Baptist Purgatory

Lacy

Pretty good illustration there ... I am impressed.

 

DPT, are you trying to say that Rev 20:2 is spiritual and is already fulfilled?
1Pe 5:8 Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

This does not sound like he is bound to me. Your amillennial bent is forcing you to wrest the scriptures out of context. If there is not a literal kingdom on this earth to come, the bible does not make any sense.

 

I agree. One body now. One new resurrected body at the JSOC. Where we differ is as to whether or not that new body will be automatically "glorified". Perhaps if we have been grought up believing that everyone saved makes the kingdom, and everyone saved gets a crown, then we might assume that every body is glorified. (Compare 1 Cor 15:51-52 with verses 50 and 58)

I agree. See above.

Nakedness keeps the "CALLED,FRIEND" out of the wedding feast in Matt 22:11-14.

Not being found naked and ashamed at the JSOC is motivation toward good works many times when Christians are addressed in the NT.

 

Lacy,

I know Acts 27:31 well. Paul was not discuss about hell or salvation. Paul was discuss about their life. Paul knew the ship shall be sink, or shipweck anytime, he warned them, do not stay on the ship, or might get drowned, he told them to get out of the ship before it gets sinks.

But, Luke 13:23-25 is a matter of salvation issue. Notice, verse 24 says, 'Strive to enter in at the strait gate.." What 'strait gate' speaks of? entering eternal life according to Matthew 7:14 says, narrow road is "which leadeth unto LIFE." Life is eternal life with the Lord in the heaven. There are two roads which of 6.5 billionpeople of the world are leading to, most of world population are on the wide road, they are on the way to destruction. Destruction is speak of everlasting punishment is hell/lake of fire. Destruction never so called, 'temporary punishment'.

Most baptist pastors, even, any religion pastors such as Lutherans, Catholics, Methodists, etc. can easily understand Matt. 7:13-14 is speak of two groups walking on the two roads, wide road leads to hell, narrow road leads to heaven. Use your own common sense. Being reading Matthew 7:13-14 is not difficult for you to understand.

James,

I know 1 Peter 5:8 very well. Even all amills agree with 1 Peter 5:8. All amills include me, know Satan is alive and well, even, he is very dangerous, he is around here anywhere, we cannot see him, because he is spirit and angel. Satan seeks to find weak Christians, trying to destroy their spirit. He is doing right now. That why Eph. 6:11-18 telling us, that we must fight against Satan as spiritual warfare daily.

Satan can destroy Christians, continue blind sinners from hear the gospel. Satan uses false teachers, pastors to deceive people. But one thing that Satan cannot stop us, from spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ. Satan did trying to stop us from spreading the gospel to lost people many times. Yet, Satan failed many times. Also, Satan cannot destroy the kingdom of God/heaven, because it is eternalty kingdom. Satan's power is being limited by God.

Satn is now chained is the picture of holding back of 2 Thess 2:6-7 & Rev. 17:8 means that he cannot be revealed in physical or visibly to deceived the nations. God does not allow Satan to deceive the nations, because God desires all nations to hear the gospel for salvation, that why God commanded us go and preach the gospel to all nations since from Pentacost day to now and till the end of this age at Christ's coming.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

The basic thing, that the Bible teaches us, when Christ comes, all Christians' body shall be risen from the graves (John 5:29; & 1 Thess. 4:16) then they shall be into immortality. Immortality means opposite of dying. Immortlaity is a glorified new body to be like Christ. 1 Cor. 15:51-57 telling us, ALL of believers shall be changed into immortality. None of them as split into two classes among the body of Christ, some shall be burned or destroyed of their body, send them into fire, some who are faithful shall have immortality body. That teaching sounds like partial rapturism to me, I strongly diagree it. This teaching come from Watchman Nee. Joey Faust quoted Nee's comments in his book lot. Bible never teaching there shall be split or divisions within the body of Christ. Bible teaches us, the body of Christ is unity together into one as God's family. All of Christians only have ONE heavenly father- God/Jesus Christ.

'Naked' of Matt. 22:11-14 give us the picture of the judgement day, a person being naked means not walk with God, shall be ashamed, and lazy serving, and remain in wicked, shall be cast away into everlatsing fire. 'Naked' does not mean it is either physical or soul, but its give the picture of being ashamed by faced before Jesus Christ sits on the throne same as in Luke 9:26. Also, in Rev. 3:18 tells us, we all shall face the judgment seat of Christ, our works shall be test by fire(1 Cor. 3:12-15), that we should be dress in white robe, and not be ashamed as naked at the judgement seat of Christ.

****I believe at the judgment day, lot of people shall be naked for their works burned away, and their names are not written find in the book of life, shall be ashamed contempted (Daniel 12:2 -"shame everlasting contempt") cast them into everlasting fire -lake of fire,

Rev. 3:3-4 warn, "Remember therefore how thou hast received and heard, and HOLD FAST, and REPENT. IF therefore thou shalt NOT watch, I will come on theee as a thief, and thou shalt not know what hour I will come upon thee. Thou hast a FEW NAMES even in Sardis which have NOT defiled their garments; and they shall walk with me in white: for they are worthy."

Christ warns us, if we do not watch and be ready, He shall come upon us as thief, that we do not know when Christ comes. Christ already know FEW NAMES in Sardis Church, that they were walk godly and faithful, are not ashamed, and are in white garament. A faithful servant shall have white robe, lazy servant without white robe, as 'naked' shall be ashamed at the judgement day. Being 'naked' is not discuss about physical or spirit, but it manifest or declared their works of the result what they have done for the Lord.

One more verse to show you. Revelation 16:15 "Behold, I come as a thief. Blessed is he that WATCHETH, and KEEEEPETH his garments, LEST he walked naked, and they see his shame."

Christ warns us, that we must be blameless at Lord's coming, that we must be faithful and walk godly life, be ready all the time, not know when Christ shall come, OR... if we do not watch, do not walk godly life, shall he ashame in the presence of Christ and his angels, and even many people shall watch on us as shamed at the judgement day. Christ commanded us to walk godly daily, so, we shall not be naked at the judgement day.

In Christ
Rev. 22:20 -Amen!

 

Yes, the following link:
http://p079.ezboard.com/fthemidweekrapturefrm166.showMessage?topicID=5.topic

will take you to a refutation of the book "The Rod - Will God Spare It?" by J. D. Faust.

 

Thanks R.J.

I read through the articles. It's mostly the same old same old stuff with a whole lot of Ruckmanesque virility. (I'm as KJVO as anybody, but that guy is a jerk.)

I will say this, at least the guy seems to have really read the book. Herb Evans put out a "scathing rebuttal" (translated-more Ruckmanesque virility and little if any substance) before he even read Joey's book.

Basically the guy, Carlos Denson (who wrote the articles) chops up the Bible into tiny inedible pieces. He, like most hyperdispensationalists, grabs all the blessings for the church and throws all the warnings like table scraps to the "Jews in the trib", the "False Professors", and to various and sundry others who are believers like the Scripture says but for some reason or another their "Salvation" didn't take.

While I disagree with his conclusions, I personally think that DPT's ideas are much more consistent with Scripture than this very mean person who thinks name-calling and subjective emotional rants are signs of holiness.

Here is a telling quote from Denson's home page:

At least he practices what he preaches.

Lacy

[ March 22, 2005, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]

 

I have not read this whole thread but has anyone asked/answered this question?

"What sins would we be paying for in a Baptist purgatory?"

I think Lacy mentioned that after death Christians might endure chastisement. To what end? Is chastisement not purposed to sanctify and make us useful to God in this life?

 

Bart,

While it is not the position of all Millenial Exclusionists, and while the ME doctrine does not stand or fall on where the excluded spend the 1000 years, yes that is my position.

Hell as in the heart of the Earth. (Absolutely not the Lake of fire in Rev 20 which is the eternal resting place of all the damned.)

And positively, absolutely not the fictional place known as Purgatory.

Lacy

PS. I do believe in Purgatory. It's in New Mexico.

 

Of course, in an absolute sense, there are no sins that need paying for if we are born again. We cannot "pay" for sins in any other way than in a familial punitive manner. What I mean can best be explained by a counter question. What sins were paid for by the Christians God judged with sickness and/or bodily death in Corinth?

What sins are payed for any time God chastens us? In an absolute sense, none. But we are promised stripes as a deterrant against sin.

Chastening does that, but so should and so does the threat of chastisement. For example, If I tell my son to clean his room by the time I get home (the hour of reckoning) or else I'll whip him, then I must follow through. The question is not what purpose it would serve, but does he threaten us with chastening at the JSOC or not?

I have asked this question a half dozen times on this thread (and others) and still nobody has tackled it. If only cookies and crowns are handed out at the JSOC, what are the cookies & crowns we get for the "bad" works done in the body? (2 Cor 5:10)

Scott, I was determined to refute this doctrine about 9 years ago so I set out to prove chastening ends at death. It just is not there in the Bible. As a matter of fact, the more I searched, the more I became convinced that the arsenol of scriptures weilded by my Armenian friends (used to prove that salvation can be lost) were really speaking of loss of Millenial inheritance commencing at the JSOC. We can argue about which body gets chastened. We can scream there is no condemnation (leave out the 2nd half of the verse). We can wriggle and dismiss it as
not "Fundamental".

But there are dozens of verses that speak of real and possible punitive measures which are placed in the context of Christ's return.


lacy

 

Yes, the following link:
http://p079.ezboard.com/fthemidweekrapturefrm166.showMessage?topicID=6.topic

will take you to a refutation of the book "The Rod - Will God Spare It?" by J. D. Faust.

Sorry for having to repost but I updated Pastor Denson's refutation and that negated the previous post's link. This link will work for now.

And, Lacy, you wouldn't recognize a "HYPERDISPENSATIONALIST" if it hit you on the forehead like a two by four. Pastor Denson is NO MORE a hyper than the man in the moon.

Here are KNOWN hypers just so you will know next time:
[1] Bullinger
[2] Stam
[3] O'Hair

Pastor Denson, like me, is a PAULINE DISPENSATIONALIST. Please do not refer to us otherwise as we do not share the "hyper" beliefs of the men listed above.

 

Unfortunately we don't get to pick our own switch. Whether or not you believe that it is cruel and unusual punishment or not is beside the point. What does the Bible say. I hated my daddy's belt pretty bad but my hatred for his methods never influenced him one way or another. If he promised me the belt, but I convinced myself that surely he meant something less, then I probably wouldn't be as likely to fear him.

The Bible says God caused a whole generation to fail to enter Canaan. The NT says that is our example. IN CONTEXT!

I did say we pay. But not like you're trying to make me say. Reread my post. (I guess looking back, I didn't say it directly but that was what I was trying to imply in my counter questions to Scott.)

God killed some Christains at Corinth till they died. He killed Annanias and Saphira . . .dead. He dropped disobedient Jews (After the Passover Lamb was slain on their behalf and they trusted in him) into the Earth.

If Christ payed for our sins then why do we have to "pay" for them again by being chastened at all (even in this life)? I could make it ridiculous and say that I shouldn't make my son pay for his disobedience by chastening him since he got saved.

All I ask is that we rightly divide "pay". If I murder someone, I cannot lose my salvation. However, I cannot plead the blood of Christ to the judge who sentences me to life in prison. I must pay for a sin that Christ already paid for.

Yes or no?

That is the exact kind of "payment" I mean when I say that the Bible clearly teaches that chastening does not end at death (regardless of our opinion concerning the justness of its severity). It is really not that difficult a concept. Again, I'm afraid our tradition that says "Hell=loss of salvation/never saved" clouds our ability to examine this clearly.


Lacy

[ March 22, 2005, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]

 

Do they teach you guys to talk like this at the Ruckmanian Seminar? It's no wonder we have so much trouble defending King James Onlyism with guys like you and Denson running around with your jackboot bile-bazookas and anyone who disagrees with you in their crosshairs. BOOM! The cannon of subjective emotionalism . . .there it goes again.

ScottJ and Bartimaeus are doing fine without your "help". They are big boys. They are also skilled in the art of Godly conversation. If you pay attention, you might learn something. If not, you make it nearly impossible to defend other KJVOs.

lacy

lacy

 

At least he practices what he preaches.

Lacy </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Lacy,

Let me introduce myself to you. I am Bro. Carl Denson, the jerk. I frequent the board. That was the “term” you used to identify me as a believer of the Holy Scriptures. (King James Bible, correct?) From your post, I assumed that you DIDN’T BELIEVE in that “type of namecalling” directed towards believers, but DEMONSTRABLY, by your own FINGERS on the keyboard, which word came from your own heart, you proved otherwise. Now, now, brother, don’t worry about it for it certainly doesn’t bother me in the least what you think about me personally. THE handling of the HOLY SCRIPTURES and your documentation of belief is what I care about. I just wanted to DEMONSTRATE to everyone and MAKE SURE that they understand that your ACTIONS do not AGREE with your PROFESSION of how you think another Christian should SPEAK. In other words, you have your own “standard of speech”, which can be IGNORED as necessary. Is that hypocrisy? (I noted you said that I practice what I preached. Thanks, I try to.)

When I first started reading the post, I thought you said, REUBENESQUE, so I had to put my glasses on after that. I was wondering what kind of webpage that you had been reading!? I then clearly saw that it was Ruckmanesque. I don’t need to borrow the Doc’s virility, brother. I carry my own when speaking with authority. (1 Peter 4:11) Note that passage also for you have falsely LIMITED ME to only Paul’s epistles, WHEN YOU “falsely labeled” me a hyperdispensationalist. (I happen to be a Baptist preacher. This is the Baptist Board. Simply amazing, isn’t it?) Paul had that same TONE OF WRITING, when he preached sound doctrine. (2 Cor.10, 13)

I am currently writing a refutation of your friend, Joey Faust’s book. I see that you have read some of it. You better believe that I have read HIS book. In fact, I’ve probably read it more than you after your conversion to the doctrines of it. You aren’t doing a good job of presenting them here. You certainly didn’t give a good review OF MY MATERIAL presented EITHER, if that was your intention. Of course, I don’t believe it was. You never mentioned A SINGLE POINT of it. (Excuse me, same old, same old.) I believe your intention was to DENIGRATE the writer due to your own prejudice concerning the subject and the facts which were presented by myself. Why did you associate my review IMMEDIATELY with Herb Evans, whom I don’t know or have never met in my life? I’ll tell you why. It’s that little game that you boys play, then deny others can play it. You GUILT BY ASSOCIATION. (You can read that in your friend’s book in chapter 9.) You associated me with Ruckman first, then Evans to defame me. That’s ok, it didn’t hurt me, but it did wonders for knowing what kind of person that I’m dealing with now.

According to you, “I chop up the Bible into tiny inedible pieces.”

TRANSLATION for others. I accept and practice the PAULINE principle of rightly dividing the word of truth, which is definitely REJECTED by your “crowd”. You ACT as if you believe in STUFFING the whole bible into the mouth of a believer, but you don’t. You divide “some” things also.

According to your “reading”.

“He, like most hyperdispensationalists, grabs all the blessings for the church and throws all the warnings like table scraps to the "Jews in the trib", the "False Professors", and to various and sundry others who are believers like the Scripture says but for some reason or another their "Salvation" didn't take.”

That tells me what you know about hyperdispensationalism, my teaching connected to the hypers, and what I said IN MY REVIEW. Nothing truthful or comprehensive.

Hyperdispensationalists (Stam, Ohair, Baker, Bullinger) and their followers are all CALVINISTS, and don’t believe what I teach. Had you FATHOMED what I said, you would have understood that I don’t believe ANY of the views stated by Faust’s book (Calvinism, Arminianism, or Accountablilty) are correct. I teach Pauline dispensationalism, which is GIVEN TO, WRITTEN BY, and EXPLAINED IN his epistles. (Romans-Hebrews)

You “breezed” through it. You didn’t read it, study it, think about it, contemplate it, search it, pray about it, or digest it. You certainly didn’t COMPARE the verses. YOU SIMPLY REJECTED IT, after a run through within an hour’s time. (Drive by theology verified in the fast food line!)

You then, in your somber, holy, unemotional objective MANNER with “attitude”, simply said that I was a “very mean” person and that you disagreed with the review. (You’re a little short in presentation of the facts, brother.) I don’t base my opinion of someone’s theology due to his MOUTH. I “check him out”, LIKE I did your friend. I was very objective the first time I read it. I was SCRIPTURALLY SUBMISSIVE when I came back through it again. I am “biblically balanced” as I write the review.

You then DEMONSTRATED “how” your crowd handles confrontations, subjects, statements, and verses, MANIPULATING what you want heard by others.

You gave a “false implication” that HOLINESS could not be connected to SPEECH which is NOT “suitable” to YOUR STANDARDS. (Good grief, ain’t we heard that before?) You produced a part of my webpage (not the one where the review is found) to “proof” your MEAN OLE CARL theory. (By the way, I don’t think any of the members of my church think that I’m mean. Of course, you never can tell though!)

By these chapters, which you should know, I’m certainly NOT the only one who believes in namecalling or emotional rants. It didn’t affect HOLINESS one little bit. It is the Lord and his minister, Paul. (I limited it to him, since you believe that I am a hyper.) A hyper Baptist? I never heard such a thing!

Matt. 3, 12, 15, 16, 21, 22, 23, 2 Cor.10, 11,12,13, Gal.2,3,5, 1 Tim.1,6, 2 Tim.2, Titus 1,3 .

What put the ICING on the cake though was your FAILURE to produce the verse which DEFINES and PUTS IN PERSPECTIVE the subject of which I spoke concerning SPEECH. I personally believe that “your crowd” LACKS on “biblical perspective”.

Romans 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

Romans 16:18 For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.

It speaks of “hearing” some folks teach false doctrine. (I watch people who talk NICE!) You only produced the PART which you wanted to give CORROBORATION to your own subjective “railing” against myself.

Some folks are so easily predictable, but like they say, give a man enough rope and he’ll hang himself. You did by your last post. That was very “edifying and a godly, manner of speech”. I appreciate your offer to “teach” this ole’ boy something. Thank you, but I got the teaching from the horse’s mouth, your ole bud. Remember, he wrote a book.

Hopefully, I’ll have the review finished by the end of the month. Skim through the rest of it when you have a chance. I’m sure that you’ll be able to produce since you’re SKILLED in the “fine art of godly conversation” (EEK! It mimics Ruckmanesque!) concerning myself INSTEAD of expounding the Scriptures in defense of your doctrine.

That’s what I have done, while MARKING those who teach contrary to Paul. (Rom.16) I didn’t even have to mark you. You took care of it. By the way, I wouldn’t waste 15 minutes of my time trying to convince a “professed” Christian to BELIEVE the Holy Bible. I teach it. Believing is their business.

Good day.

Carl W. Denson

 

...WOW...OUCH!You guys play hardball in here!

Greg Sr.

 

Denson said: (Where his review was found.)

I said:

You are right brother. We are just alike.

several points:

1) You know exactly what I meant by Ruckmanesque. He can be a jerk sometimes too. (So can I, for that matter, especially when Eddie Haskell tries to change his spots)
2) You are much more of a Berean than Bro. Herb Evans and I would never try to asociate you with him. You just don't take compliments well.
3)You say "Pauline". I say "hyper". And the KJV says that a whale is a fish. I am sorry that I don't classify 'em the same way you do. I'll try to be more sensitive.
4) I never needed Joey's book. I preached the doctrine for him at his church when he was out of town doing research for the book, years before the book was written. We learned it together and (I'm ashamed to say) nearly came to blows at times working through it. I have studied about 200 books on the subject.
5)I am not unemotional. Especially when religious men are mean. Perhaps folks would skim less and study more if you were as sweet as you are being now. Did you actually read what you wrote? Something about flies and vinegar my mamma always says.
6) Now that you have shown us all that you actually can speak without being a jerk, I'd certainly be willing to debate any points you might want to bring up. . . or perhaps some of the ones we have already brought up.
7) I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to.

Lacy

PS. Tell RJ that my big brother can whup his big brother any time!

[ March 23, 2005, 12:21 AM: Message edited by: Lacy Evans ]

 

Perhaps someone can explain to me exactly what Mr Denson means when he says he is a 'Pauline dispensationalist'. It sounds to me that he is saying that if Paul didn't say it, then it doesn't apply to 'the Church'. What does Paul mean here in 1Corinthians?
1 Corinthians 10:1-11
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.
7 Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.
8 Neither let us commit fornication, as some of them committed, and fell in one day three and twenty thousand.
9 Neither let us tempt Christ, as some of them also tempted, and were destroyed of serpents.
10 Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, and were destroyed of the destroyer.
11 Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

I take this to mean that Paul is admonishing us to heed the ensamples (examples) of the Old Testament. He warns us not to lust after evil things, not to be idolaters, not to commit fornication, not to tempt Christ, and not to murmur. But why? Sure in the ensamples, we see that the Jews were destroyed for these things, but were not Jews, were the Church! The temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are we!

1Co 3:17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Destroy? In the same sense that the Jews were destroyed? Surely not, were Christians after all.

Forgive my sarcasm, brother Denson. This passage is obviously warning the brethren (who I take to be believers, but your veiw may differ from mine) of a type of destruction. Whether you want to believe that it is in this life only, or at the judgment seat of Christ, we can certainly agree he is not saying that Christians will lose their eternal salvation, can we not?

You accuse Faust of ignoring context in chapter 9, where paul speaks of being a castaway. I must insist that you apply the same care of context in your interpretation of the passage. Context does not end with a chapter number.

1 Corinthians 9:24-27
24 Know ye not that they which run in a race run all, but one receiveth the prize? So run, that ye may obtain.
25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.
26 I therefore so run, not as uncertainly; so fight I, not as one that beateth the air:
27 But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
1 Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea;
2 And were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea;
3 And did all eat the same spiritual meat;
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.
5 But with many of them God was not well pleased: for they were overthrown in the wilderness.
6 Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

What does the word moreover mean in 10:1?

MOREO'VER, adv. [more and over.] Beyond what has been said; further; besides; also; likewise.

So, the apostle Paul has informed me that whatever he is writing about next expands upon whatever he was just writing about, which happens to be our castaway passage in chapter 9. The admonition of Paul to heed the ensample of the Jews being destroyed for murmuring is a continuation of the illustration of running the race to obtain the crown. The crown is the prize, the reward that Paul wants to partake of with them in verse 23 of chapter 9. Perhaps part of rightly dividing the word of truth is figuring out where the missing paragraph markers go?

 

I said:

You are right brother. We are just alike.

several points:

1) You know exactly what I meant by Ruckmanesque. He can be a jerk sometimes too. (So can I, for that matter, especially when Eddie Haskell tries to change his spots)
2) You are much more of a Berean than Bro. Herb Evans and I would never try to asociate you with him. You just don't take compliments well.
3)You say "Pauline". I say "hyper". And the KJV says that a whale is a fish. I am sorry that I don't classify 'em the same way you do. I'll try to be more sensitive.
4) I never needed Joey's book. I preached the doctrine for him at his church when he was out of town doing research for the book, years before the book was written. We learned it together and (I'm ashamed to say) nearly came to blows at times working through it. I have studied about 200 books on the subject.
5)I am not unemotional. Especially when religious men are mean. Perhaps folks would skim less and study more if you were as sweet as you are being now. Did you actually read what you wrote? Something about flies and vinegar my mamma always says.
6) Now that you have shown us all that you actually can speak without being a jerk, I'd certainly be willing to debate any points you might want to bring up. . . or perhaps some of the ones we have already brought up.
7) I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to.

Lacy

PS. Tell RJ that my big brother can whup his big brother any time! </font>[/QUOTE]Bro. Lacy,

That's a typical response.

Thank you for stating that I “actually” could speak WITHOUT being a jerk. (My wife will like that one! ) You didn't hurt my feelings brother. You hurt yourself again by CONTINUED DEMONSTRATION of Ruckmanesque banter par excellence. A little honey of vinegar?

RECEPTION or REJECTION of truth concerns the heart, not honey or vinegar of speech. (Matt.11:16-19) Ah yes, the ole wives tales that people pull to reject the truth. (Granny told me....Homespun heresies) You AGAIN proved what I said, i.e. that "practically" you don't practice what you preach, to which others should adhere and how you contend with the truth. I pointed that out to you SPECIFICALLY. If it's not SAID the way they WANT IT said, it's "mean". No, it's not brother, for it's STILL the truth “unpalatable” to their mouth and “insensitive” to their ears. The Lord was certainly aware of that FACT OF TRUTH. (Matt.15:12-14) Paul used a vinegary sharpness AND meekness (1 Cor.4:21), and so do I. He didn’t SEEK to persuade men when it came to the truth. (Gal.1)

You waited to APOLOGIZE after you had your "comedy session”. Lord, Lord, Christian comics on the Baptist Board. What will they think of next?

200 books? No wonder you're so confused. I only NEEDED 66 to study it. (2 Tim.3)

Did you comprehend my post? If you would like to discuss my rebuttal, which is unfinished, you are welcome to visit my site, where you can freely post your comments and questions. Thanks. You just might have given me the inspiration needed to put it in print.

In Christ Jesus,
Carl