PDA

View Full Version : Dangers of Dispensational Rapture Fantasy



libevangelical
August 1st, 2004, 07:58 PM
I am sure that Tim LaHaye unreservedly believes in the dispensational theology that inspires his Left Behind book series. No doubt, he has done the Church a service in recalling it to a serious consideration of the blessed hope of Christ's return in glory. Too often we mainline protestants have shied away from being any more specific about this teaching than the one line in the second article of the Apostles' Creed: "From thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead." Because of Left Behind's popularity we mainline folks are forced to deal with the issue in our pulpits and Sunday schools. No longer can we conveniently igonore the bulk and heart of the book of Revelation as does the Revised Common Lectionary. If we do, we endanger the faith of Christians in our pews as well as those of our fundamentalists friends.
To be sure, whether one is a dispensational futurist or a preterist or an idealist or a historicist is a secondary issue. Being wrong on issues surrounding the apocalypse is not equal to the heresy of denying trinitarian doctrine. However, errors in eschatology can lead one down a road to disappointment that can shatter one's faith not only in the promised Return but also in the One who is returning. With respect to dispensationalism there are 2 theological errors and one ethical/political errors that should inspire mainline protestants to sound a clarion call of warning to there fundamentalist friends.
Dispensationalism asserts that before the return of Christ to establish his millenial reign there will be a seven year period of great tribulation before which the church is snatched away to heaven, waiting there while non-believers suffer God's wrath and messianic Jews evangelize and convert previously procrastinating and unrepentent gentiles.
We might argue endlessly with dueling proof texts but to get to the heart of the matter, dispensationalism reflects a one dimensional view of the cross as substitutionary punishment to satisfy the wrath of god. Although this is one aspect of the cross, it ignores or at least trivializes Jesus command to "take up your cross and follow me." What we have in the book of Revelation is a call for Christians to be witnessing martyrs in tribulation until the ressurection of the dead and the final judgement. Certainly there is a protecting from God's wrath during this tribulation but there is no hint of LaHaye's escapist fantasy. God spares His children His wrath but not persecution at the hands of God's enemies. If LaHaye is right John the Revelator is counseling Christian wimpiness not endurance to the end. The witness of putting down our crosses as we breeze away to bliss when the going gets apocalyptically tough is anything but a Christian testimony.
If indeed God does expect Christians to endure persecution to the very bitter end, then we begin to see the dangers implicit in the rapture fantasy. First, it tempts Christians to loose faith when persecution gets more serious than what evangelicals imagined they endured in the Clinton era. Second, it tempts those who think they are tougher than Job to put off the decision of faith. No need to give up sin and follow Jesus today if I get seven years of second chances.
Finally there is a danger here and now that ought to trouble both beleivers and unbelievers alike. Dispensationalists are making Israel right or wrong a litmus test for politicians in hopes of forcing God's hand. Bush is valued for keeping hope alive for the final Israelite generation with Biblical borders. This serves only to further irritate overly inflamed irridentism on both sides of the Israeli/Palestian dispute. Expect no peace, more terror and greater pain at the pump as long as the State Department has to answer to the LaHaye's crowd of eisegetical escape artists.

Crow
August 1st, 2004, 09:30 PM
There are dispensationalists, myself among them, that believe that the Church is removed prior to the tribulation, without the seven year waiting period.

The dispensationalists I know do not believe that they can force God's hand. Perhaps you are thinking of some of the prosperity preachers.....

My own opinion is that we have things we need to do, end times or no end times. That's what the church should be concerned with, not trying to make odds on when the bowls, trumpets, horsemen, etc. will appear.

billwald
August 1st, 2004, 09:30 PM
How about a small nuke on the Temple site to force God's hand?

Lighthouse
August 2nd, 2004, 12:40 AM
libevangelical-
You obviously have not read the Left Behind books. LaHaye & Jenkins do not propose wimpiness in believers who are converted after the rapture.

csmuda
August 2nd, 2004, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by billwald

How about a small nuke on the Temple site to force God's hand? :D nahhh. that's what those dirt-bags were doing on 9-11...trying to engage THEIR endtime beliefs....

Lighthouse
August 2nd, 2004, 05:05 AM
Also, putting off faith in Christ until the tribulation is dangerous, because we are not promised tomorrow. Which means we are not promised to live to the tribulation, let alone through it. Even if the rapture does not occur before the tribulation, there is no promise that Christians will all live through it.

libevangelical
August 2nd, 2004, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

libevangelical-
You obviously have not read the Left Behind books. LaHaye & Jenkins do not propose wimpiness in believers who are converted after the rapture.
If you would learn to read you would see that i was talking about encoraging Christian wimpiness of those who think they can be raptured. Your profile and derogatory language shows how confused you are.

Jerry Shugart
August 2nd, 2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by libevangelical
What we have in the book of Revelation is a call for Christians to be witnessing martyrs in tribulation until the ressurection of the dead and the final judgement.
libevangelical,

I no not see the word "Christian" used at all in any of the unfulfilled prophecies describing the "great tribulation" and the wrath that will follow.In fact,there is not even one mention of the Body of Christ in all the unfulfilled prophecies relating to that time.It is as if the Church has disappeared off of the face of the earth.And that is exactly what is going to happen.

Certainly there is a protecting from God's wrath during this tribulation but there is no hint of LaHaye's escapist fantasy.
If there is protection from God's wrath for the believers on earth during the tribulation,why will there be so many martyrs?

And there is more than a "hint" that those in the Body of Christ will meet the Lord in the air before the events of the great tribulation.Here the Lord Jesus tells those in the Church that they will indeed be kept from that time when the whole world will be "tried":

"Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I also will keep thee from the hour of temptation, which shall come upon all the world, to try them that dwell upon the earth"(Rev.3:10).

So we see that the pre-trib rapture is not based on anyone's fantasy,but instead on the sure promise of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

In His grace,--Jerry

Lighthouse
August 2nd, 2004, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by libevangelical

If you would learn to read you would see that i was talking about encoraging Christian wimpiness of those who think they can be raptured.
How so? There aren't any pre-rapture Christians in the Left Behind books.


Your profile and derogatory language shows how confused you are.
Would you care to explain? What derogatory language, and what about my profile makes me look confused? I know exactly what i believe, and why I believe it. And where to find it in the Bible.

libevangelical
August 3rd, 2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

How so? There aren't any pre-rapture Christians in the Left Behind books.

I was refering to your ability to read the book of Revelation and my post. It is very clear that the book of Revealtion is addressed to john's brother's in the tribulation and that these are Christian brothers. Christians are sealed and protected from God's wrath during the tribulation and at the coming of Jesus to judge the living and the dead. They are not however protected from the wrath of Babylon. Pretrib rapture is a fantasy that sets Christians up for dissapointment and tempts them to think that God has betrayed them when times get tough and God does not rapture them. Tim LaHaye is a cult of nostalgia advocate bent on defending bigotry against Muslims, women, gays, scientists and liberals. he has never made a positive contribution to the church or the world with any of the filth he writes.

Would you care to explain? What derogatory language, and what about my profile makes me look confused? I know exactly what i believe, and why I believe it. And where to find it in the Bible.

OK now I see ur a geek not a greek orthodox Christian...a Greek Orthodox Christian would never by this dispensational non-sense. Your derogatory language is not Biblical.

Lighthouse
August 4th, 2004, 02:21 AM
Originally posted by libevangelical

OK now I see ur a geek not a greek orthodox Christian...a Greek Orthodox Christian would never by this dispensational non-sense. Your derogatory language is not Biblical.
First of all, be careful how you do quotes. You made it look like I said something you said.

Now, down to business. I do not have a set belief on when the rapture will take place. In fact, I would much prefer to be present for the seven years, so I could be useful as a menace to the anti-Christ. But I trust in God's plan, and His will takes precedence over mine. As for dispensationalism, could you please tell me what Galatians 2:7 says in your Bible? And also the verses, 1 Corinthains 9:17, Ephesians 1:10 & 3:2, and Colossians 1:25.

Nimrod
August 4th, 2004, 09:45 AM
Gal 2:7 "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter; "

Now we both know in Romans 1:16 "gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth;"

Lighthouse how many different gospels are there in the history of mankind?

Lighthouse
August 5th, 2004, 03:54 AM
That depends on what you mean by gospel, Nimrod. There is one main gospel, which is the good news that Jesus died for all of us. But it is true that there was a time that Jews who grew up under the law still kept the law, because that is what they were used to. So, when the disciples preached to them, they still preached the law. But those Jews are dead, and the Gentiles were never required to keep the law. And Paul preached to the Gentiles. Salvation is by grace, not by works. Dispensationalism is knew to me. I haven't even heard the word until I came to TOL, even though I knew Jefferson four years ago. :chuckle: I find it to be interesting, and scriptural. I still don't know how it can solve a couple of the issues, or how it relates to the rapture and tribulation. But I will, soon enough. It seems to me that you have never read The Plot. You should. At least so you can understand dispensationalism. Even if you don't agree with it afterwards. At least you would understand what you were arguing against.

Now, is it wrong, immoral or of the devil for a Christian to talk about stuff other than God? Can a married Christian talk about how much they love their spouse? can a single Christian talk about how they feel, romantically, about another person? Can they talk about their pets? You get the idea.

Turbo
August 5th, 2004, 05:23 AM
Nimrod,
So they [the twelve] departed and went through the towns, preaching the gospel and healing everywhere. Luke 9:6


He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
Peter answered and said, "The Christ of God."

