The Widow's Mites

[Genevanpreacher]

21 hours ago, Ukulelemike said:

 

Edited December 22, 2015 by Genevanpreacher

[wretched]

9 hours ago, Invicta said:

I don't get it from the internet or from books.  I was brought up in the Brethren who invented this teaching,  I was taught it for the first 20 years of my life. The dispensational teaching came from earlier  futurist teaching from the Irvingites which they got from the futurist teaching of a Jesuit.  

You will not find any teaching resembling modern pretribulationist  teaching before 1830 when the Brethren were just starting.  J N Darby as well as most other early Brethren were ex Anglicans.  Darby took over the emerging  Brethren movement and soon formulated the pretribulation and dispensationalist   theory.  Darby was an extreme Calvinist excommunicating other early Brethren leaders who didn't  agree with him like Benjamin Wills Newton.  Until the end of the 1800's in the UK, the teaching was mainly confined to the Brethren and was widely considered to be a heresy. In the meantime Darby and other Brethren visited the USA and took the teaching there.  Scofield, a Presbyterian Calvinist accepted the Darbyist teaching and produced HIS bible. The Scofield bible was given free to US bible schools who took up the teaching which, as they would say today, it went viral.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong.  You won't look at scripture to check unlike the Bereans so I ask you to look at history.

Read it again slowly bro. You base your ideas on doctrine from men's slanted views as you just proved again. Someone told you this nonsense that you just posted again as if it were Gospel truth when it obviously came from some muttenhead's book since it you did not live prior to 1950 much less 1830. God's Word demonstrates right division throughout but you will never see with the sad roots of man's opinions planted so deeply in your nugget.

You have admitted suppositions as the basis of both covenant and replacement theology with the made up idea from men that the Church was in the OT. This is found nowhere in the Bible. If this lie were true it would be found in the OT.

You have also admitted suppositions as the basis of your false calvinistic beliefs when you stated spiritually dead men cannot make choices. This idea is also from men and found nowhere in God's Word.

You yahoos turn blue in the face demanding you follow only Scripture when you give yourselves away in every argument. Sadly though you are so brainwashed with men's ideas on Scripture that you cannot distinguish the difference between the two.

You sir nor GP are anywhere close to the Berean example. You are both as far from it as possible in this forum.

 

 

[Alan]

On ‎2015‎年‎12‎月‎16‎日 at 2:43 AM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

 

 

So does the text NOT reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, or DOES it?  And if the text DOES reveal what the widow was thinking and believing, does it reveal that she believed and thought positively that she was giving unto God; OR does it reveal that she believed and thought negatively that the scribes were taking her necessary welfare?

In some postings you indicate that the text does not reveal what was the intent or belief of the widow's heart or what was the thinking of her mind.  Yet in other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with an assumption (of heart and mind, presumably) "that she was giving to God," having been "deceived into believing" that God required it.  Yet in still other postings you indicate that the widow was giving with the thought of disgust against the scribes because they did not care about her welfare.

 

By the way, I have done some historical research in order to discern what I am able about a "forced taxation" unto the temple at the time.  What I have been able to learn thus far is that there was indeed such a temple tax, but that it was only administered against the adult Jewish men, never against the women, the children, the Samaritans, or the "heathen" (Gentiles).

______________________________________________

Brother Robey,

At the present I do not have the time to formulate the entire posting (pastoral responsibilities take priority); however, in the future I intend to provide a posting concerning the Biblical evidence that the Greek verb "ballo" does not inherently or necessarily include the idea of disgust and/or violence.

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for your study on the 'Widows mite." It is a breath of fresh air.

Looking forward to your next study on on the Greek verb "ballo."

Alan

[OLD fashioned preacher]

2 hours ago, wretched said:

Read it again slowly bro. You base your ideas on doctrine from men's slanted views as you just proved again. Someone told you this nonsense that you just posted again as if it were Gospel truth when it obviously came from some muttenhead's book since it you did not live prior to 1950 much less 1830.

 

 

Not positive, but if I recall trivial details correctly --- he was born in the early 40's. (Nothing to do with the subject at hand)

[Alimantado]

4 hours ago, wretched said:

Read it again slowly bro. You base your ideas on doctrine from men's slanted views as you just proved again. Someone told you this nonsense that you just posted again as if it were Gospel truth when it obviously came from some muttenhead's book since it you did not live prior to 1950 much less 1830. God's Word demonstrates right division throughout but you will never see with the sad roots of man's opinions planted so deeply in your nugget.

