for a generic
REPLACEMENTARIAN et al
EQUALS
the total absence
of rubber?
Posted on 10/07/2009 3:25:53 PM PDT by The Ignorant Fisherman
Holy Spirit is fiercely protective of
HIS EXCLUSIVE TURF regarding each individual alive.
I learned that long ago.
I’ll wait on Him, thanks. (Smile)
The way errant futurists treat the texts, yes. They have to ignore an entire book of the NT (and other portions) in order to support their contrived theory about the future millennial kingdom.
Tell Him I said "hello".
UNMITIGATED BALDERDASH!
WHAT A FARCE OF A NOTION!
“I love it when you say that.”
Typical response of the uninformed.
I will, but you CAN tell Him yourself, you know...
Are you expecting REPLACEMENTARIANS et al
to go beyond CREEDS and scripted prayers?
OH DEAR!
THEN
they’d have to IGNORE GOD
OR LISTEN!
EITHER ONE could have serious consequences!
I know, and I have, but I figured since you were going to put in a good word for me, you might pass along my regards. We could call it a “Hail, Mary”! :-)
Great! . . . some humor.
Wasn’t sure REPLACEMENTARIANS had any.
OTAY, I’ll do it.
| REPLACEMENTARIANS et al | |
|---|---|
| Ezekiel 40:39; 42:13; 43:19 | |
| EQUALS | |
| RUBBERIZED, CONVOLUTED, FANTASIZED, PSEUDO-'SPIRITUALIZED' IRRATIONAL GOO, |
BIBLICAL DESCRIPTIVE TRUTH OF FUTURE TANGIBLE REALITIES! |
| MANGLE SCRIPTURE TO IRRATIONAL OBLIVION BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FIT REPLACEMENTARIAN BIASES AND DOCTRINES DEMONS. |
AS GOD'S TRUTH |
| VAINLY, ARROGANTLY DEMONICALLY, BLASPHEMOUSLY TRY & CONFORM SCRIPTURE AND GOD TO MAN'S IMAGE |
CONFORM MAN'S UNDERSTANDING TO GOD'S WORD! ACCEPT THAT GOD IS GOD and always WILL BE GOD whether our finite minds always can manage to wrap our biases around HIS MYSTERIES OR NOT! |
Extremely well put. Amen.
One should make one’s case upon the Oracles of Almighty God and walk in HIS ways, filled with His Spirit, and immune from the sneers of those who scoff in pomp and piety while relying upon the works of mere men.
Extremely well put. Amen.
INDEED! INDEED!
Amen!
It would be like organizing and maintaining the United States without a Constitution, which is just what liberals are trying to do.
All the Pentecostal congregations I know of believe in the basic doctrines presented in the creeds. There may be a quibble about this or that one or two items of lesser importance depending on the creed.
And, Jesus Only groups would probably fuss about the Trinity.
Mostly, I think your assertion about Pentecostl and Charismatic groups is hogwash.
I have no idea what you are talking about here, but it sounds pretty good...
[...] you will recognize that promise of the Holy Spirit includes God raising up faithful men to guard the faith once delivered.
How very Catholic. That is *not* the standard It is the Spirit who sanctions, wrt to churches, and wrt men. The gifts of the Spirit are evident in Churches where His Counselor is present... to include (*gasp*) tongues and prophesy! How vain to assume that words of men could stand before the Mighty Counselor! LOL! Straw before flame!
While we do not place these works on the same level as the Bible, we also recognize that it is human nature to interpret the Bible by our own imaginations and end up far from the truth (2 Peter 1:21).
But that is not true. If one in FACT holds the Bible to be preeminent, there is no argument at all for observing other than a Saturday Sabbath. It IS the Lord's Day. The New Testament says clearly that the love of God is keeping His commandments... ALL of them (and there ain't just 10).
As a Calvinist of many years, I can HAPPILY poke holes through Calvinist doctrines - rites of men, no different than the Catholics or any others who cling to the piety of mortals.
Testing what we think we read in the Bible by comparing that to what faithful believers down through the centuries have written is one way of deflecting error. It’s not perfect, but it works to a satisfactory degree.
TRADITIONS OF MEN.
For most fundamentalists of the futurist dispensationalist variety, church “history” only goes back to JN Darby and his band of merry men in the 1830. Everything before that, including the reformers like Calvin, where just untrustworthy and full of error in matter before the Church today, like eschatology.
This is why I posted a quote from Isaac Newton. His work was done in the late 1600's and resembles dispensationalism far more than it does the preterist view (though portions of both are supported). I am certain you would find him an interesting read - His predictions are amazing from the books of Daniel and the Revelation of John. While he is lauded for his work in science, he was far more extensively involved in Christian prophesy.
Of course, he too, inevitably, is wrong, as anyone who predicts the Word of God from a distance always is. But it seems he was more right than most.
[roamer_1:]When tradition trumps Word, it is confusion.
Hardly even suggested in my post.
I most strenuously disagree.
On the other hand, when folks act as if 2000 years of church history does not exist and the novel stuff they have “discovered” on their own or from some yokel with enough money to buy time of the local cable station must fit the bill, there is really a serious problem.
Not at all. It is when those in power through history, using that power to label dissenters heretic, and promote a single powerful voice in the Name of God, regardless of it's truth... That is the serious problem. That is the whore of Babylon.
Isaac Newton is a perfect example of "the heretic". The only reason he is preserved is that his dedication to science brought him fame, and he was wise enough to commit his writings to a later generation. How many others have been summarily destroyed, either in a very real sense, or by simple ridicule... similar to what is being shown by some right on this thread?
Creedless Christianity is the cause of much woe in the Church, from liberalism to fundamentalist/charismatic nonsense.
Utter pap. The baptism by fire is the truth. Having been indoctrinated in Reformed dogma, and having been raised therein, And having been freed from it by a powerful working of the Spirit, I bear witness to you.
Yes, but not Roman Catholic when properly understood.
Lone Ranger Christians are the ones most likely to get into trouble when it comes to sound doctrine, or lack thereof.
The Church (that is, the properly ordained officers of the Church) is the one to exercise the keys of the kingdom, binding and loosing according to the Word of God. If you come in to the congregation and declare some fantasy doctrine that you heard on Brother Yahoo’s old time revivalist freewill teetotaler radio program last night, quoting Scripture and all, the officers are free to toss you on your ear when it does not match the gold standard properly interpreted. Clearly, your interpretation is wrong, and God’s human ambassadors are right.
But that is not true.
Actually, it is. See the previous.
If one in FACT holds the Bible to be preeminent, there is no argument at all for observing other than a Saturday Sabbath.
That’s your opinion based on your personal interpretation of the Bible. Why should anyone believe it? Who are you?
As a Calvinist of many years, I can HAPPILY poke holes through Calvinist doctrines
See previous.
This is why I posted a quote from Isaac Newton. His work was done in the late 1600's and resembles dispensationalism far more than it does the preterist view
And who is Isaac Newtown and why should we listen to him. There were many noble scientists, politicians, etc who made terrible theologians.
Or, more likely, you are severely misreading Newton.
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.