Same to you sir, all your opinion and your opinion means nothing, enjoy your ignorant bliss as well lolEverything you wrote was your opinion and your opinion certainly means nothing. Continue in ignorant bliss.
So do you think that if you were to turn fully into Sin, say youre married, that you begin an affair, while extorting your clients, then start doing drugs, blowing your money on gambling, begin to dabble in homosexuality, cuss up a storm, and even go as far as beating up people threatening to tell your wife about all your scandalous ways, that the power of God, the Spirit of God would be in your life in the same manner as if you were truly following God and His Will in your life?I believe Samson is in Heaven. There is no reason to think that the spirit of God, having left Samson, could not have returned to him if Samson humbled himself and turned to God. We know that he didn't cut his hair again, and clearly God heard him when he prayed his final prayer to the Lord, asking for strength. Plus, as you point out, Paul says Samson is counted as faithful.
But the Bible clearly says that the Lord was departed from him. This is a real problem if his salvation was the same as ours is today, because Jesus Christ promised us that his spirit would never depart from us.
I think maybe you ought to because while he uses the word dispensationalism he does not in any way agree with you about pretty much any doctrine whatsoever, even dispensationalism... This person does not agree with you, nor do you agree with him about anything at all other than a title. Just so you and others who are dispensationalists understand, what this person professes is NOT anything remotely close to your understanding or beliefs on the doctrine of dispensationalism nor pretty much any other doctrine. Specifically Salvation Dependent Doctrines and of course Non Salvation Dependent Doctrines. Here is a list of things I am sure you will not agree with that this persons cult professes:I could not give a better rebuttal to your thoughts on dispensationalism than @cfowen gave,
He has also stated:1- Man has a soul, rather than man BEING a soul
2- Man's soul is immortal
3- The existence of hell, a place where our loving God tortures the humans He created who don't believe in Him, with fire, 24/7, forever.
4- Dead believers are now in heaven with God. They immediately went to heaven after death. They didn't need to wait for the resurrection.
7- Saved Gentiles today will participate in the earthly Kingdom of Heaven
10- The Gospel taught by Jesus Christ takes precedent over everything else.
11- The Great Commission is the marching order for the Church today
12- To be saved, we must be born again
14- The present day Church started with Christ's earthly ministry
15- The present day Church started at Pentecost, in Acts 2
16- The present day Church started in Acts 9 or Acts 13, with either Paul's conversion or when Paul's ministry started
17- Lazarus and the Rich Man is a true story.
18- The comma in Lk 23:43 should be before the word, Today, as it appears in most Bibles, and not after.
21- Israel are still God's chosen people, during this 2000 year period we're now in
22- The Kingdom of Heaven is the hope of the Church.
24- The New Covenant is in effect for the Church today
26- Biblical prophecy is being fulfilled today
28- Present day Israel was God ordained. It was the fulfilling of prophecy
29- The Sermon on the Mount applies to us today.
30- The Lord's Prayer applies to us today.
31- The Lord's Supper applies to us today
32- Water Baptism applies to us today.
36- The present day Gentile Church, The Church Which is His Body, where Christ is the Head, will go through the Tribulation.
37- The purpose of the Acts period was to build the Church.
38- Today's Gentile Church will be taken up in the rapture.
39- Christ came to build a Church.
40- The 10 commandments are to be obeyed by today's Church
In essences saying that people will be saved by another means than thru Christ. Basically what I am saying here Thunder is you ought not to let this person speak for you concerning any issue as he isnt actually going to be speaking in agreement to pretty much anything you would actually say or agree with. Instead I would much rather hear your own words concerning what I have mentioned in this thread so that we can discuss it between ourselves as he is on a whole different understanding of every doctrine there is, including dispensationalism...So, from this, I would have to say that there is, and has always been, another way for any one to get saved.
Well considering this ideology of dispensationalism didnt exist AT ALL until him then I think you and people like you are not actually willing to take a long hard look at him and his influence on your ideology. Nor do I believe you and people like you ( which let me be clear I USED to be one) are taking a look at how the Church from the Apostles until JND believed and interpreted the Word of God.I will say that you and those like you give old John Nelson Darby far too much credit.
