Earnest

Howdy Malcom, Firstly, the anger and hurt you feel validates the relationship you had with your cousin. Don't resist crying over her. But, with every tear, rejoice that you had those times with her and thank God for every moment you can remember. Cry with joy because you truly have something to cry about, rather than not knowing her well enough to cry at all. Secondly, I think you are fully justified in asking the questions you have, and I strongly encourage you to seek the answers from God Himself. I am confident that God is motivating you to ask these questions because He wants you to develop a deeper wiser relationship with Him. As you learn how to respectfully ask these questions of God, and earnestly seek His perspective in the answers, you will certainly grow in your relationship with Him. Then, with that wisdom, you can help others grow in their relationship with Him. The questions you ask are where mature faith begins. Heb 11:6 says that faith is believing that God is worth seeking and then seeking Him. In this case, I suggest you try to understand God's eternal perspective, even though you are angry and hurt over your loss. It is up to you to choose to grow in your faith and seek God in answering these questions, or to be angry at God and condemn Him for the way He runs all of creation. As an example, a few years ago, I got to wondering why God allowed so many people to be disabled at birth or thereafter. Instead of criticizing God about it, I tried to understand His perspective. The following is what I came up with and wrote to myself to help me understand it better. I think it generally overlaps the questions you are asking. I offer it in the hope it will guide you beyond our normal and human perspective and perhaps show that everything we see is not all there is. Perhaps, God's eternal purposes are greater than our own experiences and feelings in this life. (I just wrote this to myself a few years ago so I ask your consideration for it not really being all it could be such as if it were formally published.) Christians and Disabilities The paralytic who was lowered through the roof faced difficulties for the few years of his life, but for the last 2000 years he has been celebrating God’s mercy and glory, and will continue for eternity. He considers it worth it to have gone through what he did for the few short years he was on this earth. Ditto, the blind man in John 9. Do either of them now wish they had been born normal and healthy? So what if you, or someone you know, suffers a little while in this life? Compared to eternity, it will be worth it to them. Which is more important in changing the world for God: arms and legs, or a godly attitude? Nick Vujicic is a man who was born without arms and legs but is changing the world through his attitude toward God and his love for others. http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org/ How many people with full use of their arms and legs can claim to have accomplished as much as he? By way of illustration, let's imagine a certain atheist with a healthy body who condemns God for allowing disabilities. (By condemning God for allowing disabilities, isn't he acknowledging the existence of God?) He claims that God must not love people if He allows so many to have disabilities. The atheist considers healthy limbs to be more important to God than the right attitude toward God’s Son, Messiah Jesus. If there is a God, and if there is eternal life, isn't it reasonable to expect that the right attitude toward God in this life has more eternal value than whether or not one had certain fleshly protuberances, or eyesight, or clear hearing, or a fancy car or big house, etc.? Is it possible that God has selected the disabled person to receive harder times on earth because they have greater character potential in eternity? And isn't it reasonable that a few difficult years of this life will be far outweighed by the greater joy and happiness the person will enjoy for all eternity? In eternity, will not that person worship God for blessing them with the disability which allowed them to grow so much closer to God than so many others, and to learn what is truly important to God? It is not a pity that a child is born without arms and legs, such as Nick Vujicic. It is a pity that the healthy atheist with both arms and legs and a healthy mind is choosing to reject God for eternity. For the atheist who dies an atheist, this life was the closest they will ever come to heaven. Why not let them have these few years with arms and legs? Since they have chosen to reject God's love through His Son, healthy arms and legs, and perhaps a comfortable life, may be all God can do for them. Because they have chosen to turn away from Messiah Jesus in this life, in eternity, there is only one place where they can get as far from Him as possible. But even then they will have to face their hatred, pride, arrogance and foolishness because God will be there too. That is a far greater loss than not having use of ones arms or legs for a few years of this life. In every area of life we see that the harder the challenge, the greater the reward. If there is any value to life at all, then that value can be increased or decreased by how we deal with the challenges we face. Everyone faces difficult challenges; some more than others. We simply choose whether or not to honor Messiah Jesus in how we face them. The entire point of life is whether or not we choose to honor Messiah Jesus in any given situation. The greater the challenge, the greater the potential God sees in us, and the more we will worship Him for it in eternity. The choice is always up to us each minute of our lives.

