the now rejected nation; but, as touching election, ever and unchangeably loved as a people, and that in connection, not with law, but with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The law was conditionally blessing: "If ye will obey my voice,... ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me." With Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, it was purpose, and unconditional gift and calling. This difference runs through scripture. Dan. 9 refers to Moses; in Lev. 26:42, it is Jacob and Abraham; so in Ex. 32:13; and in many other places. The final restoration of Israel will be on the ground of the promises made to the fathers, "for his mercy endureth forever."

But there was a display of God's wisdom in this, which the apostle does not forget. Israel had promises. If they had come in on the ground of these, it would be so far a right, though grace had originally given them. But they would not, but rejected Christ, in whom all is to be fulfilled, and thus they became a mere object of mercy, like Gentiles, though God was faithful to fulfill them. As the Gentiles had been unbelieving, and mercy had been the only ground of their entering in, so now the Jews had not believed in the mercy shown to the Gentiles, had rejected the grace that let them in, and were mere objects of sovereign mercy themselves.
 

Danoh

New member
Its interesting, how Darby actually arrived at an understanding of Dispensational distinctions.

This; contrary to all the lies spread about him all these years by men of supposed standing and acumen within their respective followings.

Distinctions which tore apart assembles and their friendships, just as the Grace Alternative had a similar impact within A9D/Mid-Acts some years ago, and as a result of the same distinction that resulted in Darby's understanding the Dispensational distinction.

In both cases, a consistency in holding to the sufficiency of Scripture, together with a consistency in holding to the sufficiency in Christ, resulted in both - in Darby's seeing the distinction between Israel and the Body, and in those who from those two same, came to hold to the Grace Alternative.

And both distinctions resulted in division between men and assemblies, where those married to their traditions took, as well as made, personal offense the issue.
 
Last edited:

musterion

Well-known member
Darby wrote some of the deepest, most passionate, most Christ-centered things regarding the believer's identity in Christ that I have ever read.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
Though he may not have held to A9D distinctions to the extent that, say, we each understand them, personally, from what little I know of John Nelson Darby, I view him as one of our own, as much as the Apostle Paul was.

Darby’s having been established in the mutual faith is there in his writings; just not as fully developed as only later refinements in understanding make possible over time. But time eventually robs all men of said further distinctions; leaving any further refining for those who come after those men, and on their shoulders.

Whenever I reflect on these men, I have one same response :e4e:

The following are some of Darby's thoughts on the Apostle Paul as to Israel's status...

I have Tetelestai to thank for this thread. The fool has so often ranted against Darby, that I ended up fulfilling my own words to him "thanks for putting Darby's name out there; the more astute will look him up for themselves, and find you the fool you are."

Well, I did that, and found the following morsel, from one of our own: John Nelson Darby; much maligned by our common foes. Enjoy :)

I posted the words, because links at times can end up no longer accessible down the road some.

Here is the link, which contains the longer article.

http://bibletruthpublishers.com/exp...ed-writings-of-j-n-darby-expository-5/la62940

Keep in mind Darby wrote the following almost two hundred years ago…

Spoiler

Was the rejection then of Israel final? Surely not. The apostle then gives three proofs that it was not final rejection: a remnant was owned now; the reception of the Gentiles, to provoke the Jews to jealousy, not therefore to reject them; and, finally, the testimony that the Redeemer would yet come to Zion and turn away ungodliness from Jacob, and so Israel be saved as a whole-" all Israel "-not merely the Jew, nor yet as a remnant. With this the like responsibility of the Gentile is revealed. First, then (as himself of Israel according to the flesh, and blessed), he declares God has not cast away Israel; but as in the days of Elijah, when he even pleaded against them as wholly adversaries to God and His prophet, a remnant according to the election by grace had been preserved, so now, of which he, Paul, was a proof. But "if by grace, not by works, otherwise grace was no more grace." Israel had not obtained what they sought amiss, but the election had obtained it, and the rest were blinded. And so it was written, as Moses testifies (Deut. 29:4), and David, in spirit, in judgment on their rejection of Christ (Psa. 69:22, 23)-from the close of their history in the wilderness dealt with in patience till Messiah was rejected; and they now stumbled at the stumbling-stone and were blinded. But was it that they might fall? Was this God's purpose about them? Nay, but their fall was the occasion of salvation to the Gentiles to provoke them to jealousy.

