Where is satans Kingdom and is it Still in force?

[Reformed]

Satan does not have an everlasting kingdom. In fact his "kingdom" is nothing more than a limited influence. Ephesians 2 calls him "the prince of the power of the air". His influence is over those who are dead in sin (Eph 2:1). Jesus Christ is King of kings and Lord of lords. He has no rival. Satan is a wannabe usurper who has already been judged.

 

[blessedwife318]

Then I do not think he is representative of SBC churches, but is...

...an infiltrator!


God bless.

Well I'm still new to the SBC having been in IFBC church before getting married. But from what I understand churches are independent so I figure I judge SBC at the local level not the national level. Besides is he really an infiltrator when his beliefs are out in the open for a to see?

 

[OldRegular]

So what?

It is a fact that Paul taught the Rapture in the First Century.

Still spam.

Continuing to parrot the falsehood that Paul taught the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church is spam.

 

[blessedwife318]

No offense taken, except that which you have felt. And it was not intended for offense but for your good.

And yes, I already know I can tell you something you have not heard before, because if it had been considered before you would be able to answer the questions I pose to you without hesitation.

For example, you said you were premillennial yet in all appearances denied a rapture, and would not give simple answers that even those indoctrinated into the Rapture Doctrine who do not bother to study, but simply take someone's (i.e., spouse, friend, teacher, Pastor, radio personality) word for it because they want to believe it...would be able to do.

It seems the inner conflict may stem from the conflict between that view and your husband's, and I can understand that, because it may intimate a betrayal of sorts that your heart did not want to acknowledge. But like I said, while it is good for a man and wife to be unified in doctrine, you may have sub-consciously have tried to deal with this issues on more than one front.

And I bet you never had someone tell you that before either.

Let's go back to your claim of pre-millennialism: if Christ returns before the Millennial Kingdom, then we know there will be physical people in that Kingdom, people who can fulfill the Prophecy Historicists write off, which has not been fulfilled. This places Prophecy into a category readily accepted by unbelievers and Bible Skeptics. It makes Prophecy nothing more than what we might see from somebody like Nostradamus. Some of it seems strikingly similar to what actually unfolds in history, but some of it is irrelevant, hasn't been fulfilled, and won't be fulfilled.

But all Prophecy, for the Bible Student, will be fulfilled exactly as all Prophecy has been fulfilled...to the jot, to the tittle.

And when it comes to Kingdom Prophecy, and Kingdom teaching, we know without controversy that what has been foretold will also be fulfilled...to the joy, to the tittle.

And Bible Prophecy states that there will be a thousand year Reign of Christ which will have inhabitants that will not die as we do, in fact one dying an hundred years old will be considered a child. There is no death in the Eternal State, that too is clear, so we have to have...

...physical inhabitants.

Before you began this current charade, you stated that those who live through the Tribulation will inhabit that Kingdom, and you are correct, that is clear from such passages as Revelation 20, and Matthew 25. The Sheep are those who come to saving faith in the Tribulation, and while one can say they had faith before the Tribulation began, we still have to say that only the believing, those who are, according to Christ's teaching, born again...will enter into that Kingdom.

And the fact remains that this negates the possibility of a Post-Trib Rapture, simply because of the fact that if the Rapture, which entails every believer being glorified at the same time, takes place at the end of the Tribulation, then there are no physical inhabitants that prophecy remain consistent as it always has.

If you can tell me you have honestly considered that, then okay.




You have never been in my camp.




This is already understood. It appears that you have had a hard time seeing a rapture at all.

How much thought have you ever given to the resurrection and Rapture of the Two Witnesses of Revelation 11?




Again, you have never been in my camp, and unless you face the inaccuracies of your current understanding, you may well spend the next twenty years indoctrinating yourself all over again. There are proven methods for rightly dividing the Word, and then there is indoctrination.

You choose.


God bless.

So going to dispensation churches, a very dispensational Bible School, having read Chafer, Ryre, Walwoord, Pentecost, Lehaye, etc. I was not in your camp? Again I can argue your position, I have argued your position, when I was in Bible College, even though I did not buy it. Isn't the first rule of debate to know your opponents position? You seem to be under the impression that there are only two beliefs for a pre-mill rapture view, pre-trib and post-trib but as I said elsewhere there is also mid-trib and the even lesser known pre-wrath.
Just as studying the Bible moved me from a very non-cal view to a reformed view, so has studying Scripture moved me from one camp to the other, with a little help from you to point out areas that I needed to examine. You can think its because of my relationship with my husband if you want but co considering you don't know either of us, you'll forgive me if I take that with a hunk of salt.

