[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Thanks Pbiwolski,

I could use the encouragement. But even I don't consider the other's remarks as janglings, they all make very good points towards someone promoting a heresy, or an heretick, and I know they are only doing so for my sake. Its just that I think they are mistaken where I'm coming from.

I'm going to try to sit down and write out the entire theory with scriptures, then eventually perhaps start another thread, so we can discuss the theory, not the man.

Anyways, if you think the teaching is wrong, please show me why, that is after all, what I'm looking for.

Thanks again,
In Christ,
~Brian.

[peopleoftheway]

Brother I don't think Apollos was a heretic, he simply hadn't heard the Gospel As he was preaching the Baptism of John. He was a "learned man," "mighty in the scriptures," "fervent in spirit," "instructed in the way of the Lord" but his teaching was incomplete until he was given the Gospel by Priscilla and Aquila

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject

Judging by his preaching In Achaia and Paul desiring him to come unto the Church at Corinth I would say that he wasn't a Heretic as he hadn't been rejected, simply put straight on the Gospel of Grace.


Ill say no more on the subject Brother as Its not a theory I agree with either, but It is NOT jangling on my Part.

[CKG]

If a person doesn't want to listen to or read behind others I would say they certainly have the liberty to do so, but I have been greatly helped by reading behind or listening to other preachers and teachers.

Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy, let us prophesy according to the proportion of faith; Or ministry, let us wait on our ministering: or he that teacheth, on teaching; (Romans 12:6-7)

Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. ((2 Timothy 2:1-2)

I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; (2 Timothy 4:1-3)

But speak thou the things which become sound doctrine: That the aged men be sober, grave, temperate, sound in faith, in charity, in patience. The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; (Titus 2:1-3)

I realize, especially with the advent of the internet, people must be discerning with whom they read behind or listen to which is where Acts 17:11 comes in;

These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so. (Acts 17:11)

I would be willing to say there are probably very few people who read or post to this forum who haven't been helped in their understanding of the Bible by lisitening to or reading behind someone else. I am very thankful for the many men got has raised up who have helped me in learning to rightly divide the word of truth, yet I realize I have the responsibility to take God's Word and check them out. Our American society is built around putting people (athletes, musicians, actors, ...etc) on a pedestal to the point this man-worship attitude has spilt over into the church. I don't think I've ever read behind or listened to anyone that eventually I didn't find something I disagreed with them on. Like so many areas there is a balance here; thank God for the preachers and teachers He raises up, but always check them out with THE Bible.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

Note I pointed out I don't consider anything jangling, including your posts.

Point about Apollos is that his teaching was deficient until he was shown otherwise. Why can't that possibly happen to anyone else, even Estep?
For his sake, I hope it has in the many years since the usurpation thing. I found no evidence of heresy in the 70 week timeline. If its there, I'd like someone to show it. So far folks are all keeping mum, as far as I can tell simply because we've all heard a thousand times that there will be 7 full years of trib after the rapture. But what if the evidence indicates its only 6.38?

This weekend I'm going to try to start compiling the scriptures for this. Perhaps its my lack of presenting it clear enough for people to comment on without a bias, but from the scriptures alone.

I'm still thankful that you folks are taking the time to post to me.

In Christ,
~Brian

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

CKG: Amen and Amen!

Now that is making sense, and echos where I am coming from. I never even heard about rightly dividing the word of truth or dispensationalism until two years ago. I could have heard about it from PBI or a crackpot on the street, doesn't matter, I heard about it, and I sought out the truth from God and His Book myself.

For goodness' sake, I hope people understand I'm just interested in the scriptures on this matter. I'm not an Estep follower / promoter / disciple / whatever, I just referenced something he put on audio to be discussed, in case they wanted the details I hadn't put into text yet.
I'm afraid people are misconstruing me and I might be headed to a banning, for the wrong reasons.

Anyways, I will try to do my homework and prepare an actual outline for this thing, so we can focus on the Book instead of some guy.
I read all the other threads, usually silently, but this is something that intruiged me, and I wanted to discuss it. I only know one other person I can talk to about this face-to-face, with enough Bible knowledge and willingness to talk about it, so I reached out to the forum family.

George, I'm still going to respond to your post. All these other ones are shorter , heheh.

[George]

Aloha BornAgainBibleBeliever,

I intend for this to be my last Post in regards to Greg Estep and his Heresy on this Thread. I am going to put into "chronological order" what transpired, and that has caused so much concern and comments from me.

