Pre-trib rapture

[Ed Edwards]

Comparing the rapture/resurrection (R) AKA: gathering
with the Second Advent (SC): when Jesus comes
to destroy the Antichrist and set up the
Millennial Messanic Kingdom AKA: Glorious Appearance.

1R. Jesus comes for His own ( given physical bodies)
(John 14:3, 1 Thess 4:17)
1SC. Jesus comes with His own (already have physical bodies) (Rev 19:14)

2R. Jesus comes in the air (1 Thes 4:17)
2SC. Jesus comes to the earth
(Zech 14:4-5, Acts 1:11)

3R. Jesus comes to claim His Bride
(1 Thess 4:16-17)
3SC. Jesus comes with His Bride
(Rev 19:6-14)

4R. end of the Gentile Age
(Matthew 24:3, 24:31-44)
4SC. end of the Tribulation Period
(Revelation 19)

5R. Tribulation period begins
5SC. Millennial Kingdom begins

6R. Saved are delivered from wrath
(1 Thes 1:10, 5:9; Rev 3:10)
6SC. Unsaved experience the wrath of God
(Rev 6:12-17)

7R. No Signs precede the Rapture
(1 Thess. 5:1-3, Matthew 24:31-44)
7SC. Signs precede the Second Coming
(Luke 21-11-28, Matthew 24:21-30)

8R. Focus: Lord and Church
(1 Thess 4:13-18)
8SC. Focus: Israel and kingdom
(Romans 11)

9R. World is deceived (2 Thess 2:3-12)
9SC. Satan is bound (Rev 20:1-2)

10R. No judgement mentioned on earth
10SC. Follows the Tribulation period
judgement and followed by the sheep/goats
judgement.

11R. Time of joy. (1Thessalonians 4:17-18)
11SC. Time of sorrow. (Matthew 24:30)

12R. relative peace and prosperity. (Lk.17:26-30).
12SC. the worst war the world has ever seen. (Mt.24:21,22).

13R. Christians are promised they will be delivered
-- from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10, 5:9)
13SC. Israeli are told to flee the wrath to come (Matt 3:7, Luke 3:7)

 

[dwmoeller1]

27 each day of the Lord found

Thanks for the verses. Question: What is there in these verses to suggest that they are not all speaking ultimately of the same general event?

 

[dwmoeller1]

Dwmoeller1: //;Your basic argument is sound (ie. the structure
of the argument means that IF the premises are true,
then the conclusion must be true). The problem is that
you haven't demonstrated that the key premise is true.//

I will not demonstrate that the key premise is true.
It is up to the Holy Spirit to convince you that
the key premise is true.

Nope sorry, that won't cut it. Why? Because I could just as easily say that it is up to the HS to convince you that the key premise is false. If you aren't going to actually suport your case but instead take a "I am more spiritually perceptive/informed than you" position, then this is no longer a profitable discussion and I have no interest in it. Nothing personal, but I stated at the begging of the thread my goals and expectations.

In 1969-1976 I was qualified in the state of Oklahoma to
teach logic to 15-year-olds. So I know logic.
So I say with authority: //I can not demonstrate that
the key premise is true. So I won't even try.

If you cannot, then, as a logic teacher, you should know that the argument is guilt of begging the question - its premise assumes what the argument seeks to prove. So, as a logic teacher knowing this, why would you expect anyone to accept a fallacious argument?

However, what the Bible says is clear.
All one has to do is read it.

If it is clear, then one should be able to demonstrate that what they claim about it is logically supportable.

Caveat: If the Holy Spirit leads you to be a
post-trib pre-mill futurist - then be the best post-trib
pre-mill futurist you can be.

This doesn't make sense. How can the HS lead two different people to hold mutually contradictory positions?

BTW, I am an amil posttrib.

 

[Ed Edwards]

The Rapture is imminent, it could take place
at any moment (Titus 2:13;
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18;
1 Corinthians 15:50-54).

dwmoeller1: //Where in these passages is it indicated that
the rapture could take place 'at any moment'?//

Titus 2:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God,
and our Sauiour Iesus Christ,

I hope it will take place soon -- this hope
has blessed me for 58 years so far.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

1Th 4:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
But I would not haue you to be ignorant, brethren,
concerning them which are asleepe, that ye sorrow not,
euen as others which haue no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we beleeue that Iesus died,
and rose againe: euen so them also which sleepe
in Iesus, will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say vnto you by
the word of the Lord, That we which are aliue
and remaine vnto the comming of the Lord,
shall not preuent them which are asleepe.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himselfe shall descend
from heauen with a shout, with the voyce
of the Archangel, and with the trumpe of God:
and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
1Th 4:17 Then we which are aliue, and remaine,
shalbe caught vp together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the aire:
and so shall wee euer bee with the Lord.
1Th 4:18 Wherefore, comfort one an other
with these words.

