Yes, I understand it. It is what I just said. The point is that knowledge of Scripture is progressive. Which went over your head.
It apparently went over your head when I cited the Mormon's "progressive knowledge". Do you believe in the golden tablets? That's new theology too. If your argument makes Darby's theology true because it is new to Christianity, then that means you should be preaching the golden tablets theology too. They claim support in scripture too. So do the Baha'i in their progressive knowledge. So do all modern "We found the truth of scripture" claimants in all their many-colored varieties.
There are tons of conflicting modern beliefs today that can all lay claim to your argument to support themselves. What makes your true, and theirs wrong? Because you believe it, and you are one of the chosen few for God's special truths? Darby has it right, because you believe it is true and saw the magic proofs in scripture? But when they do the same with their modern beliefs, they're magically wrong, while you know you're right?
Oh my. You're the one that refuses further knowledge concerning the Bible, which is what Dispensationalism is. So, I'm not assuming anything. I'm just going by what you said.
I refuse further knowledge concerning the Bible? I spend a lot of time researching what modern scholarship tells us about the formation of early Christian beliefs, within a multiplicity of disciplines; anthropology, ethnology, sociology, etc. Do you examine these? Are you sure you're not the one who refuses further knowledge when it comes to you in the form of modern Biblical criticism?
I'm hearing projection here, saying I'm doing what in fact you are doing. Example, when I earlier in another thread cited the work of John Dominic Crossan in my thread, you basically dismissed all of it as the views of an "unbeliever". The fact of what I was saying, shows that I do except further knowledge beyond what I'm just told is true by a bunch of modern preachers who lack the level of knowledge necessary for understanding more about the Bible, or about the earth itself for that matter in their rejection of science. They seem more interested in affirming what they've already chosen to believe because it's the product they chose as consumers in the marketplace of religions. "Progressive revelation" is something they all claim as a rationalization for their consumer choices.
Refusing knowledge, is not my sin.
You miss or ignore the point. The disciples didn't always understand what Jesus was saying. It took time. Thus it is no big deal that the early church didn't know of the doctrines of what is now called Dispensationalism.
Have you looked into becoming a Baha'i? They say the same things. So do all those who needed some "progressive revelation" to show us what the early disciples didn't get, but these moderns magically do now. I see no difference between Darbyism, Mormonism, Bahaism, Restored Churchism, New Revelations, new prophets, restored doctrines, etc. It's all the same phenomenon, and you're just one of the uncritical consumers of it in the marketplace of their modern theologies.
You do realize, they all believe they have the truth just like you do believe you do? What makes you different? You have the Bible? So do they. Anything else? Self confidence? They have that too. Anything special to set you apart from them that they can't equally claim for themselves?
It would come in time, based on when God was ready and their progression in that knowledge. My knowledge of Dispensationalism and the Second Coming is based solely on the Bible.
This sounds exactly like the Baha'i, and a long list of progressive revelation upstart religions during the exact same time of Darby, all showing us what the Bible really meant, but the modern prophet had to show us. These were all happening at the same time in modern history, with 7th Day Adventists, Jehovah Witnesses, Baha'i, Pentecostalism, restored truth movements, etc. They all claim to be bring to light the truth of scripture that was lost to the church. They all are the same. They all claim scripture supports them.
Yes, you focus, or cherry pick my statements that you think you can address. You leave out the context of what is said as it disproves the emptiness of your position. A common tact.
I've noticed you doing this with my posts. To my knowledge, I'm not ignoring anything you've said.
The point of what I said is that had the disciples known, or if the leaders knew, or if satan had known, that the point of Christ coming the first time was the Cross, if it had been revealed to them, they would not have crucified Christ.
I did see this, but didn't reply to it as it seemed so blindly flawed, I didn't bother to waste space correcting it. But since you insist. Are you saying that if the truth had been revealed to them, they wouldn't have crucified Jesus? Are you serious? Have you never read the exchanges of Jesus with the religious leadership of his day? They were being told the truth, but they could not hear it because of their own sins. That's as true today as it was then. It's not because of a lack of truth being revealed. It's because of the hardness of their own hearts. I could look up the verses for you, if you need me to?
And I gave your Scripture for it, which you of course ignore. (1 Cor. 2:7-8) "But we speak the mystery of God....Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." So, do you see?
I have no problem with that verse being taken as true. What I have a problem with is your claim that it was because it wasn't revealed to them. That is false.
"The true light that gives light to everyone was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God— children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.
The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth."
As you can clearly see above, the truth was revealed to them. But they couldn't see it. Are you saying Darby is Enlightened, and the rest of Christianity that didn't see "Dispensationalism" in the Bible were refusing Christ? What a strange predicament you have here.
Understanding of what all was going on would come later with the disciples and the Church. Meaning that just because Dispensationalism was not known by the early Church means nothing.
It doesn't mean nothing. It means everything. Place it into context of the day and age where you had all manner of new revelations about scripture going on, many different and conflicting cults of Christianity popping up all over like a pot of popcorn on the stove of the 1800s. Darby fits right in there with them. Yet, he is right and they were all wrong, according to you? How does that work?
If you want to call God manipulative, that's fine.
I didn't call God manipulative. You did that. I was calling out that as a very strange view of God. A frightening one, actually. Do you manipulate others and call that righteous in your mind? If this is your image of God, it is an image of yourself as well.
He does manipulate history. He does not need to prove Himself and doesn't go about to prove Himself. He will reveal Himself to His people. He doesn't play games and He will accomplish His work.
"He doesn't play games...." "They played right into his hands". This is a contradiction. You said both of these things. If they played right into God's hands, that means he was playing a game and manipulated them into God winning that game.
Sincerely, this is a really terrible view of God. I would run away from a god like this. Yuk. Love does not play with others to their own ends to prove a point. "Love works no ill". "God is Love".
As I said, Dispensationalism added nothing to Scripture. It is coming to an understanding of Scripture.
It most certainly did add something to it. It added a particular filter through which you and other uncritical believer read the Bible. It colorized it. For 1800 years prior to that time in modern history, that color did not exist. Again, you are missing the magic trick. They don't add words to scripture. They supply a new view of it. And all modern cults do this. All of them are finding what was "there the whole time" in scripture.
Of course you wrote it. It is in the category of myth.
Good-Ole-Rebel
It's clear to me you do not understand what mythology is.
"Playing into God's hands", is a very, very strange way of thinking about or imagining the nature of God. I cannot relate to that on any level. I don't see God as needing to prove himself to others or play games with them.