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Thread:
Post #1 - 03-24-2009

“I recently came across a truly amazing sermon set by Dr. Greg Estep, who is a KJO Dispensationalist,”

“It covers the 70 weeks, end-times prophecy and the period of the tribulation with a rare viewpoint: That the 70'th week started already, and then got paused for the church age, to resume after the rapture and continue 6.38 years, instead of the commonly preached full 7 years. This seems to explain all the apostolic miracles, the cessation of the sign gifts, parts of the plan for Israel, and sheds light on more than a few false doctrines derived from falsely dividing the Word of Truth.
It also draws some correlations between the Jewish feasts, and the time of the rapture, among many other great expositions.”

“Frankly, I'm quite blown away with the sermons, and I've been listening to them over and over, and I'd like to get some more input on the things he presents from other solid Bible believers.”

Link to Sermon Audio

”I know its six hours to listen to them all, but I can pretty much guarantee that you won't regret it, and his delivery is much like Gipp's, so he's almost fun to listen to.
If there are errors, I'd like to see them pointed out, but if this guy is bang-on, then it could be of much benefit to share this incredible teaching. I'm not saying this teaching is perfect, but my discernment is giving me a bright green light on this one, and I'd like to know if its wrong before adopting it.”

”It will definately be food for thought for any workman who seeks to rightly divide.”

Your description of Greg Estep (a man who you don’t know) is both “POSITIVE” and “ENTHUSIASTIC”. And you made the “assumption” that he is a “solid Bible believer” - just like many of us on this Forum. This is the PROBLEM with endorsing or recommending a man, or “Bible” material (sermons, videos, books, etc.) from people you don’t know - someone out their might know something about them which will prove that they are, in fact, NOT “solid Bible believers” at all!

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #3 - 03-25-2009

“Hi Samuel, thanks for venturing to listen to the sermon and giving me your thoughts.”

“Perhaps I didn't explain it accurately, but it sounds like you are thinking of a mid-trib rapture, at the abomination of desolation, but I could be misreading you.”

”What I understand Estep to be demonstrating is that something like ~220 days elapsed into the 70th week (Calvary to Acts) , then stopped when the gospel went to the Gentiles, and there are still 6.38 years to go, once the stopwatch starts again when the fullness of the Gentiles be come in, also when the rapture hits.”

”This would give ~2.88 years of tribulation left, then the abomination of desolation, then the 3.5 years of wrath, then the second coming.”
”As Estep points out, the Jews already made their covenant with the antichrist, or at least a type of him when they said:”

Jhn 19:15 But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.

”Just some thoughts on it, would like some more discussion. Not looking to argue with anyone or prove this point, just to find out if it makes sense to others too.”

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #5 - 03-25-2009

“Its quite a good listen, and the first hour doesn't do the whole thing justice.
At one point he sort of breaks down and chuckles that its hard to teach the whole Bible in one sermon. Its like he's trying to pour a lake through a handheld funnel!”

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #6 - 04-01-2009

“Nobody else interested ?”

”I might be the only guy who listens to preaching on my computer as a complete replacement for TV, movies, music and video games, hence I listen to preaching pretty much everyday.”

”This was the most revolutionary sermon I'd heard in a long time, thought others might enjoy too.”

”I just grabbed all 314 sermons by Dr. David Peacock, who is KJO, and seems really good.
Any comments on him?”

Please Notice: You first Posted on (Post #1) 03-24-2009. I Posted (Post #7) about one week later and only after you kept “gushing on” about:

“a truly amazing sermon set by Dr. Greg Estep, who is a KJO Dispensationalist”; “I'm quite blown away with the sermons”; “his delivery is much like Gipp's, so he's almost fun to listen to.”; “this incredible teaching”; my discernment is giving me a bright green light on this one”; “Its quite a good listen”; “Its like he's trying to pour a lake through a handheld funnel!”; ”This was the most revolutionary sermon I'd heard in a long time, thought others might enjoy too.”

For one week I sat and read your comments about this man (Greg Estep) and his “revolutionary sermon”, etc., and your complimentary remarks – thinking: BABB has NO IDEA WHO he is recommending. You said: “I'd like to get some more input on the things he presents from other solid Bible believers.” You wanted input from “OTHER” SOLID BIBLE BELIEVERS”, which meant that you believed that Greg Estep IS a “Solid Bible Believer”. I could forbear no longer!

