Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Nang's SPOTD is Tet's Hit Out of the Park!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Also notice that upon learning Darby (reportedly) was as hardline a Calvinist as she is -- making Darby have more in common with HER than with us on some very important salvation issues -- Nang simply waves that aside and dismisses it. Why? The destruction of dispensationalism trumps all other concerns because she is Israel. Calvinist or not, Darby questioned that, to some extent...so he must be destroyed.
    "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
    Terence Mc Lean

    [most will be very surprised]


    Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
    By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

    Comment


    • Dar be some inerstin' posts here lately!

      Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
      Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
        Do you bear other's burdens with your free volition, or is it the Holy Spirit within you that causes you to do so?
        Originally posted by Delmar View Post
        Why does it feel like everything you ask is intended as a trick question?

        All my good works come from loving others because I love the Father. Love is a fruit of the Spirit.
        It is a trick.

        To the natural man, his own volition is just that.... his own. He is only made to do something by his own selfishness. Therefore he gets to take all the credit for bearing the burdens of others, etc. What Tet refuses to acknowledge is that the love of God is shed abroad on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We are new creatures....all things are new. The old man cannot show forth the love of God no matter how hard he tries BECAUSE he doesn't have it IN him.

        So, whatever "burden bearing" the natural man does (not being indwelt by the Spirit) is nothing more than "filthy rags". They may look good to the eyes of men, but they are without true agape LOVE ..... without the fruit of the Spirit.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by glorydaz View Post
          It is a trick.

          To the natural man, his own volition is just that.... his own. He is only made to do something by his own selfishness. Therefore he gets to take all the credit for bearing the burdens of others, etc. What Tet refuses to acknowledge is that the love of God is shed abroad on our hearts by the Holy Spirit. We are new creatures....all things are new. The old man cannot show forth the love of God no matter how hard he tries BECAUSE he doesn't have it IN him.

          So, whatever "burden bearing" the natural man does (not being indwelt by the Spirit) is nothing more than "filthy rags". They may look good to the eyes of men, but they are without true agape LOVE ..... without the fruit of the Spirit.
          No trick, just the words of Paul

          (Rom 12:1 KJV) I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service.

          Do you know what the word "beseech" means?

          Maybe a modern version will help you:

          (Rom 12:1 NIV) Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.


          What is Paul urging the brothers and sisters to do?

          Your previous explanation was very bad. You claimed believers are a living sacrifice. You somehow failed to see that Paul was talking to people already saved.
          (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by musterion View Post
            Same here. I've never read a thing the man wrote and knew only dimly he was a Calvinist. So is Chafer but it doesn't seem to get in the way so I enjoy reading his stuff. Charles F. Baker was a stauncher Calvinist than Chafer; so is Robert Brock, both brilliant mid-Acts dudes.
            What are your reasons for calling these men "Calvinists?"

            Believing in a form of predestination is not cause. Islamics believe in fatalistic predestination, and that does not make them Calvinists.

            Baker and Chafer were hyperdispensationalists.

            So I question what your definition of "Calvinist" really is . . .




            But Darby? I never owned or read a thing. However, I am now curious what his view of imputation actually was. The reformed opposing it may or may not be a bad thing; I'll let the man speak for himself.
            Darby and Scofield are best known for publishing their own versions of the Bible and adding commentary to revise all to fit their faulty Eschatology.
            "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

            " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
            Gordon H. Clark

            "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
            Charles Spurgeon

            Comment


            • Originally posted by musterion View Post
              If you [meaning Nang and Tetzo] can convince yourself Darby or whoever invented dispensationalism (and he didn't "invent" it), then everyone who is a dispensationalist is automatically a Darbyite whether they know it or not. It's really lazy, childish logic, but that's the attraction: it's easy to use as a club and you don't have to do your own research. Just label them and slander them. It's about all you can expect.
              One of Craigie the clown's continual, deceitful, "arguments" against dispensationalism, an "argument" on which I've challenged him , ever since he started spamming it, years ago, when he went insane, and which punts addressing, continuing to spam it, is that since "no one taught" dispensationalism, until the "mid 1800's," citing it's "origin" with Darby,Bullinger, it is thus false, and what he refers to, as "invented"-that's his cute little word, of sophistry, which he thinks "clinches the deal." It's a deceptive ploy, at best, and, at worst satanic. To wit:

              1. When you discover objective truth, has no bearing as to the veracity of objective truth. And belief makes nothing true, and lack of belief, makes nothing false. Faith trusts the truth, that has already existed, despite anyone knowing it/not knowing it/believing it/not believing it, but it does not determine it.

