1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

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

Featured Top 100 Christian Leaders in America

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Zenas, Apr 20, 2015.

  1. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    You have presented nothing that supports Darby's invention of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. Darby himself says it is based on Isaiah 32. Read Isaiah 32 and see if you can find the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church.

    You present a lot of verbiage but your ramblings prove nothing. I have challenged this BB for 10+ years to present Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. To date no one has.

    I can present Scripture that clearly teaches a General Resurrection and Judgment but you pre-tribbers prefer to believe the invention of Darby rather than the words of Jesus Christ! One more time:

    John 5:28, 29
    28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


    John MacArthur in his book Charismatic Chaos, page 94 writes:

    The Reformers used the expression scriptura scripturam interpretatur, or ‘Scripture interprets Scripture.’ By this they meant that obscure passages in Scripture must be understood in light of clearer ones. If the Bible is God's Word, it must be consistent with itself. No part of the Bible can contradict any other part. One divine Author, the Holy Spirit, inspired the whole Bible, so it has one marvelous, supernatural unity. The synthesis principle puts Scripture together with Scripture to arrive at a clear, consistent meaning. If we hold to an interpretation of one passage that does not square with something in another passage, one of the passages is being interpreted incorrectly, or possibly both of them. The Holy Spirit does not disagree with himself. And the passages with obvious meanings should interpret the more arcane [obscure] ones. One should never build a doctrine on a single obscure or unclear text.

    Unfortunately MacArthur himself does not cosistently follow the Synthesis Principle. As a dispensationalist he incorrectly interprets John 5:28, 29 which clearly teach a general resurrection and judgment. But John 5:28, 29 is not obscure. It clearly teaches a General Resurrection and Judgment and any other teaching is manifestly FALSE! So DC you are spouting a false doctrine!
     
  2. JonC

    JonC Moderator
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2001
    Messages:
    33,288
    Likes Received:
    3,547
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Couldn't get past Joel Osteen so not much to the list for me.... I do like MacArthur (but not his "study Bible"), but that's another topic. :smilewinkgrin:
     
  3. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Indeed, very eloquent, but the fact is that the Missionary efforts my own fellowship supports does not lend itself to groups whose doctrine I and we feel are in error.

    You disregard MacArthur's statement in favor of this fellow's, and that's fine...for you.

    But I am not going to drop one dime for efforts that also teach heresy. Am I to be sad that a Catholic effort to place orphans ended? Not really. Despite the "order" of the Catholic Church, and no disrespect to the well meaning and sincere Catholics who strove to do work they felt was of God, and I am sure was, that doesn't change the fact that with those charitable efforts comes their theology.

    Would you also join with Mormons in charitable efforts?

    How about Muslims?

    The same principle applies.

    Doctrinal Purity has to be maintained, and good works do not impact that fact. Good works ensue from Sound Doctrine...not the other way around.

    I am sure that ecumenical efforts will see their ultimate satisfaction in the Tribulation. It is my belief that in that day the world will be coached into an ecumenical cooperation which is possible through neglect of Sound Doctrine and refusal to offend the sensibilities of others of faith.

    Do I think Catholics and Evangelicals can get along? Sure? Just like those of us here get along when our doctrines are very different. Does that mean I am going to approve of their doctrine? Or give appearance of approval?

    Not on your life. Not on my life. And not on the eternal lives that might be convinced it doesn't really matter what we believe as long as we do good works.

    Sorry, my name wouldn't be on it either, so you can lump me into the asinine category with John, lol.

    Doctrine matters, my friend. And the "good works" these fellows think they're accomplishing might be good works from a temporal perspective, but, I think they do an injustice to the truth of the Gospel of Christ.


    God bless.
     
  4. blessedwife318

    blessedwife318 Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2014
    Messages:
    2,358
    Likes Received:
    445
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Darrel Again you do seem to miss that saying someone is ridiculed is not the same as ridiculing them yourself.
    Another example, all throughout Jr. High and High School I was the stuff of ridicule.
    Now are you really going to say I'm ridiculing myself by making a matter of a fact statement.