It is kind of puzzling why the professors would be offended by claiming all humans come from two people because genetics proved that years ago. There was a PBS special years ago ("The Daughters of Eve") that showed through mitochondrial DNA that all women come from one woman. And more recently it has been proven through Y chromosome studies that all men are descended from one man. That sounds like Adam and Eve to me.

From the early church fathers on, “He who confirmed the covenant” in Dan 9:27 has been thought to be Jesus Christ. The seven years were typically split up into Jesus' ministry for three and a half years, and then the assumed three and a half years between Jesus' ascension and the going of the gospel to the gentiles, marked by Peter's testifying to Cornelius in Acts 10. This view says that the purpose of Christ's ministry was to confirm God's new covenant of grace with many, and that after three and a half years he put an end to sacrifice and offering. A very few of the many scholars of the past who have suggested this interpretation include: John Calvin (1509-1564): Now, therefore, we understand why the angel says, Christ should confirm the covenant for one week, and why that week was placed last in order. In this week will he confirm the covenant with many. [Myers, Thomas M.A. Commentaries on the Book of the Prophet Daniel by John Calvin 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1948, p.225] Matthew Henry (1662-1714): He shall introduce a new covenant between God and man, a covenant of grace... By offering himself a sacrifice once for all he shall put an end to all the Levitical sacrifices. [Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible Vol.4 New York: Fleming H. Revell Company 1712, p.1094-5] Irah Chase D.D.: The whole period of which we are treating is distributed into three portions. The first consists of seven year-weeks; the second, of sixty-two; and the third, of one. The first ends with the complete restoration of the city; the second with the public appearing of the Messiah; and the third with the full confirming of the new covenant. This last portion is divided into two parts. In the midst of it the great propitiatory sacrifice was offered, which, in effect was to supersede all the offerings of the Jewish ritual. [Chase, Irah, D.D Remarks on the Book of Daniel Boston: Gould, Kendall and Lincoln" 1844, p.76] Edward B. Pusey: At a time within the 490 years, but after the first 483, i.e. in the last 7, Messiah was to be cut off; in the midst of those 7, he was to make sacrifice to cease, but to confirm a covenant, not with all, but with the many; transgression, sin, iniquity were to be effaced: everlasting righteousness was to be brought in;... He is to confirm the covenant with many; and this covenant must be plainly a new covenant, since the typical atonements for sin were to be abolished. [Pusey, Edward Daniel the Prophet Minneapolis, Minn.: Klock & Klock Christian Publishers, 1978, p.201] He speaks not of a temporary suspension of sacrifices, but of the entire abolition of all which had been offered hitherto, the sacrifice, with the shedding of blood, and the oblation, the unbloody sacrifice which was its complement. These the Messiah was to make to cease three years and a half after that new covenant began. [Pusey Op Cit, p.192] W.S. Auchincloss, C.E.: This "one week" was divided into 2 parts of 3 1/2 years each. The first half covered the Ministry of the Messiah. [Auchincloss, W.S. The Book of Daniel Unlocked C.E. New York: Van Nostrand Company 1905, p.70] Edward J. Young, Th.M. Ph.D.: For the period of the 70th seven the Messiah causes a covenant to prevail for many, and in the half of this seven by His death He causes the Jewish sacrifices and oblation to cease. His death is thus seen to belong within the 70th seven. [Young, Edward J. The Prophecy of Daniel, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing 1949 by John Calvin 2 Vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Pub. Co. 1948, p.220] John Cumming D.D.: In the first seven weeks the city was to be built, in the sixty-two weeks the Messiah was to be manifested, in the middle of the remaining week the Messiah was to be cut off. [Cumming, John, D.D. Lectures on the Book of Daniel Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston 1856, p.381] But the best proof of it is, that when he should thus die and be cut off, the prophecy was fulfilled that the offering and the oblation should cease. It is said, "And in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease," [Cumming Op Cit, p.391] H. Deane: ...in the midst of the last week, Messiah shall make a firm covenant with many, and make the sacrifices of the Law cease. ... The Messiah shall, says Daniel, "confirm the covenant with many for one week." Need we doubt what this covenant is? It is the covenant of Grace, the promise of the Holy Spirit foretold by Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others. [Deane, H. Men of the Bible: Daniel; His life and Times New York: Fleming H. Revell Co., 1888, p.157] J. Barton Payne: (Christ is the) embodiment of the redemptive testament of God. As the Servant of Yahweh, He proclaimed the gospel to Israel during his 3 1/2-year ministry (Isa 42:1-4, Mt 12:17-21), thus confirming to them the grace of the divine testament [covenant] (Isa 42:6). Next, upon Calvary, He brought to a close the OT economy of redemption, rending the veil of the temple (Mt 27:51) and causing legitimate typical sacrifice once and for all to cease (Heb 9:12). [Payne, J. Barton Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973, p.388] According to the above, it is not necessary to dogmatically assume that Daniel's 70th week applies exclusively to the tribulation before the return of Christ. It is possible for responsible theologians to consider Daniel's 70th week to apply to Christ's confirmation of the new covenant. This is an historic position of the orthodox Christian church supported by theologians for two millennia and can be considered a reasonable possibility. What does the Bible say about this idea? But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one. - Heb 8:6 By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; - Heb 8:13 Christ is the mediator of a new covenant, that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance. - Heb 9:15 Regarding the covenant, and therefore the tribulation, being 7 years long, there is nothing in the Bible that associates any end times period being 7 years long. The only passage that discusses a future seven year period is Dan 9:27. Irenaeus (120-202) was a disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John, who most likely wrote the book of Revelation. (How much closer to the original source must one get to understand John's teaching?) Irenaeus only wrote of a 3 1/2 year tribulation. And then he [Daniel] points out the time that his [Antichrist's] tyranny shall last, during which the saints shall be put to flight, they who offer a pure sacrifice unto God: "And in the midst of the week," he says, "the sacrifice and the libation shall be taken away, and the abomination of desolation [shall be brought] into the temple: even unto the consummation of the time shall the desolation be complete." Now three years and six months constitute the half-week. [The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Ante-Nicene Christian Library Translated by Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, M.A. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark 1869 p.554] Daniel also spoke to this subject in Chapter 7, verse 25. “He will speak against the Most High and oppress his saints and try to change the set times and the laws. The saints will be handed over to him for a time, times and half a time.” The teaching that Dan 9:27 applies to antichrist and that the tribulation (based on the length of the covenant) will be 7 years long, to my knowledge, was first invented at the Albury Prophecy conferences in England in the late 1820's. Edward Irving was an attendee of these annual meetings and was good friends with Lady Powerscourt, who established her own prophecy meetings in the early 1830's. All Dispensationalists trace their beginnings to these meetings and the later teachings of John Nelson Darby. The pre-trib rapture seems to have been developed at the Albury conferences and by the followers of Edward Irving (Irvingites) as well but it was controversial because Mt 24 contradicted it. It was several years later that Darby invented the “two peoples of God” (Jews and Gentiles) in order to apply Mt 24 to the Jews so it would not contradict the pre-trib rapture idea. It is only through the questionable teachings of Darby's dispensationalism which creates the “two peoples of God” theory that the concept of a “pre-trib rapture” can be proposed. This separation of the Jews and Gentiles is now “the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist”. Charles Ryrie: "This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a man is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. A man who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does, will. [Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism Today Chicago: Moody Press 1965, p.45]" It is also important to note that without this invented distinction by Darby, there is no justification, indeed no evidence at all, for a “rapture” of the saints before the tribulation. John Walvoord: Much of the background for the differing points of view on pretribulationism as opposed to posttribulationism is found in different concepts of the church. While it is difficult to make an accurate generalization, usually those who sharply distinguish Israel and the church are both premillennial and pretribulational, while those who consider Israel and the church more or less the same concept, even if premillennial, tend to be posttribulational. The concept of the church as a distinct entity, peculiar to the present age since the Day of Pentecost, usually goes along with the idea that the church will be