I prefer to think of Christians as like Noah. Go out and invite everyone onto the boat. It's up to them whether or not they get on.
Dangers of Dispensational Rapture Fantasy
- Thread starter libevangelical
- Start date
The birth of the church was b rought into being at its BAPTISM of the HOLY GHOST.
it then sprung up and then was persecuted then blessed by the world and evntualy that seed fell into the ground and died.
Alebit there was a REMNANT left as a witness.
Untill the reformation that "seed" laid dormant.
Then in die time the light dawned on a greman monk that the "just hsall live by faith"
It was not a new thing but an old truth revitalised by the HOLY SPIRIT.
That new shoot had still earth clinging to it.
so to did LUTHOR.
But when God sought to go " a little further"
Those having got THAT revalation though it was ALL the revaltion.
and so built thier wall around it .
Calvin got more but when God moved on many didnt.
BAPTISTS got more light but they too stayed when God moved on.
Weslyians then broiught more light for the 'present' church had the Lord OUTSIDE the door trying to get in.
But trhere too in time God moved and they stayed.
and so on and so on.
pentecsostals also got light but have made thier 'light' the be all and end all.
Evangelicals also.
Each 'defending' thier 'patch' but forgetting that it is GOD who is the HEAD and they are but MEMBERS.
and that EACH PART is but that a PART of the WHOLE.
wE ARE OF COURSE TALKING ABOUT THOSE "SOUND DCOTRINS" of scripture.
But even as it was the HOLY SPIRIT who had QUICKNED to them and enlightened them concerning the Word.
and had in the time it was given ENABLED them to preach it against all oposition.
So now in the main they DENY Him in truth for they boast in the scriuptures and thier doctrins.
But have forgotten of whom they SPEAK of.
Thus while each denomination will not acknowldge the truth as to thier need of Him and are willing to open the door to Him.
They are growing CORRUPT and death is slowly creaping in even as the world is.
The church is in a BAD WAY and judgement is hovering over it even as it was over ISREAL.
For in its own eyes "it has need of nothing"
But in Gods.........
The WHOLE truth is in "(listen) ALL the scriptures which were given for............."
The question is will the church swallow the WHOLE pill OR ONLY THOSE BITS WHICH 'fit' ITS 'SCHOOL' OF THEOLOGY.
It matters not that the 'rapture' is only (so it is thought) 160 years old.
According to THAT reasoning LUTHOR was wrong and ROME was right!
The TRUTH "liveth and abideth forver"
Just because men hjave not 'seen' it "untill now" does not mean it has no validity.
That mystery that Paul preached that was 'hiddeen' untill now.
is CLEARLY seen (now) in ALL the scriptures!
yet was hidden for 4000 years!
are we then to dismiss that truth just because PAUL first understood the mystery?
and not THOSE OF LONG AGO?
The 'rapture' or more accurately the "TRANSLATION"(SEE ENOCH)
is provable or tested by the scriptures.
Not so much by 'proof texts' for the scripturs do not encourage such things but rather by BIBLICAL 'arguement' (see the leters of hebrews and romans.)
You may have a text that 'CLEARLY states a doctrin.
nevertheless to 'prove it needs more than one or two texts.
but ALL the scriptures.
For even as one swallow does not make a summer,neither does one text make a doctrin.
Nowhere does the scriptures say you should throw away your brain.
It DOES say that you must bring your thoughts into CONFORMITY with the scriuptures.
For they have thier OWN logic and REASONING and the HOLY BIBLE HAS ITS OWN INTEGRITY.
How can it not be seeing that it is the WORD OF GOD.
wHOS THOUGHTS are higher than our thoughts and whos ways are not our ways.
Thus we must learn to bring our thinkign and experirence into line with the SCRIPTURES.
Not as so many are doing bringing the scrptures into line with thier own experience and reasoning.
