What impressive
fancy footwork and quiet
slipping and sliding past the early church references to
PRETRIBULATIONAL Dispensationalist perspectives in the writings cited.
Or maybe you just didn’t read the whole post.
Or maybe you are not that interested in factual presentations from unrubberized history.
It gets to the point that you wonder not who is sitting at the keyboard denying Scriptural truth, but what is doing it.
Of course the post wasn't read. Its just an opportunity to deny the truth, and that opportunity will not be missed.
Dispensationalists read the Bible literally, as God intended for it to be read, and if the Bible is literally true then those who feel that they have the divine authority to decide what parts of the Bible are true and which are false, and those who have made the choice to allegorize Scripture into meaninglessness are doomed.
That's what this is all about - the failed attempt to use the word "dispensationalism" to justify the denial of Scripture and try to escape the eternal consequences for the denial of Scripture.
Dispensationalism is a threat. That's why it comes under such attack. We can validate what we believe with Scripture and that can't be tolerated by those who can't do the same. If the Bible is true, then they are doomed.
“What impressive
fancy footwork and quiet
slipping and sliding past the early church references”
Challenge:
Find me one of your so-called ‘Early Church’ references who believed, taught, or preached a ‘pre-trib, pre-mil rapture’.
I didn’t ‘slip or slide’ past anything. There is simply nothing there to substantiate your view.
Again, you are trying to confuse Historic Premillenialism with Dispensational Premillenialism. This is an old Dispensationl trick.
Howeverm it’s not going to work here. Sorry.