And He strictly warned and commanded them to tell this to no one, saying, "The Son of Man must suffer many things, and be rejected by the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised the third day." Luke 9:20-22

Then Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, "Far be it from You, Lord; this shall not happen to You!"
But He turned and said to Peter, "Get behind Me, Satan! You are an offense to Me, for you are not mindful of the things of God, but the things of men." Matthew 16:22-23

Christians normally refer to Christ's crucifixion and resurrection as "the gospel."

If Christ revealed to the twelve that He would be killed and be raised on the third day (and commanding them to tell no one) in Luke 9:20-22, then what was "the gospel" He had already sent them out to preach earlier in that same chapter?

csmuda
August 6th, 2004, 08:26 AM
KOG, baby, KOG!

Turbo
August 6th, 2004, 11:53 AM
:)

Lighthouse
August 6th, 2004, 07:31 PM
Nimrod's a coward.

Nimrod
August 7th, 2004, 06:28 AM
Lighthouse how many different gospels are there in the history of mankind?


Originally posted by lighthouse

That depends on what you mean by gospel, Nimrod.

What I really wanted Lighthouse to say that the Jews had the law to be saved by and the gentiles or NT belivers were saved by grace. I believe this is what Lighthouse said in his reply.



Originally posted by lighthouse There is one main gospel, which is the good news that Jesus died for all of us.

Well really there is only one gospel, how one words it depends on the time it was preached. More on this later.

We know Paul said in Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
We know that it is the gospel that saves people (Romans 1:16) and only through Jesus Christ can one be saved (Acts 4:12). The gospel Paul preached contained the "Jesus Christ" in the message. Paul put a curse on anyone who preached a different gospel. Therefore one can conclude the "Jesus Christ" preached to the gentiles is the same "Jesus Christ" preached to the Jews.

Now Lighthouse believes there was a "law" gospel that was preached to them. He says


Originally posted by lighthouse But it is true that there was a time that Jews who grew up under the law still kept the law, because that is what they were used to. So, when the disciples preached to them, they still preached the law.


Well I am glad to hear the dispensationalist admit the Jews had the law to live by, and "keep". Notice, Lighthouse says "when the disciples preached to them, they preached the law." This is where the dispensationalist starts double-talking. On one side of the mouth, he says the Jews were saved by keeping the law, yet on the other side he is going to say that one can only be saved by is grace.

But if he was a true dispensationalist and honest about it, he would admit that the Jews were saved by the law. And we/gentiles are saved by grace. In other words two different ways of salvation, which contradicts acts 4:12.
Do you admit this Lighthouse? Was the Jews of the OT saved by "keeping" the law?


Lets look at the Word.
Gal 3:8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham. Here we have the gospel preached to Abraham, this gospel was preached that salvation is by faith. Yet Lighthouse said the discples preached unto the jews the "law". I submit to you the same gospel was preched to the Jews and the Gentiles. There was no "other" gospel (Gal 1:9) i.e. the gospel of the "law", as Lighthouse says there was.


Originally posted by lighthouse
It seems to me that you have never read The Plot.

I have it. I haven't read the entire manuscript. It was disgusting! Bob Enyart believes that the Jews were saved by the law. This type of teaching is false. To answer your questions, maybe start another thread, I like to stay on topic.

Lighthouse
August 7th, 2004, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Lighthouse how many different gospels are there in the history of mankind?
Gospel means good news. But I believe you mean the gospel of the Lord, which is the gospel of Christ, and there was and is only one of those.



What I really wanted Lighthouse to say that the Jews had the law to be saved by and the gentiles or NT belivers were saved by grace. I believe this is what Lighthouse said in his reply.
No. It's not. The Jews of the OT were not saved by the law. They were required to keep it, though. And they suffered physical punishment [even death in some cases] if they did not follow it.




Well really there is only one gospel, how one words it depends on the time it was preached. More on this later.
I agree.


We know Paul said in Gal 1:9 As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
We know that it is the gospel that saves people (Romans 1:16) and only through Jesus Christ can one be saved (Acts 4:12). The gospel Paul preached contained the "Jesus Christ" in the message. Paul put a curse on anyone who preached a different gospel. Therefore one can conclude the "Jesus Christ" preached to the gentiles is the same "Jesus Christ" preached to the Jews.[/quote[
Once again, I agree.

[quote]Now Lighthouse believes there was a "law" gospel that was preached to them.
No. I don't. But the law was kept by Jews who converted at the time of the disciples ministry.



Well I am glad to hear the dispensationalist admit the Jews had the law to live by, and "keep". Notice, Lighthouse says "when the disciples preached to them, they preached the law." This is where the dispensationalist starts double-talking. On one side of the mouth, he says the Jews were saved by keeping the law, yet on the other side he is going to say that one can only be saved by is grace.
The Jews were not saved by the law. But they kept it. And it was required of them. But they did not keep it, fully. No one can.


But if he was a true dispensationalist and honest about it, he would admit that the Jews were saved by the law. And we/gentiles are saved by grace. In other words two different ways of salvation, which contradicts acts 4:12.
Do you admit this Lighthouse? Was the Jews of the OT saved by "keeping" the law?
What I believe does not contradict Acts 4:12. The OT Jews were not saved by the law. But they were required to keep it.


Lets look at the Word.
Gal 3:8And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham. Here we have the gospel preached to Abraham, this gospel was preached that salvation is by faith. Yet Lighthouse said the discples preached unto the jews the "law". I submit to you the same gospel was preched to the Jews and the Gentiles. There was no "other" gospel (Gal 1:9) i.e. the gospel of the "law", as Lighthouse says there was.
Only one gospel. The dispensation of the law is another matter entirely. And Abraham was before the law, anyway.


I have it. I haven't read the entire manuscript. It was disgusting! Bob Enyart believes that the Jews were saved by the law. This type of teaching is false.
I'm still trying to figure that out. I don't agree that they were saved by the law. As I said, I'm new to the idea of dispensationalism. But I do see how it resolves some conflicts of doctrine...between those who believe in works salvation and those who believe in grace salvation. The verse still says dispensation, and you can't argue that.


To answer your questions, maybe start another thread, I like to stay on topic.
Sozo asked this thread in a thread he started, but you never answered it. So answer it, somewhere, coward.

Turbo
August 7th, 2004, 09:44 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

It seems to me that you have never read The Plot.


Originally posted by Nimrod

I have it. I haven't read the entire manuscript. You make that abundantly clear when you say things like:

Bob Enyart believes that the Jews were saved by the law.

billwald
August 7th, 2004, 11:09 AM
"What I really wanted Lighthouse to say that the Jews had the law to be saved by and the gentiles or NT belivers were saved by grace. I believe this is what Lighthouse said in his reply."

This is the Dispensational heresy!!!!! Law never saved anyone. Only God's election (grace) saves anyone.

Turbo
August 7th, 2004, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by billwald

"What I really wanted Lighthouse to say that the Jews had the law to be saved by and the gentiles or NT belivers were saved by grace. I believe this is what Lighthouse said in his reply."

This is the Dispensational heresy!!!!! No, it's Nimrod's mischaracterization of dispensationalism.

Nimrod
August 7th, 2004, 12:03 PM
Lighthouse now begins to talk on the other side of his mouth and goes in circles.

Have you ever tried to nail somthing slimy on the wall? As you drive a nail through the slime, the slime moves. Well this is Lighthouse. He will continue to move in all directions never staying at one spot.


Originally posted by lighthouse
No. It's not. The Jews of the OT were not saved by the law. They were required to keep it, though. ...And it was required of them. But they did not keep it, fully. No one can.

If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?

Now Lighthouse will say, we can only be saved by grace not by keepinig the law. Which I do agree, but his previous post shows that the gospel message preached to the Jews was different than the one preached to the gentiles.
Lighthouse believes the disciples preached the law to the Jews and grace to the gentiles.


Originally posted by lighthouse
Only one gospel. The dispensation of the law is another matter entirely. And Abraham was before the law, anyway.


Here goes Lighthouse circle reasoning.
He now tells us that the people from Moses to Christ lived by the law and they were required to keep the law. Lighthouse comes short, just like most dispensationalist, to say that the Jews were saved by the "keeping of the law". Lighthouse won't admit this, but this is really what he believes when he says the jews were "required to keep the law".


Originally posted by lighthouse
The verse still says dispensation, and you can't argue that.


I am not a dispensationalist, but I do believe there are dispensations in the history of mankind. I call them covenants. You don't see me bringing a goat to be sacrificed by a Levi priest every week. That has been done away with.

Nimrod
August 7th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
No, it's Nimrod's mischaracterization of dispensationalism.

From Bob Enyart, Scofield reference Bible and other people on this forum like 1Way believe the Jews were saved by faith plus works. Can I get them to admit this? I don't think I can, they say it in their writings but then come short to actually saying it.

Nimrod
August 7th, 2004, 12:14 PM
Turbo, i had listened to Bob for over a year over the internet. THat is about 5 hours a week. I love it when he talks about today's government, I hate it when he speaks dispensationalism.

As for his manuscript, I did read about the "Tree", and how Paul preached mostly about grace, I think Bob put a pie chart to show that. It was interesting.

Turbo
August 7th, 2004, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

From Bob Enyart, Scofield reference Bible and other people on this forum like 1Way believe the Jews were saved by faith plus works. Can I get them to admit this? I don't think I can, they say it in their writings but then come short to actually saying it. Before you said we believe that "Jews were saved by the 'keeping of the law.'"

