wretched

*Independent Fundamental Baptist
  • Content count

    1,052
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About wretched

  • Rank
    Super Contributor

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Are you IFB?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

5,904 profile views
  1. Study Acts 1 and 2 more closely and you will see that you are wrong with this notion that the church was established with elders, ordinances, discipline, or anything else before our Lord's ascension and the day of Pentecost. The local NT church organized and became functional afterwards, not before. BTW, they voted on a new Apostle to replace Judas in chapter one not a church member?? Mattias was already present and numbered with the 120 which was obviously of the flesh and not of God. They jumped the gun without any authority. Only God chose Apostles. But how could they know any better, they were still unregenerate at the time. Just 40 days before they were down in the dumps, broken and broken hearted over our Lord's death. They had no clue what the Lord's mission on earth had been at all. This ruckamite nonsense gets old guy and seems to be your only argument (with everyone who bothers to entertain your arguments) whenever you can't understand Scripture. Most of the time I doubt you have any idea who ruckman or any other person is whom you reference when you are over your head.
  2. Acts clearly to me records the start of the first church at Pentecost. The Lord had risen and poured out the Spirit, elders were established and the assembly was visible and local for the first time. Couldn't have been prior to this because no assembly of believers were based anywhere prior to this nor were any elders established and left behind to lead. The Lord and His Apostles were traveling town to town. IE, to think that the first NT church was before Pentecost is to believe in the universal "church" and not the local NT church as being "the Church".
  3. Thanks, It appears I need to be burped however.
  4. Understood and good point
  5. Most certainly but the idea of the army that follows Him down is still the question. There is enough Scriptural evidence to indicate the army will be given the honor of fighting unless the sole purpose is window dressing (I doubt it but it could be I suppose). Of course who exactly is this army is yet another unanswerable question. Circumstantial evidence supports that it could be the church age saints and most likely is IMO. Interesting ideas but no one will know until it happens Ok, but the Scriptural reference you made would not be relevant if this army is indeed the church age saints and this army indeed does fight, which is the point I am making and most likely the point that Eric is making. What is the point behind your reference?
  6. I can't speak for Bro Eric, Bro Jim; but I do believe he is referring to the actual battle of Armageddon itself and not before that. I for one believe (not dogmatically mine you) that we will be the army accompanying Christ on that day. Therefore the vengeance will be God's, not ours personally.
  7. False "Gospel" is the I way In lean on this passage friend. IE, a twisting of the true Gospel. Satanists, reprobate groups of all whacky idolatries, cultists that are oblivious to the real Gospel are not included in the passage. The vast majority of the lost know these are "illegitimate" religious beliefs. Catholics, most Protestants, Emerging, Promise Keepers and charismatics, etc.. are INCLUDED in the passage IMO. I also include IFBs who push the quick 123 head prayers and mental assent without heart conviction "gospel" (giving themselves a false increase) that God had not given. But the Lord certainly knows who is accursed and is ordering us to treat them as such.
  8. Excellent point BTW MC. I think most realize that Elijah will be one of the witnesses, no doubt. The second IMO will be Moses most likely. This is based on the types of miracles God performs through them during the Trib which match the miracles God worked through them in the OT.
  9. I suspect Google has been "on fire" over this one! It was for me.
  10. Well this is a meaningless point in the context of the discussion. Any reasonably thinking Christian would use their God given common sense to know this passage is not talking about a pair of churches. 2 witnesses and or 2 Prophets which they are referred to in the same context does not translate to "churches" period.....ever.
  11. IMO you are pretty much dead on with what you know already. Go with your idea.
  12. A lack of discernment is displayed in this post. Discernment includes common sense and awareness of current events. It is obvious to the whole world that Israel is a nation again as of many years ago and has spent decades gathering back Jews from all over the world. Whether the gathering of the ten tribes is advertised is irrelevant, what is relevant is that common sense tells anyone that decades of gathering from the four corners would most certainly gather all ten tribes in numbers I wonder the more I read these posts if this is a "bad gene" in the minds of histor-a-cists (those who twist history to match their misconceptions of Scripture)? Is it a lack of accurate knowledge of current events or below average common sense or a combination of both? Whatever it is, it is a flaw of the souls and not of the Spirit
  13. I am guessing there is allot more to this story than that church board wants us to know. Drinking is advocated in these mega social clubs so a drinking issue is hardly this guy's issue with them. They just don't want the truth out which I suspect is far more egregious even for this group. Had it been just drinking they would be overly accommodating to get this guy rehab and to show "mercy", It is a bait and switch with cover up as the objective. What they are covering up only time will tell, but it will come out sooner or later.