              Repeatingiscovery, realizing, understanding, objective truth, has no bearing on objective truth. Objective truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone's knowledge(ignorance=lack of knowledge) of it. Gravity existed prior to Isaac Newton being "ignorant" of it, for eg., and.............




              "No, it's because of Bullinger. Not one person ever taught the ridiculous notion that the seven extant churches in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) that are addressed in Revelation are yet future churches....More Bullinger rubbish "-Craigie the Clown

              If it did:

              -"God the Father," was not "God the Father," according to Tet., as no one taught it, until the Saviour arrived on the scene...

              Matthew 5:16 KJV
              Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.

              Mark 8:38 KJV
              Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.

              Luke 2:49 KJV
              And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?

              John 1:14 KJV
              And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

              John 6:27 KJV
              Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.


              Craigie Tet., to the Lord Jesus Christ, whom he refers to most of the time as "Jesus," in a demonstration of disrespect:

              "Jesus...Not one person ever taught the ridiculous notion that God is a 'Father,' that God should be addressed as 'God the Father,' until you 'invented' it. Therefore, your 'theory' is rubbish." "God the Father" is an "invention."

              -The LORD God's Name," as revealed to Moses, was not such, until Moses discovered it.

              -the earth was flat, at one time, until it was discovered to be "spherical." Before that, this notion of a spherical earth was an "invention."

              -the principles of the "Reformation," of the 1500's, was an "invention," until then.


              And on, and on...


              _________________


              2. This slick, "subtil"(survey Genesis 3 KJV) "invent" ploy, deceptive tactic-assuming, for the "sake of argument," that we concede that dispensationalism did have it's "origin," with Darby(only an assumption)in the mid 1800's.....Again-only an assumption, to drive home a point, re. this "invent/invention" stumper of his...


              "Apples to oranges.Hanegraff didn't invent Preterism. It's indisputable that Darby invented Dispensationalism.
              I challenge anyone to show me proof of who invented Preterism. If no one can, then Preterism wasn't invented like Dispensationalism was."-Craigie

              I challenged him. Define "invent," you engager in sophistry. Are not all false doctrines, "invented," you child of the devil? Why do you, in your emotional, grade school, MO, find it necessary, to allegedly disprove MAD, by adding "invent?" That does NADA, for your "argument," or anyone's.

              I will tell you why. He is so obsessed with allegedly disproving dispensationalism, he will resort to lying, deception, sophistry, false dichotomies, emotional pleas, crying, whining, .....

              Craigie now asserts that God invents.

              J. Stewart Russell "invented" AD 70-ism, by that "definition."

              I've shown him proof, in thread after thread, shown this deceitful liar, the "origins" pf "AD 70-ism," which were from Stewart's book, "The Parousia," but Tet., on marching orders from his father the devil, the father of all lies, continue to lie about it.

              Fallible men "invented" Preterism. They made it up.

              See how that works, Craigie?

              Go on record, and claim that no one taught you "AD 70-ism" and that you learned it on your own, from the bible.

              He also employs this tactic, with his "of men" spam.


              "You follow the inventions/theories/teachings of men."-Craigie

              Again, as if that does anything for his, or anyone else's argument. I've asked him over and over:

              -Who should teach us? Women? Aliens?
              -Why do you add "of men" in your "argument?" Do you deny the proper place for men teachers in the body of Christ?

