[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by stephanos

Why is it that you keep trying to remind us that you're a hyper-dispensationalist? Is this a fact, or is this what some call you?

Concerning inspiration, the Scriptures tell us that:

All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: (2 Timothy 3:16 KJV)

If what you're saying is the case (and I think of a truth it is) then that would say that "all Scripture is inspired of God" but it doesn't. It says that it is "given" by inspiration. Here is the mode:

For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:21 KJV)

So you're going to have to shew that these words are alive as you described them to be. I agree that they are, but when dealing with the doctrine of inspiration you need to get your mode right.

For Jesus' sake,
Stephen

I think on the inspiration of the Scriptures, we are on two frequencies Stephen. Your receiver is not tuned to my transmitter, and vice versa. I don;t understand your objections here, I'll stand by my message on the topic and offer this as possible clarification:

John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

Inspiration is a gift of God's words he gives us. The passage in John 3 I wrote in my message; the motive for writing it was inspired by God, and the words I wrote are His words and they are inspired. I acted as a scribe. As His words they are alive and work effectually in those who believe them. That is Scriptural, is it not?

My attempt at levity also has touched a nerve. I have spent my life with angry people. I was raised by them. Anger anger anger anger anger. So I evolved, for want of a better word, a sense of humor. Since we are being serious and somber, I'll clarify the terms "hyperdispensationalist/dry cleaner".

Both are artificial(man-made) terms used by various defined sects and when applied to a person, defines them as a follower of Stam-Darby-O'Hair, and their theology is Calvinist, meaning they won't pass out a tract at gunpoint, and do not have a Bible they can hold in their hands as Stam did not. Call it profiling, categorizing, I call it marginalizing. Impeach. Neutralize. We are not supposed to exist before Darby and Schofield, yet the sect most vocally in opposition to us grace dispensationalists is one I can find nothing as history before the 1600s and John, the last OT prophet, certainly did not found this church. If it's a matter of "oldest and best manuscripts" Wycliffe stated the Scriptures needed to be divided rightly and applied to the ones each division is written to, so if we have to point to a founder it would be to have originated in the 14th century. We grace believers actually claim Sergius Saulus Paulus of Tarsus as our denominational founder. We call ourselves grace believers because we believe in salvation by grace through faith apart from the works of the law, the washing of Leviticus 8 and Acts 2 being one. Our walk is based not on sight, "acts of obedience", but on faith. The terms we are discussing are actually cuss words to me, I resent the labels, they are used by one sect to attempt to marginalize another who has bags of urine thrown at them on the street ministry just like any other Christian. This main fundamentalist sect views us as a threat to their existence since in truth many of them have ceased to be held together as a sect by the Holy Ghost of God but by a work of the law 2000 years out of date. As I said, believing the KJV is the inspired word of God will not get you to heaven, it also will not get you accepted by other fundamentalist Christians. We are outcasts among the Stamites, I am an outcast among the outcasts, I believe the church did not begin in Acts, the body of Christ began at Calvary.

Clear anything up for you brother?

Till later, grace and peace to you

Tony