[450donn]

For those of you that do not understand/believe in the rapture of the church before the tribulation period I have one question.
How do you or your religious teachings reconcile John chapter 14 and 1 Thessalonians chapter 4?

[Wondergirl]

We're in the tribulation period now. The "rapture" is what will happen on the Last Day when Jesus returns as Judge of the living and the resurrected dead. That's the Lutheran interpretation of those same passages.

[dwashbur]

I don't know how many times I have to say it, 450donn: I started with the same view that you do. Then I did some reading for myself, both in the Bible and in books about it from other perspectives. You seem to think that anybody who disagrees with you on this subject doesn't understand; believe me, I understand completely. And that's why I wound up rejecting it.

I went to a dispensational Bible college, and when I got ready to look into my Masters I applied at Dallas first (they turned me down even though I could heartily sign their umpteen-gazillion-point doctrinal statement at the time). So I wound up at Denver Seminary, where I noticed the oddest thing: everybody in the theology department was pretrib, while everybody in the Bible department was post. It made me wonder: if the theology guys were in such discord with the Bible department, what was the theology based on? I learned real quick. It's based on a) a presuppositional approach that carves the Bible up into a bunch of arbitrary "dispensations" that are NEVER really delineated in the Bible itself, b) a desire to maintain the claim that the church and Israel are two different entities (yet in Galatians Paul calls Christians the Israel of God), c) an arbitrary definition of God's "wrath" that places it in some literal 7-year "tribulation" period, even though they acknowledged that Daniel and Revelation are apocalyptic, symbolic literature and were never meant to be taken literally, and d) the notion that going through this "tribulation" period is the worst thing that could ever happen to anybody, much less to a Christian.

a) has no basis in the Bible itself, and is nothing more than a human attempt to cram God into a box of man's making.

b) Paul says in several places that the promises to Israel are for us who believe in Jesus Christ. He doesn't make any distinction, and the whole idea sounds like incipient anti-Semitism in places.

c) ignores passages that we've already dealt with, where God's "wrath" involves the final destiny of those who reject God, and is ALREADY being "poured out" on such folks. Instead, it redefines this "wrath" and tries to pigeon-hole it into a certain purported period of the future, which is utterly contrary to the bulk of scriptural teaching on the subject.

d) is something I've already addressed. Go talk to the Chinese Christians who are being imprisoned, tortured and executed and tell them "Don't worry, Jesus will take you out of the world before the REAL trouble starts." spit in their faces while you're at it; the two amount to the same activity.

Why do you think dispensational schools try to either keep their students from reading other authors, or only have them read those authors through purely dispensational glasses? Why do they not allow non-dispensational teachers to present other views and let the students decide for themselves? It's because, and the honest ones will admit it (I've met a total of one so far): their position is so weak, that if the students are exposed to alternative views on equal footing, a good 90% of them will dump dispensationalism, and the pretrib view with it. So the hide behind the official view that having more than one viewpoint taught will just "cause confusion" in order to maintain their status quo.

To answer your question, John 14 talks about peace in this life and eternal life afterward, it has nothing to do with any rapture. I've already addressed 1 Thessalonians 4 and again see no reason to repeat myself.

I just have one more thing to offer to you: read this book.

Amazon.com: Wrongly Dividing the Word of Truth: A Critique of Dispensationalism (Second Edition) (9781573580687): John H. Gerstner, Don Kistler: Books

I suggest you try to find it from a library somewhere; your local library can probably get it by inter-library loan for you. And read it with an open mind.

[450donn]

And what does all that have to do with my original question?
Again, how does your theory figure into what the word of GOD has to say on the subject?
John 14:1-5
Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. In my fathers house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I GO to prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself THAT WHERE I AM, there you may be also.So by saying this Jesus is not saying he has ascended to the father in heaven? He is not talking about taking Christians who believe in HIM to the place he is now? Heaven?
From this passage it is abundantly clear that Jesus is speaking about a taking away of the church before the tribulation period.

So again, how do you and your brand's of religion justify ignoring/deleting this passage and the one in 1 Thessalonians 4?

PS Thanks for being frank WG. At least you have the guts to honestly answer the question.