    Now I realize that its hard to give tone in a written medium but I can assure you I meant it as a matter of a fact statement, neither an endorsement nor a criticism.

    I just had a thought ( sorry I'm on my phone so the quote feature won't work)
    You have admitted multiple times that the pre-trib is disparaged or as you said takes fire. Should I assume that you are one bringing some of that fire on it or are you just making a factual statement? I know you are just making a statement like I was.


    So I will go on record saying this: no I don't think Lehaye's pre-trib theology should be ridiculed. Ridicule does not leaned itself to honest debate. But on the same token I don't think anyone who has studied this issue in depth should be ridiculed for having a different view, because as I just said it does not lend itself to honest debate.
     
    #64 blessedwife318, Apr 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2015
  5. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I can present Scripture that presents the Coming of Messiah, but if I use your method of interpretation...I would forget about His Second Coming.

    Of course there is a general resurrection, however, just as there are two comings of Christ and only one spoken of in the Old Testament, even so there are more resurrections than just one.

    I have been over this many times with you OR, and you have refused to respond to what I have presented, so don't expect me to invest more time on something you will equally ignore.

    Revelation has three resurrections in it, and we can see easily they are not the same resurrections. The resurrection of the two witnesses, the First Resurrection, and the Resurrection of the dead when this current creation passes away and the dead stand before the Great White Throne.

    You violate the principle MacArthur presents here in that you isolate certain Scripture to support your doctrine. You ignore what is clearly presented in Scripture and negate Scripture with Scripture.

    Here is your doctrine:

    "There can't be a Rapture because there is only one resurrection! I don't care if Scripture says there are more."

    Okay, great.

    And again with Darby. lol

    Never once read a single thing he is said to have said or taught. Using him as a shield for your own doctrine gets really tiresome.


    God bless.
     
  6. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Then present Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-"snatching away" go the Church. I presented Scripture that clearly teaches a general Resurrection and Judgment. Your verbosity cannot refute that Scripture.

    Then present Scripture that clearly teaches a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church.

    Your problem is that you haven't a clue as to the purpose of the Book of Revelation! Until you understand why it was written you will never understand what it teaches.


    Doesn't make any difference whether you have read anything that Darby wrote or not. He is the inventor "out of whole cloth", I must say, of the new doctrine of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. It is a false doctrine whether you agree or not. You really should understand the origin of the doctrines that you believe!
     
    #66 OldRegular, Apr 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2015
  7. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Okay, I yield, sorta, and will just say that between your incredulity at his being on the list and the statement itself, perhaps you can understand why it would come across as itself being ridicule.

    It is true that it is sometimes hard to not sometimes misinterpret another's statement or sentiment, myself being accused of being "angry" quite often when usually I am laughing, lol. That's why I got in the habit of throwing in a lol once in a while.

    As to my own statements I think what is said is given in a clear enough context that it could not be mistaken, and if you had thought a little longer it may have also occurred to you that I am equally guilty of ridiculing, if you will, myself:


    lol

    However, I am ready at any time to debate the Pre-Trib view with those serious about the Doctrine, and think I can show, usually, that there is quite a bit that many pre-tribbers have not considered before. It's not a three verse Doctrine as some would suggest, but in fact correlates to all prophecy.

    God bless.
     
  8. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist

    I too can present Scripture that represents the general resurrection just prior to the Great White Throne. You know this. It was presented to you in other threads, where...you refused to respond to what was given.

    At no time have I denied a general resurrection.


    I can say without hesitation that Revelation was not given as a riddle-book left to the spiritualization and interpretation of the whims of whosoever, lol.

    You are right...I will never understand people who take the Word of God and say "It doesn't really mean that. It is just symbolic. It is just metaphorical. It doesn't mean what it says is going to happen...will happen."

