[We are] not ashamed of the gospel of Christ, for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Greek. (Romans 1:16)

Sunday, August 06, 2006

Are You a “Traditionalist”?

by Rose~

If you read this blog very much or that of Antonio … or if you have the pleasure of Antonio’s comments appearing on your blog, then you probably have noticed that he uses the term traditionalist. I first noticed this term being used by him about 6 months ago, I think. It immediately provoked thought on my part.

My first reaction to the term was to think of Catholics. I was raised Catholic, but converted into a Biblical Believer at the age of 20. After having gone round and round with my Catholic relatives (mom, uncles etc…) I heard the word tradition often used as a defense for many of the Catholic positions that are clearly unbiblical. In fact, when push comes to shove, although Catholics say they believe the Bible, if there is a tension between a portion of Scripture and the teachings of their church (this is what is called tradition for the purposes of this post) the devoted Catholic will stick with the Church tradition unabashedly.

So, when I saw Antonio refer to Calvinist Lordship Salvation teachers as traditionalists, I was given pause. I had been narrowly thinking of Roman Catholics as traditionalists and “Protestants” as … well … not worthy of that descriptor. Then, I started analyzing the situation more closely.

I noticed a few things. For example, one time when discussing Calvinism with a brother, he responded to one of my Biblical challenges and critiqued my interpretation by saying this: “That has not been the position of historical Christianity.” I thought, "So what?" I happen to know many Christians who have arrived at the same interpretation as I have living presently. Maybe we're all wrong - but don't try to tell me because of "historical Chriatanity" we are wrong - or we are wrong because we are outnumbered. Majority doesn't rule when it comes to truth.

Another example - when the subject of dispensationalism comes up, more than one friend will deride it as a theological viewpoint because, as it is named and defined today, it is fairly new in relation to church history. Therefore, haughty insults of “Johnny-come-lately” are thrown out. Isn’t this a somewhat traditionalist criticism? In other words, if this is not on record as what all the theologians for centuries of church history have taught, then it must be wrong. I think this approach in challenging the dispensationalist system of Bible study is not an appeal to Biblical teaching at all – it is a criticism is on the tradition of the teaching.

I read where a blogger buddy recently challenged a certain viewpoint of Lewis Sperry Chafer on eschatology – this friend said, “Prior to 1827 is there any record of the teaching of a pre-trib rapture in church history?” (Even though I am not entirely sure that the answer to his question is no), his is a common and proud appeal to the foothold of traditional Protestant theology.

So there ARE traditionalist Protestants!

This is unfortunate to my mind because I think of those who were in the Catholic Church before Martin Luther came along. I am sure they wagged their heads at him for his newfangled ideas. His views were eventually given ear and these revelations … sparked by God’s Word … then sparked the Protestant Reformation.

But … was it right to then enthrone the ideas and interpretations of him and his successors to the same heights as the Romish doctrines had been? May it never be!

In the world there is nothing new under the sun. But, when a Christian picks up his Bible, we each have the Holy Spirit and can be revealed the fresh truth of His Word … which I believe holds many truths that are very complex as well as some wonderful simple truths. It is not necessary to have the opinions of the church fathers etc… as a guide when reading our Bibles, although these can be helpful when kept in their place. Please understand, I am not suggesting that each Christian is an island unto himself ... but that we have direct access to God’s truth in our own copies of the Bible.

I am also not saying that there isn’t room to point out cultish or erroneous teaching, but don’t appeal to “the church fathers” or the long-standing position of the majority in the church for your criticism. Go to the Bible itself, because it is NEVER WRONG – and men CAN be wrong – even in large numbers for long periods of time. Don’t be a traditionalist!


  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Earl, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 6:41:00 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Earl, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:26:00 PM  

  • (oops, lets try again, the third time will be the last try.)

    Oh, oh. I hear the Fiddler on the Roof "Tradition" song echoing in my head. :o)

    I am, I think by the defintions, a Protestant Traditionalist (I'll reread the post to make sure). I belong to a group of Protestants that call themselves "Confessional". By confessional, I mean we subscribe to one of the group of confessions as being a good summary of what is taught in Scripture. Who are we? We include conservative Presbyterians (who hold to the Westminaster Confession and Catechisms), conservative Lutherans (who hold to the Book of Concord), some Baptists (who hold to the London Confession), and conservative Dutch Reformed (who hold to the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort).