translated before the tribulation. [Fuller 1957 p.357/ John F. Walvoord, "Premillennialism and the Tribulation," Bibliothece Sacra, CXI (Oct 1954] If there is but one people of God, posttribulationism naturally follows, for the Scriptures declare that God's people will be on earth during the great tribulation. [Fuller, Daniel P., unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Hermanutics of Dispensationalism, Chicago: Northern Baptist Theological Seminary, 1957, p.363] "There is a method of interpretation that is absolutely essential for determining which view concerning the Rapture is correct. This method is called dispensationalism." [Lindsey, Hal, The Rapture, N.Y.: Bantam Books, 1983, p.47] With this statement Lindsey says that only dispensationalists can understand the complete truth of the Scripture, which includes the proposed pre-tribulational rapture. If one is not a dispensationalist, according to Lindsey, he cannot understand the Bible as well as one who interprets the Bible with the dispensationalist prerogative. (There are many more quotes of this nature and attitude in Dispensational writings.) To sum up, the belief that it is the anti-Christ who establishes a covenant for seven years is a teaching of dispensationalism which contradicts the historical teaching that it is Christ who established a strong covenant with many. Dispensationalism (which gets many of its primary ideas from the Albury Conferences and the Irvingites) is also the source of the teaching of a seven year tribulation and a pre-tribulation rapture. Since John and Matthew and Paul and Daniel, speaking by supernatural inspiration of the Holy Spirit (not to mention nearly two millenia of theologians and writers), said nothing about a seven year end times period, nor anything about the return of Christ before the tribulation, why should should we submit to the “new teachings” of Irving and Darby and demand that it must be so? A few extra notes: How valid is Dispensationalism? (Thus, how valid is the concept of a seven year tribulation and the anti-Christ making a 7 year covenant with Israel, and the pre-trib rapture?) "... the entire system of "dispensational teaching" is modernistic in the strictest sense; for it first came into existence within the memory of persons now living... [Mauro Op Cit, p.8]" "The teaching of a pre-tribulation rapture seems to have been emphasized widely about 100 years ago by John Darby of the Plymouth Brethren. [Ralph Earle, "Behold, I Come", p.74 / MacPherson, Dave The Great Rapture Hoax Fletcher, N.C.: New Puritan Library, 1983, p.30]" "We quite deliberately reject the dispensational theories, propounded first about 1830, as innovations that a careful and unbiased study of the Scriptures not only does not sustain, but exposes at every turn. [Reese, Alexander The Approaching Advent of Christ London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, no date given, p.293]" "...the theory...that the believers will be raptured before the antichristian tribulation, flatly contradicts specific utterances of Ireneus and Lactantius and finds extremely little support, if any, among the other ancient Premillenarians. [Reese, Alexander The Approaching Advent of Christ London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott, no date given, p.252-3]" "These views, which began to be propagated a little over one hundred years ago in the separatist movements of Edward Irving and J. N. Darby have spread to the remotest corners of the earth. [Reese Op Cit, p.xi]" "I strongly believe dispensationalism to be a departure from the historic faith and to be based on a faulty system of interpretation. [Bass, Clarence B. Backgrounds to Dispensationalism Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing Co. 1960, p.155]" "The precise point is that the distinguishing features of dispensationalism do not involve merely a chronology of events about the end times, as important as this may be, but involve some basic principles of interpretation that depart radically from the historic Christian faith, and that are often diametrically opposed to what the church always believed. The dispensationalism of John Darby and his followers is something different indeed from those attempts by theologians and biblical scholars of the past to understand God's relation to man as involving different periods of historical development of His revelation. [Bass Op Cit, p.17]" It is thus concluded that Dispensationalism fails to pass the test of an adequate system of Biblical interpretation. Its system, founded on the basic premise that there must be an eternal distinction between Israel and the Church, cannot harmonize with several truths which the Bible makes explicit. Therefore, it cannot demonstrate the unity of the Bible. [Fuller Op Cit, p.369?] Many people are more interested in the truth of the Bible than in theology. It is to them I write, not telling them what the truth is (other than the facts stated above), but encouraging them to search the truth of the Bible for themselves.