 

[OldRegular]

So going to dispensation churches, a very dispensational Bible School, having read Chafer, Ryre, Walwoord, Pentecost, Lehaye, etc. I was not in your camp? Again I can argue your position, I have argued your position, when I was in Bible College, even though I did not buy it. Isn't the first rule of debate to know your opponents position? You seem to be under the impression that there are only two beliefs for a pre-mill rapture view, pre-trib and post-trib but as I said elsewhere there is also mid-trib and the even lesser known pre-wrath.

Just as studying the Bible moved me from a very non-cal view to a reformed view, so has studying Scripture moved me from one camp to the other, with a little help from you to point out areas that I needed to examine. You can think its because of my relationship with my husband if you want but co considering you don't know either of us, you'll forgive me if I take that with a hunk of salt.

Very well said!

 

[Darrell C]

Continuing to parrot the falsehood that Paul taught the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church is spam.

The only difference would be I have Scripture that I can present without having to spam Church Fathers and evading the Scripture posted.

I guess you might think I should be grateful that you only have one verse you support your doctrine with, but, for some reason...I just ain't.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Well I'm still new to the SBC having been in IFBC church before getting married.

You would actually have to embrace their teaching in order to be a part of it. Seems as though you have not really been a part of anything.

Well, except for supporting a-mil positions and pretending to be Pre-mil.

But from what I understand churches are independent so I figure I judge SBC at the local level not the national level.

This is true, there are a lot of Churches that pretend to be something they are not, just like they have pews filled with people who do the same.

Besides is he really an infiltrator when his beliefs are out in the open for a to see?

Actually, it was supposed to be humor, I do not have a great deal of respect for the SBC. I know the fellowship I attended was okay, but I am not a big fan of groups that hold control of any kind over local leadership.

And I am glad not to be associated with the SBC, because one does not have to look long to see just how inconclusive they are. I would you think you would appreciate that.

But what we can say is that there so-called "Statement of Faith" does indeed leave much room for Pastors such as the one you speak of to teach whatever they like.

Kind of takes the meaning out of organization, doesn't it?

So what we have learned from the SBC is "Don't have a dogmatic belief and your congregation...

...won't either."

So going to dispensation churches, a very dispensational Bible School, having read Chafer, Ryre, Walwoord, Pentecost, Lehaye, etc. I was not in your camp?

Not at all. Didn't I already say that?

If you were...you would know what it is you believe, and not take twenty years to decide what you now think you want to believe.

IF after twenty years you cannot come to a decisive conclusion, it might be time to re-think the sources you have. Apparently it is not the Bible.

And still not sure what part of "I am not a Dispensationalist" you don't understand, lol.

And while you might think that your credentials amount to something, the evidence of your posting as well as your admission you argued against that teaching stands in direct contradiction as offering them as credentials at all.

Again I can argue your position,

No, you can't. You showed that. You showed it first in not answering my questions, and in supporting the Historicist view through ridicule of the Pre-Trib view.

I have argued your position,

You don't even know my position. Not sure how you could argue it. You are more concerned with how you appear. Don't want to be seen as a hypocrite, one that ridicules, a WoF embracer, a Pre-tribber, a Post-Tribber...

...lol.

when I was in Bible College, even though I did not buy it.

See what I mean?

Now tell me your credentials again?

Want to tell how you were in their camp?

Isn't the first rule of debate to know your opponents position?

No. The first rule of debate is know you Bible.

The second is don't go around saying stupid stuff. Believe me, people will hate you because you will always be right...if you only speak about what you have actually studied. Not what you rejected that someone was teaching you.

Third rule is put your ego and your pride on the shelf, don't bring it with you. You can preen in the mirror afterwards.

Last bit of advice would be don't seek to make friends...seek to make disciples of Christ.

Try another forum once in a while, and leave your comfort zone. This is how you will test your doctrine. Texting in potshots will get you what Old Regular has...thirty thousand posts that testify of no concern for the lost, only glorifying yourself.

