Posted on 01/18/2011 12:46:45 PM PST by topcat54
I'm just wondering if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you're sure not gonna be around in, say, a year, let's sign the papers and make it legal. If you're still here I get the car and house. Waddiya say?
“I’m just wondering if you are willing to put your money where your mouth is. If you’re sure not gonna be around in, say, a year, let’s sign the papers and make it legal. If you’re still here I get the car and house. Waddiya say?”
tc, try to remember I am not setting a time frame that Christ will appear in the clouds to meet His saints. No man knows.
I suggest you just come inhabit the home and use the car, since you plan to skip meeting Christ. I would gladly turn over my car to you as a non-Christian who will not be participating.
Or perhaps you will find yourself in the air, still trying to cling to the earth, while shouting, “Hey! I don’t believe in this! Put me down! Now!”
blessings,
ampu
The big problem in doing that with the hyper Arminianist, and hyper pessimillinnialist is that they never have a good set of rules in interpreting the Bible and Historical documents. For instant they will claim we believe in the literal interpretation of the Bible and practically swear by it. They reality is they will ignore figures of Speech like Metaphors, Simile, Personification etc. or figures of thought like Parable, Allegory, etc. and throw those uses of English out the door with the baby and come up with some twisted interruption, but the irony is they sneak them back into their interpretation of the Bible when it is convenient for them for their argument and then they will swear up and down that they believe only in the literary interruption of the Bible. It is like they speak and think in forked tongue. They will not admit there is other interruptions of the Bible out side of Literal interruptional thinking, and if you could get them to admit there is other interruptional uses of english they would resort to some argument like they didn't use those methods of speech back then. I sometimes question whether it is wise to even debate or engage in conversation the hyper Arminianist, and hyper pessimillinnialist, because God instructs us not to teach wisdom to fools, but I still occasionally will throw my two cents in on FR in hopes that some nonfool freeper comes by and learns something out of it, and I also hope some good Freepers do the same for me, as I have learned a lot on FR and I'm sure I will continue to learn a lot more as time goes by. Well I've got to get off of FR this morning cause I've got a hard day of work ahead of me and probably won't get back to this thread to study it or respond to it, I'm just doing my usual drive by posting for the day I hope it doesn't offend anyone.
Same ol’ flame baiting....Quix...they just can’t let it rest. Note nothing but bashing as usual.
So, what’s the difference between a “hyper Arminianist” and a regular Arminianist? What’s the difference between a “hyper pessimillinnialist” and a premillianist?
Just curious as I haven’t heard your terms used before.
Also, where do you draw the line in what to interpret literally, and what not to? Who sets the standard for that?
So we might both be long dead? Well what good then is an offer to your car and house? Both of which will probably also be gone long before Christ returns.
Or perhaps you will find yourself in the air, still trying to cling to the earth, while shouting, “Hey! I don’t believe in this! Put me down! Now!”
The goofy Left Behind view of Christ’s second coming is not what we find in the Bible. We don’t have to worry about whether we have on clean underwear or what will happen to our suddenly out-of-control car.
You know, you folks could mind your own business and post elsewhere if you’re offended.
I would be more than willing to offer up my Mercedes C Class, Ford 4x4, 2K Ranch w/detached 2 car on a really nice 4 acre lot in NE PA. But it is meaningless to do so if you are trusting in Christ. Your going home to Christ pre-mil at the appointed day regardless of your end time views.
I don't understand your comments re: drive by. However, I do understand that you cannot answer the question asked, that is "what is the purpose of your thread?" You might find this hard to believe but you are not the only person in the last 2000 years who has studied theology, history of doctrine, the ECF, on and on. Although I'm anything but preterist, I have enough time in the books and judging your abilities based on how you are trying to frame this discussion, I can say without much fear of contradiction that I could do a much better job defending your point of view than you can debunk mine and that without having to but my brain into gear. So, if you think you have some kind of advanced theological wisedom, well let me say this plainly, you don't. If you did, you would have selected something above first grade level instead of a cut and paste of Gary DeMar. Everyone thinks they have it right. The only thing on this earth though that is right is the Holy Bible and it says plainly what is going to happen and when.
In order to be a preterist, one must be covenant in their theology. The real debate is covenant vs. dispensationalist, not dispensationalist vs. preterist or A-Mil vs. disp.. The degree at which you are willing to spiritualize the prophetic scriptures and how you define the church will decide are you preterist, covenant A-Mil, Covenant post-mil, pre-mil or so forth.
