vooks
Active Member
Am saying Dispensationalism tends to crazy absurdities namely revival of Levitical sacrifices post-Calvary
Start a thread on antichrist and invite me
-
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!
Any Dispensationalist in the house?
- Thread starter vooks
- Start date
Start a thread on antichrist and invite me
Sop you have decided that the best approach is to not understand the Bible in a literal fashion, but as to spiritualize and allegorize the texts then?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You can't get a "parenthesis" Church from Scripture. It is the false invention of Darby's dispensationalism!
Can you please quote where anyone said anything about a "parenthesis" church?
How would you know if anyone here has any such belief? If you don't, don't assume they do. Ask them first.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
So you are saying that ALL of us who are Dispy in our beliefs would have that in common?
THAT would be like saying that all calvinists view the law and our realtionship to it now in the same way, and you know that is not the truth!
OR, this is your post #64.
This is Vook's #63
Concerning your above post to me, you bear false witness, where you claim someone else (a dispensationalist, not you) believes in the "parenthesis" church. Why do you continue to libel people? Vooks never said this as you falsely claim.
Where was that viewpoint given though in that response posting?
vooks
Active Member
Just walk me through what business bloody animal sacrifices and incense serve post Calvary
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
You need to check post#63 again. It wasn't vooks it was yeshua1.
Furthermore I libeled no one. You make a false accusation. I believe that is libel. I simply said the following in post#64:
That is a true statement and you cannot prove otherwise since we have been down this road before!
Last edited by a moderator:
As Yeshua already pointed out for you:
Just because the viewpoint is right in your viewpoint does not mean that others hold to it. I have challenged you before time and again. Show me one person on this board that admits to this doctrine.
You have failed to do so. Not one person. This is your invention--or more accurately, your repetition of another's doctrine wrongly labeled on all of us. Just because some other dispensationalists believe in it doesn't mean all do it.
Yes, it is either libelous or slanderous to label others with a belief that they have told you that they don't believe. Vooks never said he believed it; no one the board did, yet you persist in this. Not one person has ever admitted to believing in this doctrine. So ask people what they believe in before posting lies about them, falsely accusing them of things they don't believe in.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
As usual you are making false accusations. I have never accused anyone on this BB of believing in the "parenthesis" church. I would be surprised if anyone would admit to believing in such a heinous/heretical doctrine.
I have stated repeatedly what I said in post #64 above:
I have also shown through direct quotes that such Dispensational Scholars as Chafer, Pentecost, Ironside, Ryrie and others teach a "parenthesis" Church. This false doctrine flows naturally from the false doctrine of the pre-trib "snatching away" of the Church and the false doctrine of a Jewish Millennium!.
So please, DHK, don't abuse your position as moderator and falsely accuse me!
Last edited by a moderator:
You post is an accusation, not a proof.
You can't get a "parenthesis" Church from Scripture. It is the false invention of Darby's dispensationalism!
--Vooks said nothing about a "parenthesis" Church.
You are accusing him by inferring that he did and does therefore believe in one. Stop the nonsense.
Don't abuse your privileges as a poster. Stop libelous and slanderous posts.
No one posted anything about a parenthesis church, but you continue to post as if they did. No one quoted from any of the men you listed. They probably don't care.
Vooks was't quoting them. Respond to what he said, not to what other men have said.
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
My post #64 was in response to Post#63 by yeshua1. So get your facts straight DHK. I would remind you that you are a moderator, that doesn't make you a dictator, whether you think so or not!
I said nothing libelous or slanderous. I simply told the truth; and the truth about Dispensationalism is offensive to some. I simply said and I repeat for your edification:
Show me where I posted anything libelous or slanderous or stop making the accusation!
Then you respond to what I said and I said nothing libelous.
As for vooks you should take a look at the OP:
And then the questions he asks.
The dispensational doctrine of the rebuilt temple and the reinstated offering of blood sacrifices reinforces the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church and makes the Cross of Jesus Christ of none affect! It is a fact that early dispensationalism as presented in the original Scofield Bible indicated that Salvation was by means other than the Cross!
DHK, It is well known by those who regularly participate on this BB that you would like nothing better than to ban me. In doing so you will confirm what many people believe and some may simply ban themselves!
Yes, you are right. Post #63 was by Yeshua who was quoting Vooks. Neither one of them said anything of a "parenthesis" church. Post #63 says:
Sop you have decided that the best approach is to not understand the Bible in a literal fashion, but as to spiritualize and allegorize the texts then?
--When you respond in an accusatory manner with believing in the "parenthesis" church, which was not even mentioned, then it is libelous.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libel
--None of us believe in the "parenthesis church," so why libelously and continuously bring it up?
When you attribute things that we don't believe to us, yes you do. Read the definition above. It is a misrepresentation. And that is wrong.
Every time you misrepresent our beliefs.
All of the above is your opinion. I may agree with some, part or none. Apparently you don't know. You just make assumptions on what I know because you know I am a dispensationalist, but that is all you know. You think we all believe the same thing. You are wrong.
I was reading some dispensational material from John Wesley. Does that surprise you, seeing that he lived about 100 years before Darby.
That is a lie.
Whoever told you that is lying and you shouldn't be listening to gossip.
How would they know such things? Can they read my mind? Of course not.
I really have no idea what you are talking about.
Listen to the Word, and not the gossip of others.
Last edited by a moderator:
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
DHK
That you find the following statement libelous does not speak well of Dispensational doctrine because it is the doctrine of Classic Dispensational Scholars as Chafer, Pentecost, Ironside, Ryrie and others.
Thanks be to God! Progressive Dispensationalists are beginning to see the error of Classic Dispensationalism invented by John Nelson Darby.
That you find the following statement libelous does not speak well of Dispensational doctrine because it is the doctrine of Classic Dispensational Scholars as Chafer, Pentecost, Ironside, Ryrie and others.
Thanks be to God! Progressive Dispensationalists are beginning to see the error of Classic Dispensationalism invented by John Nelson Darby.