The Rapture and the Church in Revelation

I can explain. You are not ready
to receive the explaination.

He will see "the Son of man sitting at
the right hand of Power, and coming
on the clouds of heaven. It has not happened
yet. It will happen at the end of the
Tribulation period. This prophecy has
yet to be fulfilled.

 

I thought perchance you
mean that Jesus came to get somebody
when this conversation when on:

Askjo: "When will Jesus return?"

Grasshopper: "AD70."

Jesus is going to come get somebody
sometime for Jesus said in:
John 14:1-3 (KJV1769):

Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe
in God, believe also in me.
2 In my Father's house are many mansions:
if it were not so, I would have told you.
I go to prepare a place for you.
3 And if I go and prepare a place for
you, I will come again, and receive you
unto myself; that where I am, there ye
may be also.

 

Re: "church not mentioned Rev. 4-21" - Rev. 1:20 specifically says "the seven candlesticks are the seven churches." Rev. 11:4 refers to the 2 witnesses as "the two olive trees and the two candlesticks."

Question: If "the church" (however you define "ecclesia") is not mentioned from Rev. 4-21
and the perspective in those chapters is heaven, where is "the church"?

Special thanks for the post pointing out all the chapters where "ecclesia" is not mentioned.

Best to all - Charles Blair - Rom. 8:28

 

P. S. - Almost forgot - evidently 2 "raptures," if that is the meaning of "come up hither" - see Rev. 11:12. Or is chronology just set aside here?

Also, where does the 6th seal judgment fit? If before the "millenium," how can we have time with no sun, moon, stars, etc? Why does the angel say
that "there should be time no longer" (10:6)? Is it just "no more opportunity"? If so, why "chronos" and not "kairos"? Time is measured by the relationship of rotation/revolution of the earth to the sun as part of the heavens which collapse at the end of ch. 6.

Also, it is written that when the seventh angel (last trumpet in the sequence) shall begin to sound, it's all over but the shouting! (10:7, 11:15, compare I Cor. 15:52).

All the historic Baptist confessions are "general judgment" - again, not to determine salvation; that is settled here; but to announce destiny. We (sheep) will be judged first ("judgment seat of Christ"); we shall judge angels (I Cor. 6:2); the "goats" on the left shall hear their doom and enter literal, everlasting fire (also described in Rev. 14:9-11 even in the Jehovah Witness "New World Translation"!), all taking place before the one throne where are gathered all nations (ethnic groups, people). Keep reading more Bible and less commentary, doing more interpretation of text and less setting up timetables, and we will all come closer to absolute truth. Best - a good night, and a great forever - "caught up together with Him, and SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE LORD," not just for a thousand years! Charles - Ro. 8:28

 

Blair,

Good point!

 

Grasshopper
Two suggestions about Matthew 26:64.
(1) Caiaphas and the Sanhedrin "represent" the unbelieving Jewish skeptics who deny Christ.
(2) Naturally, all of them died. HOwever those they represent will still be alive to see Christ at his coming in glory, Rev 1:7 "BEHOLD, HE IS COMING WITH THE CLOUDS, and every eye will see Him, even those who pierced Him; and all the tribes of the earth will mourn over Him. So it is to be." This is one possible meaning.
(3) All of them will also miss out in the first resurrection of the just.Revelation 20:5 ays "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection." If this verse is literally true, then Caiaphas will be ressurrected just in time to see Jeesus Christ coming to put down the final regellion.
(4) Therefore, your preterist conflict has been resolved by two plausible ways that make sense. Welcome back to the Pre-Mills!
Dr. Russ Kelly

 

Amen, Brother Dr. Russ Kelly -- Preach it!

 

One slight problem, the scripture doesn't say that. It says "YE".

Consider this verse,
27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

Are the "some that stand here" only representatives of some future peoples?

We could go through all the bible and find examples like that.

Do you not see the extreme you must go to to disprove the obvious and most simple interpretation? Is anyone allowed to twist and contort scripture like this to force it into their eschatological view? When Mormons or JW's or Catholics do this they are immediately labeled heretics, and rightfully so, but a dispy does it and we are all suppose to just accept it as truth.