My reply (My Post #7) was extremely short (especially for me) and to the point. I didn’t “smear” Greg Estep, and I didn’t get into a scathing denunciation of him or his pernicious doctrine (NOT YET!) - I just directed any one who might be interested, to a 50 page “critique” of “DR.” Greg Estep’s “revolutionary” teaching on “The Doctrine of Submission”. My Post #7 follows:

George’s Post (I added some bold and underlines for emphasis – G.A.):
Post #7 - 04-01-2009

Aloha brother,

“I'm not into recommending men, especially preachers that seem to have "new angle" on Bible doctrine. Ever since you mentioned Gregg Estepp, I have been biting my tongue (to the point where it is nearly bleeding.”

”There are some of us on this Forum that don't have a very high opinion of Gregg Estepp (and for very "sound Scriptural reasons"). If you want to know why, you can check out this Link:”

http://www.freewebs.com/thywordis/DO...20Comments.htm

It was only after your anemic reply to our “critique”, and the admission that you hadn’t read it all, that I began to be a bit more “hard-nosed” about Estep, and his pernicious doctrine.

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Part of your reply:
Post #10 - 04-02-2009

“I started reading that article commenting his submission teaching et al, and I fully agree, according to the article, it looks bad.” {“It LOOKS BAD”? IT’S BLASPHEMOUS!}

“Oh, if its true his salvation doctrine is way off, then I am ashamed to have even brought it up at all, for it reflects badly on me, and could lead people astray, however in the particular sermon I was refering to, I didn't hear anything about salvation nor submission, so I wasn't aware...yet. The focus was on Daniels' 70th.” {“If it’s true”? Are you calling into question our honesty and the veracity of what we transcribed”? “however”? – Even though the man may be a HERETICK, he still “might” have “some” truth?}

“I'll continue to read that long article on his other teachings throughout my work day, and I'll post again once I'm done (I get interrupted by my job duties).
I am NOT advocating his submission doctrine, but I did note that saying a word isn't found in the Bible makes a doctrine false, is a weak argument. Trinity? Rapture? I'm not saying his doctrine is correct, just pointing out that's a weak thing to say. The other points in your article on the submission thing are valid.. got to read the rest.”

“I do agree he is a bit arrogant, but plenty of other, correct preachers are even more so (A certain favorite name probably pops into one's mind right about now)”

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #14 - 04-02-2009{Bold added by G.A. for emphasis.}

Hehe, Dear crusty old curmudgeon,

”I've not taken any offence whatsoever. I did ask for comments on Peacock, but that was just a side-note.

I realize that I may be coming across as looking to men for revelation, and in a certain way I am, but only in that they show me whats in the Book that I havn't found before. My final authority is still and always will be God's pure and preserved Word. It is scriptural that we should take advantage of learned teachers, they are there for our benefit, but that we should be like the Bereans and search out their techings to see if they be true.
I continue to to read my Bible daily, and try to learn it as best I can, but expository teachers are valuable too.
I know, I know, I should just study more, the Holy Spirit can and will guide me, but then why do we go to church to listen to a preacher? To learn more on top of what God reveals to us personally.

As for Estep, He may have other wrong doctrines or not, but I am more curious about this teaching on the 70th week being paused, and about the rapture occuring on the Jewish feast of trumpets (no year or minute predicting, just times and seasons). Its this theory I'm interested in, not Estep. He looks a little creepy anyways [IMG]file:///G:/DOCUME%7E1/GEORGE%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image003.gif[/IMG][IMG]file:///G:/DOCUME%7E1/GEORGE%7E1/LOCALS%7E1/Temp/msohtml1/01/clip_image004.gif[/IMG] But this particular theory might be right.
I've learned to chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were.

I will continue reading the article about submission etc. As I'm spot-reading it at work, I agree there could be some bent toward excessive pastoral authority, but some of the other comments seem like they might have been taken out of context, I dunno. I'll comment more on that once I've read it completely and thoroughly.

Don’t you notice how you will “agree” with something that I have said, and in the very next instance you throw in a big BUT or “However”? Whenever people do this, they “cancel” and make of “non-effect” everything they said before hand. “BUT” = on the contrary; except for; with reservations; etc. Which means (when you have used it) that you really don’t “agree” with me at all, but are just trying to be polite, or whatever.

It would be far better to disagree with me (that’s not only your right, it is also your prerogative) than “agree” to something I have said, and then in the next breath “disannul” what you just said (your “agreeing”) by the use of “BUT” or “HOWEVER”, and throwing in your “exception” to what I just said. It’s all very confusing to simple minded people like myself, because I really can’t tell (for sure) whether you do “agree” or not.