    The events can be seen to correlate to Old Testament Prophecy and leaves intact the fact that God is not a liar that reneges on any promise. You reject the very Kingdom Christ teaches about and uses to illustrate His teaching in regards to practical matters. One thousand years does not mean one thousand years to you. You cannot correlate the Supper of the Great God with the judgment foretold in Ezekiel 36, nor the Kingdom Ezekiel goes on to speak about after the Promises of God are fulfilled.

    You are more concerned with Darby, or derbies, or drudgery, whatever, lol, than you are with Biblical Prophecy and maintaining prophecy as it has always unfolded: to the jot and tittle. It's not all Greek to me...your doctrine is missing a few jots along the way.

    Now, when you can address anything I have given you in the incessant demands for why I take a view of a pre-Tribulation Rapture, maybe then I will invest a little more time on you. Until then, carry on with the same tactics and methods you use which have you in the same place you were the last time I was here.

    Again, not sure why you cannot understand so simple a concept as "It is a first century teaching first revealed by Paul and through both implicit and explicit teaching we are forced to conclude that the Catching Away cannot take place during or after the Tribulation."

    Common sense dictates that a Pre-Tribulation Rapture is not only reasonable but the best position to take.

    But, if we dismiss part of Scripture, and use only that which is convenient to our doctrine, then we can conclude unreasonable doctrines such as those you hold.

    Here is your doctrine:

    "There can't be a Rapture because there is only one resurrection! I don't care if Scripture says there are more."

    Now, since you seem to have an issue with detailed response, I am going to make this easy for you, and just present one concept to discuss:

    Resurrection of the Saints.

    The First Resurrection cannot be the Rapture because there would be no physical believers left to populate the Kingdom. We would then have to say that unbelievers, contrary to the teaching of Christ in the Gospels, would enter into that Kingdom without being born again. We would negate His teaching of the Sheep and Goat judgment where all unbelievers perish and go into eternal punishment. We would have to negate both Old and New Testament Prophecy that makes it clear that Kingdom will come. We would have to deny the very text itself and say, as apparently you do, "Well, it doesn't really mean they will reign with Christ for a thousand years."

    The First Resurrection cannot be the "first" resurrection in meaning of sequence, the resurrection and Rapture of the Two Witnesses deny that as a possibility. And it is a Rapture event of two literal men. "First" refers to rank, not sequential or serial meaning. Thus we exclude this "First Resurrection" as the general resurrection you want to limit resurrection to. Those raised at this time are Tribulation Martyrs. Not the entire Church.

    We cannot impose the Rapture into the general resurrection of the Great White Throne, for the simple reason that those raised are...dead.

    That is not something that will be true of at least some of the believers already raised. And if you want to separate those believers then you yourself dispel your own doctrine.

    Think about it.

    The only reasonable place to see the Rapture of the Church and maintain harmony in Prophecy is to see it occur before the Tribulation. Christ promised those who overcome, which is Johannine for being saved itself...from the hour of testing that would come upon the whole world, not a Tribulation exclusive to the Middle East as our Progressive Dispensational brethren believe. The whole world.

    I have presented the Scripture for these points concerning resurrection numerous times, and here you are, in another thread...

    ...asking for them again.

    Sorry, you can play duck and run all you like but there are people here not afraid to confront their own doctrine and respond to that which opposes it.

    You are not.

    So until you do, I leave you with the topic of Resurrection itself. The Rapture of the Church is first and foremost the resurrection of the Church, the Body of Christ, and it will include both the dead and the living, who are instantaneously glorified and caught up into the air to be with Christ. When Christ returns the only ones that are resurrected are those who died in the tribulation, quite a different event from the Sheep and Goat Judgment, where believers are not glorified, but allowed to live.

    Your doctrine, as I said, is a jot short of a full deck.

    ;)


    God bless.
     
  9. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Did just want to say that sometimes, OR, you bring up something useful in your posts.

    I recommend Charismatic Chaos to anyone. John deals with the errors of Charismania with great tact, in my view. After teaching on ecstatic speech John lowers the boom and says, "Having said all that, can I tell you about something worse? Gossip."

