New Tags

[JM]

Edial, could you remove the post BA made in the Historicism Only thread? It is contra historicism.

 

[Edial]

Edial, could you remove the post BA made in the Historicism Only thread? It is contra historicism.

Removed.

 

[BABerean2]

Give me specific examples.

All of the Reformers believed the Papacy was the antichrist system of scripture.
Today those who are Protestants seem unaware of this part of our history.
The Papacy today is pushing the ecumenical agenda of a one world religion and is attempting to recapture those lost during the Reformation.
Therefore, I still see some of the Historicist truth in what the Reformers said.
Dave Hunt, wrote a book titled "A Woman Rides the Beast" in which he said the same thing as the reformers regarding the Papacy. In this regard, he also held to a partial Historicist view, even though he was a Dispensational Futurist in most things.

I do not believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD or that the Book of Revelation is past.
Therefore, I am not a Preterist, but believe there is much to still occur in the future.
Although, I see that the disciples asked Jesus two questions and He answered both questions in Matthew chapter 24.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
(When will the temple be destroyed?) (What will be the sign of your Second Coming?)

In this aspect I am a Futurist.
However, I have rejected the pretrib rapture, the future 70th week of Daniel and most of the other teachings of Dispensational Futurism, that John Darby brought to America.

.

 

[Edial]

All of the Reformers believed the Papacy was the antichrist system of scripture.
Today those who are Protestants seem unaware of this part of our history.
The Papacy today is pushing the ecumenical agenda of a one world religion and is attempting to recapture those lost during the Reformation.
Therefore, I still see some of the Historicist truth in what the Reformers said.
Dave Hunt, wrote a book titled "A Woman Rides the Beast" in which he said the same thing as the reformers regarding the Papacy. In this regard, he also held to a partial Historicist view, even though he was a Dispensational Futurist in most things.

I do not believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD or that the Book of Revelation is past.
Therefore, I am not a Preterist, but believe there is much to still occur in the future.
Although, I see that the disciples asked Jesus two questions and He answered both questions in Matthew chapter 24.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
(When will the temple be destroyed?) (What will be the sign of your Second Coming?)

In this aspect I am a Futurist.
However, I have rejected the pretrib rapture, the future 70th week of Daniel and most of the other teachings of Dispensational Futurism, that John Darby brought to America.

.

OK.
Concerning Papacy being the anti-Christ.
This does not make you a Historicist or partial Preterist, since the understanding is that the SEAT of Papacy is where the anti-Christ would sit.
So this is still a Futurist. You do not believe the anti-Christ came already, correct?

Quick note about a Preterist view that revolves around "this generation" would not pass away until all these things will take place.
When you study "this generation" you would see that geneo also is translated as a general reference to children of light as compared to children of darkness.

You are amillenialist. OK. And you reject pre-trib rapture.
But you believe in the rapture to come, correct?

If you believe in the future coming of Jesus Christ as well as that most of the Revelation did not happen yet you look like a Futurist to me.

 

[BABerean2]

Edial, could you remove the post BA made in the Historicism Only thread? It is contra historicism.

How much of it did you listen to?

The speaker repeatedly talks about the Reformers being Historicists and the whole focus of the message is the Papacy and how the Reformers considered the Papacy to be the antichrist system of scripture.
It also speaks about how most Protestants today seem to be unaware of this view.

How can it not be Historicist?

.

 

[BABerean2]

If you believe in the future coming of Jesus Christ as well as that most of the Revelation did not happen yet you look like a Futurist to me.

You and I agree on this point.

However, the Dispensational Futurists do not.

.

 

[Edial]

How much of it did you listen to?

The speaker repeatedly talks about the Reformers being Historicists and the whole focus of the message is the Papacy and how the Reformers considered the Papacy to be the antichrist system of scripture.
It also speaks about how most Protestants today seem to be unaware of this view.

How can it not be Historicist?

.

Oh, I did not listen any of it. I assumed that at first now that we have the tags people make honest mistakes and post in the wrong thread ... but I do not know much about Historicism outside of the fact they believe some of the areas of Revelation already happened (I guess) ... oh, I am getting myself in trouble now.

Can you explain historicism quickly and what is the difference between it and Futurism?
Use Revelation please. What parts happened and what parts did not happen yet?

 

[Douggg]

All of the Reformers believed the Papacy was the antichrist system of scripture.
Today those who are Protestants seem unaware of this part of our history.
The Papacy today is pushing the ecumenical agenda of a one world religion and is attempting to recapture those lost during the Reformation.
Therefore, I still see some of the Historicist truth in what the Reformers said.
Dave Hunt, wrote a book titled "A Woman Rides the Beast" in which he said the same thing as the reformers regarding the Papacy. In this regard, he also held to a partial Historicist view, even though he was a Dispensational Futurist in most things.

I do not believe that Jesus returned in 70 AD or that the Book of Revelation is past.
Therefore, I am not a Preterist, but believe there is much to still occur in the future.
Although, I see that the disciples asked Jesus two questions and He answered both questions in Matthew chapter 24.

Mat 24:3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?
(When will the temple be destroyed?) (What will be the sign of your Second Coming?)

