There is no way this can be a caucus thread. The article itself includes disparaging dispensationalists. In a caucus thread none of that can happen.
There is no way this can be a caucus thread. The article itself includes disparaging dispensationalists. In a caucus thread none of that can happen.
I don't think you want to be claiming Ronald Weinland. Google him. Armstrongism spin-off. Eschatological quirks are the least of the problem.
I didn't see anything in the linked article about anyone other than him.
In a caucus thread none of that can happen.
Except when it does.
The article itself includes disparaging dispensationalists.”
I wasn’t aware that calling someone out who claimed to be one of the two witnesses in Revelation, yet whose predictions for the soon return of Christ, was disparaging them.
If he is wrong, that makes him a false prophet. The point of this caucus will be to explain why all such prophets and predictions are false, so that people won’t be duped by such charlatans again. If your point in being here is to defend such blatantly false prophets and teachers such as the one noted in the link, this probably wouldn’t be the best place for you.
Let’s try this reply again, as I had typed it on my mobile phone and it didn’t come out right.
You: “The article itself includes disparaging dispensationalists.”
I wasn’t aware that calling someone out who claimed to be one of the two witnesses in Revelation, yet whose predictions for the soon return of Christ were completely wrong, was disparaging them.
If he is wrong, that makes him a false prophet. The point of this caucus will be to explain why all such prophets and predictions are false, so that people won’t be duped by such charlatans again. If your point in being here is to defend such blatantly false prophets and teachers, this probably wouldn’t be the best place for you.