• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Rapture and Transformation

sooda

Veteran Member
Your source gets it's material from the book "The Incredible Scofield And His Book" by Joseph M. Canfield. Canfield was a bitter man against dispensational theology and sought to destroy it by attacking Scofield. His work is so full of errors and baseless charges that no one takes it serious except those who hate dispensationalism.

Read the response: "The Incredible Canfield And His Scofield Hatchet Job!" by Robert L. Sumner.

Canfield's work proves nothing. So you need to prove that Scofields motive for dispensational theology and the Bible that bears his name was political and for furthering Zionism.

Good-Ole-Rebel

Untermyer was the leading US Zionist and he paid an ex felon to write the Scofield Bible in less than six months and then he paid to have it published. The objective was to garner support for Jewish Israel among Protestants. Then he paid to establish the Dallas Theological Seminary to turn out preachers who supported Christian Zionism and the Rapture.

This NEW theology was widely preached in the traveling tent revivals during the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. A Jewish philanthropist changed Protestantism forever. Hagee is another one of theirs..

Untermyer also blackmailed Woodrow Wilson when he bought the Peck letters. He wanted Louis Brandeis appointed to the Supreme Court.

I am surprised you didn't know this?
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
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?


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.


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?


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.


I've noticed you doing this with my posts. To my knowledge, I'm not ignoring anything you've said.


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?


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.


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?


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 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".


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.


It's clear to me you do not understand what mythology is.

I'm not talking about Mormonism. And Dispensationalism is not comparable as we offer no new source of authority other than the Bible. I adhere to Darby and Scofields interpretation of Scripture because it is in harmony with all of Scripture.

When I say 'further knowledge' concerning the Bible I am not talking about what some liberal 'bible scholars' are saying. Or what some 'scientist' is saying about the Bible. They come at the Bible from a wrong belief at the outset. They cannot come to a correct conclusion in interpretation. The Dispensational theology is based on an interpretation by those who believe the Bible is the written Word of God. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour. The Bible is the product of 'progressive revelation'. And understanding it is the product of 'progressive illlumination'. (Mark 4:28) "...first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear."

No, not interested in Bahai or any other. It doesn't matter to me what your belief is concerning any of the religions you mention. If you want to reject what I have said for any reason, that is fine. I am just explaining what Dispensationalism is and what it is not. As far as me being Christian makes me like all the rest, then why arn't all the rest Christian? You see? Probably not....but there are major differences.

As Scripture says, all were kept ignorant of the need for the Cross. Christ would tell his disciples once the rejection set in, but even then they didn't understand or believe it. Point being: there is a time when believers don't understand and a time when they do. Just because Dispensationalism as we know it today came much later, doesn't mean it isn't true. It is the product of understanding the Scriptures at the timing of God.

(1 Cor. 2:7-8) "Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory."

(John 20:9) "For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead."

(Luke 24:25-26) "Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?"

(John 13:7) "Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now;but thou shalt know hereafter."

No, just because Dispensationalism as we know it today, was not known by the early Church, means nothing. But even then the Church was dispensational to a degree. Ever heard of the Old and New Testaments. Each is a 'dispensation'.

No, I said man was playing into God's hand. You said it sounds like manipulation. I said if you want to call it manipulation that is fine as God does direct history. History goes the way God wants it to go. Just because man plays into God's hand doesn't mean it is a game. It is no game. It's end is final and eternal. Things will go as God wants them to go.

Again, Dispensationalism added nothing to Scripture. It is an understanding of Scripture.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
Untermyer was the leading US Zionist and he paid an ex felon to write the Scofield Bible in less than six months and then he paid to have it published. The objective was to garner support for Jewish Israel among Protestants. Then he paid to establish the Dallas Theological Seminary to turn out preachers who supported Christian Zionism and the Rapture.

This NEW theology was widely preached in the traveling tent revivals during the Dust Bowl and the Great Depression. A Jewish philanthropist changed Protestantism forever. Hagee is another one of theirs..

Untermyer also blackmailed Woodrow Wilson when he bought the Peck letters. He wanted Louis Brandeis appointed to the Supreme Court.

I am surprised you didn't know this?

Yes, you keep saying these things. Please respond to post #(58).

You say these things yet do not offer any evidence. The evidence you offered earlier was no evidence at all or was inadequate.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I'm not talking about Mormonism. And Dispensationalism is not comparable as we offer no new source of authority other than the Bible. I adhere to Darby and Scofields interpretation of Scripture because it is in harmony with all of Scripture.
It is comperable to all the other Christian sects that popped out of the popcorn machine of the 1800s. Most of them were not going extra-biblical either. I mentioned the Baha'i, because they were really part of the same phenomena globally at the same time period. They are "progressive revelationists", as were many of the other Christian sects during that time.

