Post tribulation arguments

[Iconoclast]

blessedwife318

Thank you Icon.
Its clear to me that I hit a nerve with at least one poster. I counted at least 11 personal attacks that were made, but that is ok.

Truth will cut right down to the bone...
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

I found them highly amusing, although my husband no so much

.

I bet:thumbs: I was getting mad because I could not get online...These cyber -rambos would not say the same to you if they were face to face with you with your husband standing right there:laugh:

We need to be honest about our views and if someone is going to claim that Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist they should be able to back it up with his actual sermons, and or writings. To many people just take claims at face value, instead of looking at the source material.

[/QUOTE]yes...that is lacking.

 

[Iconoclast]

If you have been following the discussion between DHK and OR for anytime you know that OR points out that Darby is the founder of Dispensationalism and DHK disputes that claim. That is the “false accusation the OR brings against Darby. He then talks about Spurgeon as you can see in my post were I quote him. He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s.
I then proceeded to point out that one cannot put Spurgeon in the Dispensational camp. It’s fairly straight forward

.

yes it is.

See above. Although I don’t think everyone is sick of hearing this. And this is a debate forum, so just because you are sick of hearing this doesn’t mean I have to stop

.
correct

If DHK is offended by my post then he can let me know and we will resolve it between the two of us

.

He claimed he was taking the high road

I did read, but your attack is noted.

:thumbs:

Again your attack is noted.

:sleeping_2:

I have no intention of doing any of the above, as I’m not that much of a glutton for punishment. Already you have shown a taste of the personal attacks that would come my way if I tried.

shameful as those attacks were!

The only intention I have is to show that one cannot place Spurgeon and Watts into the same camp as Darby. It apparently hit a nerve with you. Why is that? If you are so sure of your position it should not matter to you that Spurgeon and Watts do not agree with you.[/

QUOTE]
yes....

 

[Iconoclast]

blessedwife318

What hatred? That only anger I sense is from you, toward me.

they project their own hatred on those who respond.

But onto this discussion, if anyone is going to have an honest debate then terms have to be defined.
When the 2 people debating have different definitions of a given word it makes debate impossible.

When terms are used, such as Dispensationalism, it only make sense to allow the major proponents and teachers of the view definition stand in a debate.
That would be like someone saying they are a Calvinist but they don’t believe in Pre-destination, and any time someone pointed to Calvin, saying that his views don’t matter but I’m still a Calvinist. It would make no sense to the person they were debating and just cause people to go around in circles as each try to define their terms.

yes..more dishonesty....

So you don’t like the way that the major proponents of Dispensationalism define it, that’s fine, but then your issues is with them, not me, because they are the ones teaching these things under that banner that you want to be under

They are stopped right here.....so they attack, OR. you ,me and anyone who points it out.

Nice word play there. But I did not say Dispensation did I? I said DispensaionaLISM. There is a difference as you well know. But you don’t want to get into Dispensationalism do you?

good catch...they do this all the time..

Well we are getting a little closer now. At least you are giving a partial definition of Dispensationalism here.
No I don’t think that is the central issue, but Ryrie does. And apparently you have an issue with that so I suggest you take that up with Ryrie, not me. I’m just the messenger telling you what top proponents of Dispensationalism think.

exactly right:thumbs:

Ok Great! When there is Scripture bring discussed I will discuss it. There wasn’t in DHK post that I was responding to, just like there is not any in you post to me

.
no there was not!

Oh I love the snark here. Of course you know what they say when you resort to attacking your opponent.

:laugh:

As far as your guarantee, go for it. Start a tread defending Dispensationalist views. Although given that you have already shown you disagree with some of the major teachings of that view and jumped on me for their views that would be amusing to see.

lol

As to your not so veiled attack that I put his views above Scripture, I would point out to you that I was just responding to DHK statement about Spurgeon. He brought him up and I responded in kind. Again if Scripture is presented I would have responded with Scripture. Although since that seems to be your standard where is your Scripture in your response to me?

yep!!!

Ok what does that have to do with anything?

nothing of substance...

