You categorize people too much. I'm not a Dispensationalist.
I never categorized you as anything - I disagreed with your use of dispensationalism.
(Hidden In Him claims OT authorities unanimously agree that "sons of God" in the OT refers only to angels)
Is English you first language? I plainly demonstrated that Dr. Luke plainly refers to Adam as "the son of God" - irrefutable, undeniable, self-evident proof that the term "son of God" is applies to an Old Testament figure - the first OT figure. Your argument is invalid.
And the same post-NT sources I cited likewise referred to believers as sons of God. But they equally maintained the notion that "the sons of God" referred to in Genesis were ANGELS, NOT MEN.
Really, if Luke refers to Adam as "son of God" - and by doing so has established that OT figures are legitimately referred to as "son of God" - why do you not admit your error and stop trying to create a dichotomy between Luke and Moses?
If it isn't a veil for faithlessness (and I sincerely hope it is not), do you hold out the possibility of believing it if it can be proven plausible?
It's NOT able to be proven plausible, for there's no Scriptural evidence that angels have sex with anything. Yours is a continuous uphill battle against all that which suggests they do not in order to establish that they can.
Nope. I've found Baptists in particular to be some of the most faithless Christians on the planet when it comes to supernatural things. Not all of them mind you, and I certainly have no problems with Baptists - I used to be one, and they are at least strongly devoted to the word. But faithlessness is more rife within conservative Christian circles sometimes than anywhere else. They pride themselves on strictly "going by the Book," yet frequently interpret through a lens of unbelief.
I think you'll agree that "faith" includes the idea of "being faithful", right? But faithful to who or what? To Jesus and His Word. So, throw out whatever measuring rod you employ to judge others' faithfulness and stick to what the Bible uses: God's Word and His Law. A person demonstrates his faith by his works, according to James.
Ok, here you go again. Phoneman, this stuff comes out of your mouth every day. I've read your posts. How do you reconcile this sort of language spoken in regard to people who believe in the same Savior, the same God, and the same Holy Spirit? In many cases I don't agree with their doctrines either. But I don't go running around night and day telling them how much their leaders are "satanically-minded" and embrace a "dunghill of decretals," whatever that means (And don't tell me. If I wanted to know, I would have looked it up already). You walk in a spirit that is not loving much of the time, and it is not becoming of you.
This is so typical of liberal Christendom. The criticism sounds harsh so the critic must be a hater, right? Well, Jesus called a bunch of Jews devil children - will you criticize Him, too?
It's not insulting to refer to people who are "satanically minded" - it means they have been deceived by Satan and believe his lies. If people like you would stop with the hypocritical selective outrage and unrighteous indignation and join the rest of us in helping to expose the darkness, perhaps some of these dear ones might find their way into the glorious light. BTW, "Roman Catholic dunghill of decretals" is how Martin Luther referred to them, and your ignorance of this sadly reveals how little you know about the Protestant Reformation.
I have no problem with regarding famous Protestants from the past who died for their convictions. But the church has since moved on from the 16th century, Phoneman. Are they burning you at the stake today? Seems to me you are the one "burning" them most days, not the other way around, LoL. I do believe Revelations describes a time when Catholicism, as the leader of virtually the entire denominational world, will return to killing the saints and prophets, but that time is NOT yet, and most Catholics I know are just doing their best to Love and serve God as best they know how. You, meanwhile, come off as someone with an axe to grind continually; an axe that half the time you sound like you wouldn't mind using. No offense. I'm just telling you how you come off. Often.
Please, enough with the constant personal criticism already. Liberals always resort to this when they are losing a debate and it seems that this is the case here. Of course I have an ax to grind - Christianity is in crisis and the solution is not more Biblical distortions (like your "angels have sex with women" ideas) but TRUTH based on solid Biblical exegesis, which I by the grace of God strive to present.
Ok, you really need to cut this out. You OVERSIMPLIFY in order to categorize, and then condemn. Cut it out. You act as though no one earth has ever had a thought outside of these three possibilities. I take you as smarter than this, so try using an argument that doesn't make you sound... like you have a bad case of tunnel vision, and an obsession with the concerns of 16th century Protestantism. We're in the 21st century now.
Your tunnel vision is REALLY on display here. Try and wrap you mind around this, please...If you lay all the various eschatological idea on the floor, and arrange them by how much they agree with each other, you are left with only THREE major schools of thought: Jesuit Preterism, Jesuit Futurism, or Protestant Historicism.
1) Preterism - end time prophecy was fulfilled in the first century with a "Nero" Antichrist.
2) Futurism - most prophecy is yet to be fulfilled but will be soon with a "last seven years of tribulation Antichrist".
3) Historicism - God has no blind spots, therefore, prophecy parallels history which reveals a Papal Antichrist system.
Ok, as a man of the scriptures, where on earth did you get that from?
I say that with the same degree of incredulity when I read about your "sexy time angels" too. The Bible plainly states that giants existed
before your "sexy time angels" got busy, and that the giants that arose after the "sons" got together with the "daughters" were not a new phenomenon, but a continuation of that which already existed. Please re-read Genesis 6:4 KJV
"In those days" is a reference to the days of Noah, Phoneman. Read the context. "And also after that" is a reference to the days after the flood, where scripture records there were giants in the promised land.
I'll read the context if you'll stop reading with extreme subjectivity:
"There were giants in the earth in those days (Noah's day); and also after that (after Noah's day - after the giants were already existing in the earth), when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."
Therefore, to attribute the existence of giants to "angel/female" amalgamation when Scripture plainly states that giants existed in the land
before the time when you claim the angels got their freak on is subjectivity on steroids, friend.
Phoneman, again, I have nothing against you personally. You seem to be fighting for a cause you believe in. But you are far more the traditionalist than you think. And in your zeal to defend the truth as you see it, you are not as open to new interpretations as you should be. You champion reformation theology, yet those who did so six hundred years ago were doing so as a result of receiving revelation concerning what the Spirit of God was revealing to the churches at that time. He has been revealing a lot more since then.
Neither do I have ought against you, but please spare me that which you denounce: characterization and categorizing. I'm no rebel without a cause - I've backed up every spiritual proposition with Scripture.
It is my experience that among the most absurd claims made by Christians is similar to what you suggested: that we are to regard the exegesis and hermenuetics of past Protestant giants of the faith who ate, slept, breathed, and died for the Word of God as "inadequate" while we in the church today who are so completely distracted with every stripe and type of sensory stimulation, idolatrous entertainment, and hardcore pornography - where according to many polls Christian men hold the Bible in one hand and masturbate to the most extreme filth with the other - that we can't even find the time to pray...and yet we are somehow "more enlightened", "better equipped", and "are able to hear more clearly the Holy Spirit"??? You can travel to Europe and snap a picture in John Wesley's house where his floor board are WORN DOWN in the spot where he prayed. Have you read Wesley's commentary on Revelation and understood why he and countless others believed Historicism? But, we're to regard the wisdom of modern preachers over theirs, right?
Blessings, and I mean you no harm, so don't take offense simply because I disagree with your positions. I'm hoping you will at least consider that there is another point of view.
Let's be clear - I am fully acquainted with many of the popular but erroneous beliefs in churches today - I used to believe them! It is not I who requires a more open mind - it is those who fight against the idea of a Papal Antichrist but have never studied all the elements of Historicism that are the bigots. Alas, most people are too afraid to find out they might be wrong. Blessings to you, as well.