There are parts of Preterism I have a difficult time understanding. I freely admit it and don't try to twist scripture to fit. Why can't someone just say "I don't know"?

"Make sense"

It will take a much more honest approach to scripture than what you have just given me.

Ed, you have given me 3 different interpretations of that verse over the last few weeks. Have you finally settled on this one?

 

God bless you, you aren't
doing too good a job for yourself.
I've had each of six people in my Sunday
School class give an understanding of
a verse, all different and all correct,
and found out that didn't come near
exahusting the treasures of God's
grace and love.

Sorry Bro. God's message in His Holy
Written Word: the Scriptures is way
deeper than you and i will ever get.
So if you ever get to a place where you
think you understand the written
word of God enough, it probably means
that God is about to break through
your tiny thoughts into a whole new
universe of meaning.

 

Grasshopper
(1) You went to Luke 9:27 to prove that "ye" only means those standing in front of you. Yet Luke 9:28 onward describes the vision of the kingdom seen at the Mount of Transfiguration. This gives weight to Ed's original argument that Christ represented the Kingdom of God in person.
(2) Why don't you spend a week going through the prophecies and show us how many times "ye" means ONLY those standing in front of the prophet?
Christ's utterance in Mt 26:64 was as a Prophet and he was quoting Daniel 7:13. If you think that the events described in Daniel 7 were fulfilled in AD 70, then we are not living on the same planet and all of our history books are wrong.
(3) Is your Preterist appproach to Scripture more honest than ours? You teacch that all of the prophecies about the first coming of Christ were fulfilled literally, but all of the prophecies about the second coming of Christ were fulfilled in AD 70 spiritually. You are the one with an inconsistent principle of interprettion.
(4) We have had three different views of Matthew 26:64 thus far and you have had one. All three of ours are possible within our principle of interpretation. My salvation does not depend on any one of the three and I do not have a church insisting that I must agree with only one. I call that "Conservative Protestantism."
(5) On the other hand, you are unwilling to consider that you might be wrong and that any of the other three views might be right. You choose to mock those who disagree while we choose to listen and compare. Who will learn the most?

 

I am not a preterist, I do not agree with preterism doctrine teaches that Christ already come to earth in year 70 A.D.

Matt 24:30 & Rev. 1:7 both telling us, EVERY eye in the world will SEE Christ coming in the clouds with power and glory.

No Indians in America see Christ appears in the sky during year 70 A.D. There is no record in the history telling us, any person already see Christ appears in the clouds, include 70 A.D.

Where is Jesus Christ now? He is now sitting on the right hand of God the Father in heaven.

Matt 24:30 & Rev. 1:7 MUST be a literal and physical coming of Christ, that every person on earth SHALL SEE Him in the air. It will be fulfilled at the second coming.

On Luke 9:26-27... Christ tells us, He warns us, that if we do not give up or surrender and seperate from the world - verse 24-25, THEN, sudden, Christ appears with the angels, any person shall become ashamed and not ready to face the judgement day at the second coming.

Luke 9:27 speaks of rapture, Christ tells us, some of us who alive and remain shall NOT taste of death(1 Thess 4:17), shall see the glory appearing of Christ.

Luke 9:26-27 obivously talk about the second coming.

I do not see split or two phases of the second advent in Luke 9:26-27, Christ speaks of the only ONE future coming of Christ. That's simple, no complex.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Actually, it was Matthew 16. I'm a strong believer of "audience relevence." Scripture must be firstly applied to those whom it was said and/or written. Does Matthew 23 refer to Jews today or a specific group of the 1st century? Under your method of interpretation I could build an entire doctrine based on Matthew 23 and apply it to modern day Jews.

Now lets look at Matt 16:27 For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; and then shall he render unto every man according to his deeds.
28 Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.

You want to put that at the Mount of Transfiguration, as many do. However I see 3 problems with that.
1. It says " they will see the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom". It doesn' say foretaste or type or anything else. It says HIS Kingdom.

2. "some stand here" why the word "some" for an event that was to happen 6 days later. "Some" indicates more than a few would die before next week. Now if it were used for an event 40 years in the future, "some" makes complete sense.