My Post #15 (too long to duplicate here) followed your comments made in your Post #14. You will notice that I took some of the statements you made (and quoted them first) and then commented on them. That is, I didn’t deal in “generalities” or “innuendo”, I specifically dealt with your statements by making specific comments about them; NOT - “some of the other comments seem like they might have been taken out of context, I dunno”. Your statement is a “generality” – designed to cast doubt on the veracity of what we presented, without ever producing any “FACTS” to back up the innuendo. General statements about issues only gender doubt, and never prove a thing. Generalities”, innuendo, insinuation, and intimation cast aspersions on people or what they say or write, without actually making any direct charges against them. These kind of “tactics” are used by Humanists and Sophists when they engage in discussion or debate.

Today’s Politicians and modern day “preachers” are MASTERS in the use of these “tactics” or “devices”. I don’t deal in “generalities” or “innuendo” – I deal with specific issues and matters, and speak (or write) specifically to them. And that is why people (today) take offense at many of the things that I say, because I don’t “beat around the bush”.

Truth saying today is NOT popular, Political Correctness (PC) is! I refuse to be intimidated by those people (lost or saved) who “think” that it is “cruel” or “hard” to speak the truth. I have been accused by some people on the Forum of engaging in “diatribes”, “cruel denunciations”, “railing”, “vilifying”, and even “persecuting”. Their have been people here who have said that I am “heartless” and use “cruel words”, etc. – all because I am "BLUNT"; and I speak “PLAIN”; and refuse to engage in Political Correctness or guile.

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #18 - 04-05-2009

“Preliminary comment, George: Show me one human teacher/preacher that actually has 100% truth that I can learn from without having to chew the meat and spit out the bones...
If something is a heresy, I will spit it out and won't condone it. For example, I don't believe in the gap theory, but am I then to throw out everything God gave brother Ruckman because he also teaches the gap? That would be a waste!”

Are those Christians that believe and teach about “The Gap” - HERETICKS? Is brother Chette Nichols a “HERETICK” for believing in, and defending “The Gap”? Because brother Peter Ruckman believes in and teaches about “The Gap”, does that make him a “HERETICK”? EQUIVOCATION is a sign of either little or NO “DISCERNMENT” or a deliberate attempt to “blur the lines” between good & evil; between right & wrong; and between a “Faithful” man of God (who’s judgment about a scriptural issue is questioned by you & others) and a man who, clearly and beyond any shadow of doubt, is teaching HERESY.

There is no Scriptural basis for equating “The Gap” (a doctrine that has been debated by sincere Christians for well over 100 years – and I might add, still NOT SETTLED!) and the so-called “Doctrine of Submission”, which, if ANY genuine Bible believer were to examine in depth, is found to be one of the most pernicious and destructive HERESIES of all time! To “equate” the two doctrines is like comparing a full course meal to “PIG SLOP”!

WHY do Christians make these kinds of “judgments” today? Have you NO DISCERNMENT? There is a difference between a doctrine that is “debatable” and a doctrine that is a FULL BLOWN HERESY. The two are NOT THE SAME! And neither are these two men (Ruckman & Estep) THE SAME! The one man is a “Faithful” man of God (who at worst may be mistaken), and the other, is a man who “THINKS”, and “BELIEVES”, and “TEACHES” that he has the “right” and “authority” to REPLACE the Lord Jesus Christ in His own Church!

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #18 - 04-05-2009 (continued)

”Once more, this thread really really isn't about Estep, but about the theory he advanced in that particular sermon. I only reference him, because I haven't heard anyone else say it before. If he has other doctrines, or teachings done before or after this that are incorrect (that I never heard yet), then I will reject them. But if the 70 weeks time line theory is correct, I'm not going to throw it out.”
”Billy Graham used to preach some sound stuff (wayyyy back), but then he became a Romanist. Does that invalidate something truthful he said that a long time ago?”

Your “reasoning” above is flawed, simply because all genuine Bible believers “KNOW” that Billy Graham has apostatized – by his words and actions. You DON’T KNOW ANYTHING about Greg Estep (or the destructive effect his pernicious doctrine has had on Christians) other than one of his sermons “appealed” to your CURIOSITY, and you “THINK” that he “might” be right about an issue of so little importance to genuine Bible believers that only two people took the time to address it. (And CKG’s opinion about Estep’s “THEORY”: “Any attempts to fit the confirming of the covenant into John 19 is speculation and pretty wild speculation at that!”

