There Are No Church Ages

[veteran]

Two Churches out the seven Christ had no rebuke for, and those two Churches represent His servants that are not deceived, because they keep His Word, and thus know how to recognize His enemies.

Because Rev.11 reveals only two candlesticks associated with God's two witnesses, reveals the other five candlesticks will be under deception during the tribulation. This is WHY the devil's servants of the "crept in unawares" have come up with that church ages doctrine long ago. Many things taught in the seminaries simply are not written, but are designed suppositions to lead one astray from understanding in God's Word.

The reason why Christ showed those two Churches were under attack by the "synagogue of Satan" was because of their having His Truth by keeping His Word, and were not under the deceptions the other five Churches were. And this is how it still is today.

By treating those 7 Churches like ages, and wrongly thinking the 7th one is the pattern for today, it will keep you from looking at the problems the five had, and away from the two which Christ had no rebuke for.


So here's the two Messages Christ gave to the two Churches He had... no rebuke for. They are OUR patterns today for His True Church...

Rev 2:8-11
8 And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the First and the Last, Which was dead, and is alive;
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
10 Fear none of those things which thou shalt suffer: behold, the devil shall cast some of you into prison, that ye may be tried; and ye shall have tribulation ten days: be thou faithful unto death, and I will give thee a crown of life.
11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.
(KJV)


Rev 3:7-13
7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith He That is holy, He That is true, He That hath the key of David, He that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth;
8 I know thy works: behold, I have set before thee an open door, and no man can shut it: for thou hast a little strength, and hast kept My word, and hast not denied My name.
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
10 Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God: and I will write upon him My new name.
13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
(KJV)

What is a common Message to BOTH of those Churches Christ mentioned? The "synagogue of Satan" and the idea of 'false Jews'. This is the very reason the other five Churches were having problems, because they failed to recognize Christ's enemies that were creeping in among them to cause them trouble. And one of the main troubles was how they do things to get away from keeping the patience of His Word.

Another common Message with the two is about the tribulation time being mentioned to both Churches. With one, some of them are to be imprisoned by Satan, and suffer tribulation. With the other, they are spared the temptation of the coming false messiah by not being deceived. But both are to wait for Christ's coming to end that tribulation, holding fast and remaining faithful to Christ Jesus.

 

[us2are1]

a synagog is a Jewish temple and according to Christ, satan is an adversary against God. Anyone can act in the spirit of the adversary as Peter was in this scripture.

Matthew
23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

The synagog of satan is a nation of unbelieving Jews.

1 John 2
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

 

[veteran]

a synagog is a Jewish temple and according to Christ, satan is an adversary against God. Anyone can act in the spirit of the adversary as Peter was in this scripture.

Matthew
23 But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men."

The synagog of satan is a nation of unbelieving Jews.

1 John 2
22 Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist who denies the Father and the Son.
23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also.

Rev 2:9
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
(KJV)

Rev 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
(KJV)

Christ used the "synagogue of Satan" label specifically as a pointer to unbelievers among the Jews (house of Judah). It is not about all... Jews, not anymore than His rebukes that were specifically upon the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees that sought to murder Him. Not all the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees sought to kill Him, for even the Pharisee Nicodemus came at night to Jesus and called Him "Rabbi" (my master), and donated spices for Christ's burial.

Any unbeliever CAN be associated with that "synagogue of Satan" by joining with them and their false doctrines and working, but make no mistake; Christ was pointing that specifically... to the false Jews among Judah that had Him delivered up to be crucified.

 

[us2are1]

Rev 2:9
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
(KJV)

Rev 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
(KJV)

Christ used the "synagogue of Satan" label specifically as a pointer to unbelievers among the Jews (house of Judah). It is not about all... Jews, not anymore than His rebukes that were specifically upon the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees that sought to murder Him. Not all the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees sought to kill Him, for even the Pharisee Nicodemus came at night to Jesus and called Him "Rabbi" (my master), and donated spices for Christ's burial.

Any unbeliever CAN be associated with that "synagogue of Satan" by joining with them and their false doctrines and working, but make no mistake; Christ was pointing that specifically... to the false Jews among Judah that had Him delivered up to be crucified.

His rebuke is a stand alone truth to anyone who will likewise act in the same manner.... Past present or future.

 

[FHII]

I realize I'm a bit late on this conversation.... I don't venture over to this board too often.