You seem to be under the impression that there are only two beliefs for a pre-mill rapture view, pre-trib and post-trib but as I said elsewhere there is also mid-trib and the even lesser known pre-wrath.

Gosh, thanks for that revelation. They didn't teach me about those in the Bible College I attended.

What difference do those positions make? When it is the Pre-trib and Historicist views that are the only ones ever talked about.

Just as studying the Bible moved me from a very non-cal view to a reformed view,

Bible study didn't do that...you didn't embrace any group. Remember?

so has studying Scripture moved me from one camp to the other,

Study of Scripture didn't do that...you didn't embrace any group. Remember?

when I was in Bible College, even though I did not buy it.

Nobody can say, apart from your historicist buddies...what it is you actually believe.

Not even you. Review the posts and se if I am in error.

with a little help from you to point out areas that I needed to examine.

Sorry, but your insincerity really becomes overwhelming here.

Nice try...hope you're selling it to yourself.

When you can not only answer the questions posed, then defeat those views with the Historicist view, then perhaps someone might take you seriously. For now, you're stuck with your Historicist friends. They'll be glad to pat you on the back and praise you for your lack of doctrinal knowledge.

You can think its because of my relationship with my husband if you want

I only said that was part of it. Don't forget that your lack of time in the actual Scriptures is part of it too.

Your choice of who you associate can be added as well.

Like I said, you would do well to move around a little.

but co considering you don't know either of us,

I know enough of you to know what I need.

you'll forgive me if I take that with a hunk of salt.

You might check your salt, it seems that it is a little outdated. Just not working as well as you would like me to believe.


God bless.

 

[blessedwife318]

You would actually have to embrace their teaching in to be a part of it. Seems as though you have not really been a part of anything.

Well, except for supporting a-mil positions and pretending to be Pre-mil.

That really is the thing that you can not wrap your head around is that someone can know and understand the pre-trib pre-mill position and yet reject them as they study the Bible and attempt to answer questions that are posed to them or they pose themselves. I have tried to engage you in civil conversation and even defended you when OR said you have been insulting, so I'm not sure why you are being so snide to me now.

This is true, there are a lot of Churches that pretend to be something they are not, just like they have pews filled with people who do the same.

So a church that puts in its doctrine statement that they Reformed, covenant theology, amill is pretending to be something they are not? I guess I have a different definition of pretending.

Actually, it was supposed to be humor, I do not have a great deal of respect for the SBC. I know the fellowship I attended was okay, but I am not a big fan of groups that hold control of any kind over local leadership.

If there is one thing I have learned in my years is that no church is truly independent, they all have groups they associate with. That said I just look at the individual church as long as they are from a denomination that I don't think had gone off the rails.

And I am glad not to be associated with the SBC, because one does not have to look long to see just how inconclusive they are. I would you think you would appreciate that.

Yes I can appreciate that, but I can also appreciate finding a church I like when you live in the boonies.

But what we can say is that there so-called "Statement of Faith" does indeed leave much room for Pastors such as the one you speak of to teach whatever they like.

So what part of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 do you not like?

Kind of takes the meaning out of organization, doesn't it?

I thought you did not like organizations?

So what we have learned from the SBC is "Don't have a dogmatic belief and your congregation...

...won't either."

So putting out there for all to see what camp you are in is not being dogmatic?

If you were...you would know what it is you believe, and not take twenty years to decide what you now think you want to believe.


IF after twenty years you cannot come to a decisive conclusion, it might be time to re-think the sources you have. Apparently it is not the Bible.

I did know what I believed, wrote quite a few papers with my own view being presented as well as arguing on message boards like this. But further study of Scripture made me reexamine those beliefs. We fit our belief's to Scripture, not Scripture to belief's. Yes I never chose to reveal what I personally believed on this forum beyond the really broad terms and that is my prerogative. I have spent enough time here to know that it would not have done me any good, as you are very much confirming in this post. You were more civil to me before I came out with that I am switching camps. But I knew that would create a fire storm and you have proved me correct.

And still not sure what part of "I am not a Dispensationalist" you don't understand, lol.

And while you might think that your credentials amount to something, the evidence of your posting as well as your admission you argued against that teaching stands in direct contradiction as offering them as credentials at all.

OK you are a pre-trib, pre-mill. Happy?

No, you can't. You showed that. You showed it first in not answering my questions, and in supporting the Historicist view through ridicule of the Pre-Trib view.