              It's an "argument" of sophistry, and deceit, and implies that his teachings, what he has been taught, were never received by him from men-they were received directly by him from the LORD God-infallible teachings. And yet, observe the deception. I asked him, 2 1/2 years ago:


              "...who taught you?"-John W


              His response:

              "Reading the Bible

              Listening to sermons by pastors

              Reading books and commentaries about the Bible

              Bible Studies

              Theology classes

              Interacting on TOL

              Having conversations with other believers

              =teachings from men

              The point-all false doctrines, by definition, are "invented," and that does NADA for his "argument," or anyone elses'. Truth is discovered, not invented.

              His spamming "of men" is also a deceptive ploy of his obsession.All he has to do, is argue why he thinks dispensationalism if false, lay out his case, "produce" his "cause," "bring forth" his "strong reasons," and be done with it. But he does not do that, and spams "Darby...Bullinger....no one taught it before him.....teachings/inventions/theories of men " blah blahh blah, and therefore, it is false.

              3.And, he lies about it:


              "That's not my argument. I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Wimpy Tet.



              vs.



              "My argument is that if there is not one single trace of something for 1,800+ years by anyone, then it was invented.”-Tet.


              "No matter how hard you try, you can't take away the fact that dispensationalism was invented by John Nelson Darby in the mid 1800's...Why are most dispensationalists afraid and/or embarrassed to acknowledge that Darby invented what they believe?"-Deceiver Tet.




              "... Deep down you know that your belief system has only been around for not even 50 years, and that it was "developed" by men..."-con artist Partial Preterist Soddy Tet.

              "...Your false teachings of men is a false teaching[B] since [/B]there is not one trace of it in the first three centuries. None of the early church fathers taught your theory, its only about 50 years old."-con artist Partial Preterist Soddy Tet.

              "MAD didn't exist until the mid 1800's"-con artist Partial Preterist Tet.


              "No, it's because of Bullinger. Not one person ever taught the ridiculous notion that the seven extant churches in Asia Minor (modern day Turkey) that are addressed in Revelation are yet future churches....More Bullinger rubbish."-Craigie the Clown
              Last edited by john w; November 15, 2014, 02:26 PM.
              Saint John W

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                Your problem here is you insist that Dipensationalism is all one thing.
                The main points of Dispensationalism are the rapture/7 year Trib/Millennium, and the demarcation line between the church and Israel.

                Nobody but Dispensationalists believe in the rapture.

                Whether Acts 2, Acts 7, Acts 9, Acts 29, or any other chapter in Acts, all Dispies believe in a rapture.

                The rapture was invented by Darby, and it was based on a vision.
                (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                  The more I read about Darby the more I find that I have never agreed with much of what he taught. Tet needs to quit accusing people falsely.
                  You believe in a rapture, and you believe Israel is under a different program than the church.

                  No one taught either of these things until Darby did.
                  (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post

                    The rapture was invented by Darby, and it was based on a vision.
                    Confirmed again, by this demon: when you discover objective truth, determines its veracity. Thus, Cragie the Clown, again, on record, by that "argument," asserts that:


                    Since the concept of "God the Father," was not taught, until the Saviour arrived on the scene, it is a false doctrine.

                    Demon. Deception.
                    Saint John W

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                      The main points of Dispensationalism are the rapture/7 year Trib/Millennium, and the demarcation line between the church and Israel.

                      Nobody but Dispensationalists believe in the rapture.

                      Whether Acts 2, Acts 7, Acts 9, Acts 29, or any other chapter in Acts, all Dispies believe in a rapture.

                      The rapture was invented by Darby, and it was based on a vision.
                      So what? You keep going on to me specificly about the rapture as if it were something I spend time worrying about. That is just nutty!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                        You believe in a rapture, and you believe Israel is under a different program than the church.

                        No one taught either of these things until Darby did.
                        There you go, TOL audience-sophistry...satanic...
                        Saint John W

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                          You believe in a rapture, and you believe Israel is under a different program than the church.

                          No one taught either of these things until Darby did.
                          Vs.

                          "That's not my argument. I have never said that dispensationalism was "wrong" because of how old it was. I specifically said that no one taught about Christ coming back twice before Darby did."--habitual liar Tet.


                          Ssssssssssssssssss...