[JoeT777]

Darby's interpretation of “rapture,” prior to the time of tribulation, is later adopted by Hal Lindsey and Tim LaHaye. When we look at the origins of pre-tribulation rapture we don't find John Nelson Darby, rather Margaret MacDonald a 14-year old, in a visionary séance in 1830. (Cf. Dave MacPherson, The Rapture Plot) This is not condition I would call conducive to being filled with the Holy Spirit.

But let's not be constrained by Divine truth, but nevertheless we should test them. Looking at some of these unconstrained thinkers All have consistently failed pre-trib rapture.

• 1844 - William Miller predicted Christ would return between March 21, 1843 and March 21, 1844, then revised his prediction, claiming to have miscalculated Scripture, to October 22, 1844. Miller's theology gave rise to the Advent movement.
• 1977 - William M. Branham predicted that the Rapture would take place in 1977.
• 1981 - Chuck Smith undogmatically predicted that Jesus would likely return by 1981.
• 1988 - Publication of 88 Reasons why the Rapture is in 1988, by Edgar C. Whisenant.
• 1989 - Publication of The final shout: Rapture report 1989, by Edgar Whisenant. More predictions by this author appeared for 1992, 1995, and other years.
• 1992 - Korean group "Mission for the Coming Days" predicted October 28, 1992 as the date for the rapture.[22]
• 1993 - Seven years before the year 2000. The rapture would have to start to allow for seven years of the Tribulation before the Return in 2000. Multiple predictions.
• 1994 - Pastor John Hinkle of Christ Church in Los Angeles predicted June 9, 1994. Radio evangelist Harold Camping predicted September 27, 1994.(Source: Wikipedia (Rapture - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

Gee, none of them got it right! What'da you know.

Wouldn't you think such a profound theological doctrine would produce better results than these?

Catholic's, on the other hand, would find it odd to argue for a rapture to avoid tribulations. Because as Christ tells us in Matthew 16: 24-25; “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. For he that will save his life, shall lose it: and he that shall lose his life for my sake shall find it.” Don't forget that we merit indulgences in our suffering for Christ.

Both Clement (?-215) and Origen (185-232) had similar views. In Augustine's writings, he seems to advance that “tribulation” may be a personal experience; not a single event experienced universally.

In the day of tribulation I have sought out God Psalm 76:2. Who are you that doest this thing? In the day of your tribulation take heed what you seek out. If a jail be the cause of tribulation, you seek to get forth from jail: if fever be the cause of tribulation, you seek health: if hunger be the cause of tribulation, you seek fullness: if losses be the cause of tribulation, you seek gain: if expatriation be the cause of tribulation, you seek the home of your flesh. And why should I name all things, or when could I name all things? Do you wish to be one leaping over? In the day of your tribulation seek out God: not through God some other thing, but out of tribulation God, that to this end God may take away tribulation, that you may without anxiety cleave unto God. In the day of my tribulation, I have sought out God: not any other thing, but God I have sought out. And how have you sought out? With my hands in the night before Him.... St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 77 (CHURCH FATHERS: Exposition on Psalm 77 (Augustine))

And

If I walk in the midst of tribulation, You shall revive me [Psalm 137:7]. True it is: whatsoever tribulation you are in, confess, call on Him; He frees you, He revives you....Love the other life, and you shall see that this life is tribulation… St. Augustine, Exposition on Psalm 138 (CHURCH FATHERS: Exposition on Psalm 138 (Augustine))

In Chapter 7 of bk. 20, Augustine does reject the 1,000 years business, stating that he also "entertained this notion at one time" but has since thought better of it. He refers to those who do hold this view a "materialists" and "millenarians". He goes on to explain what he thinks is really going on in Rev.20. (Cf. Augustine, City of God)

Having Christ do touch-and-go landings on earth's runway, right after the end of verse 1 Thess 4:16 and just before 1 Thess 4:17, is farfetched. Read with a ruptured understanding of scripture, this verse calls for both the dead in Christ to rise and the living in Christ to rise. However, In John 6 Christ discusses what it takes for the dead in Christ to be raised (not the living). Christ specifically states in John 6:55 and John 6:35 that this will occur on the last day. Consequently, there is no room in the time line for a touch and go of a second coming of Christ.

Nevertheless, it would seem to me that credible support should be cited if I'm to take your comments in any way other than opinion, Tim LaHaye or Hal Lindsey doesn't do it for me. My faith looks to an authoritative guide to be based on tradition and scripture. You've offered none. Consequently, I would like to challenge you to provide support for your views, either scriptural, historical or through an apostolic tradition.

