Featured Post tribulation arguments

Thread successfully high jacked by several folks.

Matthew 24 also shows ample proof of a none post tribulation rapture. But Revelation 19 is still the best argument to prove it is not post trib. The church is in heaven as the Bride who has made herself ready for the marriage. She comes back with Christ in Revelation 19.

Let's look at something to understand it better:[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

So we see that the bride has spent her time in preparation at the grooms home, that is the church raptured and for seven years preparing herself for the wedding, or as in the case of Daniels prophecy the church has been a week, the last week of Daniels 70th in Heaven preparing herself for the wedding while those on earth have been being judged with the wrath of God.

 

It's not anger to address error.

You do realize you are saying your quarterback is being dishonest, right? You are quoting her...

And I would point out that my point is once again ignored. I have tried to address the issues which are the basis for the conflict that has raged here for years, but to no avail.

Stopped? Not one thing said here is true or even applies to the beliefs of what many here believe.

It's not a good catch, and that was addressed. Why are you not addressing the responses?

Not, not exactly right, but contrary to what she has already said...

As I said, if you knew what was going on, who was saying what...you wouldn't make blunders like this.

So we have to ask why you are.

But there was before the disruption began.

Remember the OP?

Remember all the posts prior to this rabbit trail?


Continued...

 

Same they say about calling a response an attack because it cannot be responded to with reasonable discussion. It is deflection from the points that destroy the proffered views.

While your laughing consider the facts: no-one is trying to defend dispensational view...this is something dragged up by BW.

She wanted to debate Dispensationalism while others were clearly discussing the actual topic of the OP.

You can both consult the posts that are on topic. That's where the relevant Scripture is.

And when the discussion is derailed, even then Scripture was offered to address the false charges of the rabbit trail.

So let's see what is "nothing of substance:"

So you feel that thefact that DHK states Spurgeon was a Calvinist, not a dispensational premillennial, as BW implies her her erroneous response...

...is not substantial?

This is funny, lol

I agree. What you have apparently missed is this is again a false argument.

After sniveling about semantics she is okay with changing what was said:

Big difference, which goes to the point of the distinction between Israel and the Church.


Continued...

 

Not correct: another indication of the inability to discern what is said.

In view is not how many Jews among Israel were "saved," but the distinction Hebrews makes that none of them were eternally redeemed.

The statement is again changed from Israel to "No Jew."

Which is another distinctive error made:

Again, this is an attempt to address the false argument constantly presented on this forum, and again...no response to the focal issues.

On the contrary, many people understand these basic Bible Principles.

But some do not want to, they just want to argue.

I would point at this point that your posting technique is still sloppy. Not an attack, just the truth. Here we have no idea what is being responded to except your cheerleading.

This is how you are able to continue in a fantasy of being right about something.

You should ask your quarterback to give you some lessons on how to properly quote someone so the original post can be consulted to find the context you always obscure.

She can look at that thread to see what is meant by an antagonist. She has a negative connotation of the word which is not necessary, but makes for good argument, right? lol

And when have either of you ever responded to any of the arguments I have presented to support why I take the Pre-Trib position?

Never.

It's all a big joke, right?


God bless.

 

No, Iconoclast, it has been shown many times over that her argument was false, based on a false premise.

You keep repeating this same error without once addressing that focal point.

She was not interested in the OP, she was only interested in arguing with DHK about her pet peeve, which is a sad attempt for her to justify her confusion on the matter.

Her first response was to further that same behavior that I have personally witnessed in many threads.

They have been refuted, and an attempt to address the core issues such as the distinction between Israel and the Church have yet to be addressed.

She has turned a valid statement in regards to that issue into a charge that I have said no Jew was saved by corrupting what I said.

And you pat her on the back for it.

You are her worst enemy right now. That is just a fact.

This...

...is relevant to what I said...how?

This is all you have to support a claim of solid posting? A reference to an event that is not even associated with the Rapture?

We are past that to your statements now.

You are not being honest by saying "she already responded" and that does not alleviate the fact that I was addressing the false argument itself.

Her first post was not on topic it was simply catering to her internal angst, lol.

If she can justify her own doubts it will help her justify rejecting the position.

But until she, and you, can get into the Bible long enough to discuss those issues, you will continue with this same disruptive influence you have on this forum.

And she is no closer to justifying her rejection of that view now than she was when she was in that school.

