• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

FYI on Hyper-Calvinism:

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Which was:

“Originally Posted by kyredneck
Because they refused to change when everyone else around them was succumbing to the great commission of the Church to populate heaven through missionary boards they are now castigated as 'hyper'.

How did folks ever make it to heaven before the invention of missions?”

OK, that's a STRONG statement of fact, the PBs are considered 'hyper' bacause they did not adopt foreign mission boards.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but those early PBs did not only object to mission boards but to missions in general. PB "Pinoy" on the BB has said just as much, and believes that people can get saved in other countries without the Gospel. Is this what you believe?
Which was:

“Originally Posted by kyredneck
but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man`s conscience in the sight of God. 2 Cor 4:2

There is nothing 'trifling' about the outright lies, deceit, and making merchandise of the flock that has arisen from the man made 'great commission' of the Church to populate heaven.”
The problem here is that you lumped all us non-PB missionaries together. There are three missionaries who post on the BB: C4K, me, and another person in a "closed" country whose name I will not mention. We are all three in "Gospel resistant" countries, and to my knowledge, none of us use the kind of appeal you are talking about. I never tell people in the homeland that Japanese go to Hell because I do not witness to them. They go to Hell because of their own depravity (Rom. 1, esp. v. 20).
Yea, I could have toned that one down a bit. But the fact is I've strong feelings and MANY memories from my own experience with mission appeals that are nothing short of deceitful tactics designed to convince the sheep of their absolute duty/necessity to give to missions (over and beyond tithing of course) or people will perish in hell. Here's more of the passage, which I believe to be right in context to what I'm referring to:
My grandfather called this kind of appeal "Unworthy Missionary Appeals" in one of his books. I've never made such an appeal and it is not right for you to lump missionaries like me with such people. And on that I have STRONG FEELINGS.
1 Therefore seeing we have this ministry, even as we obtained mercy, we faint not:
2 but we have renounced the hidden things of shame, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by the manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man`s conscience in the sight of God.
3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled in them that perish:
4 in whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not dawn upon them. 2 Cor 4
Yes, but you left out v. 5: "For we preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord; and ourselves your servants for Jesus' sake." Please know that you are quoting a missionary here, one who faithfully preached the Gospel in many countries. And by the way, in the same book he commended the church at Corinth for supporting missions: "Ye also helping together by prayer for us, that for the gift bestowed upon us by the means of many persons thanks may be given by many on our behalf." (1:11).
It was directed towards THE TACTICS used for funding of these mission. Again, from post#39:

“What I'm against is the lie that their support is increasing the numbers of the redeemed in heaven. I despise the lie that people will perish in hell if the flock doesn't financially support a mission board.”

“That is a common misconception the majority have of the Church, and I believe a primary reason for that is propaganda promugated by missionaries and others whose livlihoods depend on such notions such as that, and hardline restrictivism.”

Take note I said livelihood and not wealth. It is an inherent conundrum with any salaried ministers. You'd be kinda shooting yourself in the foot were you to reject a doctrine like hardline restrictivism, now wouldn't you?
I object STRONGLY to the word "propaganda" in reference to anything my kind of missionary does.

As for salaried ministers, Paul specifically taught that missionaries should be supported financially in their work (1 Cor. 9:1-14). So if there is a conundrum, God put it there.
Aren't you going to ask how many buses we have?
I don't give a salmon sushi how many buses you have. Very few IFB churches have bus ministries anymore anyway.

God called me to be a missionary to Japan through Rom. 15:20-21, a passage conveniently ignored by the PB position, as is 10:14-15. Never mind predestination, God requires that the Gospel be given by people, who are His willing tools. God saves, but believers give the Gospel. Whether believers are predestined to give the Gospel is another subject entirely.
FYI, there are PBs in this area that are supporting a work in the Phillipines. I personally helped to support a friend of mine there doing translation.
Excellent! But were these missionaries sent out by their local church as is the Biblical pattern in Acts 13:1-6?
The Old Baptists I've come to know are some of the most generous kind hearted folks you'll ever meet and eager to help others.
How nice. But it adds nothing to your position. I know Buddhist Japanese who are politer and nice to those they know personally than the average American. So what? The Muslims are required to take in strangers and treat them like family. So what?
 