Forgive me, simpleJeff, but I do not understand what you are trying to communicate.

It's not about praying and Bible study and worship and correct doctrine, etc. It's about getting to know Jesus better day-by-day, learning more about how much He loves you and then loving Him back. It's about having a dynamic growing daily relationship with Him, and getting to know HIM better through the above. Heb 11:6 Faith is believing that God is worth seeking and then seeking Him. Do you have enough "faith", enough love for God, to want grow closer to Him, and become more like Him, day after day? If so, do so. If not, do whatever else you want. The step after getting to know Him better daily, is to reflect Him to the world around us. (And add in a dash of fun.) Everything else seems too complicated to me.

I have spent the last forty plus years actively pondering the nature of "truth" and why so many people are so deceived. I don't have a strong answer really, but some of my conclusions are as follows. 1 - All humans are fundamentally deceived to their very core. This comes from the enemy and the fall. Jesus said there is no truth in the enemy. The enemy absolutely cannot comprehend or accept the truth in any way. All humans start out that way as well. It is impossible for us humans to comprehend or accept the truth about life on our own. Jesus addressed this in John 8:40-47. 2 - The very first step in a human being coming to a knowledge of “the Truth” is when we submit to the truth that God loves us more than we can imagine and sent His only human born Son to die on a cross in our place, and that 3 days later, God raised Him from the dead. That is the very beginning of submitting our lives to the “Truth”. Until we do this, is it simply impossible for any human to comprehend the truth. John 1:5 “The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.” (NIV) “Light” here is easily equated with truth. 3 - The next step for a truth seeker, a.k.a., a Christ follower, is to love the truth and person of Jesus Christ more than what they have been taught about Him. That means, one has to actively seek to grow closer to Christ by seeking His truth and facing ones own self-deceptions – in everything (including, and perhaps most importantly, in ones relationships). We are all profoundly self-deceived. Those who deny it are worse than those who realize it and attempt to overcome it. 4 - Heb 11:6 says that faith is believing that God is worth seeking and then seeking Him. Our faith, our desire for truth, is only measured by how earnestly, actively, and humbly, we seek to grow closer to God through His one and only Son, and then to lovingly reflect them to the world around us. We make this decision every moment of our lives. With every thought, we choose to either grow closer to Jesus or do anything else we want. Finally, people are deceived because they love theology, doctrine, Bible study, Christian activities, or anything else more than Jesus Himself – who is the “Word of God”. The more we become like Jesus in humility, truth, wisdom and love, the more we overcome our inherent self-deception (and, the more we become “God's word” to this world of deception, evil, and blackness). [If this is not true, I invite any respectful comments leading me to the truth.]

NO ONE CAN CLEANSE THE INSIDE OF THEIR OWN CUP. All we can do and are to do is love Jesus with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength. Jesus cleanses us at the point of our salvation. Thereafter, the more we draw closer to Jesus, God's one and only Son, who died for us and rose again, the more He changes our interests and desires away from junky stuff and toward honoring Him with our life. If you are focusing on not sinning, or making yourself "clean" enough to have your prayers answered, you are not focusing on how much Jesus loves you and those around you. In short, love Jesus, God's one and only Son, and spend quality time with Him everyday (30 to 60 minutes daily is reasonable), and then reflect Him to the world around you. Heb 11:6 Faith is believing God is worth seeking and then seeking Him. If you don't have enough faith in, and love for, God to spend quality time with Him everyday, ask Him to help you understand His love for you better and to help you respond as He sees fit. If you don't have enough faith to earnestly seek God daily, you don't have enough faith, IMHO.

I think this is a great question and it leads me to ask how do our prayers make a difference in spiritual warfare? For instance, if (hypothetically) we have guardian angels, should we pray for them to be stronger, or are they already as strong as they can be? Or when we pray to be delivered from temptation does that keep the fallen angels away from us?