I adhere to my interpretation of scripture, because to me it is in harmony with scripture. Whose set of eyes are you using to harmonize scripture with? You have to use a set of eyes. We all do. I use a more modern perspective, as well as personal spiritual experience as my set of eyes. And you use eyes from Darby's perspective, such as it was in the 1800s.

When I say 'further knowledge' concerning the Bible I am not talking about what some liberal 'bible scholars' are saying. Or what some 'scientist' is saying about the Bible. They come at the Bible from a wrong belief at the outset. They cannot come to a correct conclusion in interpretation.
We need to spend some time in discussion here. The scholars I read are academics. They are not hacks. They are very well read, disciplined to a fault, cross disciplinary in some cases, such as Crossan is. His scholarship is hardly to be put into quotation marks. The perspective on scripture they bring, does not shy away from looking at things that may challenge theological assumptions. This is what real scholarship should do. Apologetics are about theology, not a critical, scientifically approached examination of the literature and times.

This is the same thing when it come to real scientists doing real science. It not a discipline that tries to justify a theological perspective, such as you find in conservative apologetics. It is only interested in examining what the evidence presents. From there then, it may lead to new ways of understanding and looking at things, by possibly challenging old assumptions and beliefs.

I subscribe to this approach to faith. It is a faith that accepts knowledge, and challenges old assumptions. I will not be married to an old belief, that does not fit with reliable and informed knowledge. Faith that does not welcome knowledge in defensive of a belief, is not faith. It works against spiritual growth and development. It keeps one locked in fear of having to examine one's own faith.

"True believerism", is escapism, from doing just that. Looking hard at one's own faith. An unchallenged faith, is a weak one. Zealous, narrowly held beliefs are a cheap substitute for a Realized faith.


The Dispensational theology is based on an interpretation by those who believe the Bible is the written Word of God. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour. The Bible is the product of 'progressive revelation'. And understanding it is the product of 'progressive illlumination'. (Mark 4:28) "...first the blade, then the ear, after that the full corn in the ear."
It is based on a interpretation, based on a perspective of faith. If you change that perspective of faith, then your interpretation will also change to be more consistent with that perspective. It's what you do, it's what Darby did. It's what I do.

The problem is when one's own perspective disallows the light from another's perspective. For me, when I read that passage about the blade, the ear, and the full corn, I read about one's personal growth in the ways of spiritual maturity. You read it as a map of history. As a code, to tell how the truth will finally be revealed in the last days. You read it as confirmation that what you have been shown to believe, is that full corn in the stalk.

Where does the truth meet between these views?

If you want to reject what I have said for any reason, that is fine. I am just explaining what Dispensationalism is and what it is not.
I understand what it is. I used to believe the way you do, in this regard anyway.

Point being: there is a time when believers don't understand and a time when they do. Just because Dispensationalism as we know it today came much later, doesn't mean it isn't true. It is the product of understanding the Scriptures at the timing of God.
But you see, I understand the not seeing something at one point, but then getting it later as a sign of personal spiritual maturity. I don't see this as some "generation" that will suddenly see the light of God from heaven happening without their own personal maturity bringing that about. Heaven come to earth, won't come, without you. Though it is always here, despite ourselves.

No, just because Dispensationalism as we know it today, was not known by the early Church, means nothing.
It actually means a great deal. I speaks about how our perspectives of our reality changes over time. That Darby saw things his particular way, at that particular time in history, shaped how he saw God in the world. To him, it was a battle between the forces of good and evil, battle grounds shaped everywhere in his inner landscape. He saw in God, what he saw in the world.

And so, God to him became about final triumph over evil. To others, in different times, the light of God shone in different ways. All see God from the perspective of their own experiences of life. This includes you.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
It is comperable to all the other Christian sects that popped out of the popcorn machine of the 1800s. Most of them were not going extra-biblical either. I mentioned the Baha'i, because they were really part of the same phenomena globally at the same time period. They are "progressive revelationists", as were many of the other Christian sects during that time.

I adhere to my interpretation of scripture, because to me it is in harmony with scripture. Whose set of eyes are you using to harmonize scripture with? You have to use a set of eyes. We all do. I use a more modern perspective, as well as personal spiritual experience as my set of eyes. And you use eyes from Darby's perspective, such as it was in the 1800s.


We need to spend some time in discussion here. The scholars I read are academics. They are not hacks. They are very well read, disciplined to a fault, cross disciplinary in some cases, such as Crossan is. His scholarship is hardly to be put into quotation marks. The perspective on scripture they bring, does not shy away from looking at things that may challenge theological assumptions. This is what real scholarship should do. Apologetics are about theology, not a critical, scientifically approached examination of the literature and times.

