Jump to content

Brother Jason

Male Baptist

My Details

Last visited
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Brother Jason

  • Rank


  • Denomination
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FYI, I'm not saying I'm convinced by his date-setting. Though I have yet to read his book, "The Time of the End", maybe it'll be convincing, I don't know. Have you read it? Apparently a lot of Early Church Fathers also thought the second coming would occur 6,000 years into earth's history, do you also consider them date-setting heretics, or do they get a pass because they didn't set an exact date including the date of the month? Out of curiosity, do you also consider Hal Lindsay a heretic for him predicting in "Late Great Planet Earth" that the pre-trib rapture would occur in 1988? But I can understand not liking Tim Warner, after all, he talks a lot of trash on the Early Church heretic Origen and his Gnostic teachings!
  2. I just tried to edit it to the correct web address and I was told I don't I told have permission to edit (it actually said "view") my own post. Whatever.
  3. Hello all. I abandoned my premillennial eschatology over two years ago but have recently returned to it. I don't want to accept a theology for a second time only to find out later that I was wrong (yet again). So I thought I'd come into the amillennial forum to ask you for your best arguments against premillennialism. I'm sure you all have objections to premillnnialism, so if you would kindly share with me what you feel are the best knock-down arguments against it so I can evaluate them now and see if there's any good reasons not to adopt that eschatological framework, I'd really appreciate it. Thank you.
  4. Hi, I have some questions about the OP, I'm not trying to criticize, I just have some questions. So do you think that someone like John MacArthur is inconsistent? What about Dispensationalism is inconsistent with Reformed Theology? I don't adhere to either, I'm just curious. I've recently returned to a premillennial eschatology, having abandoned it over two years ago, and as I try to put the pieces back together I'm still not sure what I think about temple sacrifices during the millennium. I was surprised to see that, as a premillennialist, you don't believe in them and I was wondering if you could explain to me why that is the case. If there's a good case to be made against temple sacrifices during the millennium I definitely would like to know about it. Thank you.
  5. For people here interested in historic premillennialism I highly recommend the website answersinrevelation.org. It has a lot of great resources that you should find helpful in studying this topic.
  6. Do people here ever watch atheist youtube videos? An atheist friend of mine on facebook posted this video. I don't know if other people here are young earth creationists, but I am and I wanted to share some of my thoughts on this video (a lot more could be said), and see what others thought. So here are some of the main objections that I have. He attempts to argue against Young Earth Creationism by claiming that just because you can’t witness something occurring doesn’t mean you can’t have evidence that it occurred. Duh, no one’s claiming that you can’t have evidence something occurred. Obviously Young Earth Creationists believe there’s evidence a global flood occurred, and creation geologist, Andrew Snelling, wouldn’t have sued the Grand Canyon to be allowed to do his research if he believed you couldn’t have evidence of something happening in the past. This is just a stupid straw man argument. He also says that it goes without saying that no one was around to observe the “creation myth”. No that doesn’t go without saying, we say that God observed his act of creation and the Bible records his eye-witness account. He’s just asserting his atheist bias, which is not an argument. He claims that the only people who understand evolution and reject it do so for religious reasons. No one rejects all of evolution outright. Even Young Earth Creationists agree to some extent with evolutionists, as can be seen in the very article he’s responding to which says that natural selection is a part of the biblical world view. What we reject is the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis, and this certainly isn’t rejected for solely religious reasons. Highly respected scientists and mathematicians such as Stephen Jay Gould, Niles Eldgrege, Gordon Rattray Taylor, Lancelot Law Whyte, David Berlinski, Murray Eden, Marcel-Paul Schutzenberger, C.H. Waddington, Sir Fred Hoyle, among many others have rejected it for entirely scientific and mathematical reasons. He claims that evolution isn’t a historical science! Do not the titles, On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man imply otherwise? One of the most respected evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, Ernst Mayr, wrote, “Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science - the evolutionist attempts to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of such events and processes. Instead one constructs a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain.” He objects to Answers in Genesis using the word “design” even though that word is found in Richard Dawkins’ very own definition of biology! “Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.” This