I was doing a bit of writing this morning about righteousness and though the question my writing answers is not the same as the OP, I think the same answer applies to when one is feeling "dry" toward God. What I wrote earlier today: Our righteousness does not come from obeying God's rules. Our righteousness comes from Jesus, God's Son, and how much we embrace Jesus in our heart and use faith to accept that He loves us enough to accept us just as we are, which He proved through His death, burial, and resurrection. (This does not lead to dishonoring behavior, as so many argue. They say, “If you believe that then you can do anything and just say Jesus accepts you just as you are.” They are arguing for legalism. They don't understand the deeper things of the Spirit, such as love for God motivates us to turn to Him directly, and the more we focus on Him and His love for us, the less we are drawn by sinful things. They have the cart in front of the horse. Good behavior does not lead to a better relationship with God. A better relationship with God leads to better behavior.) The more a true Christian believes this, the more the Holy Spirit works in him/her to love Jesus and God, and the more that love moves us to honor God with every part of our life. We don't use willpower to avoid sin and become “righteous”. The more we understand and believe we are already righteous through Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, the more we desire to invite Jesus and the Father into every moment of our life, and the more we want to avoid sin because it makes us emotionally, physically, and spiritually ill. We don't turn away from sinful thoughts through self righteous willpower. We are so in love with God that just thinking about sin is like opening a septic tank, and actually sinning is like jumping into it. Unfortunately, the more we think about sin (or how to avoid it) and ignore loving God, the more that septic tank looks like a swimming pool. And, being human, we lose focus on God, and often jump or fall in. That is when we have to remember that God loves us just as we are, and once again we need to admit we fell into the tank again and need God's help to get us out and stay out. (The author bases this upon experience with many sewage pits and septic tanks.) But even then, we need to remember that we do not stay out of the tank through our own self willpower and self discipline. We stay out by keeping our focus on God and how much He loves us, and how much we love Him back. Obeying God's laws do not help us become children of God any more than doing household chores help us become children of our parents. Righteousness does not come from obeying the Ten commandments. The Ten Commandments are an illustration of how a righteous person might live. But living like a righteous person does not make him or her righteous any more than pretending to be a cat makes you a cat. Loving Jesus who is God's one and only Son, and who died for us and rose again, is the righteousness God desires. Those who are righteous in God's sight – those who sincerely love Him and His Son, Messiah Jesus - will, by nature, become what the Ten Commandments illustrate: a righteous acting person. This also applies to “feeling dry”. It often happens when we focus on doing right things in order to “feel” closer to God. That is a deceptive feeling and belief. The truth is that once we have accepted Jesus' death, burial and resurrection on our behalf, we are already as close to God the Father as is our Big Brother, Jesus. All we have to do is go boldly into God's presence, in the name of Jesus' love for us (that is, His death, burial and resurrection on our behalf), and start chatting with God our Father. We can't earn this privilege to call God our Father any more than we can earn the right to call our earthly father, “Dad”. The way to overcome feeling dry (or any type of sin) is to go to God in prayer right now and start talking to Him, and then keep talking with Him every moment of your life forever. “Heaven” is not a celestial city with golden streets and pearly gates. It is being with God our loving (adoptive) Father, and Jesus, our loving Big Brother. The more we lose focus on that, the more dry, and or, legalistic we become. I also believe that since God will judge our every thought, He knows our every thought and, therefore, anytime we choose we can address God directly when one is a true Christ follower. Even if we don't feel anything when we address God in our thoughts, it is our faith in God's love for us through His one and only Son, who died for us and rose to life, that gives us confidence to talk to God or His Son, Messiah Jesus. We can talk to our Father or Jesus in our thoughts no matter how we feel at the moment. So, stop worrying and just start talking to God right now.

