[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

[MC1171611]

Stephen,

By his definition, I'd tend to be more of a "hyper-dispensationalist" than he, because I tend to place the beginning of the Body of Christ in Acts 8 or thereabouts. I'm not fully set in that, but that's what I tend toward.

Give the guy a little grace.

On the subject of Inspiration, though, I believe he and I are almost step-in-step: I don't see why God could have inspired those MEN (He does not inspire "words") and couldn't or wouldn't inspire the men producing the translation of those words that would be used for the rest of human history. Why would God inspire Paul, Peter and James to write the words, but not inspire the translators of the King James Bible to translate those pure words into English?

¡No comprendo!

[stephanos]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Stephen,

By his definition, I'd tend to be more of a "hyper-dispensationalist" than he, because I tend to place the beginning of the Body of Christ in Acts 8 or thereabouts. I'm not fully set in that, but that's what I tend toward.

Give the guy a little grace.

On the subject of Inspiration, though, I believe he and I are almost step-in-step: I don't see why God could have inspired those MEN (He does not inspire "words") and couldn't or wouldn't inspire the men producing the translation of those words that would be used for the rest of human history. Why would God inspire Paul, Peter and James to write the words, but not inspire the translators of the King James Bible to translate those pure words into English?

¡No comprendo!

I was giving him grace. But he kept tossing out that word "hyper..." for some reason and I was trying to understand why he wanted us to know this fact about him.

I personally don't see how the Church could begin at Calvary since the Gospel which saves includes Christ's resurrection.

But anywho, I personally hold to the position that the Church began when the first disciples were sealed with the Holy Ghost at Pentacost. I think that was when the Holy Ghost added the first souls to the Body of Christ which IS the Church.

So to understand this doctrine, it's a matter of first knowing which Gospel we are saved by (the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ out Lord 1 Corinthians 15) and what seals us until the day of redemption (the Holy Ghost [Ephesians 4:30] which sealed the first disciples at Pentacost [Acts 2:4]). Pretty straight forward if you ask me. I think people in the dry cleaners camp get hung up on the fact that Paul was given many manifold revelations (2 Corinthians 12:7). But those were not Gospel changing revelations, nor did they change the mode by which Christians are sealed until redemption.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by MC1171611

Stephen,

By his definition, I'd tend to be more of a "hyper-dispensationalist" than he, because I tend to place the beginning of the Body of Christ in Acts 8 or thereabouts. I'm not fully set in that, but that's what I tend toward.

Give the guy a little grace.

On the subject of Inspiration, though, I believe he and I are almost step-in-step: I don't see why God could have inspired those MEN (He does not inspire "words") and couldn't or wouldn't inspire the men producing the translation of those words that would be used for the rest of human history. Why would God inspire Paul, Peter and James to write the words, but not inspire the translators of the King James Bible to translate those pure words into English?

¡No comprendo!

I appreciate your kind words Matt.

When I teach the inspiration of the Scriptures to children and young people, I put it in an analogy of wood and uranium. One is radiative and one isn't. Of some 3 million words(now) in the English language they communicate in various forms thoughts and intentions. When combined in the manner they are in the KJV, they form the Will of God, they represent what He told holy men of God centuries ago, just as wood can be made radioactive, men can be saved and have the spirit of God reside in them. The words of the KJV are inspired, they are "radioactive": God had His hand in them being in the form they are in.

There is nothing magic or occultic in that teaching, magic and occultism are a counterfeit of something Truthful. I hope that clarifies a few things. I'll be glad to continue to clarify till it's understood.

Early, Mid, and Late Acts dispensationalism is not confined to the "hypers". My closest friends are Mid Acts. When Paul was called the Body began. Early Acts followers believe Acts 2 is the birth of the Body, and they are close. Late Acts followers believe when Paul stopped dealing with Jews as he said and then went "...to the Gentiles" at the end of Acts then the Body began. Bullinger was a Late Acts, which caused him to say only Paul's books of Galatians on to Philemon were applicable doctrine for Christians today. There is a problem with the Late Acts view. The Body of Christ contains saved Jews as well as Gentiles.

There is a problem also with the Mid Acts view in a statement by Paul himself:

Romans 16:7 Salute Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen, and my fellowprisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

Ooops. The Body was present before Paul. That places us at Acts 2, Early Acts. Right? Wrong. Without the crucifixion there can be no Body.

