Featured The Israel of God

I know one person on this board who keeps calling me a Roman Catholic. Which would you rather be called DHK?

 

I addressed the post. Your doctrine is wrong and you simply will not believe what Scripture tells you! But read it one more time!

Read carefully all I posted. Not just the verses you cherry picked!

 

I don't know. Darrell was called a Jesuit on page 21, and more than once!

 

Not by me!

 

Why is your constant lying tolerated? Is it because you are a Darbyite?

 

I went through the thread OR. I saw that reference. But it certainly wasn't constant as yours is. There was just a couple of references like that, and he did refer to your doctrine coming from Catholicism. You can ask him how or maybe you already know why the accusation was made.
As I told you, I would have no hesitation in labeling you an Augustinian for that is where much of your doctrine originates from. But in spite of your constant rants I have refrained from doing so.

 

What is that about getting the log out of your eye?

I would also note that most of the Baptist Confessions support the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace. I would further note that, regardless of all their blasphemous doctrine, Roman Catholics do not believe the Church is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel!

 

Why do you keep on insisting tht Dispy views are heretical teachings, when in fact they do not rise to the level of essential teaching and doctrines though?

 

Here again none of us have affirmed that belief.
So without any confirmation of such you are plastering hearsay--the sin of gossip and talebearing--accusing us of that which you have no idea if we believe or not believe.
You have an angry tongue.
Find out what people believe before you post it and accuse them falsely.

 

I don't believe I have called dispensationalism heretical. Surgeon called Darby a heretic because of his views on the atonement. I have called the doctrine of the "parenthesis Church" blasphemous.

 

You really ought to know what the father of pre-trib-diepensationalism, and his adherents, taught!

 

I am not exactly sure what it is but since no one here has claimed to believe in it you are just blowing in the wind. Why are you calling things blasphemous which no one has acknowledged any belief in? Are you in fight with the air that surrounds you? Shadow boxing? You don't have to fear. The doctrine you fear is not going to come out of the wood-work to bite you.

 

I don't believe in doctrines of men--Calvinism, Augustinianism. Perhaps you should find out what they believe.
I study the Bible and I follow the truths that are presented therein. Do you have a problem with that?

 

If the shoe fits...



There is a closer correlation between your doctrine and Catholic Doctrine, meaning it can be seen to have originated from the same source, than there is with those you continuously bless with your great love for Darby.


God bless.

 

I guess you miss the fact that he states "As it is written...there shall come a Deliverer."

He will come again, it is prophesied...


Hebrews 9:28

King James Version (KJV)

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.


The context of Paul's teaching makes it clear that he is speaking of future salvation for Jews:


Romans 11:19-25

King James Version (KJV)

19 Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be grafted in.

20 Well; because of unbelief they were broken off, and thou standest by faith. Be not highminded, but fear:

21 For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee.

22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

23 And they also, if they abide not still in unbelief, shall be grafted in: for God is able to graft them in again.

24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert grafted contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own olive tree?


The prophetic tense cannot be missed, only ignored.


25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.


The prophetic tense cannot be missed, only ignored.


God bless.

 

Okay, perhaps you feel you answered it, but I don't see how this nullifies the prophetic tense of the rest of the Chapter.

Or do you feel All Israel is already saved?

What I see is that the promises of God remain intact, not just in the past, but in the future.

I see, in regards to Israel, Paul states...


3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;


The singular fact is that it is to Israel the promises were given and through Israel the promises fulfilled. Paul makes the point that while heritage does not result in being the Israel God created them to be, neither are they cast away and the promises of God made void.

Sorry, just do not see Paul speaking about a "True Israel" and "False Israel" here.

He is talking about Israel, his kinsmen after the flesh.

If you notice it is Israel that held the remnant.

Elijah mistakenly thinks he is the only one who has remained true, yet the Lord makes it clear He has reserved unto Himself 7,000 who have not fallen into idolatry. The point is that among Israel, not the True Israel, but among Israel are, in Paul's day, still those who are, by grace, a remnant reserved according to the election of grace.

That they are born again believers does not nullify the fact that here they are said to be...

...of Israel.

That is rather humorous coming from someone that has never once responded with a detailed response but chooses only that which he thinks he can answer.


God bless.

 

Thinking maybe them Catholics weren't as completely erroneous as once I thought they were...





God bless,

 

No, you call me a Darbyite, lol.

Despite the fact that I have never once even read the first word Darby ever wrote.

Again, my doctrine is as similar to Darby as yours is to historical Catholic teachings, so if I am a Darbyite, then it stands to reason...

...you are a Catholic.

Learn to live with it, I have.


God bless.

 

Where is the lie you speak of? Let's review:

True. All that is lacking is a response to the Scripture provided as a basis for the views presented.

True. You refuse to address the points raised.

True. Before the institution of the Catholic Church men relied upon Scripture alone. Now, as seen in your constant appeal to the works of men, those of catholic persuasion and influence constantly point to Church Fathers to support their doctrine.

Views such as only one resurrection in Revelation, denial of a thousand year period in Revelation 20, spiritualization of prophecy...began in earnest with Catholic Teachings.

True, Christians have always had the Record of Scripture as the basis for Christian Doctrine, and those who maintain Scripture as the Only Authority, as opposed to those who appeal to and magnify the Authority of men...

...remain true to those first century teachings.

And while a similarity with Darby can be seen with First Century Biblical Teachings...many Catholic Doctrines cannot. That some people cherry pick which Catholic Doctrine they will embrace and adhere to does not lessen the fact that those teachings originate from Catholic Doctrine, making the adherent...

...Catholic.

True. You constantly post the same works of men in various threads.

You're hatred for the First Century Doctrine of the Rapture (although the word rapture is derived from a Catholic Translation, that does not mean it is not a suitable word to translate harpazo, particularly when it is Catholics that caused this word to be the primary word used) has you obsessed with trying to deny it.

Neither a lie nor true...yet.

You would actually have to address the questions and points raised for it to be true.

True. How else do you explain your adamant and incessant appeals to the works of men (whether positive or negative) and your constant ignoring of the Scripture itself?

True.

You seek to disrupt conversation which, in the tradition of Catholic mentality, is dangerous in your mind.

Just can't let the plowboy think for himself, right?

If your doctrine were sound it should be no problem to address the doctrine by testing it, and the doctrine of others, in light of Scripture.

But you do not do that. Your doctrine forces you to rely on insults and a boorish manner that so disrupts doctrinal discussion that people forget the OPs.

True.

And I wish the question could be labeled as answered with true, but that has not been seen to be the case as of yet. It seems your conscience is seared to the point where your inability to deal with simple questions about your doctrinal views goes unnoticed to you, though you are constantly asked about it.

This one, well, maybe it isn't true. Maybe you are intentionally disrupting the threads you participate. I'd like to think it wasn't true, but in either case...

...still no lie in my statement.

I can only state what I see, and what I see is someone desperate to debunk a First Century teaching and because he cannot do it on a doctrinal level, he must do so by antagonizing the emotions of other members.


God bless.

 

It's not an accusation, it is a valid charge, unless we credit Augustine with perfecting a historical view that entails much of the outlandish spiritualization of many texts, especially concerning Prophecy.


God bless.