This is the same thing when it come to real scientists doing real science. It not a discipline that tries to justify a theological perspective, such as you find in conservative apologetics. It is only interested in examining what the evidence presents. From there then, it may lead to new ways of understanding and looking at things, by possibly challenging old assumptions and beliefs.

I subscribe to this approach to faith. It is a faith that accepts knowledge, and challenges old assumptions. I will not be married to an old belief, that does not fit with reliable and informed knowledge. Faith that does not welcome knowledge in defensive of a belief, is not faith. It works against spiritual growth and development. It keeps one locked in fear of having to examine one's own faith.

"True believerism", is escapism, from doing just that. Looking hard at one's own faith. An unchallenged faith, is a weak one. Zealous, narrowly held beliefs are a cheap substitute for a Realized faith.



It is based on a interpretation, based on a perspective of faith. If you change that perspective of faith, then your interpretation will also change to be more consistent with that perspective. It's what you do, it's what Darby did. It's what I do.

The problem is when one's own perspective disallows the light from another's perspective. For me, when I read that passage about the blade, the ear, and the full corn, I read about one's personal growth in the ways of spiritual maturity. You read it as a map of history. As a code, to tell how the truth will finally be revealed in the last days. You read it as confirmation that what you have been shown to believe, is that full corn in the stalk.

Where does the truth meet between these views?


I understand what it is. I used to believe the way you do, in this regard anyway.


But you see, I understand the not seeing something at one point, but then getting it later as a sign of personal spiritual maturity. I don't see this as some "generation" that will suddenly see the light of God from heaven happening without their own personal maturity bringing that about. Heaven come to earth, won't come, without you. Though it is always here, despite ourselves.


It actually means a great deal. I speaks about how our perspectives of our reality changes over time. That Darby saw things his particular way, at that particular time in history, shaped how he saw God in the world. To him, it was a battle between the forces of good and evil, battle grounds shaped everywhere in his inner landscape. He saw in God, what he saw in the world.

And so, God to him became about final triumph over evil. To others, in different times, the light of God shone in different ways. All see God from the perspective of their own experiences of life. This includes you.

As I said, Dispensationalism is not comparable to Mormonism for the reasons given. As to your method of interpretation, I don't care.

I don't care how 'academic' your 'scholars' are. I can assure you they do not come to the Bible as the Christian does, believing it is the Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour. You accept the knowledge of these unbelievers. This is why you reject further knowledge of the Bible. Believe however you like. But Dispensationalism is the result of further understanding of Scripture in the Christian faith.

All you have to do is prove to me from the Scriptures that Dispensationalism is in error. Go ahead.

As I said, if you want to reject Dispensationalism, that's fine. Believe however you like.

I never said Darby or Scofield or any other dispensationalsits were not mature in their faith. And, just like the individual grows, so does the Church as a whole. (Eph. 4:13) "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Thus a 'generation' can be advanced in maturity more than another.

No, just because Dispensationalism as we know it today was not known by the early Church, means nothing. And as I said, the Church always held to dispensationalism. Ever heard of the Old and New Testaments?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

InChrist

Free4ever
The theology of an untrained, convicted felon (Scofield) came from the dream of a teenaged girl in the 1820.



snip

Margaret MacDonald (visionary) - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_McDonald_(visionary)

Margaret MacDonald was born in 1815 in Port Glasgow, Scotland and died around 1840. She lived with her two older brothers, James and George, both of whom ran a shipping business. Beginning in 1826 and through 1829, a few preachers in Scotland emphasized that the world's problems could only be addressed through an outbreak of supernatural gifts from the Holy Spirit. In response, Isabella and Mary Campbell of the parish of Rosneath manifested charismatic experiences such as speaking in tongues. A…


I don’t think the rumor that Margaret MacDonald came up with the idea of the rapture or that Scofield or Darby got it from her is accurate or even realistic at all ...

Margaret MacDonald and Pre-Tribulation Rapture :: Rapture Ready
 

sooda

Veteran Member
I don’t think the rumor that Margaret MacDonald came up with the idea of the rapture or that Scofield or Darby got it from her is accurate or even realistic at all ...

Margaret MacDonald and Pre-Tribulation Rapture :: Rapture Ready

This writer is pretty nutty too.

When one closely examines MacDonald’s vision, it becomes clear that her vision could not have been a pre-tribulation rapture. MacDonald looked for a “fiery trial which is to try us,” and she foresaw the Church being purged by the Antichrist.

Any pretribulation rapturist can tell you the Church will be removed before the advent of the Antichrist. John Bray, an anti-rapturist, said himself that Margaret MacDonald was teaching a single coming of our Lord Jesus. This contradicts current rapture doctrine, which teaches a two-staged event – first, Christ coming for His Church and second, seven years later His return to earth. With so many contradictions between MacDonald’s vision and today’s pretribulationism, it is difficult to see any linkage.
 

sooda

Veteran Member
Exactly. Good post.