    Are there any disadvanges to being a Confessional Protestant? Certainly. If you blindly accept a confession, or place the confession over the Bible, that is certainly very dangerous. Also, confessions are not the Bible -- they contain errors somewhere in them.

    What possible advantage can there be to subscribe to a confession? There are a few:
    (1) Well thought out positions. In studying confessions, you are working with some of the greatest minds and godly people in the history of the Christian faith as they carefully state what they believe.
    (2) Confessions can cause you to look at what you believe - to work through to see if what you believe conforms to Scripture.
    (3) Quality control. What do you want your leaders to believe and defend? Confessions help in defining that.
    (4) Quality control, part 2. Confessions can help show when a church or denomination are departing from the orthodox faith. Several conservative Presbyterian denominations departed from the now "main-line" Presbyterian denomination because of the mainline drift from the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. The Missouri Synod Lutheran Church was rescued from liberal theology by going back to the Book of Concord.

    Traditionalaism, in an of itself, is not necessarly a bad thing. It certainly can be. Confessionalism in and of itself is not a necessarily a bad thing. It can be very useful. God uses all kinds of ways and means to preserve His Church. Some are preserved through confessionalism. Some are preserved through reform, going away from bad traditions.

    So, I'm offering a view that traditionalism is not always a bad thing.

    By Blogger Earl, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 7:33:00 PM  

  • This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    By Blogger Seven Star Hand, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:43:00 PM  

  • Rose,

    your message comes out loud and clear.

    In a debate between James White and Bob Wilkin (of GES) James White spent some 10 minutes reciting what the creeds said, what men said, what councils said.

    Bob rightly stated that no matter what anyone has said, he wants to stand with his conviction of the Bible, and proceeded to give his answers and defend his position by a well thought out appeal to the Bible, to biblical argumentation.

    I like what you said about appealing to fallible men. Why do it? It is absurd. Their triumphs lead us to their praise as much as their errors make their doctrines suspect.

    Many people only know their "catechisms", their "confessions" and do not terribly know how to defend their "beliefs" from the Scriptures (other than an appeal to the proof-texts given within the articles of their confessions). They know what they believe from their "canons", and appeal to them, but to their bibles they only refer us to proof-texts, having trusted the apprehension of their doctrine to those men's interpretations that are not argued for in those very creeds, but merely asserted.

    The Reformation did not go far enough. The Roman Catholic Church dominated the "Christian" scene for over 1600 years. Their doctrines evolved and transected away from the truth that whole time. The men who originally left the RC church wanted to merely reform it from the INSIDE rather than start something new. They kept many of their RC errors, some of which are found in their doctrines today.

    Biblical proof-texts and doctrines have been irrevocably married to one another making any new and fresh scholorship on the Bible texts difficult if not impossible. Many errors continue to be pointed out in interpreters of the past, and new studies in the language, culture, and literature of those days continue to shed critical light on the Bible; these done by those who are not content nor beholden to the archaic Traditionalism that has enslaved many into theological bondage down through the centuries.

    But a major portion of Christianity remains in the throes of traditionalistic piety and understanding.

    Doctrine has become so entrenched by this traditionalism, that to question it is to question God Himself.

    This has been used greatly as a tool of Satan.


    By Blogger Antonio, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:47:00 PM  

  • Seven Star Hand,

    I have deleted your multi-page cut-and-paste. In the future, you may leave a hyperlink to your long sermons. This is not the forum for them.

    Thank you,

    the Mgmt.

    By Blogger Antonio, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:50:00 PM  

  • Hey Earl, I did link to you on my blog and this one. Thanks for all your participation and common sense comments!


    By Blogger Antonio, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 8:53:00 PM  

  • Antonio,

    Thank you for your counter-point to us traditionalists! You get us thinking, which is good. You argue about the important things.

    You're very generous to link me. Thanks!

    By Blogger Earl, at Sunday, August 06, 2006 9:44:00 PM  

  • Yes, I agree with you Rose~.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Monday, August 07, 2006 12:07:00 AM  

  • I caution to Watch Out for this one! The Earnest Contender issues this warning to us (also here) because, Romanism says, “Theology... accepts as the sources of its knowledge Holy Writ and Tradition.” (Ludwig).

    Neo-Evangelicals are overly concerned with what the intelligencia (scholarly opinion) are saying.

    Even Fundamentalist (or perhaps especially Fundamentalist) need to beware of tradition so that tradition and or history does not become a source of there authority, sadly in some cases it seems to have taken hold.