Thus God means to RECONCILE the HEART and the BRAIN so that they are in COMPLETE and perfect harmony and WITH HIM.
geralduk,
if we had met in 1987 I would be on the same page with you. But this is 2004 and I am unmoved by your apologetic. You're best reasoning here will continue into the next century and Christianity will continue to evolve. Pitty I won't be around to watch it, unless they find a cure for aging. The Lord willing He might allow me another forty years. But what would be great is to see a snap-shot of our Faith in the year 2104.
Blessings to you dude,
sincerely,
Carl
if we had met in 1987 I would be on the same page with you. But this is 2004 and I am unmoved by your apologetic. You're best reasoning here will continue into the next century and Christianity will continue to evolve. Pitty I won't be around to watch it, unless they find a cure for aging. The Lord willing He might allow me another forty years. But what would be great is to see a snap-shot of our Faith in the year 2104.
Blessings to you dude,
sincerely,
Carl
I make no apologies.
But I will continue to contend for THE faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints.
The Lord is coming VERY soon "be ye also ready"
aNOTHER THOUGHT..
God is NOT an evolving God.
Yet there is a progresive program of God.
There is in ther main a "great falling away" and many no longer can endure" sound doctrin"
This too was spoken of long ago by the prophets and is but anither sign of the LORDS SOON RETURN.
"For when we see these things we are to look up for our redemption draweth nigh."
Therefore id urge you to go back to what is written and spoekn of by God and NOT men.
But I will continue to contend for THE faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints.
The Lord is coming VERY soon "be ye also ready"
aNOTHER THOUGHT..
God is NOT an evolving God.
Yet there is a progresive program of God.
There is in ther main a "great falling away" and many no longer can endure" sound doctrin"
This too was spoken of long ago by the prophets and is but anither sign of the LORDS SOON RETURN.
"For when we see these things we are to look up for our redemption draweth nigh."
Therefore id urge you to go back to what is written and spoekn of by God and NOT men.
Last edited:
Re: Re: King David in hell?
Re: Re: King David in hell?
Re: Re: King David in hell?
Why would he not be in hell? After his writings in Proverbs he completely rejected God. The book of Ecclesiastes is the ramblings of a man who has gone off the deep end. You don't actually take the writings of Ecclesiastes to heart do you?
That's not true. Dispensationalism teaches that the world will go to hell in a handbasket before the Second Coming but it does not teach the world will go to hell in a handbasket before the rapture.
I believe most of the "Operation Rescue" people who got thrown in jail were dispensationalists. That doesn't sound like they had a "Meet, Eat and Retreat" attitude.
Jefferson-
No, it was not a joke. Falwell is a bigot, not a minister.
Give me a set of scripture from Ecclesiastes and I'll look it up. And it is a very high probability that Solomon was reconciled.
No, it was not a joke. Falwell is a bigot, not a minister.
Give me a set of scripture from Ecclesiastes and I'll look it up. And it is a very high probability that Solomon was reconciled.
Lets see:
He automatically blamed homosexuals, and a few other groups, for the attacks on September 11th...and he didn't even include Muslims, though the terrorists ascribed to the religion. That's bigotry.
He automatically blamed homosexuals, and a few other groups, for the attacks on September 11th...and he didn't even include Muslims, though the terrorists ascribed to the religion. That's bigotry.
This is what he said, "I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture ... the result is not good."
What's so bigoted about that?
That's after he retracted his original statement, isn't it?
I can't do it verbatim. I'd have to look it up, or ask someone who watches that snoozefest, The 700 Club.
I'm not going to do either. And frankly I don't care. I'm done with this conversation. Get over it.
"I resent that! It's not slander! In print, it's libel."
Anyway, I know what he said, as far as who he originally blamed. And I know that he later "retracted" what he had said. But I don't care that much about it, because this all started by my saying I didn't like the guy. Get over it. I don't like him and that's how it stands.
Anyway, I know what he said, as far as who he originally blamed. And I know that he later "retracted" what he had said. But I don't care that much about it, because this all started by my saying I didn't like the guy. Get over it. I don't like him and that's how it stands.