Good-Ole-Rebel

According to Mark 13:14 and Matt 24:16, Jesus said, "When you see the desolating sacrilege set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains...".

Luke includes his words, "The days shall come when your enemies will cast a bank about you and hem you in on every side: (19:43) and "When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its destruction is near" (21:20).
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
This writer is pretty nutty too.

When one closely examines MacDonald’s vision, it becomes clear that her vision could not have been a pre-tribulation rapture. MacDonald looked for a “fiery trial which is to try us,” and she foresaw the Church being purged by the Antichrist.

Any pretribulation rapturist can tell you the Church will be removed before the advent of the Antichrist. John Bray, an anti-rapturist, said himself that Margaret MacDonald was teaching a single coming of our Lord Jesus. This contradicts current rapture doctrine, which teaches a two-staged event – first, Christ coming for His Church and second, seven years later His return to earth. With so many contradictions between MacDonald’s vision and today’s pretribulationism, it is difficult to see any linkage.

The point, which you missed, and always ignore, is that she didn't come up with the idea of the Rapture and that Darby and Scofield did not get it from her.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
As to your method of interpretation, I don't care.
Why don't you care? Everyone has a method of interpretation. You have shared yours for our consideration, yet you do not allow for others to share their methods for your consideration? How fair is that? Is it that you just know than if someone has a different point of view than yours, they must be wrong? Isn't that pointedly immature and self-blind?

I don't care how 'academic' your 'scholars' are. I can assure you they do not come to the Bible as the Christian does, believing it is the Word of God, and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour.
You can assure me of that? How? Are you inside these scholar's hearts? Do you know what their spiritual relationship with God is? What I hear here, is not only highly offensive to these dedicated men as Christians, but it means that you reject all other Christians who have different understandings of their faith than you do. You do not seem to understand Christianity very well at all then.

If you actually care to listen, before you judge other Christians from your highly narrow and prejudiced perspective, I'll share some of what Crossan has to say about his faith here in this debate with some evangelicals you would relate more to. It starts at 33:30 minutes, linked to here. If you are a Christian, you should bother to listen to what this fellow Christians says about himself. Both of you in this thread need to begin to pay attention to what other Christians believe. It's in the Bible that you should do so.


You accept the knowledge of these unbelievers. This is why you reject further knowledge of the Bible.
As I pointed out and shared Dom Crossan's own words about his Christian faith, these men are NOT unbelievers. For you to say they are, is highly offensive, ignorant, mean, and completely against scripture itself. Read the entire chapter of Romans 14

But, that aside, even if they were actually non-Christian, that does not make their scholarship wrong. It's matter of skill, not faith. If someone can play the piano exceptionally well, but he his an atheist, does that make it not music? Such as presumption, is highly foolish on your part. It's irresponsible as well.

Believe however you like. But Dispensationalism is the result of further understanding of Scripture in the Christian faith.
I don't just believe however I like. I believe what I do because of the information I have informs my beliefs. Dispensationalism is a result of later understandings, yes. No argument.

But then, so are all the other thousands of views of what the Bible teaches us a "further understanding", even when they are at odds with one another. It is a perception of what is in the Bible. There are many different types of ways to perceive, understand, interpret, and draw faith from what is in the Bible. None of these are the absolute truth, and most certainly not the ones you say are for the rest of humanity.

All you have to do is prove to me from the Scriptures that Dispensationalism is in error. Go ahead.
It's what you see in the Bible, based upon the frameworks you use. I don't use those same frameworks, or colored lenses as I look at the Bible. I see a whole different layer to it, that you frankly don't because you reject modern knowledge, such as is found in qualified modern researchers, a great many of whom are men and women of faith. The same is true for your rejections of modern science, when it challenges your theological beliefs you seem unwilling to reexamine.

When you close yourself off to things like this, how you read the Bible will be entirely affected. You read it in a virtual vacuum, a closed system of beliefs with limits to what is allowed or not within it. That's a fine system for those that need tight, closely defined boundaries in order to navigate their faith. But for others, their faith moves beyond that need, and stands at the door of new knowledge, and they let that inform their faith and allow it to grow and change. Some Christians don't like change. Other Christians welcome it.

Don't you be their judge. Doing so, puts yourself in the seat of judgement of others. Worse, you judge your own self by how you are judging others, and that is self-damning to you. Jesus expressly taught this. You should take that to heart.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
Why don't you care? Everyone has a method of interpretation. You have shared yours for our consideration, yet you do not allow for others to share their methods for your consideration? How fair is that? Is it that you just know than if someone has a different point of view than yours, they must be wrong? Isn't that pointedly immature and self-blind?