BornAgainBibleBeliever's Post:
Post #27 - 04-09-2009

“Plus, I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment, it seems a bit over critical, and the context cannot be verified. One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there. Not to say George is lying or misquoting, but the point is I never recommended him nor the submission tapes. I ONLY wanted to discuss the CONTENT of the 70 week time line theory.”

Your last Post (#27) is “CLASSIC”. My friend Ed Burch and I spent months transcribing these heretical tapes and crafting our response to them, and what do you have to say? “I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment”; and “the context cannot be verified”; and “One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there”.

WHY DON’T YOU JUST COME OUT AND SAY WHAT YOU ARE “IMPLYING”? Your carefully crafted (PC) defense (in anticipation of my charge): “Not to say George is lying or misquoting”; BUT that is just exactly what you IMPLIED! Innuendo, insinuation, and intimation is what Sophists (University Professors, Politicians, and “preachers”, etc.) resort to – NOT genuine Bible believers!

Let’s take each of your “intimations”, one by one shall we?

#1. “I'm still a little dubious about George's assessment”. In anticipation of such a charge – Ed Burch and I made up Three (3) different “papers” on Estep’s so-called “Doctrine of Submission”.

• One “Critique” with ALL of our comments, which equals 52 type written pages.

• One “Critique” with SOME of our comments, which equals 35 type written pages.

• One “paper” with SELECTED QUOTES from Estep – WITHOUT any of our comments, which equals 9 type written pages.

If you are concerned about “George’s assessment” why not just read Estep’s “quotes” WITHOUT OUR COMMENTS – if you are so concerned that my comments may not be appropriate?

#2. “the context cannot be verified”. If that doesn’t call into question – our honesty and integrity, then I don’t know what “innuendo” or “intimation” is when I see it! We spent months carefully and with all fidelity transcribing the exact words spoken by Greg Estep (about six hours of taped sermons or "lessons"). If you don’t want to believe that we were “circumspect” in our labors, there is really nothing I can do (except, since you have brought the subject up, I might take those tapes and put them on CD’s – just to shut the mouths of the “gainsayers”).

#3. “One can vilify someone by taking snippets here and there”. Are you “accusing” me of “vilifying” Greg Estep? IF Ed Burch and I were honest in faithfully transcribing a good portion of Greg Estep’s Four Tape Series on the so-called “Doctrine of Submission”, then our “Critique” of his pernicious doctrine is both accurate and true – if NOT, Almighty God will judge us for our dishonesty and maliciousness. IF, on the other hand, we were “faithful” in our transcribing; and in our presentation; and in our comments; then we will be found “faithful” servants of God – warning the brethren about a “WOLF” in or midst. I will leave it up to those people who will take the time read ALL of our “Critique”, as to whether we have UNFAIRLY “misrepresented” what Estep said; or whether we took what he said “out of context”; or whether we “vilified” an innocent man and are found to be liars, railers, and false accusers.

You see, it’s so much easier to speak PLAINLY than to “cloak” accusations in Innuendo, insinuation, and intimation. When a man speaks BLUNTLY, it’s very hard for others to mistake WHAT he is saying. They may not “like” what he is saying, but there is no mistaking his “meaning”.

The other day brother Luke asked: “Where have all the real men gone”? There are a few of us left, but time (age); and Political Correctness (PC); and the pressure to “conform” to this world (HUMANISM); and the temptation to “compromise” (to get along) is taking its toll on old, crusty curmudgeons. There may come a day, when there may not be any of us left to point fingers at and accuse of being heartless, unloving, judgmental, and just plain "mean". I wonder WHO the nice, sweet, gentle and non-judgmental Christians will point their fingers at then? Hmmm?

The Bible is clear, as to what we are to do with HERETICS. There are NO IFS – ANDS – OR BUTS!

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;

You have the Christian liberty to CHOOSE to IGNORE this Bible Command; you can continue look for NUGGETS from False Teachers and Hereticks (after all: “ISN’T ALL TRUTH, GOD’S TRUTH” – No matter WHO it comes from?); you have the freedom to “think” whatever you want to “think” about me (we still have some freedom left in America); but I have warned you (and others) about this man and his pernicious doctrine. It’s now up to you, as to what you do with this information. I have done my duty, and I am free of “the blood” of any man (or woman) on this Forum, as far as Greg Estep (or his “Doctrine of Submission”) is concerned.