Well now we just have one more thing you and I disagree on.
No I have no interest in getting involved in your disagreement with Spurgeon.

lol

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?! I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture. Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.

foolishness

I’m not saying anything, I’m quoting Spurgeon to show that he cannot be placed inside the same camp as Darby.
But to answer your questions, No not all Jews were or are saved (although some in the Dispensational camp would argue with that, so you might want to take that up with them).
Yes I do understand that. Of course they still needed Atonement, the Book of Hebrews makes that clear. But then again you are the one the just said a few lines up that no Jew was eternally redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

correct

Honestly I don’t even understand what point you are trying to make here (besides the obvious attack which I will give you is slightly ironic given that I don’t understand what you are saying here) I think there might be a typo here but I’m not sure.

no one understands him,lol

No the definitions set up by the proponents of Dispensationalism put him there. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them, not me.

yes

Not really but your attack is noted nonetheless.

again

Once again Ironic coming from the poster who has a tread where he is looking for antagonist.

he could set a mirror by his keyboard and oppose himself,lol

Except it’s not. Careful study of the Bible has always lead me away from the pre-trib rapture.

me too!

So I can get more personal attacks on my intelligence and Bible Study. Gee how could I pass that up.

haha

 [/QUOTE]

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C

And that is what it is always about with you...defending one System of Theology and condemning all others, with a few favorites.

Bible truth is not a multiple choice test......or like burger king have it your own way. God deals with man by Covenant.

It is not a classic definition of dispensationalism that is objected to, it is the absurdity of the denial that a premillennial and Pre-Tribulational view was invented by Darby

.
Dispensationalism has many problems...nt just the premill rapture.

The tenets which might make one seem to be dispensational can be seen in Scripture. Both Old and New Testaments.

no. it is forced in.

And when you want to actually discuss what the Bible teaches, instead of what men (and women) teach, let me know.

:laugh: as if the men and women spoken of never look at their bible.

He is no different than anyone else on this Christian Doctrinal Discussion Forum.
If you had more interest in that than trying to make friends perhaps we would not see the same pattern in the same members year after year.
Maybe a little growth might take place

.

I have learned from the solid believers on here.

I am not a fan of Spurgeon. I am not a fan of any preacher that leans to a more dramatic posture. He is beloved by many and that's great for them, but that doesn't mean a quotation from Spurgeon settles an issue.

The Bible, not Spurgeon...is the Last Word.

And Spurgeon believed that ...so we read him because of that.

And it makes it worse when he irrelevantly quoted.

you do not like when you hear truth by anyone. Only you seem to believe that you alone have truth.

I do know better than people who make Israel the Church.

you show your lack of knowledge here.

I do know better than people who deny God has ministered in at sundry times and in divers manners

.
no one denies this, they just know how it ties together.

I do know better than people who refuse to understand the Mystery of Christ.

we have got that...

I do know better than people who cannot distinguish between the Covenants.

your claim about ot saints not being saved the same way indicates differently.

I do know better than people who charge Pre-Tribulational believers with heresy.

some hate the error of that system.

I do know better than people who incessantly derail threads until they are closed

.

that is your sides specialty

Making it impossible for others of similar beliefs to have a discussion. And what makes this worse is not one of your little club can address these issues with a Scriptural Presentation.

been there done that.

Which makes the last point:

I do know better than to try to build my Theology on what men think

.
no...you follow that system

 

[Iconoclast]

Quote:



Quote:

How many dispensations are there? People today quibble over the same thing. Why should that be a point of controversy?
Irrelevant. Except to point out that this view is not exclusive to a dispensational view.

You quoted DHK there not me. But I’m sure DHK is happy to know you think his point was Irrelevant.


lol..........the best

 

[DHK]

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.

Originally Posted by DHK View Post
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
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.
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Mat 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Your interpretation of Scripture is wrong.
Note:as in the days ....so shall also the coming
He is not speaking of judgment but rather about timing.
The Flood came suddenly, quickly, when no one was expecting it.
So will the Son of Man come: suddenly, when no one expects it.
Every metaphor and simile here points to the suddenness, the quickness of the Coming of the Lord.
He is not referring to the type of judgment. The Lord promised never to judge the world by a Flood again. Why would he use the Flood in that sense?? As you are alluding to?
Ye do err not knowing the scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Darrell C

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.

