A verdict in search of evidence.
Comments
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without 20 page diatribes trying to sell it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
-
@Dave_L said:
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture.That would be correct.
I can still prove the Father is God.
Yes
The Son is God,
No, you can't prove that from Scripture
and the Holy Spirit is God.
Yes ... but not in the sense you are thinking (as a 3rd person of a multi person Godhead)
And God is one.
Yes ... and with this, you have just done away with your own claim of proving the Trinity form Scripture. IF Scripture teaches that God is One, then Scripture CANNOT teach that God is three or that three are God
Using direct quotes from scripture.
No, you can NOT do so, because for some of your claims there are no direct quotes from Scripture.
But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Indeed ...
-
@Wolfgang said:
@Dave_L said:
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture.That would be correct.
I can still prove the Father is God.
Yes
The Son is God,
No, you can't prove that from Scripture
and the Holy Spirit is God.
Yes ... but not in the sense you are thinking (as a 3rd person of a multi person Godhead)
And God is one.
Yes ... and with this, you have just done away with your own claim of proving the Trinity form Scripture. IF Scripture teaches that God is One, then Scripture CANNOT teach that God is three or that three are God
Using direct quotes from scripture.
No, you can NOT do so, because for some of your claims there are no direct quotes from Scripture.
But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Indeed ...
This is off topic. It's about Dispensationalism.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
Not one single scripture directly supporting even one of their claims listed above.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
Not one single scripture directly supporting even one of their claims listed above.
How would you know? You didn't read it. That's very dishonest Dave. Dare I say it is a lie.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
Not one single scripture directly supporting even one of their claims listed above.
How would you know? You haven't even read it. That's a very dishonest approach Dave and a lie about what I have or have not done.
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
Not one single scripture directly supporting even one of their claims listed above.
How would you know? You haven't even read it. That's a very dishonest approach Dave and a lie about what I have or have not done.
I told you I'm not interested in your propaganda. And you are stalking me with it.
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
Not one single scripture directly supporting even one of their claims listed above.
How would you know? You haven't even read it. That's a very dishonest approach Dave and a lie about what I have or have not done.
I told you I'm not interested in your propaganda. And you are stalking me with it.
Are you crazy? I am not giving propaganda. I'm giving Scripture and an explanation of that Scripture. Why will you not even read it?
-
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
Not one single scripture directly supporting even one of their claims listed above.
How would you know? You haven't even read it. That's a very dishonest approach Dave and a lie about what I have or have not done.
I told you I'm not interested in your propaganda. And you are stalking me with it.
Are you crazy? I am not giving propaganda. I'm giving Scripture and an explanation of that Scripture. Why will you not even read it?
Hundreds and hundreds of words full of nothing more than hot air and not one scripture to back your claims?
-
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
@Dave_L said:
@reformed said:
The articles give scripture and an explanation of that scripture. You have no argument that is legitimate to not read them. Furthermore, you can't say "Scripture is the only credible source in this matter" because you are using an interpretation of Scripture as your position. That isn't Scripture. That is your understanding of Scripture. Those are not the same thing.
You can find scripture to support just about anything. But you must remove it from its context, historical setting, and convert portions into symbolism. And this is what Dispensationalists do. People hear lots of scripture, but they never hear the truth.
Which is why you should actually read the articles. You aren't really interested in truth. You are only interested in Dave's brand of theology and plug your ears when anyone challenges it.
If you cannot produce direct quotes from scripture, it is nothing more than another attempt to deceive.
We have given direct quotes from Scripture. You refuse to read them. So if you aren't interested in actually discussing this then why did you start the topic?
You have nothing or you would post it without a 20 diatribe trying to sell it.
What in the world are you talking about? What is a 20 diatribe?
Luther called Erasmus' defense of free will a diatribe. I'm only saying with no direct scriptures, Dispensationalists resort to fanciful explanations that never prove their case.
Ok, except we are giving direct Scriptures so you can't use that argument.
Post them if you have them............
I have, you refuse to read them. They are in the articles.
Really...............?
Yes really. I've said that a thousand times now.
But you have no direct quotes supporting the Dispensationalist claims I outlined above. Only one would do...........
Here we go around the merry-go-round again. By that argument you also can't believe in the Trinity.
What if I said I don't believe the word trinity is anywhere found in scripture, just as I say most everything Dispensationalists teach is nowhere found in scripture. I can still prove the Father is God. The Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. And God is one. Using direct quotes from scripture. But you cannot produce even one direct quote from scripture proving any of the false claims made by Dispensationalists mentioned above.
Except I have you just refuse to read it.
If you had anything you'd post it.
I have posted twice now. Good grief.
Not one single scripture directly supporting even one of their claims listed above.
How would you know? You haven't even read it. That's a very dishonest approach Dave and a lie about what I have or have not done.
I told you I'm not interested in your propaganda. And you are stalking me with it.
Are you crazy? I am not giving propaganda. I'm giving Scripture and an explanation of that Scripture. Why will you not even read it?
Hundreds and hundreds of words full of nothing more than hot air and not one scripture to back your claims?
Have you read it? If not, you can't make that claim because you don't know what is in it. I assure you there is SCRIPTURE in it.
-
There is scripture in Jack Van Impe, he's like a scripture machine gun. But it's all removed from its context and turned into lies.
-
@Dave_L said:
There is scripture in Jack Van Impe, he's like a scripture machine gun. But it's all removed from its context and turned into lies.So what do you propose Dave? I mean really? Unless it comes from your keyboard it must be a lie? Does this mean you do not read any commentaries, devotionals, study Bibles, don't listen to any sermons, etc?
-
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
-
@Dave_L said:
Would you but a car without a title? Why believe doctrine nobody can directly support from scripture?
I don't. I am arguing that it CAN be directly supported from Scripture and if you would get off your high horse and self-righteous position that just makes you look like an utter fool and actually READ SOMETHING, you would know that.
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/fcddec765be35f238a0844bd23f54b59/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F8ce8323767a20f0f45db140c4cd2cea1_200.png&rating=g&size=200)