We believe no such thing!

If we are wrong, why not argue against our actual beliefs? Why change them to something so wrong even we disagree with them?



And while you're at it, how about addressing post #14?

Turbo
August 7th, 2004, 12:23 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

As for his manuscript, I did read about the "Tree", and how Paul preached mostly about grace, I think Bob put a pie chart to show that. It was interesting. Did you jump ahead to that chapter without reading the first four? :doh:

billwald
August 7th, 2004, 07:21 PM
>If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?

NO! The Mosiac "Law" was strictly a social contract for life in the Land and had nothing to do with salvation.

Jerry Shugart
August 8th, 2004, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod
From Bob Enyart, Scofield reference Bible and other people on this forum like 1Way believe the Jews were saved by faith plus works. Can I get them to admit this? I don't think I can, they say it in their writings but then come short to actually saying it.
Nimrod,

You are correct that Bob Enyart teaches that the Jew could not be saved apart from keeping the law,and his teaching is wrong.

However,"The New Scoifield Study Bible" says that during each dispensation man is reconciled to God in only one way,i.e. by God's grace through the work of Christ..."

In fact,the great majority of dispensationalists believe that "works" were never necessary for salvation at any time.

So please do not attempt to condemn all dispensationalists because of the false teaching of some.

In His grace,--Jerry

Nimrod
August 8th, 2004, 05:14 PM
Jerry, I agree with what you say. Lighthouse is getting his info from Bob Enyart's "The Plot". I hope Lighthouse will think it through.



Originally posted by Jerry Shugart

However,"The New Scoifield Study Bible" says that during each dispensation man is reconciled to God in only one way,i.e. by God's grace through the work of Christ..."


Notice you said "New". We both know why there is a "New" one. I do agree that not all dispensationalist believe works were required.

Nimrod
August 8th, 2004, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by Turbo
If we are wrong, why not argue against our actual beliefs? Why change them to something so wrong even we disagree with them?

Did you jump ahead to that chapter without reading the first four?

And while you're at it, how about addressing post #14?

What I find about Dispensationalism, is that they do not come out and say that works were required for the Jews. But from what they say, if you take the next logical step, they are indeed saying this.

I read parts of the Plot over a year ago, I don't remember if I read the first 4 chapters.

As for questions on post #14, I need to think it over.

Lighthouse
August 9th, 2004, 04:57 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Lighthouse now begins to talk on the other side of his mouth and goes in circles.
Once again. I am new to the idea of dispensationalism. I do not even know if I agree with it completely. I haven't even finished The Plot, myself. So why don't you engage someone who has, and make sure it's someone who believes it.


Have you ever tried to nail somthing slimy on the wall? As you drive a nail through the slime, the slime moves. Well this is Lighthouse. He will continue to move in all directions never staying at one spot.
You're the one who weasels out of things. And you are completely ignoring that I do not know dispensationalism as a whole.


If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?
No. They were required to keep it or they were severely punished, even unto [physical] death. This is not what saved them though. God's grace saved them. Romans 3:25 says that their sins were not counted against them, i.e. they were not punished by eternal seperation from God for their sins.


Now Lighthouse will say, we can only be saved by grace not by keepinig the law. Which I do agree, but his previous post shows that the gospel message preached to the Jews was different than the one preached to the gentiles.
Yup. Well, not the message, just the method.


Lighthouse believes the disciples preached the law to the Jews and grace to the gentiles.
No I don't. I don't believe the disciples preached to the Gentiles at all. Except for one or two instances.



Here goes Lighthouse circle reasoning.
He now tells us that the people from Moses to Christ lived by the law and they were required to keep the law. Lighthouse comes short, just like most dispensationalist, to say that the Jews were saved by the "keeping of the law". Lighthouse won't admit this, but this is really what he believes when he says the jews were "required to keep the law".
Until tonight, after reading Romans 3:25, I did believe that until the sacrafice of Christ Jews were saved due to obedience to the law, at least the laws of sacrafice. But I have never believed that the law saved those afterwards. Now I do not believe it saved those before. God's grace did. His word tells us so. Unless you believe it's fallible.



I am not a dispensationalist, but I do believe there are dispensations in the history of mankind. I call them covenants. You don't see me bringing a goat to be sacrificed by a Levi priest every week. That has been done away with.
Dispensationalism is the same thing. They believe just as you do. So do I. The law has been fulfilled, and sacrafice is no longer in the covenant between God and man. It is no longer required. Because the sacrafice of Christ was the final sacrafice, and the only one that cleansed sin. Prior sacrafices only reminded the people of their sin. That's another thing God's word tells us, but I don't remember where.

Lighthouse
August 9th, 2004, 04:59 AM
Nimrod-
I almost forgot. Answer my question! Coward!

billwald
August 9th, 2004, 12:18 PM
The danger is the "polishing brass on the Titanic" syndrome, not beinging with the state of This world and not realizing that our grandkids will have to live in it.

Nimrod
August 9th, 2004, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Until tonight, after reading Romans 3:25, I did believe that until the sacrafice of Christ Jews were saved due to obedience to the law, at least the laws of sacrafice. But I have never believed that the law saved those afterwards. Now I do not believe it saved those before. God's grace did. His word tells us so. Unless you believe it's fallible.


Well. Then we made progress. So in Gal 2:7 when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

The gospel message is the same. No gospel message of the law, thats condemnation. This verse is only saying that the gospel message Paul preaches to the Gentiles, is the same gospel message Peter preached to the Jews.

Do you have any questions for me?

Lighthouse
August 10th, 2004, 01:50 AM
Do I have any questions for you? I asked you a question on page 1, and you still haven't answered it!

geralduk
August 10th, 2004, 05:38 AM
ANY "sound doctrin" taken OUT of CONTEXT and to the EXCLUSION of ALL other doctrins will become an error!
Thus if you take 'DISPENSATIONISM' and by the 'light' of that ONE doctrin read ALL scripture by it then you will sooner or later, twist the scriptures to 'fit;' that particular 'school' of theology or else deny those scriptures that CLEARLY contradict it.

So while it CANNOT be denied by any BIBLICAL Christian that there ARE dispensations of God.
You cannot then dismiis other doctrins wrongly applied by them simply because it doed not fit your SCHOOL.

Thus it CAN be proved that there is what is called the 'rapture' but should more accurately be called the "translation"(see ENOCH)
But what is wrongly applied are those scriptures which speak of the church being the BRIDE.
As meaning that the WHOLE church will be raptured before the "great TRIBULAtion"
That theree IS a "great tribulation" is CLEARLY taught in the scriptures.
by the LORD who said if those days were not shortened then no one would be saved.
Thus ALL "who live Godly IN Christ Jesus WILL suffer persecution" and will therefore have "tribulation"
But the "GREAT tribulation" is when "it is DRY"
For GOD"who in sundry times and in divers manners spoke by the prophets hath IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken to us by His SON"
If then when the LORD wal;ked this earth the FIRST time it was the "LAST days" how much MORE are they NOW at His soon apearence.
THEN the days were GREEN ...........NOW the days are DRY.

"As it was in thne days of NOAH so shall it be in the LAST DAYS."
If you COUNT the 'days' of Noah and all those before him you will find that ENOCH was alive in HIS DAY.

You therefore have TWO men .
One whos WALK was PERFECT before God (ENOCH)
and one who found grace in the sight of the LORD who in the light of future events whos walk was not perfect.

"As in the days of LOT so shall it be in the LAST DAys"
There too you have TWO men.
Lot who walkied by SIGHT and not by faith for he chose his course byu what he SAW and REASONED by thew NATURAL man.
Nvertheless was "COUNTED RIGHTOUS" for his rightous soul was vexed by the ........"wickedness AROUND HIM.
but AWAY from where he was there was ABRAHAM who WALKED perfectly before God and was in a 'place' where God could tell him "what He was about to do"
Lot on the other hand was BLIND to the hour in which he lived.
yet escaped BUT WAs "SCARCLEY SAVED" but suffered loss as through fire"
For at the parting with ABRAHAM was as RICH in the blessing of God as he was.
But at the END saved but his own soul.

The BRIDE then will be made up of those "who have made themselves ready" and walk after the SPIRIT and NOT after the flesh.
and the 'rapture' is NOT an escape bu the LORD coming FOR His BRIDE.

EVERY true BORNagain child of God is CALLED unto THAT "HIGH CALLING" and have to THAT end been "aprehended FOR"
Yet even as those who were SAVED from EGYPT were "aprehended FOR" so that they might INHERIT the promise" NEVERTHELESS failed to do so becazuse "of thier unbeleif"
But if you read the account it was NOT that they believed NOTHING! but that they BELIEVED the WRONG MESSAGE!!!!!

Thus there WILL be MANY christians to intent in petty squabbles and "vain debates" who say "they are RICH and have need of nothing" but in Gods eyes are "POOR wretched and BLIND"
"MY people perish for they LACK VISION for they have rejected knolwdge" that is SOUND BIBLICAL TEACHING.
and because they are LED by MEN who in turn are LED not by the HOLY SPIRIT bu tby thier own carnal thinking they will not nor cannot get themselves READY!
For they 'believe' that as you are BORNagain then EVERYTHING is AUTOMATIC!
and they need to do NOTHING!
wHEN THE SCRIPTURES clearly TEACH we are to "MAKE our elcetion SURE"!
And to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling"¬!
To make ourselves ready!
we cannot save ourselves.
This is IREFUTABLE.
Nor could the children of ISREAL by thier own strenght or work or meirt deliver themselves OUT from EGYPT.
But what THEN!?
dID THEY NOT HAVE TO LEARN "that man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY Word that proccedeth from the mouth of God"
To learn to be LED by God wheresover HE LED them.
to walk by FAITH and not by sight.
and while God had got them out of EGYPT that 40 DAYS trhoguh the wilderness was there so that GOD could gte EGYPT out of THEM!
bUT how many ALLOWED God to so WORK in them? that which was pleasing in HIS SIGHT? AND how many WERE obedient?
How then can TWO walk togther if they do not agree?