What questions? I have tried to address each of your questions, even if it was to politely decline in giving you more of an answer then I am not jumping into that pit.

You don't even know my position. Not sure how you could argue it. You are more concerned with how you appear. Don't want to be seen as a hypocrite, one that ridicules, a WoF embracer, a Pre-tribber, a Post-Tribber...

...lol.

Why would I want to be seen as something I am not? And why would I want to be associated with the heretical WoF teachings? That one I find, to use your word, odd. When I pointed out that Satan owning Earth is a key WoF teachings that got to you. Odd.

See what I mean?

Now tell me your credentials again?

Want to tell how you were in their camp?

I see that it upset you that someone moved from your camp.
No I don't think so, it is clear you have made up your mind about me.

No. The first rule of debate is know you Bible.

I would agree with that.

The second is don't go around saying stupid stuff. Believe me, people will hate you because you will always be right...if you only speak about what you have actually studied. Not what you rejected that someone was teaching you.

I'm used to rejection, comes with the territory of being a Christian.

Third rule is put your ego and your pride on the shelf, don't bring it with you. You can preen in the mirror afterwards.

Also agreed

Last bit of advice would be don't seek to make friends...seek to make disciples of Christ.

Also agreed although what that has to do with this discussion is beyond me, unless you are questioning other posters on here salvation?

Try another forum once in a while, and leave your comfort zone. This is how you will test your doctrine. Texting in potshots will get you what Old Regular has...thirty thousand posts that testify of no concern for the lost, only glorifying yourself.

This is the forum outside my comfort zone

Gosh, thanks for that revelation. They didn't teach me about those in the Bible College I attended.

What difference do those positions make? When it is the Pre-trib and Historicist views that are the only ones ever talked about.

And yet not everyone fits neatly into those two categories yet it seems you would prefer if they did.

Bible study didn't do that...you didn't embrace any group. Remember?

You mean since I am not embracing your group I must not be .... ?

Sorry, but your insincerity really becomes overwhelming here.

Yes it's so insincere to willingly jump into the fire on this board and admit that I don't know it all, and to be willing to conform to Scripture.

Nice try...hope you're selling it to yourself.

When you can not only answer the questions posed, then defeat those views with the Historicist view, then perhaps someone might take you seriously. For now, you're stuck with your Historicist friends. They'll be glad to pat you on the back and praise you for your lack of doctrinal knowledge.

When you can not only answer the questions posed, then defeat those views with the pre-trib, premill view, then perhaps someone might take you seriously. For now, you're stuck with your pre-trib, premill friends. They'll be glad to pat you on the back and praise you for your lack of doctrinal knowledge.

There have been many questions that OR has posed to you that you have ignored. I have tried to at least acknowledge your questions, you just did not always like the answer.

I only said that was part of it. Don't forget that your lack of time in the actual Scriptures is part of it too.

So only if I agree with you 100% will you think I have studied the Scripture.
Sorry Scripture and more importantly God is my judge not you.

Your choice of who you associate can be added as well.

Yes we all know your feelings toward OR

Like I said, you would do well to move around a little.

This is my forum is my moving around. Besides I thought you were upset that I did move around.

 

[OldRegular]

The only difference would be I have Scripture that I can present without having to spam Church Fathers and evading the Scripture posted.

I guess you might think I should be grateful that you only have one verse you support your doctrine with, but, for some reason...I just ain't.

You prove nothing. You shuffle your feet, ramble a little through Scripture, say God Bless and quit.

 

[OldRegular]

blessedwife318,

I admire your patience!

 

[blessedwife318]

blessedwife318,

I admire your patience!

Thank you

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
You would actually have to embrace their teaching in to be a part of it. Seems as though you have not really been a part of anything.

Well, except for supporting a-mil positions and pretending to be Pre-mil.

That really is the thing that you can not wrap your head around is that someone can know and understand the pre-trib pre-mill position and yet reject them as they study the Bible and attempt to answer questions that are posed to them or they pose themselves.

No. as a matter of fact I can direct you to forums where the Post-Trib view is presented in a very convincing way.

So far Progressive Dispensationaslists have best reconciled he inconsistencies that view holds.

Unfortunately, the reconciliation has issues, such as a localized Tribulation in the Middle East, the rest of the world not being affected, and unbelievers entering into the Millennial Kingdom.