The Body BEGAN at Calvary. It's Jewish-Gentile nature was REVEALED through Paul LATER(Eph.3). We have the advantage of the Whole Counsel of God and are in the position of looking BACK on these events through the Scripture history. Let's narrow it down in Eph. 3:

3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
6 That the Gentiles should be fellowheirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:

Many of my grace brethren and sisteren make the Body of Christ the mystery, the Mystery was that Jews and Gentiles would be equally yoked within it. When Paul preached this all the Scripture he had was the OT and the Body of Jews and Gentiles TOGETHER are not in it. Or are they? The key is verse 5 above where it was not revealed "...as it is NOW REVEALED...". How? Verse 3, by revelation of God to Paul, then Paul taught by similitudes from the OT, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things, precept upon precept, then the Bereans searched the Scriptures to see if these things be so.

So did I.

God has showed me the Body began at Calvary. Entrance was through the apostles. Salvation was by grace through faith and water baptism. When He set Israel aside after Acts 7, He then grafted the Jewish-GENTILE church in through Paul. Entrance is by salvation through grace and nothing else. Peter didn;t graft the Gentiles, Paul didn;t graft the Gentiles, GOD grafted the Gentiles, He did what was "contrary to nature"

Look this over Matt. Critique' it, tell me what you find.

Grace and peace to you my friend

Tony

[bibleprotector]

I appreciate your kind words Matt.

MC1171611 = Vince

Stephanos = Stephen

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

MC1171611 = Vince

Stephanos = Stephen

This is to meet the character limit.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by stephanos

I was giving him grace. But he kept tossing out that word "hyper..." for some reason and I was trying to understand why he wanted us to know this fact about him.

I personally don't see how the Church could begin at Calvary since the Gospel which saves includes Christ's resurrection.

But anywho, I personally hold to the position that the Church began when the first disciples were sealed with the Holy Ghost at Pentacost. I think that was when the Holy Ghost added the first souls to the Body of Christ which IS the Church.

So to understand this doctrine, it's a matter of first knowing which Gospel we are saved by (the death burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ out Lord 1 Corinthians 15) and what seals us until the day of redemption (the Holy Ghost [Ephesians 4:30] which sealed the first disciples at Pentacost [Acts 2:4]). Pretty straight forward if you ask me. I think people in the dry cleaners camp get hung up on the fact that Paul was given many manifold revelations (2 Corinthians 12:7). But those were not Gospel changing revelations, nor did they change the mode by which Christians are sealed until redemption.

Peace and Love,
Stephen

Stephen, thank you for being graceful to me. I'm not being sarcastic either, but sincere. Thank you.

The reason I bring out my dispensational belief right here at the beginning is this: I tried to have a dialogue with Gary Hudson. When he found out that I was holding the inspired Scriptures in my hand, he cut me off, used my words to try and illustrate his own agenda, the same as the Jesuits(the original manuscripts), and branded me a "Ruckmanite". Like I've said before, Doc Pete ain't no Absolom or Ahab, that didn't bother me. Being labeled and marginalized did. This was in 1988.

The middle part of this decade I was a member of several KJV yahoo groups and one Ruckman group. I know Will Kinney online and gave him the number of words in Shakespeare's vocabulary and the number now obsolete, with Chaucer and Poe and the KJV. it took me like 21 months compiling that information. Anyway, I was thrown out of the KJV groups when they found out I wuz one a them thar church splittin' dry cleaners. I was thrown out of the Ruckman group because the Pharisees in that group accused me of being "antinomian" an' one a them thar church splittin' drycleaners.

Brother, so you know the only person to ever emulate(Gal. 5:20) Dr. peter Sturges Ruckman's bitter sarcasm and facetiousness?

Dr. Peter Sturges Ruckman.

The Pharisaic attitude didn't upset me, being labeled and marginalized did. When I am called "hyperdispensationalist drycleaner" it marginalizes the fact I'm willing to be hit on the street with a syphilis-infected bag of urine for the gospel of Christ as you are, or any other Christian. I'm not a cussword, I'm an ambassador for Christ, a minister of the reconsiliation to wit, God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. Don't call me a drycleaner, it might make me cry.

No one will agree with you more about Paul's manifold revelations than a grace believer like me. Paul had the signs of an apostle till he no longer was witness to Israel alone. He baptized in water till the signs of an apostle were taken from him.

1Co 3:10 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.

No one will let Paul be a wise masterbuilder more than me. He laid his foundation and then it was grafted into the Body of Christ that the 12 apostles were given. I take heed that I do not baptize in water Jews who are to be a kingdom of priests but let the Holy Ghost circumcise my listener's spirits from them and baptizing them into the Body Of Christ, where there is no Jew or Gentile. I respectfully disagree with you on Acts 2 being the beginning of the Body. He was buried yes, he was resurrected, yes, he added TO this Body on Pentecost. But for Him to be buried and resurrected first he had to die, ergo, the Body began at Calvary when He said, it is finished.