Jerome

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
It's a man made term applied to a particular passage and designated by man to be such, that's what I disagree with:
"The phrase "The Great Commission" was first popularized by missionaries. . . .How far had the Church already spread prior to the invention of the phrase 'the Great Commission' or of mission boards?

:confused:

The term 'the Great Commission' was in common use long before before the PB's anti-missions snit/schism. I just read John Bunyan (late 1600s) using it repeatedly of the Matthew 28 passage.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Well you would have a wonderful mission field right in England I would assume after looking at the Christian growth stats in your own back yard.:laugh:
I could write for a month about what is wrong with the Church in Britain. Indeed, I have done so on my blog. Without doubt Britain is a mission field and those of us who believe with all our hearts in the Great Commission are reaching out as well as we can. With regard to the statistics, I think you will find that it is the liberal churches that are losing members by the dozens while conservative evangelical, evangelistic churches are seeing steady growth.
Here in America, these churches do the same.....talk of missions, talk of Christ & then retire to their safe havens at the home church while people go hungry & are starving for both material food & the food of the gospel. Why should they go abroad when they cant propagate the un-churched in their own communities.....If I were a Buddhist, or a Hindu or a Muslim or any non Christian, I would properly demean any Christian Missionary for coming to my country while neglecting your own home church. I'm sure that you have quick answers & responses to that argument but you will have to face the truth nonetheless.....you neglect the former for the later.
I am sure that there was plenty of work for Jonah to do in Israel, but it was God who sent him to Nineveh. In my church, our main effort is put into reaching our neighbours for Christ, but that does not stop us supporting a missionary family reaching the Aborigines in the North West Territories of Australia.

Steve
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The term 'the Great Commission' was in common use long before before the PB's anti-missions snit/schism. I just read John Bunyan (late 1600s) using it repeatedly of the Matthew 28 passage.

The phrase first came up well after the Reformation. There is a better article elsewhere (which I can't find at the moment), but the one from Wiki will do in a pinch. An excerpt (underlining mine):

"It is unknown who coined the term: "The Great Commission".

Scholars such as Eduard Riggenbach (in "Der Trinitarische Taufbefel') and J.H. Oldham et al (in "The Missionary Motive") assert that even the very concept did not exist until after the year 1650, and that Matthew 28:18–20 was traditionally interpreted instead as having been addressed only to Jesus's disciples then living(believed to be up to 500), and as having been carried out by them and fulfilled, not as a continuing obligation upon subsequent generations."


Once again, this does not mean there is to be no preaching, teaching, personal witnessing of the Good News of the eternal Gospel. It is just that this particular passage (Matthew 28) on the preaching of the Gospel of the Kingdom had a particular purpose, now fulfilled.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
In your haste to be vituperative, Steve, you are actually lumping two positions together that do have differences. KyRedneck, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a Preterist. And I have not called myself a Primitive Baptist - mainly because I am not clear on their position on several things.

And also, not that Ky cannot defend himself. you misrepresent his position.
I was responding to your post, where you wrote
asterisktom said:
As far as Matthew 28 is concerned, the phrase "until the end of the age" is a helpful clue. This age which ends is the Jewish age. They are the same as Jacob's prophetical "last days", Gen. 49:1. That chapter in Genesis has several references to both Christ and the events of New Testament times. The Lord's Commission in Matthew 28, if we read Col. 1:23, was already seen as fulfilled in later New Testament times.
If thise were only obvious drivel (which it is), I would leave you to your delusions. The trouble is that you are denying that our Lord's command applies to all Christians, so it is dangerous drivel as well. If we follow your suggestions we shall come to the conclusion that the Letter to the Ephesians (for example) applied only to 1st Century Christians living in Ephesus and we shall be able to avoid obeying just about all the teaching of the New Testament.