3. Verse 27. Everyone ignors this verse, why? Because it speaks of His coming and judgement, and since you can't have a judgement without a resurrection you can throw that into the mix also. So did these thing happen at the Transfiguration?
You could probably get by with problems 1 and 2 at the Transfiguration. Although it would still to me be a twisting of scripture to me, but #3 is a problem. The only solution is to put verse 27 2000+ years into the future and verse 28, 6 days into the future. I believe this is Ed's remedy. But this method of interpretation creates more problems for me than does the text.

It just simply says to me that some standing there would be alive at His coming and the ushering in of the Kingdom. Which, when I was a Pre-Mill, led me to reconsider the "nature" of His coming. Check out all the "comings' in the OT and see how many are physical. Now you said I was inconsistent because I made it spiritual, so will you be consistent and say the 2nd coming should be the same as the previous comings in the OT?

This is a thread to itself. Help me out, am I to understand you take Daniel as literal and not metaphoric?

The Old Covenant consisted of physical elements, the New covenant consists of spiritual elements. Therefore it seems one should look for the spiritual interpretation first when dealing with the NC.. I believe the 1st and 2nd coming prophecies were fulfilled literally, just not necessarily physical. The destruction of Jerusalem was a "coming on the clouds" consistent with Old Testament "comings". Should I list several NT spiritual fulfillments of promises made in the OT?

It is your " principle of interpretation" that is bothering me. I understand people can hold different views on scripture but this: "Naturally, all of them died. HOwever those they represent will still be alive to see Christ at his coming in glory," seems an extreme attempt to fit it into the future.

Nor does mine.
Try out my interpretation on your church and see if you are allowed to stay.

Yes, I might be wrong on Preterism, but no I do not consider those 3 explanations as possible. I think sometimes we all get into the "mocking" mode in debates. My apologies, sometimes I push too hard trying to show what I believe are glaring weakness in ones position.

Who will learn the most? I take a back seat to no-one. I started studying this after hearing an A-Mill series about 3 years ago. Being raise in the Pre-Mill camp all my life it was all I ever knew. But there were some things about the A-Mill position that made alot more sense to me that what I had been taught in the pre-Mill camp. So I started on a long journey to find out for myself which was true A-Mill or Pre-Mill. After 2years and 100's of hours I ended up not at the A-Mill position where I thought I would go but the Full-Preterist position I would have considered heresy just a few years ago. This is why sometimes I push, I'm trying to find out for myself if the Preterist positions I hold can be defended honestly by scripture. So yes I am willing to learn and re-learn if necessary. I hold no position that I will not move from if scripture can bear it out. I challange everyone else to take that approach.

 

Grasshopper: " So yes I am willing to learn and re-learn if necessary.
I hold no position that I will not move from if scripture
can bear it out. I challange everyone else to take that approach."

Amen, Brother Grasshopper -- Preach it !

However, i note after 52 years of being
pretribulation rapture, premillinnial Second Advent,
dispensationalist; i doubt if i'll find a
conflicting scripture.

 

Grasshopper
(1) Please tell me how you apply your verse, "Verily I say unto you, there are some of them that stand here, who shall in no wise taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom" to AD 70. Please quote the first century post-Calvary Christian historian who saw this happen in AD 70.
(2) Is Daniel 7 literal? Was Babylon, Media-Persia, Greece and Rome literal? Yes, yes, yes in case you missed it. You make all of Daniel literal except the Second Coming of Christ to rescue literal Israel.
(3) When do you think Revelation was written? Most say around AD 96. Therefore, if it was written about 26 years AFTER AD 70, then why does it portray the second coming of Chrisdt as yet future?
(4) Do you or other Preterists partake of communion? Christ said that this would continue UNTIL his coming!
(5) Do you think life will continue as usual forever without God intervening? Some say the sun will explode millions of years from now. Is that the end you foresee?
(6) The early church was not preteristic, at least until Augustine preached about the falss kingdom of the church. There were many movements proclaiming the soon second coming of Christ. The Montanaists were active doing this in the third century. Throughout non-Roman Catholic history there have always been second coming groups.
(7) I am not learning much logical Bible from you, but I am learning a lot about Preterists.