    I can't remember the rest but John doesn't make the mistake of going to extremes to teach. Well balanced and from my perspective an effort of sincere love for the Word of God and fellow believers. I haven't read the book, but have the audiotapes which I got not long after being saved. I actually visited charismatic and Pentecostal fellowships to find out for myself as to what went on in some of them. Some pretty hilarious stuff, sometimes.


    God bless.
     
  10. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    Whether you acknowledge it or not you follow the teachings of John Nelson Darby who claimed "new revelation" in the false doctrine of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church and the subsequent necessity of the false doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church.

    The Seventh Day Adventists follow the teachings of Ellen G. White who also claimed "new revelation".

    So what differentiates you from the Seventh Day Adventists?
     
  11. convicted1

    convicted1 Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2007
    Messages:
    9,012
    Likes Received:
    28

    Those heathens...

    [​IMG]
     
  12. Zenas

    Zenas Active Member

    Joined:
    May 7, 2007
    Messages:
    2,703
    Likes Received:
    20
    These are not missionary efforts. They are political efforts.

    Absolutely, YES, but I'm beginning to see where you are coming from. You are a fundamentalist. John of Japan did a thread several years ago in which he laid out the split between Billy Graham and the fundamentalists over Graham's inclusion of more liberal groups in his 1957 New York crusade. Of course that split came over sharing the gospel, not political efforts, and I'm not sure you understand the difference.
    This is a fiction. Even atheists can and do perform good works.
    Apparently you believe the Tribulation will be accompanied by a one world religion. There will be a tribulation, all right, but it will be political persecution of Christianity, much like the Romans persecuting Christians in the first 300 years of the Christian era.
    And I will say of you what I said of MacArthur (or something close to it), "You either haven't read the Manhattan Declaration, or you are not capable of understanding what it means."

    Tell me this, would you sign any declaration of public principles that was co-sponsored by Catholics, or Orthodox, or Jews, or any other religious group who you consider apostate? If so, on what basis would you do it? Here is a little help for you in answering this: "John said to Him, 'Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in Your name, and we tried to prevent him because he was not following us.' But Jesus said, 'Do not hinder him, for there is no one who will perform a miracle in My name, and be able soon afterward to speak evil of Me. For he who is not against us is for us. For whoever gives you a cup of water to drink because of your name as followers of Christ, truly I say to you, he will not lose his reward.'" Mark 9:38-41.
     
    #72 Zenas, Apr 24, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 24, 2015
  13. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So put a political name on it then, lol.

    Republicans and Democrats Together.

    The point is that the reason that we should do this is because the work of God in efforts such as orphanages is hurting because of doctrinal differences...doesn't mean that it is. We sponsor over forty missionary efforts, one of them being Manna Worldwide, which is a doctrinally sound group I support without hesitation.

    Great, you go out and sponsor false and damnable doctrine. Jolly good for you.

    I won't.

    And doctrinally I am a fundamentalist to the core, and not ashamed about that. But if you think you will place me in a box, my friend, you better get to know my doctrine first. I doubt very much that you know what it means to be a Biblical Fundamentalist.

    And I can see your attitude towards me is identical to your attitude towards John MacArthur. You are a Charismatic? Pentecostal? Catholic? Sounds like you have a beef with MacArthur, not because you have taken the time to ever hear his teaching, but because he disagrees with some doctrine of yours.

    That's okay, but if you want to talk about the doctrinal issues...I'm all ears. Just don't try to make this a matter of moral superiority. It is definitely not a matter of doctrinal superiority. Ecumenical efforts are the very reason we have an America that demands tolerance when Christ had no such tolerance.


    And what is the fruit of including more liberal groups?

    Did they, and do they...play a role in the Homosexual Agenda? Lend support to Abortion? Absolutely blur the Doctrine of Christ to where I am intolerant if I do not except my "Mormon brother?"

    Please.