IMHO an imminent Rapture is more comforting
than one AT LEAST seven years away.
IMHO an imminent Rapture isn't as
ignorant as one AT LEAST seven years away.

1 Corinthians 15:50-54)

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh & blood
cannot inherite the kingdome of God: neither
doth corruption inherite incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mysterie:
we shall not all sleepe, but wee shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinckling
of an eye, at the last trumpe, (for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.)
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortall must put on immortalitie.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall haue
put on incorruption, & this mortall shall
haue put on immortality, then shall be brought
to passe the saying that is written, Death is swallowed vp in victorie.

In the time it takes to blow a trumpet, the rapture takes place
-- quick is imminent.

Many places you turn in the Bible you find the Doctrine
of the Imminency of the return of Christ:

1. to take His own home with Him
2. to destroy the Antichrist, destroy the works of the Antichrist,
and set up a physical/literal Millinnial Messanic Kingdom.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Thanks for the verses. Question: What
is there in these verses to suggest that they are
not all speaking ultimately of the same general event?

Consider this verse:

2 Peter 3:10 (KJV1611 Edition):
But the day of the Lord wil come as a thiefe in the night,
in the which the heauens shall passe away with a great noise,
and the Elements shall melt with feruent heate,
the earth also and the works that are therin shalbe burnt vp.

If that verse and Revleation 20 speak of the same time
period: from when the Lord comes as a thief in the night
to when the heavens & earth are destroyed:
then this THE DAY OF THE LORD is a least 1,000 years long.

BTW, the difference between post-trib a-mill
and pretribulation pre-mill can be shown in four or
five different words: three of them being 'and'.
So get ready to talk about 'and' (English) and a
similiar Greek word 'Kai'.

OF course, if one wants ONE DEFINITION of 'day of the Lord'
then I like this one:

DAY OF THE LORD - when God intercedes personally
in the affairs of mankind


I need to run buy an air filter for a car for a 15-year-old.

 

[dwmoeller1]

1R. Jesus comes for His own ( given physical bodies)
(John 14:3, 1 Thess 4:17)
1SC. Jesus comes with His own (already have physical bodies) (Rev 19:14)

Both are true at the same time. He comes. His own meet (apantesis) Him in the air are are given new bodies. They all then continue with Him to the earth. Only by first assuming that the events are different could one show they are mutually contradictory in this. As you know as a logic teacher, that would be fallacious reasoning.

2R. Jesus comes in the air (1 Thes 4:17)
2SC. Jesus comes to the earth
(Zech 14:4-5, Acts 1:11)

Jesus comes in the air and then comes to earth (Matt 24, 25). Again, only different events if one begs the question.

3R. Jesus comes to claim His Bride
(1 Thess 4:16-17)
3SC. Jesus comes with His Bride
(Rev 19:6-14)

Same response as to 1R.

4R. end of the Gentile Age
(Matthew 24:3, 24:31-44)
4SC. end of the Tribulation Period
(Revelation 19)

Matt 24 refers to the SC. Thus, your verses would show that the SC is at the end of the gentile age.

5R. Tribulation period begins
5SC. Millennial Kingdom begins

No support given. Why? Seems like another case of begging the question.

6R. Saved are delivered from wrath
(1 Thes 1:10, 5:9; Rev 3:10)
6SC. Unsaved experience the wrath of God
(Rev 6:12-17)

The SC is a time when both the saved are delivered from wrath and the unsaved experience wrath at the same event (Matt 24, 25)

7R. No Signs precede the Rapture
(1 Thess. 5:1-3, Matthew 24:31-44)
7SC. Signs precede the Second Coming
(Luke 21-11-28, Matthew 24:21-30)

Matt 24:31-44 refers to the SC not the rapture. Again, the fallacy of begging the question.

8R. Focus: Lord and Church
(1 Thess 4:13-18)
8SC. Focus: Israel and kingdom
(Romans 11)

Rom 11 makes no mention of the SC. Therefore, again, the fallacy of begging the question.

9R. World is deceived (2 Thess 2:3-12)
9SC. Satan is bound (Rev 20:1-2)

Please clarify. Is the world deceived before or after the rapture?

10R. No judgement mentioned on earth
10SC. Follows the Tribulation period
judgement and followed by the sheep/goats
judgement.

