Scripture has been abundantly shown - on both "sides" actually. The problem is that neither "side" accepts the "truth" presented by the other. And so argument ensues (which is common for just about any topic on here, actually ).
The OP is an article that points to the fact that pre-trib was mentioned way back...and if it was mentioned, even if someone were arguing against it, it was being taught, somewhere. And so...the argument that it began with Darby is proven to be wrong. Comment can be made that this or that is from the Catholic "fathers" or this person or that person. It does not really matter.
Darby did not originate pre-trib rapture thought. So let's dispense with that idea from henceforth.
Clear and abundant scripture has been shown. Re-reading this thread and others like it will show that. So, since the subject has been beaten to death, I'm going to close this thread. Never fear, I'm sure the subject will raise its head again (and there is a Matt 24 thread going on).
This happened to my husband as well. He is not known to admit his own mistakes, though he has no problem pointing out the mistakes of others.
I think we can all be accused of this. He believes firmly in what he believes scripture says, just as your hubby does, as well as SFIC does. As has been proven by various threads throughout the years, all of us believe what we believe and are not easily swayed to change our thought or even to admit we might be wrong.
I dearly love the creation message that Ken and his cohorts at the museum (one of my college mates works in the office, and her hubby is editor of their magazine) present. It is a truth that creation and the truths of God's wondrous works are unknown by too many and unaccepted by too many others (even Christians have begun to apply man's "reasoning" to creation, thus creating a real dearth of the foundational basis of creation). Ken is on a mission, one I believe that God has given him. Is he IFB? Nope. Does he use the KJV? Nope. Would our church have him come speak? Nope.
We have had people in the past who are not preachers who speak for maybe 5 minutes - not to present doctrinal issues, but to just introduce themselves. Were they IFB? Nah. But, again, they weren't presenting doctrine. Creation is a doctrine. It is a vital, central doctrine. And, as such, anyone who would teach it at our church would need to be in agreement - in both word and practice - with our stand.
That said...our church has taken groups to the museum. And our Creation Club gets a lot of material from them. Creation Club, though, is not a church ministry, per se. We (the lady who started it and me) are members of the church, and all of the groups from which we cull information are vetted by one of the pastors to make sure stuff is right.
Honestly, I don't believe that Cloud is writing things purposely to cause division - although we know from Christ Himself that divisions will come. When there is a line drawn, there will be division when people cross it - because people will dislike the truth presented (I'm not referring to you, here, Kita!).
Para-church organizations will come under attack because they aren't under the authority of a church. But then, if they were under a church, there would be the attacks from people who would say that the church is trying to shove things down folks' throat, that they are misusing monies to create theme-park-like venues, etc. I honestly don't see a problem with them being separate.
I admire David Cloud while not agreeing with everything he says/does. And I admire Ken Ham while not agreeing with everything he says/does. (and I don't think we have anything written down about BGraham...but he is mentioned once in a while....once in a great while)
So is everyone else, including those that don't believe LOL
I just find it amazing how we all give Him the glory in hindsight. It is our decisions and actions that get us into touble and then get us out of trouble (or keep us in trouble LOL) And yes it is being honest. I am not going to pretend I like Him when I can't stand Him any more. But then you lot wouldn't understand a crisis of faith if it came and slapped you in the face - you're all perfect little IFB's. Take a look arround you. Our "Father" gave this world to the devil and us with it. We are all "Job's" in one form or another being punished for our faith while He sits back in silence and enjoys the show. Reality TV at it's best
"You lot." Hmmm....okay. Perfect? Nope. Little? Nope. IFB. Yep. But it's very foolish to think God doesn't take care of us. It is also foolish to not realize that life happens - and that means bad things happen to good people. When sin came into this world, problems came into it. It is quite a decided lack of faith to begin with not to realize God is in control and that He wins in the end.
I'm sorry for your crisis in faith, but don't come on here and belittle us because we have been able to get through our own crises...by trusting even when things are the darkest. Regardless of what you are going through, others have faced the same thing - some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree. Trusting in God is the only way to get through any of those crises without losing our marbles, as it were.
God gives all of us breath - saved or lost. And I'm thankful for it. I know beyond any shadow of doubt that my breath stays in my body (well, except when I exhale ) because God allows it. And no matter what arises, I know that all things will work together for good for me. God promises that. And I trust Him.