So far as Kyredeck is concerned, I am not aware that he is a Hyper-preterist and I was not addressing his posts. However, if the cap fits, he must wear it.

So don't lump us together. And, by the way, words never fail you. I wish they would - for your sake. We will all give an account for such things.
I write as one who must give account to God. Woe to me if I do not oppose such dangerous errors!
So, responding only for us arch-heretic Hyper-Preterists I would say that the Gospel is still to be preached. Just because the Parousia has happened does not mean that people don't still come to faith. And how shall they hear without the message being given?
But if it has already been preached to every creature under heaven, then what need to preach it further? You underline the foolishness of your position.
But there needs to be a distinction noticed in some of the passages that teach of the Gospel being preached. For instance in Matthew 24:14 we have the

"Gospel of the Kingdom be[ing] preached in all the world (oikoumene) .. and then the end will come."

This is the time of the Parousia. But two chapters later we have:

"Assuredly I say to you wherever this Gospel is preached in the whole world (kosmos), what this woman has done will also be told as a memorial to her."

Well, this is obviously - as the event itself is still demonstrating - an ongoing fulfillment. Thus, this preaching of the Gospel is not quite the same as the first. The Gospel is the same, the time-frame is different.
But Matthew 24:14 is still going on in the world just as much as Matt 26:13. Indeed, the two are inextricably linked. If per impossible the Parousia has indeed come, the Gospel should no longer be preached (Matt 24:14) and the woman's story will cease to be told qed. The story is told only as long as the Gospel is preached and the Gospel is preached until the Parousia.

I don't know whether to :laugh: or :tear: or :BangHead:

Steve
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
...

Short answer before I get on with my studies.

You are so clenched in your hatred of Preterism that you cannot even read objectively what I write. I said nothing about the Gospel not being preached now.

It is your spurious framework of Parousia-ending-all-preaching that is the problem. You believe that and then confront me with that as if it was as solid a proof as 2+2=4.

And then you call me foolish ... for not being consistent with your position.

Two facts to leave with:
The preaching of the Gospel is very important.
You will never understand the Preterist position, aside from just the surface references to AD70, because you cling to just a caricature of the position that you vilify.

I hope that, at some time, you will prove me mistaken about that second fact.
 

Earth Wind and Fire

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I

I am sure that there was plenty of work for Jonah to do in Israel, but it was God who sent him to Nineveh. In my church, our main effort is put into reaching our neighbours for Christ, but that does not stop us supporting a missionary family reaching the Aborigines in the North West Territories of Australia.

Steve

Why are the Sassenagh interested in the Aborigines in Australia. Isnt there enough Aussie Pastors that can handle that?
 

kyredneck

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
:thumbs::thumbs:

Yesterday's innovations become today's traditions - seemingly scriptural, but actually neutralizing the intent of Scripture. I confess that I am not as read up on the Primitive Baptists as I should be, but from what I have been reading here in this thread they seem pretty much in line with that ancient simplicity the Church at one time enjoyed.

They have their imperfections just as all others do, and there's different flavors of them, but yes, they have strove to maintain the simplicity that is in Christ Jesus. ANCIENT simplicity it is:

Wherewith shall I come before Jehovah, and bow myself before the high God? shall I come before him with burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? will Jehovah be pleased with thousands of rams, or with ten thousands of rivers of oil? shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:6-8

As far as Matthew 28 is concerned, the phrase "until the end of the age" is a helpful clue. This age which ends is the Jewish age. They are the same as Jacob's prophetical "last days", Gen. 49:1. That chapter in Genesis has several references to both Christ and the events of New Testament times. The Lord's Commission in Matthew 28, if we read Col. 1:23, was already seen as fulfilled in later New Testament times.

I agree, the gospel was actually preached unto 'the uttermost part of the earth' at Pentecost:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1740544&highlight=Pentecost#post1740544

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=74283&highlight=Pentecost&page=4

Incidentally (and this is aside from this thread, I know) an interesting study can be made by comparing this Matthew passage with Matthew 18:18-20 (same numbers except the first digit) and Joshua 1:8-9.

Excellent! Thanks for that.