Let's look at what it takes to be risen. First we hear Christ's words; “Now this is the will of the Father who sent me: that of all that he hath given me, I should lose nothing; but should raise it up again in the last day.” And, you must be of Christ. Which we hear Christ pulling us into his Kingdom, “He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.” (John 6:55) So, we see that the living don't catch up with Christ until after the dead on the last day when Christ comes to re-claim his Kingdom.

JoeT

[dwashbur]

And what does all that have to do with my original question?
Again, how does your theory figure into what the word of GOD has to say on the subject?
John 14:1-5
Do not let your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in me. In my fathers house are many dwelling places; if it were not so, I would have told you; for I GO to prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself THAT WHERE I AM, there you may be also.So by saying this Jesus is not saying he has ascended to the father in heaven? He is not talking about taking Christians who believe in HIM to the place he is now? Heaven?
From this passage it is abundantly clear that Jesus is speaking about a taking away of the church before the tribulation period.

I confess I was tempted to give you yet another reddie for putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing about Jesus' ascension. You're reading into my words, and you're reading into the Bible. It doesn't say anything about heaven, or where he is now. It says he'll take us to be with him where he is when he comes to get us. That's what the verse says, pure and simple. It says NOTHING about "the tribulation period." You keep pulling stuff like that out of the ether, and it's not in the passage.

So again, how do you and your brand's of religion justify ignoring/deleting this passage and the one in 1 Thessalonians 4?

I have no idea what you mean by "your brand's of religion." I'm a Christian. I have already told you what 1 Thessalonians 4 says, and you choose to ignore it because it doesn't fit in your little box. That's your problem, not mine. To get your eisegesis of John 14 you have to violate the plain sense of both the Greek text and the English translation. Whose "brand of religion" is ignoring what the texts actually say?

PS Thanks for being frank WG. At least you have the guts to honestly answer the question.

For the record, I fully agree with what she said. I have stated before, another thing you chose to ignore, that I don't believe in a literal 7-year "tribulation period." The symbolism of Revelation refers to the entire age between Jesus' advents.

[450donn]

By skirting my question are you not trying to cover up your answer and true feelings?
So far your arguments are meaningless. People for years have tried to fix a date to the rapture. Yet, Jesus says that no man knows the hour or date, only the father.
As you should well know taking scripture out of context anybody can misread any passage to mean anything they want. Just look at the RCC doctrine as a perfect example of that. If you really want an honest discussion please answer my question.

"I confess I was tempted to give you yet another reddie for putting words in my mouth. "
Since the rating system is designed for factual errors this would not be an appropriate place for one. Please read the rating system rules.
You see I did not quote you or put words in your mouth. I quoted the passage in John and asked you how you can dismiss this passage about the rapture based on your theology?

"I have no idea what you mean by "your brand's of religion." I'm a Christian. "

Yup! I should have used theology instead of religion.

"For the record, I fully agree with what she said. I have stated before, another thing you chose to ignore, that I don't believe in a literal 7-year "tribulation period." The symbolism of Revelation refers to the entire age between Jesus' advents."

Even when the bible states the exact time, how can you dismiss it?
You enjoy quoting a lot of books, but do not quote scripture a lot. Why is that?
Books are written by people with an agenda, do you agree or not? So by reading certain books you have changed your beliefs. Am I on track here so far? Why is it that you are so easily swayed by the teachings of someone you do not personally know. Do you know how he reached the conclusions he uses in his theology? You see I tend to dismiss anyone who refused to use the only authoritative book on the subject as being written with a specific agenda and not worth the paper it is printed on, when it comes to my Christian beliefs. Every university professor in the world teaches on any subject based on his/her agents or political beliefs. That is the problem with the education system today. Facts are not presented in a balanced format.

[Wondergirl]

Why is it that you are so easily swayed by the teachings of someone you do not personally know.

I don't think that's dwashbur's "problem."

His "problem" is mine. I wonder, how is it that many Christians can read the same passages you do and get an entirely different meaning ("interpretation") from them?

[dwashbur]

By skirting my question are you not trying to cover up your answer and true feelings?

I have no idea what this means. What "true feelings"? I haven't "skirted" anything, I have answered your questions with valid, accepted interpretations of the passages in question and you have not responded. Pot and kettle, my friend.