This is the second proof it was no final purpose to cast them off. It was ordered to provoke them to jealousy, that is, not to cast them off. And so the apostle labored. His service to the Gentiles he magnified as tending to this; so far was he from thinking little of Israel. For if their casting away was the riches of the Gentiles, how much more their restoration and fullness? This leads the apostle to bring out the relative position of Jew and Gentile as to the place of promise in this world-a most important point, and bringing out the real position of the Gentile professing body in this world; and into this I must enter a little.

When, after the flood, men had (casting off God) set up to make themselves a name, that they might not be scattered, God scattered them in judgment and formed them into nations. They gave themselves to idolatry, and God called Abraham (Josh. 24)-when they were in this state-and made him the root of a separate family in which the promises were according to the flesh, or in Christ in a special way by grace. Up to that there had been, for good, no head of a race or family. For Adam was the father of sinners; Abraham, of the seed of God in the world. In him election, promise, and calling were thus established-not merely individually in grace, but as a root and tree of promises. He was the first-fruit, the root. The natural tree was Israel. Some of the branches, for he will say no more, were broken off. It is looked at as a continuing tree of promise, and Gentiles by grace grafted in in their place, to partake with them of the root and fatness of the olive tree. We have not here Jew and Gentile brought into one new man-one body in Christ; not a body united to Christ in heaven, where there is neither Jew nor Gentile; nor a mystery hidden from ages and generations, but Israel, the olive tree of promise, subsisting from Abraham, in possession of the promise, and now some broken off from the place where they were because of unbelief. The root remained in the same tree where they were, and Gentiles were grafted in among them; for they were not natural branches, but only had their standing by faith.

The Gentiles were not to be high-minded, but fear. God had not spared the natural branches; what of the Gentile, who was only grafted in? It is not the church as the body of Christ. There is no breaking off there. Then the Gentile is fully warned, and shown the principle of God's dealings- the goodness and severity of God on them which fell, the Israelitish branches cut off; " In thee goodness, if thou continue in his goodness." Otherwise the Gentile branches would be broken off, as the Jewish. Have they so continued? Has Gentile profession continued in the faith and walk once delivered to the saints? If not, it will be cut off, as the Jews were-solemn word and warning to Christendom.

But the tree of promise remains, and the Jewish branches will be grafted in again into their own olive tree-the original place of Abrahamic promise, "for God is able to graft them in again." Not again into the church; for, so far from being there, they were broken off when it was founded (as touching the gospel, enemies, to let in the Gentiles); but still, for the fathers' sake, loved as a people chosen of God, elect ones- enemies as touching the gospel; that is, Jews (God's chosen people as such), but broken off for unbelief, as the Gentiles in similar case would be, and the Jews grafted in again. The Jewish system closed, we know, to let in the Gentiles. The Gentile will close, to let in the Jews back as such to the place of promise, which will then indeed extend, in its own way, over the earth. Not that there was any failure, nor could be, as to God's accomplishing His own work of grace; but blindness in part had happened to Israel till the fullness of the Gentiles had come in, all the Gentiles who had part in Christ's glory-the true church, in a word-what completed the number thus brought in by the gospel.

Then the Gentile history of grace and the church would cease, and Israel be saved as Israel, as a nation (which of course cannot be while the church time is going on, where there is neither Jew nor Greek); and not only the Jews but all Israel; when Christ should come, the Deliverer, out of Zion-not from heaven to take to heaven, but turning away ungodliness from Jacob in the place of His power on the earth. The Gentile professing system will be cut off, unless popery and infidelity be continuing in God's goodness. And, note here, it is not God's goodness continuing. Only just then it is displayed in the fullest way; the fullness of the Gentiles will be come in, and taken up then to heavenly glory. But as a system on earth, they will not have continued in God's goodness, and, as such, they will be cut off. These are the ways of God on the earth, not the security of the saints for heaven. There is a place of promise and blessing into which men are introduced; and they outwardly partake of what can be participated in on earth, but are not necessarily really partakers of Christ; Heb. 6.