 

2 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

Not positive, but if I recall trivial details correctly --- he was born in the early 40's. (Nothing to do with the subject at hand)

Was he born in the 1940s, though, OFP? According to Wretched, unless you can find it written in the Bible that Invicta was born in the 1940s then you need to throw that information out, as it written by a 'muttonhead', even if it was Invicta himself. Ditto with the Gregorian calendar you just used to specify the date.

Here's the most ludicrous thing about what Wretched has just said: Invicta was just speaking about what he believes to be the history of a teaching. He didn't attempt to speak about the Biblical basis or non-basis for it, just its history. Maybe Invicta is right, maybe he's wrong, maybe it's relevant, maybe it's irrelevent, but he was talking about history. Now Wretched attacks him for getting his supposed historical info from another person, i.e. not from scripture and not from his own personal experience.

Do you see where that logic leads us? According to Wretched, we need to reject all history--or facts even--that we haven't experienced for ourselves or read about in the Bible. So this means we need to reject that the American civil war happened, and the list of former presidents etc. On another thread, Wretched 'liked' a post where Ronda speaks of Martin Luther's views on the authorship of Hebrews. Yet according to Wretched, we can't even say that Martin Luther existed.

And once again, we have Wretched calling everything that anyone else writes the view of a 'muttonhead' and appealing to us not to read anything except the Bible, while at the same time he writes reams of stuff himself on this forum with the expectation that others will read, believe and follow it.

[wretched]

3 hours ago, Alimantado said:

 

Was he born in the 1940s, though, OFP? According to Wretched, unless you can find it written in the Bible that Invicta was born in the 1940s then you need to throw that information out, as it written by a 'muttonhead', even if it was Invicta himself. Ditto with the Gregorian calendar you just used to specify the date.

Here's the most ludicrous thing about what Wretched has just said: Invicta was just speaking about what he believes to be the history of a teaching. He didn't attempt to speak about the Biblical basis or non-basis for it, just its history. Maybe Invicta is right, maybe he's wrong, maybe it's relevant, maybe it's irrelevent, but he was talking about history. Now Wretched attacks him for getting his supposed historical info from another person, i.e. not from scripture and not from his own personal experience.

Do you see where that logic leads us? According to Wretched, we need to reject all history--or facts even--that we haven't experienced for ourselves or read about in the Bible. So this means we need to reject that the American civil war happened, and the list of former presidents etc. On another thread, Wretched 'liked' a post where Ronda speaks of Martin Luther's views on the authorship of Hebrews. Yet according to Wretched, we can't even say that Martin Luther existed.

And once again, we have Wretched calling everything that anyone else writes the view of a 'muttonhead' and appealing to us not to read anything except the Bible, while at the same time he writes reams of stuff himself on this forum with the expectation that others will read, believe and follow it.

The sharpshooter appears again.

Since all you do it bring up meaningless anecdotes that have nothing to do with the subjects discussed showing only your total lack of understanding of the subject, you are correct. Any group who bases their doctrines on extra Biblical information written by men will be wrong every single time.

Even you can understand that men have their own agendas, slants and desire to channel readers to their own particular bias, especially religious books.

Then again, maybe you can't.  

[Alimantado]

3 minutes ago, wretched said:

The sharpshooter appears again.

Since all you do it bring up meaningless anecdotes that have nothing to do with the subjects discussed showing only your total lack of understanding of the subject, you are correct. Any group who bases their doctrines on extra Biblical information written by men will be wrong every single time.

Even you can understand that men have their own agendas, slants and desire to channel readers to their own particular bias, especially religious books.

Then again, maybe you can't.  

The last time I remember bringing up an anecdote on this forum was when I shared my testimony several months ago--are you referring to something else? The point I was making was, Invicta made a series of assertions about recent history--as an aside to his claims about scripture--and you specifically referred to and rubbished those on the grounds that Invicta must have got the information from a book. That puts you in the absurd position of having to reject all knowledge that doesn't come from the Bible or personal experience, not just doctrinal claims.

I agree that men have their own agendas and biases. But I don't believe this bias is necessarily more apparent in their printed works than it is in their spoken words or even what they type on an internet forum--that magical distinction is a claim of yours that I've yet to see you back up. When it comes to doctrinal claims, I'd be interested to know whether you think that when someone says something on here that you agree with, that those same statements would become untrue were they to print them in a book. Because there are folk on here whose posts you've 'liked' or otherwise applauded who do author books on scripture.