But to be fair it should be made clear that this is only the views presented by those Progressive Dispensationals I have spoken with. I have not looked to see if there is a certified source or representative of that group.

I have tried to engage you in civil conversation and even defended you when OR said you have been insulting, so I'm not sure why you are being so snide to me now.

I am being no different than I was before, lol. I was impressed by how well you took the "Oh, Pastor preaching" jab, lol. Still laughing about that.

Thanks, you made me lose my focus...now where was I...

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
This is true, there are a lot of Churches that pretend to be something they are not, just like they have pews filled with people who do the same.

So a church that puts in its doctrine statement that they Reformed, covenant theology, amill is pretending to be something they are not? I guess I have a different definition of pretending.

Again, it was supposed to be humor.

I made it clear in what I said:

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
The SBC Churches I have been associated with are all Pre-Trib premillennials.

Is yours?

God bless.

The pastor is A-mill

The response:

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
The pastor is A-mill

Then I do not think he is representative of SBC churches, but is...

...an infiltrator!


God bless.

To be quite honest, I could care less about what your pastor or church believe or hold to, but it is revealing to find out that you sit under an a-mil pastor.

Odd you wouldn't mention that to me before, when you were stating you were a pre-millennial. Now you act as though you've just had an earth-shattering epiphany and have decided all at once to become amil.

I don't see any change.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Actually, it was supposed to be humor, I do not have a great deal of respect for the SBC. I know the fellowship I attended was okay, but I am not a big fan of groups that hold control of any kind over local leadership.

If there is one thing I have learned in my years is that no church is truly independent, they all have groups they associate with.

And that is relevant to...?

My own fellowship is independent and the worst I think my Pastor deals with is the Deacons, and the Doctrine he preaches is clearly an independent Doctrine outside of those influences he has had in his walk, his dad being the previous pastor being one of those, I would assume, and he mentions others he is fond of as well. Spurgeon being near the top of the list.

That said I just look at the individual church as long as they are from a denomination that I don't think had gone off the rails.

Like those pre-tribbers who are the stuff of ridicule, right? Will you deny nce again you intended any insult towards those that embrace the doctrine?

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
And I am glad not to be associated with the SBC, because one does not have to look long to see just how inconclusive they are. I would you think you would appreciate that.

Yes I can appreciate that, but I can also appreciate finding a church I like when you live in the boonies.

We drive a bit over 30 minutes, depending on how fast I drive, lol. Worth the trip.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
But what we can say is that there so-called "Statement of Faith" does indeed leave much room for Pastors such as the one you speak of to teach whatever they like.

So what part of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 do you not like?

If you mean the SBC Statement, I already commented on that: they are a little broad in their statement. I did find a link where they present five different views of the same subject (eschatologically oriented) so what you said about them fit perfectly with what I saw.

There is just no clear statement, and seeing that your own church is amil, it makes one wonder if there is any organization at all, as is suggest by their name.

As I said, every SBC fellowship I ever attended was premillennial, but that might be an issue of locale.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Kind of takes the meaning out of organization, doesn't it?

I thought you did not like organizations?

I don't. Doesn't mean I can't comment on them. I comment on ORs organization all the time. lol

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
So what we have learned from the SBC is "Don't have a dogmatic belief and your congregation...

...won't either."

So putting out there for all to see what camp you are in is not being dogmatic?

The pre-trib view is not a "camp," in itself, though people like OR and you like to cast it as one.

Your Church shows that perfectly, don't you think? Any flavor of eschatology is okay...

What that shows is that "organization" is not very organized, but scattered in doctrine, with no dogmatic statement on this issue, anyway, and that is about all I care to know about them

This is one reason the Catholic Church appeals to some people, who also do not have a strong focus on personal knowledge of Scripture, but they appreciate the consistency of that organization.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post

If you were...you would know what it is you believe, and not take twenty years to decide what you now think you want to believe.


IF after twenty years you cannot come to a decisive conclusion, it might be time to re-think the sources you have. Apparently it is not the Bible.

I did know what I believed, wrote quite a few papers with my own view being presented as well as arguing on message boards like this. But further study of Scripture made me reexamine those beliefs.

I have not seen that to be the case. Now that I know you attend an amil church it makes perfect sense. That you would hide that to some extent is questionable.

And I can believe you have re-examined them.

