Featured Some strong hard evidence for The Mark of the Beast

Already quoted tou youy peter in Acts 3, and he was inspired by God to state that when Isreal receives Jesus as their messiah, restoration and blessing on this earth will haooen!

 

You are like all pre-trib dispensationalists you filter all Scripture through the erroneous doctrine of Darby!

 

Actually, filter it thru Jesus/Isaiah/Paul/peter/John, as don't view darby as being inspired, but some do seem to get their theology from other sources then just the bible, eh?

 

A new believer, eager to grow and be a leader, asked for a systematic theology book to help him with his understanding of Scripture. Now, depending on the theology book he could have turned out to be amil or premil; pretrib or posttrib, or maybe even a Preterist. I am glad that the right kind of theology book was recommended and he went on to be a pre-trib dispensationalist.
He learned from the Scriptures didn't he? Just like we all have.
Amil is not new. Covenantal theology is not new. Neither is dispensationalism.
They have all been around for sometime. To take this historical road and to prove you are right through history is ridiculous and impossible to do. It is an avenue you should drop.
You have strayed from sola scriptura.
You have demeaned yourself to character assassination just to make a point.
If you think you are right, then why not use the Bible to prove it.

Again, more character assassination.
More historical accounts.
But absolutely no scripture. Did you say once upon a time you believed in sola scriptura?

I don't care what Ice writes. I don't agree with him in most places.

Well that is the first reference that you have given. It doesn't say much though.
God did call a nation out for himself in the OT--Israel.
God is calling out a nation for himself, distinct and different from Israel, in the NT, His Bride. It may well worth noting that John referred himself as a friend of the bride, and not a part of the bride because he was the last of the OT prophets, still a part of the nation of Israel. They are two distinct nations.

And I should care about this, why??

And so??
More history; no scripture.

I have not once admitted to belief in a "parenthesis church" have I? Can you point to post where I have?
But I can point to where you have posted from men and not from Scripture.

Hinduism was contemporary with Christ or first century Christianity.
Islam started in the seventh century.
Your point is??

More character assassination.
More history (so-called).
But no scripture. You have given no scriptural proof for your position.

If you want historical proof for your position I have already given it.
The first Amillennialist (like yourself) was the heretic Origen, sometimes referred to as the Father of Arianism, who also believed in universalism, and many other heresies. He is the first also to develop the heretical method of allegory as a method of interpretation of the Bible. Before him the ECF always interpreted the Bible literally. So you follow in his footsteps.
You see, I can fight the same fight.
But the weight of scripture is given to the pre-trib rapture, and I am willing to go with that without reference to others.

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

At least they both hold to the full inspiration and ineranncy of the Bible, unlike some whose texts are used to teach st seminary levels do!

 

You do realise that the early Church would not have seen your Covenant theology/A mil views as what the bible taught, correct?

That it took origen and later on Augustine to get the church to stop viewing the bible in literal terms, and in the views of spiritualising the texts?

 

I assume you are talking about yourself and you prove my assertion that pre-trib dispensationalism does not come naturally from Scripture. It must be taught. Scripture shows clearly that God deals with mankind through Covenants and always by HIS Grace![/QUOTE]

 

Above is the essence of your last post. I have presented more Scripture than you or anyone else on this BB to defend my beliefs. I post it in the color of blood to remind myself, and hopefully others what that Scripture cost. But if that Scripture does not comport with pre-trib dispensationalism you reject it or say:

More about that later.

You tout "sola Scripture" but I would remind you and every pre-trib dispensationalist on this BB that not one verse of Scripture has ever been posted that supports the pre-tribulation removal of the Church. That is the fictitious doctrine invented out of "whole cloth" by John Nelson Darby and I present history to prove it. Now is your "big moment" DHK. You can prove me and history wrong if you can produce Scripture to defend the doctrine of pre-trib removal of the Church.

As for history, I present the writings of pre-trib dispensationalists to prove that pre-trib dispensationalism is from the mind of man, starting with Darby, continuing with such as Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, and Thomas Ice.

I have posted {#58}the remarks by Dr. Ice. He is at least honest in presenting the truth about pre-trib dispensationalism:

Now it is undeniable that Darby is the father of pre-trib dispensationalism. You can believe whatever you want but you are deluding yourself. Even more sad is the other Biblical illiterates you may lead into the morass of pre-trib dispensationalism.

 

So there were NO prominent Christians leaders/teachers/theologians who spoke of pre Mil views until darby?

And the problem is that you spitualise away all of those scriptures that when seen in a literal way do support our position!

 

I am curious! Why is it character assassination to quote a pre-trib dispensationalist??????:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

In your post #64 you respond to my reference to Scripture:

I present that passage of Scripture in case you haven't read it and then you can choose to continue in your error!

Ephesians 2:11-22
11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Actually this passage says much and it leaves no room for the "parenthesis Church" and the two peoples of GOD of pre-trib dispensationalism. Now you claim you never use the term "parenthesis Church" yet you are an avid proponent of pre-trib dispensationalism and that is the doctrine that is developed by the founder of pre-trib dispensationalism, John Nelson Darby, and his disciples Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie.

DHK

When you can present just one passage of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church then you will have something worth saying, otherwise you do not.:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

[/QUOTE]
No, I wasn't talking about myself. There are hundreds of graduates from varying Bible Colleges that believe in dispensationalism because they were taught by men who rightly divided the Word of Truth. Your hatred of dispensationalism doesn't even allow for a rational discussion of the existence of a millennial kingdom much less a pre-trib rapture which to you is just an after thought. The former must, of a necessity, come first.

 

Again, the evidence that we keep giving will never be able to please you, as we see the scriptures to be understood in a literal fashion, while you go for symbolism!

And do you know ANY pre trib Dispy that states that Jews will be saved apart from the New Covenant now?

 

I simply answered you post, point by point. In your last point that was little if any scripture. Rather you are fixated on Darby and whatever you can to demean him. That is truly sad for any Christian and one who engages in debate or apologetics.

I will just repeat my answer again. After all you just proved my point:

I simply answered you post, point by point. In your last point that was little if any scripture. Rather you are fixated on Darby and whatever you can to demean him. That is truly sad for any Christian and one who engages in debate or apologetics.

I have presented many scriptures to you and so have others. It has all been laid out for you. You don't accept a literal reading of the scripture which is unfortunate. You deny it. What else can I do.

I believe in sola scriptura not sola Ice or Darby. So use the Scripture.
I tire of Darby bashing. So do the rest of us. The above writers don't prove much of anything. If you are unable to prove your case through Scriptures then it is your case, not mine, that doesn't stand. Here is your big chance OR, lay it out in Biblical fashion and in a logical fashion. I will refute any Scripture that you give if it is pulled out of its context.

I don't really care what he says. You also at one time said you don't agree with him. That doesn't say much for Ice does it?

More character assassination.
More history.
More Darby-reliance.
But no scripture. Whatever happened to sola scriptura.
If you can't defend your position on Scripture alone then you have lost any battle you ever had.

 

Quit rattling on about literal and symbolic. Just present one Verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church. Until you do neither you nor DHK can say anything warranting a response!

 

Should I quote Calvin then conclude with: "and only someone like a murderer could receive such revelation like this."
That is what you do.
If it not were falling off a horse, knocking his head on a rock, etc., dispensationalism would have never been born.

Pure garbage! You should be ashamed of yourself. Don't say those are the facts. They are not.

 

:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: