Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Not enough people who know what 
a dispensationalist is
a dispensationalist is
-
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!
If the BB was a Church, would you go to it?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
I resemble that remark!
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
A dispensationalist is one who believes that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, failed and established the Church instead.Originally posted by Ed Edwards:
Not enough people who know what
a dispensationalist is
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
I respectfully disagree.Originally posted by OldRegular:
A dispensationalist is one who believes that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic Kingdom, failed and established the Church instead.
A dispensationalist is one who believes that
Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic
Kingdom, When the Jews did not accept ilt
He succeeded by establishing
the Church.
So as I said, there are way to many people
around the BB who have no idea what a
'dispensationalist' is.
[ January 10, 2006, 10:11 PM: Message edited by: Ed Edwards ]
I Am Blessed 24
Active Member
Should I read this book?
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Wouldn't hurt to read it.
However, Clarence Larkin didn't know
about the dangers of Nuclear War.
When I was saved iln 1952 I figured it
was good that God was going to get
even with the
bad guys like in the Book 'Revelation'.
By 1964 the world had the capability of
destroying all human life 24 times over
(due to some disarmement we now only have
the capability of destroying all
human life three times
Now it is obvious that God has to intervene
to keep the world from destroying itself.
However, Clarence Larkin didn't know
about the dangers of Nuclear War.
When I was saved iln 1952 I figured it
was good that God was going to get
even with the
bad guys like in the Book 'Revelation'.
By 1964 the world had the capability of
destroying all human life 24 times over
(due to some disarmement we now only have
the capability of destroying all
human life three times
Now it is obvious that God has to intervene
to keep the world from destroying itself.
And there are a lot of Baptists who have not taken the time to research Darby and his followers such as Scofield, Chafer, McIntosh and Larkin. Spurgeon didn't think much of Darbyism.
Many dispensationalists don't think the Sermon on the Mount applied then nor today but in the future.
What a lot of so called dispensationalists don't realize is how many subsets of dispensationalism there are today. Dispensationalism has been revised at least twice since Darby. Diapensationalism has not made much of a mark elsewhere in the world except the US as have many other things such as faith healers and the miracle spring water folks.
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Gb93433: //And there are a lot of Baptists who have not taken the time to research Darby and his followers such as Scofield, Chafer, McIntosh and Larkin. Spurgeon didn't think much of Darbyism. //
I respectfully disagree.
We should study our Bible, not these men, their books, nor their
theories. I never went to a meeting where Spurgeon preached.
I did read God's book called 'Revelation'.
So the reason i wouldn't go to this church is because
there are folks here who write long posts creating strawmen
theories of dispensationalism and demolishing them.
The rub for me is that these people will not talk to the people
here who have read the Bible (not Darby), but will talk to
the pseudo-Darby they create in their strawman world.
I respectfully disagree.
We should study our Bible, not these men, their books, nor their
theories. I never went to a meeting where Spurgeon preached.
I did read God's book called 'Revelation'.
So the reason i wouldn't go to this church is because
there are folks here who write long posts creating strawmen
theories of dispensationalism and demolishing them.
The rub for me is that these people will not talk to the people
here who have read the Bible (not Darby), but will talk to
the pseudo-Darby they create in their strawman world.
Ok, EdE, Here is where I'll call. But first, a note for I am Blessed 16; She asked:
"Should I read this book?", which was followed by a picture.
Your first sentence in response, is well said:
"Wouldn't hurt to read it."
I'd offer that that could be said about most any book, if one were to remember a few things. A teacher of mine in Bible college days once said. "The Bible sheds a lot of light on the commentaries."
I've never forgotten that, and here share it. I would also add '...on the commentators, as well.' I'll start with myself, and proceed. I think a lot of us 'common 'taters' may fancy ourselves as 'commentators' when we are really more like "Tater Tots"(R). (The Registered sign will probably not translate.)
EdE wrote: " I never went to a meeting where Spurgeon preached.
I did read God's book called 'Revelation'."
First, I'd say that if you did "go to a meeting where Spurgeon preached.", you would be really old, considering that he died in 1892. (Can't get the laugh Graemlin to appear.)
Second, it is interesting that you mentioned him with the book of Revelation. Spurgeon is alleged to have said either 'that he didn't know enough about the Second Coming to preach on it', or 'that he didn't know enough about 'Revelation' to preach on it.' I don't remember exactly which. (I thought I was about to have a 'senior moment', but I've forgotten what it is. My mind, like nostalgia, isn't what it used to be!)