Premise: Rapture passages do not mention judgment.
Conclusion: The world is not judged at the rapture and it continues in sin.

In its present form the argument is invalid. To make it valid, an unstated premise must be added. Then it would read as follows:
First premise (Unstated): If judgment is associated with an event, the relevant passages will make mention of that judgment.
Second premise: Rapture passages do not mention judgment.
Conclusion: The world is not judged at the rapture and it continues in sin.

Though the argument is now valid in form, it is, nevertheless, unsound. Why? Because the unstated premise is false. There are any number of Second Coming passages which have no reference to judgment. Consider, for instance, Acts 1:11, which reads, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven." Though it is obviously a prophecy about the Second Coming—the event associated with judgment—it contains no mention of judgment.

11R. Time of joy. (1Thessalonians 4:17-18)
11SC. Time of sorrow. (Matthew 24:30)

The SC is also a time of joy - a time of joy for believers. Thus, the 'contrast' above relies on an equivocation.

12R. relative peace and prosperity. (Lk.17:26-30).
12SC. the worst war the world has ever seen. (Mt.24:21,22).

Luke 17 is speaking of the SC, not the rapture - its almost identically parallel to Matt 24.

13R. Christians are promised they will be delivered
-- from the wrath to come (1 Thes 1:10, 5:9)
13SC. Israeli are told to flee the wrath to come (Matt 3:7, Luke 3:7)

Specifically Christians are told they will be delivered from the wrath of God. Unbelievers and hypocrites ('brood of vipers' is the term) are told to flee that wrath. How does one flee the wrath to come? By repenting and coming to Christ. Thus it is those who come to Christ and repent that 'flee the wrath to come'.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Consider this verse:

2 Peter 3:10 (KJV1611 Edition):
But the day of the Lord wil come as a thiefe in the night,
in the which the heauens shall passe away with a great noise,
and the Elements shall melt with feruent heate,
the earth also and the works that are therin shalbe burnt vp.

If that verse and Revleation 20 speak of the same time
period: from when the Lord comes as a thief in the night
to when the heavens & earth are destroyed:
then this THE DAY OF THE LORD is a least 1,000 years long.

Why would these verses be speaking of the same time period. If we are to compare 2 Pet 3:10 with verses in Rev, it would be with Rev 21:1. There is nothing in 2 Pet 3:10 which would cause us to see it as refering to Rev 20:1-10.

 

[dwmoeller1]

The Rapture is imminent, it could take place
at any moment (Titus 2:13;
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18;
1 Corinthians 15:50-54).

dwmoeller1: //Where in these passages is it indicated that
the rapture could take place 'at any moment'?//

Titus 2:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
Tit 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope,
and the glorious appearing of the great God,
and our Sauiour Iesus Christ,

I see no mention of the rapture. Instead, it mentions the glorious appearing of Christ. If we look at Matt 24, then it would seem to be refering to the SC. On what basis do you say that this is in reference to the rapture instead?

I hope it will take place soon -- this hope
has blessed me for 58 years so far.

Same here (except on 30 years for me ). I look with hope for the glorious appearing of Christ.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18

1Th 4:13 (KJV1611 Edition):
But I would not haue you to be ignorant, brethren,
concerning them which are asleepe, that ye sorrow not,
euen as others which haue no hope.
1Th 4:14 For if we beleeue that Iesus died,
and rose againe: euen so them also which sleepe
in Iesus, will God bring with him.
1Th 4:15 For this we say vnto you by
the word of the Lord, That we which are aliue
and remaine vnto the comming of the Lord,
shall not preuent them which are asleepe.
1Th 4:16 For the Lord himselfe shall descend
from heauen with a shout, with the voyce
of the Archangel, and with the trumpe of God:
and the dead in Christ shall rise first.
1Th 4:17 Then we which are aliue, and remaine,
shalbe caught vp together with them
in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the aire:
and so shall wee euer bee with the Lord.
1Th 4:18 Wherefore, comfort one an other
with these words.

IMHO an imminent Rapture is more comforting
than one AT LEAST seven years away.
IMHO an imminent Rapture isn't as
ignorant as one AT LEAST seven years away.

While you may consider this more comforting, this does not argue for imminency.

The hope present in this verse is the hope of the resurrection and transformation. This hope remains as strong and as true no matter how far in the future it may be. How close or far away the event is is irrelevant to the hope given in the passage. Even if we know that we will go through 7 years of tribulation before this, this would not diminish that hope at all since we know that, whether we are dead or still alive, we will be assured of a new body and meeting Christ.

