Lurker wrote: Note to self: This is way too easy. I feel guilty for shooting ducks in a barrel.
I know it may seem like it shouldn't be allowed, but Christians are allowed innocent fun. And this particular duck likes being shot down again and again. Like the ducks at the fairground stalls this one keeps on going round and round and pops back up for the next shot. For him, I guess, being on a spring coil makes thinking redundant.
penned wrote: the dispensational hermeneutic comes from a political Zionist movement. that is why all things are a big joke, the one sacred thing is the land, the land. so the bible is read through the lens of politics, thereby having to cut out whole chapters of the bible that contradict. one might notice that in Luke 4 Jesus took the Hebrew scriptures from Isaiah that they were sure were for their future political reign, and showed them clearly that Christ's fulfillment would be through repentance and a spiritual kingdom. this made them very angry. and today, posters get angry enough to break fellowship -- just as if one was on a Catholic website and refused to worship Mary. For some it is all about creating political dominance to "build the Kingdom"... now ask them how many "Kingdoms" Christ came to build, they have a hard time answering.
It is a Jewish hermeneutic and mindset for sure, as is the Presby view of the Abrahamic covenant. Hopefully this will become more evident as the discussion develops.
Reformed wrote: The two signs of the Covenant, circumcision and baptism. "There is now no difficulty in seeing wherein the two signs agree, and wherein they differ. The promise, in which we have shown that the power of the signs consists, is one in both, viz., the promise of the paternal favour of God, of forgiveness of sins, and eternal life. And the thing figured is one and the same, viz., regeneration. The foundation on which the completion of these things depends is one in both. Wherefore, there is no difference in the internal meaning, from which the whole power and peculiar nature of the sacrament is to be estimated. The only difference which remains is in the external ceremony, which is the least part of it, the chief part consisting in the promise and the thing signified. Hence we may conclude, that every thing applicable to circumcision applies also to baptism, excepting always the difference in the visible ceremony. To this analogy and comparison we are led by that rule of the apostle, in which he enjoins us to bring every interpretation of Scripture to the analogy of faith, (Rom. 12: 3, 6.) And certainly in this matter the truth may almost be felt." (J.Calvin) (Inst. Bk.4 Ch.16)
John UK wrote: Thanks for raising your flag, David. Far better for us to know the dark ground from which you post. How different from the fellowship of true believers which we enjoyed earlier, despite differences, between Observer, Michael Hranek and myself.
This snake's stripes are visible and very soon he will be hissing against the saints here like his fellow Romanist SteveR.
Leaves a bad taste in the mouth and sullies the Lord's Day.
Psalms Only wrote: If you are all upset about man's efforts in building an ark, rather than getting people to focus only on the Bible; - Then why do you sing hymns instead of the Bible's own praise book, the Psalms?
Dorcas wrote: A Blessed Lords Day...Dolores, You can not go wrong reading J.C Ryle...he has blessed me so much over the years, His writings on the four Gospels of NT plus his wonderful book "Holiness" I would highly recommend!
I second that, even though in many places I cannot agree with the good Bishop!
Dopey wrote: Your a hoot Observer! You really are And he spake a parable unto them, Can the blind lead the blind? shall they not both fall into the ditch?---Luke 6:39 I will be busy for much of the day so I leave the "blind" to some more of Observers "blind" expositions of Biblical prophecy.
As I thought, not able to gainsay my post, you prefer to walk away with another baseless accusation of it being a blind exposition.
Your inability to think sure entitles you to use that moniker.
Christ's utterances were not open to interpretation, nor did Peter argue against the utterance on the basis that he could not accept the interpretation.
What Peter does is demonstrates his Jewish mindset, not understanding that Messiah should die. Remember that the Jews thought that he would come to set up an earthly kingdom (now where have I seen this before, duh!). The Lord had already explained that his kingdom was NOT of this world!
The word of God here was plain, but animated by another spirit Peter recoiled from its implications. He thought to prevent Christ from dying and justly got the rebuke that he deserved.
Your application of the passage is completely amiss. But then again I didn't expect you to deal fairly with Scripture because you prefer to twist it, like your father who is a liar from the beginning.
You and SteveR sure are suited for fellowship in that respect.
Next example of the Lord saying get thee behind me, since he loves to pass them out? I shall be waiting.
Dopey wrote: But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.---Matthew 16:23
In the context, Peter screwed up a prophetic announcement did he? And since you insist that the Lord likes to pass them out, there must be lots of instances of this happening. So the other texts as well please. You also mentioned "men", again indicating that Peter was not the only one.
Or is this another instance of literalism, not being literal?
Dopey wrote: I congratulate you your ability to spot trolls so quickly. The sure way to spot trolls is their frequent use of Scripture. That is how the "knowledgeable ones" in Galatia caught on so early to the fact Paul the Apostle was a troll, his frequent use of Scripture
One minute using Scripture alone is an interesting theory, and now you want to quote Scripture. Can't make your mind up, eh?
Even the devil can quote scripture, but like you he seems to have the uncanny ability to always twist it. A surprising likeness? Me thinks not.
Sure I can smell a troll even on a forum like this.
I think others are also beginning to see your falsehood. So, please do keep posting, because with almost every post your true colors are coming to the fore.
From now I'm going to be in "ignore troll mode", unless it is to address your Scripture twisting.
Dopey wrote: That is an interesting theory Ever hear of Asking God? Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? Or if he ask a fish, will he give him a serpent? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?---Matthew 7:7-11
God talks to Pope Dipey in an audible voice does he?
It's called Sola Scriptura, and the analogy of faith, which a Romanist like you will never be able to accept.