So, 'Blessed', should you read this book? As with any other, I suppose, if you so choose. I need to get a copy for myself. I seem to recall a lot of pretty pictures I can color, in place of those I get on pdf. files. (Save my lovely wife a lot of time as well, being how she would not have to keep cleaning off the screen on the computer- Heh!) And like I asked her once when she had a book, "Can I read that?" She said, "Why, I guess so. It doesn't seem to have too many big wor..."
Ed
"Should I read this book?", which was followed by a picture.
Your first sentence in response, is well said:
"Wouldn't hurt to read it."
I'd offer that that could be said about most any book, if one were to remember a few things. A teacher of mine in Bible college days once said. "The Bible sheds a lot of light on the commentaries."
I've never forgotten that, and here share it. I would also add '...on the commentators, as well.' I'll start with myself, and proceed. I think a lot of us 'common 'taters' may fancy ourselves as 'commentators' when we are really more like "Tater Tots"(R). (The Registered sign will probably not translate.)
EdE wrote: " I never went to a meeting where Spurgeon preached.
I did read God's book called 'Revelation'."
First, I'd say that if you did "go to a meeting where Spurgeon preached.", you would be really old, considering that he died in 1892. (Can't get the laugh Graemlin to appear.)
Second, it is interesting that you mentioned him with the book of Revelation. Spurgeon is alleged to have said either 'that he didn't know enough about the Second Coming to preach on it', or 'that he didn't know enough about 'Revelation' to preach on it.' I don't remember exactly which. (I thought I was about to have a 'senior moment', but I've forgotten what it is. My mind, like nostalgia, isn't what it used to be!)
So, 'Blessed', should you read this book? As with any other, I suppose, if you so choose. I need to get a copy for myself. I seem to recall a lot of pretty pictures I can color, in place of those I get on pdf. files. (Save my lovely wife a lot of time as well, being how she would not have to keep cleaning off the screen on the computer- Heh!) And like I asked her once when she had a book, "Can I read that?" She said, "Why, I guess so. It doesn't seem to have too many big wor..."
Ed
Ed Edwards
<img src=/Ed.gif>
Yes, this had been a real education ...
mcdirector
Active Member
Yes, I go to a pretty large church with diverse opinions -- many of which I don't agree with -- BB is a lot like my church
Haven't read all the posts, but I voted No simply because there are too many here who never seem to respond to the points of an argument, but prefer to use little cliches, and slander the person of topic and/or the poster instead!
This, IMNSHO, would be a church of continual divisiveness, and certainly not one that would encourage a non-believer to "want what they got"!
There is much more nastiness on this board than on one that I frequent that is strictly political. On that one, MOST of the give & take is civilized, w/o all the slander that a few love so much here.
In fact, when I leave my home for a few days, I'm not involved in any BB's for that period, and I think many times that I'll just not start up again on this one; but just like the alcoholic returns to his bottle, I eventually come back.
There are many here who can argue an opposing point and still be civil, and I guess that is what keeps me coming back. I do enjoy the fresh approaches to long held beliefs to determine if they just may be "tradition" or truly biblical.
I have had my eyes opened on a few points like this, and had some beliefs more strongly confirmed.
The more I think about it, I MAY consider joining a church like this, BUT I would NOT reccommend it for a weak believer unless he had a strong advocate in-house!
So now the poll is skewed and should show 1 less "NO" vote and 1 more "YES" vote! (Sorry 'bout that!! )
This, IMNSHO, would be a church of continual divisiveness, and certainly not one that would encourage a non-believer to "want what they got"!
There is much more nastiness on this board than on one that I frequent that is strictly political. On that one, MOST of the give & take is civilized, w/o all the slander that a few love so much here.
In fact, when I leave my home for a few days, I'm not involved in any BB's for that period, and I think many times that I'll just not start up again on this one; but just like the alcoholic returns to his bottle, I eventually come back.
There are many here who can argue an opposing point and still be civil, and I guess that is what keeps me coming back. I do enjoy the fresh approaches to long held beliefs to determine if they just may be "tradition" or truly biblical.
I have had my eyes opened on a few points like this, and had some beliefs more strongly confirmed.
The more I think about it, I MAY consider joining a church like this, BUT I would NOT reccommend it for a weak believer unless he had a strong advocate in-house!
So now the poll is skewed and should show 1 less "NO" vote and 1 more "YES" vote! (Sorry 'bout that!!
)
Maybe we coud give you a special dispensation?Originally posted by OldRegular:
Too many dispensationalists!