                          He lies, more than he blinks/cries/wines.
                          Saint John W

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Delmar View Post
                            So what? You keep going on to me specificly about the rapture as if it were something I spend time worrying about. That is just nutty!
                            The rapture is just part of it Delmar.

                            The rapture exists because of the demarcation line between Israel and the church.

                            Because of that demarcation line, Darby had to come up with a way for the church age believers to be secretly taken away.

                            This false teaching leads to many other false teachings, such as a denial of the NC, a denial of the Royal Priesthood, future animal sacrifices, etc.
                            (1 Cor 1:13 KJV) Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by tetelestai View Post
                              The main points of Dispensationalism are the rapture/7 year Trib/Millennium, and the demarcation line between the church and Israel.

                              Nobody but Dispensationalists believe in the rapture.

                              Whether Acts 2, Acts 7, Acts 9, Acts 29, or any other chapter in Acts, all Dispies believe in a rapture.

                              The rapture was invented by Darby, and it was based on a vision.
                              You know....we have this great thing called google....

                              Irenaeus
                              Irenaeus (130 A.D. – 202 AD) was a bishop of the church in Lyons, France. He was an eyewitness to the Apostle John (who wrote the Book of Revelation) and a disciple of Polycarp, the first of the Apostle John’s disciples. Irenaeus is most-known for his five-volume treatise, Against Heresies in which he exposed the false religions and cults of his day along with advice for how to share the Gospel with those were a part of them.

                              In his writings on Bible prophecy, he acknowledged the phrase “a time, times and dividing of times” in Daniel 7 to signify the 3 ½ year reign of the Antichrist as ruler of the world before the Second Coming of Christ. He also believed in a literal Millennial reign of Christ on earth following the Second Coming and the resurrection of the just.
                              On the subject of the Rapture, in Against Heresies 5.29, he wrote:
                              “Those nations however, who did not of themselves raise up their eyes unto heaven, nor returned thanks to their Maker, nor wished to behold the light of truth, but who were like blind mice concealed in the depths of ignorance, the word justly reckons “as waste water from a sink, and as the turning-weight of a balance — in fact, as nothing;”(1) so far useful and serviceable to the just, as stubble conduces towards the growth of the wheat, and its straw, by means of combustion, serves for working gold. And therefore, when in the end the Church shall be suddenly caught up from this, it is said, “There shall be tribulation such as has not been since the beginning, neither shall be.”(2) For this is the last contest of the righteous, in which, when they overcome they are crowned with incorruption.”
                              Irenaeus in this passage describes the church leaving the sinful world just before unprecedented disasters. Note his use of the term “caught up” which is Rapture terminology as that is the meaning of harpazo, the term for “caught up” in the King James Bible describing the Rapture in 1 Thessalonians 4. He then quotes Matthew 24:21 where The Lord Jesus Christ says: “For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.” And it is during this time that those who convert to Christianity during the final years will receive the incorruptible crown mentioned by the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:25. In Irenaeus’ belief, the Rapture took place prior to the end times Great Tribulation.

                              http://beginningandend.com/what-did-...t-the-rapture/

                              Comment


                              • Coming off Ignore for a second.

                                Originally posted by Nang View Post
                                Darby and Scofield are best known for publishing their own versions of the Bible and adding commentary to revise all to fit their faulty Eschatology.
                                Bullinger is one of the most brilliant English translators ever but I've only seen the Companion Bible in KJV, accompanied by his translation notes in the margins. Same with Scofield: he only put notes below the KJV and made a study Bible, such as those I'm positive you own. Sproul's Reformation Study Bible, perhaps?

                                Neither Scofield nor Bullinger "published their own version of the Bible." Your laziness and ignorance never cease to astound but I'm out of here. My hand is getting calloused from constantly having to factually spank the two of you.
                                "There is one thing worse than going to Hell. That would be going to Hell and having it be a surprise."
                                Terence Mc Lean

                                [most will be very surprised]


                                Everyone who has not believed the Gospel of grace is not saved, no matter what else they believe or do.
                                By that measure, how many professing Christians are on their way to the Lake of Fire?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X