    "Why is The Earnest Contender issuing this warning?" you ask!

    Because tradition tends to deny the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture, the priesthood of the believer, and the autonomy of the local church, these are great concerns.

    A Seminary Professor, Dr. Larry Pettigrew has accurately said, "Tradition is a wonderful servant, but a horrible master."

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at Monday, August 07, 2006 4:25:00 AM  

  • Hi Earl,
    That song from Fiddler on the Roof was playing in my head when I wrote this post! My mother (and father before he died) loved that movie and we watched it a lot when I was young. As an independent Baptist, I can't relate very well to your comment. ;~) I respect you, though Earl, and thank you for your contribution - you are always very humble and straightforward when you comment.

    Yes, you said it better than I. Doctrine has become so entrenched by this traditionalism, that to question it is to question God Himself. I think this is a real problem.

    I am glad you see my point and agree.

    J Wendell,
    That was a funny way of commenting that ... all those links!
    This was so "well put" (as the rabbi in Fiddler would say)

    Fundamentalists ...need to beware of tradition so that tradition and/or history does not become a source of [their] authority; sadly in some cases it seems to have taken hold.

    We think alike!

    By Blogger Rose~, at Monday, August 07, 2006 5:05:00 AM  

  • Rose, at the same time, I do think it is sometimes worthwhile raising the issue of historical views.

    If you advocate a doctrine or interpretation that is not historical; I think you do need to be able to suggest some reasons why nobody has thought of it before.

    Every Blessing in Christ


    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Monday, August 07, 2006 5:10:00 AM  

  • Matthew,
    Some more words from you - how splendid!
    I find the bringing up of the historical views very interesting because they teach us about history. I really thought Bobby had provided some great thoughts because you could see just how certain trains of thought had developed. I just don't like the particular line of criticism that says "that hasn't been the historical approach" or the "majority rules" sort of attacks. As to your last paragraph, that is a good idea.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Monday, August 07, 2006 5:18:00 AM  

  • I would have to say I consider those who have gone before us like I consider the body of Christ in my the local congregation. I think we as a modern people have a wrong view somewhere as it relates to the body of Christ for those who have gone before us. I can't always pinpoint it though, but that's just my take on the whole thing.

    The bible says to encourage one another daily as long as it is called Today. I think of those who have gone before us like that.

    Having said that you are correct Rose, but I would caution against extremes on this. I do think with an episcopalian background I know what you are talking about with the Catholic background. This is a good concern tradition...in the way of biblical study is so saddening.

    I should really take a long hard look at dispensationalism at some point, but I'm swayed away by the sensationalism of popular dispensationalism that is distracts me from that position. However some dear brothers and sister I know hold to dispensationlism and they have such passionate lives for God.

    By Blogger Shawn L, at Monday, August 07, 2006 7:02:00 AM  

  • Rose, thanks for your comments to my reply. It is interesting that you note you're an independent Baptist. That is a tradition also, as my background of conservative Presbyterian is a tradition. My point is that tradition is not necessarily a bad thing. Traditionalism, where you adhere to the group you belong to, no matter what, is dangerous -- although by God's grace, some people are preserved that way because God, by his grace, has them believe the right things. But the usual means God uses to revealing himself is the diligent study of his word through prayer.

    I greatly respect you and your background. I think we both agree that we are to follow what we see the Bible says, as best we can see. Getting a little help from the church we're in, people we're accountable to, who in turn get help from Christians in the past, all assists us in this process.

    By Blogger Earl, at Monday, August 07, 2006 7:53:00 AM  

  • I cannot say I have much of a tradition.

    I parents are part of the Charismatic Restorationist movment which showed up in the Seventies.

    That has influenced me, but I have also been infuenced by spending time with Reformed Baptists.

    I have read stuff from nearly every theological perpspective.

    I suppose I am pretty committed to a Free Grace position on soteriology and a Brethren position on ecclesiology. This has come from my own studies.

    I think coming from the Charismatic Restorationist movement, I tend to resent tradition, formality and organisation. This tendency is the closest I have to a tradition.

    Every Blessing in Christ


    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Monday, August 07, 2006 8:22:00 AM  

  • Matthew, you are the person who disproves the point I was trying to make that everyone has a tradition. So much for that point. :o)

    By Blogger Earl, at Monday, August 07, 2006 8:53:00 AM  

  • The traditionalist argument that a view "has not been the position of historical Christianity" could have been and perhaps was levelled against Luther and others. After all, by the 16th century the bulk of historical theology weighed in favor of soteriological synergism! It also smacks of a sort of reverse chronological arrogance.