We fit our belief's to Scripture, not Scripture to belief's. Yes I never chose to reveal what I personally believed on this forum beyond the really broad terms and that is my prerogative. I have spent enough time here to know that it would not have done me any good, as you are very much confirming in this post.

You take it like a personal slam. That's not the case. You want to believe Christ returned in fulfillment of prophecy in the first century...have at it. I think you do your antagonists a disservice by not being able to be open about your beliefs. I think you do yourself the greatest disservice because we test what we believe by examining them with others, who will be more than happy to debate with you.

As I am also confirming.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

You were more civil to me before I came out with that I am switching camps. But I knew that would create a fire storm and you have proved me correct.

Not true. I tried to lax up on you after seeing you were a pretty good sport.

But this is something which I am afraid you are just going to get offended about, and take personal. If that's the case, then I will let you get back to your normal routine. Which is what I am going to do anyway.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
And still not sure what part of "I am not a Dispensationalist" you don't understand, lol.

And while you might think that your credentials amount to something, the evidence of your posting as well as your admission you argued against that teaching stands in direct contradiction as offering them as credentials at all.

OK you are a pre-trib, pre-mill. Happy?

No.

I am not a pre-trib pre-mil, lol, I am a Christian Bible Student who happens to be premillennial, futurist, and Pre-Trib.

I'm not sure you see the distinction.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
No, you can't. You showed that. You showed it first in not answering my questions, and in supporting the Historicist view through ridicule of the Pre-Trib view.

What questions?

How about what position you took in regards to the Rapture? You said, if I remember correctly, you were premillennial, then offered nothing else.

How about "Who populates the Kingdom?" How long was it before you finally answered that? And if I remember correctly, I limited my interaction with you to a response to that question and perhaps a few snide remarks, as you put it, lol.

How about your potshot in Iconoclast's second thread, will you answer that? Was I making fun of someone's spelling, as you assumed? Or pointing out the inconsistency of his claim to be quoting word for word? The spelling was the indicator, and I made that clear. Or did you bother to check. Or does it even matter?

What I have noticed is that you seem to be more apt to engage and answer questions now. Guess snide remarks have their place after all, eh?

Pity it has to be this kind of thing.

I have tried to address each of your questions, even if it was to politely decline in giving you more of an answer then I am not jumping into that pit.

You did jump in, or at least...butt in. That was all I noticed about you in the Rapture threads. You were one of the ones who were making snide comments and disrupting discussion. And that is what OR does in every thread. That was the purpose of "How many Resurrections in Revelation," in which the OP stipulated only the Book of Revelation was to be examined, because it was the three resurrections listed in that Book I wanted to see what he did with.

The result? Same as every thread. First it's Darby Darby Darby, and then here come the other cheerleaders making statements like yours, the doctrine is the stuff of ridicule. That's how he perpetuates his own error, because he refuses to answer simple questions like "how many resurrections" which he feels he answered yet he would not acknowledge the other two. You play a part in that error, whether you admit it or not. You are not helping him, you are not helping yourself. If you are going to be part of a Christian Doctrine Discussion Forum, it might be a good idea to work some discussion and doctrine into the mix once in a while.

And "The Rapture is pretty much the stuff of ridicule anymore" (loose quote) just doesn't cut it.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
You don't even know my position. Not sure how you could argue it. You are more concerned with how you appear. Don't want to be seen as a hypocrite, one that ridicules, a WoF embracer, a Pre-tribber, a Post-Tribber...

...lol.

Why would I want to be seen as something I am not?

Isn't that precisely what you have been doing?

Glad you are out of the closet now.

And why would I want to be associated with the heretical WoF teachings?

Who said you were?

Not me.

And I explained your confusion on that point in the response.

That one I find, to use your word, odd.

Not odd...heretical.

Yet you take offense that someone else might have a problem with other doctrines they see as equally heretical.

Christ returning in the First Century is the stuff of cults. Now tell me that makes you want to be Historicist more than ever, lol

Eradicating Scripture from Scripture is the stuff of cults. You tell me why a thousand years is not a thousand years.

Always speaking and never being able to answer questions that call those doctrine into question, and sometimes make it absolutely impossible to maintain a semblance of reason...the stuff of cults.

