Featured Post tribulation arguments

And I will just point out these responses are typical of those who disrupt.

At this point, the Topic of the OP is forgotten, all that is addressed is not Doctrinal, but personal, and what usually happens is when the lack of self control on the part of the disruptors reaches it's typical creat...

...the thread is closed.

I would ask the Staff not to do that this time, but let us examine this issue in hopes that the continual pattern of this kind of behavior might finally stop.

Actually, that is not possible, as there is no bullying but a straight-forward address of the disruption caused in the derailing of this thread.

And Staff permitting, that is going to be addressed.

Not sure how "holy" false charges are.

And that is why I stepped in and addressed that false premise, which even now...neither of you are willing to admit, but compound your error (and BW is given the benefit of the doubt as she has not responded and we can assume she is busy right now) with this charade of "exposure."

But what is exposed is that your fascination with this woman blinds you to what is really going on. Because of this you cannot see the false premise which derailed discussion and has resulted in animosity.

Holy?

Perhaps in your version.

No, she did not. Her first post was given, and it had nothing to do with the OP.

And what you said, amigo, is this...


Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post

She had already responded to the OP and gave a reason before the thread was derailed....she had to pause...[a parenthesis in the threadto address the falsehoods.


Is this honest?

She had not already responded...before the thread was derailed. The thread was already being derailed and she contributed to that with an off topic post that was not only irrelevant but did not convey what she was responding to.

It was a false argument based on a false premise and it was simply for the purpose of turning the conversation to her pet peeves.

Those are the facts.

Now that is true (excepting reference to BW "offering" to the OP) and can be supported with the Public Record, but you still continue to misrepresent the facts and perpetuate your truth with what is actually true.

Drive careful, and may God keep the beasts from your path.

Just because we are antagonists doesn't mean I have no concern for you, but, the opposite is actually true.

No, actually you won't, because I make no unwarranted attacks...on anyone.

My treatment of a member may be perceived as such, but, every response to any given member is going to be on their terms, their level, with previous encounters considered.

For BW, my concern for her is being sucked into a pack mentality that many suffer from, and instead of learning to rightly divide, is mentored in biting and devouring.

For you, my concern would be in regards to your priorities, as well as your refusal to consider the reasons that support a differing view and the reasons others would disagree with your view.

It is critical for all of us not to just condemn those of other beliefs, but to understand the basis for those beliefs. When we do this, not only will we gain a compassion and understanding that is Christ-like, but, we may actually learn something along the way.


God bless.

 

I doubt that very much.

What do you base this charge on?


God bless.

 

That they are falling off. Ask Martin, Rippon, or Icon. They have seen posts disappear. Rev Mitchell had post disappear and then comeback. My have disappeared and cameback. You can see me and Martin talking about it on the pre- NASB95 thread.

*****correction, it is the thread on "sarx"*****

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

DHK has noticed the issue as well. It may not be removing posts, but placing them on other threads as DHK noted on another thread....

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

First, that doesn't change the fact that she had not "already responded," which are your words to alleviate her guilt for her disruption and derailing of the thread.

Secondly, let's look at those "responses:"

You "enjoy her solid posting," lol, which is irrelevant to the discussion. So you enjoy her derailing the thread.

Right?

And you think false arguments based on false premise which are themselves irrelevant is "solid posting?"

I believe you do.

Post #63:

Now this would be considered on topic, but we are examining your statement "she had already responded to the OP" which we have already seen is not true.

Did she enter into discussion because the topic interested her? Doesn't seem to have...


First response:

Second...

Third...

Fourth post...

Now, you will have to show me how she had "already responded to the OP" before derailing.

It is an instigated derailment meant to turn the conversation into an argument. In view it seems defending her friends takes precedence to the topic. So it is with you.


God bless.

 

It is likely user error, though the forum does get slow at times. However, I have not seen any post that I have gotten published disappear, and I just wanted to make sure impropriety on behalf of the Staff wasn't being implied. I would not expect that at this Forum.

God bless.

 

Tyndale (Brother Glen) had two entire threads, topic rebuilding the temple, 'disappear' only yesterday.

 

No....not saying a mod is doing it. Just that the site is having issues. People are posting and losing their posts.

Sent from my LGLS990 using Tapatalk

 

Doesn't change the fact that you need to be careful about how you come across to the public.

You are making statements that have already been shown to be in error, such as attributing honesty to a clearly exposed false argument based on a false premise.

Does Mrs. Clast read your posts? Would there be a possibility of jealousy if she were to do so?

And no aspersion is being cast on anyone, only an attempt to point out we must be careful in our relationships on the Net.

Unfortunate for you, of course.

It is not a solid Christian ethic to first disregard Forum etiquette and rules by falsely charging others with what they have not said in an attempt to derail a discussion that prior to that remained on topic, then refuse to repent of that error due to pride. And it is not a solid Christian ethic to support those who do.

Relevance?

Seeking out support for yourself now?

Take it as you will, just be ready to substantiate your charges.

Actually, you won't, because your motivation is biased and in error.

As far as my theology, if you could put you emotions and personality issues aside long enough to actually discuss Theology, then you might have a basis for saying you will expose my Theology as bogus.

Here is a suggestion for the title:

Darrel C. needs help...II.

lol

I do need help, assuredly, just not the help you think, lol.

