DaveW

Remind people to introduce themselves. The general flow of things on this forum is that false teachers either do not introduce themselves at all, or at best in a very limited way. Press them for a testimony of salvation and for a clear statement of association - which church do they go to? At the very least what group the church they go to belongs to. It is entirely reasonable to ask, but history tells us that the false teachers refuse.

So now we are going to deliberately confuse the definition of baptism IN THIS PASSAGE for the purposes of justifying the confusion of the term "Church"? I just give up - you do what you want.

I don't disagree with anything you have said in that last post. The point is that this IS an important thing for people to consider. The most obvious false teaching that is affected by the loose use of the word "church" is the matter of baptismal regeneration. Act 2:41-47 Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls. (42) And they continued stedfastly in the apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers. (43) And fear came upon every soul: and many wonders and signs were done by the apostles. (44) And all that believed were together, and had all things common; (45) And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need. (46) And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart, (47) Praising God, and having favour with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved. Now you will notice for instance that this passage clearly designates that baptism comes before being "added to the church". The order is set out in vs 41 (received his word; baptised; added to them - "Them" defined in vs 47 as "the church". Indeed, almost every "Christian" group points to this passage amongst others to prove that baptism comes before being added to the church - however, those who hold to baptismal regeneration point to this passage with the understanding of the "Universal church". The order is believe, baptised, added to church. If "the church" is universal, and includes everyone who is saved, then...…. baptism becomes the gateway not to local church membership, but to salvation. If the church has a "universal nature" , then you have to find a way to remove this passage from that understanding and force it to be only a "local" understanding.

Excellent, thanks. I was just wondering.

Coupla things. "All God's children are NOT members of local churches. You don't have to join any church to be saved. According to the Bible (see Acts 2 for instance) you have to be baptized before you are added to the church....... now make that fit with "THE church", as you have called it here. I believe the Bible is AGAINST baptismal regeneration...... (I don't think you are for it by the way). Why do people want to use a Word the way the Bible doesn't? It only leads to confusion. The Bible absolutely does talk about all believers, but it uses terms like family, household, citizens, saints, brothers....... not church unless it is a local gathering. So the fuss is EXACTLY about the real CHURCH as distinct from the false church and false doctrines associated with the wrong understanding of "church".

Please don't misunderstand the question that I have asked twice now. You are not responsible for the actions of any other person who signs up here. I am simply interested if you know some of these guys who periodically attack this forum on such issues which you are sympathetic with. Since you have refused to answer I can only assume you do know "Brother D" from another forum. It is not up to you to deal with them, and unless you are encouraging them it is not your fault nor responsibility. (And I am not suggesting you ARE in any way encouraging them). I asked out of interest and it interests me more since you ignored it.

The bride, the Lamb's wife, in this instance is absolutely figurative. It is the city that is literal for the angel shows him a fully described city. How about the second part - do you know "Brother D" from another forum by amy chance?

Oh for goodness sake - read the description. Revelation 21 9 And there came unto me one of the seven angels which had the seven vials full of the seven last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife. 10 And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God, 11 Having the glory of God: and her light was like unto a stone most precious, even like a jasper stone, clear as crystal; 12 And had a wall great and high, and had twelve gates, and at the gates twelve angels, and names written thereon, which are the names of the twelve tribes of the children of Israel: 13 On the east three gates; on the north three gates; on the south three gates; and on the west three gates. 14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb. 15 And he that talked with me had a golden reed to measure the city, and the gates thereof, and the wall thereof. 16 And the city lieth foursquare, and the length is as large as the breadth: and he measured the city with the reed, twelve thousand furlongs. The length and the breadth and the height of it are equal. 17 And he measured the wall thereof, an hundred and forty and four cubits, according to the measure of a man, that is, of the angel. 18 And the building of the wall of it was of jasper: and the city was pure gold, like unto clear glass. 19 And the foundations of the wall of the city were garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation was jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; 20 The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. 21 And the twelve gates were twelve pearls; every several gate was of one pearl: and the street of the city was pure gold, as it were transparent glass. 22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. 23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. The angel measured it out for John. It has the structure described, the wall described, the materials described....... "Oh but you don't build with stuff like that". I really hope you are not going to follow his line of "absurd, so it can't be literal". If God wanted to describe a literal city, how could He have made it more plain? Don't know about you, but My God is well able to build such a city. Do you know this guy from another forum?

Hey, you said somewhere that you are happy to answer any questions, so I thought I would ask a simple one. Have you ever signed up to this board before? And if you have, were banned the last time? And what name would that have been? Sorry, that is three questions, not a question, but in any case, I hope you will answer them honestly. Oh, how about another - Did you chat with some friends who may have signed up here in the past and been banned before you signed up here?