 

That's an easy one. Josephus. Now how about explaining vs 27 to me. This is what usually happens I am required to explain my verses from a Preterist position yet my questions get avoided.

Re-read my post. I believe the 2nd coming was literal. Just as the comings in the OT were literal. More on that later.

Yes that was one of my major problems. If Revelation was post AD70 all forms of Preterism go out the window. So I decided to study that subject. You might be suprised to learn how many scholars through the years believed that Revelation was written pre-AD70. If you really want to study the subject pick up "Before Jerusalem Fell" by Kenneth Gentry. I think you will find most pre-1800's scholars understood Revelation to be a pre-AD70 book.

Interestingly this is the statement by Irenaeus that most of the late date scholarship is based on:
:" We, therefore, do not venture to affirm anything with certainty respecting the name of antichrist. For were it necessary that his name should be clearly announced to the present age, it would have been declared by him who saw the revelation. For it has not been long since it was seen, but almost in our own generation, about the end of Domitian's reign."

Here is a statement about an early church father. Pre Hal Lindsey.

Clement of Alexandria (head teacher at the Catechetical School at Alexandria) was a contemporary of Irenaeus. He wrote his Miscellanies (or Stromata) in c. A.D. 190-195. In 7:17 he condemns certain teachers who were writing counterfeit scriptures. Clement explained that those teachers and their scriptures were counterfeit because they had appeared after the close of the teaching of the Apostles. According to Clement, the close of the teaching of the Apostles (which includes the writing of the Scriptures) "ends with Nero." Nero died in A.D. 68. Clement of Alexandria thus implied that the "New Testament," including the book of Revelation, was written before A.D. 68.

Very good question. That is one I'm still not sure of. Here are some beliefs for continuation:

The word “until” does not necessarily imply a termination. For example, Christ was to reign “until” He put all His enemies under His feet. (I Cor. 15:25; cf. I Tim. 4:13) “Until” cannot mean a termination in that verse because Christ reigns forever. (Dan. 7:14; Lk. 1:33; Heb. 1:8) “Until” in I Cor. 11:26 implies a culmination and establishment, not a termination.

“Until it is fulfilled in the Kingdom of God”

“Fulfilled” does not necessarily imply a change from material to non-material. The truth that the Lord's Supper represents was brought to fullness in Christ in A.D. 70, but that does not mean that the Lord's Supper itself was to cease. Christ partakes of the Lord's Supper with us now in the Spirit as we partake of it physically on Earth.

“Until that Day when I drink it new with you in My Father's Kingdom”

Since A.D. 70, Christ takes the Lord's Supper with us in a “new” way, i.e., with “new” meaning. The Lord's Supper is no longer a somber remembrance, but it is a celebration feast. Now He has Communion with us spiritually when we partake of the literal bread and wine.

There are certain passages that lead one to believe the earth abides forever and His Kingdom continues to increase. Another area I'm not sure about.

I would say the early church had quite a bit of partial preterist leanings, however I do not dispute the fact that the second coming was also taught.

I think that is a slam.
RC Sproul has an excellent book on the partial/full Preterist positions called the "Last Days According to Jesus". Well worth the read no matter what your view. There are other web-sights that are much better at this than I.

Now concerning the "Parousia".

Milton Terry (1898)
The Consummation of the pre-Messianic Age and the Parousia of Christ - Excerpts from Biblical Apocalyptics

The words parousia, commonly translated coming, is so constantly associate, in current dogmatics, with the ultimate goal of human history, that ordinary readers lose sight of its simple meaning in New Testament usage. The word means presence as opposed to absence. For example, we read in Phil. ii,12, "Sop then, my beloved, even as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence (en te parousia mou) only, but now much more in my absence (en te apousia mou), work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." But as the personal presence of any one implies a previous coming, so this word is not improperly rendered coming in many passages, and the verb erchomai, to come, is often employed to denote the appearance and kingdom of Christ. [2] But to assume that this coming or presence of Christ must needs be spectacular in any physical sense, a literal display of his person in the atmosphere of this earth, is to involve the doctrine in great confusion. Why must the coming of the Son of man on the clouds to execute judgment on that generation be understood or explained in any other way than we explain Jehovah's "riding upon a swift cloud," and coming to execute judgment on Egypt, as prophesied in Isa. xix,1? Whatever the real nature of the parousia, as contemplated in this prophetic discourse, our Lord unmistakably associates it with [p. 245] the destruction of the temple and city, which he represents as the signal termination of the pre-Messianic age. The coming on clouds, the darkening of the heavens, the collapse of the elements, are, as we have shown above, familiar forms of apocalyptic language, appropriated from the Hebrew prophets.