People who embrace a faith, doctrine, or group, without even knowing what they teach...the stuff of cults. "Boy, those Mormons sure are mice folk, what does it matter what they teach. I never felt that welcome in a Baptist/Methodist/Presbyterian(_____________fill in with former association) church!"

When people spam threads and disrupt then so that no-one even attempts to have a conversation on the subject any more...that's not right.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

When I pointed out that Satan owning Earth is a key WoF teachings that got to you. Odd.

It wasn't me that it got to. You're the one with the hang-up, lol

I am sure there are some sincere believers in that group as well.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post

See what I mean?

Now tell me your credentials again?

Want to tell how you were in their camp?

I see that it upset you that someone moved from your camp.

On the contrary, the issue in view is honesty, and being able to be straight-forward about what you believe. I would rather see you openly confessing an amil view than the guerrilla tactics you have been using.

Christianity has never been something someone is ashamed of. And if you say you didn't want to "jump into that fire," however you want to put it, then explain the potshots.

No I don't think so, it is clear you have made up your mind about me.

Not yet. Doubtful I ever will, until you start knowing what you believe and believing what you know.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
No. The first rule of debate is know you Bible.

I would agree with that.

I'll leave it at that, lol.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
The second is don't go around saying stupid stuff. Believe me, people will hate you because you will always be right...if you only speak about what you have actually studied. Not what you rejected that someone was teaching you.

I'm used to rejection, comes with the territory of being a Christian.

Rejection from who? You know what...never mind.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post

Third rule is put your ego and your pride on the shelf, don't bring it with you. You can preen in the mirror afterwards.

Also agreed

Again, nice. lol

That was a jab. You shouldn't have to make me explain my snide remarks (or my humor).

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Last bit of advice would be don't seek to make friends...seek to make disciples of Christ.

Also agreed although what that has to do with this discussion is beyond me, unless you are questioning other posters on here salvation?

No-one else is involved in this discussion. You are in view. This is serious advice. Now you tell me if you cannot see those who cling to each other have a remarkable lack of understanding concerning Scripture.

That is the result of treating a Christian Doctrinal Discussion Forum like face-book. It is the same mentality I have seen in a number of Sunday schools I have visited, where a doctrine is tossed around and open to subjective interpretation.

And you play into that when you enter a doctrinal discussion with nothing more than potshots at it because you don't happen to embrace it. What, did a pre-tribber upset you somewhere along the line? Like I have? Perhaps he sewed and I watered? lol

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Try another forum once in a while, and leave your comfort zone. This is how you will test your doctrine. Texting in potshots will get you what Old Regular has...thirty thousand posts that testify of no concern for the lost, only glorifying yourself.

This is the forum outside my comfort zone

Have no idea what that means. In view is a different forum altogether, where you can test your own doctrine with people you're not part of a club with.

It's a lot of fun, really, and challenging.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Gosh, thanks for that revelation. They didn't teach me about those in the Bible College I attended.

What difference do those positions make? When it is the Pre-trib and Historicist views that are the only ones ever talked about.

And why is that? Think about that before you answer.

And yet not everyone fits neatly into those two categories yet it seems you would prefer if they did.

I have no preference but that the people I talk with present the Biblical Basis for their views.

I don't condemn people for their views, and have learned that some of the views we might think are radical and perhaps moronic...can actually be understood as to how people would embrace them.

I'll tell you a couple tough ones: Soul Sleep and Annihilation. Presumed people who embraced these cultish views were idiots...until I started debating them.

Atheists? Also challenging.

Post-tribbers. Challenging sometimes, and when it is, one of the best discussions.

Historicists? Not so much.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Bible study didn't do that...you didn't embrace any group. Remember?

You mean since I am not embracing your group I must not be .... ?

Again, you do not even know my group.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Sorry, but your insincerity really becomes overwhelming here.

Yes it's so insincere to willingly jump into the fire on this board and admit that I don't know it all, and to be willing to conform to Scripture.

It's worse to just make snide comments your only contribution?

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Nice try...hope you're selling it to yourself.

When you can not only answer the questions posed, then defeat those views with the Historicist view, then perhaps someone might take you seriously. For now, you're stuck with your Historicist friends. They'll be glad to pat you on the back and praise you for your lack of doctrinal knowledge.

When you can not only answer the questions posed, then defeat those views with the pre-trib, premill view, then perhaps someone might take you seriously.

I've done that, several times.

