Jump to content
  • Welcome Guest

    For an ad free experience on Online Baptist, Please login or register for free

Why I Left The Pre-Trib Position


Ukulelemike

Recommended Posts

  • Members

When are you gonna answer my previous question? Surely this is not it.

Ceremonial washing has always been an integral part of Judiasm.  John the Baptist call his kinsmen to repent and be baptized.

Believers in Jesus also were ceremonially washed as a sign of repentence.  This was done to prepare the way for the Lord.

The ideal would have been for the whole nation to be baptized and receive their Messiah to sit on David's Throne.

Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem and his kinsmen (genetic Jews) will serve him in Israel in the future.

 

We, as Gentile believers are not bound by Judiasm, we are "baptized" in the Holy Spirit.  When we see ourselves as sinful

in the presence of God the Holy Spirit, then the "self-ego" must die and we will be filled with God's Spirit be born-again and sealed.

Our King is in heaven, and we will be "changed" and taken up into heaven at the rapture (harpazo).

 

We will return from heaven with Jesus when his kinsmen (genetic Jews) repent of their National sin of rejecting their Messiah.

Meantime, we remain in the heavenly kingdom waiting for the fulfillment of Enoch's prophecy from Jude 1:14:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

HHmmmmm....
Wondering how we can have a rational discussion about dispensationalism when the people who are so decidedly against it don't even really know what it is????

I did not say that it does not have any "strict" definition or boundaries. What I did say is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, yet you keep ranting against it. All you know about dispensationalism is what someone has poisoned you against it with, and they themselves don't know what it REALLY is.
And like I said, you are not really willing to go find out for yourself either.

Yes, Scofield was wrong in some places...but he was right more often than he was wrong. So why throw the baby out with the bathwater? You already believe many of the things that Scofield taught! Why not identify how close you are to what he taught, and then do what so many others of us have done, which is praise the Lord for where Scofield (or anyone else for that matter!) was right, and warn where he was wrong?

This is nothing more than a childish, knee-jerk reaction to something that you have no idea as to what it really is. You perceive it to be a threat. It is not.
HYPER- dispensationalism? Yes. That is a prOBlem. I am against that. It is taking a good thing too far.

You don't have any idea what I know. I don't have any idea what you know. Don't pretend omniscience, or E.S.P.

I don't want to be identified with the crowd that hangs on to the Bible molesting done by textual criticsike Darby and Scofield.

Pro 18:1
1 Through desire a man, having separated himself, seeketh
and intermeddleth with all wisdom.


Anishinaabe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Ceremonial washing has always been an integral part of Judiasm.  John the Baptist call his kinsmen to repent and be baptized.

Believers in Jesus also were ceremonially washed as a sign of repentence.  This was done to prepare the way for the Lord.

The ideal would have been for the whole nation to be baptized and receive their Messiah to sit on David's Throne.

Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem and his kinsmen (genetic Jews) will serve him in Israel in the future.

 

We, as Gentile believers are not bound by Judiasm, we are "baptized" in the Holy Spirit.  

 

 

Not me, my Baptism follows John the Baptist, same as Christ, not the Holy Spirit.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

I think you meant the Gospel of the Kingdom vs. the Gospel of Grace

and the Gospel of the Circumcision vs. the Gospel of the Uncircumcision.

 

No, but I'll read what you write on either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

There are no "raptures", there are resurrections.
Are you claiming that the dead won't rise at our gathering in the clouds?
Even your pet verses, that gives NO timeline, IThes., tells us it is a resurrection, not a rapture.

Rapture is a euphoric feeling, Resurrection is an event.

Anishinaabe

 

Tribulation saints are not mentioned in scripture, either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Ceremonial washing has always been an integral part of Judiasm.  John the Baptist call his kinsmen to repent and be baptized.

Believers in Jesus also were ceremonially washed as a sign of repentence.  This was done to prepare the way for the Lord.

The ideal would have been for the whole nation to be baptized and receive their Messiah to sit on David's Throne.

Jesus will rule the world from Jerusalem and his kinsmen (genetic Jews) will serve him in Israel in the future.

 

We, as Gentile believers are not bound by Judiasm, we are "baptized" in the Holy Spirit.  When we see ourselves as sinful

in the presence of God the Holy Spirit, then the "self-ego" must die and we will be filled with God's Spirit be born-again and sealed.

Our King is in heaven, and we will be "changed" and taken up into heaven at the rapture (harpazo).

 

We will return from heaven with Jesus when his kinsmen (genetic Jews) repent of their National sin of rejecting their Messiah.

Meantime, we remain in the heavenly kingdom waiting for the fulfillment of Enoch's prophecy from Jude 1:14:

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints,

 

 

Wow, back to the two bride question...

 

:umno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Rev 6:16 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:

 

Where do you see the rapture occurring before the wrath in chapter 6?

 

1Thess 2:16  Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

The Gospels were not written to "the church", they were written to Israel.

If you want to read what is specifically written to "the church", read Paul's Epistles.

This is where the 4th Century Catholic church "went wrong" and continue to this very day.

Replacement Theology "remnants" are found throughout the Protestant demoninations as well.