God's covenant to take away Israel's sins is sure. It shall be accomplished when Christ comes; for, note, the apostle speaks of Christ in Zion in a time yet to come; for God's gifts and calling suffer no change or setting aside, and Israel is His, by gift and calling, as a people. " As touching the gospel, they are enemies” the now rejected nation; but, as touching election, ever and unchangeably loved as a people, and that in connection, not with law, but with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. The law was conditionally blessing: "If ye will obey my voice,... ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me." With Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, it was purpose, and unconditional gift and calling. This difference runs through scripture. Dan. 9 refers to Moses; in Lev. 26:42, it is Jacob and Abraham; so in Ex. 32:13; and in many other places. The final restoration of Israel will be on the ground of the promises made to the fathers, "for his mercy endureth forever."

But there was a display of God's wisdom in this, which the apostle does not forget. Israel had promises. If they had come in on the ground of these, it would be so far a right, though grace had originally given them. But they would not, but rejected Christ, in whom all is to be fulfilled, and thus they became a mere object of mercy, like Gentiles, though God was faithful to fulfill them. As the Gentiles had been unbelieving, and mercy had been the only ground of their entering in, so now the Jews had not believed in the mercy shown to the Gentiles, had rejected the grace that let them in, and were mere objects of sovereign mercy themselves.

good link - long but good.
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Darby was a brilliant theologian ...but a flawed character, you do need caution when reading him. Read the Darby-Bethesda debacle.

I say this because his dishonesty was brought to bear on his teaching regarding the rapture....
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Darby wrote some of the deepest, most passionate, most Christ-centered things regarding the believer's identity in Christ that I have ever read.

Those teachings were common among the Plymouth Brethren...they are precious, priceless.

Anthony Norris Groves, Craike, George Muller all were mighty in the word.
 

Danoh

New member
Darby was a brilliant theologian ...but a flawed character, you do need caution when reading him. Read the Darby-Bethesda debacle.

I say this because his dishonesty was brought to bear on his teaching regarding the rapture....

What "dishonesty" are you referring to; specifically; I'd like to explore that; towards sharing a principle within Dispensational truth that is often obscured by many on both sides of Dispensationalism.

And no, I am not impacted by whatever may have gone on back then, as I tend to focus on the learning I am after over the witness of men.

Its why I will at times readily agree with people I normally strongly disagree with, say GT, or Tel, whenever their often stopped clock ends up, as stopped clocks sooner or later do, right by accident :chuckles:

Here, I'll leave you with something to chew on. You ever see that "chick flick" with Melanie Griffith and Sigourney Weaver - "Working Girl"?

In it, there's a moment where Melanie's boss; Weaver, is exposed as having stolen an idea Melanie came up with on her own.

What gives her away is the thought process that led to her idea, but that Weaver had not been able lay out with any real credibility.

I'll leave you with this mystery for now.

I'm confident, you'll see where I am going with this :)

Anyway, what "dishonesty" are you referring to; specifically?

Thanks, in advance...
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
What "dishonesty" are you referring to; specifically; I'd like to explore that; towards sharing a principle within Dispensational truth that is often obscured by many on both sides of Dispensationalism.

And no, I am not impacted by whatever may have gone on back then, as I tend to focus on the learning I am after over the witness of men.

Its why I will at times readily agree with people I normally strongly disagree with, say GT, or Tel, whenever their often stopped clock ends up, as stopped clocks sooner or later do, right by accident :chuckles:

Here, I'll leave you with something to chew on. You ever see that "chick flick" with Melanie Griffith and Sigourney Weaver - "Working Girl"?

In it, there's a moment where Melanie's boss; Weaver, is exposed as having stolen an idea Melanie came up with on her own.

What gives her away is the thought process that led to her idea, but that Weaver had not been able lay out with any real credibility.

I'll leave you with this mystery for now.

I'm confident, you'll see where I am going with this :)

Anyway, what "dishonesty" are you referring to; specifically?

Thanks, in advance...

His dishonesty in interpreting apostacy as departure.

He was much too intellectual to have done so by mistake.

"that day shall not come except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed"

What day?

The day of our Lord coming in the clouds and our going to meet Him....right? "that day shall not come...." the rapture.

Now if you accept Darby he makes this falling away to be departure, as in the departure of the church...the rapture....right?

So Darby makes Paul to be saying.

Don't be soon shaken in mind about the rapture, let no man deceive you, the rapture does not come until there first be a rapture.

It doesn't make a scrap of sense.

Darby had picked up the idea of a secret rapture from the Irvingites.
 

Danoh

New member
His dishonesty in interpreting apostacy as departure.

He was much too intellectual to have done so by mistake.

"that day shall not come except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed"

What day?