In this aspect I am a Futurist.
However, I have rejected the pretrib rapture, the future 70th week of Daniel and most of the other teachings of Dispensational Futurism, that John Darby brought to America.

.

What you claim is that you are neither fish nor foul. But are the camel wishing to get it's nose under the tent - to enter into futurists only and historists only tagged threads, because you are saying that those don't fit you - so you want freedom to continue with your modus operandi to post in both of those tagged threads - creating abrasion and diversion.

Just stay out of those and create your own threads instead, and/or participate in threads that don't have tags.

 

[Douggg]

You and I agree on this point.

However, the Dispensational Futurists do not.

.

Why don't you just start a debate tagged thread concerning Dispensational Futurism? The problem is - as you are aware - there are very few posters, if any, here that are Dispensational Futurists. So what you have been doing is accusing people of being Dispensational Futurists defacto, when that they say repeatedly to you they are not, so that you can vent.

So start a thread, tagged debate or not, and expound on all your objections to Dispensational Futurism. If other people here actually hold that position, they more than likely will respond to defend it, and you will get participation. You might also get participation from others who agree with you. Otherwise, you will not.

 

[BABerean2]

Oh, I did not listen any of it. I assumed that at first now that we have the tags people make honest mistakes and post in the wrong thread ... but I do not know much about Historicism outside of the fact they believe some of the areas of Revelation already happened (I guess) ... oh, I am getting myself in trouble now.

Can you explain historicism quickly and what is the difference between it and Futurism?
Use Revelation please. What parts happened and what parts did not happen yet?

As Luther read the New Testament, he saw the Pope as the man who sits in the temple of God claiming to be God.


2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Rome is the city built on seven hills. This fact is even written in travel brochures today.
The "golden cup" in the priests hand is found in the Book of Revelation.


Rev_17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Rev_17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

All of the Reformers to a man, held this viewpoint.

They believed the Papacy had corrupted the teachings of the New Testament.
Many of them gave their lives to come out of it.

Many now believe the Papacy of today continues in this role.
Therefore, the Papacy may still have a role in the future fulfillment of the Book of Revelation, if not as the antichrist then as the "false prophet", instead.
This fits into the Futurist interpretation. Dave Hunt also seemed to hold this view when he wrote the book "A Woman Rides the Beast".

 

[Douggg]

BAB2, say what you really want - that because you believe in elements in part to all of the tags - that you should be allowed to post in all of them, that you are above it all. That tags don't apply to you. You're special.

But the reality is you are disallowed in the historists only, the futurists only, the partial preterists only tagged threads - because you have disqualified yourself because you embrace counter notions to each, and it comes out in your posts in the form of abrasion and diversion.

You have plenty of freedom of expression in this the eschatology forum - but it is not going to be business as usual for you as in the past.

 

[Straightshot]

My comment


Not certain if I can post on this thread or not ........ doesn't really make any difference to me

But, I see even another debating ritual going on added by itself

This can be done, but I think even more confusion will be generated on top of what is already present on the forum

.... it makes no difference to me and I can work with any kind of a format .... knock down drag out debating, protected, or middle road

The mission of this section of the forum should be to present one's interpretative renderings of exegetical study regardless of style [the different persuasions] .... and the overall purpose would be to give witness to the authenticity of the Lord's Word and what it claims to be ..... if the Bible is true, then the real Christian has a slam dunk position to preach and teach from

There are many who will come with self serving ulterior motive, but this kind of thing has always been around from the get go ..... nothing new

I believe it would be best to just have an open topical forum "anything goes" environment with moderation only for holding up moral and ethical values

Posters have to realize that their views are going to be attacked and if they cannot tolerate the heat then maybe they should think about whether they are outfitted for the task

.... better to keep the format simple, open, and unfettered

The Lord's truth will get through in one way or another .... no doubt .... He is ready and able

So I say let things roll ..... the truth will win [there is only one], and the residue of the balance will fall to the ground and ultimately be swept away

 

[Douggg]

As Luther read the New Testament, he saw the Pope as the man who sits in the temple of God claiming to be God.


2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Rome is the city built on seven hills. This fact is even written in travel brochures today.
The "golden cup" in the priests hand is found in the Book of Revelation.


Rev_17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Rev_17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

All of the Reformers to a man, held this viewpoint.

They believed the Papacy had corrupted the teachings of the New Testament.
Many of them gave their lives to come out of it.

Many now believe the Papacy of today continues in this role.
Therefore, the Papacy may still have a role in the future fulfillment of the Book of Revelation, if not as the antichrist then as the "false prophet", instead.
This fits into the Futurist interpretation. Dave Hunt also seemed to hold this view when he wrote the book "A Woman Rides the Beast".

Okay, start a thread without tags, or with the Discussion tag, on that topic matter. There's nothing in the forum rules stopping you from doing so.