Amen and until John Nelson Darby the ideologies you hold were NOT PRESENT at all in anyones mind in any fashion whatsoever in all of Christianity. That is saying alot, and I believe it is a FACT that you dont presently want to deal with, I know it took me MANY years to truly come to terms with it, in fact it took an outright divine act of God to get me to REALLY look at what I was holding as Truth regarding Rightly Dividing the Word in accordance to dispensationalism. Maybe that is what it is going to take for you too, but I hope you actually begin to look at its origin and inherent problems.Rightly dividing the Bible goes back a long way,
If that is the case then you can easily produce dozens of people, preachers, writers, evangelists, believers and the like that profess this system of Theology prior to 1800. Please show me in detail the dozens of people that were out here preaching and teaching dispensationalism prior to JND. If you are not able to produce such works, then it is safe to say that JND indeed invented something that never existed prior to his personal interpretations of Scripture.Darby didn't invent anything that hasn't been around for as long as we've had the complete word of God.
I mean I looked at your Cults beliefs and what was funny was in speaking to you in what 3 posts or 4, it was easy to identify your ideals as clearly being part of a Cult. I also mentioned within that post that I view your Theology as basically Hyper Dispensationalism, and once I started looking more into your beliefs I saw quickly that others have also labeled this as Hyper Dispensationalism. Those who are Spiritually Awake can spot Cults rather easily, and you sir are definitely ingrained into a Cult. Therefore your opinions on anything relating to Rightly Dividing the Word are as about as useful or worthy of acknowledgement to me as trying to hear from a Mormon, or a Jehovah Witness as to how to interpret the Word of God.Another long error-filled post by the Fundamenyalist who steals everything he can from Israel.
If I didnt make that clear, I apologize, that is exactly what I was trying let Thunder know, just how many Doctrines you reject that he would accept as Truthful. Which again just shows how incorrect your Theology and Cult really is, thanks for making it very easy to expose you...That 40 point list of mine that Dacuple posted is NOT a list of truths.
What you mean to say is, the Pharisees were the Elite class of people the very tiny % at the top (so they believed) whom stated that they and they alone were the only one who were possibly able to correctly understand the Scriptures. Then they lofted themselves into a position to tell everyone who didnt follow their very narrow and strict view of Scriptures how wrong they were and they also had the power to actually force others to submit to them and their very wrong ideologies.The Pharisees were the Fundamentalists during Christ's time.
Lol I fully understand dispensationalism, I used to believe in dispensationalism for YEARS, I professed and would try and teach everyone all about it. Even on here I professed it for years, it hasnt been until God forced me to really look at it that I have moved away from it. So its not that I dont understand and thus have a problem accepting it. It is I accepted it then started actually looking at it from an objective perspective vs blindly accepting and then basing all my views from that viewpoint and changing Scriptures and randomly cutting it up, placing some here some there to make it fit that Theology. Once I began to view it objectively it became clear I was just ignoring blatant Scripture and moving things around SPECIFICALLY to force them into that narrative rather than accepting plain and clear Scripture.@Daciple I didn't say I am in lock step with @cfowen. I said his answer to you explaining dispensationalism is a good one. I agree with you on some things, too, but it obviously doesn't mean you speak for me on everything. For what its worth, I think both y'all are out to lunch on a lot.
I do think you fail to understand what dispensationalism is, and that may be part of the problem you have accepting it.
BTW, you really need to edit your posts down. I don't have time to respond to a book.
Or you could always pick a point or two and respond accordingly. I suppose you dont realize that even when I am quoting you and carrying on a conversation its not just the intent of a one on one dialogue but I write in hope that those who are reading might learn something from our different perspectives. In the few times I have tried to have a dialogue with you you always cop out the same way. Meh ok bro guess since you arent capable of reading and picking out a point or two to continue a dialogue guess its pointless to try and converse...BTW, you really need to edit your posts down. I don't have time to respond to a book.