[Ronda]

On 12/17/2015 at 1:49 PM, Pastor Scott Markle said:

Sister Ronda,

I recognize that your posting was directly specifically toward Brother "Swathdiver;" however, I wish to present a response unto your closing comments as quoted above.

Throughout my postings on the matter of Mark 12:38-44, I have not presented any denial of a contextual connection between Mark 12:38-40 & Mark 12:41-44.  In fact, I fully acknowledge that there is indeed a contextual connection between them.  However, I have expressed contention concerning the character of that contextual connection --

1.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides an example of the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As Brother Robey holds)

Or,

2.  Is it a contextual connection wherein Mark 12:41-44 provides a contrast to the scribes' greediness in "devouring widows' houses"? (As I myself hold)

Pastor Markle, I understand your viewpoint. I am happy to see that you also recognize that there is a contextual connection.  However... where you see a contrast, I see a complimentary contextual connection.  Every attempt made to show that Mark 12:44 supposedly shows a contrast has to speculate to the widow's intentions. Her intentions are not given. The only intention noted was of her "want" .

Some have stated her "want" meant her desire (or goodness of heart heart, and/or the desire to please the Lord). But that is NOT what the text states. That is purely speculative.

 I brought forth that the word "want" meant otherwise. Earlier in this thread I wrote: "I know we aren't supposed to bring the Greek into it, but it denotes "neediness/poverty". Later, "LindaR" also wrote about Greek meaning also denoting the "Want of property; indigence; extreme poverty" definition of the word.

The "issue" I was referring to was in reference to one of my own post's made on this thread over a month ago. Wherein I had stated something to the effect that I saw a contextual connection between the verses in Mark 12, myself. I do understand your position, and you presented it quite well. However, I am sorry to say, I respectfully disagree with you. I do not see the linkage as a contrast, but as a compliment. 

I believe that is where the entire discussion has fallen into 2 camps of thought (for the most part): Camp 1 (of which you agree) believes that verses 41-44 show a contrast to verses 38-40, and Camp 2 (to which I agree) believes that verses 41-44 show a complimentary stance to verses 38-40.  I also did not acquire my reasoning and belief from any person on this site (as I was accused of doing by someone else), but the opposite is true... I have believed this to be the case before this discussion was started, and from the first time I read the entire set of verses in context.

Quite honestly, I cannot see where this argument can/will ever end since it is a matter of "proving" whether or not the verses noted are contrasting or complimentary.  And in this set of (contextual) verses, the only defining words (which are truly being disputed here) is: "but she of her want" (in verse 44). That is where the opposing viewpoints come into play. The dividing factor among the discussion (of Mark 12:38-44) rests on if a person believes "of her want" denotes her desire to give willingly and of pure intent OR if a person believes "of her want" denotes poverty and neediness.

So round and round this argument goes... where it stops nobody knows... all I do know, is that it has not been "proven" that her (the widow's) intentions were from a pure desire to give freely, or of her own will (in verse 44) the word "want" is where each camp has hung their hats and come to their/own respective conclusions... in THIS particular set of verses (Mark 12:38-44) .
 

[Pastor Scott Markle]

13 hours ago, Alan said:

Pastor Markle,

Thank you for your study on the 'Widows mite." It is a breath of fresh air.

Looking forward to your next study on on the Greek verb "ballo."

Alan

Brother Alan,

Wednesday of last week I posted that which you quoted above concerning my intention to present some thoughts concerning the Greek verb "ballo."  Then I was travelling out of town throughout the end of last week and had little access or time in relation to the forum.  However, when I had returned, the thread had been "hijacked" away from the matter of Mark 12:38-44 & Luke 20:45 - 21:4.  Even so, I am somewhat waiting for things to return unto the original purpose of the thread.  Sister Ronda's posting just above may be a help in that regard. (Thank you, Sister Ronda.)

 

3 hours ago, Ronda said:

Pastor Markle, I understand your viewpoint. I am happy to see that you also recognize that there is a contextual connection.  However... where you see a contrast, I see a complimentary contextual connection.  Every attempt made to show that Mark 12:44 supposedly shows a contrast has to speculate to the widow's intentions. Her intentions are not given. The only intention noted was of her "want" .

Some have stated her "want" meant her desire (or goodness of heart heart, and/or the desire to please the Lord). But that is NOT what the text states. That is purely speculative.