And you do not speak the truth in your statement. Since when is attending a school make one an authority, especially when...

...one rejects the teachings of that school.

I doubt seriously that school taught that there are "Two Peoples" of God in the eternal perspective.

And the fact remains that Israel was the People of God in the Old Testament, and that the Church is a new ministry. While the just may have been of spiritual Israel, they were not members of the church because the Church was not yet being built.

The Church is built upon the confession that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God, and Israel, to the man...

...rejected Christ.

That includes the Disciples of Christ.

Must be galling to have a "boy" expose your error, lol.


God bless.

 

The ones that always state that we are to be looking for the appearance of Lord jesus, never to be on the lookout for the Antichrist coming!

 

Post tribulation you say? Post tribulation??????? Jesus Christ tells us:

John 16:33. These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world.

 

Perhaps you should laugh at your inability to understand scripture.
You need to go take a class in hermeneutics.

Here is just one of the verses in question:
26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

What you neglect is the context of that verse, which I advise you to go back and read. Jesus was explaining, not a judgment, but His Coming. His Coming, as the Flood, would be swift, sudden, quick, when people were not expecting it. That is what he is saying here. He is not speaking of the nature of the judgment. He is speaking of the nature of the time--the suddenness, swiftness and unexpectedness with which it will come.
So shall it be also in the days of the Son of man
--when you shall least expect it.
--as a thief in the night.
--two shall be in the field; one shall be taken and the other left (behind).

 

One more, and I think this is one of the "missing" posts. It seems they did not appear, or disappeared, but have returned. At least that is best as I can gather from what others have said.

These actually take on a relevance as the Preterist and A-millennial views are proffered as an argument against a premillennial view.

If we could just get a discussion as to the focal points it might once and for all be resolved and end the constant disruption we see in these types of threads.

Redefining terms is the correct word to employ.

The Scripture that was relevant was already offered and ignored in favor of a campaign against dispensationalists.

That is highly questionable. Apparently you do not believe that the New Testament interprets the Law, as we see in Hebrews where the People of God in view that are used as examples would be Israel, and the People of God in view in this Economy would be the Church.

That describes two dispensations throughout the book.

So you don't believe the New Testament as not only holding new revelation, but clarifying the Old.

I know that, your antagonists know that, but you do not seem to understand the significance of rejecting this truth and how that applies to your rejection of all things dispensational.

It is just Biblical fact that God has ...


Hebrews 1

King James Version (KJV)

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;


The Writer of Hebrews was a first century teacher, under inspiration, of the core issue of Dispensationalism.

You don't believe that if you believe that Israel and the Church are all the People of God.

Read Hebrews 3.

Is this truly your position? You do not believe that there are not two peoples of God spoken of, but that the faithful of all time, including the Age of Law...were spiritual Israel?

That is the erroneous argument used to deny that Israel was the People of God then, the Church is the People of God now, rather than two distinct groups.

That has nothing to do with the historical beliefs of anyone, it is simply basic Bible fact.

Redefining. Defining them to suit your argument.

And I still have to ask, do you really not believe that the Church is the New Israel? The people of God?

Then you make a distinction yourself.

Who teaches that?

Who brought that up in this thread?

And for the record, Paul makes it clear that this is now, which establishes the distinction between Jews and Gentiles then.

A different ministry of God which has broken down that middle wall of partition and made twain of both.

Can't say that in the Old Testament...Israel was Israel, Gentiles were Gentiles.

Redefining and obscuring.

The people of God have always been those of faith, but, that does not mean they are to be seen as receiving what was only promise then, fulfilled now in Christ.


Continued...

 

Some other translations of that verse:

(Geneva) These thinges haue I spoken vnto you, that in me ye might haue peace: in the world ye shall haue affliction, but be of good comfort: I haue ouercome the world.

(ISV) I have told you this so that through me you may have peace. In the world you will have trouble, but be courageous—I have overcome the world!"

(LITV) I have spoken these things to you that you may have peace in Me. You have distress in the world; but be encouraged, I have overcome the world.

--The "tribulation" being spoken of is simply the affliction, the every day trouble, and distress that Christians encounter for the very reason that they are Christians; not for the reason that they stub their big toes as the world also does. If one chooses to live out their lives in a godly way witnessing to others, telling others of Christ, being zealous for the Lord they will suffer a certain amount of "persecution" or "trials" that Christ is speaking of here.
It has nothing to do with The Great Tribulation to come.