Veteran, I have a few questions and comments for you.

I actually do believe in the "Church Ages" theory, though I assume that there are different takes on it that I wouldn't agree with totally. What I believe in is through the teachings I've received through my Church, and not necessarily from anywhere else. It is my understanding that William Brahnam popularized it and brought into focus back around the 1940's and 50's. Not sure about that though. In any sense, I haven't read his writings fully on the topic, though they are available online, and I do plan to read them soon.

I noticed you seem agitated because you feel that the 7 Churches in Revelation Ch 1-3 were actual Churches back in John's time. Absolutely no doubt about that! I can't speak for all who subscribe to the Church age theory, but this has never been in question. I have even studied them in light of Revelations to see what could be learned.

You also seem to believe that the qualities of each of these Churches exist today. Again, I am with you on that. However, there is a problem with that which I'll come back to.

You have asserted that the Church Age doctrine is meant to trick us into believing that we shouldn't see these 7 churches as patterns that our churches are following today. In other words, you are saying that there are 7 types of churches today, and the Lord showed us them as they existed back in 90 AD (or there abouts). This I don't follow you on, and I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. The reason is because the teaching I've received if fully aware of this notion.

Furthermore, some churches has all 7 problems at once. Yes, I said all seven had problems. No doubt, you will point to Smyrna and Philadelphia. Jesus never said he had anything against them directly like he did the other 5, but there were still problems. To Smyrna and to Philadelphia he mention, "I know there are some that call themselves Jews, and they really aren't" (of course, I'm paraphrasing). This seems to be a warning.... He didn't mention it to the other Churches he clearly had a problem with.

Why is that?

My take on it (and I admit I haven't studied it all, and it does have a few problems) is that their doctrine was ok, their worship was in line, but there were members of the congregation who were pretenders. It was a warning that there were false brethren among them.

Furthermore, Philadelphia had an extra problem. They had "a little strength". Clearly, this seems as a call to grow up.

In any sense, it seems to me that all of them had good points and problems except Leodicaiea, which had no good points.

But what I want to ask you is if you have studied the Church age theory. Have you, and does it fit? Clearly I believe with you that the Lord was addressing Churches in the year 90 AD and that we must look at the characters of each today. So does the theory fit the pattern of history, or not? Is it possible that God was laying out a development of growth of the churches over time?

Again, I think it is wrong not to look at these 7 churches and not apply their successes and failures to today's churches. I'm with you on that. However....

You are totally dismissing the Church Age concept by saying it was messages to 7 churches in that present day (90 AD), and not a history of Church development. Then you go on to theorize that it was a message for today's Churches. So why is your theory correct (and I believe it is) yet the Church Age theory incorrect? There's no Word that says your theory is correct! There is nothing that says directly that these were the 7 type of churches that would exist in 2011. Again, and again, I agree with you, but to say that this is a prophecy of 7 types of churches today, but it is not a prophecy of the development of today's churches is hypocritical, because you don't have evidence to support your claim.

So I leave these questions and comments to you to examine. I don't have all the answers and haven't read much on the history of this theory. I'm just looking to learn more about it....

 

[veteran]

I realize I'm a bit late on this conversation.... I don't venture over to this board too often.

No problem; better late than never.

... However, there is a problem with that which I'll come back to.

You have asserted that the Church Age doctrine is meant to trick us into believing that we shouldn't see these 7 churches as patterns that our churches are following today. In other words, you are saying that there are 7 types of churches today, and the Lord showed us them as they existed back in 90 AD (or there abouts). This I don't follow you on, and I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. The reason is because the teaching I've received if fully aware of this notion.

Furthermore, some churches has all 7 problems at once. Yes, I said all seven had problems. No doubt, you will point to Smyrna and Philadelphia. Jesus never said he had anything against them directly like he did the other 5, but there were still problems. To Smyrna and to Philadelphia he mention, "I know there are some that call themselves Jews, and they really aren't" (of course, I'm paraphrasing). This seems to be a warning.... He didn't mention it to the other Churches he clearly had a problem with.

Why is that?

My take on it (and I admit I haven't studied it all, and it does have a few problems) is that their doctrine was ok, their worship was in line, but there were members of the congregation who were pretenders. It was a warning that there were false brethren among them.

