55th Annual Campmeeting (For Bro Eply)

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

KC, respectfully, you use that as a reason? When dispensationalism has sooooo many versions of that doctrine? That is one reason I have a real problem with dispensationalism. Pre, mid, post, post trib historist, and etc.

Secondly, study the Bible again. It does not teach clearly a thousand year reign. Only one chapter teached it, Rev 20.

If we took the same basis to teach other doctrines we would be in trouble.

Respectfully

No....we would be Bible believers. I don't need 50 references to establish doctrine. If it says it, it means it.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Yep.

Sure is.

It is amazing what the ministers will choose to fight their brother over. But only if they want to have a difference with that man.

The infighting amoung ministers is based upon a lot of things. Heard a man preach a great sermon on the basis for the infighting.

The biggest reason that the fighting happens is the loss of love one for another.

Then of course there is the pride and jealousy. I am right and you are wrong kind of pride.

And the battles go on and on and on.

Course you realize that, if I can accuse a fellow pastor of false doctrine, then now it gives me the right, nay, the obligation, to try to save the poor people that are in another congregation. So I could use the difference in doctrine that the fighting is supposedly over to steal people!

It usually is not about doctrine but about coveteousness, jealousy, pride, etc and etc.

Battles within Christianity have been eternal.
At least we no longer kill each other with the sword, but we just send each other to hell.

Jesus said that by this would all men know that you are my disciples.
"If you love one another"

How can someone claim to be a disciple of Jesus if he hates his brethren, because they disagree with their interpretation of scripture?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

No....we would be Bible believers. I don't need 50 references to establish doctrine. If it says it, it means it.

The Bible is clear, you need at least 2 references to establish a doctrine.

at the mouth of two or three witness let everything be established.

unless we have at least 2 scriptures we can not build any doctrine upon it.

otherwise we need to start baptizing for the dead.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

The Bible is clear, you need at least 2 references to establish a doctrine.

at the mouth of two or three witness let everything be established.

unless we have at least 2 scriptures we can not build any doctrine upon it.

otherwise we need to start baptizing for the dead.

talk about taking scripture out of context...

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

talk about taking scripture out of context...

It is not out of context
every doctrine needs to be supported by at least two scriptures.
to do otherwise is to be non-biblical.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

It is not out of context
every doctrine needs to be supported by at least two scriptures.
to do otherwise is to be non-biblical.

so a single scripture if not explicitly reaffirmed by another scripture is wrong?

I don't think so.

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

so a single scripture if not explicitly reaffirmed by another scripture is wrong?

I don't think so.

You may not think so, but Jesus said it.

Jesus said it, and I believe it.

The scripture is never wrong, but the interpretation often is.

[kclee4jc]

Originally Posted by FlamingZword

You may not think so, but Jesus said it.

Jesus said it, and I believe it.

The scripture is never wrong, but the interpretation often is.

this is my point

If correctly interpreted i do not believe it takes two scriptures to establish a doctrine. It is when a single scripture is isolated from the context and misconstrued that is shaky ground for establishing a doctrine.
I would say that if you find one scripture that seems to support a certain doctrine, and no other scriptures seem to do so, then it is time to re-examine the context and interpretation.


This is not speaking of the authority of scripture to establish doctrine.
Matthew 18:16
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.


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


It doesnt have to be there twice to be profitable for doctrine. If he said it once and it is taken in the correct context and correctly interpreted, then once is enough.

[Abiding Now]

Originally Posted by TJJJ

Huh! Funny. Most apostolic ministers who were falsely labeled preterists during the witch hunt believe in a future return of the Lord, future resurrection, and that there is judgment in the future. So what happens now?

I understand what you are saying Bro Epley but respectfully have to disagree with you on the salvation part. You are entirely without Scripture to back you up on your statement. Nowhere, and I mean nowhere does it say that a person must believe in what you said to be saved. You might believe that but it is not the Word.

Respectfully, you have added to the Word.

If they believe this, how can they label themselves preterist?

[FlamingZword]

Originally Posted by kclee4jc

this is my point

If correctly interpreted i do not believe it takes two scriptures to establish a doctrine. It is when a single scripture is isolated from the context and misconstrued that is shaky ground for establishing a doctrine.
I would say that if you find one scripture that seems to support a certain doctrine, and no other scriptures seem to do so, then it is time to re-examine the context and interpretation.


This is not speaking of the authority of scripture to establish doctrine.
Matthew 18:16
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.


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


It doesnt have to be there twice to be profitable for doctrine. If he said it once and it is taken in the correct context and correctly interpreted, then once is enough.

For precept must be on precept,
precept on precept;
line on line, line on line;
here a little, and there a little

The precept on precept is to prevent incorrect interpretations of scripture.
It is because that people do not follow the two witness precept that we have so many false doctrines.

Everything I teach is based on at least two scriptures, for years I have always gone by this precept.
I so strongly believe in this precept that I have never once preached a sermon without at least two scriptures.
I can send you a mountain of my sermons and you will see that all my sermons always have 2 scriptures or more, every single one of my sermons.