In your haste to be vituperative, Steve, you are actually lumping two positions together that do have differences. KyRedneck, to my knowledge, has never claimed to be a Preterist. And I have not called myself a Primitive Baptist - mainly because I am not clear on their position on several things.

And also, not that Ky cannot defend himself. you misrepresent his position.

So don't lump us together. And, by the way, words never fail you. I wish they would - for your sake. We will all give an account for such things.

I would probably fill the bill for Partial Preterist, which I agree with Gentry is orthodox Preterism.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
kyredneck said:
I agree, the gospel was actually preached unto 'the uttermost part of the earth' at Pentecost:
Yes, the ones I feel sorry for are those poor benighted fools like Carey and Judson. Fancy going all the way to India and Burma to preach the Gospel when it had already been done! And fancy the Apostle Paul talking about going to places where the Gospel was not known (Rom 15:20) when there actually was no such place.

And fancy the Lord Jesus not knowing that the ends of the earth extended just a little bit further than the boundaries of the Roman Empire (Acts 1:8 etc.)! Unless of course there were Japanese people, Aborigines and Red Indians in Jerusalem on the day of Pentacost

Steve
 

Amy.G

New Member
Yes, the ones I feel sorry for are those poor benighted fools like Carey and Judson. Fancy going all the way to India and Burma to preach the Gospel when it had already been done! And fancy the Apostle Paul talking about going to places where the Gospel was not known (Rom 15:20) when there actually was no such place.

And fancy the Lord Jesus not knowing that the ends of the earth extended just a little bit further than the boundaries of the Roman Empire (Acts 1:8 etc.)! Unless of course there were Japanese people, Aborigines and Red Indians in Jerusalem on the day of Pentacost

Steve

Amen!

Preterists...ugh..
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Yes, the ones I feel sorry for are those poor benighted fools like Carey and Judson. Fancy going all the way to India and Burma to preach the Gospel when it had already been done! And fancy the Apostle Paul talking about going to places where the Gospel was not known (Rom 15:20) when there actually was no such place.

And fancy the Lord Jesus not knowing that the ends of the earth extended just a little bit further than the boundaries of the Roman Empire (Acts 1:8 etc.)! Unless of course there were Japanese people, Aborigines and Red Indians in Jerusalem on the day of Pentacost

Steve

Steve, squinting his eyes so tight again that he doesn't consider what is being written.

Once again, there are two aspects of preaching of the Gospel, with two audiences in mind. The first is the one that was especially relevant to the 1st century Jews, this being their "last days". This is the only "last days" the Bible speaks of. Whenever that phrase comes up, or one similar to it ("last hour", etc.) you never have to look far to see some reference also to the Jews. Check it out yourself. (This is written to anyone. I know better than to think that Steve will take this seriously.)

So the "first" preaching of the Gospel, for want of a better word, has direct connection to the Jews who are coming to the end of their "days", their "eleventh hour". The disciples were promised that Christ would be with them as they taught all those things that He had taught them.

And we need to also pause and consider what that last phrase means. There are several things Christ taught which had special time-dated connection to Jews, to their time and locality - and the very fact that there was a temple still standing.

But then you have other Gospel preaching passages, such as the one I mentioned earlier, about the woman whose act will be spoken of through out the world - and far into our time. This is the ongoing Gospel.

Lastly you also have passages that put the two aspects of the Gospel together, the one that ends at AD 70 and the eternal Gospel. An example here is the one that Steve chose for his ill-considered ridicule, Acts 1:8.
 

John of Japan

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
I agree, the gospel was actually preached unto 'the uttermost part of the earth' at Pentecost:
Not literally. This is clearly hyperbole, a figure of speech. A. T. Robertson wrote about Col. 1:23 in his Word Studies, "It is hyperbole, to be sure, but Paul does not say that all men are converted, but only that the message has been heralded abroad over the Roman Empire in a wider fashion than most people imagine."