DHK was being dishonest and it was him derailing the thread. By correcting him she was responding to his attempt to derail...shutting it down....then she offered other thoughts once she responded to his attempt.
Her first responses were to shut him down

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

.

her responses were right on and none of you refuted them....your denial of the facts does not negate her correct response.

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

If you understood the truth you would see it, she explained it to you.

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.

her response to DHK was her initial response when she shut down his falsehood,she followed up with 61, 63....

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

...
she explained that having been taught at a dispy school she had to correct that error first.

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.

it was your boy who was the first in attacking OR....

 

[Iconoclast]

DHK;Originally Posted by DHK View Post

Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
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.
Mat 24:40 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:41 Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Mat 24:42 Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.
Mat 24:43 But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up.
Mat 24:44 Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.

Your interpretation of Scripture is wrong.
Note:as in the days ....so shall also the coming
He is not speaking of judgment but rather about timing.
The Flood came suddenly, quickly, when no one was expecting it.
So will the Son of Man come: suddenly, when no one expects it.
Every metaphor and simile here points to the suddenness, the quickness of the Coming of the Lord.






He is not referring to the type of judgment.

[/QUOTE]


:laugh: oh yeah...watch this-
your double talk is catching you....the FLOOD was not judgment?

The Lord promised never to judge the world by a Flood again

.

no one said the judgment was going to be by flood again:laugh: really dhk

Why would he use the Flood in that sense?? As you are alluding to?

Why...because the people knew all about that judgment that's why:thumbs:

here is what I enjoy about refuting your nonsense.....not only is your knowledge of scripture defective...but you accuse me saying...that I err not knowing the scripture.....when in fact if you knew the scripture and parallel passage in luke you would not make such an ignorant post....read and learn;

26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;

29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.


your statement was it was...NOT ABOUT JUDGMENT:laugh:,,,notice twice the highlight is...destroyed them all


Ye do err not knowing the scripture.[/QUOTE]
You are allegorizing and spiritualizing away the phrase....and took them all away..... in The day of Noah...those who were "left" were to repopulate the hew heaven and new earth....


So if I produce premill guys david Jerimiah types who say the taking away is the rapture...will you deny they have the right teaching...let me know...I will show you many who teach that...REVMAC might go for it ask him!

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
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.

this was no accident

So you charge the Forum Staff with impropriety.

Probably due to user error.

The posts that have disappeared have reappeared, this based only on what another member informed me.

Quote:
Quote:

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.

Your posts were great....I am a cheerleader

Yup.

Quote:
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.

Well...I do have a certain fascination with godly persons, men or women who know the scriptures.

Wouldn't know that by your posting.

I defend any Christian woman who is being bullied .

No, actually you don't. You defend nothing but what you see as honest, godly, and truth.

I have already pointed out your defense of dishonesty.

If your husband posted actively I would stand back and watch him correct these misguided persons.

I wish he would...that is his role.

Not his wife's.

Mr's Clast is the only woman for me despite the evil insinuations of foolish posters who are trying to cover their own sin.

And she also follows your conversations? And is perfectly fine with internet relationships?

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

.
Enjoy your vacation. I enjoyed your posting , I have had several disappear as you have.

And of course the Staff made them disappear because they fear the truth getting out, right? lol

I believe there is dishonesty going on posts have been deleted....

Or poor posting abilities, maybe?

Just yesterday a lengthy post of mine disappeared.....also I was sent 3 pm from a poster.....I tried to respond to the first one...and all 3 disappeared.

So do them over.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Darrell C


Quote:
The "truth" you declare is not true, and I challenge blessedwife to own up to the fact that DHK was erroneously charged with saying

...

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.

She did not speak the truth...this has already been shown in the review of the thread.

You show where DHK said Spurgeon...

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist.

...?

That is what you need to show she gave the truth and that is what you are supposedly "defending."

It's a lie.

You can't even bring yourself to refrain from chopping up what I said because you are trying to defend BW...not the truth.

You remove the focal point from this response, and we have to do is go back the beginning of this very post to see that...

Darrell C


Quote:
The "truth" you declare is not true, and I challenge blessedwife to own up to the fact that DHK was erroneously charged with saying

...

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.

More important than the truth is your defense of BW and now yourself.

And I will pause there because there is no way you can chop this one up, and obscure the truth. While you may not see it, and BW may not own up to it...the Public Record has the truth.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

And I will just say, Iconoclast, that you are giving the impression of infatuation with this member.