How then can the WHOLE CHURCH make up the BRIDE when in MOST things she cannot AGREE on ANYTHING !
For she has REDUCED the GOSPEL of God to the VERY BASIC of being BORNagain. for 'peace sake' agreeign to disagree with other saints for the sake of 'unity'.
But how is it that PAUL speak of those things that the CHURCH says is the be all and end all of our salvation as being the MILK of the WORD and those who are ion need of still being TAUGHT as being YET CARNAL!
and we know that to be CARNALY minded IS TO BE AT emnity with God!
and cannot receive the things of God!
Can it be then that the church that boasts itself in being the 'light of the world' is in truth BLIND to the GREATNESS of our salvation?
beifn satisfied withy the 'S' of it?
When PAUL says we are "to GO ONTO PERFECTION"!
wHO EVER HEARD of a new (LISTEN) BORN baby gettign MARRIED!!!!"!
BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE when we are BORNagain!
desiringf the "sincere MILK of the WORD"
but who MUST (if they would lay hold of the promise)get WEANED and begin to take SOLIDS!
who must LEARN to WALK and grow to MATURITY.
But we have made the church a NURSERY!(maybe thats why so many are falling in love with rome?)
who canot tell thier left hand from thier right.
Nor RIGHTLY divide the Word of God .
Because too OFTEN men are UNWILLING to be LED by HIM who was PROMISED who would LEAD us into ALL truth"!
Thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a "unity of THE faith" unless there is a UNITY of UNDERSTANDING!
fOR FAITH COMES BY understanding THE word OF GOD!
Thus if those who CLaim TO BE CHRISTIANS would fulfill the prayer of the LORD that they might be ONE even as we are one.
Then we MUST have the MIND of CHRIST and be conformed NOT unto the world but ybe ye transaformed by the renewal of our minds.
Till we all come to the untiy of the faith!
bUT HERE IS THE RUB........
IF THE HOLY SPIRIT is not LORD of our LIVES then HOW can we be LED by Him?
If we LEAN more upon our OWN undersdtanding rather than TRUST HIM who LED us to CHRIST how do we EXPECT to be as a BRIDE to CHRIST!
For a BRIDE folows her husband WITHERSOEVER HE GOES!
and where He stops THEN SO DOES SHE.
and where He stays so does she.
AND WHERE HE GOES so does SHE.
For is He not the HEAD?
OF THE CHURCH?
WHICH IS HIS Body?

Therefore when He comes again "shall He find faith"?
That is REAL faith.
For it is clear by such a question that He will not find A GREAT DEAL of it.
But what He does find will be more precios than gold.

Thus if we seek to be in the BRIDE we must meet the CONDITIONS!
and be CONFORMED to CHRIST and not the the world.

PROOF TEXTS are misleading.
NO ONE text 'PROVES' or TESTS a doctrin.
Though it may CLEARLY state it.
To 'prove' or test a "sound doctrin"
You must use ALL the scriptures.
for God has not changed.
and you will find ANY doctrin laid out in ALL the scriptures.
In types and shadows and in plain speach. in sundry times and in divers ways.

Thus the RAPTURE can be understood properly when a RIGHT UNDERSTANDING of the BRIDE of Christ IS COME TO.

the rapture is of that BRIDE

geralduk
August 10th, 2004, 05:38 AM
ANY "sound doctrin" taken OUT of CONTEXT and to the EXCLUSION of ALL other doctrins will become an error!
Thus if you take 'DISPENSATIONISM' and by the 'light' of that ONE doctrin read ALL scripture by it then you will sooner or later, twist the scriptures to 'fit;' that particular 'school' of theology or else deny those scriptures that CLEARLY contradict it.

So while it CANNOT be denied by any BIBLICAL Christian that there ARE dispensations of God.
You cannot then dismiis other doctrins wrongly applied by them simply because it doed not fit your SCHOOL.

Thus it CAN be proved that there is what is called the 'rapture' but should more accurately be called the "translation"(see ENOCH)
But what is wrongly applied are those scriptures which speak of the church being the BRIDE.
As meaning that the WHOLE church will be raptured before the "great TRIBULAtion"
That theree IS a "great tribulation" is CLEARLY taught in the scriptures.
by the LORD who said if those days were not shortened then no one would be saved.
Thus ALL "who live Godly IN Christ Jesus WILL suffer persecution" and will therefore have "tribulation"
But the "GREAT tribulation" is when "it is DRY"
For GOD"who in sundry times and in divers manners spoke by the prophets hath IN THESE LAST DAYS spoken to us by His SON"
If then when the LORD wal;ked this earth the FIRST time it was the "LAST days" how much MORE are they NOW at His soon apearence.
THEN the days were GREEN ...........NOW the days are DRY.

"As it was in thne days of NOAH so shall it be in the LAST DAYS."
If you COUNT the 'days' of Noah and all those before him you will find that ENOCH was alive in HIS DAY.

You therefore have TWO men .
One whos WALK was PERFECT before God (ENOCH)
and one who found grace in the sight of the LORD who in the light of future events whos walk was not perfect.

"As in the days of LOT so shall it be in the LAST DAys"
There too you have TWO men.
Lot who walkied by SIGHT and not by faith for he chose his course byu what he SAW and REASONED by thew NATURAL man.
Nvertheless was "COUNTED RIGHTOUS" for his rightous soul was vexed by the ........"wickedness AROUND HIM.
but AWAY from where he was there was ABRAHAM who WALKED perfectly before God and was in a 'place' where God could tell him "what He was about to do"
Lot on the other hand was BLIND to the hour in which he lived.
yet escaped BUT WAs "SCARCLEY SAVED" but suffered loss as through fire"
For at the parting with ABRAHAM was as RICH in the blessing of God as he was.
But at the END saved but his own soul.

The BRIDE then will be made up of those "who have made themselves ready" and walk after the SPIRIT and NOT after the flesh.
and the 'rapture' is NOT an escape bu the LORD coming FOR His BRIDE.

EVERY true BORNagain child of God is CALLED unto THAT "HIGH CALLING" and have to THAT end been "aprehended FOR"
Yet even as those who were SAVED from EGYPT were "aprehended FOR" so that they might INHERIT the promise" NEVERTHELESS failed to do so becazuse "of thier unbeleif"
But if you read the account it was NOT that they believed NOTHING! but that they BELIEVED the WRONG MESSAGE!!!!!

Thus there WILL be MANY christians to intent in petty squabbles and "vain debates" who say "they are RICH and have need of nothing" but in Gods eyes are "POOR wretched and BLIND"
"MY people perish for they LACK VISION for they have rejected knolwdge" that is SOUND BIBLICAL TEACHING.
and because they are LED by MEN who in turn are LED not by the HOLY SPIRIT bu tby thier own carnal thinking they will not nor cannot get themselves READY!
For they 'believe' that as you are BORNagain then EVERYTHING is AUTOMATIC!
and they need to do NOTHING!
wHEN THE SCRIPTURES clearly TEACH we are to "MAKE our elcetion SURE"!
And to "work out our salvation with fear and trembling"¬!
To make ourselves ready!
we cannot save ourselves.
This is IREFUTABLE.
Nor could the children of ISREAL by thier own strenght or work or meirt deliver themselves OUT from EGYPT.
But what THEN!?
dID THEY NOT HAVE TO LEARN "that man shall not live by bread alone but by EVERY Word that proccedeth from the mouth of God"
To learn to be LED by God wheresover HE LED them.
to walk by FAITH and not by sight.
and while God had got them out of EGYPT that 40 DAYS trhoguh the wilderness was there so that GOD could gte EGYPT out of THEM!
bUT how many ALLOWED God to so WORK in them? that which was pleasing in HIS SIGHT? AND how many WERE obedient?
How then can TWO walk togther if they do not agree?