Prove it. All you have to do is simply do a google search with the words "Falwell," "Terrorism" and "Homosexuals" and up will come dozens of anti-Jerry Fallwell sites you can easily find the quote from. I'll even do the leg-work for you. Here are the first 5 sites listed at the top of the search results page:
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm
http://www.drsusanblock.com/sexinreview/comment/booth4.htm
http://www.september11-tribute.org/NewsArticles/JerryFalwell.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/WTC_Falwell010914.html
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.htm
Why don't you like him?
Nimrod
Member
Re: Re: King David in hell?
Re: Re: King David in hell?
Past 3 weeks I have been extremely busy at work and had very little time to play. So let me go over Acts9_12Out response.
Is that the one about works are necessary for salvation?
Oh---yawn! Can't debate the issue, go after the character. heard this many times......
Exactly! You said that, go read your posts. From your logic, King David committed an intentional sin, and therefore his guilt will be upon him and be in hell.
Simple, Numbers 15 doesn't deal with people going to hell or losing their salvation. It does deal with their physical bodies. A man can be saved by the gospel (abraham believed the gospel, therefore it is easy to see the Israelites had the gospel too.) After the man is saved, he commites an intentional sin, like King David, the man is put to death but does not go to hell because of it.
You talked about committing an intentional sin. Why is it wrong to bring up Scripture examples of intentional sins? Your begining to sound like John Kerry.
Ok then, why are you angry at me for bring him up?
Tell me where in Numbers do we find the word "hell"? Why didn't God use that word? He did in Deut.
No, apparently you didn't read Numbers 15 correctly. Nowhere does it state the man will go to hell.
But you said "God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell.."
Now you are changing your mind. (John Kerry?)
Let me say this; Men do not go to hell because they commit a presumptous sin.
Again, we are talking about a physical death.
You don't know that! How do you know that man was unrepentant? I am dealing with Numbers 15. I am dealing with what it says, you are dealing with what you "think" it says.
Jeremy, you make an interesting observation here. Works (showing of faith) was never required for salvation in the history of man. Today we tell people who need to be saved to go to Jesus Christ, but in the OT times there was no Jesus Christ, other than the belief that He will come. "thy seed will bruise it's head". We just need to believe in God that He will save us. Yaweh saves!
Re: Re: King David in hell?
Past 3 weeks I have been extremely busy at work and had very little time to play. So let me go over Acts9_12Out response.
Is that the one about works are necessary for salvation?
Oh---yawn! Can't debate the issue, go after the character. heard this many times......
You are right I have not. We do know that Abraham believed the gospel. (Galatians). The gospel message has never changed. Yaweh saves!
Exactly! You said that, go read your posts. From your logic, King David committed an intentional sin, and therefore his guilt will be upon him and be in hell.
Simple, Numbers 15 doesn't deal with people going to hell or losing their salvation. It does deal with their physical bodies. A man can be saved by the gospel (abraham believed the gospel, therefore it is easy to see the Israelites had the gospel too.) After the man is saved, he commites an intentional sin, like King David, the man is put to death but does not go to hell because of it.
You talked about committing an intentional sin. Why is it wrong to bring up Scripture examples of intentional sins? Your begining to sound like John Kerry.
Ok then, why are you angry at me for bring him up?
Tell me where in Numbers do we find the word "hell"? Why didn't God use that word? He did in Deut.
No, apparently you didn't read Numbers 15 correctly. Nowhere does it state the man will go to hell.
But you said "God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell.."
Now you are changing your mind. (John Kerry?)
Let me say this; Men do not go to hell because they commit a presumptous sin.
Again, we are talking about a physical death.
You don't know that! How do you know that man was unrepentant? I am dealing with Numbers 15. I am dealing with what it says, you are dealing with what you "think" it says.
Based on the relationship with God
If the person has "faith alone" will have a relationship with Jesus Christ and could never lose salvation, no matter how much sin this person commits in his heart.
Jeremy, you make an interesting observation here. Works (showing of faith) was never required for salvation in the history of man. Today we tell people who need to be saved to go to Jesus Christ, but in the OT times there was no Jesus Christ, other than the belief that He will come. "thy seed will bruise it's head". We just need to believe in God that He will save us. Yaweh saves!