This is NOT a “personal matter” with me – it’s a matter of “WHAT IS TRUTH”? The Lord Jesus Christ said: “Thy word is truth”. If it is the “TRUTH” (and I say that not doubting), then we ought to LOVE IT; DESIRE IT; STUDY IT; and OBEY IT; and leave men and their “traditions” and their “doctrines” for others to: “chew the meat and spit out the bones as it were.”

If those things that I have presented here are mere "janglings" and of little or no importance, then all of the "speculation", "conjecture", "hypothesis", "suppositions" and "THEORIES" about Daniel's 70 weeks are just an "exercise in futility"; since a man's CURIOSITY about some aspect of prophecy doesn't begin to measure up to the importance of WHO we accept as BIBLE "teachers" and WHAT (the substance) they teach. [Psalms 33:4 For the word of the LORD is right; and all his works are done in truth.]

Job 23:12 Neither have I gone back from the commandment of his lips; I have esteemed the words of his mouth more than my necessary food.

Job 22:22 Receive, I pray thee, the law from his mouth, and lay up his words in thine heart.

[BornAgainBibleBeliever514]

WOW George, wow.



I'm going to have to pray and sleep before I can possibly answer you.

[George]

BornAgainBibleBeliever,

In regards to your Post #29:

Your Quote:

“Its interesting that you brought up Apollos:

1 Corinthians 3:6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
1 Corinthians 3:7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

Paul planted (inspired), Apollos watered (not inspired), but God gave the increase.
Its also very interesting to note that Apollos was an heretick before he got straightened out, and THEN God used him for great things.”

Your statement: “Paul planted (inspired), Apollos watered (not inspired),” demonstrates (once again) that you have very little spiritual discernment. First of all - you just ADDED “words” to the Holy words of God, i.e. the words - “inspired” and “not inspired”!

Your “private interpretation” of these verses is a gross misunderstanding of what Paul was saying. Have you ever done any Gardening (“husbandry”)? Paul said that he (Paul) “PLANTED” (the churches - God’s “husbandry”, in the Mediterranean area); and that Apollos “WATERED” (the churches - God’s “husbandry”, in the Mediterranean area). There is nothing said about Apollos “not” being “inspired” (i.e. “not inspired”). Paul was describing TWO DIFFERENT JOBS done by TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF WORKMEN (“labourers”). (PLANTING & WATERING!)

Read the verses in the context – don’t take my word for it:

1 Corinthians 3:5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed, even as the Lord gave to every man?

{Both Paul and Apollos are “MINISTERS”. Both men were called of God. – NOT just Paul! Both men were called of God to do DIFFERENT JOBS, but they were BOTH MINISTERS OF GOD.}

6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.

{Read the Book of Acts – Paul “PLANTED” all of the early churches - God’s “husbandry”, in the Gentile world in the Mediterranean area, Apollos came along AFTER and “WATERED” them. It’s that “simple”.}

7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.

{Paul establishes the fact that the missionary, evangelist, and preacher ARE NOTHING! IT’S ALL ABOUT GOD! The labourer (Paul) who “PLANTED” isn’t anything, and neither is the labourer (Apollos) who “WATERED” anything. It (the church) is God’s Garden (i.e. “husbandry”) – NOT theirs! The teaching is clear: God’s “husbandry” (His church) belongs to Him – NOT the MINISTER (i.e. “labourer!”}

8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.

{NOTICE: BOTH “he that “PLANTETH” and he that WATERETH are ONE! Where does “inspired” & “not inspired” come into the equation? Both Paul and Apollos are labourers “working for God” in God’s Garden (i.e. His church) – they are both said to be ONE! The Scriptures don’t say anything about one of them (Paul) being “inspired” and the other one (Apollos) “not inspired”. That’s your “private interpretation”, which has absolutely nothing to do with what God is teaching here in these verses. You just ADDED to the Holy words of God in order to “make sense” out of God’s Holy word!}