So far your arguments are meaningless. People for years have tried to fix a date to the rapture. Yet, Jesus says that no man knows the hour or date, only the father.

I never said anything about that. Are you answering two different people here? If so you should make it clear, because as it stands this post sounds like so much rambling.

As you should well know taking scripture out of context anybody can misread any passage to mean anything they want. Just look at the RCC doctrine as a perfect example of that. If you really want an honest discussion please answer my question.

I know how much you love to bash the RCC, but it has nothing to do with the topic. In fact, you're the one taking things out of context, both immediate and literary.

"I confess I was tempted to give you yet another reddie for putting words in my mouth. "
Since the rating system is designed for factual errors this would not be an appropriate place for one. Please read the rating system rules.

The one I got was not based on this, so don't lecture me about it.

You see I did not quote you or put words in your mouth. I quoted the passage in John and asked you how you can dismiss this passage about the rapture based on your theology?

You said this: "So by saying this Jesus is not saying he has ascended to the father in heaven?" You put this idea into my response when I didn't agree with your interpretation of John 14. It is clear that you're saying, if I don't believe in your version of the rapture, I'm denying Jesus' ascension. I'm taking YOUR words to their logical conclusion. So you did in fact put words in my mouth. It's kind of funny; not only do you ignore biblical context on several levels, apparently you ignore your own.

"I have no idea what you mean by "your brand's of religion." I'm a Christian. "

Yup! I should have used theology instead of religion.

I don't have a theology. I know two things for sure: 1. God exists. 2. Jesus rose. That's my theology. Everything else is open to debate.

"For the record, I fully agree with what she said. I have stated before, another thing you chose to ignore, that I don't believe in a literal 7-year "tribulation period." The symbolism of Revelation refers to the entire age between Jesus' advents."

Even when the bible states the exact time, how can you dismiss it?

*sigh* here we go again. (Or maybe I should do a Ronald Reagan and say "There you go again," but I'll refrain). That "exact time period" comes in literature that is clearly APOCALYPTIC, and hence SYMBOLIC. That type of literature uses all kinds of numbers as symbols. A good example is the number 7, which is quite a mystically-endowed number in apocalyptic. The number 12 also figures very highly in symbolic literature. The 144,000 in Revelation 7 are a prime example. We know this can't be literal, because 1) Levi wasn't counted among the 12 tribes since their "inheritance" was to serve in the tabernacle/temple, and 2) there was no "tribe of Joseph"; Joseph's line was divided between Ephraim and Mannaseh. But Mannaseh is in the list in Revelation 7. You see? Literal just doesn't work. We have to take symbols for what they are: symbols.

Here's another example that you've probably never heard of: the famous number 666. Note for the record that it's not "six-six-six," but "six hundred sixty-six." In the Greek text it's written out like that, so there's no question. Anyway, some of our manuscripts of the New Testament have a variant reading here, six hundred sixteen. It took a long time for scholars to figure out why. But we know, based on a better understanding of apocalyptic. Using numerical values for names of people in power was pretty common, and that's what's going on here. Hebrew letters did double-duty: they functioned as letters, of course, but they could also function as numbers. When we take a certain famous name from the Roman Empire and write it in Hebrew using Hebrew/Aramaic pronunciation, the numerical value of the letters adds up to six hundred sixty-six. But when we use Latin pronunciation, the value of the letters adds up to six hundred sixteen.

The name: Nero Caesar. In Hebrew pronunciation, NRWN KSR. In Latin pronunciation, NRW KSR. The "beast" John was talking about was Nero, under whose reign both Paul and Peter (two prominent witnesses) were martyred. And no other name, past or present, explains the variant reading. When we read the book on its own terms and as the author intended it to be read, a lot of things make more sense. When we read it in a way it was never meant to be read, i.e. literally, we get a mess.

You enjoy quoting a lot of books, but do not quote scripture a lot. Why is that?
Books are written by people with an agenda, do you agree or not? So by reading certain books you have changed your beliefs. Am I on track here so far? Why is it that you are so easily swayed by the teachings of someone you do not personally know. Do you know how he reached the conclusions he uses in his theology? You see I tend to dismiss anyone who refused to use the only authoritative book on the subject as being written with a specific agenda and not worth the paper it is printed on, when it comes to my Christian beliefs. Every university professor in the world teaches on any subject based on his/her agents or political beliefs. That is the problem with the education system today. Facts are not presented in a balanced format.