The day of our Lord coming in the clouds and our going to meet Him....right? "that day shall not come...." the rapture.

Now if you accept Darby he makes this falling away to be departure, as in the departure of the church...the rapture....right?

So Darby makes Paul to be saying.

Don't be soon shaken in mind about the rapture, let no man deceive you, the rapture does not come until there first be a rapture.

It doesn't make a scrap of sense.

Darby had picked up the idea of a secret rapture from the Irvingites.

Thanks for the exchange :)

Your sure he picked that up from the Irvingites? They were Post-Trib.

I myself hold said "falling away" is not referring to our Pre-Trib Rapture, rather; to the height of Israel's unbelief, when they are once more the issue, at some point after "our gathering together unto Him."

Excuse the following long wind; sometimes less is less, not the more it needs to be but for the surface level, first impression reader; who goes by surface level, first impression readings anyway.

My own understanding is that that "falling away" passage is referring to this in John 5:

43. I am come in my Father's name, and ye receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him ye will receive.

And this in Daniel 11:

32. And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.
33. And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

37. Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

2 Thessalonians 2:

1. Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

Verse one's coming and gathering is our Pre-Trib Rapture.

The following, is not:

2. That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

Someone had come along and gotten it into their heads, that the day of Christ in His Wrath; that follows first the Day of Christ in our Blessed Hope, were one and the same event.

Read through Thessalonians - they were experiencing great persecution and some surface level, first impression reader came along, put two and two together wrong, got five and ran with it.

We - won't even - be here - for - the Day of Christ in His Wrath soon after the height of Israel's departure from Moses in their disobedience.

The Day of Christ in His wrath is what the following is talking about.

3. Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;
4. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.
5. Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?

As for Darby, he was Pre-Trib but was still mixing Law and Mystery Grace, as these distinctions have taken men more than one lifetime to sort out and liberate from the mess that surface level, first impression reading had turned so much that clarity on the above relies on.

Irving was from a tradition that mixed Law and Mystery Grace such that it was Post-Trib, as was Margaret McDonald.

Darby had sought to attempt to sort those things out as a result of the distinctions he did see as to the difference between Law and Mystery Grace.

He went far, but not far enough, as time robbed him of what other men, standing on his shoulders, would have the honor of being able to sort out a bit further, after his passing.

It makes sense those who came before would have gotten some of that off. Because it fits within how they saw things, as a result of what had still been much surface level, first impression reading of many of the relevant passages.
 

musterion

Well-known member
His dishonesty in interpreting apostacy as departure.

He was much too intellectual to have done so by mistake.

"that day shall not come except there come a falling away first and that man of sin be revealed"

What day?

The day of our Lord coming in the clouds and our going to meet Him....right? "that day shall not come...." the rapture.

Now if you accept Darby he makes this falling away to be departure, as in the departure of the church...the rapture....right?

So Darby makes Paul to be saying.

Don't be soon shaken in mind about the rapture, let no man deceive you, the rapture does not come until there first be a rapture.

It doesn't make a scrap of sense.

It doesn't make sense to you because you're thinking Darby claimed that Paul taught the rapture = the Day of the Lord, and vice versa. It doesn't, and I'm pretty sure he didnt claim it did. Leastways, we do not think they're the same. You're objecting to a straw man but perhaps the above will help you.
 

Danoh

New member
It doesn't make sense to you because you're thinking Darby claimed that Paul taught the rapture = the Day of the Lord, and vice versa. It doesn't, and I'm pretty sure he didnt claim it did. Leastways, we do not think they're the same. You're objecting to a straw man but perhaps the above will help you.

Totten does not strike me as Mid-Acts. I say that as an observation, not as any kind of a put down.

In fairness, the Pauline distinction that only Paul taught the Body's Pre-Trib Rapture was not Darby's understanding.

His was more like that of Scolfield. They both talked much Mystery, but...

It was not their distinction to the extent it would later be for others who came after them.

Because both Darby and Scofied mixed Israel's Prophesied Grace passages with the Body's Mystery Grace, for example.

Many of us within Mid-Acts at times let it slip when we talk of Law and Grace when we do not mean that distinction, but the other one - Prophesied versus Mystery Grace.

Old habits not only die hard, but continually result in surface level readings, we end up unaware of even as we assert distinctions.

Its a fascinating thing to observe, both in oneself, as well as through others...
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
Darby as well as being a brilliant mind [surprisingly this is not always a plus in theology] was alas vain glorious, the Bethesda affair proves him to be so.

