Featured Some strong hard evidence for The Mark of the Beast

DHK disagress with calvinism as to how salvation of God is worked out for sinners, but he also respects those calvinists such as Dr macArthur on their news of end times...

just see this as bethren just having discussions and disagreemnets on what the bible teaches concerning the end times/rule of christ/Second coming..

And again, if you want to keep parroting that darby gave us Dispy theology, is it also OK to have origen and Augustine have to us eschatology/a mil views?

 

Y!,
You really need to read before you speak. It was not me who said Darby was the father of pre-trib dispensationalism, it was dispensational scholar Dr. Thomas Ice. I have posted the following several times. Read it and then follow the link. You might learn something. A more expansive link is: http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/ttcol.html.

I will say this. There is not a single passage of Scripture that supports the pre-trib removal of the Church. Claiming that 1st Thessalonians 4: 13-18 does is utter nonsense. An even more egregious error than the "pre-trib rapture", however, is the teaching that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is only a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel. GOD is not a puppet whose strings are pulled by the Jews/Israel regardless of what some think!:wavey::wavey::wavey::wavey:

 

We do note:
No scripture is presented.
No argument from OR himself is presented.
His is an appeal to others instead of the Bible. It falls short of any Scripturally based argument.

The statement: "Not a single passage supports the pre-trib removal of the church," is not defended in any way. It is a dogmatic statement made without any evidence or proof, and therefore can be considered erroneous.

The claim of 1Thes.4:13-18 is not nonsense (for the pre-trib rapture), nor has it been refuted by you. Your appeal is to man, not Scripture.

You continue to make a false accusation that either one of us have ever made an admission of believing in a parenthesis church. Now an apology is in order.

Nobody said God is a puppet. Why do you act like this?

 

I posted the following on page #1 of the thread "The Secret Rapture return of Christ approaches" showing that the concept of a "secret removal of the church" was nonsense but more importantly showing the similarity of the language used in several passages of Scripture showing the Return of Jesus Christ, in particular the TRUMPETS. NO RESPONSE!

 

I posted the following in post #60 on the thread " Was peter Teaching isreal To Be Blessed In Futire in Acts 3?" I called attention to the use of "the last day" by Jesus Christ as follows:

NO RESPONSE

Absolutely no response to the Scripture presented but the following from you!

 

I posted the following {post #41} of the thread "The Secret Rapture return of Christ approaches". NO RESPONSE!

The only thing that gets a response from you is when I quote Dr. Ice because he tells the truth about John Nelson Darby's role in pre-trib dispensationalism; and you don't want to face the truth.

 

There is no biblcal basis to state that God replaced isreal with the Church, or that the church somehow became Spiritual isreal in the plan of God, so why do you keep defending that notion?

 

Well you face the truth that Origen was the father of how you view scriptures, and Augustine of how Isreal is now the church then?

 

If you are going to refute my position then you must refute what I post.
You can't refute me by posting Ice, Darby, Scofield, or any other of your so-called scholars. You must refute my position. You say you are not a Calvinist. I think you are. I will consider you are until you demonstrate otherwise.
I say that because, in the same way that I just assume you have the same Calvinistic view "like every other Calvinist" you assume that I have the same view "of every other dispensationalist." But that is not true.
You therefore must refute my position and pay attention to what I believe.

Secondly, posting a page of verses with little commentary doesn't prove anything.

A needless red herring based on an attack of someone's character.
It will be ignored.

You quoted seven passages of Scripture and then ended with the above statement which hasn't proved a thing. Your conclusion is an opinion that is opinion only. It has no basis in fact. There is nothing to say that the last trump is the seventh trumpet. I don't believe that. That actually is an opinion that is flawed and makes no sense. The seventh trumpet is a trumpet of judgment on this earth, not of the coming of the Lord.

Rev 15:7 And one of the four beasts gave unto the seven angels seven golden vials full of the wrath of God, who liveth for ever and ever.
--The seventh angel had already blown his trumpet by this time. There were seven vials to come afterward.
--You have not refuted my position at all. You never even touched it.

 

Look at all the Scripture y1 and DHK posted and notice how they ignored the Scripture I posted, just as they did before. Tee Hee!, Tee Hee!, Tee Hee!:applause::applause::applause::applause:

 

Exactly. Christ comes to gather the elect at the last trumpet (1 Cor 15:52) and it simply can't be the last trumpet if there are 7 more later on. What happens at the 7th trumpet, the last trumpet, in Revelation?

Rev 11:15-18 HCSB
The seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven saying:

The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Messiah, and He will reign forever and ever! ​

The 24 elders, who were seated before God on their thrones, fell facedown and worshiped God, saying:

We thank You, Lord God, the Almighty, who is and who was, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign. The nations were angry, but Your wrath has come. The time has come for the dead to be judged and to give the reward to Your servants the prophets, to the saints, and to those who fear Your name, both small and great, and the time has come to destroy those who destroy the earth.​

I don't think this could be any clearer. At the 7th trumpet the kingdoms of the world are conquered in fullness by God and Christ, establishing his visible kingdom forever. It is the time of judgment: the elders cry out in worship and say, "Your wrath has come. The time has come for the dead to be judged!" I don't see how you can possibly read this an think that this is not the return of Christ and final judgment.

Part of this misunderstanding comes from the idea that Revelation is completely chronological. It is not. It is a series of visions that tell the same story from multiple views (at least 3, though some believe it's 7).