John, in his first epistle wrote:
1Jn 5:4 For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.
1Jn 5:5 Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that believeth that Jesus is the Son of God?
--Through Christ, each and every Christian can overcome the world.
How?
The same way that they were saved--through faith.
"This is the victory that overcomes the world, even our faith," the same faith by which we were born again--faith in Christ.

 

No...it was not.

And you even say he was making a comparison later. That is all he was doing, showing that the core understanding of the distinctives of dispensational theology can be seen to be affirmed by men who were Calvinists.

You are the one that redefined what he said and charged him with saying Spurgeon was a dispensational premillennial.

I just gave you one: Paul was a historical pre-millennial believer.

Address that one.

I would think I would have run across them as I responded to your posts. I think there might be a few which popped up later but I will review the thread later.

I can already say thee will be no relevance found in regards to the issues I am myself responding to. What is relevant has been addressed in numerous posts.

Sorry, but I see it as confusion when someone says they believe the New Testament interprets the Old then ignore that very issue.

You apply "neither Jew nor Greek" as though this was the case during the Age of Law.

It was not...Israel was a distinct nation, the People of God.


Continued...

 

No, it is an issue I take up with people that falsely charge beliefs nobody here is a proponent of.

False arguments you offer because you will not address the actual Scripture.

Doesn't actually do it.

This is what Christ said about their belief:


John 16:28-32

King James Version (KJV)

28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.

30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.

31 Jesus answered them, Do ye now believe?

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.


And let's look at the disciples "belief" in the Risen Lord here...


Luke 24:6-11

King James Version (KJV)

6 He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee,

7 Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again.

8 And they remembered his words,

9 And returned from the sepulchre, and told all these things unto the eleven, and to all the rest.

10 It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles.

11 And their words seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not.


So again, I ask you, and anyone else that might like to answer...

...where do we see anyone believing on the name of Christ?

All Israel had was their carnal understanding of Messiah, and Peter best illustrates this in his opposition to the Gospel of Jesus Christ:


Matthew 16:21-23

King James Version (KJV)

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.

22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.


Many such clear statements that deny belief in the Risen Savior, which is requires for anyone to be inducted in the Church...can be found.

We just have to stop long enough to consider all that is given us in Scripture.


Continued...

 

I never said "no Jew was 'saved,' " as those who were of faith according to the revealed will of God in those various times were saved by grace through faith.

But that does not mean they were eternally redeemed.


Hebrews 9:11-15

King James Version (KJV)

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building;

12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us.

13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh:

14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.

And of course that if refutes your statement is ignored, lol.

It seems some are very glad to dish it out, but can't take it when someone replicates their behavior. The difference being, though...my points are valid.

That was in fact DHKs point.

The core understanding of the distinctives can be seen in those who are not dispensational, yet, that does not stop you and your buddies from charging those core understandings which are similar as only being held by those who are Dispensationalists.

Where is watts mentioned?

Again...relevance?

It's just not honest.

The core understanding not only predates Darby in the Church, but it is predated by the very teachings of Scripture itself.

There is no relevance.

No one asked you to defend them, but to defend your own statement.

You posted...

I would agree with the latter of half of what is said...

But not the first...

And I again ask the same questions that were ignored:

If you can find someone that is equating the sacrifices offered under Law (by God's commandment for atonement, by the way)either on this forum or in popular Dispensational teachers, chances are for those on this forum I have already spoken with them or am currently, and as for teachers, well, I think most here know Scripture enough to reject such teaching.

But that is why you will continually argue this with people, because you do not take the discussion to Scripture and address the core teachings by which Dispensationalism became a theology system in it's own right.

That doesn't mean Scripture does not teach those basic core understandings of the different ministries of God in regards to Redemption, and it doesn't mean anyone here actually believes what you are railing against.


God bless.

 

Anyone who confuses a prominent event prophesied with Scripture with the daily tribulation we are told we are going through makes a serious mistake.

So I guess the tribulation of the first century is offered as just garden variety tribulation as well?

You know it is not.

Do you also deny that the Return of Christ is a distinct event? Is Revelation 19 to be considered just a picture of a warm and fuzzy feeling?


God bless.

 

How about addressing this point which was brought up:

Explain how these events have either been fulfilled or will be as opposed to my suggestion.

And this goes out to any who might wish to address it, a most of the points that have been relevant have been obscured by the disruption.


God bless.