You can assure me of that? How? Are you inside these scholar's hearts? Do you know what their spiritual relationship with God is? What I hear here, is not only highly offensive to these dedicated men as Christians, but it means that you reject all other Christians who have different understandings of their faith than you do. You do not seem to understand Christianity very well at all then.

If you actually care to listen, before you judge other Christians from your highly narrow and prejudiced perspective, I'll share some of what Crossan has to say about his faith here in this debate with some evangelicals you would relate more to. It starts at 33:30 minutes, linked to here. If you are a Christian, you should bother to listen to what this fellow Christians says about himself. Both of you in this thread need to begin to pay attention to what other Christians believe. It's in the Bible that you should do so.



As I pointed out and shared Dom Crossan's own words about his Christian faith, these men are NOT unbelievers. For you to say they are, is highly offensive, ignorant, mean, and completely against scripture itself. Read the entire chapter of Romans 14

But, that aside, even if they were actually non-Christian, that does not make their scholarship wrong. It's matter of skill, not faith. If someone can play the piano exceptionally well, but he his an atheist, does that make it not music? Such as presumption, is highly foolish on your part. It's irresponsible as well.


I don't just believe however I like. I believe what I do because of the information I have informs my beliefs. Dispensationalism is a result of later understandings, yes. No argument.

But then, so are all the other thousands of views of what the Bible teaches us a "further understanding", even when they are at odds with one another. It is a perception of what is in the Bible. There are many different types of ways to perceive, understand, interpret, and draw faith from what is in the Bible. None of these are the absolute truth, and most certainly not the ones you say are for the rest of humanity.


It's what you see in the Bible, based upon the frameworks you use. I don't use those same frameworks, or colored lenses as I look at the Bible. I see a whole different layer to it, that you frankly don't because you reject modern knowledge, such as is found in qualified modern researchers, a great many of whom are men and women of faith. The same is true for your rejections of modern science, when it challenges your theological beliefs you seem unwilling to reexamine.

When you close yourself off to things like this, how you read the Bible will be entirely affected. You read it in a virtual vacuum, a closed system of beliefs with limits to what is allowed or not within it. That's a fine system for those that need tight, closely defined boundaries in order to navigate their faith. But for others, their faith moves beyond that need, and stands at the door of new knowledge, and they let that inform their faith and allow it to grow and change. Some Christians don't like change. Other Christians welcome it.

Don't you be their judge. Doing so, puts yourself in the seat of judgement of others. Worse, you judge your own self by how you are judging others, and that is self-damning to you. Jesus expressly taught this. You should take that to heart.

Because I don't care. You can interpret any way you like. As I said, Dispensatinalism is not comparable to Mormonism as Dispensationalism does not add anything to Scripture.

I reject any who do not believe the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour.

As I said, this is why you reject further knowledge of the Bible.

Dispensationalism is the result of further understanding of the Bible. It is Biblical. Supported by Scripture. As I said, believe whatever you like. Myself I am dispensational.

Nice speech. In other words, you can't disprove dispensationalsim. I understand.

By the way, why do you ignore the two dispensations of the Old and New Testament. What say you? Are they dispensations or not? Or, do you even know what a dispensation is? I'm thinking...not.

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Because I don't care. You can interpret any way you like. As I said, Dispensatinalism is not comparable to Mormonism as Dispensationalism does not add anything to Scripture.
I brought up Mormonism one time at the beginning, as a general comparison. You have brought it back again and again despite its single reference. You must really see yourself and your beliefs like theirs. At least that what you fear inside, it appears. "No! I'm not like them! I'm not!," sort of protest.

I reject any who do not believe the Bible is the Word of God and Jesus Christ is the Son of God and only Saviour.
Then you reject knowledge. I consider that a sin against God, personally.

As I said, this is why you reject further knowledge of the Bible.
Reject further knowledge of the Bible? Me? I am always digging deeper into my knowledge of it. What makes you believe I reject knowledge? That's what you do in order to protect beliefs you don't wish to examine too closely, lest you find them wanting in some way. Does that threaten your faith? Does knowledge threaten your faith?

Dispensationalism is the result of further understanding of the Bible. It is Biblical. Supported by Scripture. As I said, believe whatever you like. Myself I am dispensational.
Dispensationalism is a result of a later perspective on the Bible seeing a pattern that made sense to the preacher at the time. This happens constantly for the last 2000 years. They all have ideas of what the Bible says, and they all have their scriptural proofs, just like Darby found. That doesn't mean that one is right, and the rest are wrong. It means it's all differing perspectives of this heap of writings collected as the Bible.