But for me it is just as simple as this, If I believe that Jehovah God is powerful enough to create everything by speaking the word (Gen ch 1) and I believe that Jehovah God is loving enough to purchase my redemption by the shed blood of His Son Jesus on a cross (John ch 3) and if I believe that Jehovah God is thoughtful enough to give us His word in an understandable fashon, then by default I should believe all the other words in the Holy Bible. And among those other words I believe is that when Jesus returns, he will rule with a rod of iron (Rev ch 19). You think differently, no rod of iron because preterism teaches that Jesus returned AD 70 but you cannot point to Jesus ruling with any iron rod in this present age, then or now. So you have, which is your right and privledge, a private intrepretation of the Scriptures.
I will give you a freebie TC. There is a BB called "puritain board" google it. There are loads of intellectuals like you who sit around all day throwing rocks at dispensationalist and by taking a page from the DUmmyland playbook, keep anyone who dares defend the dispensationalistin out. Lot's of laughing smilies and such, you will really like it.
You do realize ReformedBeckite that most dispensationalists are to one degree or another Calvinist and that “The Book” on figures of Speach within the Bible was written by a hyper-dispensationalist (E.W. Bullinger)? And of course saying that one group doesn’t have a good set of rules to interpreting the Bible is easy to say but not so easy to prove.
I personally don’t agree with theologians like R.C.Sproul but I would not accuse him of not having rules.
That simply isn't going to happen...we call out false teachings oppossing the truth when we see them, and as much senseless chatter. When comments are of a denatable nature, with substance etc. that is another matter, but not this stuff posted so far. That's just bashing, and using debate as a cover to do so.
That's your opinion. You're entitled to it, just like everyone else here on FR. You've become convinced of it by whatever means. I used to believe it myself, until I really started reading the Bible. Then it no longer made sense. It did not fit with everything God revealed in His inerrant Word.
Regardless of your opinion of DeMar writing ability or scholarship, it makes considerably more sense than the drivel coming from premils around these parts. (Pick up a rock in the middle east and discover another fulfilled prophecy.) Perhaps you're different. Who knows?
Well then just do it and quit whining to your amen-club homies about it. I don’t mind debate/discussion/argument about the texts. But all this constant background chatter makes me think you folks really don’t have an argument, just a lot of noise. (I know that for a fact in at least one case.)
Well, I’m glad to see someone honest here. One slight modification; the debate is dispensational vs. non-dispensational. There are many non-dispensationalists who are not strictly speaking covenantal (reformed) in there theology, e.g., the Lutherans.
The degree at which you are willing to spiritualize the prophetic scriptures
The degree for me is the degree permitted by Scripture itself, not the artificial “literal” theory of dispensationalism, which cannot be deduced from the Bible itself. That is a false construct placed on the Bible by the dispensational system.
preterism teaches that Jesus returned AD 70
Christ’s second coming is still future.
any iron rod in this present age
Depends on whether you definition of “rod of iron” is biblical or man-made. Like the definition of the “throne of David”, is it biblical or is it man-made al the dispensational system?
My personal journey away from dispensationalism began when I discovered that the only way to be a real dispensationalist was to ignore most of what the NT writers said about Christ and the fulfillment of OT prophecies and the unity of the people of God. Dispensationalism is a system of isolation when it comes to the Bible. I reject that theory.
Oh but you do mind...otherwise 'your' posts would not be full of "background chatter"...just "a lot of noise" degrading those who might otherwise debate you. You cannot or will not stay on topic without that noise.
Oh, but that “noise” is the topic. You don’t like it, and it’s not according to your theology, but it is the topic. Not the sort of “nya nya” you go back and forth with to your homies.
So, go ahead, stop the chatter, address the substance, and debate.
Such absolute nonesense.
Look my friend, practically everyone who is a Christian more than a month can say that they "used to believe..., but now have seen the light and believe ...
Think about it, what exactly does that mean? It means nothing to anyone except the person saying it. If you want to get to the bottom of it you will spend a couple of years sudying the various positions and comparing them to the Bible. Earlier I used the example of Riddlebarger. Lots of fine people think he is an intellectual bar none. He has reformed endoursements most only dream about. But take his book, and read what he says about the teachings of for example Ryrie and compare them to the actual teachings of Ryrie and you will see that Mr. Riddlebarger is not as smart as those who love his theology claim. I come from old school, to me the truth doesn't have to turn itself into knots explaining itself.
Some dispensationalists make silly claims, this is true. Some preterists make silly claims also. The silly dispensationalists speak no more for dispensational theology than the silly preterists speak for preterism. None of the silliness matters if you are after the truth of what the Bible teaches. When you use words like "drivel" to describe dispensationalism and at the same time quote DeMar who intentionally misleads the reader, then well, I guess one could say with a stright face that you don't really understand the issues because on either side of the fence the issue are a little more involved than that.
I'm sure the Lexus will still be in good condition since aMPU will be called up within a couple years from now. Then again, dispensationalists have been predicting the imminent rapture for 180 years now.
See, that what I mean. Pure noise. Some of your homie are quite good at it, in bright H TML colors.
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.