So you write off ALL that has gone before with a few keystrokes? What about your hero Tim LaHaye? He has an agenda, does he not. For your information, I find out all I can about an author and his/her agenda before drawing conclusions, but when I read something I evaluate it on its own merits. Whether the author has an agenda or not doesn't mean a thing if the material is valid. We of the 21st century are privileged to be able to stand on the shoulders of giants; those who have come before and done the really hard work of digging up the past, sorting through the material, tracking down the meanings of languages, literatures and other aspects of biblical interpretation. Sometime they're right, sometimes they're wrong. I could quote biblical passages at you all day. Try this one:

Judas went out and hanged himself.

Go thou and do likewise.

That thou doest, do quickly.

(Yeah, I know, it's an old joke. Hey, I've never had an original thought in my life.)

Quoting scripture is meaningless without understanding. And reading scripture without understanding HOW to read it is worse than meaningless, it's damaging. Again I encourage you to go read up on apocalyptic literature. There's plenty of good material about it, much from an evangelical perspective. Who knows? You might learn something.

[adam7gur]

Joe, have you ever read what Margaret Mcdonald said? If you paid any attention you would clearly see that she is talking about post tribulation rapture.She is talking about the church going through the great tribulation and that clearly has nothing to do with a pre trib theory.
As I study the Word I see a partial rapture, one pre and one post tribulation because in 1 Corinthians 15 52 Paul talks about the last trumpet but in Revelation there is a gathering of believers being mentioned before any of the seven trumpets was heard.
The woman in the book of Revelation gives birth to a male child that is taken above away from the dragon and after that the dragon goes to fight with the rest of the woman's sperm who are also saved later when the last trumpet is being heard.
The Lord speaks to the church of Philadelphia and says that He will keep her safe from the great sorrow and that is pre trib rapture but there is also clearly one that will take place on the last trumpet and that is post trib.

[dwashbur]

The Lord speaks to the church of Philadelphia and says that He will keep her safe from the great sorrow and that is pre trib rapture but there is also clearly one that will take place on the last trumpet and that is post trib.

That's one I haven't heard in a while. There's no pretrib rapture in the letter to Philadelphia. Even if it's supposed to be symbolic of some aspect of the church age, supposedly the Tribulation comes at the end of that age, which is supposed to be Laodicea, not Philadelphia, so there's a major sequence problem there. But more important, the whole "kept from" doesn't come close to meaning "take out of the world for." The same expression in Greek is used in John 17:6 when Jesus says "keep them from the evil [one]." And incidentally, check your history; there was some major trouble in Asia Minor some time after this was written, and it bypassed Philadelphia. So that was fulfilled in history, not in some eisegeted rapture.

[classyT]

I was raised in a Plymouth Brethern meeting. John Darby more or less started those gatherings... I know a LOT about John Darby and have lots of his books. The man didn't believe in visions and dreams this side of the cross. He believed the Bible was complete and everything that God had to say to us was in the written word. He brought the TRUTH of the rapture to light by the Holy Spirit revealing it to him by READING and studying the Bible... not some 14 year old girls VISION. If you could accuse John Darby of anything it would be legalistic viewpoints.( my opinion anyway)

You can disagree all you want with his views on the rapture. But I take SERIOUS issue with implying he would listen, got his info or pondered a 14 year old girls visions. He did NOT believe in dreams and visions THIS SIDE OF THE CROSS. ( I can type it again if twice isn't enough)

I know what John Darby believed and preached and wrote. I'm just saying...

[classyT]

For those of you that do not understand/believe in the rapture of the church before the tribulation period I have one question.
How do you or your religious teachings reconcile John chapter 14 and 1 Thessalonians chapter 4?

I know the answer!! They reconcile John Chapter 14 and Thessalonians by using a black maker and some white out. :D

We ( the Church) are not appointed unto wrath.

[Wondergirl]

I know the answer!!! They reconcile John Chapter 14 and Thessalonians by using a black maker and some white out.

No, Lutherans don't mark out those passages. They interpret them differently than you do.

[dwashbur]

I know the answer!! They reconcile John Chapter 14 and Thessalonians by using a black maker and some white out. :D

A black marker AND white-out? Isn't that kind of like wearing a belt and suspenders?