There will be God's servants of the house of Israel (genetic Israelites) preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom during the Tribulation.

 

So we should tear the gospels out of our bibles?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

Sorry to "disappoint you", but I went to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, (associated with J. Vernon McGee)

There were no corrupted versions of the Bible used at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles

The only other "versions" that I was aware of at that time was the (old) American Standard Version and the Revised Version ("reversed version"). 

I never even heard the mention of any "Geneva" Bible while at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.

All my memorization of Scripture was in the King James, which the Holy Spirit uses to bring verses to my attention

to this very day, so I can find them on my hyper-linked on-line BLB.

 

Sorry to "disappoint you", but I went to the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, (associated with J. Vernon McGee)

There were no corrupted versions of the Bible used at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles

The only other "versions" that I was aware of at that time was the (old) American Standard Version and the Revised Version ("reversed version"). 

I never even heard the mention of any "Geneva" Bible while at the Bible Institute of Los Angeles.

All my memorization of Scripture was in the King James, which the Holy Spirit uses to bring verses to my attention

to this very day, so I can find them on my hyper-linked on-line BLB.

 

Was that the same McGee who said he was looking forward to the Revelation when there will be no more sea, as he was looking forward to parking his car where the pacific ocean now is?  (McGee on the Prophecies.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

 

Acts 10, 11, 13. Peter preached the gospel to Cornelius and his crew (Gentiles), then Paul introduced and preached the gospel to a mix of Jews and Gentiles?

 

Key verses from Peter: Acts 10:34-45

Key verses from Paul: Acts 13:26-39.

 

You will notice that God by the Holy ghost cut off Peter from telling them they must repent and be baptized.  Before he got to that part, they were filled with the Holy Ghost and away they went.  They were not filled by the laying on of hands but through faith alone just as you and I are today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So we should tear the gospels out of our bibles?

you still don't get it do you?  There are more than one type of Gospel one for the kingdom and one for the body of Christ.

 

here is a link to an Independent Bible Believing Baptist there are three of these to listen to but they are not very long.

 

http://davereese.onwtw.net/ondemand/bible/index.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

If dispensationalism has no strict definition, to you, then why defend it at all?
If it has no boundaries, and it isn't definable, then it doesn't exist.

Just say you are a Bible believer.

I am.

I don't hold to any Theological system.

I hold to the Scriptures.

This is easy logic to get......
If there are beliefs that are held by disps, that happen to line up with the Scriptures....guess what?
They may be believed by others who aren't disps.
They aren't then become "closet disps", or "partial disps", or anything else.
I don't believe all dispensational teaching is wrong, or I'd have to chuck my Bible.
I amen where you're right.
I don't go along where you're wrong.

I don't go along with any known Bible correctors. You understand this.

I love God's Word, and reserve the right to have him reveal it to me, without the restrictions placed on it by any system of men.

Anishinaabe

 

They remind me of evolutionists.  I watched a programme on TV recently where there were all sorts of evolutionist, who all disagreed with each other.  Some believed in a big bang, with some ultra compact atom, some in an explosion of gas, some in an original nothingness or vacuum with was full of energy and exploded, creating as it were, everything out of noting, some in a gradual expansion of nothing into something, and a number of other daft ideas, yet they could all have a conversation about it.  But mention God creating the universe and they will all turn on you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

HHmmmmm....

Wondering how we can have a rational discussion about dispensationalism when the people who are so decidedly against it don't even really know what it is????

 

I did not say that it does not have any "strict" definition or boundaries.  What I did say is that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS, yet you keep ranting against it.  All you know about dispensationalism is what someone has poisoned you against it with, and they themselves don't know what it REALLY is. 

And like I said, you are not really willing to go find out for yourself either.

 

Yes, Scofield was wrong in some places...but he was right more often than he was wrong.  So why throw the baby out with the bathwater?  You already believe many of the things that Scofield taught!  Why not identify how close you are to what he taught, and then do what so many others of us have done, which is praise the Lord for where Scofield (or anyone else for that matter!) was right, and warn where he was wrong? 

 

This is nothing more than a childish, knee-jerk reaction to something that you have no idea as to what it really is.  You perceive it to be a threat.  It is not. 

HYPER- dispensationalism?  Yes.  That is a prOBlem.  I am against that.  It is taking a good thing too far. 

 

Oh I know what dispensationalism is, I was taught it for many years in the Brethren.  I now believe the teaching to be false.   I have had friends who taught it in my current church and I disagreed with them and said why I disagreed with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

you still don't get it do you?  There are more than one type of Gospel one for the kingdom and one for the body of Christ.

 

here is a link to an Independent Bible Believing Baptist there are three of these to listen to but they are not very long.

 

http://davereese.onwtw.net/ondemand/bible/index.html

 

I will listen tomorrow if poss.  I am in a hotel room in France and my wife is in bed asleep and I don't want to wake her.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Members

So we should tear the gospels out of our bibles?

No, in this case it's OK to read someone else's "mail".  Feel free to read Jonah (for example).

 

And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee
that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. Mt 5:30
I haven't seen very many "one-handed" Christians lately.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...