Only in your sin tainted thoughts.

No, it's actually in the Public Record.

It is a little disgusting, but then, so is every occasion where friendships obscure the truth of God's Word.

I am not charging you with that,

Really 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?

Sure. Because someone says something doesn't make it true.

And the difference between any support we lend each other is that our points make sense, lol, and have a Scriptural Basis, whereas your points hinge on emotional response and are shown to be absurd.

That is why I can directly quote every word you say but you are forced to slice and dice, lest the points you have ignored raise questions.

Kind of like the reason you cut out the focal point of what you say is truth on BWs part:

Iconoclast's truth...

Darrell C

Quote:
The "truth" you declare is not true, and I challenge blessedwife to own up to the fact that DHK was erroneously charged with saying

...

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.

The truth of Public Record...

The "truth" you declare is not true, and I challenge blessedwife to own up to the fact that DHK was erroneously charged with saying...

Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist.

Perhaps if she does, she might actually help you see you are in error yourself.

What will it be, BW...truth or friendship.

See anything missing?

Slice and dice.

or fine to post?

Help yourself.

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.

Feel free, just understand it does have a place, and I suggest you give some thought to it.

just saying you are giving that impression. Your fascination with what she has to say coupled with the fact that you don't even bother to consider what is being said...

only to you evidently.....

Sorry, no, it is clear truth means nothing to you, and I have to wonder why you would throw out the truth to defend your friend/s.

BW and her husband know nothing about your foul thoughts.

Nothing foul about warning people that internet relationships are something we have to be careful about. They have been the source of hardship, broken hearts, and even murder.

As men we have to be careful about dealing with women on the internet, out of respect for our spouses (that no impropriety even be hinted at) and obedience to Christ.

Quote:
...raises questions. And I wonder if your wife and her husband (if married) would appreciate this undue fascination.

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

No, actually, I don't, because I make it a point not to PM with females, and not to entertain anything that might be taken the wrong way by a female. For this reason I have, in the past, lost so-called "friends." This is something that I came to understand when I first began frequenting social networks.

And if that has never crossed your mind, shame on you. This is a serious problem, just as cliques like the one your involved with is also a problem.

Anytime truth takes a backseat to "friendships" it becomes apparent who is carnally minded.

Quote:
No, just like you, she creates a false argument and then goes on in an attempt to justify her charge.

You are trying to cover for DHK here.

No, Iconoclast, I have made this point several times, and you have cut it out of your response because you know it is true.

My address of the false argument based on a false premise by BW had nothing to do with DHK...it had to do with the false argument based on the false premise.

Which still remains to be owned up to.

And here you are defending the lie.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

She called him on it and quite correctly.

No, she did not, that has already been addressed.

Now it is in your court:

The "truth" you declare is not true, and I challenge blessedwife to own up to the fact that DHK was erroneously charged with saying...

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist.

Perhaps if she does, she might actually help you see you are in error yourself.

What will it be, BW...truth or friendship.

Except now the question is...

...what will it be, Iconoclast...truth or friendship.

It is not friendship to perpetuate a lie for someone. It is not friendship to give someone an out for error.

You are no friend to BW...you are her worst enemy right now.

And I am going to push that issue until you actually address it.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
She is arguing with herself.

She stated truth...

No, she didn't.

Nor do you.

Must be tough being led around by your emotions.

Just as you are.

baseless charge as you have an agenda...

They are not baseless, the basis has been established many times over.

Quote:
This is the same disruption you and your friends have been creating on this forum for some time

.

Here the true agenda is exposed.

Actually, only one aspect of my agenda is exposed: dealing with disruptors like you and several others.

This thread is the same pattern of every thread where the Pre Tribulation Rapture is even hinted at.

It has been derailed by you and your little clique.

Your only hope now is for the Staff to close the thread (and again I plead with the Staff not to do that, this issue needs to be addressed so that in the future people can come together and discuss these issues).

You are frustrated as all the other Cals destroy your carnal reasoning.

On the contrary, I have met no Calvinist that can stand in a Scripturally based discussion, nor an A-millennial, for that matter.

Any time you want to test your fantasy let me know.

I understand I have seen this many times.