How then can the WHOLE CHURCH make up the BRIDE when in MOST things she cannot AGREE on ANYTHING !
For she has REDUCED the GOSPEL of God to the VERY BASIC of being BORNagain. for 'peace sake' agreeign to disagree with other saints for the sake of 'unity'.
But how is it that PAUL speak of those things that the CHURCH says is the be all and end all of our salvation as being the MILK of the WORD and those who are ion need of still being TAUGHT as being YET CARNAL!
and we know that to be CARNALY minded IS TO BE AT emnity with God!
and cannot receive the things of God!
Can it be then that the church that boasts itself in being the 'light of the world' is in truth BLIND to the GREATNESS of our salvation?
beifn satisfied withy the 'S' of it?
When PAUL says we are "to GO ONTO PERFECTION"!
wHO EVER HEARD of a new (LISTEN) BORN baby gettign MARRIED!!!!"!
BUT THAT IS WHAT WE ARE when we are BORNagain!
desiringf the "sincere MILK of the WORD"
but who MUST (if they would lay hold of the promise)get WEANED and begin to take SOLIDS!
who must LEARN to WALK and grow to MATURITY.
But we have made the church a NURSERY!(maybe thats why so many are falling in love with rome?)
who canot tell thier left hand from thier right.
Nor RIGHTLY divide the Word of God .
Because too OFTEN men are UNWILLING to be LED by HIM who was PROMISED who would LEAD us into ALL truth"!
Thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to have a "unity of THE faith" unless there is a UNITY of UNDERSTANDING!
fOR FAITH COMES BY understanding THE word OF GOD!
Thus if those who CLaim TO BE CHRISTIANS would fulfill the prayer of the LORD that they might be ONE even as we are one.
Then we MUST have the MIND of CHRIST and be conformed NOT unto the world but ybe ye transaformed by the renewal of our minds.
Till we all come to the untiy of the faith!
bUT HERE IS THE RUB........
IF THE HOLY SPIRIT is not LORD of our LIVES then HOW can we be LED by Him?
If we LEAN more upon our OWN undersdtanding rather than TRUST HIM who LED us to CHRIST how do we EXPECT to be as a BRIDE to CHRIST!
For a BRIDE folows her husband WITHERSOEVER HE GOES!
and where He stops THEN SO DOES SHE.
and where He stays so does she.
AND WHERE HE GOES so does SHE.
For is He not the HEAD?
OF THE CHURCH?
WHICH IS HIS Body?

Therefore when He comes again "shall He find faith"?
That is REAL faith.
For it is clear by such a question that He will not find A GREAT DEAL of it.
But what He does find will be more precios than gold.

Thus if we seek to be in the BRIDE we must meet the CONDITIONS!
and be CONFORMED to CHRIST and not the the world.

PROOF TEXTS are misleading.
NO ONE text 'PROVES' or TESTS a doctrin.
Though it may CLEARLY state it.
To 'prove' or test a "sound doctrin"
You must use ALL the scriptures.
for God has not changed.
and you will find ANY doctrin laid out in ALL the scriptures.
In types and shadows and in plain speach. in sundry times and in divers ways.

Thus the RAPTURE can be understood properly when a RIGHT UNDERSTANDING of the BRIDE of Christ IS COME TO.

the rapture is of that BRIDE . the SALT of the earth which when taken out from the earth gives then the devil his rope as it were and the WHOLE EARTH sinks into corruption and is ripe then for JUDGEMNENT.

Nimrod
August 10th, 2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Do I have any questions for you? I asked you a question on page 1, and you still haven't answered it!

SOZO asked that question and I replied.
Go look and see.

Lighthouse
August 11th, 2004, 09:53 PM
Okay.

csmuda
August 12th, 2004, 12:14 PM
you know what, reading another of good Gerald's long ranting posts (not that there's anything wrong with that) I think dispensationalists are gnostic too. They have this secret knowledge that helps them cling to eschatology that is the baby in the camp as if it is eternal truth. I mean come on. 164 years ago those believers in Glasgow, Scotland decided (for the first time in Church history) to divide the parousia into two seperate events.

Orthodox history said at the end of days Jesus would return literally, visibly, and bodily. Right? I believe so...

So if we dare compare the historical position of western, eastern, and protestant position to the dispensationalists it is inferred we ain't got the Holy Spirit a talkin to us, them...

Isn't that how it worked for the primitive gnostics? They walked, talked, and looked like Christians but they had a experiential knowledge of the truth. Totally subjective, colorful, but not objective. They all had to have inspired writings of there own, still not unreasonable are far as subjective experiences go.

I don't know. It all looks like bozos on this bus to me....I'm sorry.

servent101
August 12th, 2004, 01:44 PM
csmuda
I don't know. It all looks like bozos on this bus to me....I'm sorry.

The other train looks like a bunch of toy wind up solders, content on doing whatever their "pastor or priest" tells them too.

Recently I noticed that people who are of an orthodox mindset are extremely threatened when someone speaks of how wonderfully full of intrinsic sense, how awesome the Wisdom of Scripture is, or tells of another Person, or Faith that says the Same thing - as if they have decided by force - that whatever is Written is of God, so therefore no matter what it says - they will obey. If they start to realize what they are missing - it drives SOME of them beyond the bend, and their foundation of sand starts to crumble.

With Christ's Love

Servent101

Aimiel
August 12th, 2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by servent101

csmuda

The other train looks like a bunch of toy wind up solders, content on doing whatever their "pastor or priest" tells them too.

Recently I noticed that people who are of an orthodox mindset are extremely threatened when someone speaks of how wonderfully full of intrinsic sense, how awesome the Wisdom of Scripture is, or tells of another Person, or Faith that says the Same thing - as if they have decided by force - that whatever is Written is of God, so therefore no matter what it says - they will obey. If they start to realize what they are missing - it drives SOME of them beyond the bend, and their foundation of sand starts to crumble.

With Christ's Love

Servent101 Servent,

Please try to be coherent, and at least make your posts resemble some type of communication. This is just empty and meaningless. You've actually said nothing at all. You're just rambling. :kookoo:

*Acts9_12Out*
August 12th, 2004, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by Nimrod

As for questions on post #14, I need to think it over.

At least you're honest... This is the crux of the issue, now isn't it? If there has only been One Universal Gospel, that has never, ever changed, then you have a serious problem with the passages Turbo referenced... You continue,


If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?

Nimrod,

The problem is, us mid-Acts people are constantly misrepresented. The question to be asked should be, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law by faith, did he lose salvation?"

We believe that the means of salvation has never, ever changed. The means of salvation has always been and will always be the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The blood of Christ covers the sin of all mankind from Adam to the eternal state. Where we seem to differ is on exactly how someone gains access to that saving blood, the means of salvation.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism teaches that the method of salvation changes. In other words, God changes the way He asks man to show saving faith in order to have the method (the blood of Christ) applied to him. To make it even more clear:

1. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for us.
2. Man must have faith in God.
3. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show faith.

So, when you asked, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?" with a correct understanding of our foundation, I say yes... If a Jew did not keep God's Law by faith, he lost his salvation. God even says so...

God outlines the difference between someone who sinned "unintentionally" and the person who sinned "presumptously" (intentionally) and how to handle each instance. Let's read it...


Numbers 15
22 'If you sin unintentionally, and do not observe all these commandments which the Lord has spoken to Moses-- 23 all that the Lord has commanded you by the hand of Moses, from the day the Lord gave commandment and onward throughout your generations-- 24 then it will be, if it is unintentionally committed, without the knowledge of the congregation, that the whole congregation shall offer one young bull as a burnt offering, as a sweet aroma to the Lord, with its grain offering and its drink offering, according to the ordinance, and one kid of the goats as a sin offering. 25 So the priest shall make atonement for the whole congregation of the children of Israel, and it shall be forgiven them, for it was unintentional; they shall bring their offering, an offering made by fire to the Lord, and their sin offering before the Lord, for their unintended sin. 26 It shall be forgiven the whole congregation of the children of Israel and the stranger who dwells among them, because all the people did it unintentionally. 27 'And if a person sins unintentionally, then he shall bring a female goat in its first year as a sin offering. 28 So the priest shall make atonement for the person who sins unintentionally, when he sins unintentionally before the Lord, to make atonement for him; and it shall be forgiven him. 29 You shall have one law for him who sins unintentionally, for him who is native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger who dwells among them.

Now, this covers unintentional sins. If a person sinned unintentionally, and by faith brought the required sacrifice, God would forgive that sin.

What if a Jewish person sinned against God presumptously (intentionally)? Can an intentional sin be forgiven?


Numbers 15
30 'But the person who does anything presumptuously, whether he is native-born or a stranger, that one brings reproach on the Lord, and he shall be cut off from among his people. 31 Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'

Just to be clear, God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell...


Numbers 15
32 Now while the children of Israel were in the wilderness, they found a man gathering sticks on the Sabbath day. 33 And those who found him gathering sticks brought him to Moses and Aaron, and to all the congregation. 34 They put him under guard, because it had not been explained what should be done to him. 35 Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man must surely be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him with stones outside the camp." 36 So, as the Lord commanded Moses, all the congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him with stones, and he died.

This man chose to disobey God intentionally. God commanded the children of Israel to stone him with stones and kill him. This man died in his sin and will be in hell. You continue,


Here goes Lighthouse circle reasoning.
He now tells us that the people from Moses to Christ lived by the law and they were required to keep the law. Lighthouse comes short, just like most dispensationalist, to say that the Jews were saved by the "keeping of the law". Lighthouse won't admit this, but this is really what he believes when he says the jews were "required to keep the law".

With a correct understanding, we do say that OT saints were required to keep the law, by faith. If they did not keep the law by faith, they would not have the future blood of Christ applied to them. You continue,


I am not a dispensationalist, but I do believe there are dispensations in the history of mankind. I call them covenants. You don't see me bringing a goat to be sacrificed by a Levi priest every week. That has been done away with.

I agree... There are covenants and dispensations in the Bible. What needs to be stressed here is, a dispensational change occurrs when God changes the way He deals with man. God asked the OT saints to keep the law by faith. God asks the body of Christ to trust in the death, burial and resurrection by faith.

In Christ,

Jeremy Finkenbinder

Lighthouse
August 13th, 2004, 12:43 AM
Nimrod-
Do you have a link to where you answered the question?

Nimrod
August 13th, 2004, 01:56 PM
I am glad you admit, that works were required for salvation.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*


Just to be clear, God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell...