He took Mcdonald's "revelations" and worked it into a systematic theological proposition making it appear to be a result of his own studies.

No Irving following McDonald believed that Christ would come and take His church before the wrath of God....but they supposed as Pre-tribs still do suppose that the tribulation is God's wrath.

Now I had forborne to include in Darby's deception the fact that in order to make his theory fly he unilaterally declared that when ever the term "That Day"occurred in scripture it did ALWAYS mean the day of God's wrath.

It just is not so in the case of 2. Thess

That day so clearly refers to the day that Paul is speaking about i.e. the day of Christ, the coming.

The proof is that it is the event of Christ's coming and His appearing which destroys Antichrist...let me splain

It is the END of Antichrist not his beginning.

..."for that day shall not come except first there come a falling away and that man of sin be revealed, the son of Perdition"

This is the BEGINNING of Antichrist, who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God...that I say to you is the Great Tribulation, the great end time persecution, for tribulation means persecution.

When it says he opposes everything called God...that means YOU, he will oppose YOU and everything called God or that is worshipped.

Antichrist cannot be a religious person.

He will declare that he himself is God and sit in the temple....and that will be the END of his career for Christ will destroy him by his appearing and the breath of His mouth.

We are gathered to meet the Lord in the clouds, so shall we ever be with the Lord [glory to God]

The God pours His wrath upon those who have come up with Nastypants to Jerusalem.
 
Last edited:

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
I am not mid acts but I am a dispy and I have an interest in promoting the Millennium...I am interested in alerting Christians that the next great event cannot be the rapture but the great falling away, the tribulation, the short but bonecrushingly awful reign of Antichrist....

....the signs of which are appearing all around us.
 

patrick jane

BANNED
Banned
I am not mid acts but I am a dispy and I have an interest in promoting the Millennium...I am interested in alerting Christians that the next great event cannot be the rapture but the great falling away, the tribulation, the short but bonecrushingly awful reign of Antichrist....

....the signs of which are appearing all around us.


how do you promote the millenium ?
 

Danoh

New member
I am not mid acts but I am a dispy and I have an interest in promoting the Millennium...I am interested in alerting Christians that the next great event cannot be the rapture but the great falling away, the tribulation, the short but bonecrushingly awful reign of Antichrist....

....the signs of which are appearing all around us.

If I understand your assertion correctly, it appears your view of 2 Thess. 2 is much like that of Margaret MacDonald's.

In her description of her vision, she writes "I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation. Now will the wicked one be revealed with all power and signs, and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived..." (Huebner, p. 153)

Looking at that, it does not appear (to me, at least) to make a distinction between Israel (subject of Prophecy, Peter in Acts 3:21) and the Body (this Mystery Age's interruption of that, Paul in Romans 11:25), as Darby had made.

Throughout Romans, the Apostle Paul continually notes a distinction between Prophecy and Mystery.

Romans 9-11 being the most apparent of said distinction; one aspect of 2 Thessalonians takes place at some point after Romans 11:25.

While another takes place seven years after that, which is Romans 11:26-27.

In both cases, "the fullness of" what God is still presently doing among "the Gentiles" that He might save some into the Body, Rom. 11:11, is long over by then, Rom. 11:25

Anyway, the Apostle Peter: writing of the Lord’s delay in what Peter had preached in Acts 3:19-21, basically relates in 2 Peter 3:15-16, that the Lord’s delay in His return to them, as His Royal Priesthood, 1 Peter 2:9, is related to those distinctions between things described by the Apostle Paul in their copies of his writings.

This is an important part of all this - that letters were being written back and forth to the various assemblies from the very start of the various writing ministries, including Paul's, who, though he wrote Romans some ten years after he wrote his first Epistle, had all along been describing various aspects of these things even before he wrote his first Epistle: Galatians.

For example, he wrote 1st and 2nd Thessalonians some eight years before Romans.

1 Thessalonians 2: 16 is Romans 11:11, in light of Romans 1:18 - some eight years before he wrote Romans.

And just as when, in Acts 15, after they cleared the air as to some of these distinctions, they sent copies of a letter concerning that to the various assemblies, obviously, such had been the case with all their writings.

That none of the various assemblies remain in the dark for more than the time it took for copies of these various epistles to reach them concerning any of these distinctions is often the very point the various Epistles start out asserting.