What I need help in is trying to make sound and beneficial Doctrinal Discussion a pattern that replaces the school-yard mentality we see so prevalent on forums these days.

When the Doctrine and the Theology become the focus, disruption of the kind you and your friends cause on a continual basis will begin to cease.


God bless.

 

God is good all the time, isn't He?




God bless.

 

From your link:
http://kimriddlebarger.squarespace.com/a-reply-to-john-macarthur/
I quote to you:

This man has lost all respect with me. He has no credibility whatsoever. His sole purpose in writing is to discredit MacArthur at any cost. His writing is caustic, demeaning, and meant to ridicule. It is not objective at all.

Have you read Calvin's works Icon? If you have you will note that he is simply writing after the rude manner that Calvin wrote. Regenerated people don't write that way.
You ought to look up Peter Ruckman's writings on the KJV. See the manner in which he writes as he defends the KJV. I put your friend in that camp. He has no credibility with me.

 

Just wanted to sneak this in:

One argument used to support the Post Tribulation Rapture might be seen in the argument that the Rapture of the Church cannot precede the coming of Antichrist, based on this text:


2 Thessalonians 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


The premise to be considered is that the "coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him" refers to the rapture, and I agree with that, but, I do not agree with the reasoning which causes conflict in Scripture to arise, meaning, we can make a number of good arguments that the Rapture of the Church taught by Paul simply cannot take place at the end of the Tribulation, so, if this refutes those arguments and shows it does, we have Scripture combatting Scripture.

So we have to figure out where our Post-Tribulation brethren err.



This is offered only for the purpose of encouraging discussion of the point, and is not meant to be a detailed treatment.

Having said that, I will simply suggest that what Paul is saying is "Do not be worried that you have missed the Rapture, because if that were the case, then we would be in the Tribulation."

And that is what he is addressing, their fear that the Tribulation foretold had already started.

In view here are two events:


2 Thessalonians 2

King James Version (KJV)

1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,

2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.

3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition;


The first is a reference to the Rapture, the second is a mention of the Day of the Lord.

Even the New King James adds the footnote...


2 Thessalonians 2:2

New King James Version (NKJV)

2 not to be soon shaken in mind or troubled, either by spirit or by word or by letter, as if from us, as though the day of Christ[a] had come.


Footnotes:
a.2 Thessalonians 2:2 NU-Text reads the Lord.


...that in the NU-Text the word in view is Lord.

So do we reject all other reasoning concerning the Pre-Tribulation Rapture based on one passage some interpret to mean the Rapture, rather than the Day of the Lord cannot occur until Antichrist appears, or do w consider that these people thought they had missed the Rapture and were in the time prophesied which is known as the Day of the Lord?


God bless.

 

Another that has sought to discredit MacArthur, who is considered a Reformed Theologian and speaks at Reformed Conferences, is Dr. Michael Brown, a charismatic that I believe to be a sincere brother, but staunchly defensive of the Distinctives he holds to.

His response to MacArthur's "Strange Fire" is a legitimate attempt to justify a doctrinal position/s, but, it lacks what is needful, which is a direct discussion between the antagonists themselves. I would love to see this.


God bless.

 

On finally what ever issues are going on with the website seem to be resolved and I was finally able to see most of the post. I know a few have been lost including a couple of mind but I think I got the gist of what was said.

DC as my husband pointed out in a lost post my speech needs to be seasoned with grace and some of my later post to you were more snarky then they should have been and I apologize for that.

Icon my husband especially appreciate your defense of me, and sees no fascination from you toward me, as he has read this thread as well.
My husband has the next two weeks off so we are going to be enjoying a little vacation so I will be bowing out for now as I feel that I have said all I need to say and the record speaks for itself.

 

Just popping in to share my husband suggestion. Save all post on a word document so if it gets deleted you can just repost it.

 

Darrell C

...

She spoke the truth about DHK's error as it was He who derailing the thread...not her.....she corrected his error...he already was off topic which he does quite often even though he lectures us not to do it.

Only in your sin tainted thoughts.

Really:laugh: So... .if I say to you your defense of DHK gives the impression that you have a budding bromance with him.....[not that I am charging you with that}...that would be okay? or fine to post? then repeat it a second time??? This is very slimey and has no place being posted, but now I recall that is how you operate.

only to you evidently.....BW and her husband know nothing about your foul thoughts.

Perhaps you have this kind of struggle in your life, so it crosses your mind, it had not crossed anyone else's mind

You are trying to cover for DHK here. She called him on it and quite correctly.

She stated truth...

baseless charge as you have an agenda...

.

Here the true agenda is exposed. You are frustrated as all the other Cals destroy your carnal reasoning. I understand:wavey: I have seen this many times.

That is DHK' M.O. .... I have derailed a thread or two however.....in the same way usually DHK posts something false that he claims is indisputable:laugh:...it is always proved wrong.

,

I get along fine with every other moderator since Skandelon left town, DHK wears two hats..... and when he wears his anti cal hatred hat...he gets ripped up....not him personally, but his false theories.

 

Yes...good idea...but sad on a "Christian board we have to think of such things

 

Those who were taken away by the flood were judged...not raptured:laugh:
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.