When you close your mind to knowledge, all you see is a dark reflection of yourself, hiding in fear.

Nice speech. In other words, you can't disprove dispensationalsim. I understand.
I can disprove that that is the one and only way to read what the Bible says. Just read what other scholars through the ages have said about those same verses, prior to the 1800s. They had very different interpretations of those same verses. It's not that they were wrong and Darby was right. Not at all.

Do you need your beliefs to be factually, accurate, and provable, in order for you to have faith in God? You sound like you do.

By the way, why do you ignore the two dispensations of the Old and New Testament. What say you? Are they dispensations or not? Or, do you even know what a dispensation is? I'm thinking...not.

Good-Ole-Rebel
I was ignoring the dumb question if I was familiar with the difference between the OT and the NT. To answer your question, no they are not "dispensations". That's a term some later theologian came up with to try to describe what he was seeing in the Bible. In reality, there are not dispensations, they were covenants. The old covenant, and the new covenant. That's how the Bible describes them. People coming up with different dividing lines and calling those divisions they came up with "dispensations" is simply a model, not a fact. It's how they saw them. It's not "God's reality".

This is probably why you don't understand or respect modern science and scholarship either. You don't understand the difference between models, or maps, and the actual terrain itself. There is not really a "Big Dipper" in the sky. It's just stars. The rest, is our imagination.
 
Last edited:

james bond

Well-Known Member
For anyone who likes to read and who is interested in the Rapture of the church and all believers who will have their mortal bodies transformed in the twinkling of an eye into immortal, glorious bodies like Jesus’ resurrected body, here is a link to a long article on the subject, part 1...

Last Days, End Times: The Rapture; Part 1 of 2 :: By Tom Tillman - Rapture Ready


What are your thoughts?

We just have to be ready even though we probably won't be expecting it. I avoided the following vid for the longest time, but finally watched as it explain the second coming of Jesus.


I had the same question as your link in what do we have to do to be ready?
 
Last edited:

InChrist

Free4ever
We just have to be ready even though we probably won't be expecting it. I avoided the following vid for the longest time, but finally watched as it explain the second coming of Jesus.


I had the same question as your link in what do we have to do to be ready?
Sounded like a robotic computer voice on the video. I really think the only thing we do to be ready is to trust Jesus and live a life seeking His will and serving Him and sharing His love with others. I believe the church and all believers are removed before the tribulation.
 

james bond

Well-Known Member
Sounded like a robotic computer voice on the video. I really think the only thing we do to be ready is to trust Jesus and live a life seeking His will and serving Him and sharing His love with others. I believe the church and all believers are removed before the tribulation.

Yeah, it's a robot computer voice. I think it's all done by one person or few people on limited budget. That's one of reasons I didn't watch it; I saw the trailer, so think it's a whole movie. I think the above is just the first part of it. Anyway, it gets the message across that it won't be pleasant to be on Earth. Also, it points out the false Jesus whom is the false light, but many will end up believing him.
 

Good-Ole-Rebel

*banned*
I brought up Mormonism one time at the beginning, as a general comparison. You have brought it back again and again despite its single reference. You must really see yourself and your beliefs like theirs. At least that what you fear inside, it appears. "No! I'm not like them! I'm not!," sort of protest.


Then you reject knowledge. I consider that a sin against God, personally.


Reject further knowledge of the Bible? Me? I am always digging deeper into my knowledge of it. What makes you believe I reject knowledge? That's what you do in order to protect beliefs you don't wish to examine too closely, lest you find them wanting in some way. Does that threaten your faith? Does knowledge threaten your faith?


Dispensationalism is a result of a later perspective on the Bible seeing a pattern that made sense to the preacher at the time. This happens constantly for the last 2000 years. They all have ideas of what the Bible says, and they all have their scriptural proofs, just like Darby found. That doesn't mean that one is right, and the rest are wrong. It means it's all differing perspectives of this heap of writings collected as the Bible.

When you close your mind to knowledge, all you see is a dark reflection of yourself, hiding in fear.


I can disprove that that is the one and only way to read what the Bible says. Just read what other scholars through the ages have said about those same verses, prior to the 1800s. They had very different interpretations of those same verses. It's not that they were wrong and Darby was right. Not at all.

Do you need your beliefs to be factually, accurate, and provable, in order for you to have faith in God? You sound like you do.


I was ignoring the dumb question if I was familiar with the difference between the OT and the NT. To answer your question, no they are not "dispensations". That's a term some later theologian came up with to try to describe what he was seeing in the Bible. In reality, there are not dispensations, they were covenants. The old covenant, and the new covenant. That's how the Bible describes them. People coming up with different dividing lines and calling those divisions they came up with "dispensations" is simply a model, not a fact. It's how they saw them. It's not "God's reality".