    This sort of argumentation assumes that which it must prove - that the FG position or dispensational theology is an innovation. Yet it has been definitively proven, by Dave Anderson's work for example, that Agustine was a chiliast before the sack of Rome, and it wasn't until he was exposed to Porphyry that he introduced the heretical Neo-platonic doctrine of double predestination into the theology of the Western church! Rene Lopez has recently published Apostolic Fathers: Key Issues and Their Understanding of Grace in which he undercuts the argument that the Apostolic Fathers' failure to clearly articulate the distinction between justification and sanctification is evidence that FG theology is something new in Christianity.

    Let me also say that I find myself tempted to use the "appeal to authority" argument when I either don't have time or am too lazy to ferret things out for myself. And I have sensed this in some FG bloggers as well. It's easier to cite what Hodges or Wilkin or Dillow or Meisinger or Anderson or Radmacher or Bing or Lopez or anyone else says, isn't it?

    And from time to time my FG credentials have been challenged because I have occasional disagreement with one of the leading lights over a given passage. Someone will say, "Well that's not how Brother Gumball sees this passage!" To which I say, "So what?"

    Very provocative thread, Rose. Thanks!

    By Anonymous Bud Brown, at Monday, August 07, 2006 9:39:00 AM  

  • So what would the traditional free grace person say about traditionalist? (hehehe)

    Sorry I just had to say that!

    I agree with you Rose, very good post.

    Just a side note. I was given a NIV study bible about 8 months ago. I never have liked this "version" I have almost always been dogmatic about the NASB.
    Anyway I got it out for the first time the other day and to see what the comments were about a certain passage. I was dumbfounded, not about what it said, but what I noticed.

    I noticed that on almost each page in the New Testament that the actual scripture filled up about 30 to 35 percent of the page and the comments filled out the rest of the page. What have we done, when it takes a ratio of 3 pages of mans comments to tell the unsuspecting reader what 1 page of God's written Word is saying?

    No wonder traditionalist are so prevailent, people are reading 3 pages of mans words to interpret 1 page of God's words.

    By Blogger Kris, at Monday, August 07, 2006 1:21:00 PM  

  • Kris, I understand the NIV Study Bible is rather biased toward Calvinism and Covenant theology.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Monday, August 07, 2006 2:15:00 PM  

  • >Traditionalaism, in an of itself, is not necessarly a bad thing. It certainly can be. Confessionalism in and of itself is not a necessarily a bad thing. It can be very useful<

    That is a good point. We certainley don't wish to be ruled by tradition but we must take stock of how God works. Consider his use of the Rechabites in Jeremiah to help Israel see their low regard for sin and the positive aspects of the faithfulness of the Rechabites to their Forefathers tradition. His use of it to have a high regard for obedience. The tendency for the Children of God is to take advantage of his grace and so the use of the Rechabites and Gods positive look toward them should be a model. They had some pretty silly rules...but God saw nobility in it.

    We need to be careful not to ridicule this idea. I have had to learn this important truth... very hard to learn.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Monday, August 07, 2006 2:20:00 PM  

  • John Cole,

    As always...your thoughts are very well rounded. It is difficult to acquire balance...yet we all must endeavor to respectfully find it.

    I always appreciate your coments and the humility and respectfulness behind them. You have taught me a good thing.

    By Blogger Bhedr, at Monday, August 07, 2006 2:25:00 PM  

  • Matthew, I don't know if it is or not. I don't doubt the notes in the NIV isn't though.

    I know from what I have read apart from any study notes it seems to take more liberty than it should IMO to add things not in the original text to "make a clearer interpretation". One example being the passage in Timothy about Deacons. The NIV says "their wives" when the original words mean women. The NASB says women. Phoebe a woman was a deaconess in the New Testament. So go figure why the NIV wants to say "their wives" instead of women, unless they hold a "traditionalist" view that a women cannot be a deacon.

    I think wether it be Calvinism, Arminiaism, Augustine, Lutherism, Free Grace or creeds,etc, any thing that has been labeled a theology is in danger already being tradition to a traditionalists mentality in his future.

    Is that wrong? I think yes it is.
    Am I free grace? Yes I am, but I hope I am never called a traditional Free Gracer, I would rather be called Biblical.