To me, dispensationalism is as plain as reading the Bible. I guess I have never really thought of it as a theology. I think I assumed that anyone who was saved and could read the Bible for themselves could see the different stages of God's relationship with mankind.Lol I fully understand dispensationalism, I used to believe in dispensationalism for YEARS, I professed and would try and teach everyone all about it. Even on here I professed it for years, it hasnt been until God forced me to really look at it that I have moved away from it. So its not that I dont understand and thus have a problem accepting it. It is I accepted it then started actually looking at it from an objective perspective vs blindly accepting and then basing all my views from that viewpoint and changing Scriptures and randomly cutting it up, placing some here some there to make it fit that Theology. Once I began to view it objectively it became clear I was just ignoring blatant Scripture and moving things around SPECIFICALLY to force them into that narrative rather than accepting plain and clear Scripture.
This is the first I have heard of Jesus Christ coming back more than once. That just sounds wacky. Are we thinking of the same dispensationalism?For example, when Christ comes back what happens? In Dispensationalism, most people break up Christs comming into 3 or 4 times depending on what person you speak to. However the Bible is absolutely clear that Christ comes back ONCE and this is what happens at that time:
The Day of the Lord is a period of more than a thousand years. You don't need to cram the return of Jesus Christ and the destruction of the universe into one day. A plain reading of Revelation 19-21 tells us exactly when the elements will melt. It's right before the first words of Revelation 21, And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away. That's where I would place the melting and so forth, but if it makes more sense to have the return of Jesus Christ, Armageddon, the resurrection and judgement of Tribulation saints, a thousand-year reign of Jesus Christ, Satan's last rebellion, the Great White Throne Judgement, and finally, the passing away of the entire universe, all in one, crazy, 24-hour day, then I just don't know what to say. That's not the way the Bible reads.What happens when Christ comes back (also known as the Day of the Lord), the elements melt with heat and the earth and all its works are burnt up. Its is plain and simple, Jesus Returns, He will call His Elect to Him (the believers) then pour out Wrath that culminates in EVERYTHING burning up. Then according to this passage what is next is, the New Heaven and New Earth. There is no 3 or 4 comings of Christ, there is no Earth for Him to rule on its just end this World bring in the New Heaven and Earth. Unless we decide to have a Systematic Theology that forces us to start splitting things up, which is what dispensationalism does. Trust me I am as well versed in dispensationalism as you are, I just now see its wrong...
In these kind of discussions, I post with the expectation that each point I make will be addressed, and when someone posts to me, I try and respond to everything they say.Or you could always pick a point or two and respond accordingly. I suppose you dont realize that even when I am quoting you and carrying on a conversation its not just the intent of a one on one dialogue but I write in hope that those who are reading might learn something from our different perspectives. In the few times I have tried to have a dialogue with you you always cop out the same way. Meh ok bro guess since you arent capable of reading and picking out a point or two to continue a dialogue guess its pointless to try and converse...
For the record, the above quote from cfowen is what I was referring to when I said his answer to Daciple was a good one. I ONLY agree with that quote of his. I disavow pretty much everything else.And yes, you are a dispensationalist if you don't do the things commanded of Israelites. Dispensationalism is based on correctly dividing the Word of God (2Tim 2:15) into what applies to you and what doesn't apply to you, based on understanding the Bible as a whole. This all boils down to the fact that the last 7 books written by Paul (Eph, Phil, Col, 1&2Tim, Titus, Philemon) are the only books written directly TO us today. All books are true and are written FOR us. I like the red words as much as anyone but I know that they only directly involve Israel.
Do you believe in Free Will?I'm going to run with YES. We both know that nothing leaves God's desk without His signature-- and if you, no longer belonging to yourself, having been bought at a price, have fallen for a season into such debauchery, it is only because God has permitted the attack.
Amen! I agree fully 100% I know from experience. But I can tell you from experience when I was turned back into the World and miserable that I certainly did NOT have the same Power with God as when I am walking with Him!!! I didnt have the power in my Testimony, I mean I couldnt really even Testify, my Faith wasnt nearly as Strong, my Prayer Life, everything, it all was diminished massively.The truth is that if the Holy Spirit dwells in you, you would be miserable with that lifestyle-- your spirit would find it unbearable.
