Featured What else do members hold in agreement with Papists?

I get the feeling you're baiting, but I'm not going to argue. I'm simply trying to explain. But, maybe God will change the way He deals with man, and a new "dispensation" will be born. I don't claim to know the mind of God, and I don't claim to have perfectly and unmistakably translated all of prophecy. But, as I said, there's no reason (that I see) to think He will until either the rapture, millennial kingdom, or new earth, depending on what you believe.

My whole point is that dispensationalism is not what OR keeps saying it is. It is simply a way to look at history, dividing it into eras based on the ways God has changed His dealings with man in regards to His revelation.

 

Your giving me too much credit to think I am baiting you. Question though, do you believe the H.S. will be removed after the rapture?

 

That's a good question, and one I'd be happy to discuss in another thread if you'd like. This thread has been totally derailed, and I'd prefer not to play a part in its further de-railment. (My apologies to the OP for my helping to derail so far).

Simple answer: I don't know. I'm still looking into it.

 

Do you care to start a thread on it? :type: I'll check in later.

 

I went ahead and started a new thread.

https://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=2260458#post2260458

 

I have nothing in common with the Papist... You need to check your history... They tried to wipe out the Huguenots, the Lollards, Anabaptist, and the Waldenses... I know what you are saying well that was then... You know what they say about history?... Brother Glen

 

I posted supposed history showing that pre-trib-dispensatlionalism can be traced to RC people attempting to imitate RC.

 

The RCC and Papists hold to free will....

 

The amillennial view comes from a correct understanding of Scripture!

 

agedman.

I understand that by your continual posts about the RCC and those who hold the amillennial view of eschatology that you are trying to slime those like me. Doesn't bother me a bit. I have lived in the midst of the "rapture ready folks" since 1960.

Even though I spent several years studying and teaching in a university I was naive. I thought the only people who believed in a literal 1000 year reign were the Watchtower folks; the Jehovah's Witnesses {or "no-hellers" as they were known in the coalfields, and amongst Old Regular Baptists, where I was raised}. I was greatly surprised when I learned that mainline Christians like Southern Baptists held similar views after GOD saved me in 1965.

First: You should know that Baptists did not come from the RCC and there is nothing in Baptist churches that smacks of an RCC origin as there is in Protestant Churches.

Second: You should know that pre-trib-dispensationalism was not conceived until about 1830; long after the Baptist Church was tolerated among the Protestant groups. Pre-trib apologist Dr Thomas Ice names "John Nelson Darby" as the Father of "pre-trib-dispensationalism"? {http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/ttcol.html}
{http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

Third: You should also understand that the 1800's gave birth to the Seventh Day Adventists, the Mormons, the Jehovah's Witnesses, and as noted above, pre-trib-dispensationalism, among other groups.

Fourth: You should also understand that history shows that the RCC promulgated early on some doctrines held by pre-trib-dispensationalism in an attempt to blunt the impact of the Reformation. {http://christianitybeliefs.org/end-times-deceptions/jesuit-end-times-antichrist-deception/}

Fifth: You should understand that the doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, fails its mission and its pre-trib removal is not the historic Baptist doctrine.

 

It is my understanding that the A-millennial view actually has it's origins in the Reformation, as least as far as gaining a huge following. It was a new doctrine created, ironically enough...to separate themselves from the doctrine held by Catholicism.

I was shocked to learn this after having had many conversations with Catholics concerning end time events and interpretation of Prophecy, because all of them, not most, but all of them spiritualize many texts which eradicate the teachings found in passages utilizing figurative literature.

It goes kind of like this: Satan is not literally a dragon hence...there is no Satan. And while that is an exaggeration of their interpretive pattern, it sums it up fairly well.

"Well, a thousand years doesn't really mean a thousand years...Peter tells us that!"

lol

But if we look at Church History the premillennial view begins first with Scripture, and despite what men taught after that...that is never going to change.

While a thousand years may be a day to God, and a day a thousand years, I can guarantee Satan will not see it that when he is bound for that thousand years.


God bless.

 

This is something I can't understand: a denial of the Rapture, which is clearly a First Century teaching of Paul.

That is why the views which diminish prophecy are rejected by those who are forced to leave all of Scripture intact.

There is no denial that the Bible teaches the Rapture, the only legitimate argument arises in regards of timing.

Teaching what? I'd be curious to know.

A literal thousand years is derived from Scripture itself, not from JWs, not from Baptists.

That's the irony: now Catholics have embraced a similar interpretive approach. While Catholic Doctrine might not be considered a-millennial, there are certainly many Catholics who are hyper-figurative.

And if we go into many Protestant Churches today, we will see similarities to the Catholic Church. Visited a Methodist Church once (once), where I witnessed Communion which taught trans-substantiation.

Perhaps your fellowship does not have similar characteristics, but you cannot say none of them do.

R.C. Sproul points out that the Reformation is called the Reformation...not the Renovation. Luther only meant to reform Catholicism, not start another entirely different denomination.

Have you ever read the 95 Theses? Read it sometimes and show me how non-Catholic Luther was.

Here are a few highlights:

• The pope neither desires nor is able to remit any penalties except those imposed by his own authority or that of the canons.
• The pope cannot remit any guilt, except by declaring and showing that it has been remitted by God; or, to be sure, by remitting guilt in cases reserved to his judgment. If his right to grant remission in these cases were disregarded, the guilt would certainly remain unforgiven.
  • Bishops and curates are bound to admit the commissaries of papal indulgences with all reverence.
  • But they are much more bound to strain their eyes and ears lest these men preach their own dreams instead of what the pope has commissioned.
  • Let him who speaks against the truth concerning papal indulgences be anathema and accursed.

Not off to a good start, but, it only gets worse...

Nor does it seem proved that souls in purgatory, at least not all of them, are certain and assured of their own salvation, even if we ourselves may be entirely certain of it.

Sorry, no. This is like saying "The Cross of Christ was not conceived until circa AD32."

The Pre-Tribulation Rapture, like all sound doctrine, is derived from the very pages of Scripture.

Long before Darby and Ice Christians named Paul their father who taught them not to listen to the false doctrine of those who confused them in regards to the Rapture.

Long before these groups emerged we see that many in America were deniers of Christ's Deity and Doctrines which are historically orthodox Biblical Views.

Some of them we call...founding fathers.

These groups are not new in Doctrine, simply utilizing false doctrines held by many before them.

The original no-hellers...Sadducees.

Hope you didn't teach history.

Don't need to see the link to believe this, as a pre-millennial view would have been the view held by Catholics at that time.

So we see the doctrinal view which is new is...the amillennial view.

Kind of ironic you go around charging Pre-Tribulational believers with embracing something new.

And the difference between us, OR, is that we can actually take people to Scripture and show why we believe what we believe. While it is true the average Pre-Tribulational believer is not as well taught as they could be, at least being confused on Scripture still stands above rejecting, nullifying, and corrupting Scripture to suit a new doctrine.

That what them there no-hellers did, fella.

Another false charge. It's a contrived argument which is necessary because you can't debate the Scripture's themselves. Pre-Tribbers' views don't center on the Rapture, they center on Christ.

And the only one I see spending all their time on this subject is you.

Another irony? Or would we use another word for it?


God bless.