Protestantism

» _Boanerges_ - The Grteat Leahy

In response to The Grteat Leahy posted by pink101:

from your link...

"John Nelson Darby is regarded as the father of dispensationalism and its prodigy"

So.. are you saying that I misstep my bounds and accused you of something you do not profess to? So then, John Darby is not the founder of Dispensationalism?....

Or rather, do you agree that the Apostle Paul first used this word...?

You seem rather confused on this very simple subject...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - and finally - THE CONCLUSION!

Stephen Sizer may be considered a scholar to you, but, by all means, do show us - how does this person justify such a ridiculous and foolish claim...?

"It is therefore not surprising that among the indigenous Christians of the Holy Land especially, dispensationalism is regarded as a dangerous heresy, an unwelcome and alien intrusion, advocating an exclusive Jewish political agenda and undermining the genuine ministry of justice, peace and reconciliation in the Middle East". Stephen Sizer
12 December 2000

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - The Grteat Leahy

In response to The Grteat Leahy posted by _Boanerges_:
.
I'm not confused in the least.
.
This is exactly what you wrote two posts ago, One of your favorite lines is that "dispensational (ism) was CREATED by Darby in the 1800's.. Only an uneducated fool would believe such nonsense. Especially given the fact that the very word DISPENSATION is given in the scriptures...
.
I believe your cavalier ways here say much about Brian in that he refuses to upbraid you for your despicable behavior. You are the one who is fooling no one. It is sick that Brian and Brother Jones give you their tacit support.
.
I am outa here. But, don't let me stop you from your flamboyant bosh.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» _Boanerges_ - The Grteat Leahy

In response to The Grteat Leahy posted by pink101:

So.. you agree then..? Darby is NOT the founder of Dispensationaiism?

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» _Boanerges_ - Phil is caught in confusion?

In response to The Grteat Leahy posted by pink101:

I might have referenced E.R.Sandeen's comments about Darby.

NO Phil.. your words about this subject are all over this website... You in fact have stated exactly what I have said. Don't believe me? Well.. do YOUR own words lie?
---------------------------------------------------------------
from the history books of Suite101 - From Pinky

Dispensationalism as a concept in Christianity deals with an historical approach to the Holy Bible, both Old and New Testaments combined.

The idea of dispensation is as old as complex language in that it means, "the handing out of something" whatever it may be.

It the sense it is used in the Christian doctrines of dispensationalism, it relates to the way God is seen as interacting with humanity. The idea that it was a subject worthy of thought goes back to the early days of the Church Fathers; but, in so far as present day Dispensationalism is concerned, it began to be seen as a serious concept in the 1800s. I challenge anyone to show where Dispensationalism as we know it today has been discussed prior to Darby. Obviously, as the concepts are drawn out of the Holy Bible, it can be said that it has always been around. But, it had not been discussed as a serious concept until John Nelson Darby came along in the 1800s.

Darby is the single most important influence in the beginning of Dispensationalism as the most significant doctrine in present day Christian circles. Historical records on his interests' go back to the times when he was involved in the denomination known as the Plymouth Brethren. John Scott writes, "John Nelson Darby is regarded as the father of dispensationalism and its prodigy, Christian Zionism." But he quickly adds, "It was Cyrus I. Scofield and D. L. Moody, however, who brought Darby's sectarian theology into mainstream evangelical circles. R. C. Sproul concedes that dispensationalism is now '...a theological system that in all probability is the majority report among current American evangelicals'
http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/m...

-- posted by _Boanerges_

» pink101 - Phil Is So Confused. Heh heh heh

In response to Phil is caught in confusion? posted by _Boanerges_:
.
Which all goes to show that I have probably forgotten more than you know. Heh heh heh.
.
The quotations you gave from some previous post of mine looks pretty good to me. I don't mind if I do say so myself, I was impressed with what I said there. Well written, Phil. It would be interesting to read what Brother Jones and Brian have to say about it.
.
Anyone beside Wendell think it shows me as confused?
.
Anyone?
.
Hello?
.
You are a whole case all by yourself, Wendell.
.
Truly.
.
Absolutely.
.
No question about it.
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - a rolling donut?

In response to Fundamentals posted by pink101:

Go find yourself a rolling donut.

I must admit that I chuckled at this. I've NEVER, EVER heard this insult before. A rolling donut. Hmmm.

Personally, Wendell, I'd look for one that's cream-filled with sprinkles. Those are good. And, hmmm, I'm hungry.

» pink101 - a rolling donut?

In response to a rolling donut? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Don't mention the "rolling donut" in churched company.
.
That's what happens when you're the preacher in a Baptist church that practices "open and/or closed dish fellowships". Preacher MUST sample all the ladies dishes. And, he must say things like, "Deeeeee lish usss!" and "That is great." While the dollies smile with approval as they look around the room. "mmmmm, my, my. What good apple pie." "Have another piece, Reverend."
.
Been there. Done that.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Responding to Phil

In response to The Grteat Leahy posted by pink101:

Pink, I am just now catching up on this thread. It's interesting that you call me "despicable" for not reprimanding Wendell.

First, if Wendell were to curse you either outright or in acronyms, I would reprimand him. Has he done this? If so, I'm sorry I missed it. I truly am.

Second, this is NOT my full-time job. These threads have a way (ESPECIALLY with you and Wendell) of multiplying by dozens of postings between the times I'm online. I don't have time to comb through all that. A lot of it, I miss. I make no apologies for that. It's the way it is.

Third, Wendell IS much more aggressive and combative in his postings that I am. But I am not going to start officially reprimanding people for having personalities with which I am personally uncomfortable. Wendell is an aggressive online debater. (I know you don't like the term 'debater.' Insert 'arguer' if you like). He has a right to be that way. Again, if he starts to use abusive or profane language, that's a different story. I've only seen ONE instance of his doing that, and it's not been here in the Protestantism section.

Fourth, if you're offended by Wendell's style or approach, no one is forcing you to be drawn into extended conversations with him.

Okay?

» Brian Tubbs - "Uneducated Fool"

You have an Ann Coulter style of debate. It's enjoyable to watch, but remember Ephesians 4:29. I think your indirect reference to Phil as an "uneducated fool" isn't an example of speaking "grace to the hearer." I say that brother-to-brother, not as a Suite101 topic manager.