Jump to content
Online Baptist Community

Critical Mass

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Critical Mass

  1. Yes, but they still don't teach that only parts of the bible are for Christians ("all scriptures are profitable") while others are not. At least none that I ever read. They may say that certain parts (like Paul's epistles) only apply doctrinally to Christians but never that you toss out everything else. I can go into Exodus and find verses about the boards and silver knobs of the tabernacle and find some kind of spiritual application for Christians but I'm not teaching it as church age doctrine. This is what people are not getting here; there is a threefold interpretation of the bible: historical, doctrinal and spiritual. Paul's epistles apply exclusively to the church. It is church age doctrine from the apostle to the Gentiles. The gospels, Acts and the Jewish epistles have plenty of church age doctrine because of their placement after the cross but they are not exclusive for the church. There is some doctrine in those books that applies only to Israel. Also, it's clear from Acts 2:38 that Peter was preaching something different initially. Do you preach that as the gospel? Do you know anyone other than maybe a Church of Christ preacher that preaches it that way? And I mean the way it says in the KJV not the way it may say after tearing it apart with the "original language" like John R. Rice did. I don't know anyone who preaches, "Repent and be baptized for the remission of sins" and, oh yeah, you will "receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" afterwords. You mean like the teachings that Invicta and Covenantor have been spewing out for years in this forum?
  2. I don't know anyone who says only Paul's epistles are for the church and nothing else. Not even your most hardcore hypers says that.
  3. And therefore I said the passage was still for today. The backslapping Amen's are nice and dandy but the passages still have to be dealt with without tearing them apart with the Greek. The Holy Ghost was not given until after baptism (in some cases after the laying on of hands) and Mark includes baptism in salvation..
  4. First off, all the bible is still for today as per II Tim. 3:16. It just might not all be DOCTRINALLY applied to the church today. Secondly, the "all nations" part was fulfilled at Acts 2:5. Many of the apostles never left Jerusalem so in essence they would have disobeyed the last commission (which was given directly to them) so I see Acts 2:5 as a fulfilment of the Lord's command to them. Last of all, like you said, Acts 2:37 says the Holy Ghost isn't given until after baptism. So apparently, something different was going on early in Acts to at least Acts 15 maybe even later where Paul rebaptizes John's disciples in Acts 19:1-6. In this case they didn't received the Holy Ghost until Paul laid his hands on them. Just like there are no more tongues and prophecies now but there were in the early church so baptism seems to play an important role in salvation or at least in receiving the Holy Ghost in the early church. All of this took place before Paul received his revelation of the body of Christ and the gospel of John was written. The problem we have is if the bible doesn't read like we want it to read so as to fit into our theology (in most cases here it would be independent Baptist) we either go to the "originals" and change what it says to fit our theology or we just outright reject what it says. This is a fatal mistake, IMO, that will shut off any more understanding of the scripture. If you believe what it says and start questioning your previous theology or beliefs (question with an honest heart to know the truth) then more understanding and light will be cast on these difficult passages. You should be a bible believer first and a baptist second.
  5. Windows is garbage. Each time they put out a new operating system the more of a convoluted mess it is. Linux or Ubuntu is the way to go.
  6. Do you mean, "What happens to unelect babies who die?" I have heard one (and only one) Calvinist say that they are tossed into the fires of hell and Christians should give God glory for it. I make this not up.
  7. Still nothing that says people are saved or damned before the foundation of the world. The election is based on foreknowledge leaving the door open for freewill. We Americans are just to be blamed for everything, huh? Reminds me of YouTube where Americans are blamed for everything and given credit for nothing unless it's bad.
  8. The passage does seem to suggest that only the predestined are called. To me this is the most difficult thing in the passage. Yet Paul says somewhere else that Christ "is the Savior of all men" indicating everyone has a chance. So, even though there's only an elect who are predestined there's seem to be a chance for everyone to be part of that elect. It's not a locked out predestination that most would never have a chance to be part of. A man can make himself part of that predestination if he simply believes on Christ.
  9. IMO, many people enjoy Christmas because it's a time to be with family and remember family memories. You can talk about the pagan roots all you want but a Christmas tree reminds them of their childhood and a special time they may have spent with grandma and grandpa or whatever. I can hardly remember any of the junk I got for Christmas but I can still remember times with my family. Paul said something about , "use it rather". In other words, take advantage of the situation to talk about Jesus. If you launch into the pagan roots of Christmas and start blasting the holiday as being evil you will find most people will shut you off. But if you use it to tell others about Jesus and the gospel without condemning the day than they will more likely to listen. I remember a good up coming church that was split because of a Christmas tree in the lobby. Testimony lost.
  10. Sounds to me like a person is predestined to look like Jesus one day, nothing about being saved.
  11. No surprise since the theory of evolution is basically a religion.
  12. Calm down, bud. I didn't say they were proof of evolution I just asked if they could be argument for the theory. I really don't have a great understanding about viruses. I didn't realize they weren't considered living organisms. I would think that even though they can't reproduce on their own the fact that they seek to survive by injecting its RNA in to another host would qualify it as a form of life. Parasites like tapeworms don't reproduce without a host either but are considered life. So viruses are an evidence of God's judgement?
  13. What about viruses? Are they a proof of evolution? Seems new ones are popping up all the time.
  14. O'Sullivan's Law: Any group or organization that isn't actually right-wing will become left wing over time".
  15. I keep having to reset my password. Anyone know the reason why?
  16. Francisco Ribera was an Augustinian amillennialist. His interpretation of Daniel 9:24-27 was a futurist interpretation but he applied it to the church and not to Israel. He viewed half of the Great Tribulation already taking place at 70 AD with 3 1/2 years yet future but none of it had nothing to do with Israel but rather the Catholic Church turning from the Pope and going into apostasy. Luis del Alcazar was a full blown Preterist who wrote the first major work on the preterist view. He believed everything in Revelation was already fulfilled except for the last three chapters of Revelation. Neither man's eschatology was anything near what Larkin or modern day premil/pretrib/dispensationalists teach. They MAY have revived a futurist view of eschatology that was buried under years of Dark Age Roman Catholic heresies but it was incidental and accidental.
×
×
  • Create New...