-
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!
Interpreting Revelation
- Thread starter Greektim
- Start date
First your entire premise is a begging the question fallacy. Second, Jacobs trouble was not created by dispy's it is pulled from scripture specifically Jeremiah 30:7. Now if you can search around and discover a way to discuss this issue without arrogance, condescension, or just a plain old smart elic attitude like you have displayed here I will be glad to discuss this further.
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Second, the dispie understanding of Jacob's trouble was invented by dispies. That is what theology does. And first, how is it begging the question? Would it not be a gross assumption to say that there is a blessing for the church to read that book when no one in the church will experience any of it?
And there you have it. A prime example why cals do not get much response from others. You guys go ahead and huddle up in your little arrogance and condescension corner and have your little party.
I will leave you to your misery.
It is easier for you to cry arrogance when someone answers you, then run away and hide, rather than respond biblically...that is what is actually taking place:thumbs:
OK I know you cals like to gang up on people (I am not the only one to say this) but maybe you can go back and show me where anything biblical has been presented to me in response to anything I have said. As far as I can see I am the only one who posted any amount of scripture. So rather than stick to your little gang mentality here on the BB you should actually read the posts before you speak lest you look foolish like you do know making false accusations.
1]Gt made a claim about jer 30:7.....he says it is pulled out and made into more by dispys.....Can you show where any apostle quoted it as a future event from the early church to our day...every premill book quotes it...no one explains it, they just plug it in...
2] Gt and Or said nothing arrogant at all...that is just your defense mechanism....
3] this has nothing to do with your paronoid cal gang-up scenerio....they are discussing eschatological ideas period...where except for you being a bit paranoid ...do you "SEE THIS"?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
RM I am sorry you feel that way!
You jumping in here and commenting proves my gang "theory" and I am not the only one to notice it. See on this board should someone disagree with a cal then they must be destroyed. And you are proving it every time you respond to me.
I will leave you to your misery as well.
You whine like Winman. Them bad ol' Calvinists.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jer 30 with the language of a woman in travail...fits very nicely in the destruction of the temple as foretold by Jesus in MT .24...leaving the elect remnant...
Not nearly as much as you do about Jews. Them bad old Jews. Aint that right bub.
I said nothing about the grace of God....i was responding to your pouting and paranoid suggestion which you offer at the drop of a hat.I did not destroy anything...i asked you to stand your ground and respond with your idea of truth...
DHK will stand his ground..as will many others....how about you.
Frankly...i have no horse in this race..as i am still working through these issues...having held and taught what you do now...i have come to see problems with much of it.....
If you cannot respond,,,go into the knitting room, or joke room...
You just think you can make a pronouncement, and everyone is supposed to drop the phone and just be silent and read your post?
Frankly..I would be mightily surprised if you offer as you say...Much scripture...go for it RM...stop being a wuess.
I'm not the one that has a problem with Jews. YOU ARE.
Why should I leave it there RM? I am still open on the issue...offer something....because i am not as dogmatic about all the events on the calendar...does not mean i am not interested.
Revmitchell
Here is what you have offered so far....
Ok fine...you say what you hold to now....that is an accepted view..fine..
next you offer this;
this was your second post,correct? looks like you are on the offensive...I think this is fine as you want a response...you could have clarified more...
This was your third post...where is "all the scripture you said you offered....was it in another thread..or did I miss something?
next;
Where?
Here is what you have offered so far....
Ok fine...you say what you hold to now....that is an accepted view..fine..
next you offer this;
this was your second post,correct? looks like you are on the offensive...I think this is fine as you want a response...you could have clarified more...
This was your third post...where is "all the scripture you said you offered....was it in another thread..or did I miss something?
next;
Where?
OldRegular
Well-Known Member
RM I am sorry you feel that way. If you believe that I am arrogant, condescending, and smart alecky then you are entitled to your opinion. I live in a sea of dispensationalists so I know exactly what arrogant and condescending are.
However, I know what I believe and I am not afraid to defend those beliefs. I believe that dispensational doctrine is a false doctrine developed by John Darby about 200 years ago and sadly popularized in this country by the Scofield Bible. I have stated on numerous occasions on this Forum that, though I consider dispensational eschatology to be incorrect, it is not the major problem with their doctrine. The major problem, which dispensationalists seem to want to avoid discussing, is their doctrine of the "parenthesis" church. I believe this to be clearly contrary to Scripture and has been invented as is said "out of whole cloth". Then there is the doctrine of two peoples of God, the Jews and the Church. As I understand Scripture Jesus Christ died for the Church.
Acts 20:28. Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. I have yet to see a passage of Scripture which states that Jesus Christ died for the Jews as a body, individually yes, and then they are incorporated into the Church just like everyone else. It follows then that God has only one people, those whom Jesus Christ redeemed through the shedding of His lifes blood.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maybe it is, but not purely. It's akin to Progressive Parallelism, as described in More Than Conquerors, by William Hendriksen.