    By Blogger Kris, at Monday, August 07, 2006 2:54:00 PM  

  • Rose,
    I think the most important thing any teacher of the word can do is to show their new brother how to read the bible. What struck me when I first started reading the bible 10 years ago was how it is in the Lord's language, so to speak, then luckily, soon after, it was pointed out to me that it was also in one sole voice. With those perequisites covered I was confident that all I had to do was carefully and patiently read the thing, and there was no part of it that was not accessible to me and my understanding. One of the things that got me up to spead in a hurry was a preacher who went line by line through any given book. I was exposed to the way a great evangelist walked through each phrase, and how each line, even each word, had tremendous importance, and how he carefully proceeded through each sentence, never assuming and always looking for clarification to other clear parts of the Word for any needed help. It was great. And this bright man with giant faith was fine with not being sure about some of the more difficult and surely to be murky points, as many were proven to be to a heartbreaking degree by many of our blessed church fathers, stayed the course in expounding what we know for sure, and must know for sure, and was only really excessive in citing the abundant need for the abundance of God's grace. He simply excelled the greatest at teaching me how to read my Bible, by and for myself, to establish my, that is my, my! relationship with God and His Word, to enable me to then share that gift of reading with others so that they may establish themselves and others as well as children of God and His Word. This teacher taught me how to learn. He taught me where the truth is and how I can go there and learn it.

    As you can probably tell I feel pretty lucky. This was our friend Jeff's (Anti-itch Med.) grandfather. Frankly, I feel Jeff is a newer, improved version of the same.

    So yes, there is a continued importance and place for the effort of every historical church father, but primarily within the context of their own time, and primarily for our learning about the continual struggle of the flesh coupled with man's wisdom, struggling together with each other and the Word.

    Hopefully there is a worthy point in there somewhere. I'm trying not to be brash but just to express the way I percieve these things. I think everyone here has done a marvelous job of voicing their own perspectives, which are surprisingly closely aligned. So hopefully I will fit not to far off onto the extreme end of the spectrum.

    Heartily, Todd

    By Blogger Todd, at Monday, August 07, 2006 6:25:00 PM  

  • Just one more comment, then I be quiet. I'm going to tell a shameful story about myself and traditionalism. But first, I've go a question for those in other traditions, such as independent Baptist.

    Suppose you were the only viable church in town. Someone attends the church who was baptized as an infant. That person is convinced by Scripture that their baptism is not only valid, but that it would be wrong for them to be re-baptized? Would you allow that person to become a member? If not, on what grounds? How is that not a form of traditionalism?

    Now the unflattering story of me. We had a family in our Presbyterian church who wanted their children to be immersed in the family pool. As an elder, I volunteered to talk with them about it. Us elders were concerned that the baptism should be done in a worship setting, and we felt that pouring or sprinkling was the best mode (I know, we can get into long discussions on this, but that is not the point). I went over and told them they needed to submit to the church leadership. I did not deal with their Biblical concerns, nor did I look at various options.

    When I reported back, the other elders gently, but firmly, rebuked me. There is plenty of room to work with Christian families in the church. If they wanted immersion, we could work with a local Baptist church to see that they were immersed there. We could attend the service and welcome their children at our church as fully baptized children.

    You see, I was following "traditionalism", rather than respecting tradition as a guide but not the unyeilding dictator in my life. It is possible for "confessionalists" to not be a "traditionalist" -- but we can also be some of the worst offenders of "traditionalism". The same is true for each of us. It's easy to point the finger at others. But the root of that sin lurks in all of our hearts. It certainly does in mine.

    Thanks, Rose, for this post.

    By Blogger Earl, at Tuesday, August 08, 2006 5:56:00 AM  

  • Hi Shawn,
    Yes, we don't want to be an extremist on this. The man who led me to Christ and discipled me in the early years was very much an extremist on this - a maverick. I think extremism in either direction is not a good thing.

    The reason I noted that I am an independant Baptist is because the idea of "quality control" amongst a group of many churches (denomination?) is just foreign there. Our doctrine and practice are not subject to a board or a synod or presbytery. Our church is "independent." We have a constitution which would be a "quality control" document, but it was drawn up by the members of the church - it does not date back to an historical body per se. Earl, don't get me wrong, I do not mean to raise the banner of "independent baptist" too high - I very reluctantly call myself a baptist, because I don't care for labels very much. I do like the "independent" part of that label though. ;~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, August 08, 2006 6:12:00 AM  

  • Matthew,
    Thanks for your further comments - I would say you are the epitomy of a "non-traditionalist".