 I brought forth that the word "want" meant otherwise. Earlier in this thread I wrote: "I know we aren't supposed to bring the Greek into it, but it denotes "neediness/poverty". Later, "LindaR" also wrote about Greek meaning also denoting the "Want of property; indigence; extreme poverty" definition of the word.

The "issue" I was referring to was in reference to one of my own post's made on this thread over a month ago. Wherein I had stated something to the effect that I saw a contextual connection between the verses in Mark 12, myself. I do understand your position, and you presented it quite well. However, I am sorry to say, I respectfully disagree with you. I do not see the linkage as a contrast, but as a compliment. 

I believe that is where the entire discussion has fallen into 2 camps of thought (for the most part): Camp 1 (of which you agree) believes that verses 41-44 show a contrast to verses 38-40, and Camp 2 (to which I agree) believes that verses 41-44 show a complimentary stance to verses 38-40.  I also did not acquire my reasoning and belief from any person on this site (as I was accused of doing by someone else), but the opposite is true... I have believed this to be the case before this discussion was started, and from the first time I read the entire set of verses in context.

Quite honestly, I cannot see where this argument can/will ever end since it is a matter of "proving" whether or not the verses noted are contrasting or complimentary.  And in this set of (contextual) verses, the only defining words (which are truly being disputed here) is: "but she of her want" (in verse 44). That is where the opposing viewpoints come into play. The dividing factor among the discussion (of Mark 12:38-44) rests on if a person believes "of her want" denotes her desire to give willingly and of pure intent OR if a person believes "of her want" denotes poverty and neediness.

So round and round this argument goes... where it stops nobody knows... all I do know, is that it has not been "proven" that her (the widow's) intentions were from a pure desire to give freely, or of her own will (in verse 44) the word "want" is where each camp has hung their hats and come to their/own respective conclusions... in THIS particular set of verses (Mark 12:38-44) .
 

Sister Ronda,

Indeed, I do recognize the two positions as you have presented them, and I even recognize the "evidences" for each position (although it appears that some who hold to the position contrary to my own refuse even to recognize any "evidences" for my position). 

Concerning the noun "want" as employed in Mark 12:44, I do not believe at all that the two positions turn on the meaning of this word.  Furthermore, I actually agree with you that the word as employed in this verse is intended to mean, "out of her material lack, or poverty."  Indeed, this is revealed by the Greek noun ("usteresis") from which this word "want" was translated; and I myself am not at all contrary to making a reference unto the Holy Spirit inspired and preserved Greek.  In addition, this is revealed by the translation of the parallel passage in Luke 21:4 -- "For all these have of their abundance cast in unto the offerings of God: but she of her penury hath cast in all the living that she had."  Finally, I believe that the debate should be more centered upon the usage of the word "gifts" in Luke 21:1 and the usage of the phrase, "unto the offerings of God," in Luke 21:4.

On the other hand, whereas you have indicated above your belief that there is nothing in the context that would indicate the widow's motivation in giving, and although early in this thread Brother Robey had argued the same, in his latest postings Brother Robey has definitely indicated a recognition of the widow's motivation, strongly to the negative as per the use and meaning of the Greek verb "ballo."

As far as how you may have come to your particular position, whether through personal study or through the teaching of another, does not overly concern me.  I myself am much more concerned with whether the position itself is founded upon Biblical "evidences," or not.  If a position is founded upon solid Biblical evidences, then it has Biblical authority -- "plain and simple."  But if it does not, then . . .

So then, it is ever my purpose in my discussions (debates) to engage in precise Bible study, bringing forth Biblical evidences with precision (as I believe can be observed throughout various of my presentations, both in this discussion and in others).

Edited December 22, 2015 by Pastor Scott Markle
spelling error

[Ukulelemike]

16 hours ago, Genevanpreacher said:

** I am truly trying not to be offended by the 'slant' of this sentence - I just stated I received no training. I am not lying, and I can produce a dozen men who are preachers or laymen who will vouch for my testimony.

One of the unproven methods of thought - you can't be led by God and his word on your own.

In saying that, one could imply you need man's teaching to perfect God's word. Which is not true.

I know that is not what you said, but it is in the spirit of your comment.

Not trying to be offensive-it had to do with your assumption about other's training/teaching as opposed to your, apparently far superior knowledge. Which, by the way, I myself discerned to have a rather negative spirit, as well. But no harm, no foul, and sorry if my tone seemed off. I just writes as it comes out, but nothing personal, not even in what I am about to say.

