Covenant Apostolic Congrgations Intl

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by diakonos

I want to be part of a body and live in peace.

Im glad for you that you've found a home...I know the feeling.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by coksiw

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm just trying to help some of you in this thread to open you eyes to see the danger of that doctrine.

If you are trying to open eyes then you really stink at the job. We believe that when we die we go to be with the Lord, as we are absent from the Body. Also premillennialism you only have one verse for a thousand year rule, and guess what? It has an end, and the Holy City is surrounded by an army where the DECEIVED were recruited from the nations by Satan. Maybe you can to us who are blind, since you are sighted, and can lead?

How about the danger of your doctrine. Oh, you don't have one. Not one you can say with one word. Revelation 20:18-19 let me tell you something, you make it up as you go along it will be all on your head.

Coksiw, do you currently believe in soul sleep? That the soul of the wicked is destroyed in the grave?

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by jediwill83

Im glad for you that you've found a home...I know the feeling.

Are you still driving Uber?

[jediwill83]

Originally Posted by diakonos

Are you still driving Uber?

No sir. It totally died when the bars and restaurants shut down here...and I've had to focus 100% on Katherine and Abigail due to Katherines health. God has provided thus far and will continue to do so. You driving up there?

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by coksiw

...

I'm not trying to win an argument, I'm just trying to help some of you in this thread to open you eyes to see the danger of that doctrine.

I'm certainly glad you're not trying to win an argument because I'm not entirely sure what you are arguing against. You seem to be insisting that we all believe whatever those you know personally believe. Given the responses you have received, that doesn't appear to be the case.

My understanding of 1 Corinthians 15 is that Paul was defending the fact that there was indeed an afterlife. (I don't know what a gentile Sadducee would have been called, but that seems to be what he was defending against. I could absolutely be mistaken, but that is how I understood it even when I knew of nothing outside futurism.) As best I can tell, no one you have interacted with in this thread believes there is nothing left when we die. If you want to insist on a physical, bodily resurrection that happens in the future as opposed to Brother Benincasa's "absent from the body, present with the Lord" description of what resurrection means, -- I hope I haven't misrepresented you, elder -- then go for it. Tell us we're being inconsistent and explain why. Tell us how it is really going to be. But please stop acting as if every non-futurist disbelieves Christ's resurrection or the gospel as a whole.

I have only recently wandered over to this side, so I'm not one that is going to pretend to have all the answers. However, I can tell you with certainty that if you are truly trying to open eyes, you need to rethink your approach. Nothing you have presented refutes in any way what these other brothers have presented to you. Having said that, this stood out to me:

17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith [is] futile; you are still in your sins!

Consequences again, if you don't believe in a future real resurrection, you don't believe in Christ real resurrection according to Paul, or basically, you nullify it.

First, stop implying that all non-futurists don't believe in a resurrection. They might define it differently than you, but they do believe it. Second, your explanation isn't what the verse says. If Christ isn't risen, He was a fraud, and faith in Him is worthless. As one commentary puts it (paraphrased), a dead redeemer is no redeemer at all.

[Michael The Disciple]

First, stop implying that all non-futurists don't believe in a resurrection. They might define it differently than you, but they do believe it.

And Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD. They just DEFINE it differently than you.

[diakonos]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD. They just DEFINE it differently than you.

the herring is red

[coksiw]

Originally Posted by Ehud

Having said that, this stood out to me:



First, stop implying that all non-futurists don't believe in a resurrection. They might define it differently than you, but they do believe it. Second, your explanation isn't what the verse says. If Christ isn't risen, He was a fraud, and faith in Him is worthless. As one commentary puts it (paraphrased), a dead redeemer is no redeemer at all.

If you read the post from the beginning as a whole you can see my line of thought and why you can come to the conclusion according to Paul's logic that if you don't believe in a future bodily resurrection of the dead as the hope for those that believed in the Gospel, you are effectively denying the Christ's bodily resurrection. This is coming from Paul's logic itself in the passage I explained before. See his logic, his connection of our bodily resurrection with Jesus resurrection, and the fact that it is our hope, and if the hope is removed, you are making Jesus resurrection no fully effective on us according to Paul, and therefore, you are denying Jesus' resurrection, according to Paul's logic.

So the implication of it is that if you are denying Christ bodily resurrection, you are then preaching a different Gospel. The bodily resurrection AS Jesus resurrected, empty grave, is an inseparable part of the Gospel, and Paul didn't stop including it in his preachings as you can see in the book of Acts.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

And Trinitarians believe in ONE GOD. They just DEFINE it differently than you.

Oh, how I loathe when your name pops up.

Yes, exactly like that. If you for even one instance think that someone's inability to accurately describe the godhead is a heaven/hell issue, then I pray you and your sinless perfection have made no errors along the way. I agree wholeheartedly that a truly Trinitarian description of the godhead is or at least borders on tri-theism. I have also never met anyone that actually holds to such an extreme belief. (I admittedly don't get out much though.) Most I have encountered actually hold to a basic oneness position even though they wouldn't describe it as such.

Likewise, someone describing a spiritual instead of physical resurrection is absolutely not the same as someone believing in no resurrection at all. No one in this thread believes Christ didn't resurrect. If you want to accuse others of being mistaken or inconsistent in their descriptions, that's fine, but you don't get to tell others what they believe when they have so clearly stated otherwise.

[Ehud]

Originally Posted by diakonos

the herring is red

Absolutely. Thank you!