Furthermore, Philadelphia had an extra problem. They had "a little strength". Clearly, this seems as a call to grow up.

In any sense, it seems to me that all of them had good points and problems except Leodicaiea, which had no good points.

But what I want to ask you is if you have studied the Church age theory. Have you, and does it fit? Clearly I believe with you that the Lord was addressing Churches in the year 90 AD and that we must look at the characters of each today. So does the theory fit the pattern of history, or not? Is it possible that God was laying out a development of growth of the churches over time?

Again, I think it is wrong not to look at these 7 churches and not apply their successes and failures to today's churches. I'm with you on that. However....

You are totally dismissing the Church Age concept by saying it was messages to 7 churches in that present day (90 AD), and not a history of Church development. Then you go on to theorize that it was a message for today's Churches. So why is your theory correct (and I believe it is) yet the Church Age theory incorrect? There's no Word that says your theory is correct! There is nothing that says directly that these were the 7 type of churches that would exist in 2011. Again, and again, I agree with you, but to say that this is a prophecy of 7 types of churches today, but it is not a prophecy of the development of today's churches is hypocritical, because you don't have evidence to support your claim.

So I leave these questions and comments to you to examine. I don't have all the answers and haven't read much on the history of this theory. I'm just looking to learn more about it....

It's like I said before, and which you basically repeated from me; holding to the Church Age theory is to suggest that we LOOK at our Lord Jesus' seven Messages in a way that departs from His purpose of including them in His Book of Revelation. If you will concentrate more... on the two specific Messages He gave to the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia, you should eventually... discover, that they include specific tribulation timing events.

If you forget all that Church Age teaching you've been listening to when you read the following, what timing does The Holy Spirit reveal these verses are for?

Rev 3:10-13
10 Because thou hast kept the word of My patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold that fast which thou hast, that no man take thy crown.
12 Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from My God: and I will write upon him My new name.
13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches.
(KJV)

Surely you're able to recognize in our Lord's Message there about that hour of temptation in relation to the coming tribulation, and the time of His coming? If you don't recognize that timing within that, you should ask yourself what ideas are holding you back from being able to recognize that.

The sense our Lord Jesus is mentioning the "synagogue of Satan" to those the Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia is in relation to the saints in those two Churches being persecuted by them. This is why our Lord tells those of the Church of Philadelphia that He is going to make those of the "synagogue of Satan" to come worship at their feet, but when? During His future "thousand years" reign, for that is actually hinted about back in the OT prophets.

Moreover, the "synagogue of Satan" certainly does not represent any of Christ's many-membered body. Instead, they represent the seat of Christ's enemies, and point directly to the children of those who killed God's prophets and had our Lord Jesus crucified, like those of John 8 that He rebuked. And that's not just about unbelieving Jews.

Further, it's not proper to arbitrarily assign the problems the other five Churches were having to those two Churches of Smyrna and Philadelphia. Because our Lord Jesus gave those at Smyrna and Philadelphia no rebuke like the others, it doesn't necessarily mean they were perfect, for we know that's impossible. But they very well could have been 'counted' as perfect through repentance and staying in their walk with Christ Jesus. With the other five, they showed a need to be reminded... to repent, which reveals what? It reveals their apostasy, and no one among them was able to do the correcting. So our Lord sent His Messages to them to repent directly through His servant John.

To those at the Church of Philadelphia, Christ said he set before them "an open door, and no man can shut it" (Rev. 3:8). What's that about? In The Gospel Books, our Lord Jesus used that door as an analogy of having His Truth, for those it is open to. That is enough for us to know for sure these Christ was speaking to represent His elect saints. It serves as two Messages specifically for His servants that remain faithful to Him through the coming tribulation. It represents those who cannot... be deceived, like those Christ spoke of in the Matt.24:24 verse that He shortened the tribulation for.

If that is understood, then why in the world would anyone want to think the purpose for those two Messages died with some supposed 'Church Age' history?

But if that isn't enough to discern this, there's also the matter in Rev.1 where our Lord Jesus revealed the meaning of the seven candlesticks, and where those candlesticks exist. He said the seven candlesticks are... the seven Churches. The seven candlesticks are in Heaven with Him, and involve the bowls of Oil and pipes of Zechariah 4. If the seven Messages are about Church Ages, and that suggests the idea of six completed ages of Church history, then does that mean those seven candlesticks in Heaven have been removed, and are past history too? Obviously not.