The Body began.

Brother, if the truth of water baptism first occurring in Leviticus 8 to first consecrate a Levite splits your church, that church is not held together by the Holy Spirit but by an ordinance of the law of Moses. If it hears it, and is not split, it is then held together by the Holy Spirit of God. God spilts churches, not men. Stam was the wedge that split the grace believers 25 years ago with Calvinism and the belief in the original manuscript fraud.

You may have chapter and verse on the Grace Movement's teaching on water baptism when I answer your message to me on the topic.

Grace and peace to you Stephen, thank you for at least reading this.

Tony

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by bibleprotector

MC1171611 = Vince

Stephanos = Stephen

Sorry Vince Too many things going at once. I'm writing two stories for the horror anthology, reading this forum on 4 browser pages, and making a tomahawk.

Grace and peace

Tony

[George]

Originally Posted by fightthegoodfight

"I did a you tube review of his book. I go by the handle of grasshoperjax, and initially I did a video where I called him a liar. Of course I should have read his whole book first ( I didn't want to justify wasting money on his propoganda,) but after reading it I posted a 23 part video series where I was able to expose so much error and falsehood in his book, using primarily the Scriptures to show why White's position, along with those who follow him, is totally UNBIBLICAL.

Here is a link of the playlist if you are interested. So far none of White's followers have had any rebuttals to the points I bring up regarding his book: "

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_lis...A65F64DC4E99E2

Aloha fightthegoodfight,

I went to review your "review" of James White's book and within a very short time (in your introduction) you say - and I quote: "Now I'm NOT a King James Only person; I look at several translations; I like the New King James for my every day reading, it's a little bit simpler, but in this case, the King James is clearly superior" - BASED ON WHAT?

If the King James Bible is NOT your FINAL AUTHORITY on all matters of faith and practice - WHAT are you basing your "assessment" or "conclusion" on, when you say: "but in this case , the King James is clearly superior"? Huh?

[George]

Aloha brother tonybones2112,

I have enjoyed many of your Posts, and find myself in agreement with you - {most of the time }. Since 1973, I too have been tossed out (or left) of four so-called "Fundamentalist" churches (1973 - asked to leave; 1982 - left of my own accord; 1986 - "de-churched" by a "pastor" {after having left that church 6 months earlier}; and 1993 - threatened to be "pounded from the pulpit", if I didn't leave). However, a statement in your Post #57 has me puzzled.

Your quote:

"No one will agree with you more about Paul's manifold revelations than a grace believer like me. Paul had the signs of an apostle till he no longer was witness to Israel alone. He baptized in water till the signs of an apostle were taken from him."

Can you give me the Scripture (or Scriptures) to verify your previous statement? I pretty much agree with you as to Paul's signs of an Apostle, but where (in the Holy Scripture) does it say or teach: "He baptized in water till the signs of an apostle were taken from him."?

I'm a big believer in Christian liberty and toleration (with the exception of clear, incontrovertible Heresy); and I can have "Fellowship" around the Lord Jesus Christ and His Holy word with many different kinds of Christians; and I would never break fellowship with a brother in Christ, if he held a conviction such as yours - as long as that conviction didn't lead to the insistence that I believe the same thing.

What you believe is not a "deal breaker" (i.e. fellowship breaker) for me, but (like several controversial topics on this Forum) there are some spiritual issues that will never be settled this side of Glory, and that do not reach the "breaking point" (i.e. fellowship breaker) or "threshold" of incontestable Heresy; and then there those issues that I refer to as the "weightier matters" where I refuse to give place - No, not for an hour!

It is obvious, from your Posts, that you have studied the word of truth and done your own thinking, meditating, and deliberating upon them (which is always dangerous around those who are doctrinaire , i.e. "narrow minded" ); that is why it is my hope that you will continue to seek to edify us with those things that God has shown you, and not seek to divide us with a doctrine that can only bring controversy and much contention.

I appreciate your honesty and forthrightness in declaring, up front, what you believe (rather than subtly trying to deceive). Let's us endeavor to concentrate on the "weightier matters" brother - there are enough differences of opinion, dissension, discord, and disputes going on amongst the brethren to keep us occupied for some time.

Romans 14:19 Let us therefore follow after the things which make for peace, and things wherewith one may edify another.