I have said nothing that was not easily demonstrable and most often WITH EVIDENCE of your own words. When you have lied, I have called you a liar - that is not a "personal attack", that is exposing a false teacher and his apparent motives. What you have just done here is a blatant personal attack against a Moderator. There are many moderators on this forum, and although I have been spoken to on occasion, I have had no contact from any of them with regard to my exposing your methods, your false accusations, your misrepresentation of people, history, and the Bible. And none of them have contacted me over anything else recently either. The plain fact is that you have been answered - time and time and time again. But you continue to misrepresent people, history and the Bible - and you plainly and blatantly said that you don't believe the whole Bible is the Bible, whilst condemning people for quoting the Bible in rebuttal of you. What kind of Christian does that? This little tirade above will most likely get you banned, and then you can go running back into whatever den of false teaching you came from and brag about how much of a hero you are in your own eyes, and how poorly you have been treated. I said very early on, that if you don't post lies and false doctrines then I would have nothing to say against you. You are opposed here because you teach falsely. I have simply pointed out whenever you have lied or misrepresented anyone, and history, or the Bible. That is not hatred, that is commanded.

I guess I should give a little detail on why this is a lie NO MATTER whether he is using the true, commonly accepted definition of dispensationalism, or his false made up definition of dispensationalism. If he is talking about the generally accepted broad definition of dispensationalism, then he is wrong because as I already stated there are recorded discussions about the general idea of dispensationalism right back to the 2nd century. I pointed that out in my first post in this thread I think. HE may fall back on the word "popularized" but the plain fact is that this is not a new concept nor a new doctrine. The very specific form of dispensationalism promoted by Darby and a few others became popular, but I don't think too many people here would even align themselves totally with that very specific form of it. I do not. But that still doesn't change the fact that in reading theological book from the past it is easily seen that people understood that God interacted with men differently throughout the ages. BUT IF HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS OWN MADE UP DEFINITION, then this is even more laughable, for the Catholic doctrine of "the church" replacing Israel is hardcore historical Catholic Doctrine which goes back beyond the times of the Reformers, right back to Ambrose of Milan in the middle 300's. So no matter which definition he uses, the true one or his own made up one, it is simply not true that it is a recent doctrine. And as I am oft heard to say in such matters, whether or not something is an old teaching is irrelevant to its truthfulness. Does it match with the Bible? This age does not have a monopoly on false teachings - that is why Jesus, Paul and Peter addressed the matter of false teachers. In their time. So this reference to history does not make it a right nor wrong doctrine. All it serves to do is show ONCE AGAIN that this man is a liar, who makes up things to suit himself. By the way, I still have not found one source that defines "Dispensationalism" in the way that he does. Everywhere I have looked says that dispensationalism has to do with times and administrations, not with a division of peoples. However, when you search for his description it comes up with terms such as "replacement theology", "covenant theology" , and "Supersessionism".

Now before we again call you a liar for trying to rewrite history, what definition of dispensationalism are you using? Your made up definition or the commonly accepted definition? In both cases you are not only wrong, but you KNOW YOU ARE WRONG, which makes you a deliberate liar. And you don't even believe the whole Bible is the Bible. Is that so that you can ignore, redefine, and rewrite the Bible to suit your own doctrines? That would explain it.

Double like!

I did wonder!?! 😂 But then I know I am just a dumb bloke so....... I am just glad that the alord said we have to have faith like a little child - THAT I can do. 😉

Actually, you have been given plenty of direction to the answer of this FROM THE BIBLE, but you refuse to do even the most basic study OF THE BIBLE to find the answer. Oh that's right - you don't believe the Bible is God's Word - at least not all of it - so what is the point of studying it? You would most likely just tell us that the verses that explain it either are not legitimate verses - added in by someone at sometime - or they do not mean what they seem to mean because it is doesn't fit your idea of reasonable. For the benefit of others who will read this - the simple answer to this is that God Himself, IN HIS WORD designated the line specifically. Gen_50:24 And Joseph said unto his brethren, I die: and God will surely visit you, and bring you out of this land unto the land which he sware to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob. Exo_2:24 And God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac, and with Jacob. Exo_3:6 Moreover he said, I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God. Exo_3:15 And God said moreover unto Moses, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, hath sent me unto you: this is my name for ever, and this is my memorial unto all generations. Mat 22:32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. Act_3:13 The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go. Act_7:32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. The line was never to go through Ishmael, and it was never to go through Esau - so, BECAUSE YOU HAVE SO LITTLE REGARD FOR GOD'S WORD that you would not even do the most basic Bible study on this matter, I have supplied it to answer your juvenile accusation. This is just a small selection of such verses by the way. Funny to note also that some of these verses not only answer his false accusation, but they also note in clear terms that the physical lineage of Abraham, through Isaac, and then through Jacob would be the beneficiaries of the promise of the land, and also that HE would be known FOR EVER as "The LORD God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob," and that this name would be God's "memorial unto all generations." (See Exodus 3:15 above). This is extremely clear that this was relating to the physical line, the physical land, and that it was a "for Ever" promise, and as if to enhance and ensure there is no misunderstanding it says "to all generations". God is the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob. He was, is, and ever will be known by that name. And such a name itself denotes the physical lineage.