ECT What is Preterism

[ClimateSanity]

I want to see the video of heaven being rolled up into a scroll.

Notice how the Darby followers run and hide when OT symbolism that is used in the NT is pointed out to them?

The Darby followers actually think the sun will literally stop shinning, and the moon will be turned into literal blood.

Darby followers are a mess.

Ever heard of a solar eclipse? Ever heard of a blood moon? They are both totally natural phenomena. This isn't good enough for you guys. You want literal in a scientific science. We are talking about literal in the eye of the person doing the prophecying.

 

[john w]

All sins were paid for at the cross for all time (past, present, and future).

Darby followers don't believe that. Darby followers claim there will be animal sacrifices for sin in the future.

You are anti-Christ when it comes to what was accomplished at the cross.

And you, wicked perverter, hater of Christ, assert that one can be anti-Christ, you demon, saint Judas asserter, and still be saved, you devil boy-your own words, Christ rejector, misearable, pitiful punk:




"Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post

This really isn't about p-ism or d-ism. Never has been. It's all about defending false gospels of works by those who reject the true saving Gospel of grace, which requires opposing MAD, the stronghold of the grace Gospel here on TOL. That's what all these threads are ultimately about. Stop chasing the weasel around the mulberry bush and drop preterism -- nail Tet down on the place of his own efforts in justification and sanctification. He'll dodge it, weasel, slander Darby but if you keep it up and ignore his bait it'll make him go away for awhile. I watched him get REALLY uncomfortable when this line of inquiry was pursued."-musty





Devil boy Tellalie's "response:"


"Once again mysteryboy, you(referring to musty-my note) deny the one time sacrifice for sins on the cross. You claim it wasn't good enough for all sins, you claim people in the future will have to sacrifice animals for sin atonement.

You adhere to these anti-Christ beliefs, and then you think your going to lecture me on grace?

You're nuts! "-Tellalie


I asked this little arms weasel:


"So, Craigie-musty allegedly "deny the one time sacrifice for sins on the cross. You claim it wasn't good enough for all sins," and has "anti-Christ beliefs."

Is he lost, sweetie?"-saint John W


musty challenges satanic Craigie:

" Quote Originally Posted by musterion View Post

I see.

Now it's clear why you will accept the salvation testimony of anyone except MADs who stick to the DBR of Christ as the only saving Good News. Anyone else who simply "believes in Jesus" is saved and in fellowship with you but we are not.

Honestly glad we have finally got that cleared up. The past two hours sitting here was well worth it just to finally hear from your own mouth what gospel you believe."-musty



The wimpy, soft as a noodle, obsessed Craigie pie, "responds," as usual, with no spine, as he is a wimp:

"I never said you or any other MADist isn't saved.

I said you are a legalist."-Tellalie the no chin wimp

There you go, TOL audience. The spineless wimp, on record. asserts that you can be saved, even if one:

-denies the one time sacrifice for sins on the cross,

-claims the above wasn't good enough for all sins,

-has "anti-Christ beliefs

 

[john w]

..., and every time the MADists attack the person instead of engaging in a conversation.

Vs.

"MADists are dumb....aniti-Christ."-demon boy Craigie


You slimy, greasy little actress. No wonder you're unemployed, your "business" went Chapter 11, and you ignore your "family," you obsessed, dirty, wimpy whited wall.

 

[musterion]

There you go, TOL audience. The spineless wimp, on record. asserts that you can be saved, even if one:

-denies the one time sacrifice for sins on the cross,

-claims the above wasn't good enough for all sins,

-has "anti-Christ beliefs

Yep, that nails it down tight. All the effort was worth it to maneuver Tet into finally revealing exactly what he actually believes. He ends up some kind of Gospel-less universalist because he won't stand for the exclusivity of the Gospel of the grace of God...mainly because MADs are the ones preaching it and he refuses to agree with us, even on that.

 

[Interplanner]

As Rom 1 says, everyone on earth has at least the following implanted in them by God:
1, that the earth is God's creation and possession
2, that there is to be a day of divine justice in which all evil must be made right through the right act of atonement. Mercy is 'to be treated better than you deserve.'

Without these, the world is too chaotic to go on. Some do try to deny the reason God has put in them, but it fails; people always come back to ACTION based on these things, no matter how many obtuse things they SAY they believe--evolution, annihilation, etc.

The Christian message of the Gospel is not in conflict with them, but is actually a visit from the 'future' day of judgement, says Rom 3. It is as though the day of divine reckoning has taken place already in Christ. It's God's business whether they 'get it' or not; ours is simply to keep expressing this fact, that God was in Christ, resolving the debt of world sin in him.

I know of no where that Tet denies the historic facts of Christ's coming and saving work. No NT statements about believe this or that are EVER in the absence of those facts. 'See! The final sacrificial Lamb of God which takes away the debt of sin!' is basically from day 1.