You have never seen it with me, lol.

Except in that fantasy realm you dwell in, where truth is obscured for the sake of carnal reasoning that is forced to slice and dice both Scripture and the posts you think you answer.

Attack? no, just the truth.

Quote:
You derail the topic of the thread and turn it to what you really want to rail against.

That is DHK' M.O. ....

From what I see he is constantly forced to deal with your little club.

Every single thread that mentions a Pre-Tribulation view...there you are.

I have derailed a thread or two however.....

A thread or two?

lol

in the same way usually DHK posts something false that he claims is indisputable...

I am not concerned with what DHK does, in view right now is you and BW.

As to his involvement in this thread he was on topic in answering the argument against a post-trib view...a-millennialism.

The OP asked Preterists and A-millennials to start their own thread...making it clear that he did not see this as fitting the scope of the OP.

The response?

Can the preterists and amillenials start there own thread? This is specifically about arguments against a post trib rapture as given by mid trib and pre tribbers. Thank you.

Dream on. Maybe you can persuade the admins to create a 'dispies only' forum.

And we see the condescension to the OP and dispensationalists.

it is always proved wrong.

Not even close. The topic is always derailed by your incessant inclination to drag the topic into emotionally charged responses until the thread is shut down.

Which shows that self-glory takes a precedence over Doctrinal Discussion.

You need to learn that the Doctrine is the reason why many of us are here, to challenge what we believe by examining opposing beliefs.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
Quote:
Go start your own forum.

You obviously have no respect for the other members or staff on this forum

,

I get along fine with every other moderator since Skandelon left town,

lol

DHK wears two hats.....

What is wrong with that? Personally I think he shows great restraint in actually taking the time to debate some here.

and when he wears his anti cal hatred hat...he gets ripped up....

Maybe in that fantasy land you dwell in. He has presented some great arguments, and the argument presented concerning Spurgeon...

...still goes without answer.

As does my address of the false argument based on false premise has.

What that means, Iconoclast...

...is that argument stands.

We can see similarities to dispensational belief in Spurgeon's views. Which shows that some of the doctrinal views of dispensationalists are not views exclusive to dispensationalists.

And that is just one of the lie's taught on this forum in regards to dispensationalists, that these views were invented by Darby.

not him personally, but his false theories.

They are not theories, and he made that clear in quoting Spurgeon, who, I will add, he clarified to be a Calvinist, not a...

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
Spurgeon was not a dispensational premillennialist.

That is the false premise of the false argument. DHK is not found in error in his statement, BW is, and that is what you are defending.

so why not make your little club legitimate. I will even suggest a name: W.A.R. (We are Revilers). Maybe W.O.R.M. (We Offer Reformation Madness).

well again.... you do not grasp the teaching so you attack, no surprise.

Not only is it grasped it is addressed in detail in many, many posts across this forum and others.

I am not anti-Calvin, but in fact agree with a number of positions Calvin taught.

So again another false argument based upon false premise.

Quote:
Okay, just a little humor, but the fact is...nobody cares about your vendetta against people you don't know, and your confusion about Theologies you think you understand.

I hate false teaching

No you don't...you defend it, and it's teachers.

and caricatures of true doctrine, deliberate lies and falsehoods...

Then why are you always defending them?

this kind of sad posting is instigated by your side ,

Not by me.

and its carnal tactics.

The Public Record shows who is carnal, and who has a sincere interest in truth.

Most people are bored by your tactics and ignore them...I respond .

"Ignoring" is the coward's route.

Do I come across as afraid of addressing anyone?

Those who "ignore" me do so, not because they are bored, but because they cannot stand in a doctrinal discussion.

And the only thing I see you responding to is a perceived attack on a friend, lol.


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
Your rejection of the distinction between Israel and the Church which is clearly presented in Scripture is ludicrous.

That is one of the keys that is disputed. Your proud boasting..."saying"
[which is clearly presented in scripture} is not the final word....what is clear in scripture is this;
13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;

15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;

16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:

17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.

18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.

19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

That's great, now address the points raised which necessitated being "ignored." I guess this...