    And that you do not realize the difference is not surprising to me. I realize the difference between political movements, where I can say without hesitation that gay people should not be beaten to death, as well as say that their doctrine and practice is still...sin.

    So tell me, my friend, exactly what do you do to help children around the world? Are you, like many people, wanting other people to stand in the gap. Or are you already doing something? Do you give money to orphans now?

    I also realize the dangers of combining religion and government. We have a whole history of consequences from that sort of concession. Sounded good to begin with, even as the EPA sounded good to begin with. But that good intention was just as much a brick in the path to Hell for many as any.


    No, Zenas...they don't. You miss the fact that in view was eternal life, not works that on a temporal basis can be acknowledged as good.

    I have often acknowledged that on a temporal level atheists can be moral and do good things, but combine religion that demands good works with the natural mind and you have just established a false sense of security for those who still reject God. "God will recognize my good works which I do for them."

    It is damnable doctrine and practice, my friend.


    Continued...
     
    #73 Darrell C, Apr 25, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 25, 2015
  14. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Of course I do, Scripture tells us it will. Do you think the Word does not indicate that worship of the Beast will be mandatory? Is there not a false prophet involved? Who do you think these people will be worshipping?

    In the first half I believe the world will be conditioned for the ecumenical heart that is already growing in popularity today. We could call that denomination...Tolerance. When Antichrist is revealed for what he is, and makes worship of himself mandatory, you are going to have a world of people who are going to say...okay.

    Because they will not care what they believe, just as long as they have something to focus that belief on. In their minds their works will be good, because they will be under strong delusion. And the works they do will be good, and it will provide life...physical life.

    But not eternal.

    Until someone had the bright idea to combine the two.

    And look, seems some people didn't learn a lesson from that.

    Go ahead, sign your name and feel morally superior, mock someone who has his entire life striven for the souls of men, and act as though your doctrine is superior.


    Well, we can't all be Super-Saint like you.

    ;)


    As long as it was not deemed a "Christian Movement" that had a focus of uniting the various groups. It's one thing for Christians to unite to oppose political interests, another to make ecumenicity the foundational goal.

    And that is what it is. Saving an orphanage is secondary to that issue.


    It would have to exclude an ecumenical undertone. I have no problem signing petitions drawn up by the ACLJ.


    Hey, thanks for the "help," but your attitude mars the teaching, and your application is not what I would call sound.

    Now when you can find Christ rebuking someone for trying to get Roman Soldiers to join them in casting out demons, be sure to let me know.

    In the meantime, understand this: I am not opposing the effort, just saying I would not put my name on it. John is not opposing the movement, he is just not putting his name on it.

    You talk of not realizing differences then apply this passage to proof-text your emotion.

    Good luck with that, Zenas.

    When you can learn the importance of Doctrinal Purity, perhaps then you might gain a fundamental core value that Scripture presents, teaches, and illustrates from cover to cover. When you can understand the difference between good works that all men can do, because we were created in the image and likeness of God, and are not animals, and the ecumenical nod to good works on a religious level (as opposed to political), then you might see why I would agree with MacArthur and not the ecumenicists.

    And when you can understand your own heart in the matter, and be honest with yourself, that this has nothing to do, for you, with saving orphans, but opposing, that's right, opposing something, then maybe you might see your motivation is as genuine as the lawsuits in the seventies concerning power lines causing cancer.

    You throw this passage in my face when I am not the one opposing anything. Consider your remarks about MacArthur, and tell me, between himself and you, who has put more effort into saving souls. Have you ever been called to cast out demons, my friend? He has. But do you understand the utter hypocrisy of your presenting the passage? You are opposing someone, not to mention slandering his name and efforts, who is clearly doing the very work Christ would approve of in this passage?

    And you want to charge me with opposing Christ?

    Amazing.

    God bless.
     
  15. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    See what I mean? Given, again, the chance to address the doctrine and what do you talk about...Darby.

    You need to get over Darby and start discussing the Rapture with some Living folk, my friend. It is consuming you.