Ask yourself why in several threads OR keeps dodging questions.

For now, you're stuck with your pre-trib, premill friends.

I'm stuck with what Scripture teaches, and whether that gains or loses the so-called friends one meets in Doctrinal discussion is...irrelevant. Because you can agree on 99% of doctrine but be at odds in one point...that's it.

They'll be glad to pat you on the back and praise you for your lack of doctrinal knowledge.

I don't seek such support and have no need for it. That's because I don't roost in one place. That is one of the dangers of staying on only one forum. And many of the people are still debating the same doctrines with the same people and neither have changed much since the last time I was here.

There have been many questions that OR has posed to you that you have ignored.

Name them, lol.

Be waiting.

And while you're at it, will you acknowledge that he refuses to answer simple questions? Probably not. Can't turn on your brethren, now can you. Lest they turn on you and devour you the way they seek to do to everyone else.

I have tried to at least acknowledge your questions, you just did not always like the answer.

Tell yourself that if it makes you feel better.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
I only said that was part of it. Don't forget that your lack of time in the actual Scriptures is part of it too.

So only if I agree with you 100% will you think I have studied the Scripture.
Sorry Scripture and more importantly God is my judge not you.

You still don't get it. Agreeing with me will get you nowhere. What do you think pointing to Scripture actually means, or are you practicing your "new-found method of interpretation," lol.

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Your choice of who you associate can be added as well.

Yes we all know your feelings toward OR

He is not in view, again, it is just advice.

I am not bashful to say I think he is disruptive and his doctrine erroneous. Or that he spams just about every thread he is in because he has never had an original idea in his life (and I admit I am guessing at that, it might have happened somewhere along the line).

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
Like I said, you would do well to move around a little.

This is my forum is my moving around.

Just advice. Doesn't mean anything.

Besides I thought you were upset that I did move around.

You have a swelled sense of importance, lol. And noticeably ignore pretty clear statements. I guess I have to repeat my annoyance at people who simply take potshots with no intention but to insult and disrupt threads.

In view is simply testing your doctrine in a new environment, out of your safety zone.

You said...

This is the forum outside my comfort zone

...and okay. Maybe some time in the future you may reconsider.

It is challenging and will put you faith to the test. I don't recommend, though, doing something your not comfortable with.

And that, I think, is it for me. You are welcome to the last word.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by Darrell C View Post
So what?

It is a fact that Paul taught the Rapture in the First Century.

Still spam.

Continuing to parrot the falsehood that Paul taught the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church is spam.

Who is guilty of falsehood. I never mentioned the timing of the event, just the event, which is certainly taught by Paul in he First Century.

How do you justify removing harpazo from Paul's teaching?

Can you at least answer that?


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

Who is guilty of falsehood. I never mentioned the timing of the event, just the event, which is certainly taught by Paul in he First Century.

How do you justify removing harpazo from Paul's teaching?

Can you at least answer that?


God bless.

I don't remove anything. It is false to say that Paul taught a pre-trib-"harpazo" of the Church!

 

[Darrell C]

I don't remove anything. It is false to say that Paul taught a pre-trib-"harpazo" of the Church!

That is not the basis of you declaring me to teach False Doctrine.

Here is the original statement:

Originally Posted by OldRegular View Post
NO! It is a fact that until Scofield produced his book pre-trib nonsense was absent from Baptist Churches!

So what?

It is a fact that Paul taught the Rapture in the First Century.

Still spam.


God bless.

Care to start over?

I see you not only remove harpazo from Scripture but you add to what I have said, thus producing a response that is inaccurate in both contexts.


It is still a fact that the Rapture is a First Century Teaching of Paul.

Your turn.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

That is not the basis of you declaring me to teach False Doctrine.

Here is the original statement:




Care to start over?

I see you not only remove harpazo from Scripture but you add to what I have said, thus producing a response that is inaccurate in both contexts.


It is still a fact that the Rapture is a First Century Teaching of Paul.

Your turn.


God bless.

Are you saying the Church was taken out in the 1st Century or that you are not a pre-tribber?

 

[Darrell C]

Are you saying the Church was taken out in the 1st Century or that you are not a pre-tribber?

Well, I guess my statement should be ignored, being off-topic as it was.

My guess is that Darby somehow managed to steal the Church in the First Century in order to push his doctrine off on the lesser studied.




God bless.