On a deeper note; the Church Age doctrine is aligned with the endtime one-world religious working. If we look at the previous six Churches as fulfilled ages, then that suggests to us that they represent signs of a past history, and certainly not as signs of leading all the way up to our Lord's coming. Yet in just about every one of the seven Messages, our Lord Jesus pointed to the time of His coming and the rewards for remaining faithful to the end.

Notice even with a couple of the five Churches He had rebuke for, He includes an admonition linked with time leading all the way up to His second coming...

To Thyartira:

Rev 2:25-28
25 But that which ye have already hold fast till I come.
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth My works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of My Father.
28 And I will give him the morning star.
(KJV)

To Sardis:

Rev 3:3
3 Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and hold fast, and repent. If therefore thou shalt not watch, I will come on thee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee.
(KJV)

Even that is enough to show that these seven Messages were not just to the historical Churches in Asia Minor, but also to all Churches all the way up to the time of His second coming.

 

[Prentis]

Who are we to say 'This scripture means ONLY this'?

Often scripture speaks on many levels, we should consider that though we might see one aspect, another might be right under our eyes. :)

 

[FHII]

Hey Veteran,

I'm going to hold off commenting because I haven't read all that is needed to be read about this.... Yes, I've read Revelation. But not the reasoning behind the doctrine. By the way, have you? I will say that some of your arguements are good, some not so good. I can't comment further though... I actually do devote a lot of my time to studying the Bible and General History as it applies to the Bible. Probably about 2 hours a day.... Right now, I am dedicated to something else. So I will hold back and maybe within a few of months bring it back up.

But for now.... I think that it is no coincidence that God mentioned "synagogue of Satan" to two Churches. I believe it was a warning for them to watch out for members of their own congregation and for them not to be taken by it. Furthermore, I don't think there are 7 church types today and two of them are "ok". There can really be one that is "ok". I am under one pastor, and I suppose you are too. Obviously I don't know you in the flesh, so we don't go to the same Church. However, if you are of like mind, it doesn't matter if my church is in San Francisco (which it isn't) and yours is in Buddapest (which I doubt it is). If we have the same doctrine, though it may focus on different things, it is one doctrine. Christ's Church has only one doctrine.

 

[veteran]

Who are we to say 'This scripture means ONLY this'?

Often scripture speaks on many levels, we should consider that though we might see one aspect, another might be right under our eyes. :)

You mean, 'Why can't it mean Church Ages too?'

Because the idea of a Church Age suggests past fulfillment as its initial basis.

And the only past fulfillment idea that can be applied 'in context' with our Lord's Messages to the seven Churches in Asia Minor is that those Churches existed in the days of John. Some deny those 7 Messages are in effect today altogether, simply because they were specific to those 7 historical Churches located in Asia Minor.

But the serious Bible student knows those Messages were not given just to them, but as Messages for all Churches leading up to Christ's second coming, which is WHY... our Lord Jesus included in them what event still future to us? The event of His second coming.

Hey Veteran,

I'm going to hold off commenting because I haven't read all that is needed to be read about this.... Yes, I've read Revelation. But not the reasoning behind the doctrine. By the way, have you? I will say that some of your arguements are good, some not so good. I can't comment further though... I actually do devote a lot of my time to studying the Bible and General History as it applies to the Bible. Probably about 2 hours a day.... Right now, I am dedicated to something else. So I will hold back and maybe within a few of months bring it back up.

But for now.... I think that it is no coincidence that God mentioned "synagogue of Satan" to two Churches. I believe it was a warning for them to watch out for members of their own congregation and for them not to be taken by it. Furthermore, I don't think there are 7 church types today and two of them are "ok". There can really be one that is "ok". I am under one pastor, and I suppose you are too. Obviously I don't know you in the flesh, so we don't go to the same Church. However, if you are of like mind, it doesn't matter if my church is in San Francisco (which it isn't) and yours is in Buddapest (which I doubt it is). If we have the same doctrine, though it may focus on different things, it is one doctrine. Christ's Church has only one doctrine.

You have every right to disgree with me on the matter. But I personally believe you will have missed a lot by holding to the Church Ages theories, because that's really just a tether (a rope anchored by a stake to tie you down and away from what our Lord Jesus revealed there.)