I haven't read all the previous posts so I apologize if this has been covered. John Darby, the creator of "Dispensationalism" created the "two peoples of God" (Jews and the church) theory specifically so he could discredit Mt 24 from applying to the church. He had already plagiarized the "pre-tribulation rapture" concept from Edward Irving and others at the Albury prophecy conferences in the late 1820s. That is where the pre-trib rapture was first "revealed". Irving was a good friend of Lady Powerscourt and spent a week or more at her castle in August of 1830. She is said to have attended at least one of the Albury conferences and was so impressed she created her own conferences in the early 1830s. All dispensationalists accept that the pre-trib rapture idea came from the Powerscourt conferences, presumably by Darby. But there is no doubt that it was taught at the Albury conferences because it was described in their "Dialogs on Prophecy" books published after each conference. There is no doubt that Irving was a guest of Lady Powerscourt in 1830 because it was described in the book "Life of Irving" by Oliphant. There is no doubt that Darby came up with the "two peoples of God" after he learned about the pre-trib rapture because one of his contemporaries (whose name escapes me at the moment, [perhaps Benjamin Newton or possibly George Meuller]) describes how excited Darby was when he invented it. The contemporary said something to the effect that "Darby, if you accept that you give up one of the most important parts of Christianity." (I apologize if this is poorly quoted. It has been many years since I referred to this quote.) It might also be in this context that George Meuller said something to the effect of "There came a time when I had to decide whether to accept Mr. Darby's teaching or accept the teaching in my Bible. I chose to keep my precious Bible and part company with Mr. Darby." Mt 24 clearly contradicted Darby's pre-trib rapture idea, so Darby invented the distinction between the Jews and the Church so he could claim this passage did not apply to the Christians. According to Dispensational teachers like John Walvoord and Charles Ryrie, the most important distinction of Dispensationalism is not the so called "dispensations", but "rightly dividing the Word of God" into applying to either the Jews or the Church. This declares that there is one "Gospel" for the Jews and another "Gospel" for the Church. Paul warned about this in Galatians where he said that if he, or even an angel from Heaven, preached a Gospel other than the one he preached to the Galatian church, let him be condemned forever. To make sure he was clearly understood, he repeated himself. So, when Dispensationalists preach more than one gospel (There is no argument about this. Some of them have preached up to four "Gospels", that is four different ways of being saved.) how serious should we be about what they teach and why? These multiple gospels come from their "dividing the Word of God" into some passages that don't apply to the church, such as Mt 24, and other passages that do. I "think" the two peoples of God may have come out of the Albury conferences too, but I don't specifically remember. This post is not written with bitterness, hostility or confrontationality. The facts are irrefutable and the questions are those I must ask myself.

As mentioned above, Jeremiah 1:5 (“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you”) indicates God takes responsibility for forming us in the womb. Also, as mentioned above, we are born to bring glory to God no matter what our condition. (Jn 9:2-3 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind? Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.) Take a look at the life of Nick Vujicic. (http://www.lifewithoutlimbs.org) God built Nick with no arms or legs. No one knows why - physically. But, Spiritually, Nick has proven worthy of the "blessing" of having such a difficult life. And he will praise God for it eternally because GOD TRUSTED HIM SO MUCH that God gave Nick such a challenging way to honor Him. And, so will the countless thousands, if not millions, of people whose lives were changed for the better because Nick was in their lives and reflected God's love and mercy to them. I have an unusually sized body. There is nothing I could have done about being born this way. When people tease me about it, I tell them, "This is the way God made me. If you have a problem with it, take it up with God." Lastly, I believe blue eyes are a resessive gene. That means if both parents have a gene for brown eyes and blue eyes, if they had four children, theoretically, three of the four would have brown eyes and one would have blue eyes.

I humbly suggest you forget about asking angels into your life. Fallen angels are "angels". You don't want to invite them in. I suggest you grow strong in Christ. Get to know Him as best you can. As you grow, the Holy Spirit will grow in you too, and then you can have God Himself, the Holy Spirit, guide and protect you as much as you earnestly desire.

Praying is not about following a formula to get answers. It is one of the mechanisms by which we develop a closer relationship with Jesus, God's one and only Son. If your motivation for praying is to get answers, you have missed the point of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection. He died and rose again so we could get to know Him and the Father to the fullest extent possible. As you are spending the whole day chatting with Him about everything, then you can mention your interest to receive something from Him. I expect He will make clear to you how you should think and feel about that desire. But, first comes the relationship, then general "stuff".

Ask him to go with you to some pre-marrital counseling, not because you want him to marry you, but because it is time to fish or cut bait. You need to find out if indeed you will be happy with each other, or if you should be looking elsewhere. If he refuses to go, then he is not worth your time and it is time to move on - even if it hurts. You need to find someone who has a similar level of passion for spiritual and emotional growth. If you are passionate about growing in such ways, and he is not, it is time to find someone who is more compatible with you.

Perhaps someone with a more objective perspective might be able to help. Perhaps an experienced church leader or family therapist could work out with you some of the options that could help this situation.