And by the way, I don't believe that we CAN be taught perfectly by the Bible alone-there is a reason the Lord established churches with leaders, with elder/bishop/pastors, preachers, whatever term you choose to use. Heb 13:7 says "Remember them which have the rule over you, who have spoken unto you the word of God: whose faith follow, considering the end of their conversation.", and 13:17 says  "Obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves: for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief: for that is unprofitable for you." There is a reason the LORD, not man, set rulers in churches, who speak unto us the word of God. It tells us to follow their faith. This clearly tells me that while we certainly are led of the Spirit in our own studies, yet at the same time, the Lord has provided another necessary aspect to our learning, and that is His churches with His leaders. To say they don't matter is to ignore the pretty strong wording in His word on the subject.  I have known many people, including my own father, who were doctrinally sound, but upon leaving off the teaching and fellowship of a local church., went into some apostasy in their own studies, because we can't expect to be blessed with good guidance of the Holy Ghost when we are in rebellion against the body of Christ.

By the way, for your edification, the Geneva Bible renders these verses in this manner: "Remember them which have the oversight of you, which have declared unto you the word of God; whose faith follow, considering what hath been the end of their conversation." and "Obey them that have the oversight of you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief, for that is unprofitable for you." in this case, the word used is 'oversight",  so still one in a position of God-given authority.

Hence, to declare  "One of the unproven methods of thought - you can't be led by God and his word on your own", is not completely true. We CAN be led of God, certainly, but not if at the same time we are rejecting one of the major resources God has not just given us, but commanded us to both remember and obey: the Preacher of the church. 

[wretched]

6 hours ago, Alimantado said:

The last time I remember bringing up an anecdote on this forum was when I shared my testimony several months ago--are you referring to something else? The point I was making was, Invicta made a series of assertions about recent history--as an aside to his claims about scripture--and you specifically referred to and rubbished those on the grounds that Invicta must have got the information from a book. That puts you in the absurd position of having to reject all knowledge that doesn't come from the Bible or personal experience, not just doctrinal claims.

I agree that men have their own agendas and biases. But I don't believe this bias is necessarily more apparent in their printed works than it is in their spoken words or even what they type on an internet forum--that magical distinction is a claim of yours that I've yet to see you back up. When it comes to doctrinal claims, I'd be interested to know whether you think that when someone says something on here that you agree with, that those same statements would become untrue were they to print them in a book. Because there are folk on here whose posts you've 'liked' or otherwise applauded who do author books on scripture.

In order for Invicta to have "experience" in the things he mentioned, he would have to be 2015 years old and have lived all over the world simultaneously during his 2015 year life. He claims that no believer rightly divided prior to 1830. This is anecdotal nonsense given him by some dude's book. Unless of course he concocted it all in his own mind. Since he brings up dates and names, I doubt he concocted it, it all came from a book and not the Bible. He may have meant that no believer wrote a book about rightly dividing prior to 1830 which is also anecdotal conjecture. How could he possible know that either?

Replacement/amils/Calvinism/covenant is all based on assumptions or suppositions from men, not what is literally conveying in God's pages. Rightly dividing is discerned without assumption or supposition, it is clearly evident the more you study only the Word and dump the pretexts beforehand. 

My only likes are those in agreement with Scripture unmolested by men. I have never referred to any external sources to support a Scriptural stand. Somebody on here writing books to profit off of God is not my business but I won't be buying or recommending any.

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word (not every dudes opinion for profit about His Word) that proceeds out of His Mouth. Making merchandise of God is sin plain and simple but I don't dislike the sinner, just the sin.

My exposing of false doctrine based on anecdotal information is somehow claimed by you to be anecdotal in itself makes zero sense friend.

Now, instead of irrelevant interjection into threads from time to time when you get an indiscernible itch, why don't you show some legs and get into the actual discussion? Take a stand for one or the other doctrine. Replacement and rightly dividing cannot both be correct.

What is your stand based solely on what you read in the Bible and not man's opinions? I certainly won't pay you for it but I will read it.

Give it a shot.