It wasn't until I familiarized myself with the OT did I begin to understand how His coming could be in any way non-physical.

Coming of the Lord

Isaiah 19:1 The burden of Egypt. Behold, Jehovah rideth upon a swift cloud, and cometh unto Egypt: and the idols of Egypt shall tremble at his presence; and the heart of Egypt shall melt in the midst of it.

Ps. 18: 9 He bowed the heavens also, and came down; And thick darkness was under his feet.
10 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly; Yea, he soared upon the wings of the wind.

Micah 1: 3 For, behold, Jehovah cometh forth out of his place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth.

Ex. 3: 8 and I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians

And how about "comings" associated with clouds:

Exodus 16:10 - It came about as Aaron spoke to the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, that they looked toward the wilderness, and behold, the glory of the LORD appeared in the cloud.

Exodus 19:9 - The LORD said to Moses, "Behold, I will come to you in a thick cloud, so that the people may hear when I speak with you and may also believe in you forever." Then Moses told the words of the people to the LORD.

Exodus 34:5 - The LORD descended in the cloud and stood there with him as he called upon the name of the LORD.

Leviticus 16:2 - The LORD said to Moses: "Tell your brother Aaron that he shall not enter at any time into the holy place inside the veil, before the mercy seat which is on the ark, or he will die; for I will appear in the cloud over the mercy seat.”

Numbers 11:25 - Then the LORD came down in the cloud and spoke to him....
Note that in several of these passages, Yahweh is said to have “come,” He “descended,” “came down,” and “appeared.” This is language similar to that which Jesus used in reference to His own second coming. Question: was the “body” of Yahweh seen at these times or was it just that the cloud signified the presence of Yahweh? Were these manifestations of Yahweh “bodily and physical?” The answer is obvious.

Psalm 18:912 - He bowed the heavens also, and came down with thick darkness under His feet. He rode upon a cherub and flew; and He sped upon the wings of the wind. He made darkness His hiding place, His canopy around Him, darkness of waters, and thick clouds of the skies. From the brightness before Him passed His thick clouds, hailstones and coals of fire.

Psalm 97:23 - Clouds and thick darkness surround Him; righteousness and justice are the foundation of His throne. Fire goes before Him and burns up His adversaries round about.

Psalm 104:3 - He lays the beams of His upper chambers in the waters; He makes the clouds His chariot; He walks upon the wings of the wind...

Isaiah 19:1 - The oracle concerning Egypt. Behold, the LORD is riding on a swift cloud and is about to come to Egypt; the idols of Egypt will tremble at His presence, and the heart of the Egyptians will melt within them.

Daniel 7:13 - I kept looking in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a Son of Man was coming, and He came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him.
Note that in the New Testament references to Jesus’ coming with clouds, the majority of scholars agree that Jesus is pointing back to this passage, referring to Himself as the “Son of Man” in Daniel. Was the main point of Jesus in doing so to assert a “physical, bodily” coming, or was it more to identify Himself with that Son of Man who was to receive glory and a kingdom that would not end or pass away (see Daniel 7:14). Preterist believe the latter.

Joel 2:12 - Blow a trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm on My holy mountain! Let all the inhabitants of the land tremble, for the day of the LORD is coming; surely it is near, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness. As the dawn is spread over the mountains, so there is a great and mighty people; there has never been anything like it, nor will there be again after it to the years of many generations.

Nahum 1:3 - The LORD is slow to anger and great in power and the LORD will by no means leave the guilty unpunished. In whirlwind and storm is His way, and clouds are the dust beneath His feet.