I very much... do believe those 7 Messages are still in effect for the Churches today, even all the way up to the time of our Lord Jesus' return, which He included within them.

It is very probable that 'some' of the "synagogue of Satan" exists within the Churches today, as wolves in sheep's clothing and false brethren crept in which our Lord and His Apostles warned us about. But that would only mean they represent another... group, those who are against Christ Jesus. A reference like "synagogue of Satan" is a pointer to followers of Satan, not our Lord Jesus. So I can't fathom how a believing Christian could misunderstand that label.

 

[us2are1]

Rev 2:9
9 I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.
(KJV)

Rev 3:9
9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.
(KJV)

Christ used the "synagogue of Satan" label specifically as a pointer to unbelievers among the Jews (house of Judah). It is not about all... Jews, not anymore than His rebukes that were specifically upon the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees that sought to murder Him. Not all the scribes, Pharisees, and Sadduccees sought to kill Him, for even the Pharisee Nicodemus came at night to Jesus and called Him "Rabbi" (my master), and donated spices for Christ's burial.

Any unbeliever CAN be associated with that "synagogue of Satan" by joining with them and their false doctrines and working, but make no mistake; Christ was pointing that specifically... to the false Jews among Judah that had Him delivered up to be crucified.

If a person calling themselves a Christian perverts the Gospel of Christ to where there is no salvation to the follower left. That person is also of the synagog of satan. synagog in spirit being a gathering and satan meaning simply adversary of God.

 

[veteran]

If a person calling themselves a Christian perverts the Gospel of Christ to where there is no salvation to the follower left. That person is also of the synagog of satan. synagog in spirit being a gathering and satan meaning simply adversary of God.

It's a lot deeper than that, because we've been told about the "workers of iniquity" in OT times, and the "mystery of iniquity" by Paul, the 'tares' revealing by our Lord Jesus, the "many antichrists" by Apostle John, and the following Scripture which is a shocker if understood as written...

Jude 1:4
4 For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
(KJV)

Just as God has blinded many of Israel away from believing on Jesus Christ as The Saviour, He also ordained a certain group of "ungodly men" to do the works of iniquity against Him and His people. What does that "ordained" idea mean? It mean to 'write before, designate beforehand'.

No amount of window dressing is going to change the fact that there exists a group of people in this world which actively and knowingly serve and worship the devil. Written history of it has been revealed as starting in ancient Sumer-Babylon with Sargon. It then continued among the paganism of ancient Egypt, Greece, Assyria, Moab, Ammon, the Canaanite, etc., WHICH even the majority of the unbelieving Jews historically distanced theirselves from.

And because there's still proof existing among some in today's world of those iniquities the ancient pagans practiced, it does not mean those are just doing such things out of ignorance. I wish they could claim doing that iniquity as ignorance. God gave us a little hint of the nature of those beasts of the "workers of iniquity"; here's one such example...

Isa 5:18-20
18 Woe unto them that draw iniquity with cords of vanity, and sin as it were with a cart rope:

The KJV English doesn't really transfer the idea from the Hebrew well. God is saying woe to those who sin as it were like with sins in a cart pulled around by a rope for show and tell. It's the idea that they are proud... of their sinning, and want others to openly see it so others too may partake.


19 That say, "Let Him make speed, and hasten His work, that we may see it: and let the counsel of the Holy One of Israel draw nigh and come, that we may know it!"

With that, they directly mock God Himself. That's a lot different than sinning out of ignorance. It's like they say, "Come on, let's see what ya got God."


20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
(KJV)

Those "workers of iniquity" have no intention of following the good. Instead, their intention is to overthrow the good, and even present evil in its place as good. Now tell me you don't see that kind of working going on today in our times also.

 

[biggandyy]

The Scripture NEVER shows ANY of those 7 Churches in Asia as separate from each other's time of existence

And scripture never says anything about the internet... I guess the internet is a hoax.

Point is, there are some overarching themes and truths that are expressed in scripture when read in its totality, but no single passage or vignette to point to in an "eureka!" moment. Dispensationalism, I contend, is one of those golden gossamer threads that delicately weave all scripture together.

 

[veteran]

And scripture never says anything about the internet... I guess the internet is a hoax.

Point is, there are some overarching themes and truths that are expressed in scripture when read in its totality, but no single passage or vignette to point to in an "eureka!" moment. Dispensationalism, I contend, is one of those golden gossamer threads that delicately weave all scripture together.