This man chose to disobey God intentionally. God commanded the children of Israel to stone him with stones and kill him. This man died in his sin and will be in hell.

Numbers 15:3131 Because he has despised the word of the Lord, and has broken His commandment, that person shall be completely cut off; his guilt shall be upon him.'

Jeremy Finkenbinder

To summarize what Jeremy just said->
Jeremy Finkenbinder believes King David is in hell.

2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

From Jeremy's logic, King David committed a sin that was intentional. Therefore, is now in hell.

Lighthouse I hope you read this. People like Bob Enyart (who believes King Solomon is in hell.) and others, you need to watch out for.

*Acts9_12Out*
August 14th, 2004, 12:19 AM
Nimrod,

Let's do some housecleaning and then address your post...

1. First off, you failed to respond to the points presented in my previous post.

2. You misrepresent me out of anger.

3. You still have yet to respond to post #14.

Now, on to your points...


Originally posted by Nimrod
I am glad you admit, that works were required for salvation.

That's a lie that stems from your anger. I expect an apology. Here's what I actually said...


The problem is, us mid-Acts people are constantly misrepresented. The question to be asked should be, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law by faith, did he lose salvation?"

We believe that the means of salvation has never, ever changed. The means of salvation has always been and will always be the shed blood of Jesus Christ. The blood of Christ covers the sin of all mankind from Adam to the eternal state. Where we seem to differ is on exactly how someone gains access to that saving blood, the means of salvation.

Mid-Acts dispensationalism teaches that the method of salvation changes. In other words, God changes the way He asks man to show saving faith in order to have the method (the blood of Christ) applied to him. To make it even more clear:

1. God is Gracious to send His Son to die for us.
2. Man must have faith in God.
3. God sometimes changes the way He asks man to show faith.

So, when you asked, "If a Jew did not "keep" the law, did he lose salvation?" with a correct understanding of our foundation, I say yes... If a Jew did not keep God's Law by faith, he lost his salvation. God even says so...

Instead of addressing what God said in Numbers 15, you get angry and lie. Don't shoot the messenger, but rather, deal with the message... You continue in anger,


To summarize what Jeremy just said->
Jeremy Finkenbinder believes King David is in hell.

2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

I said no such thing. Yet another lie stemming from anger... We never discussed David. If you'd like to do so, fine... Just say so...


From Jeremy's logic, King David committed a sin that was intentional. Therefore, is now in hell.

I have never said David is in hell, nor do I believe so... Yes, David did commit a presumptous sin, and deserved death and hell. However, God looks at the heart. God saw that David was "a man after His own heart..."

Unfortunately, you didn't read far enough in 2 Samuel 12...


2 Samuel 12
13 So David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the Lord." And Nathan said to David, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.

Nimrod, why would Nathan say, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die," if David did not deserve the same fate as the man in Numbers 15? Again, God saw David's repentant heart and graced him out... David describes this event in Psalm 32. Paul echoes the Psalm in Romans 4. God pardoned David's sin that did indeed deserve death...


Romans 4
6 just as David also describes the blessedness of the man to whom God imputes righteousness apart from works:
7 "Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, And whose sins are covered;
8 Blessed is the man to whom the Lord shall not impute sin."

Nimrod, what if the man in Numbers 15 had repented? Would God still have commanded the children of Israel to kill him? I think not. The point still stands... The man in Numbers 15 committed a presumptous sin by not keeping God's law. That same man was unrepentant and died in his sin. Deal with Numbers 15 when you're not so angry...

What I find interesting is, those who argue "faith alone" fail to define their terms. They usually say, "Yep, we are saved by faith alone," but fail to tell us where their "faith alone" is based. Nimrod, I have argued that all are saved by "faith alone" in God. What you failed to address was the fact that God changes the way He asks man to show faith. All who are saved by "faith alone" must have faith in whatever God asks them to believe. God did not ask the man in Numbers 15 to have "faith alone" in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God commanded that man to have "faith alone" in His law. If that man attempted to keep God's law by faith alone he would be righteous before God. That man chose to reject God's law and went to hell, his guilt upon him.

Riddle me this Nimrod... If a person has faith alone in God, but rejects the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, can that person be saved today? I didn't think so...

Take a deep breath and respond to the points presented when you're not so angry. I'm still waiting for your answer to post #14...

--Jeremy

*Acts9_12Out*
August 23rd, 2004, 12:12 AM
Nimrod,

Did you quit on me? Are you still angry?

Lighthouse
August 23rd, 2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by Nimrod

Jeremy Finkenbinder believes King David is in hell.

2 Samuel 12:9 Why have you despised the commandment of the Lord, to do evil in His sight? You have killed Uriah the Hittite with the sword; you have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the people of Ammon.

From Jeremy's logic, King David committed a sin that was intentional. Therefore, is now in hell.

Lighthouse I hope you read this. People like Bob Enyart (who believes King Solomon is in hell.) and others, you need to watch out for.
Enyart believes that King Solomon is in hell? I have read the Bible, and I have read David's repentance over the murder, fornication and deception [and whatever else took place in that]. I have no reason to believe that God did not forgive David. And, FYI, I'm not an Enyart follower. I do see where He's coming from, and I do agree with Him on some things, but I'm not a fan...:shut:

kidd94
August 24th, 2004, 02:10 PM
The problem with most eschatalogical models are the fact that the models come first then the method is applied later.

Rather the method, consisiting of proper hermeneutics, should be first, then we can somewhat come up with a proper Model.

csmuda
August 25th, 2004, 03:18 AM
kidd94,
God Bless you in the name of Jesus Christ! but, no I don't thnk proper hermeneutics will carry the day. Indispensable no doubt. but historical understanding is critical, I think. And the whole motely bunch of Dispylanders seem to completely ignore theological history which IS a big dangerous thing. If we taught our children historical theology they wouldn't get bumped from pillar to post when the snake-oil salesman show up.

Although, my humble attempt to apply sound hermeneutics brought me to the big suprise that one can study the NT and see all references to the second coming as one event at the end. It took me almost a year of study to realize that the Coming for the saints verses Coming with the saints is an wrong division of that blessed event.

Every position claims to be rightly dividing the word of truth.

Lighthouse
August 26th, 2004, 10:47 PM
I think Nimrod ran away. :dog:

geralduk
August 28th, 2004, 07:11 AM
Hystorical theology?

is God dead then that we need to look at the past like rome for our foundation?
Should we not rather beleive God who has promised that when the HOLY SPIRIT has come HE SHALL LEAD you into all truth"?
Of course if you believe that the HOL;Y SPIRIT came 2000 YEARS AGO and that was it.
Then there is a serios problem.
Seeing that you must also believe that the HOLY SPIRIT is dead also?
For in that those who recived HIM then died then so too did He who came to them die with them?
But clearly thjis is not the case.
How then is it believed that seeing that those "earthen vessels" having been 'broken' and long gone and the SPIRIT as it were has left them.
That we made of the same clay and without God as in DARKNESS even as they were.
Yet even as thjey were enlightened by the HOLYT SPIRIT (even as SAUL WAS) so then must we be.
Thus if we would REALY know the truth as God intends we MUST also be FILLED with the HOLY SPIRIT even asd they.
Perhaps then that is why there is so much ewrror and confusion in the church for He is OUTSIDE the church knocking at the door and seekign entrance.
It is then to ther WHOSOVER will open the door will He come to.
or if any church will humble themselves and pray and be of ONE mind and heart there too will God command the blessing.
We are LED into all truth.
and ARRIVE at a knopwldge of the truth.
Just because w eknow the SCRIPTURE does not mean we know the truth!
You say the scripture is the truth?
Who denies it.
But what does the scripture say?
"The WORD is a SEED"!
That seed needs then to be SOWN in the heart of GOOD SOIL and then IS quickned by the HOLY SPIRIT to our understanding to the transformation of our minds even as we put it into PRACTICE.
Therefore historical theology albeit perchance of "of sound doctrin" is but the dead letter.
and what of the SCRIPTURES are THEY not the FOUNDATION of ALL sound doctrin?
"For ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God for..........."
I would 'argue' that too many have thier theology as a CLOAK which was another mans garment but is not yet thier own.
and because they hold to that doctrin they think they have life.
and because they coem from a particular 'school' of theology they have life.
Men do not have life because they hold to this or that doctrin.
But they have life because they 'have' the Son or in truth The SON has them.
it is good to know church history and the great men of God who worked great things for God.
and to study thier life and doctrin.
But if they are of God then we should FOLOW them not just get knowldge of them.
But let it be understood that the HOLY BIBLE is the ROCK and FOUNDATION of faith IN God and by its UNDERSTANDING we get a LIVELY faith IN God.
This can ONLY come about if we honour Him who RESTED on the WORD made flesh as He came out of the waters of baptism.
For NOAH sent out the dove twice.
The first time it found no resting place.
This pertains to the children of ISREAL and the prophets.
But when HE who was promised came to fullfill all the law there ther HOLY SPIRIT found His eternal RESTING PLACE.
Therefore we are "BORN of the water(THE WORD) and the SPIRIT"
AND SO FIND REST FOR our souls in Him the SPIRIT of God witnessing with our spirit that we are the sons of God.
The Word of God is an inexhaustable well of living water.
Go to THAT well then and you will never thirst again.
Drink from anothers and you will find no eternal satisfaction and rest.