You will not refute that there are differing Ages or Economies in Biblical History;

red herring

You will not refute that there is a Rapture;
red herring
You will not refute there will be a Tribulation which is distinct period prophesied;
red herring..it is past
You will not refute that there will be a one thousand year period following the Tribulation;
red herring

You will not refute that Israel was not the Church;
red herring

And you will not refute any First Century Biblical teaching, which all of these are.
Chiliasts are not premill dispys....lol

...is supposed to addressing the points?

How about the points raised here...

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post

I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture.

I have given you one passage for consideration, here is another:


Hebrews 10

King James Version (KJV)

1 For the law having a shadow of good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with those sacrifices which they offered year by year continually make the comers thereunto perfect.

2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? because that the worshippers once purged should have had no more conscience of sins.

3 But in those sacrifices there is a remembrance again made of sins every year.

4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins.


There is no controversy as to whether Israel was under the Law. If the Writer of Hebrews thinks they were, and that the sacrifices they offered up were to be abandoned in favor of the Sacrifice of Christ, then perhaps you should consider that he might have known what he was talking about.

Show me the Old Testament Saint, whether under Law, or prior to it...who did not offer up animals for their sin.

Were they saved by grace through faith? Absolutely.

But were they eternally redeemed through the blood of Christ?

Try to prove that one, and you can show how the blood of bulls and goats stand on a par with the shed Blood of Christ.


Continued...

...?

Show me where these are "ripped up?" lol

Show me how calling a point a red herring is actually an address of a/the point/s?


Continued...

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
Your hatred against people who understand that is atrocious

.
I have no hatred of them as I was taught those falsehoods at one time.

Your hatred against people who understand that is atrocious.

Quote:
Your incessant disruption among those who sincerely want to understand these issues so they can make a reasoned decision and draw logical conclusions...is satanic.

Another ungodly attack by you.

Not an attack, is a simple truth that is seen in the Public Record.

You can't stand the thought of someone understanding why a Pre-Tribulation Rapture makes more sense than views that stumble all over themselves trying to reconcile the contradictions they raise.

Not only is it satanic it is very popish.

I do not think BB rules allow for this kind of ungodly expression....but it will get a pass

Show me a Staff Member that denies disruption among those seeking to do what this Forum was created to do is not satanic.

Just one.

You are not being called Satan, Iconoclast, your disruption is being called satanic.

That is made clear in my next statement:

Quote:
Sounds harsh, but only Satan wants to keep people from fulfilling this:

Harsh....no....just your usual foul posting.

Perhaps, but, if you can show me where your type of behavior is condoned in the Word of God, please do so.

Show me where disrespect for authority and disciple is godly behavior.

Show me where throwing truth out the window to defend a friend is godly.

God bless

.

You insinuate I have inappropriate interest in another poster, then say I am satanic....so you can save you trite little God bless as it rings hollow.

For your own good. Of course, you do not seem to worry much about how you come across to the public that may be coming here to see if this is a good forum to learn about God on.

Your posting reveals that.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Originally Posted by blessedwife318 View Post
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.

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

Again, I doubt seriously that the Staff is intentionally deleting posts. If that were the case, it would probably be for the purpose of keeping the poster from making a fool of him/herself any more than they already have, lol. But the Public Record shows that historically they allow members to do that, so doubt they have adopted such a policy of grace at this time.



On this forum if you spend too much time in your response you will be logged off. You can usually recover your post by hitting the back button, but sometimes a "This page cannot be found" will occur, so it is just a good idea to copy and paste any post you have spent any time on before posting.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

blessedwife318

Quote:
Thank you Icon.
Its clear to me that I hit a nerve with at least one poster. I counted at least 11 personal attacks that were made, but that is ok.

Truth will cut right down to the bone...

Seems to me if a nerve is hit then a likely reaction would be...to conveniently disappear.

12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart

And your thoughts and intents?

They are publicly declared, and the error only compounded in an attempt to cover it up.

I found them highly amusing, although my husband no so much

.

I bet I was getting mad because I could not get online...

You're not sure why you got mad?

I have already suggested the likely reason...your "friendship."

Thoughts and intents?

These cyber -rambos would not say the same to you if they were face to face with you with your husband standing right there

Don't be so sure about that. I am consistent in my approach to anyone, whether on the net, or in the real world.

And this goes two ways: most people do not behave in the real world as they do on forums, and that is a basic principle in social networking, to always treat people the same way you would if you were face to face with them.

