Search results

I would highly recommend that you read more on Rev 20 on alternate views then. Criswell Theological Review put out its Fall 2013 issues about various interpretations of Rev 20 entitled "The Meaning of the Millennium". It covers all the views. I would be more than happy to send you some...

:laugh: Bwahahaha :laugh: I see what you did there. :thumbsup:

Nope. She is submissive. She wants me to lead her. She doesn't want to take that responsibility.

She reads John Mac and formerly read Walvoord. And she is not an Amill... not yet anyways. She makes her mind up about her theology as I slowly teach her. I don't force her to confess any views. My influences certainly make a difference. But I lead the family when it comes to church.

I am married. I also lead my family.

Why do you still go to this church? I don't get it?

Still not answering the question (ironically since you think open discussion is the way to go). So what format do you think you will learn the Bible better???

Where does the Bible advocate what you described??? And how is it not indoctrination to say that your way is the right way? You are being hypocritical.

Show me where there was debate over "secondary" issues in the Bible. Being a "Berean" Christian doesn't mean SS open forum. Again... this is just postmodern, have-it-your-way, all opinions are valid kind of thinking. Your problem is that you are in a church where a pastor does indoctrinate over...

I'm guessing neither dispensational nor covenantal (as in covenant theology). The main issue Baptists have w/ covenant theology is the theological covenants of grace and works. I'm guessing he traces the story of redemption through the medium of covenants. But these are biblical covenants that...

I appreciate what you are saying, especially against indoctrination. But there is a reason God gave elders to the church with the qualification of teaching. What you are wanting is very much rooted in postmodernity and "all opinions" are valid and credible. When it comes to teaching the Bible, I...

Sam Storms just put out his Amil book The Kingdom Come. I've only read the first chapter. But it might be what the doctor ordered. He also did a good blog post at TGC that might be interesting for some folk since he studied at Dallas w/ the big names like Walvoord, Ryrie, and Pentecost.

You should know me well enough by now and can see from my siggie what kind of reformed.

See my siggie. Too bad you can't pick more than one (which is an option when you make a pole, evan). For example, I'm a reformed baptist but also sbc.

Maybe you didn't read what I said. IT is a past reality of something that has happened. "Received" in the past as Lord. Then the growing begins.

The double accusative likely means it should be taken as "received Christ Jesus as Lord" (as the NET renders it). And v. 6 isn't a command but a reality of a past act. The command comes at the end of v. 6. V. 7 explains what that command looks like. So again, it nails you. Receive Jesus as Lord...

Really??? B/c James asked the question "can that kind of dead faith w/ no works save? Not a chance!" Sounds like it is more than a profession of faith (whatever that is). It sounds like it is a description of what authentic faith in Jesus looks like. Not that this is the point of my post...

If faith without works is dead, then recognizing Jesus as Lord is more than a mental acknowledgment of a fact of Jesus lordship but rather a practice of a very important truth.

This is more exegesis than exposition. What truths are you seeking to expose? What is it that you think this passage teaches?

I think this is the problem, you think discipleship and conversion unto salvation are distinct. The conversation that Jesus has w/ the rich young ruler and subsequently w/ the disciples makes it apparent that Jesus equated salvation and eternal life with following him or discipleship (Mark...