Jump to content
  • Welcome to Online Baptist

    Free to join.

Eric Stahl

America is not Mystery Babylon

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, DaveW said:

/It is just plain good manners to at least credit the source you are copying, rather than present it as your own original material.........

You should take your own advice, and give the  souce of your allegations.

You could buy a copy of History of Apocalyptic Interpretaion, written in the early 1800's. .  It covers fom the  earliest timea to the French revolution.  The author gives qoutes from the original writers and references for those quotes.. You can get it on Amazon.

 

 

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clarence Larkin who was described to me by a futurist on another board as a "Hyper Dispensationalist" wrote in the second chapter of his book Dispensational Truth, wrote

The "Futurist School" interprets the language of the Apocalypse "literally, " except such symbols as are named as such, and holds that the whole of the Book, from the end th century   of the third chapter, is yet "future" and unfulfilled, and that the greater part of the Book, from the beginning of chapter six to the end of chapter nineteen, describes what shall come to pass during the last week of "Daniel's Seventy Weeks." This view, while it dates in modern times only from the close of the Sixteenth Century, is really the most ancient of the three. It was held in many of its prominent features by the primitive Fathers of the Church, and is one of the early interpretations of scripture truth that sunk into oblivion with the growth of Papacy, and that has been restored to the Church in these last times. In its present form it may be said to have originated at the end of the Sixteenth Century, with the Jesuit Ribera, who, actuated by the same motive as the Jesuit Alcazar, sought to rid the Papacy of the stigma of being called the "Antichrist, " and so referred the prophecies of the Apocalypse to the distant future. This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it, but, strange to say, it has wonderfully revived since the beginning of the Nineteenth Century, and that among Protestants. It is the most largely accepted of the three views., It has been charged with ignoring the Papal and Mohammedan systems, but this is far from the truth, for it looks upon them as foreshadowed in the scriptures, and sees in them the "Type" of those great "AntiTypes" yet future, the "-Beast" and the "False Prophet." The "Futurist" interpretation of scripture is the one employed in this book.

"Wonderfully revived in the 19th century  and that among Protestants.  from where?  "This view was accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and was for a long time confined to it""

Where Larkin was wrong was that anything like it was taught in the early church. They taught an orderly historical progression. 

1 the Roman Emperor would be removed.  It was when Constantine moved tto Byzantium 

2. The empire would be succeded by 10 kings.   It was when the last western emperor abdicated in favour of the Goths  Out of those 10 kingom came the papacy. Till the pope claimed supreme power in 610 no one had ruled in Rome since Constantine.The Western Empire reigned fom Milan and then Ravenna.

Edited by Invicta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, robycop3 said:

Well, ACTUALLY, "futurism was invented" because the eschatological events simply haven't yet occurred! No rocket science needed!

See my post on Clarence Larkin and it will show yhou are wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Invicta said:

You should take your own advice, and give the  souce of your allegations.

You could buy a copy of History of Apocalyptic Interpretaion, written in the early 1800's. .  It covers fom the  earliest timea to the French revolution.  The author gives qoutes from the original writers and references for those quotes.. You can get it on Amazon.

 

 

You want me to go back and find all the previous posts where evidence against your lies has been given?

Because over the years the evidence has been given by many here and proven you are wrong.

And I don't need to buy a copy of any book because I have the Bible which is always true, unlike men who rewrite things to suit themselves - as you constantly prove.

I certainly wouldn't buy any book you recommend, because you have proven over the years that you lie about all sorts of things, you have false doctrine, you have little understanding of true doctrine, and make accusations that are unsupportable.

And even in your Larkin quote you prove yourself wrong, and they try say that he is wrong on only that point. You yourself present the evidence that denies your position, and reject it in the same breath.

 

Edited by DaveW
Phone spelling and last paragraph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, DaveW said:

Once again you are showing yourself to be a liar. It has been shown to you that the future fulfillment of Revelation 4 onwards was a known doctrinal position in the first few centuries after Christ and WELL before the Jesuits were invented.

You are a constant liar and constantly present false information to support your false theories.

And once again I will tell you that historical prescence or absence of doctrines does not make a doctrine true - biblical accuracy makes a doctrine true.

It is just plain good manners to at least credit the source you are copying, rather than present it as your own original material.........

  It should be obvious that when I, or anyone else, presents material as a quote, that such material is not the post-maker's own words, at least in that post.

7 hours ago, Invicta said:

See my post on Clarence Larkin and it will show yhou are wrong.

  I believe it's quite-obvious to anyone who has at least a rudimentary knowledge of Scripture & world history that the prophesied eschatological events have NOT yet occurred. And Larkin was spot on in much of his material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Invicta said, "Where Larkin was wrong was that anything like it was taught in the early church. They taught an orderly historical progression." 

That statement is not entirely true.

DaveW said, " Because over the years the evidence has been given by many here and proven you are wrong. "

That statement is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, robycop3 said:

It should be obvious that when I, or anyone else, presents material as a quote, that such material is not the post-maker's own words, at least in that post.

...but you didn't put it in a quote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 36 Guests (See full list)

    There are no registered users currently online

Article Categories

About Us

Since 2001, Online Baptist has been an Independent Baptist website, and we exclusively use the King James Version of the Bible. We pride ourselves on a community that uplifts the Lord.

Contact Us

You can contact us using the following link. Contact Us or for questions regarding this website please contact @pastormatt or email James Foley at jfoley@sisqtel.net

Android App

Online Baptist has a custom App for all android users. You can download it from the Google Play store or click the following icon.

×
×
  • Create New...