Let me just say that this age of grace WILL end in failure - failure by man to accept the Lord's grace, with the entire professing church ending up apostate (after that remnant still here are caught up, of course). God will not be upset - he already knows this will happen. No, it is men that will be upset (to put it far too mildly) when the Lord Jesus returns in wrath.

But perhaps you have another explanation of 2 Thessalonians 2:1-5.

You know I prefer the AV (though am no KJVOnlyist), but neither the blessed brethren who did that great work nor the other Reformers had yet recovered all the truth that had been obscured by centuries of Roman suppression of truth. (I rather suspect most of them were paedo-baptists, for example; and almost certainly they all held to the unbiblical clergy/laity distinction perfected by the papists and still held by many teachers who are otherwise sound.)

But perhaps most surprising and disappointing is your use of the slur "dispy" - shortening the name of a doctrine for comic effect in order to dismiss as unworthy of discussion the teaching of some very godly men.

Amill wrote:

Dispy
Are you getting desperate now just because we've proved that Margaret MacDonald's vision was delusional, and that Scofield was a professional forger and criminal, and that the 'rapture' hypothesis is baloney etc etc etc???

Still, I will admit I was sinful for posting this earlier today. It reeks of the flesh upon re-reading. I have asked the Lord for forgiveness, and I ask any I may have offended for the same as well.

This does not mean, however, that I am conceding that you have proved anything regarding dispensations. You have still provided no scriptures to support your position.

But, I think that I shall stop defending the dispensational view on this forum, since it appears that most have made up their minds, and those who have not are not engaged in the discussion. So let it be known that my future silence in response to your (and your ilk's) feeble attacks on dispensational truths does not mean I agree with your statements.

CoramDeo wrote:
These folks should get together with those of the pre-trib, pre-mil, dispensational ilk.

I wonder whether those of the amill disposition in old times mocked Noah as he built his ark, saying, "It has never been so before!" Or mocked Moses when he gave the law, saying, "We've never had a written law before!" Or mocked Jesus when he came to suffer, and not to restore Israel to its national glory (yet, till the fulness of the Gentiles be come in), saying, "If he be the Christ, let him come down from that cross!"

Jim Lincoln wrote:
It is sad to note of all the 19th century and earlier commentaries I have read, it appears that only Matthew Henry does not make racist remarks.
Missionaries were wise to translate the Bible into native tongues and be rid of some the KJV's troubles.

Also, all this talk about 19th century racism has got me doing a little research. There were certainly 19th century christians other than Matthew Henry who were not racist.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Ah, James White belongs to a Reformed Baptist church, and of course he is one of the most famous advocates for accurate Bible translations!

The article was very good indeed, and in the past I have had warm fellowship with some in the Reformed Presby denomination. This may help explain why.

I have noticed that the objectionable theories have a stronger influence among those who believe that the church has replaced Israel, since they are much more likely to believe that since Israel had slaves, they can too.

John UK wrote:
Looks a good site to me, but no wonder Mr Dispy, you are upset at it. But have no fear, there are excellent biblical arguments against the dispensationalistic theory.
Now don't get annoyed at me, just because I've got my endtimes scenario correct. Ha!

Viridian Hue wrote:
But fellas, we are merely warning you of this forger, Scofield was a professional 'con' in both senses of the word.

Viridian Hue wrote:
John this is a little off the beaten track but did you know these 'facts' about [URL=http://www.geocities.com/pvrosman/Dispensationalism_CIScofield_Pope_Of_Premillenialism.html]]]Cyrus Scofield[/URL] The 'Daddy' of the Dispy Premills?

The premillennial position does not depend on the character of Scofield, but on the arguments from scripture that have been set forth by many men before and after Scofield. As always, these arguments remain unanswered.

One need not read beyond the second sentence fragment of the article to recognize plain factual error:

"The Bible that Christian brethren read so frequently and with which they have made up their current doctrine."

Neither clause is correct. Perhaps that is why the word "facts" is in quotes.

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Ah, whenever did I say the church is a building?

Jim Lincoln wrote:
House churches are just for beginning Christian groups or in lands where Christians are persecuted as in Islamic and Communist countries. None of the seven churches mentioned in the book of Revelation, or in Paul's letters appear to be house churches.

In fact, this is the meaning implied in the article you reference on "What to Look For in a Church," which never asks the most important question:

huh wrote:
Filigree, verdant, terebinth, satraps, qualm, portent, porphyry, pinions, parapet, offal, armlets, fomenting, dappled, forded, ibex, overweening, stadia, abashed, abutted, annotations, brooches and there are many more words that could be added to this list.

"The trees were greatly regarded for the shelter they provided, their beauty and ther pleasant aroma." - Wikipedia (not an endorsement, BTW!)