I do believe that God can get the Glory out of every situation, but I definitely do NOT believe that God wants us to Sin or turn to a Life of Sin for His Glory to be seen.Something like this though would ultimately serve God's purpose for His glory.. because that is what its all about. And when set a right, again, you would know that your 'recovery' had nothing to do with you (for I know that no good thing... dwells in me). And you would believe and trust in a way you hadn't before.
You know dispensationalism is much more than just that aspect, it is a systematic method and theology of interpreting the Bible and Eschatology.To me, dispensationalism is as plain as reading the Bible. I guess I have never really thought of it as a theology. I think I assumed that anyone who was saved and could read the Bible for themselves could see the different stages of God's relationship with mankind.
You believe in Pre Trib Rapture do you not? That is Jesus coming back AT LEAST 2 times right there, the secret not really here coming back, then the oh yeah hello world I am really here coming back. Again this ideology, never once taught before JND, that is just facts brother...This is the first I have heard of Jesus Christ coming back more than once. That just sounds wacky. Are we thinking of the same dispensationalism?
Well according to the Bible a Day is a Thousand Years and a Thousand Years a Day, have you ever thought that is part of the key to understanding the "Thousand Years" you want to take so literally in Revelations? When you begin to take off the Dispensationalist Glasses, you begin to realize that under that Theology, you are taking one half of a verse literally and then chalk up the other half as being symbolic. Again maybe when you are ready to have that deeper discussion on this we can begin to outline what I am talking about, but as you always say I need to cut everything short with no real substance or youre not going to respond...The Day of the Lord is a period of more than a thousand years. You don't need to cram the return of Jesus Christ and the destruction of the universe into one day.
Again in this "plain" reading of Rev 19-21 you will take part literal then part symbolic with no real rationalization as to WHY other than to fit it into your preconceived ideology. Is Jesus literally going to ride a white horse? Are those coming with him literally going to ride a white horse? Is ther literally a Sword that is coming out of his mouth? But the war is literal right? Is the key literal? Is the bottomless pit literal? Is the chain literal? But the 1000 years is literal right?A plain reading of Revelation 19-21 tells us exactly when the elements will melt. It's right before the first words of Revelation 21, And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away. That's where I would place the melting and so forth,
It reads more symbolically but again I dont want to get into it cuz there I am assured you wont respond at all, this is probably too long and I have been brief in addressing your points...if it makes more sense to have the return of Jesus Christ, Armageddon, the resurrection and judgement of Tribulation saints, a thousand-year reign of Jesus Christ, Satan's last rebellion, the Great White Throne Judgement, and finally, the passing away of the entire universe, all in one, crazy, 24-hour day, then I just don't know what to say. That's not the way the Bible reads.
So whats better to respond to everything they say, or tell them its too much and respond to nothing? I think it would be much more productive to address SOMETHING than nothing, but you do you Thunder...In these kind of discussions, I post with the expectation that each point I make will be addressed, and when someone posts to me, I try and respond to everything they say.
Blah blah blah, I dont know if I can make myself more plain to you, everything you say means absolutely nothing to me. Your words concerning my intellect on the Bible, on how the Bible should be Divided, how things are to be understood ect mean as much to me as someone who is a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon. I do not care what you think or believe about the Bible or about me or about what I know about the Bible, youre utterly deceived. On top of that you are exceedingly patronizing and elitist on your positions.To Mark 16:15 of the phony Fundamentalist sect
You can't explain the errors in my doctrine becaise there are none.
If you had ever understood dispensationalism, you would have never left. That why I think you're a liar about once being a dispensationalist. It is possible that you thought you were a dispensationalist but were too dumb to understand it, so you quit and got into the Fundamentalists, the dumbest group possible, dumb enough that even you would fit in.The only Christian sect with less Bible knowledge than a Fundamentalist is a Catholic.