9 For we are labourers together with God: ye are God's husbandry, ye are God's building.

{Paul clearly and distinctly says that WE (BOTH Paul & Apollos) are labourers TOGETHER WITH GOD! The testimony of Scripture is so clear: BOTH Paul & Apollos are working TOGETHER – “WITH GOD”. WHY would you “think” that One of them (Paul) was “inspired” and the other one (Apollos) was “not inspired”? WHERE would you get such an idea? It couldn’t possibly be one of the “preaching tapes” that you’ve been listening to, could it? NOTICE TOO: That Paul SWITCHES from using “husbandry” as a “SIMILE” to explain the difference between his job and Apollos’ and he now begins to use “carpentry” (building/construction) to further explain his ministry, (and those that may “build” upon his foundation) in terms that ordinary people could understand (at least back then). I was a carpenter/builder for over 25 years, and I have done a whole lot of farming (wet land, dry land, hydroponic, sprouting, etc.) The words that Paul is speaking here have special meaning to me since I have participated in all of these activities.}

10 According to the grace of God which is given unto me, as a wise masterbuilder, I have laid the foundation, and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

{Paul is the “masterbuilder” (of the church). He “laid the foundation (of the church); and if “another” – (Apollos or anyone else) “buildeth thereon”, they had better be careful HOW they “buildeth thereupon”. God called the “masterbuilder” (Paul) to lay the foundation for the church/ Anyone who built upon that “foundation” better “take heed”!}

11 For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

{So, if “another” comes along and claims that there is “another foundation” (like the "pastor" is the "HEAD")– other than Jesus Christ – You can be absolutely sure that they are not following the “foundation” that the “masterbuilder” (Paul) laid, and you can know for sure, that they aren’t working for God, because - “ALL HIS WORKS ARE DONE IN TRUTH.” Psalms 33:4}

12 Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble;

{The “any man” in the verse is specifically talking about men (“any man”) that are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”, i.e. ministers, labourers, workers.}

13 Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

{The “every man”, in the context, is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”.}

14 If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward.

{The “any man”, in the context, is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”.}

15 If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire.

{Paul is still speaking about “any man”, in the context, he is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”.}

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

{The “YE” in the context is the church. The church is “the temple of God. The Spirit of God dwelleth in the church. “YE” & “YOU” are always plural pronouns in the King James Bible.}

17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

{The “any man”, in the context, is still talking about God’s workers, i.e. those who are called of God to “build” upon Paul’s “foundation”. NOTICE THE SEVERITY OF THE OFFENSE OF DEFILING THE TEMPLE (i.e. the church) OF GOD! Those men (“any man”) who DEFILE “the temple (i.e. the church) of God”, him shall God DESTROY”! WHY? Because “the temple (i.e. the church) of God is HOLY! Perhaps now you can understand WHY I get so upset with “false teachers” and hereticks. “Any man” who messes with God’s temple (i.e. the church – the saints) is committing a most serious offense, and you can be sure - NO MAN who “defiles the temple of God” is going to get away with it!}

18 Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.

{The “no man” is still in reference to the “any man” who is supposed to be one of God’s workers. The warning is clear: “Let no man deceive himself” – If you are going to work on God’s temple (building, i.e. the church) you better take heed; you had better NOT MESS WITH IT!}

19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
20 And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are vain.
21 Therefore let no man glory in men. For all things are yours;

{Did you get that? Do you understand what God is warning against? The “no man” is still in reference to the “any man” who is supposed to be one of God’s workers; and “no man” (who is building upon Paul “foundation” i.e. the temple of God - the church of God) is to GLORY IN MEN! God’s workers (“labourers”) are NOT TO GLORY IN PREACHERS, EVANGELISTS, TEACHERS, ETC. OR ANY OTHER MEN, FOR THAT MATTER. We are not to be GLORYING in any man’s “work”, or his teaching, or in the man himself, instead we are supposed to GLORY in God and in His Holy word.}

22 Whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours;

{Please Notice: Paul closes by identifying the “any man” and “every man” as being himself (Paul), and Apollos, and Cephas (Peter) – ALL MEN, who were “labourers together with God”. ALL MEN - who were workers (“builders”) involved in building the temple of God (i.e. the church of God) at that time.}

23 And ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's.

And now on to your outrageous statement about Apollos being a "HERETICK":

Your quote:

“Its also very interesting to note that Apollos was an heretick before he got straightened out, and THEN God used him for great things.”

In an effort to PROVE your point (that a HERETICK {like "someone" who has been discussed here recently?} can “change” and be used of God) you have ended up ADDING to the word of God (once again) and twisting and wresting God’s word out of context to justify your “private interpretation”.

No where’s in Scripture does it say that Apollos was a HERETICK!

Acts 18:24 And a certain Jew named Apollos, born at Alexandria, an eloquent man, and mighty in the scriptures, came to Ephesus.