Also, since the verb "preached" is an aorist passive participle, meanin it is about verbal aspect and not time, it refers to the general act, not a specific occasion. Paul was probably simply referring to his own task.
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
asterisktom said:
Once again, there are two aspects of preaching of the Gospel, with two audiences in mind. The first is the one that was especially relevant to the 1st century Jews, this being their "last days". This is the only "last days" the Bible speaks of. Whenever that phrase comes up, or one similar to it ("last hour", etc.) you never have to look far to see some reference also to the Jews. Check it out yourself. (This is written to anyone. I know better than to think that Steve will take this seriously.)
Well, it's very hard to take this stuff seriously, but I'll try. The very first instance of 'Last days' that comes to mind is 2 Tim 3:1ff. 'But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: for men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, proud, blasphemers......etc., etc.' This was written by Paul in Rome to Timothy who was almost certainly in the Gentile city of Ephesus. It was written in 66 or 67AD, just before Paul's martyrdom, so if it has any reference to AD 70 it is speaking only of a 3 or 4 year period. The reason for the 'perilous times' is not judgement coming upon Jerusalem, but because of the low morals that would define the 'last days.' Now if Tom has any evidence that the morality being spoken of was Jewish, or that it suffered a marked decline for three years and then improved, let's hear it. If the prophesy spoke only about the 3 or 4 years, how come people are still showing just the same behaviour when we are in the 'New heavens and new earth in which righteousness dwells' (2 Peter 3:13)?

I suppose Tom will trek down to verse 8 with the reference to Moses and the Egyptian court magicians. Does that prove that verses 1-5 are only about Jews? Of course not! By the same logic one could suppose that they are only about Egyptians.

Perilous times for Christians continued, and indeed increased after AD 70, and FWIW judgement upon the Jews also continued after that time culminating in the 'Bar Cochba' rebellion of AD 132-136 after which no Jew was alowed within 50 miles of Jerusalem, which was itself renamed Aelius Hadrianus.

Tom, if you want to be taken seriously you need to write some serious stuff.

Steve
 

Martin Marprelate

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Not literally. This is clearly hyperbole, a figure of speech. A. T. Robertson wrote about Col. 1:23 in his Word Studies, "It is hyperbole, to be sure, but Paul does not say that all men are converted, but only that the message has been heralded abroad over the Roman Empire in a wider fashion than most people imagine."

Also, since the verb "preached" is an aorist passive participle, meanin it is about verbal aspect and not time, it refers to the general act, not a specific occasion. Paul was probably simply referring to his own task.

There is another interpretation of Col 1:23 which is found in Matthew Henry and various other commentators. I covered it in a blog post along with Matt 10:23.

There are three other Bible passages which Hyper-preterists use when they try to show that our Lord returned secretly in AD 70. It will be necessary to consider each of these texts individually, but two of them are specifically designed to counter Matt 24:14, which tells us, ‘And this Gospel of the kingdom will be preached in all the world as a witness to all the nations and then the end will come.’ This helpful verse gives us some sort of time line for the Lord Jesus’ return; the Gospel has first to be preached to all people groups. Although great strides in this respect have been made in the last century or so, there are still many nations where the word of God is scarcely known. The Lord, not we, will judge when the preaching has been accomplished, so we should not spend time wondering when that will be, but rather support Gospel missionary activities throughout the world, by which we can, in a sense, ‘[Hasten] the coming of the Day of God’ (2 Peter 3:12).

The first verse misused by Hyper-preterists is Col 1:23. ‘…..The gospel which you heard, which was preached [or ‘proclaimed’] to every creature under heaven.’ Colossians was written around AD 60 or 61. The suggestion is that ‘To every creature under heaven’ is a deliberate hyperbole on Paul’s part and merely refers to the Gospel having been preached in all the main population centres of the Roman world. If this were so, then the conditions of Matt 24:14 would be met and Christ could have come in AD 70. However, it is certain that the Gospel had not been preached all around the Roman Empire by AD 61. Paul infers in Romans 15:20-24 that the Gospel had not reached Spain by AD 56 or so, and we know that he personally had no opportunity to take it there in the next four or five years. Moreover there is not so much as a hint in the Bible that the Gospel had come to Gaul or to any part of Africa (except maybe Egypt) by AD 70, let alone 61. Let the reader look at a map of Western Europe and North Africa. It’s huge! The Gospel spread with remarkable speed, but there was no chance for it to have reached even the major cities of the Roman Empire, let alone ‘every creature under heaven’ by that time.