Every time The Holy Spirit gives us understanding in God's Word, it's an "eureka" moment.

God is Who weaved all His Holy Writ together. Dispensationalism, which was a doctrine from 1830's Britain by John Darby, sought to create separations in God's Plan of Salvation like Aristotle categorizing species of God's creation. Categorizing by men will always leave us lacking.

 

[rockytopva]

In which.... I redid my video... stating...

"Ages… These churches also seem to come about in ages… In which… Only Christ Jesus knows the exact geography and time period of each church. In which the author makes no claims of knowing the exact time periods!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXO8Y0vvWT0

 

[biggandyy]

Every time The Holy Spirit gives us understanding in God's Word, it's an "eureka" moment.

God is Who weaved all His Holy Writ together. Dispensationalism, which was a doctrine from 1830's Britain by John Darby, sought to create separations in God's Plan of Salvation like Aristotle categorizing species of God's creation. Categorizing by men will always leave us lacking.

You are either over 200 years old or have a time machine to be able to deduce the intent of Darby's heart to ferret out his sinister plot...

 

[veteran]

You are either over 200 years old or have a time machine to be able to deduce the intent of Darby's heart to ferret out his sinister plot...

Darby's Dispensationalist ideas aren't that difficult to grasp in how he divided up God's Plan into specific periods based on the work of The Gospel from Abraham all the way down to Salvation going to the Gentiles. It's where he began to separate God's promises to Israel, and Israel from Christ, where he especially went astray, that latter idea being a prop for the Pre-trib rapture theory he also held to from the Edward Irving church.

You are either over 200 years old or have a time machine to be able to deduce the intent of Darby's heart to ferret out his sinister plot...

Darby's Dispensationalist ideas aren't that difficult to grasp in how he divided up God's Plan into specific periods based on the work of The Gospel from Adam all the way down to Salvation going to the Gentiles. It's where he began to separate God's promises to Israel, and Israel from Christ, where he especially went astray, that latter idea being a prop for the Pre-trib rapture theory he also held to from the Edward Irving church.

 

[biggandyy]

That is a far cry from Darby seeking to separate God's "Plan of Salvation" in your previous statement. The above is much less lunatic fringe and can be debated amongst earnst believers. Thanks for the clairfication.

 

[veteran]

That is a far cry from Darby seeking to separate God's "Plan of Salvation" in your previous statement. The above is much less lunatic fringe and can be debated amongst earnst believers. Thanks for the clairfication.

My previous statement is still just as valid, simply because God's Word doesn't really categorize the progression of His Plan of Salvation like Dispensationalism does. Apostle Paul used the idea of 'administration' of the one Gospel to different groups at different times, and he never preached a separation between God's Israel and Christ's Church when doing so. Darby's Dispensationalism did. And today, there's other man-made forms of his ideas that get even further from Bible Doctrine, like Hyper-Dispensationalism which preaches an even greater separation of Israel from Christ's Church, even to the ignorance of treating much of The Bible as being written only for Israelites and not Christ's Church.

 

[biggandyy]

No, your statement attributed to Darby the INTENT of creating division in the Body of Christ, which was not his stated intent. The result is certainly that, but his intentions were certainly not as sinister as Luther's Diabolical Shirt.

 

[FHII]

Veteran,

I appreciate your comments, and thank you for your efforts. However, unless I missed it, there are two important questions I didn't see answered in your posts.

1. Have you read the full written works of William Brahnam or anyone else who preached this?

I admit I have not read Brahnam's writings, although I have started (it'll be slow because I'm studying other things). The doctrine I have received on it was from someone other than Brahnam or anyone who preached it prior to him.

[edit: I suppose it's unfair to ask if you've read the full works. But have you read enough of them to make a point of dismissing them]

2. If you have read it, have the prophecies happened? In other words, does it fit, or not?

It seems to me that if these Church ages did exist, we could look back on history and say yes, the prophecy of the Church Ages was fulfilled. That would go a long way in saying it was actual prophecy and intention of the Lord or not. The theory is that we are in the 7th Church age, so the 6 have passed. Therefore, if we look back at what was said, and compare it to history, then it somewhat validates the theory or dismisses it.

Keep in mind, I haven't read it either. So, these are questions I'm asking without any intent to defend them or such.

Thanks....