{Apollos was AN ELOQUENT MAN - “mighty in the Scriptures” – NOT A HERETICK!}

25 This man was instructed in the way of the Lord; and being fervent in the spirit, he spake and taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.

{Apollos was a man who was “was instructed in the way of the Lord” – He did NOT embrace HERESY! He “taught diligently the things of the Lord, knowing only the baptism of John.” Apollos was NOT teaching “FALSE DOCTRINE” or “HERESY”; he just DIDN’T KNOW the “whole council of God”. You could say that God hadn’t “brought him up to date” – YET! But you can’t say that he was a HERETICK, or that he was teaching "HERESY"!

Every thing that Apollos was teaching was TRUE; it’s just that God had revealed to Paul the “mysteries” (one of which was “the church) that He (God) hadn’t revealed to Peter, James, John, or even John the Baptist. Apollo’s preaching was “out of date”, but it was NOT “FALSE DOCTRINE” or “HERESY”. Apollos was NOT a “HERETICK”!}

26 And he began to speak boldly in the synagogue: whom when Aquila and Priscilla had heard, they took him unto them, and expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly.

{When Aquila and Priscilla heard Apollos speaking boldly in the synagogue, they took him aside and “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly”. Apollos’ preaching in the synagogue was TRUE, it’s just that God hadn’t revealed to him “the way of God more perfectly”. When you claim that Apollos was a HERETICK, you are guilty of disparaging and maligning a “faithful” servant of God who wasn’t even “mistaken” - God just hadn’t revealed to him the “mysteries” that he revealed to Paul – NOT UNTIL Aquila and Priscilla “expounded unto him the way of God more perfectly”. To accuse Apollos of being a HERETICK is to make FALSE ACCUSATIONS against a man of God, WHOM God used mightily, and of whom the Scriptures have NOTHING BAD TO SAY!

27 And when he was disposed to pass into Achaia, the brethren wrote, exhorting the disciples to receive him: who, when he was come, helped them much which had believed through grace:
28 For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ.

It is amazing (to me), the “lengths” that modern day Christians will go to, in order to support their own private interpretations of Scripture, or to prove and justify their own opinions about spiritual issues and matters. Before “expounding” on Paul and Apollos “ministry”, you should have read the Scriptures - rather than “jumping to unscriptural conclusions”, that you cannot possibly support. And before accusing a “faithful” man of God of being a heretick, you should have first tried to determine what the Scriptural “DEFINITION of a heretick IS!

Instead, you have ended up ADDING to the Holy words of God; TWISTING and WRESTING God’s word; taking the Scriptures OUT OF CONTEXT; and bad-mouthing a faithful servant of God from the past. It is apparent to me, that “listening” to all of the “sermons” that you have been listening to – hasn’t helped you to discern or understand God’s Holy word. And that’s because “sermons” can only give you “knowledge”. In order to acquire spiritual discernment, understanding and wisdom, you must study the Scriptures and look to the Holy Spirit for those things – NOT MEN. All the “sermons” in the world are but a poor “substitute” for God’s Holy word!

Isaiah 34:16 Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.

[pbiwolski]

Moving on...

I believe Estep is wrong here on the same basis that almost everybody's system fails. The "tribulation" is only for 42 months or 3 1/2 years. Calling Daniel's 70th week (7 years) the "Tribulation Period" and noting the "last half" as "The Great Tribulation" is private interpretation at best. The scriptural evidence for a future 7 year period is based solely upon the intricate wording of Daniel 9.

However, the book of Revelation repeatedly yields one number (in various forms) for the "time of Jacob's trouble" - 3 1/2 years. This mysterious "first half of the week" (typically taught as a time of peace between the Jew and the Antichrist) is nowhere to be expounded upon within the scriptures, or is it?

[Samuel]

I have from time to time, looked for a support in the scriptures for 84 months of Tribulation. Other than the popularized Daniel 9:27 interpretation, I can’t say I have actually found any. The gallery is about split in half as to the interpretation of 9:26-27 being fulfilled at Jesus first advent, and those who see it future. Other than to say, reading between the lines here and there, is there any support for a future 84 months of Tribulation.

Now I will be the first to admit, I am not the brightest bulb on the block; when it comes to prophesy. The Old Testament is filled, with evidence of the Times of Jacobs troubles. But again I can find nothing to confirm an 84 month of Tribulation, “anywhere”. Of course I am not saying the possibility that some does exist, is not conceivable at this point. So if someone has the clue, maybe we can thresh it out.