    You want to put me in a box you think you can hold, but my friend, you're box is too small. I am not an SDA, a Jesuit Dispensationalist (one of my favorites to date), a Dispensational, A Darbyite, Derbyite, or Dramaminite, I am simply Christian who also happens to be a Baptist (one of the ones whose doctrine is a little closer to Scripture than some "Baptists") and a Bible Student.

    The Rapture is a First Century Teaching and the PRE-Trib Rapture is the most sensible position.

    God bless.
     
  16. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    It is a simple question! A passage of Scripture clearly showing a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church would suffice. I have presented a single passage that teaches a general resurrection and judgment; John 5:28, 29 in the event you have forgotten. Perhaps it is not in the Bible you use. As a favor to you I will repost it, one of my favorite passages of Scripture:

    John 5:28, 29
    28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


    I post Scripture in the dark red color of Blood to remind people that Jesus Christ suffered and died for His Bride, the Church, not for a "parenthesis" in God's program for Israel, as the pre-trib-dispensational-doctrine teaches. In case you are not familiar with that Scripture?

    Acts 20:28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
     
  17. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Well, one thing you certainly illustrate is just what happens when people study something other than the Bible itself.

    I guess you are thinking my request for you to address resurrection and the points raised will be, like all of the other posts you have run from...forgotten.

    Its not. They're not.

    If you want to compare my doctrine with that of the SDA, then you can do so by actually examining the doctrine I present.

    Unlike yourself I don't make it a point to waste study time trying to vilify others of faith, but instead simply study what is.

    Your a one verse fellow, my friend, eaten up and consumed. Every thread you enter you begin with Darby and end with Darby, who was very influential to some people at least.

    But I look at the bright side: at least those reading can actually find something relevant in your posts concerning the OP. lol

    Your first (and only) proof text was addressed in the post addressing resurrection. Address it. Your second proof text only reminds people of your deflection and refusal to address all relevant Scripture. You levy false accusations concerning a parenthesis Church...I have never once suggested such doctrine. All who have the Gospel revealed to them will be born again. That includes Tribulation Saints as well as Millennial Saints.

    Trying to explain the perfecting of OldTestament Saints would be pointless seeing you seem to get confused when more than one passage of Scripture is introduced into a doctrinal issue.

    But try.

    The last post I gave in which resurrection is discussed directly, which dispels your one verse theology, is the last post I give you. If you want to carry on with trying to correlate my doctrine with other groups in an attempt to hide the fact your incapable of addressing even such a short and simple post that is your choice.

    But it makes you look a little cowardly. And I never want that for anyone.

    On my tablet this week so I don't have the capabilities in posting as I usually do, but I will just repost that one until you can muster the integrity to address, not my doctrine, but your own.


    God bless.
     
  18. Darrell C

    Darrell C Well-Known Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2010
    Messages:
    9,631
    Likes Received:
    332
    Faith:
    Baptist
    Address the post

    Address the post, OR. Very simple and very short. If I need to simplify the points let me know.

    God bless.
     
  19. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    I don't waste my valuable time responding to a bunch of nonsense derived from the John Nelson Darby discovery of "lost truths", as revmwc claims, to invent a mythical-pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church.

    When you can present a single passage of Scripture that clearly shows a 'pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church' then you will have presented something worthy of a response.

    I presented Scripture that clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment which you and all Darbyite-pre-trib-raprure-ready-dispensationalists, who brag about following a literal hermeneutic, simply toss out of the Bible because it clearly refutes Darby's delusion!

    John 5:28, 29
    28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
    29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.


    So while on your tablet meditate on this passage and perhaps God the Holy Spirit will lead you into the truth.
     
  20. OldRegular

    OldRegular Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2004
    Messages:
    22,678
    Likes Received:
    64
    I posed a fairly simple question and you can't or won't answer it. Wonder why?

    I should mention that revmwc claims Darby discovered hidden truths after the Bible was translated into English. The Geneva Bible was published in English in 1560! Darby had his epiphany in 1830.
     
Loading...