ECT MADists don't follow Paul

[tetelestai]

Exactly, how is it different?

You can't be serious?

Luther claimed to hear part of Rom 1:17

Darby came up with the rapture from a "vision" by a teenage girl.

Nothing Luther allegedly heard was contrary to scripture, since it was actually scripture itself.

The teenage girl's "vision" about Jesus returning twice, is contrary to scripture.

 

[Nick M]

You pathetic lying punk, actress.

That he is.

 

[ClimateSanity]

You can't be serious?

Luther claimed to hear part of Rom 1:17

Darby came up with the rapture from a "vision" by a teenage girl.

Nothing Luther allegedly heard was contrary to scripture, since it was actually scripture itself.

The teenage girl's "vision" about Jesus returning twice, is contrary to scripture.

Yes, I'm serious. I see that just because you declare a thing to be true....presto...its a fact.

It's your opinion that "Jesus returning twice" is contrary to scripture. Define returning first saying what it is AND what it isn't. Compare what dispies describe as the rapture with what they describe as the second coming, then honestly ask yourself if they are identical kinds of "coming".

 

[tetelestai]

That he is.

Says another Darby follower who lives in denial.

 

[ClimateSanity]

Wrong!

Here are two quotes that prove you wrong:

"And we who through his will have been called in Christ Jesus are justified, not by ourselves, or through our wisdom or understanding or godliness, or the works that we have done in holiness of heart, but by faith, by which all men from the beginning have been justified by Almighty God, to whom be glory world without end. Amen." - Clement of Rome, (First Clement, 32-33) circa 110AD

"But after saying that 'it was excluded,' he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? 'By what law? of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.' See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the 'law of faith?' It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only." - Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 7, v. 27 circa 400AD

I dare you to read everything those men wrote and see if they really believed in salvation through grace alone.

 

[tetelestai]

It's your opinion that "Jesus returning twice" is contrary to scripture.

Correct.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus returns twice.

Define returning first saying what it is AND what it isn't.

According to MADists, "the coming of the Lord" refers to two different events.

Compare what dispies describe as the rapture with what they describe as the second coming, then honestly ask yourself if they are identical kinds of "coming".

Thessalonians proves my point.

(1 Thess 3:13 KJV) To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

(1 Thess 4:15 KJV) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

According to MAD, the above two verses speak of two different verses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

MAD wants us to believe that the Apostle Paul used the phrase "the coming of our Lord " in chp 3 to refer to the Second Coming, then in chp 4 Paul used the EXACT SAME PHRASE to refer to the alleged rapture.

This is a classic example of how screwed up, and wrong MAD really is.

 

[tetelestai]

I dare you to read everything those men wrote and see if they really believed in salvation through grace alone.

I believe that salvation is by faith and faith alone.

I also believe that faith without works is a dead faith (see James).

That's what most of the church fathers taught.

I provided you quotes that proved you wrong.

Also, you can't show anyone teaching Dispensationalism before Darby invented it in 1830.

 

[Danoh]

Correct.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say Jesus returns twice.



According to MADists, "the coming of the Lord" refers to two different events.



Thessalonians proves my point.

(1 Thess 3:13 KJV) To the end he may stablish your hearts unblameable in holiness before God, even our Father, at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints.

(1 Thess 4:15 KJV) For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

According to MAD, the above two verses speak of two different verses.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

MAD wants us to believe that the Apostle Paul used the phrase "the coming of our Lord " in chp 3 to refer to the Second Coming, then in chp 4 Paul used the EXACT SAME PHRASE to refer to the alleged rapture.

This is a classic example of how screwed up, and wrong MAD really is.

Who are these MADs you are talking about; then?

I know I don't hold those two passages as referring to two different comings.

You are a ditz.

 

[Danoh]

I dare you to read everything those men wrote and see if they really believed in salvation through grace alone.

Yep.

 

[john w]

Darby came up with the rapture from a "vision" by a teenage girl.

More plagiarism, from the punk:
http://www.askelm.com/essentials/ess025.htm

http://www.angelfire.com/mi/Malkaynu/rapture.html

http://io9.gizmodo.com/5928190/the-very-short-history-of-the-rapture


I warned you, greasy boy, many times-plagiarism is against TOL rules.

 

[john w]

Says another Darby follower who lives in denial.

That is the best shot, the punk has at the great Nick-his Darby spam. Even your fellow AD 70-ists/Preterist shills, are laughing at you, and distancing themselves from you, clown-ette, weasel, as you are a barbiturate, and embarrassment, to their "man made invention."

 

[tetelestai]

I know I don't hold those two passages as referring to two different comings.

Which event do you claim the two verses refer to?

The rapture, or the second coming?

 

[Danoh]

Which event do you claim the two verses refer to?

The rapture, or the second coming?

I wasn't aware I claimed one or the other :chuckle:

 

[tetelestai]

I wasn't aware I claimed one or the other :chuckle:

More games.

Once again, you make a claim, then can't defend it.

Here is what you said:

I know I don't hold those two passages as referring to two different comings.

So, if you claim they are not two different events, that means they are referring to the same one event.

Which event are they referring to?

 

[Tambora]

Also, you can't show anyone teaching Dispensationalism before Darby invented it in 1830.

That's a lie that preterist Darby haters tell, hoping others don't know what many of the early church fathers taught.
Even when shown the quotes of early church fathers, the preterist Darby hater will continue to keep his eyes closed and keep right on parroting the same lie.

 

[tetelestai]

That's a lie that preterist Darby haters tell, hoping others don't know what many of the early church fathers taught.
Even when shown the quotes of early church fathers, the preterist Darby hater will continue to keep his eyes closed and keep right on parroting the same lie.

Nope, you're wrong again, and proving you live in denial.

To date, no one has been able to show Darby's secret rapture taught before Darby.

Some have tried by showing quotes they got from Dispensational websites, but those quotes were all refuted, when the proper context was given.

For example, Little Johnny W and Angel4Truth both gave quotes from Cyprian and Ephraim the Syrian, and claimed the quotes supported Darby's rapture.

Both quotes were proven to show no such thing.

Quit living in denial Tam, your belief system didn't exist before John Nelson Darby.

Why are you so embarrassed to admit your belief system was invented by Darby?

 

[Tambora]

Once again, you make a claim, then can't defend it.

ROFL!
If we used the tactic of preterist Darby haters, we could defend anything just by spiritualizing any ol' detail of the bible we wish.
Like saying the fire that came down from heaven was fulfilled by the roman army because a Roman emperor.had a lightning bolt symbol.
No joke folks, that's how preterist Darby haters interpret scripture.

 

[Tambora]

Nope, you're wrong again, and proving you live in denial.

No, you are.
That's what preterist Darby haters do.

 

[tetelestai]

ROFL!
If we used the tactic of preterist Darby haters, we could defend anything just by spiritualizing any ol' detail of the bible we wish.
Like saying the fire that came down from heaven was fulfilled by the roman army because a Roman emperor.had a lightning bolt symbol.
No joke folks, that's how preterist Darby haters interpret scripture.

STP, and other MADists have made the claim that "the coming of the Lord" phrase in Thessalonians refers to two different events. STP's defense was "context".

Danoh then said he didn't believe they referred to two different events. I asked him which event (rapture or second coming) they referred to, and he then refused to answer the question.

It's impossible to defend the false teachings of Darby.

 

[tetelestai]

No, you are.
That's what preterist Darby haters do.

I don't live in denial. My belief system can't be traced to one man like your's can.

Only Darby followers such as yourself deny that Darby invented Dispensationalism.

Why are you so embarrassed of the truth Tam?