 

[Alimantado]

28 minutes ago, wretched said:

In order for Invicta to have "experience" in the things he mentioned, he would have to be 2015 years old and have lived all over the world simultaneously during his 2015 year life. He claims that no believer rightly divided prior to 1830. This is anecdotal nonsense given him by some dude's book. Unless of course he concocted it all in his own mind. Since he brings up dates and names, I doubt he concocted it, it all came from a book and not the Bible. He may have meant that no believer wrote a book about rightly dividing prior to 1830 which is also anecdotal conjecture. How could he possible know that either?

Invicta claims that Dispensationalism as it's taught today wasn't taught earlier than 1830 not in order to suggest that no-one rightly divided before 1830 but rather to suggest that Dispensationalism isn't rightly dividing. Now whether one's doctrinal beliefs being novel or not should give them pause for thought is an interesting question: earlier in this thread someone challenged SFIC to find an IFB preacher who interpreted the lesson of the Widow's mites the same way he did, so it's not just Invicta who thinks it should be a yardstick of sorts. Anyway, obviously Invicta got his info out of a book and I already acknowledged that. My point was and still is that your standard for accepting historical claims places you in a position of having to reject nearly all history.

28 minutes ago, wretched said:

My only likes are those in agreement with Scripture unmolested by men. I have never referred to any external sources to support a Scriptural stand. Somebody on here writing books to profit off of God is not my business but I won't be buying or recommending any.

Man shall not live by bread alone but by every Word (not every dudes opinion for profit about His Word) that proceeds out of His Mouth. Making merchandise of God is sin plain and simple but I don't dislike the sinner, just the sin.

Well I didn't say people on this forum or elsewhere were writing books to profit off God: that's your claim. It is ironic, though, that you say Invicta isn't in a position to know what folk have been preaching when and where, since he hasn't been all over the world, yet you go on to make claims about the motives of all pastors who have written books throughout history, including the ones this forum.

28 minutes ago, wretched said:

My exposing of false doctrine based on anecdotal information is somehow claimed by you to be anecdotal in itself makes zero sense friend.

I've not said anything about your exposing of anything being 'anecdotal'. I've not talked about anecdotes in relation to you at all. It seems like you don't read peoples' posts and just skim them for key words you're interested in.

28 minutes ago, wretched said:

Now, instead of irrelevant interjection into threads from time to time when you get an indiscernible itch, why don't you show some legs and get into the actual discussion? Take a stand for one or the other doctrine. Replacement and rightly dividing cannot both be correct.

What is your stand based solely on what you read in the Bible and not man's opinions? I certainly won't pay you for it but I will read it.

Give it a shot.

 

I don't know enough about Eschatology or Dispensationalism to contribute (and in any case I think you demonstrate that you don't read peoples' posts). Back in the day when this forum used to be about more than just those two topics, I used to get involved in more conversations. But I do read some of these threads and sometimes I come across your "all Christian authors are after the money and no-one should read any books except the Bible" doctrine, which you dish out no matter the topic, and sometimes when you do it I feel like commenting.

[Invicta]

16 hours ago, OLD fashioned preacher said:

7ot positive, but if I recall trivial details correctly --- he was born in the early 40's. (Nothing to do with the subject at hand)

1938 actually, 

But my challenge was not answered.

I was brought up in that teaching.  When was saved I went back to that church and my father said "Beware of Brethren, their teaching on the second coming is false". But I ignored him and went back where I met my wife who was saved as a teenager at a camp run by that church. When we were married we went to meetings on the second coming both in London and the Medway towns where we lived.  It was at our own church that one of he elders was teaching on one of Daniel's prophecies,  I cannot remember which one, and when we got home my wife said I was expecting that to be all laid out as he said, but it is just not there,

At that time I remembered my father's warning and started looking into the scriptures and discovered the teaching false. I began looking into the history later. Some I discovered within the last year.

About 25 years or so ago, A Baptist pastor approached me and said.  "I am a sub editor of Grace Magazine and an article has   been submitted on Daniel's prophecies and I said 'you shouldn't publish that without an alternative view' and they said 'Get on and write one then' "  He then asked me if I knew of any of the early writers before Constantine who taught that the Let and the Hindrance in 2 Thess 2 were the Roman Emperor and the Empire.  I said I didn't know, but I would see what I could find.  I spent every lunchtime for weeks at the library and reading on the train to and from work.  What I discovered surprised me. .  Every one that I read taught that.  Then I thought "How did they know, they were so sure? So I looked again at the Word and I find
2 Thess 2: 5  Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things?:6  And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7  For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. Of course they knew because Paul told them and they passed it on. That is why Tertullian could write that the church prayed for the continuation of the Empire because "We Know" what will happen when it is removed.  "You know" said Paul. "We know" said Tertullian.  The article appeared i Grace Magazine June 1990 under the tile, Does Daniel Foretell the Papacy?  Or something like that.  