Lighthouse
August 28th, 2004, 11:24 PM
Some excellent points, geralduk.

csmuda
August 30th, 2004, 01:36 AM
You go geralduk.
so much division seen in the Christianity of the world. so many denominations and divisions. yet in the church epistles we are strongly asked to think one thing and be of one mind. So all the 1000+ denominations might think that they, and they alone, hold the key to "the whole truth" or the like. so many fundamentalists get their flock all hepped up on their own little slant without any shred of church history. How many of us are versed in the main reason for Luther and Calvin's disagreement?

A whole understanding of the history of christian eschatology will force the student to acknowledge that "rapture" is only 160 years old compared to 2000 years of church thought. Granted the many a-sides in the Faith had many people waiting on some hill top for the event and nothing happened.

I've never ever understood why in Christianity I have to choose between my brain and my heart.

the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her. why should she? it's hopeless. When I was excited about all this I was even more excited about learning how brothers-and-sisters thought about these things in the different centuries.

300 hundred years ago Christians in america really really thought that america was central to God's plans. They thought that from America the Word would sound out over the planet and the spread of God's Kingdom would move out and make the world new again. They were as passionate as present day dispensationalists. How can truth evolve like that? Only by not looking at it can we pretend this reinvention is not so. That's the danger: ignorance and passion mixed. :nono:

Lighthouse
August 30th, 2004, 02:28 AM
Originally posted by csmuda

the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her. why should she? it's hopeless.
Where did you get an idea as absurd as that one? Dispensationalism of any sort teaches no such thing. Calvinism does, but dispensationalism does not. I care very much about the world around me, and I believe that the law was definitely for the dispensation of the law, in the times of the OT. The only thing that applies to the current dispensation is morality. And that is attained by faith in God. And is given by His grace.

Jefferson
August 30th, 2004, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by csmuda the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her. The most politically active Christian group in America in the past 50 years was Jerry Falwell's "Moral Majority" which was made up almost entirely of dispensationalists. How do you explain that?

billwald
August 30th, 2004, 01:48 PM
No point polishing brass on the Titanic, right? Only thing matters is getting people into the life boats. Heard this a million times in a million variations.

Lighthouse
August 31st, 2004, 01:55 AM
Falwell is a tool of Satan.

csmuda
August 31st, 2004, 02:30 AM
Lighthouse, I don't know enough about calvinism but I find it hard to believe that that theology cared little about the world. Didn't Calvin care so very much about life that he set up in (?) geneva the proper way to live? Even to the point of having a unitarian sentenced to death? I got the idea that dispy's don't care because I've heard flesh-and-blood Christians speak that way. for example, to be politically active is a time waster because the world will continue to be controlled by you-know-who.

Jefferson, very good point regarding the Moral Majority. Still, the very attitude that the world is going to hell in a handbasket still means in the dispy's heart-of-heart she doesn't think there is any hope of seeing Christ's church reign on earth. Don't the MM really wanna just set up a refuge from the "coming storm" if you will?

lighthouse, those are good things to believe in. I believe you when you say you care very much about the world. Perhaps I was too severe. I apologize. I was coming from what billwald referred to. "polishing the brass on the titantic" I believe that actually came from a sermon somewhere. And it shows, I think, how the mind set shifted in protestantism. Instead of a deep confidence in some relentless spread of God's kingdom on earth through the church, it is every man, woman, and group for themselves 'cause when the stick really hits the fan we (the chosen) get to vertically fly out of here and just the losers get left behind.

Lighthouse
August 31st, 2004, 02:50 AM
I prefer to think of Christians as like Noah. Go out and invite everyone onto the boat. It's up to them whether or not they get on.

geralduk
September 1st, 2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by csmuda

You go geralduk.
so much division seen in the Christianity of the world. so many denominations and divisions. yet in the church epistles we are strongly asked to think one thing and be of one mind. So all the 1000+ denominations might think that they, and they alone, hold the key to "the whole truth" or the like. so many fundamentalists get their flock all hepped up on their own little slant without any shred of church history. How many of us are versed in the main reason for Luther and Calvin's disagreement?

A whole understanding of the history of christian eschatology will force the student to acknowledge that "rapture" is only 160 years old compared to 2000 years of church thought. Granted the many a-sides in the Faith had many people waiting on some hill top for the event and nothing happened.

I've never ever understood why in Christianity I have to choose between my brain and my heart.

the danger of dispensationalism is the Christian doesn't care about the world around her. why should she? it's hopeless. When I was excited about all this I was even more excited about learning how brothers-and-sisters thought about these things in the different centuries.

300 hundred years ago Christians in america really really thought that america was central to God's plans. They thought that from America the Word would sound out over the planet and the spread of God's Kingdom would move out and make the world new again. They were as passionate as present day dispensationalists. How can truth evolve like that? Only by not looking at it can we pretend this reinvention is not so. That's the danger: ignorance and passion mixed. :nono:

The birth of the church was b rought into being at its BAPTISM of the HOLY GHOST.
it then sprung up and then was persecuted then blessed by the world and evntualy that seed fell into the ground and died.
Alebit there was a REMNANT left as a witness.
Untill the reformation that "seed" laid dormant.
Then in die time the light dawned on a greman monk that the "just hsall live by faith"
It was not a new thing but an old truth revitalised by the HOLY SPIRIT.
That new shoot had still earth clinging to it.
so to did LUTHOR.
But when God sought to go " a little further"
Those having got THAT revalation though it was ALL the revaltion.
and so built thier wall around it .
Calvin got more but when God moved on many didnt.
BAPTISTS got more light but they too stayed when God moved on.
Weslyians then broiught more light for the 'present' church had the Lord OUTSIDE the door trying to get in.
But trhere too in time God moved and they stayed.
and so on and so on.
pentecsostals also got light but have made thier 'light' the be all and end all.
Evangelicals also.
Each 'defending' thier 'patch' but forgetting that it is GOD who is the HEAD and they are but MEMBERS.
and that EACH PART is but that a PART of the WHOLE.
wE ARE OF COURSE TALKING ABOUT THOSE "SOUND DCOTRINS" of scripture.
But even as it was the HOLY SPIRIT who had QUICKNED to them and enlightened them concerning the Word.
and had in the time it was given ENABLED them to preach it against all oposition.
So now in the main they DENY Him in truth for they boast in the scriuptures and thier doctrins.
But have forgotten of whom they SPEAK of.
Thus while each denomination will not acknowldge the truth as to thier need of Him and are willing to open the door to Him.
They are growing CORRUPT and death is slowly creaping in even as the world is.
The church is in a BAD WAY and judgement is hovering over it even as it was over ISREAL.
For in its own eyes "it has need of nothing"
But in Gods.........


The WHOLE truth is in "(listen) ALL the scriptures which were given for............."
The question is will the church swallow the WHOLE pill OR ONLY THOSE BITS WHICH 'fit' ITS 'SCHOOL' OF THEOLOGY.

It matters not that the 'rapture' is only (so it is thought) 160 years old.
According to THAT reasoning LUTHOR was wrong and ROME was right!
The TRUTH "liveth and abideth forver"
Just because men hjave not 'seen' it "untill now" does not mean it has no validity.
That mystery that Paul preached that was 'hiddeen' untill now.
is CLEARLY seen (now) in ALL the scriptures!
yet was hidden for 4000 years!
are we then to dismiss that truth just because PAUL first understood the mystery?
and not THOSE OF LONG AGO?
The 'rapture' or more accurately the "TRANSLATION"(SEE ENOCH)
is provable or tested by the scriptures.
Not so much by 'proof texts' for the scripturs do not encourage such things but rather by BIBLICAL 'arguement' (see the leters of hebrews and romans.)
You may have a text that 'CLEARLY states a doctrin.
nevertheless to 'prove it needs more than one or two texts.
but ALL the scriptures.
For even as one swallow does not make a summer,neither does one text make a doctrin.


Nowhere does the scriptures say you should throw away your brain.
It DOES say that you must bring your thoughts into CONFORMITY with the scriuptures.
For they have thier OWN logic and REASONING and the HOLY BIBLE HAS ITS OWN INTEGRITY.
How can it not be seeing that it is the WORD OF GOD.
wHOS THOUGHTS are higher than our thoughts and whos ways are not our ways.
Thus we must learn to bring our thinkign and experirence into line with the SCRIPTURES.
Not as so many are doing bringing the scrptures into line with thier own experience and reasoning.
Thus God means to RECONCILE the HEART and the BRAIN so that they are in COMPLETE and perfect harmony and WITH HIM.

csmuda
September 2nd, 2004, 12:27 AM
geralduk,
if we had met in 1987 I would be on the same page with you. But this is 2004 and I am unmoved by your apologetic. You're best reasoning here will continue into the next century and Christianity will continue to evolve. Pitty I won't be around to watch it, unless they find a cure for aging. The Lord willing He might allow me another forty years. But what would be great is to see a snap-shot of our Faith in the year 2104.
Blessings to you dude,
sincerely,
Carl

geralduk
September 2nd, 2004, 06:46 PM
I make no apologies.
But I will continue to contend for THE faith that was once and for all delivered unto the saints.
The Lord is coming VERY soon "be ye also ready"

aNOTHER THOUGHT..

God is NOT an evolving God.
Yet there is a progresive program of God.
There is in ther main a "great falling away" and many no longer can endure" sound doctrin"
This too was spoken of long ago by the prophets and is but anither sign of the LORDS SOON RETURN.
"For when we see these things we are to look up for our redemption draweth nigh."
Therefore id urge you to go back to what is written and spoekn of by God and NOT men.