I give Him glory in hindsight because I know He is due the glory. I also trust Him for the future because I know He holds it in His hand. I don't always understand, and sometimes I do doubt when I get myself in the way. But He is faithful, and that is all I need.
(and this is coming from someone who has "looked around" quite a bit over several decades...)
Okay, GP...even just the word "post" being posted in thread after thread can become spam...
Miss Daisy, I've got to say I'm thrilled that Rauner won. Not necessarily because I think he's so much better - he caved on too many things while running for me to think he's going to do much more than Quinn (plus he'll have Mike Madigan against him). But because the Obamas and the Clintons all came out and stumped for Quinn...and he lost. I was hoping Durbin would lose for the same reason. But one down is good!
And on a happy note - every person the Clintons stumped for lost! heheheh
Happily, as it turns out, the new make-up of the Senate will be in opposition to this current president. Although he still has til January to do things with the lame-duck Senate that can be as disastrous as other things he's done.
I'm disappointed in a couple of the local results, but it wasn't unexpected. Other US Congress results, though, make up for it.
While I do not mourn the demise, I'm sad because I know it's going to be assumed to be a gospel church...I sincerely hope that a godly man or three will head to the Seattle area and start some churches that are biblical. There are some in the area, but Seattle is a big city and could use more.
Please see my post on Paul the Heretic but HappyChristian you don't know "the prayer was intended for God not to strike them all dead right at that point" that is just foolish nonsense to deflect from the real meaning of what he was saying. He was saying that without any form of repentence, without any acknowledgement that Jesus was god by these people Jesus was still able to and did grant salvation. Dear--- people salvation was a free gift for all mankind through his son, thanks to Paul the heretic you all seem to have a really tough time accepting this. I preached a sermon on this exact topic. You MUST use Occum's Razor, Jesus actually meant "Father forgive them" and he was actually talking about ALL OF MANKIND, that actually lines up beautifully with scripture (Jesus's words not Pauls) 2 And He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
I don't need to see your post, thank you. And please read a bit more carefully: I did not say that the prayer was intended for that purpose...I said I'd HEARD that. Do not misrepresent my words.
And do not use God's name in that way again. Using God's name in vain is not allowed here. That you did so is not open for argument.
Just because you preached a sermon on the topic doesn't make you right. In all actual fact, noone can definitively say exactly what Christ meant...
And, cease and desist calling Paul a heretic. God would not have used him to pen scripture were that the case.
We already have a president who dictates by executive order...with some very serious ones lined up for after Nov. 4.
If Mitch McConnell becomes majority leader, the Senate will be as ineffective as the House has been under Boehner. McConnell has reversed his stance on immigration reform and repealing BOcare just in the last couple of days due to the fact that he is in the race of his life. He and several other congressmen who have been in there for dogs' years are neck-and-neck with the Dems for more than one reason.
1. Their constituents are tired of what they've not been doing.
2. Dems are working overtime at voter fraud (from machines recording wrong votes to illegals [and this has been caught on video] being urged to vote).
3. "Independents" or Libertarians getting in and staying in the race, even when the GOP nominee is a constitutionalist (and, yes, there have been a number this cycle...most just haven't heard about them) and so siphoning votes from them.
Too many people - Rand Paul among them - believed that the seats needed to be "protected" by making sure the old guard won the seats (in the case of Thad Cochran, even at the expense of cheating and lying themselves) in the primaries. So they endorsed the old guard, sent mega money to them, etc. They won the primaries, but are not running away with the general. I believe it's because people are just tired of the garbage.
The same will hold true in the next presidential election - if there is one. If an old guard gets the nominee for the GOP - by that I mean Romney, Jeb Bush, Huckabee, etc - Hillary will win. And the slide will continue...
We've seen it and liked it (so much that we bought it). As was mentioned, there are things in there that make one shake their heads, but it's a good movie overall. Although I don't agree with Kirk Cameron on all points of doctrine, I think highly of his testimony. The fact that he wouldn't kiss the woman who played his wife is impressive, IMO, due to Hollywood culture. The woman he kisses in the movie is his actual wife - and I always figured that they chose the woman who portrayed the movie wife because his actual wife could stand in for the kiss. That might seem trite to some, but in the rampant and casual sexual time we live, to have someone who is in Hollywood stand firm about not kissing - even in acting - someone not his wife is refreshing to me.
I like the lessons of the movie, too, as does my hubby.