[wretched]

1 hour ago, Alimantado said:

Invicta claims that Dispensationalism as it's taught today wasn't taught earlier than 1830 not in order to suggest that no-one rightly divided before 1830 but rather to suggest that Dispensationalism isn't rightly dividing. Now whether one's doctrinal beliefs being novel or not should give them pause for thought is an interesting question: earlier in this thread someone challenged SFIC to find an IFB preacher who interpreted the lesson of the Widow's mites the same way he did, so it's not just Invicta who thinks it should be a yardstick of sorts. Anyway, obviously Invicta got his info out of a book and I already acknowledged that. My point was and still is that your standard for accepting historical claims places you in a position of having to reject nearly all history.

Well I didn't say people on this forum or elsewhere were writing books to profit off God: that's your claim. It is ironic, though, that you say Invicta isn't in a position to know what folk have been preaching when and where, since he hasn't been all over the world, yet you go on to make claims about the motives of all pastors who have written books throughout history, including the ones this forum.

I've not said anything about your exposing of anything being 'anecdotal'. I've not talked about anecdotes in relation to you at all. It seems like you don't read peoples' posts and just skim them for key words you're interested in.

I don't know enough about Eschatology or Dispensationalism to contribute (and in any case I think you demonstrate that you don't read peoples' posts). Back in the day when this forum used to be about more than just those two topics, I used to get involved in more conversations. But I do read some of these threads and sometimes I come across your "all Christian authors are after the money and no-one should read any books except the Bible" doctrine, which you dish out no matter the topic, and sometimes when you do it I feel like commenting.

Double check the bold above friend and reread my post carefully. Did you do it? Now is this what I said? Then reread the second bold; you asked me what I meant by anecdotal, remember?

Have it your way guy, whatever that is. I have yet to see a single post from you that was anything other than a strange attempt to tell someone else off but without substance or understanding of either side of the arguments.

What is truly "ironic" is that you claim to not know enough about the subjects to contribute so you then point out "your" perceived flaws in the people involved. I have seen this from you on many occasions with many people on here.

Reminds me of flies that buzz bulls when they are fighting. The flies contribute nothing and could care less which is right or wrong, they just want to annoy.

[Alimantado]

20 minutes ago, wretched said:

Double check the bold above friend and reread my post carefully. Did you do it? Now is this what I said?

Yep.

"Somebody on here writing books to profit off of God is not my business but I won't be buying or recommending any."

I never said anyone was writing books to profit off God. I just said they were writing books. The motive was inserted by you. And you've said similar many times.

20 minutes ago, wretched said:

Then reread the second bold; you asked me what I meant by anecdotal, remember?

Yes I did. So if your answer is that at some point previously in the conversation I said that your "exposing of false doctrine based on anecdotal information" was itself anecdotal then I don't see where I did that.

20 minutes ago, wretched said:

Have it your way guy, whatever that is. I have yet to see a single post from you that was anything other than a strange attempt to tell someone else off but without substance or understanding of either side of the arguments.

Well I already said that when there were more conversations on here on other topics I used to contribute to them, but you ignored that. On the rare occasion when they still come up, I still do. I contributed to a couple of conversations on Calvinism a few months back, and when someone started up a conversation on Romans 1:19-20, I contributed to that too. 

20 minutes ago, wretched said:

What is truly "ironic" is that you claim to not know enough about the subjects to contribute so you then point out "your" perceived flaws in the people involved. I have seen this from you on many occasions with many people on here.

I feel I've mostly been pointing out flaws I perceive in a position you hold, not you as a person, though I admit in the last post I did criticise you personally for apparently not reading my posts. I also admit I've been unkind to others in the past: GenevanPreacher, Candlelight and others. Still, if you scroll up you'll see a fair proportion of your comments are directed at me personally: mocking comments like calling me a 'sharpshooter' and now comparing me with flies, and focusing on whether I contribute enough to particular discussions. Looks like we're all at it, eh? Perhaps this forum brings out the worst in me now that most folk have left and there's little remaining to contribute to except a couple of perpetual theological topics I don't know much about--maybe after 8 years, it's time to prayerfully seek fellowship elsewhere.