blew my mind, he actually claimed that evolutionary scientists NEVER use similarities between animals as evidence for evolution! What?! Evolutionists are always appealing to homology, whether it’s fossils to genetics. Homology is defined as, “the state of having the same or similar relation, relative position, or structure.” Here’s an evolutionary biologist, Robert Trivers, appealing to homology, “The chimpanzee and the human share about 99.5 per cent of their evolutionary history, yet most human thinkers regard the chimp as a malformed, irrelevant oddity while seeing themselves as stepping-stones to the Almighty. To an evolutionist this cannot be so. There exists no objective basis on which to elevate one species above another.” The fact that he said evolutionists don’t do that is stunningly stupid. He thinks that Young Earth Creationists believe, “Every single living thing had a sudden, distinct origin less than a few thousand years ago.” I’m not sure what he means by “thing”, I can only assume he’s referring to species. That’s wrong. We believe that God created different kinds of animals that cannot breed with each other. Most kinds probably fit in the classification of family not species. Literature exists on this topic that he clearly hasn’t read so he has no idea what he’s talking about.
  7. Thank you. Yeah, I'm aware of several conservative books that have either come out in the last few months or are coming out that at least partially relate to that topic.
  8. I'm a young earth creationist, so of course I don't believe we have any "common ancestor" because the entire concept is unbiblical nonsense. But if you're interested check out this article that goes over how scientists may pretend that they have everything wrapped up in a neat little package with a bow on top but in reality they have many competing theories and no end in sight on how to solve their dilemma. https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/the-human-ape-missing-link-still-missing/
  9. Animals "rights" activist, Peter Singer and evolutionary biologist, Jerry Coyne are both openly advocating for the euthenizing (killing) of babies with "deformities". The pro-choice movement began as a eugenics movement and even though they claim it has nothing to do with that, and pro-choice people today don't believe in that, lo and behold, here they are openly advocating for medical practices that Nazi doctors were literally hanged for having done! https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/darwinian-biologist-endorses-killing-handicapped-babies-who-suffer/
  10. Calvinism is beyond just soteriology. It has a particular view on God's sovereignty, God's foreknowledge, anthropology, etc. So it would appear that you don't understand Calvinism.
  11. HA HA! Dude, give me a break! That was obviously a joke about the HISTORICAL Origen who most people consider a heretic (whether you like it or not), I'm not actually accusing the "Origen" in this forum of being a heretic. It was just a joke, and I thought I made that perfectly obvious when I did it.
  12. Well, here you can see for yourself exactly why I don't like Science Mike. Basically he's not even a Christian.
  13. Hello everyone! I'm wondering if people here are aware of Science Mike (Mike McHargue)? He has a podcast called "Ask Science Mike". Apparently it's geared towards atheists and agnostics (which is why I'm posting this here). Anyway, I just listened to the first episode and hated it, but apparently it's pretty popular so I'm just wondering what other people think of it. Thanks.
  14. Ah-huh, and I never said it had to be a denomination, you're the one who keeps asserting that it has to be a denomination. What I'm more getting at is, as a Calvinist, have you encountered other Calvinists who have a sort of cult-like view of Calvinism by thinking that only Calvinists are Christians, only Calvinists have the gospel, only Calvinists have Jesus, that sort of thing. It seems to me, based off how you responded by saying that Arminians can be saved despite themselves, that you basically have that mindset yourself. Yeah, which would mean they're saved by accident. I understand that you don't believe in accidents, but humor me. Other than the fact that you wouldn't word perseverance that way I have, how exactly is that a distortion? Please tell me my theology. That's nice, I'm not trying to actually debate Calvinism. I was simply asking, based on the above quotes, if you think that mindset of your fellow Calvinists should be considered cult-like, and if it distorts Calvinism into a cult. That's what I'm trying to discuss. What possessed you (other than God's eternal decree, of course) to say something like that? Again, all I did was ask a simple question and provide some quotes so you could understand why I was asking that question. We've never debated theology, we've never discussed exegesis or proper hermeneutics or anything, so why would you go out of your way to insult me, a person you've barely interacted with and know nothing about, and imply that even if you could prove something to me from the Bible that I would just dismiss it? What exactly about our extremely brief interaction has lead you to that bold judgment of a complete stranger? Well, on second thought, if that's what you consider "sound exegesis", you're right, I probably won't be persuaded!
  • Create New...