If you don't believe my list of mostly Fundamentalist false beliefs, challenge me. Use scripture to prove I'm wrong.. I don;t know though. You did a miserable job trying to prove the absurdity of the Great Commission being marching orders for today. You're probably so ignorant that you believe that today's Church was started by Jesus Christ during the Gospels. I repeat, the dumbest Christians, besides Catholics, are Fundamentalists. Talk about a sect.
If you were a believing Acts 28 dispensationalist, and could see the hope in Eph. you would be a member of the only group in the entire bible going to heaven and the first group resurrected. If you had been a Jew or an believing Gentile grafted into Israel during Acts, you would be able to participate in the rapture, at the 2nd resurrection. The 3rd resurrection will be Israel in their earthy Kingdom. You, (1) Because you're such a stubborn dumb ass and (2) Because you're a fundamentalist and, therefore a know-nothing, by defonitiob, you will be in the last resurrection, which is everyone left over.from the 1st 3. This is the White Throne Judgement. If you pass muster, which is the best you can hope for, you will spend eternity on the New Earth, under the thumb of Israel. If you don't pass muster, you will just cease to exist. Amen.
Enough insults. You're too easy to trifle with. Fundamentalists are so....what is the word I'm searching for.... dumb.... at least about the scriptures.
If you want to debate using scripture only and if you will supply scripture to support every point you're trying to make and every question I ask, we can talk again. I will do the same.
To start, since you're so knowledgeable about hyper- or ultra- dispensationalism, maybe you can write a few long paragraphs on the subject, off the top of your head.
I could be wrong but I bet every time you speak to anyone who says they are a Christian you start in on your Cults ideologies and when others try to rebuke you for it, you either insult them or reject them and now are only surrounded by others who believe your ideologies. In other words you only speak from your Cults point of view and fellowship with others in your Cult. I mean you literally said in some other post you HAVE to cut yourself off from the Church in order to accept your ideologies, that my friend is a definition of a Cult...Recently I spoke with a friend from another state who recounted to me how he had lost fellowship with a long-time Christian friend because of an eccentric doctrine the friend had gotten caught up in. The particular doctrine claims Jesus' teachings are not "for" the church, that the Great Commission is not binding on the church, that there are at least two different gospels, and that the gospel of grace was totally unknown until Paul received it. When my friend tried to correct his friend, he refused to listen and now only fellowships with others who believe these strange teachings.
God bless you brother!!Your retention of Mk 16:15 as your signature says it all. You are a know-nothing when it comes to the sscriptures. You won't debate because you know you are a know-nothing. You won't discuss dispensationalism because you have never known anything about it. Anyone that is a Fundamentalist is a know-nothing. Anyone that thinks Christ's ministry was TO them is a know-nothing. What good are you?
Those things believed by the greatest number of Christians are usually untrue. Case in point: Fundamentalism.
I dont think you actually even believe this Thunder, maybe I am wrong but do you think you are have no place in the Great Commission? Do you think that the Lords Prayer doesnt apply to you? Do you think the Sermon on the Mount is NOT for you or me?For the record, the above quote from cfowen is what I was referring to when I said his answer to Daciple was a good one. I ONLY agree with that quote of his. I disavow pretty much everything else.
Dispensationalism, as I have said, is as plain as reading the Bible. I am simply unable to read the Bible in anything other than a literal manner, and that has led me to what everyone is calling dispensationlism.You know dispensationalism is much more than just that aspect, it is a systematic method and theology of interpreting the Bible and Eschatology.
The relationship believers have with God's word doesn't depend on anything but the urging and guiding of God's spirit. Do you think I even knew who Darby was when God showed me that I needed to take his word literally? Reading the Bible any other way doesn't make sense to me, as I'm sure it didn't make sense to many Christians going back to the early Church.Like I have asked multiple times now, if dispensationalism is something that every saved person who read the Bible can see for themselves then why is it that you are not able to find ANYONE in all of Christian History making these claims prior to 1800? Were there no saved people reading their Bibles prior to the 1800s?