So what does Col 1:23 mean? Well, when was the Gospel proclaimed? You could say it was at the baptism of the Lord Jesus, when God’s voice was heard saying, “This is My beloved Son. In Him I am well pleased” (Matt 3:16-17); or it might say it was at the start of our Lord’s ministry, when He declared, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the Gospel” (Mark 1:15). In either case, to whom were the words directed? To all men everywhere. They were proclamations. The Lord Jesus did not become God’s beloved Son when men heard about him. Nor did the kingdom of God only draw near when people were informed that it had. The Gospel had been proclaimed, and it was the duty of men and women to believe and obey it. As Paul told the Athenians, ‘God….. now commands all men everywhere to repent’ (Acts 17:30). So in Col 1:23, Paul is saying that the Gospel had already been proclaimed to the whole human race. Peace and reconciliation with God were available to everyone regardless of age, sex, situation or race.

Matt 10:23. ‘Assuredly, I say to you, you will not have gone through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.’ In this verse, the Hyper-preterists claim that the Lord Jesus is saying to His Apostles, “Make a start with your evangelization of Judea and Galilee, but I shall come back to destroy Jerusalem so quickly that you won’t get very far in doing so before then.” This interpretation doesn’t work either. The word translated ‘cities’ here is polis. It has a very specific meaning of a large settlement surrounded by a wall. Only the larger towns or cities had a wall. There is a word, kome, which is used for smaller towns and villages that didn’t have a wall. The two words are used together in Matt 9:35 and elsewhere, so if our Lord had wanted to include the smaller settlements, He could have done so. Now get the map out again and look at Israel- it’s tiny! The Lord Jesus walked its length and breadth regularly in His three-year ministry. It would not have taken twelve Apostles more than a couple of years to get around the larger cities of Judea and Galilee.

So what does this verse mean? There are two explanations which make good sense. The simplest is that the Lord Jesus is telling the Apostles that there instructions are only temporary ones. Before they had visited even the main cities of Judea, the risen Christ would come to them with new instructions; they would be sent, not merely into Israel, but to the whole world (Matt 28:16-20 etc.).

The second interpretation is a little more complicated but it is the one I favour. In the New Testament, the term ‘Israel’ is seldom used as a geographical term- ‘Judea,’ ‘Galilee’ and ‘Samaria’ are used instead (see, for example, Matt 2:22; 3:1; Luke 4:44; Acts 1:8 etc.). When ‘Israel’ is used, it usually refers to the people of God (eg. Matt 15:24; Luke 24:21; John 1:47). So what the Lord Jesus is saying here is, “You and those disciples who come after you will not have gone through all the cities of the world where God’s elect are found before I come again in glory.” This interpretation is in harmony with Matt 24:14.

The complete article is here. http://marprelate.wordpress.com/2012/02/23/the-forgotten-doctrine-loving-the-return-of-christ-2/
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Tom, if you want to be taken seriously you need to write some serious stuff.

Steve

I'm in between teaching classes now, but a quick comment. I intend to answer these in more detail, but I am not holding my breath that you would take me seriously, Steve. You are a high church kind of guy. Tradition is big with you, so I doubt very seriously you would ever reconsider anything that chases you out of your traditional belief system.

But, having been encouraged by some private emails on thi very subject, I do want to go further into this.
 

asterisktom

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter

Well, now you did it, KyRedneck. Now I have to rethink my take on Acts 1:8. You make some good points on that verse.

BTW, I followed that thread on through. I like the "I'm done" comment too! I can relate.

I also liked the answer of yours to the one saying that the sun no longer shining and the tribes mourning, to which you answered "If the sun stops shining there'll be no mourning.......they'll all be dead."

Too true. This is only consistent literalism.
 
Top