Zephaniah 1:1415 - Near is the great day of the LORD, near and coming very quickly; listen, the day of the LORD! In it the warrior cries out bitterly. A day of wrath is that day, a day of trouble and distress, a day of destruction and desolation, a day of darkness and gloom, a day of clouds and thick darkness...
Note also that many of the references to Yahweh coming in or with the clouds have to do with His bringing judgment upon His enemies and those who rebelled against His covenant. Again, there was no physical, bodily coming of Yahweh at these times.

I began to realize there is no way to interpret NT prophecies unless you use the OT as your guide. Most all the words or concepts used in Revelation and other NT prophecies are found in the OT. The fun is finding them.

 

The reason why you don't see the church in the 4th chapter of Revelation is It's gone!!!!!


Preacher Ron

 

Grasshopper,

You believe Jesus already come to earth in year 70 A.D.

Then, is there a REAL 100% peace over the world now?

Look at horrible situation in Haiti right now.

Is this world in a perfect condition?

I do not see Jesus Christ in a person and physical yet.

Did you see Jesus Christ in a person and physical already?

If so, tell me where you saw Jesus in a person?

Again, there is NO record in the history saying that a person saw Jesus Christ appears in the clouds with power and glory in year 70 A.D., or any century throughout the church history.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!

 

Grasshopper
(1) I asked you to give me the name and reference of a first century post-Calvary Christian
historian who thought that AD 70 was the second coming of Christ. You said “Joesphus.” This
is wrong. Josephus was a second century Jew, not a Christian. He might have said that the
destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 was the coming of the wrath of God, but that is a far cry from
saying it was the second coming of Christ.
(2) You complained that I would not answer Luke 9:27. Well, I did, and you agreed that most
answer it by referring to the Transfiguration. Why do we do that? Because the account of the
Mount of Transfiguration IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWS your questionable statement in ALL THREE gospels. Mt 17:1-8 follows 16:21-28; Mk 9:1 follows Mk 8:31-37 and Luke 9:28 follows Luke 9:26-27. I accept the inspired explanation.
(3) Why are you so hard on us about Luke 9:27? We give it a “spiritual” interpretation using the
context of the Mount of Transfiguration. On the other hand, you give it a “spiritual”
interpretation by saying that the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 was Christ’s “spiritual”
second coming. You want to criticize us for not interpreting it literally when you have no
intention of interpreting it literally yourself.
(4) STRANGE! You said that the prophecies of both the first and second coming or Christ were
“fulfilled literally just not necessarily physical.” When my wife comes home from the grocery store, is it possible for her to come home “literally” without also coming home “physically”???
(5) You pointed out that Gentry says “most pre-1800s" scholars believed that Revelation was
written before AD 70. That was before the age of modern textual criticism. Are we to throw out
the current conclusions reached by much improved investigative techniques” in order to justify
your explanation of why the second coming was future in Revelation?
(6) You are doing with the “until” of 1 Cor. 11:26 the same thing you criticized Ed and myself of doing with the “you” of Matthew 26:64.
(7) When you combine all of the OT prophecies about the kingdom of God into AD 70 and then
note the horrible wars that have continually followed it for almost 20 centuries, to me at least, Preterism offers no hope of God interposing Himself into the affairs of humanity to finally put an end to continuing sin. I find the theory depressing and uninspiring.
(8) I know that there are a lot of Baptist Preterists. However, most Preteriests are either Roman Catholic, Presbyterian and/or liberal. Do you know of a Baptist University that is strong on
Preterism per the writings of Sumner? ?Are you a closet Presbyterian?
(9) You list many texts that refer to the “coming” of God in a way other than that of the Messiah. While it is true that any interposing of God into human affairs might be called a “coming,” this does not obliterate the prophecies specifically pointing to the Messiah as his first and second coming.
(10) I am going to leave this thread soon. May I invite all of you to my thread on Malachi 3:10
where everybody can gang up on me.

Grasshopper, you are a capable defender of your faith. One of my best friends dearly loves RC
Sproul and we mix it up just like you and I have done. God bless.

 

Bro. Russ, i put the follow up on the wrong thread.

http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/3/2085/3.html?

 

Grasshopper,

Where is Jesus now?

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 - Amen!