Quote:
We need to be honest about our views and if someone is going to claim that Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist they should be able to back it up with his actual sermons, and or writings. To many people just take claims at face value, instead of looking at the source material.

yes...that is lacking.

What is lacking is an ability to understand that the lie is right here.

This is the lie you are perpetuating.

No-one said Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist, that is a false charge. It is the false premise of the false argument/s that ensue.

And this is not the only lie that is addressed on a continual basis, by the same people, all without respect for Doctrine and Practice of the Christian Believer.

You are more interested in making friends than disciples, and your discernment is publicly exposed as what is...

...lacking.

So go ahead, pat each other on the back, just remember that while you establish your little country club that there are those with a sincere desire to learn, and to understand the Doctrines which divide the Body of Christ.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

Quote:
If you have been following the discussion between DHK and OR for anytime you know that OR points out that Darby is the founder of Dispensationalism and DHK disputes that claim. That is the “false accusation the OR brings against Darby. He then talks about Spurgeon as you can see in my post were I quote him. He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s.

I then proceeded to point out that one cannot put Spurgeon in the Dispensational camp. It’s fairly straight forward

.

yes it is.

It really is: DHK points out similarities of Spurgeon's views and he is charged with calling Spurgeon a dispensational pre-millennial, which was a flase premise used to engage in a false argument.

I then proceeded to point out that one cannot put Spurgeon in the Dispensational camp. It’s fairly straight forward

So who did this?

See above. Although I don’t think everyone is sick of hearing this. And this is a debate forum, so just because you are sick of hearing this doesn’t mean I have to stop

.

correct

Not correct: just because your club is not sick of it doesn't mean others are not.

The OP clearly asks Preterists and A-millennials to start their own thread rather than disrupting this one.

If DHK is offended by my post then he can let me know and we will resolve it between the two of us

.

He claimed he was taking the high road

I doubt he is offended, but that does not change the fact that I am addressing it, and the focal point is being ignored.

I did read, but your attack is noted.

:thumbs:

You love this stuff, don't you.

Division in the Body.

But that's not satanic, is it?

Again your attack is noted.

:sleeping_2:

That is pretty apparent.

I have no intention of doing any of the above, as I’m not that much of a glutton for punishment. Already you have shown a taste of the personal attacks that would come my way if I tried.

shameful as those attacks were!

Note the content of my statement is ignored. A direct challenge to address the issues.

If someone addresses these issues they are of course...attacking. But the fact remains that the charges levied have not been demonstrated to be false. Thus they cannot be called an attack.

In fact it is a repeat of the same error:

Originally Posted by Iconoclast View Post

Quote:
Quote:
We need to be honest about our views and if someone is going to claim that Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist they should be able to back it up with his actual sermons, and or writings. To many people just take claims at face value, instead of looking at the source material.

yes...that is lacking.

You are not a friend to BW, you are her worst enemy right now.

The only intention I have is to show that one cannot place Spurgeon and Watts into the same camp as Darby. It apparently hit a nerve with you. Why is that? If you are so sure of your position it should not matter to you that Spurgeon and Watts do not agree with you.[/

QUOTE]
yes....

No.

The only intention is to avoid the fact that no-one placed Spurgeon in the same camp with Darby.


God bless.

 

[Iconoclast]

So you charge the Forum Staff with impropriety.

Probably due to user error.

The posts that have disappeared have reappeared, this based only on what another member informed me.




Yup.




Wouldn't know that by your posting.




No, actually you don't. You defend nothing but what you see as honest, godly, and truth.

I have already pointed out your defense of dishonesty.




I wish he would...that is his role.

Not his wife's.




And she also follows your conversations? And is perfectly fine with internet relationships?




And of course the Staff made them disappear because they fear the truth getting out, right? lol




Or poor posting abilities, maybe?




So do them over.


God bless.

Here is a news flash for you......a certain moderator you know has already deleted several posts that he did not like.....in the look at two months and has said so, so do not suggest that it cannot or does not happen......not only was my lengthy post disappeared, but 3 private messages also disappeared never to return.....I know because I started to open them, responded to the first and then they were gone....lol.......you claim it did not happen when 4 people told you it did.....wonderful!