This is probably why you don't understand or respect modern science and scholarship either. You don't understand the difference between models, or maps, and the actual terrain itself. There is not really a "Big Dipper" in the sky. It's just stars. The rest, is our imagination.

No, I am showing you that Dispensationalism is not like Mormonism or any other that adds something to Scripture. Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.

Yes, I reject your knowledge as it does not comply with the Bible. Just as you reject mine because it does.

Nothing you or anyone else has said has threatened my faith. You certainly haven't produced any threat to Scripture. You haven't produced any threat to the Dispensational understanding of Scripture.

See, to you the Bible is a 'heap of writings'. To Darby, Scofield, and other Dispensationalists, and Christians, the Bible is the Word of God. You haven't provided anything to indicate Dispensationalism is not true. What you have displayed is the reason why you cannot understand the Bible.

My beliefs need to be based upon Scripture. I am willing to debate any who, on the basis of Scripture, believe I am mistaken. Believe it or not, there are certain views held by most Dispensationalists that I disagree with. But, I agree with the Dispensational way of understanding Scripture. It has contributed much to the Christian faith.

Really? Tell me what a dispensation is? As to the Covenants, yes there is an Old Covenant, and a New Covenant. Tell me what the Old Covenant was? And, explain to me what a Covenant between God and man is?

Good-Ole-Rebel
 

Windwalker

Veteran Member
Premium Member
No, I am showing you that Dispensationalism is not like Mormonism or any other that adds something to Scripture.
I mentioned multiple other "restored truth" or "progressive revelation" sects that began around that time of Darby and his particular progressive revelation of the day, all doing the same things as his sect. Those have nothing to do with some new prophet adding scriptures. Yet, you focus on Mormonism exclusively in your refutation of the facts I presented?

It has nothing to do with them having new scriptures and you don't. They both are about "progressive revelation", some add new material, others find the hidden truths that Christians didn't see before, because God wasn't ready for them to see what you have today. It's all very mythological in nature. It's all doing the exact same thing, with just different window dressings. But they are the same thing in essence, despite how they clothe themselves.

Dispensationalism adds nothing to Scripture. It is a further understanding of Scripture.
Yes it does add something to scripture. It adds a particular filter through which to read scripture, which changes the nature and meaning of what you read. It adds a theological tint that affects how you read scripture. It adds an idea that superimposes itself upon scripture.

As a rough example for comparison's sake, when reading the writings of the Apostle Paul and you encounter things he talks about Jesus, do you find yourself seeing Jesus in the gospels and tying the two together? Do you look at what Paul says, and then think of something the gospels say, and say to yourself, "Yes, that's what Paul was talking about."?

When a modern scholar approaches the writings of Paul, what they have to do is remove anything the gospels may have to say about it, and read Paul without any prior understanding of what the gospels say. Why? Because they were written after Paul, so Paul would not have had what they say as any influence on his thinking. The gospels add a different layer of perception about Jesus, that Paul did not have. You cannot read what Paul says, and assume that Paul thought the same way the later gospel writers thought.

Now in your methodology, which is a premodern methodology, you see the writings of the NT as a magical creation, that all is intended to be read as a whole, and all must fit together because God was the sole author of it. That's a mythological approach to one's reading of scripture. It hangs together on faith that is "must" all work together. This is what you do. This is what Darby did. This is a theological perspective, not a critical understanding of the source materials using the tools of modernity. It assumes it's all one picture. It begins with that presupposition.

But from a modern perspective, that presupposition does not fit the data when looked at through the lens of critical analysis. Yes, dispensationalism adds to the Bible this patenia of mythology that scripture as a consistent whole, and then from there it pieces together a map of what "God" is saying in it, like connecting the dots of the stars in the night sky to see a lion, or a scorpion, or a hunter. Now that the hunter in the sky, Orion, has been pointed out to you, it's all you see when you look at the sky. Your mind was conditioned by having that pattern presented to you, and "Now I see it too! It's really there!". But it really is not. It is just your mind you are seeing, not a hunter.

So it is when reading Paul. You have to read Paul without the benefit of the gospels, if you want to try to get to how Paul might have really thought about these things. It's the same thing with Darby or others finding "dispensations" in scripture. These are wholly superimposed patterns that they in their minds connected the dots like seeing constellations in the night sky. And they all started with the patentia of the theology that the Bible must be a whole, consistent, inerrant, infallible revelation from God. So, most certainly it adds to scripture. It adds this overlay that connects the dots for you magically.

Is the overlay wrong? Yes, from the perspective of critical analysis it is. It's a game of connect the dots. There is no big dipper in the sky. That exists in the mind. There is no dispensationalism in the Bible. That exists in the mind too. When viewed in a different light, that pattern doesn't exist. During the daylight, the big dipper isn't seen at all.