The onus is on you to show that others prior to 1800 conceived of dispensationalism and taught these things, as we OUGHT to find if it really is anyone who is saved can just see it...
Jesus only returns once, and it's depicted in Revelation 19. The rapture is not his return. He appears in the air and believers come to him, but he doesn't stick around.You believe in Pre Trib Rapture do you not? That is Jesus coming back AT LEAST 2 times right there, the secret not really here coming back, then the oh yeah hello world I am really here coming back. Again this ideology, never once taught before JND, that is just facts brother...
That's just silly. The millennial reign of Jesus Christ will be as literal as everything else the Bible tells us that Jesus did and will do. Why would Jeremiah, Isaiah and other prophets write so much about that time if it's not going to happen? It will be a fulfilling of countless promises that God made to Israel and other nations, and you think it's not real? You are saying that God will not keep his promises? I don't get this messed up interpretation of scripture at all.Well according to the Bible a Day is a Thousand Years and a Thousand Years a Day, have you ever thought that is part of the key to understanding the "Thousand Years" you want to take so literally in Revelations?
The Bible interprets symbols for us, and is the source of many idioms we still use today, and it's not uncommon to see symbols used when describing a literal event. An example of this is in the account of the Genesis flood -- a literal event -- where the Bible says that "the windows of heaven were opened." Now, if we follow your wacky way of reading scripture, we have to reject the idea that there was a literal flood, because everyone knows that heaven doesn't have windows. A more grown-up way of reading it means we can accept that the flood was literal, but the Holy Spirit used an expression likening the deluge to the opening of windows in heaven.Again in this "plain" reading of Rev 19-21 you will take part literal then part symbolic with no real rationalization as to WHY other than to fit it into your preconceived ideology.
Yes.Is Jesus literally going to ride a white horse?
That's what my Bible says. Do you have a good reason, other than your own preconceived interpretation of the word of God, to prove why we shouldn't take that chapter as describing a literal event?Are those coming with him literally going to ride a white horse?
Symbolically, in scripture, the word of God is a sword. The Spirit is using a well-known Biblical symbol to describe Jesus Christ defeating his enemies by speaking. His word is a sword.Is ther literally a Sword that is coming out of his mouth?
I take all of those as literal because I have no reason to think they are not. What do you do when you come to one of the hundreds of places in the Bible these things are referred to and prophesied of? You say I'm reading some parts literally and some parts spiritually, but unless you take all these things as literally as you must take Jesus Christ's death and resurrection for your sins, you are doing exactly what you accuse me of.But the war is literal right? Is the key literal? Is the bottomless pit literal? Is the chain literal? But the 1000 years is literal right?
See, you don't understand that doctrine at all. The first resurrection is of all believers from the rapture of the Church until the second coming of Jesus Christ. Not just Jews, and not just three and half years.Only those who literally die during the literal Tribulation ( aka in Dispensationalism the Jews during 3 1/2 yrs) will be partakers in the First Resurrection?
We will reign because we will have been raptured, whether we were dead or not. ... the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the cloudsWhich would mean you and I wouldnt reign as we are either dead prior or taken during the Rapture, if we take this all literally.
This is the second time you've referred to the book of Revelation as Revelations. You were never a dispensationalist, were you?I mean we can go on and on doing this throughout Revelations.
You mean like I showed you how you do when you accept Jesus Christ's resurrection as literal but say his reign is symbolic?When one steps back and looks at this objectively it makes no sense to randomly say parts are literal and parts symbolic.
Oh, spare me.But I dont think you will ever realize this until God deals with your heart about it brother...
Sorry, I will amend my post. I don't agree that only those seven books he listed are for us. Everything from Romans to Philemon is for Christians today.I dont think you actually even believe this Thunder, maybe I am wrong but do you think you are have no place in the Great Commission? Do you think that the Lords Prayer doesnt apply to you? Do you think the Sermon on the Mount is NOT for you or me?
Do you really believe Galatians, 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians and Romans dont apply to you at all? The Doctrine contained within it have nothing to do with you?
That is what he is actually saying in that paragraph, and he is completely wrong...