 

[Douggg]

My comment


Not certain if I can post on this thread or not ........ doesn't really make any difference to me

But, I see even another debating ritual going on added by itself

This can be done, but I think even more confusion will be generated on top of what is already present on the forum

.... it makes no difference to me and I can work with any kind of a format .... knock down drag out debating, protected, or middle road

The mission of this section of the forum should be to present one's interpretative renderings of exegetical study regardless of style [the different persuasions] .... and the overall purpose would be to give witness to the authenticity of the Lord's Word and what it claims to be ..... if the Bible is true, then the real Christian has a slam dunk position to preach and teach from

There are many who will come with self serving ulterior motive, but this kind of thing has always been around from the get go ..... nothing new

I believe it would be best to just have an open topical forum "anything goes" environment with moderation only for holding up moral and ethical values

Posters have to realize that their views are going to be attacked and if they cannot tolerate the heat then maybe they should think about whether they are outfitted for the task

.... better to keep the format simple, open, and unfettered

The Lord's truth will get through in one way or another .... no doubt .... He is ready and able

So I say let things roll ..... the truth will win [there is only one], and the residue of the balance will fall to the ground and ultimately be swept away

Straightforward, this thread is tagged Discussion, so of course you can post.

The new tags system is going to greatly improve the forum in terms that them whose freestyling ways insert themselves into threads with impunity, creating abrasion and diversion - are having their wings clipped; so now posters sharing a certain major like notion have the option to use tags if they don't want that sort of action.

There is no change to anyone starting their own thread. Nor participating with posting in any thread not tagged, as long as the other forum rules are met.

You personally may not want to ever use tags. Then again, as time goes on, you might decide to use them on occasion.

 

[Edial]

As Luther read the New Testament, he saw the Pope as the man who sits in the temple of God claiming to be God.


2Th 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


2Th 2:4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


Rome is the city built on seven hills. This fact is even written in travel brochures today.
The "golden cup" in the priests hand is found in the Book of Revelation.


Rev_17:9 And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

Rev_17:4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

All of the Reformers to a man, held this viewpoint.

They believed the Papacy had corrupted the teachings of the New Testament.
Many of them gave their lives to come out of it.

Many now believe the Papacy of today continues in this role.
Therefore, the Papacy may still have a role in the future fulfillment of the Book of Revelation, if not as the antichrist then as the "false prophet", instead.
This fits into the Futurist interpretation. Dave Hunt also seemed to hold this view when he wrote the book "A Woman Rides the Beast".

I personally think the harlot of Babylon is Jerusalem, also 7 hills, Rev texts support this, but this is not my home forum to debate.
I would love to debate that part.

Yes, Martin Luther thought of the Pope being the anti-christ, but more of that pope having the spirit of anti-Christ. Reformers believed the anti-Christ, a person, is yet to be born and to come and sit on the seat of Peter.

Why don't you just open own non-tagged threads and enjoy your debates?

Thanks,
Ed

 

[Straightshot]

I will not create them for myself Doug, because I have no need to do so

I would rather confront any and all opposition that you might want to isolate yourself from, OK for you, not for me

... by the way, I like your camel nose under the tent analogy

 

[Douggg]

I will not create them for myself Doug, because I have no need to do so

I would rather confront any and all opposition that you might want to isolate yourself from, OK for you, not for me

... by the way, I like your camel nose under the tent analogy

okay, I'm cool with that.

The camel under the tent analogy is not my own creation - I borrowed it - I wish I could take credit. The whole saying is that once the camel gets its nose under the tent, the whole camel is soon in the tent..... There he is right now! :lol smilies

 

[Straightshot]

And who wants a camel in one's tent .... they do unpleasant things .... and then leave

Something like having a badger in your pants, but different

 

[BABerean2]

BAB2, say what you really want - that because you believe in elements in part to all of the tags - that you should be allowed to post in all of them, that you are above it all. That tags don't apply to you. You're special.

But the reality is you are disallowed in the historists only, the futurists only, the partial preterists only tagged threads - because you have disqualified yourself because you embrace counter notions to each, and it comes out in your posts in the form of abrasion and diversion.

I clearly stated my position at the outset.
Anyone posting unscriptural doctrine will now be able to do so, without challenge.

It would seem, this is what you want. You were the proponent of the tag system.

Do you think it will be beneficial to the Body of Christ?

What if Paul had been forbidden to correct Peter and the Judaisers, regarding the Galatian believers?

Perhaps they would have been compelled to be circumcised in order to be a Christian.

In this way, you are siding with the Judaisers who wanted to promote their doctrine and not be corrected.



.

 

[Straightshot]

It is guys like BaB and his mix up of interpretive theo-babble that make things interesting Doug

Otherwise we would just be talking to ourselves over and over and over .... boring

Just hold one of these camels at arms length ..... and do not let him in your tent

When you work with BaB, who will always linger around your tent .... you just have to act a bit like he does and take your shot

.... and at the same time use his own agenda to prove out your stuff

And you will never run out of material .... because he always comes back for more, and you do not have to be concerned about what he does on the outside of your's

Apply this strategy to any poster who comes to honk at you and you will not need your tagging methodology

However, you do need a forum that will allow for you to discipline some people with using their own crass behavior against them from time to time .... otherwise they will try to entice you to break a forum rule and then report you

If this is the case the best policy is to ignore them altogether