Jefferson
September 3rd, 2004, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Falwell is a tool of Satan. Why do you say that? Or was that supposed to be another "joke?"

Jefferson
September 3rd, 2004, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Enyart believes that King Solomon is in hell? Why would he not be in hell? After his writings in Proverbs he completely rejected God. The book of Ecclesiastes is the ramblings of a man who has gone off the deep end. You don't actually take the writings of Ecclesiastes to heart do you?

Jefferson
September 3rd, 2004, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by csmuda
. . . the very attitude that the world is going to hell in a handbasket still means in the dispy's heart-of-heart she doesn't think there is any hope of seeing Christ's church reign on earth.That's not true. Dispensationalism teaches that the world will go to hell in a handbasket before the Second Coming but it does not teach the world will go to hell in a handbasket before the rapture.


Don't the MM really wanna just set up a refuge from the "coming storm" if you will?I believe most of the "Operation Rescue" people who got thrown in jail were dispensationalists. That doesn't sound like they had a "Meet, Eat and Retreat" attitude.

Lighthouse
September 3rd, 2004, 11:47 PM
Jefferson-
No, it was not a joke. Falwell is a bigot, not a minister.

Give me a set of scripture from Ecclesiastes and I'll look it up. And it is a very high probability that Solomon was reconciled.

Jefferson
September 4th, 2004, 12:24 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Jefferson-
No, it was not a joke. Falwell is a bigot, not a minister. What evidence do you have that Falwell is a bigot?

Lighthouse
September 4th, 2004, 12:29 AM
Lets see:
He automatically blamed homosexuals, and a few other groups, for the attacks on September 11th...and he didn't even include Muslims, though the terrorists ascribed to the religion. That's bigotry.

Jefferson
September 4th, 2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Lets see:
He automatically blamed homosexuals, and a few other groups, for the attacks on September 11th...and he didn't even include Muslims, though the terrorists ascribed to the religion. That's bigotry. This is what he said, "I put all the blame legally and morally on the actions of the terrorist, [but America's] secular and anti-Christian environment left us open to our Lord's [decision] not to protect. When a nation deserts God and expels God from the culture ... the result is not good."

What's so bigoted about that?

Lighthouse
September 4th, 2004, 11:46 PM
That's after he retracted his original statement, isn't it?

Jefferson
September 5th, 2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

That's after he retracted his original statement, isn't it? Please quote his original statement that shows he's a bigot.

Lighthouse
September 5th, 2004, 08:53 PM
I can't do it verbatim. I'd have to look it up, or ask someone who watches that snoozefest, The 700 Club.

Jefferson
September 6th, 2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I can't do it verbatim. I'd have to look it up, or ask someone who watches that snoozefest, The 700 Club. So go ahead and look it up. I think you either need to prove your accusation with a direct quote or retract your accusation on this thread.

Lighthouse
September 6th, 2004, 09:47 PM
I'm not going to do either. And frankly I don't care. I'm done with this conversation. Get over it.

Jefferson
September 6th, 2004, 11:18 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

I'm not going to do either. And frankly I don't care. I'm done with this conversation. Get over it. Oh, I get it. You get to slander people without cause. Very Christian of you lighthouse. :down:

Lighthouse
September 7th, 2004, 12:10 AM
"I resent that! It's not slander! In print, it's libel."

Anyway, I know what he said, as far as who he originally blamed. And I know that he later "retracted" what he had said. But I don't care that much about it, because this all started by my saying I didn't like the guy. Get over it. I don't like him and that's how it stands.

Jefferson
September 7th, 2004, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by lighthouse Anyway, I know what he said, as far as who he originally blamed.Prove it. All you have to do is simply do a google search with the words "Falwell," "Terrorism" and "Homosexuals" and up will come dozens of anti-Jerry Fallwell sites you can easily find the quote from. I'll even do the leg-work for you. Here are the first 5 sites listed at the top of the search results page:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/foulwell.htm

http://www.drsusanblock.com/sexinreview/comment/booth4.htm

http://www.september11-tribute.org/NewsArticles/JerryFalwell.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/WTC_Falwell010914.html

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.htm


And I know that he later "retracted" what he had said. But I don't care that much about it, because this all started by my saying I didn't like the guy. Get over it. I don't like him and that's how it stands. Why don't you like him?

Nimrod
September 7th, 2004, 02:20 PM
Past 3 weeks I have been extremely busy at work and had very little time to play. So let me go over Acts9_12Out response.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
1. First off, you failed to respond to the points presented in my previous post.
--Jeremy

Is that the one about works are necessary for salvation?


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
2. You misrepresent me out of anger.
--Jeremy

Oh---yawn! Can't debate the issue, go after the character. heard this many times......


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
3. You still have yet to respond to post #14.
--Jeremy
You are right I have not. We do know that Abraham believed the gospel. (Galatians). The gospel message has never changed. Yaweh saves!


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
That's a lie that stems from your anger. I expect an apology. Here's what I actually said...

God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell..
--Jeremy

Exactly! You said that, go read your posts. From your logic, King David committed an intentional sin, and therefore his guilt will be upon him and be in hell.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Instead of addressing what God said in Numbers 15, you get angry and lie. Don't shoot the messenger, but rather, deal with the message... You continue in anger,
--Jeremy

Simple, Numbers 15 doesn't deal with people going to hell or losing their salvation. It does deal with their physical bodies. A man can be saved by the gospel (abraham believed the gospel, therefore it is easy to see the Israelites had the gospel too.) After the man is saved, he commites an intentional sin, like King David, the man is put to death but does not go to hell because of it.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
I said no such thing. Yet another lie stemming from anger... We never discussed David. If you'd like to do so, fine... Just say so...
--Jeremy

You talked about committing an intentional sin. Why is it wrong to bring up Scripture examples of intentional sins? Your begining to sound like John Kerry.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
I have never said David is in hell, nor do I believe so... Yes, David did commit a presumptous sin,
--Jeremy

Ok then, why are you angry at me for bring him up?


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
and deserved death and hell. However, God looks at the heart. God saw that David was "a man after His own heart..."
--Jeremy

Tell me where in Numbers do we find the word "hell"? Why didn't God use that word? He did in Deut.


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Unfortunately, you didn't read far enough in 2 Samuel 12...
--Jeremy

No, apparently you didn't read Numbers 15 correctly. Nowhere does it state the man will go to hell.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*

Nimrod, why would Nathan say, "The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die," if David did not deserve the same fate as the man in Numbers 15? Again, God saw David's repentant heart and graced him out... David describes this event in Psalm 32. Paul echoes the Psalm in Romans 4. God pardoned David's sin that did indeed deserve death...
--Jeremy

But you said "God gives us an example of a man who sinned presumptously against Him. This man died in his sin, his guilt upon him, and will be in hell.."
Now you are changing your mind. (John Kerry?)
Let me say this; Men do not go to hell because they commit a presumptous sin.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Nimrod, what if the man in Numbers 15 had repented? Would God still have commanded the children of Israel to kill him? I think not.
--Jeremy

Again, we are talking about a physical death.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
The point still stands... The man in Numbers 15 committed a presumptous sin by not keeping God's law. That same man was unrepentant and died in his sin. Deal with Numbers 15 when you're not so angry...
--Jeremy

You don't know that! How do you know that man was unrepentant? I am dealing with Numbers 15. I am dealing with what it says, you are dealing with what you "think" it says.



Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
What I find interesting is, those who argue "faith alone" fail to define their terms. They usually say, "Yep, we are saved by faith alone," but fail to tell us where their "faith alone" is based.
--Jeremy
Based on the relationship with God


Originally posted by *Acts9_12Out*
Nimrod, I have argued that all are saved by "faith alone" in God. What you failed to address was the fact that God changes the way He asks man to show faith. All who are saved by "faith alone" must have faith in whatever God asks them to believe. God did not ask the man in Numbers 15 to have "faith alone" in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ. God commanded that man to have "faith alone" in His law. If that man attempted to keep God's law by faith alone he would be righteous before God. That man chose to reject God's law and went to hell, his guilt upon him.

Riddle me this Nimrod... If a person has faith alone in God, but rejects the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, can that person be saved today? I didn't think so...
--Jeremy
If the person has "faith alone" will have a relationship with Jesus Christ and could never lose salvation, no matter how much sin this person commits in his heart.

Jeremy, you make an interesting observation here. Works (showing of faith) was never required for salvation in the history of man. Today we tell people who need to be saved to go to Jesus Christ, but in the OT times there was no Jesus Christ, other than the belief that He will come. "thy seed will bruise it's head". We just need to believe in God that He will save us. Yaweh saves!

Lighthouse
September 7th, 2004, 07:02 PM
Get over it, Jefferson. I just don't care anymore. I don't like him, and it stands at that. Let it stand.

Jefferson
September 7th, 2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by lighthouse

Get over it, Jefferson. I just don't care anymore. I don't like him, and it stands at that. Let it stand. I'm not going to let it stand. You comit libel against a fellow believer and expect and expect no one to notice just because you make reference to a joke. If you call someone a bigot you need to have a good reason. You say you don't like him. Why not? Because someone, somewhere said he's a bigot and you foolishly believed them? So are you saying that even though evidence proves he's not a bigot will you still not like him? If so, why not?

Lighthouse
September 7th, 2004, 09:09 PM
I never said I didn't have evidence. I just don't care.

Lighthouse
August 15th, 2010, 01:00 PM
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/falwell.asp