As for the twaddle in your previous post, just more scripture twisting, do you find the Apostle Paul pretending to sympathise with false teachers just to test the early converts?
Michael Hranek wrote: ...if God in His perfect knowledge and His Almighty Sovereign power to do so has already literally fulfilled perfectly the prophecies concerning Israel and especially concerning Jesus Christ Why should anyone imagine that now in NT times He has to be vague and mysterious in what He foretells of the future? Just a thought to consider. And perhaps Marc Monte's series on Prophecies of the Bible, Part 5 in particular and the comments by Norman Smith might lead to so very profitable understanding of what God Himself says to us in His Word I will certainly take your comments as an encouragement to revise them
I appreciate your post back.
Let me say this at the outset that God says what he means and means what he says. But, the problem we have in Bible interpretation is to determine exactly what God is saying. We can only determine this by comparing Scripture with Scripture and expounding the more obscure parts by those that are clear, ensuring that we are not contradicting any other bible teaching.
God willing, we will start looking at the texts and I look forward to your contribution to this discussion.
John UK wrote: ... It won't be long before we are all of one mind and heart on the matter.
I'm glad you're finding this helpful. Before I go any further, I want to preface any further comments with a few words.
I have a great deal of respect for many of the brethren who differ on these matters. Unlike the Presby baptism issue, because it does not impinge on salvation, I think there is a degree of latitude which should be allowed and each must be persuaded in his own mind as to the truth.
For me, like the Presby baptism issue, this is a critical issue in terms of Bible hermeneutics. Just like the Presbys, the brethren from whom I differ on this issue, start with the OT and work forward into the NT. They treat prophecy as Wordsworth says as an Almanac, busy themselves in the OT working out the details (oftentimes involving a great deal of fancy) and then freight their understanding of matters prophetical into the NT and when they struggle to see the same things in the NT they choose to read them in into obscure texts.
The brethren reading this may think that this is a harsh assessment, but just like Presby, because they have been taught this for so long they cannot see any other viewpoint as valid.
The word thousand is used more than twenty times in the Apocalypse; but not once, as I believe, is it used literally. It is employed as a perfect number.
Therefore, we conclude that He, to whom a thousand years are as one day, and one day as a thousand years, (2 Pet. 3:8) meant, as the best ancient expositors have said, by this perfect number, the whole day of the worldâ€™s life, till the dim twilight and dark eventide of the last and fiercest persecution. In that sad vesper-time of gloom, Satan will be loosed, though he will be restrained from hurting Christâ€™s elect. The sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give her light; (Matt. 24:29) that is, the light of the pure heaven of the Church will be dimmed with thick mists. The Gospel will be overclouded with the gloom of Impiety; Love will wax cold; Iniquity will abound; Infidelity will exult; Faith will be hard to find. It will be a time of rebuke and blasphemy. (2 Kings 19:3) The foundations of the World will be out of course. The earth will be full of darkness and cruel habitations.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: I have two irrefutable sources that my eschatological beliefs are correct, they have been confirmed by John Yurich's non-denominational brother, and his Pentecostal Nephew and his wife Oops, wait, crum, that doesn't help my cause
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Just got back this morning from the funeral of my son's sister-in-law. She was only 45 and died after long battle with multiple cancers. She left a husband and 14 year old girl behind, appreciate you praying for God's sustaining power in their lives (Jerry and Madison). She is cancer free in God's presence and free also from that most dreadful cancer we all face, sin that dwells within.
So sorry to hear that bro! Will certainly pray to our loving Lord for his comforting and strengthening presence to be with them.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: It is a blessing to see posts from Frank, John UK and Observer
Bro, I have missed you posting. I did not realize your circumstances.
Would love to discuss the topic with you, but maybe at a better time, eh? You need to consider not when it will start, but if it is literally a thousand years, everyone knows when it ends!
Now, if the thousand years in the Apocalypse were a fixed time, these sayings concerning the suddenness of Christâ€™s Second Coming, to Judge the quick and dead, would not be true. But they are the sayings of Him Who is the truth; and therefore they are true, as God Himself is true.
Hence we infer that the word thousand is here a general one; and by a thousand years, in the text, the Holy Spirit does not limit a specific sum any more than when He says, Man cannot answer God one of a thousand, (Job 9:3) or If there be an interpreter, one of a thousand; (Job 33:23)â€”that is, one among All men.
Again, it is written, God keepeth His covenant to a thousand generations. (Deut. vii. 9) He commanded His word to a thousand generations; (1 Chron. xvi. 15) that is, to All men.
Similarly, we read in the Apocalypse itself, (Rev. 7:4-8) that twelve times twelve thousand were sealed, severally, from twelve tribes. Here it cannot be imagined, nor has it been supposed by any interpreter, that there are in each tribe twelve thousand elect, neither more nor less (for, according to this mode of interpretation, there would be none saved from two tribes, which are omitted, Dan and Ephraim); but by this perfect number it is meant that God will one day accomplish the number of His elect.
Unprofitable Servant wrote: Sure will be glad to. Maybe you can give me some pointers.
Bro, my advice, for what it's worth, IGNORE this troll.
He's not interested in knowing what the Bible teaches. Like John Y he has his sources of authority. With John Y it's his brother and nephew and niece in law and their respective churches. With Presby of a thousand monikers, it's his theology books and his Presby masters.
They are beyond human help. Best to remember them in prayer but on here treat them as the time-wasters that they are.
You know as well as I, that when someone professes to be a Christian, and yet proves to be unteachable from the Bible, that we have to call into question that profession of faith. It does not bode well for them.