So, now I know that word, too. The others I learned in a similar fashion years ago (though from a nice OED or from Webster, not from the Internet).

I believe that the more willing you are to use a dictionary, the less you will find it necessary as you grow older. A mere 300 unfamiliar words is hardly a reason to abandon the AV and being using one of the emasculated new translations based on manuscripts so bad that even the Vatican was unwilling to use them in the 4th century.

Which quote evidently indicates Mr. Graham is using either an NIV or a TNIV Bible, since that is the translation they give.

1 Corinthians 9:22 (Today's New International Version)
"To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some."

How different from the AV!

1 Corinthians 9:22 (King James Version)
"To the weak became I as weak, that I might gain the weak: I am made all things to all men, that I might by all means save some."

Still, I don't recall Paul setting up, for example, a 'sanitized' version of Greek temple worship in order to win the Corinthians to Christ, or setting up Ashteroth on the high places so he could preach the gospel to the idolators in between 'sets' of their pagan 'worship.'

Witness wrote:
If ONLY people would understand that the Church is NOT a building, but born again, Spirit led, Redeemed, human beings, we could move on and become the salt and light that Jesus speaks of in the Gospels. We are to be a holy people - a Godly people.

John UK wrote:
I agree...
Praise the Lord!

John UK wrote:
You can trust the Lord, of course, but be wary of direct revelation unless it tallies with the written, inerrant word of God.
But if you want doctrine to be perfect, go for the Particular Redemption, as Charles Spurgeon, and stop limiting or denigrating the person of the eternal Christ.

2 Peter 1:19
"We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts"

Which fella wrote:
Dispy
Who did Paul leave in Crete.???

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Well, Mr. Dispy, I will agree that the AV,is unfixable, because it was in such sad shape. It had 3 or 4 revisions even before the 1679 edition, [URL=http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=1824]]]Part III: From the KJV to the RV (from Elegance to Accuracy)[/URL] as you can see there has been many who saw the problems with the AV, and some excellent ones came from it the Darby Bible being one of the best, and which of course, I use over the AV, except here where I usually quote from the ASV, basically the Authorized replacement to the AV.
I much prefer the NIV over the AV, for readability and accuracy. I don't want a Catholicized Bible, but a very interesting article on gender changing in Bibles such as the admittedly poor TNIV,
[URL=http://web.archive.org/web/20071011205136/faith.propadeutic.com/analysis4.html]]]Theological orientations of various translations [e.g. gender-switching][/URL]. This is a very interesting article. Also nothing to do with the AV, as does, [URL=http://www.raptureme.com/rr-kjvo.html]]]King James Onlyism[/URL].

Jim Lincoln wrote:
Oh, Mr. Dispy, and here we do agree on one thing, [URL=http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=5504173329]]]Dispensations[/URL]. If a church isn't organized then why did the the Apostle Paul under divine inspiration say,
Titus 1
5. For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that were wanting, and appoint elders in every city, as I gave thee charge;
6. if any man is blameless, the husband of one wife, having children that believe, who are not accused of riot or unruly.
7 For the bishop must be blameless, as God's steward; not self-willed, not soon angry, no brawler, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre;
8 but given to hospitality, as lover of good, sober-minded, just, holy, self-controlled;
9 holding to the faithful word which is according to the teaching, that he may be able to exhort in the sound doctrine, and to convict the gainsayers.
Now, that's hard to do in a house church isn't it?

Patrolling wrote:
"But Rev Foreman told the Edinburgh Presbytery this week that he would stay pending the outcome of the special commission,"
WHY???
Cant he read the Bible?

"Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother. But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican."

Like all denominational churches, the Presbyterians have not consistently practised sound church discipline for centuries. Eventually the remnant will separate and there will be a split, much as is happening with the Lutherans, Episcopalians/Anglicans, et al.

John Yurich USA wrote:
I agree with Jim Lincoln that house churches are just for churches just starting out with a small number of congregants and are just for churches in countries where there is persecution such as in China and the Islamic nations.

Scott McMahan wrote:
How can a translation from the late 70s need revision? We still read books from the 19th century with no problems at all, and even back into the 18th without glosses or helps.

"First off, nothing. No light, no time, no substance, no matter. Second off, God starts it all up and WHAP! Stuff everywhere! The cosmos in chaos: no shape, no form, no function– just darkness ... total. And floating above it all, God’s Holy Spirit, ready to play. Day one: Then God’s voice booms out, ‘Lights!’ and, from nowhere, light floods the skies and ‘night’ is swept off the scene."

(Allegedly Genesis 1:1-3, from 'the word on the street' "Bible".)