 

[tetelestai]

Yep, that nails it down tight. All the effort was worth it to maneuver Tet into finally revealing exactly what he actually believes. He ends up some kind of Gospel-less universalist because he won't stand for the exclusivity of the Gospel of the grace of God...mainly because MADs are the ones preaching it and he refuses to agree with us, even on that.

I don't know who's more incompetent, you or Little Johnny W.

Little Johnny isn't quoting me, he's quoting himself.

 

[musterion]

I know of no where that Tet denies the historic facts of Christ's coming and saving work.

As far as I know, no one said he did.

It's what he says people need to know and believe about it that's the issue here. If you can't follow that clear, simple point over the course of the past few days, you have no business engaging with men.

 

[tetelestai]

I know of no where that Tet denies the historic facts of Christ's coming and saving work.

That's correct.

What you are seeing is one fool (musterion) misreading another fool's post (Little Johnny W).

 

[tetelestai]

No one said he did.

It's what he says people need to know and believe about it that's the issue here. If you can't follow that clear, simple point over the course of the past few days, you have no business engaging with men.

I said an unbeliever can be saved according to Rom 10:9.

I stand by my statement.

Were all sins paid for at the cross?

Will unbelievers be judged for their sins, or will they be judged for not having faith?

 

[musterion]

Tet,

You're now dodging what you said about John 3:16.

You said people can be saved by believing that verse alone and knowing nothing else about Him.

Do you stand by that?

 

[Interplanner]

Aggg, there is no such thing as believing 'that verse alone'!!! It would be like looking at one thread in a quilt and saying that one thread is THE quilt!

 

[tetelestai]

Tet,

You're now dodging what you said about John 3:16.

You said people can be saved by believing that verse alone and knowing nothing else about Him.

Do you stand by that?

People are saved by grace through faith.

All sins were paid for on the cross.

It does not mean that someone simply believes that there is a God, or that there is a Saviour. Devils believe that and tremble (James 2:19).

 

[tetelestai]

Do you stand by that?

Again, you are twisting what I said.

I said Rom 10:9, then gave Acts 16 and the jailer as an example.

I then said John 3:16, Luke 7:50, and the thief on the cross proved you wrong.

The jailer in Acts 16 does prove you wrong.

 

[Right Divider]

There are many more.

Wow, you are dumb.

Your "logic" it completely illogical.

It does NOT matter how many other unrelated passages are symbolic. This one is not.

 

[tetelestai]

Wow, you are dumb.

Your "logic" it completely illogical.

It does NOT matter how many other unrelated passages are symbolic. This one is not.

Wrong again, Wrong Divider.

The symbolic language in the OT described judgment. Many times in the OT the symbolic language was used to describe "the day of the Lord".

Each time "the day of the Lord" is used in the OT, it described judgment in the form of one nations army invading and winning a war over a different nation.

That's what happened in 70AD. The Roman army invaded the province of Judaea, and won "The Jewish War", it was described in the NT as "the day of the Lord", and it was God's judgment upon the unbelieving Jews in Judaea.

 

[Right Divider]

Wrong again, Wrong Divider.

The symbolic language in the OT described judgment. Many times in the OT the symbolic language was used to describe "the day of the Lord".

Each time "the day of the Lord" is used in the OT, it described judgment in the form of one nations army invading and winning a war over a different nation.

That's what happened in 70AD. The Roman army invaded the province of Judaea, and won "The Jewish War", it was described in the NT as "the day of the Lord", and it was God's judgment upon the unbelieving Jews in Judaea.

This fabrication of "fact" is so strong in you that I don't foresee you changing your feeble little mind about it.

 

[tetelestai]

This fabrication of "fact" is so strong in you that I don't foresee you changing your feeble little mind about it.

C'mon Wrong Divider, take of your Darby sunglasses.

Are literal stars going to literally fall on literal earth?

(Mark 13:35) the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

 

[musterion]

People are saved by grace through faith.

All sins were paid for on the cross.

It does not mean that someone simply believes that there is a God, or that there is a Saviour. Devils believe that and tremble (James 2:19).

Once again you're not answering the question.

Can a convicted lost person be forgiven and justified by knowing and believing ONLY the following AND NOTHING ELSE?

John 3:16

Yes or no.

 

[tetelestai]

Once again you're not answering the question.

Can a convicted lost person be forgiven and justified knowing ONLY the following AND NOTHING ELSE?

John 3:16

Once again, you keep twisting what I said.

My answer to your question was Rom 10:9.

I then said Acts 16, John 3:16, Luke 7:50 proved you wrong.

Rom 10:9 is Paul giving a direct command of what someone needs to do to be saved. Acts 16 is a real life example. John 3:16 is a summary.

So, you can keep trying to twist what I said all you want, however, my answer was Rom 10:9

 

[Right Divider]

C'mon Wrong Divider, take of your Darby sunglasses.

Are literal stars going to literally fall on literal earth?

(Mark 13:35) the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'

So your fundamental principle for Biblical interpretation is "since there is one verse that is symbolic, it's all symbolic"?