Consider, Totten, that if getting these distinctions between Israel/Prophecy, and the Body/Mystery out to the various assemblies was that important to them, then it behooves us not to mix, say, Matthew 24, with say, 1 Thessalonians 4, simply because what often amounts to a surface level, first impression reading of the passages, appears to assert what we conclude they do.

Anyway, thanks for the exchange in simply exploring our different understandings.

Often, such exchanges result in greater insights for me. Hopefully, they do for you as well.
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
The day of the Lord begins with the resurrection and then the pouring out of his wrath, ending with the Armageddon event 30 days after the resurrection.

Christ returns once and stays--


2Th 1:4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:
2Th 1:5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:
2Th 1:6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
2Th 1:7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
2Th 1:8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
2Th 1:9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
2Th 1:10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

LA
 

Totton Linnet

New member
Silver Subscriber
If I understand your assertion correctly, it appears your view of 2 Thess. 2 is much like that of Margaret MacDonald's.

In her description of her vision, she writes "I saw the people of God in an awfully dangerous situation. Now will the wicked one be revealed with all power and signs, and lying wonders, so that if it were possible the very elect will be deceived..." (Huebner, p. 153)

Looking at that, it does not appear (to me, at least) to make a distinction between Israel (subject of Prophecy, Peter in Acts 3:21) and the Body (this Mystery Age's interruption of that, Paul in Romans 11:25), as Darby had made.

Throughout Romans, the Apostle Paul continually notes a distinction between Prophecy and Mystery.

Romans 9-11 being the most apparent of said distinction; one aspect of 2 Thessalonians takes place at some point after Romans 11:25.

While another takes place seven years after that, which is Romans 11:26-27.

In both cases, "the fullness of" what God is still presently doing among "the Gentiles" that He might save some into the Body, Rom. 11:11, is long over by then, Rom. 11:25

Anyway, the Apostle Peter: writing of the Lord’s delay in what Peter had preached in Acts 3:19-21, basically relates in 2 Peter 3:15-16, that the Lord’s delay in His return to them, as His Royal Priesthood, 1 Peter 2:9, is related to those distinctions between things described by the Apostle Paul in their copies of his writings.

This is an important part of all this - that letters were being written back and forth to the various assemblies from the very start of the various writing ministries, including Paul's, who, though he wrote Romans some ten years after he wrote his first Epistle, had all along been describing various aspects of these things even before he wrote his first Epistle: Galatians.

For example, he wrote 1st and 2nd Thessalonians some eight years before Romans.

1 Thessalonians 2: 16 is Romans 11:11, in light of Romans 1:18 - some eight years before he wrote Romans.

And just as when, in Acts 15, after they cleared the air as to some of these distinctions, they sent copies of a letter concerning that to the various assemblies, obviously, such had been the case with all their writings.

That none of the various assemblies remain in the dark for more than the time it took for copies of these various epistles to reach them concerning any of these distinctions is often the very point the various Epistles start out asserting.

Consider, Totten, that if getting these distinctions between Israel/Prophecy, and the Body/Mystery out to the various assemblies was that important to them, then it behooves us not to mix, say, Matthew 24, with say, 1 Thessalonians 4, simply because what often amounts to a surface level, first impression reading of the passages, appears to assert what we conclude they do.

Anyway, thanks for the exchange in simply exploring our different understandings.

Often, such exchanges result in greater insights for me. Hopefully, they do for you as well.

Let's put aside Miss McDonald, she was very confused, for she believed that many of God's precious saints would be left behind...these were the ones she thought would be confused by Ac.

Verily there was a difference in understanding between Paul and the other possuls Peter said as much, concerning the coming again of our Lord.

Peter and the others simply did not understand the need for the rapture, that is pure Paul...except that the Lord alludes to it in Luke [Luke being Paul's close companion]

But you can take this tail up and say what is the purpose of the rapture?

And it is to gather God's people out of the way before God pours His wrath out....but that is also why the Jews are to be gathered too. They are already gathered and they will be further gathered.

But to the Jew when God comes it is to pour His wrath upon the nations who come up against them, to the Gentile the catching up is because God can by no means pour out His wrath upon His people, so they have to be taken up from among the nations.

The Jews will remain but God will come and fight for them. THAT explains the different views between Paul and the others...but both are exactly right.

It's nice to be able to fellowship in these matters..God bless you.
 
Top