Dispensational Things...pt2

Between your posts #85 & #120 I posted 3 - #87, #102 & #110 - all on topic & direct considerations of your posts.

While I appreciate your priorities, I'm disappointed not to receive a reply.

 

I feel your pain. However, in your posts all I saw was you putting forth your own particular dispensational scheme. I am not really sure what you wanted me to reply. I gave the Ryrie dispensations and you gave your own. End of story, to me.

 

We are baptists, so the ONLY infallible and inspired source for doctrines is the Bible.period.

 

What did you think of my point #84?

 

You were right on target.

 

Are you trying to portray that I said "You're right on target" to you? Because I didn't.

Or, are you complaining that I answered his and not your posts? Yours were long and complicated, and his was answerable with 5 words.

 

When did the Apostles go through a figure of speech lecture?

 

Christ lectured them about not understanding His metaphor of the leaven of the Pharisees: See Matt. 16:5-12.

But normally people understand figures of speech naturally. They are part of the "universal grammar" that God has put into the mind of every human being.

 

I expected a "funny" response" to my last post hijacking yours - but I would have been quite happy with your acceptance of my posts with that 5 word response.

 

Alas and alack, but I couldn't accept them and still maintain my own position.

 

1.2 Billion catholics 6 Million Lutherans 85 Million Anglicans. And yes I know not every single one believes it.

"This is my Body This is my Blood"

Figure of speech?

Did 1800 years of the church, not know figures of speech until dispensationalism came about in the 1800s?

Is it really all that simple John?

 

Of course you couldn't - because accepting them would mean abandoning your own position. Surely that is what our discussions are all about - persuasive Scriptural argument.

 

Actually, only 30% of Catholics believe it becomes the literal blood and body of Christ, according to a survey done in the '90s. Yes, it actually is that simple.

For crying out loud, you can just look at the wine and bread and say, "Hmm, that doesn't look like real flesh and blood." Then you can taste it and say, "Yep, I was right." Duh!

And news alert: Lutherans and Anglicans do not have the same doctrine as Catholics.

Come on, I know you are smarter than this. Are you trying to tell me you've come to agree with the ridiculous Catholic doctrine on this? Read 50 Years in the Church of Rome, by Chiniquy, and find out how stupid transubstantiation is.

 

Wow thanks for clarifying, that is not exactly the same. I would of never guessed. Sarcasm Alert

Is the Sacramental Union that Lutherans hold to.....not "real presence"?

even 30 percent of 2 billion is 600,000,000.

Thats a lot of people who do not have the God Given figure of speech knowledge

 

It's real presence, but not the wine and bread physically changing into flesh and blood. Come on, you don't actually believe with the Catholics that Jesus was advocating cannibalism, do you? Really????

Oh, they have it, they're just brainwashed by the Catholic priests into disregarding their own linguistic common sense (what us linguists refer to as universal grammar). And by the way, there are not 2 billion Catholics in the world.

 

Wow, I'm having a great laugh. Never thought I'd see a Baptist on the BB standing up for transubstantiation. Anything to prove me wrong about figures of speech, I guess.

No offense meant, Prophecy 70, but you're just being weird.

 

I am NOT standing up for it. You are CLEARLY missing my point. The point is you argue with linguistics and act like everything you believe is so simple.

You said

I was saying if it so natural why do so many not see it? If the literalness of Dispensationalism is so plain, why the 1800s?

So please don't say Im acting weird and blatantly accuse me saying i'm standing up for transubstantiation.

Im standing up to your method, of arguing why you are right and everyone in this camp is wrong.

 

No actually I don't. Sorry to disappoint you and your laughing. Im not laughing.

Who brainwashed the ECF who believed it?
Again i'm not arguing it. Im arguing against your method of "Im educated"

1 billion. Sorry Im dyslexic sometimes. 1.2. Not 2.1.