We ( the Church) are not appointed unto wrath.

The wrath being spoken of in that passage is eternal, not related to some future period on earth. How do I know? Because of the rest of the verse: "For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Th 5:9). The wrath he mentions is put in contrast to salvation, not to suffering on earth in any way. So it has nothing to do with a rapture. Sorry ;)

[dwashbur]

He believed the Bible was complete and everything that God had to say to us was in the written word. He brought the TRUTH of the rapture to light by the Holy Spirit revealing it to him by READING and studying the Bible...

[other stuff snipped]

I know, or at least I hope I know, you don't mean your comments this way, but do you realize what a slap in the face this is to every other godly, prayerful truth-seeker through the ages who came to a different conclusion? You're saying, at least by implication, that the Holy Spirit ONLY revealed this "truth" to him and those who agree with him, whereas other men and women, equally devout, equally devoted to the truth of Scripture, and equally seeking the Spirit's guidance in their understanding, got the shaft instead of the Spirit; basically, when they asked the Holy Spirit for guidance he told them "no." You might as well go to them in person and spit in their faces (or if they've already departed, spit on their graves). These people sought the Spirit, they sought the truth, and they ended up with a different view than Darby. Why would God's Spirit abuse His children like that? Needless to say, I have a real problem with this idea.

[dwashbur]

And what does all that have to do with my original question?

I neglected to answer this. When I gave my own story of how I grew from the pretrib to a post-trib (or actually a-trib) view, I was responding to this:

For those of you that do not understand/believe in the rapture of the church before the tribulation period

This is a very common claim among pretribs and dispensationalists: anybody who doesn't agree just doesn't understand. My point was that I DO understand, and that's why I switched.

The Loose-Ends Department thanks you for your time.

[classyT]

[other stuff snipped]

I know, or at least I hope I know, you don't mean your comments this way, but do you realize what a slap in the face this is to every other godly, prayerful truth-seeker through the ages who came to a different conclusion? You're saying, at least by implication, that the Holy Spirit ONLY revealed this "truth" to him and those who agree with him, whereas other men and women, equally devout, equally devoted to the truth of Scripture, and equally seeking the Spirit's guidance in their understanding, got the shaft instead of the Spirit; basically, when they asked the Holy Spirit for guidance he told them "no." You might as well go to them in person and spit in their faces (or if they've already departed, spit on their graves). These people sought the Spirit, they sought the truth, and they ended up with a different view than Darby. Why would God's Spirit abuse His children like that? Needless to say, I have a real problem with this idea.

Oh come on! Really? I'm not trying to slap or spit anyone in the face. My point was to say John Darby didn't believe in dreams and visions. His belief in the rapture of the Church was based on what he saw in the scriptures. Let's not take this out of context. JoeT and I have discussed this before and to be honest the comment was more to him then anyone.

There are a lot of Christians in this forum that I do NOT agree with. I will debate with them and even tease them a bit. I am passionate about my beliefs but I also respect everyone's right to believe what they want to.

I get that you don't believe in the rapture.. that is fine. BUT I have a REAL problem with you putting things in my post that just wasn't there. I am putting NO ONE down. I was taking up for John Darby. PERIOD


Edit: It is hard to tell reading a post the attitude of the person... I'm not meaning to be snippy but just want to clarify.

[Wondergirl]

Oh come on! Really? I"m not trying to slap or spit anyone in the face. My point was to say John Darby didn't believe in dreams and visions. His belief in the rapture of the Church was based on what he saw in the scriptures.

I agree with dwashbur. It's perfectly fine with me if you want to agree with Darby. Just don't say it's the truth (especially in capital letters). It may be your truth, but it's not mine. And "teasing" about how any church or person who doesn't agree with your truth has blackmarkered and whited-out parts of the Bible is actually mean and devisive -- and... um... unChristian.

[dwashbur]

Classy,

That's why I said I knew you didn't mean it that way. I was pointing out an implication that necessarily comes out of the way you said it. If we say unerringly that the Holy Spirit revealed A to someone, then it follows logically that if someone equally devout concludes not-A, they couldn't have gotten not-A from the Spirit, no matter how much the person sought to be led by the Spirit. Does that clear it up?

And for the record, I don't have a problem with the kind of teasing you were doing. As you've seen, I indulge in a little of it myself from time to time.

WG, I have some extra chill pills if you need one ;)