I will, Acts 15. There was difference of opinion over whether circumcision and Moses was necessary for salvation. You know the rest of the story.
@Darrell C, ever since you got saved, have you changed your mind on any Christian doctrine? I'm not talking about
learning new truths,but revising existing beliefs.
How does Acts 15 teach that "Truths are not static?" There is no "change of truth" in Acts 15, because we would have to say that the Jerusalem Council held that men must be under the Covenant of Law and the New Covenant.
As far as have I changed any beliefs? Not really, no. I still maintain the same basic truths the Comforter showed me when I was saved. '
No truth has changed for me.
As far as non-essential positions, sure. And example would be that I have rejected a number of "truths" popularly held, but, this does not change the essential Doctrines taught in Scripture. In order for what you are trying to present to be true, I would have to have changed position in regards to essential truths taught in Scripture, and I cannot think of the first one that has changed.
Because I am preserved by God, and kept by His power, I am not shaken with every doctrine which comes blowing by. I know what I believe, whereas it is quite clear in your posting that you are ignorant of some very basic truths.
Pre-trib is illogical load of nonsense which as I said, only simpletons and the extremely carnal believers who tremble at the very mention of the word persecution desperately cling to. They'll be in for a surprise
Ye, because you have seriously studied this Doctrine and can make an authoritative statement, lol.
Look, not only do you have to show why a Pre-Tribulation Rapture is un-biblical, you have to also who why your position is. And I don't care what position you take I can already tell you, you are not going to do that.
First, let me say that EVERY eschatological view, from preterism to dispensationalism has inherent weaknesses. Occam's razor tells me the one with LEAST assumptions is probably the correct one. Pre-trib has immensely crazy assumptions and semantics, it's an insult to my intelligence. I'd have to slash my thinking by half to even consider it. It's a miracle that I held on to it for that long.
Secondly, our knowledge is not perfect. This is not just with regard to eschatology but even our very understanding of God. So there is always room for me to change my mind in the light of compelling new information. But more importantly, one should not boast of their knowledge lest it be in error. But even in this state of uncertainty, there are some simple logical and scriptural contradictions that can make me dismiss a theory at once. Jesus coming is not Jesus returning? What are you smoking?
To your question how does a rapture leave the earth desolate?
Again you impose your understanding in what I have said, and ask an irrelevant question.
It's very simple, Vooks, the earth is not left desolate except by your belief. When the Millennial Kingdom is established it is not desolate, it is in fact renovated. There will be long life and no enmity between man and animals, and animals and animals. It will be a Kingdom of physical people, beginning first with those who live through the Tribulation, who will have offspring who will, many of them, rebel against God and join Satan in that last battle.
The Rapture of the Church involves every believer, so, if the Rapture happens at Christ's return, we do not have anyone physical among believers because all believers would be in their glorified state. That leaves only unbelievers to have children, and Scripture makes it clear that no unbeliever will enter into that Kingdom.
So again, because attention to detail is foregone, and a desired belief is imposed into Scripture, we have a position that is simply ludicrous and quite in contention with what Scripture actually teaches.
You have mastered the art of dithering and that's why it is nigh impossible to instill wisdom in you. This is your defense mechanism when your theory is threatened. I was there, I know it.
While I believe we can learn from anyone, not sure why you think teaching contrary doctrines that are easily seen to be in conflict with Biblical Doctrine is instilling wisdom in someone.
And for the record, I look to my Teacher for wisdom.
And as far as being defensive, there is no need to be defensive when we actually know why we believe what we believe, and can show that from the Word of God.
Now, I would ask you this: what spirit is it that makes you think you can be offensive and correlate that to God?
This is just discussion, Vooks, where does all your animosity come from? I can actually help you with that: you are really no different than anyone who once held to certain beliefs but now...has the truth. lol
Go look through the other threads. Analyze the character of others who say they once believed something other than what they do now. You will see a familiar trait among every single one of them.
Personally, I think it is a sub-conscious embarrassment that they were wrong before, lol. And it doesn't matter what it was before:
"I use to be a____________ (Catholic, Protestant, Dispensationalist, Fundamental, Pre-Trib, Premillennial...Christian...), but now I am not, now I have the truth, and you (one still holding to their former beliefs) are deceived!"
There's a handful of you guys (and gals) on every single forum.
But guess who's doctrine has remained constant, and who has the ability to hold a discussion and focus on the doctrine?
Not you guys. You have to insult, you have to ignore the Scripture, and you have to go outside of Scripture to support your views. Well guess what, Scripture teaches clearly that just saying something is not the equivalent of reality.
The answer is simple. And I have said it. Go through my analogy and may Holy Spirit give you wisdom and sense.
The analogy doesn't works, Vooks, because salvation is a singular topic. We don't liken standard belief with salvation, James makes that clear when he states :You believe in God? You do well, the devils also believe and tremble."
Demons know the veracity of Jesus Christ, does this mean they are/can be/will be saved?
Another misconception that the L.O.S.T. and even those who do understand Eternal Security have is to think that the unregenerate cannot know truth. That is not the case.
If it were...no-one would be saved.
No man is saved apart from the enlightening of the Comforter, Who ministers to the unregenerate:
John 16:7-9
King James Version (KJV)
7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.
8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;
This is the singular truth that is not properly considered by both Calvinists and Arminians. Arminians have, though, fallen into compounding their error of ascribing ability to men with, surprise surprise, loss of salvation. Because they do not understand how one is saved, they do not understand that eternal life is in fact eternal life.
Calvinists teach that men are regenerate...then they believe. But that creates the problem for them, which conflicts with their view of Eternal Security, that we must equally conclude with the Arminian that salvation is not in fact eternal, because we have examples of those who did receive the truth and willfully reject it.
So at this point we should examine your understanding of Apostasy, this may help you understand what Scripture teaches about the apostate, and what their condition is.
God bless.