    Thanks for your comments! Yes, it is easy to be lazy, is it not? I recently had a discussion with my brother - who now goes to my church - and I used the lazy approach too, appealing to the "majority rules" idea. (I admit, I am guilty)
    I think Brother Gumball has a lot of good things to say, ;~) but no man should be on a pedestal.

    Hi Kris,
    Yes, that is disturbing, isn't it? Well, I guess that what makes it a "study bible." The first Bible I ever had was the New Scofield Bible. I was really bothered by the notes at the bottom at first, because I was very fervent about receiving the unadulterated word from God that I was so thirsty for. I really tried to not read those notes my first read through the Bible.
    Hey, thanks for visiting.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, August 08, 2006 6:22:00 AM  

  • Hi Brian.

    I appreciate your comments to me. What a great study habit you were taught. Thanks for sharing that. God does put our contemporary brethren in our lives to help us along - like I said - I don't mean to say that each Christian is an island unto himself - we need eachother!

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, August 08, 2006 6:25:00 AM  

  • Earl, thanks for that story you left as I was composing my comment to you. All I could say about it is that I don't really think baptism is a tradition because it is something clearly taught in the Bible. Like you said, I don't want to argue over all the fine details of methods - bless you brother.

    By Blogger Rose~, at Tuesday, August 08, 2006 6:29:00 AM  

  • I do have a few personal traditions:

    1. Using only the King James Bible (or is that a belief about its accuracy?)
    2. Addressing God as 'thou' in prayer.
    3. Wearing a suit to church (I am not sure why, I just cannot shake it off).
    4. Not listening to secular music ot reading secular books on the Lord's Day.
    5. Always sitting in the same seat at church.

    Every Blessing in Christ


    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Tuesday, August 08, 2006 7:20:00 AM  

  • The reference to 1827, if I'm not mistaken, has to do with the claim for Darby's first understanding of pretribulationism - a rather shaky claim in view of the evidence that in his 1829 and 1830 papers he was looking for only the Rev. 19 coming, plus documentation that no clear teaching of pretrib is seen in any work of his before his lengthy 1839 paper "Notes on the Revelation." In regard to dispensationalism's earliest formulation, a new Google article entitled "Pretrib Rapture Diehards" is also illuminating. B.N.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at Tuesday, August 08, 2006 9:08:00 PM  

  • Anonymous, correct about Darby. I think Darby came wup with the doctrine about 1832.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:45:00 AM  

  • Yes, I knew it was Darby too who originated that understanding, but when the person said that which I quoted in my post, he referred to "The Chafer rapture scene" so I assumed he was referring to Chafer's presentation of Darby's ideas?

    By Blogger Rose~, at Wednesday, August 09, 2006 12:00:00 PM  

  • Rose~, some people argue that Darby got the idea from the early Charismatic, Edward Irving, who is accused of getting it from a prophesy by a young Scottish lady called Margaret MacDonald.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Thursday, August 10, 2006 12:41:00 AM  

  • Those Scotts! They gave us bagpipes, Presbyterianism, and Dispensationalism!


    By Blogger Earl, at Thursday, August 10, 2006 7:08:00 AM  

  • Earl, personally I think the Margaret MacDonal theory is a little doubtful and I do not think Darby was very mcuh ifnluenced by weird Scotsman, Edward Irving.

    By Blogger Dyspraxic Fundamentalist, at Thursday, August 10, 2006 8:39:00 AM  

  • "Majority doesn't rule when it comes to truth."

    Wow - do I love that Quote!

    By Blogger Jon Lee, at Wednesday, August 23, 2006 12:20:00 PM  

  • Jon,
    Thanks for reading this. I have really appreciated reading your comments around blogdom and am tickled that you like the quote.
    Thanks! :~)

    By Blogger Rose~, at Friday, August 25, 2006 7:36:00 AM  

  • "While I was sick in the flesh, the Savior was sent to me in the likeness of sinful flesh, fulfilling such a dispensation, to redeem me from slavery, from corruption, and from death. And He became to me righteousness, and sanctification, and salvation. Righteousness, by setting me free from sin through faith in Him. Sanctification, in having set me free through water and the Spirit and His word. And salvation, His blood being the ransom of the true Lamb, having given Himself on my behalf." - St. Epiphanios (Against Heresies 3.1,2 PG 42.477)

    By Blogger Dominick Macelli, at Tuesday, December 31, 2013 6:12:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home