Posted on 10/07/2001 12:44:05 PM PDT by malakhi
| Statesmen may plan and speculate for liberty, but it is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 | Thread 153 | Thread 154 | Thread 155 | Thread 156 | Thread 157 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 158
OK, sorry. My caffeine intake is up today, but that's just to fight off the morning chill. :-)
SD
Thank you Dave.
You know we all have very :) strong believes on these threads and get caught up in "fussing" at each other and probley have all come to the conclusion whats the use, they ain't listing to what I have to say, so we then tell ourselfs well its for the lurkers out there mabey some of them will get it. But thats really not true either, I have come to like alot of you guys even if your wrong.:) Thats why I keep at it because I do care about you guys and I hope its its the same with you.
Well enough of that lets get back to "fussing." and "Dave have a good day bud."
BigMack
Do you know what dispensation is?
"Dispensationalism" is a way of thinking about the Bible invented a century or so ago. Like many other heresies, it takes a truth and runs with it to absurd distances. Knowing that God has communicated to His people in different ways throughout history, it imagines that we can discard all of the teachings of Jesus as "irrelevant" to our current "era."
Apparently it also teaches that now that God has finished His Revelation of Himself in the Bible, He can no longer speak to us directly. Rather we must consult the Bible like an Oracle, looking for new meaning in the words already written.
Of course, God does work in this way, but it is not by far the only way for us to get "messages" from God.
SD
I've heard many talk against the dreaded evil (to them) of those who are a 'dispensationalist'. They believe this is some kind of 'false' doctrine. Most who are this way also reject the concept of the rapture and the coming reign of the Lord Jesus during the 1000 year millenium.
I just want to make one small point. You people who talk against the concept of dispensation in God's dealing with man are confused. I claim that you are a dispensationalist and you just don't know it! Here is why I make that statement. Before the days of Jesus, God demanded blood sacrifice for sin. So, why are we not doing that today? Why in your church service do they not sacrifice a animal for the sins of the people? Well the answer to that question is simple. We are in a different dispensation! God is dealing with mankind differently now than when He did in the days before the Lord Jesus!
Before the Lord Jesus people were under the LAW. Blood sacrifice was required and was actually a type of Christ. However, the Lord Jesus came, shed His blood and died on the cross. His one sacrifice was forever sufficient for the payment of sin. We are now under the dispensation of grace and a blood sacrifice is no longer needed. Jesus paid it all and lost men simply need to repent and come to the only Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ.
So the anti dispensationalist has a problem. We no longer need to sacrifice animals for the sins of the people. God is dealing with mankind in a different manner than He did before the Lord Jesus.
We are in a different dispensation! Like it or not!
Remember the next time you see a person pointing his finger at those who believe in dispensationalism.... that there are three fingers pointing back!
BigMack
You got it.
I just want to make one small point. You people who talk against the concept of dispensation in God's dealing with man are confused.
Notice that I do not reject the idea of different "dispensations" completely. Obviously we are in a different era post-Christ than those before Him. Like I said, dispensationalism is based upon a truth, and then stretched too far.
I claim that you are a dispensationalist and you just don't know it! Here is why I make that statement. Before the days of Jesus, God demanded blood sacrifice for sin. So, why are we not doing that today? Why in your church service do they not sacrifice a animal for the sins of the people?
The one time sacrifice of Jesus is re-presented to the Father during every Mass. You forgot about that. Your argument is good to use with a Protestant.
SD
No, but you did get me to thinking about those lurkers again...:)
BigMack
As far as I know, Catholic Answers is not an offical arm of the Catholic Church. Thus there are no "official responses" that come out of the Catholic Answers organization. So until you can show me an offical, authoritative statement from either the Pope or the Bishops in union with him on this subject, then you're just pissing into the wind.
Which basically means that, excuse the play on words, if you guys are quoting from them in cut and pastes or using them as authoritative (and some of you have), then you're all wet...
One of the fun things about having children is getting to act like a kid again yourself. Some of my best memories with the kids are annual events we do like apple-picking, pumpkin picking, etc.
Beautifully stated, SD.
When the public school nurse gives the little monsters their Ritalin? ;o)
Yeah, but apparently that was then, and this is now.
(That is, God doesn't do that anymore in this "dispensation.")
SD
Yeah, you seem not to realize that Acts was written 5-7 years earlier and was recording events over a long period of time prior to the time of writing. another OOPS for ya'll. Helps to have context doesn't it. We read Pauls epistles and letters and we can see people constantly in and out - constantly. But then you make another point for my side of the argument, How many Jews wandered back into rome as time went on. We know that it took a long time for Jews to return to parts of Europe after being pursecuted and run out.
Sarah is still a little small, but by next year we'll be able to do all kinds of fun stuff. My wife already bought her a blow-up little swimming pool for next summer. (Like 3 foot diameter pool on clearance for $5). And she got some innertubes for sled riding. I've got the perfect hilly yard for it -- as long as you don't run into the clothespole or the many trees. I'm sure I'll have a ball.
SD
Yeah, urban legends persist, doesn't make them anymore true either, just a popular sort of gossip.
True or not, it's worth $10 million imaginary dollars from the808bass. :-)
SD
Jesus is the Son of God. Born of flesh he was human with all the temptations we have - The Son of God in the flesh proved that we could overcome because He did. Do you have some problem with that statement? He submitted to the Will of the Father and made it through. And that's what each of us is supposed to be doing.
Jesus is the Son of God. Born of flesh he was human with all the temptations we have - The Son of God in the flesh proved that we could overcome because He did. Do you have some problem with that statement? He submitted to the Will of the Father and made it through. And that's what each of us is supposed to be doing.
If someone asks me "Is Jesus God?" I say "Yes" unequivocably.
Your answer sounds like a "no." If I am reading that wrong then correct me.
SD
We don't know when Acts was written, and scholars have spilled lots of ink talking about the inconsistencies between Paul and Acts. Again, we don't know how long it took the Jews to return to Rome: may have been a week.
"In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, he wants to impart special gifts, and in Romans 1:15 he is ready to preach there. He sends greetings to twenty-seven persons, but none to Peter.
"In 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.
"At Rome Paul writes to the Galatians, and mentions Peter, but not as being there or as having been pontiff there for twenty years [as the Roman Catholic Church claims].
"The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians and Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as sending messages, or as being associated with Paul, Peter is never once mentioned.
"From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (the Second Epistle to Timothy). He says, 'At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me' (2 Timothy 4:16). So that if Peter were Bishop of Rome he enjoyed an immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the great apostle.
"And, finally, in this very Epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, 'Only Luke is with me' (2 Timothy 4:11). This is conclusive.
"So Paul had written to Rome, he had been in Rome, and at the end he writes from Rome, and not only never once mentions Peter, but declares, 'Only Luke is with me.'"
While it is possible that Peter visited Rome briefly at some point, the biblical record testifies conclusively that he was not the bishop of the church at Rome.
BigMack
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.