Yes, I reject your knowledge as it does not comply with the Bible. Just as you reject mine because it does.
My knowledge is consistent with the Bible, as understood through a critical lens. I do not reject yours because it "does", which is absurd to say. Why would I reject truth and facts? What I am saying, is I don't see it the way you do. I do not see it through that premodern set of eyes, without knowledge of what critical scholarship shows us about the nature of scripture. I don't reject scripture. I simply see a larger picture of it, which acknowledges how you see it, but does not accept that at face value as the single truth of it, as you do. I don't reject God, in my not seeing truth in the ways you do.

Notice how I don't say you reject God, yet you seem to want to say that about all other Christians who are not mythic-literal believers?

Nothing you or anyone else has said has threatened my faith.
Oh, I absolutely do not believe this. Why else do you reject modern scholarship and science? It certainly isn't because you yourself are qualified as a specialist in those fields and find flaws with their methodologies. A reject of it comes from a motivation to preserve what you have believed, and that motivation arises because these are viewed as threats to your beliefs. I guarantee it.

You certainly haven't produced any threat to Scripture.
The fact that you called this Christian scholars unbelievers and rejectors of God, proves you view them as a threat. It also proves where you are at in your faith. Read Romans 14

You haven't produced any threat to the Dispensational understanding of Scripture.
I have produced a clear challenge to it. That you refuse to acknowledge anything I am saying, and instead saying things like I reject scripture, I reject knowledge, I reject God, others who are modernist and postmodernist in approach are not true Christians, and the like, proves very much that you feel threatened by it. These are things that a frightened person resorts to in order to not consider what others are saying. A

See, to you the Bible is a 'heap of writings'. To Darby, Scofield, and other Dispensationalists, and Christians, the Bible is the Word of God.
And this is exactly the point I just made above. Modernity removes that mythological patenia in examining the nature and content of scriptures. It's not a values thing. It's simply an approach to knowledge and understanding. I embrace that because it helps create a better, more encompassing understanding of truth.

When I say a "heap of writings", that is correct. The Bible is a compiled collection of dispearate writings over long periods of time. A heap, is simply the raw materials that one starts with in order to create and make useful things out of them. Theology is a shaping of that raw material into some useful application for the need at that time. This is why you see changes in how people think about God and the scripture throughout history. Truth is adaptive. It's not a "progressive revelation". Rather, it is a "adaptive" revelation. That means, it lends itself a raw material to be shaped and molded however it needs to be to meet the current needs.

What you are seeing as a linear progressive revelation from God, I see as an evolving, adaptive interpretation by humans in evolving social and cultural and economic circumstances. We are both seeing God, but though very different lenses. What I am expressing, shows what it looks like through a post-postmodern lens. It is still Christian faith, regardless.

What does matter the most however, is not whether one believes it's a consistent revealed whole, or not as a Christian. What matters is how we treat those who see truth and reality differently than us. What matters is the nature of love. Read Romans 14.

You haven't provided anything to indicate Dispensationalism is not true. What you have displayed is the reason why you cannot understand the Bible.
I could say you don't understand the Bible because you don't know how it was constructed, nor much about anything at a deeper academic level. However, you understand it through the set of eyes you have at this point in your life. You understand it, as best you can given the set of eyes you are using.

Yes, I understand the Bible. I understand it from the mythic-literal perspective, as that is what I learned and was taught as a student of scripture in my college days. I understand your doctrines and theologies quite well in fact. But I also have an understanding that you do not, and one that you appear opposed to considering because it would mean to you that what you believe isn't true.

I can truly say, I do understand how you read the Bible. But you cannot say the same of me. You do not understand that, as it's nothing you're allowing yourself to be exposed to.

My beliefs need to be based upon Scripture.
Mine don't. Mine need to be based on knowledge and truth, and experience. They need to be informed by practice, and a wide range of as many perspectives as possible to prevent a myoptic, rigid and stifling perspective that leads to pride and self-righteous attitudes about me being right and everyone else being wrong. That leads to spiritual disease, where the Christian makes himself judge of all others.

I certainly find truth in scripture, but I also open my eyes to let light shine in upon it from many perspectives. You limit that exposure to what seem to amount to blinders on a horse, limiting what is allowed to be seen. I find that approach as a Christian, to be fear-based. "Don't listen to others, they could be the devil speaking!".

I am willing to debate any who, on the basis of Scripture, believe I am mistaken.
I believe you have a limited perspective on what the truth of scripture is. "Mistaken" is not a word I would use. Closed off from other perspectives is where I would say you are mistaken. I think it is in fact a mistake to reject knowledge that challenges your faith.

continued.....
 
Top