 

Peter was near the Temple. He was preaching the gospel, which is the most important point. The opportunity of his preaching arose because he healed a lame man, and the crowed marveled at the power of Christ that was exercised for such a one to be healed. Whether or not they were Jews hardly matters then does it?
The "last days" started from the Day of Pentecost.
NO RESPONSE[/quote]

No they don't, and yes they can be easily disputed.
So, you have easily demonstrated how you can copy and paste. We already know that. But you haven't demonstrated anything. You haven't refuted anything. All that you have done is quoted random Scripture. So?

Perhaps making a statement like this shows your misunderstanding of Scripture. You simply make a dogmatic statement without any explanation and then assume that we should take your word above everyone else's. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

I don't have to throw any Scripture away. Why would you think that?

I have given you a thorough exegetical exposition of this passage. If you don't accept it, I have nothing more to say on this passage.

Do you think you are winning brownie points by humiliating others?
Do you think you have won a debate because you know how to degrade another.
Actually that is how you have lost the debate. When one must resort to such tactics it simply means they have nothing positive to add to the discussion.

You have your response.

 

I really don't care what you believe DHK. I have pointed out that John Nelson Darby is the father of pre-trib dispensationalism and the subsequent blasphemy that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel. Neither of these dispensational doctrines can be substantiated by Scripture but this is what classic/revised dispensationalism of Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, and others teach. Because you are ignorant of that truth does not speak well of you. It appears to be a case of the blind leading the blind. Jesus Christ could well have been speaking of you folks when HE said:

Matthew 13:14, 15
14. And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15. For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

The Apostle Paul, inspired by the Holy Ghost, said in a similar fashion:

Acts 28:25-27
25. And when they agreed not among themselves, they departed, after that Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,
26. Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:
27. For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

Not to you for certain!
:wavey::wavey:
adieu, adios, farewell, so long, goodbye, conga'
:wavey::wavey:

 

Posting passages of Scripture without comment is meaningless. You haven't refuted any position.

Okay, I have considered it. So what? You haven't demonstrated a thing except that you know how to copy and paste. We all know that.

It appears that you never got my point or answered it.
But I will read the passage you recommend.
Okay, consider it read! What is your point? :sleep:

You are confused. Col.1:13 has nothing to do with this parable. Jesus was speaking to his disciples. But surrounding his disciples were other Jews and Jewish leaders. It was a Jewish audience. We know that from the context:

Mat 13:54 And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, Whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works?
The good seed are the just of the earthly kingdom. Those unjust Jews will never enter that earthly kingdom. That is the only kingdom those Jews had learned about and knew about. The disciples had not studied Pauline theology. All Jews, but saved and unsaved, at that time understood the Millennial Kingdom described in the OT, a kingdom yet to come.

But that is not what Jesus was speaking about. His audience were the Jews and He was speaking of a physical earthly kingdom where their Messiah would be ruling from the throne of David.

Everything you say goes down the drain and thrown in the trash when you end your post on character assassination. If you want to know why it wasn't read before, this is why. Keep it up, and your posts won't get read by me. Your "truth" about Darby is no truth at all. You need to be able to argue your position from scripture, which you are unable to do.

 

Too bad that you arguement is against Dispy straw man darby, and not from the bible itself!

 

That has been the entire problem in this entire discussion/debate. You don't care what your opponent or what the other person has to say or especially what they believe. You don't take the time to listen to their beliefs. That is sad because that is what debate is all about.
My beliefs are defined by how I believe the Bible, how the Holy Spirit has led me to believe what I believe. You haven't bothered to find that out. Thus most of what you say to me is completely irrelevant.

I have never read Darby's commentaries.
I have never said that I believe in "parenthesis church."
Here you go on and on about things I don't necessarily believe in.
You spend your time refuting and talking about what other people believe not taking an ounce of time to actually read what I believe. You debate books not people. Sad.

"These doctrines" are not mine, and I never said they were.
I never admitted to believing in "classic/revised dispensationalism" and never used that term to define my self.
I never used "Darby, Scofield, Chafer, Walvoord, Ryrie, and others" to define my position. You debate books rather than people. You know what they believe and not what I believe. Why aren't you interested in others?

This ad hominem is completely unnecessary. The Holy Spirit has led me to the truth that I believe. And you are the one that is without any knowledge about it. You don't listen. And you won't bother to find out what my position is. You simply keep on and on quoting others. But I don't have the same position of others.

Am I supposed to be leading your heroes: Ice, Chafer and Walvoord, or are they supposed to be leading me? You didn't say.
Either way we have nothing in common. I didn't get my beliefs from them.
You can't define me from these men. If you want intelligent conversation you must listen to what my position is, and then use the Bible (not other men's books) to refute it.

Maybe that is your attitude toward Darby. But I don't follow Darby's teaching. I try to tell you that. You have no idea what I believe. You don't take the time to listen. You simply quote your sources and then you tell me what I believe, which is very insulting. In fact it is a form of lying and deceit. If you don't find out what a person believes, then don't be dishonest and post something he doesn't believe. That is not ethical whatsoever.

And that is why after many pages there has been no productive conversation. One must listen to both sides.

 

he does seem to be asserting though that holding to a pre trib pre mil viewpoint is heresy, doesn't he?

 

I fail to see the distinction. Paul applied an allegory to patriarchs (and matriarchs) to make a spiritual point. Are you saying that method is illegitimate?

 

No, rather that it was in an isloated case, where paul himself stated that was in an allegory, but not the usual way to inteprete the prophetic element of the Bible!

 

Doesn't make it incorrect to allegorize, though. Paul did it! And I believe there are principles which can guide figural readings of Scripture.

And why do you keep speaking of the OT in terms of "prophets" or "prophetic" as if that is the only way the OT can speak about Jesus. You seem to hate typology, which the NT clearly utilizes.