In fact, notice vs. 13 defines what Paul is speaking of when he mentions 'hope'. He make no mention of the hope being associated with an imminent coming, but instead the hope is solely about not despairing over those who have died in Christ. Our hope here is not that the rapture is soon, but that those who have died Christ will 'bring with Him' when He comes. That is the hope in the context. Whether you feel it is more comforting if it comes sooner is irrelevent to what the passage is speaking about.

1 Corinthians 15:50-54)

1Co 15:50 Now this I say, brethren, that flesh & blood
cannot inherite the kingdome of God: neither
doth corruption inherite incorruption.
1Co 15:51 Behold, I shew you a mysterie:
we shall not all sleepe, but wee shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinckling
of an eye, at the last trumpe, (for the trumpet
shall sound, and the dead shall be raised
incorruptible, and we shall be changed.)
1Co 15:53 For this corruptible must put on incorruption,
and this mortall must put on immortalitie.
1Co 15:54 So when this corruptible shall haue
put on incorruption, & this mortall shall
haue put on immortality, then shall be brought
to passe the saying that is written, Death is swallowed vp in victorie.

In the time it takes to blow a trumpet, the rapture takes place
-- quick is imminent.

Equivocation. Quick is not imminent. Imminent is defined as "soon to come", not as "quick to happen".

Many places you turn in the Bible you find the Doctrine
of the Imminency of the return of Christ:

Yet imminency isn't in the passages you have given.

 

[npetreley]

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of imminency. Indeed, we are told to look for signs of His return. And Paul warned the Thessalonians that they can know that the Day of the Lord has not yet come because they haven't yet seen the man of sin revealed -- which means Paul assumed they would be here to see the man of sin revealed (which is well after the pre-trib rapture).

This raises one major problem with pre-trib. Pre-tribbers tend to focus on the fact that we will not know the day or hour of His return. Then they map out the chronologies of the end times and conclude that if the rapture is mid-trib or post-trib, we would know the day or hour of His return --- hence mid-trib and post-trib cannot be true.

Here's the passage they miss in the defense of post-trib (or pre-wrath):

Matthew 24:21 For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now—and never to be equaled again. 22 If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.

Jesus returns immediately after the Great Tribulation. The Great Tribulation is cut short for the sake of the elect. It doesn't say HOW short. We have no idea when He will cut it short and return. He returns immediately after the cut short Great Tribulation, and we do not know the day or hour of His return (and the rapture).

 

[dwmoeller1]

The Bible does not teach the doctrine of imminency.

Here I will disagree with you slightly. If imminency is defined in the typical pretrib manner as 'not being needed to be preceded by any signs' then I agree - imminency of that sort is not taught. If however, imminency is defined in the more normal way as being simply 'soon to come', then I disagree with you. There are too many references to Christ's coming being something to expect as soon to be occuring to reject that meaning of imminency as being Scriptural.

Revelation 22:20
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus.

Just a clarification on imminency which I thought would be useful to keep in mind.

 

[npetreley]

Here I will disagree with you slightly. If imminency is defined in the typical pretrib manner as 'not being needed to be preceded by any signs' then I agree - imminency of that sort is not taught. If however, imminency is defined in the more normal way as being simply 'soon to come', then I disagree with you. There are too many references to Christ's coming being something to expect as soon to be occuring to reject that meaning of imminency as being Scriptural.

Revelation 22:20
He who testifies to these things says, "Yes, I am coming quickly " Amen Come, Lord Jesus.

Just a clarification on imminency which I thought would be useful to keep in mind.

I agree 100%. I should have been more clear, thanks.

 

[Ed Edwards]

// Caveat: If the Holy Spirit leads you to be a
post-trib pre-mill futurist - then be the best post-trib
pre-mill futurist you can be.//

dwmoeller1; //This doesn't make sense. How can the HS lead two different people to hold mutually contradictory positions? //

Pre-trib pre-mill futurist and
post-trib pre-mill futurist
are NOT mutually contradictory
positions. They have in common:
pre-mill futurist.

In fact, most pretribs of this sort
believe in a post-tribulation rapture/resurrection.
(The post-tribs only don't believe in the
pretribuation rapture/resurrection).

 

[dwmoeller1]

(The post-tribs only don't believe in the
pretribuation rapture/resurrection).

And therefore it is mutually contradictory with the pretrib position. If one holds that there is *no* pretrib rapture and the other holds that there is, then the positions are mutually contradictory on that point - both can't be true at the same time.

 

[DQuixote]

Logical, from the natural man, = intellectual. The key to biblical interpretation is spiritual, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. We understand scripture through spiritual discernment. Anything else is just a war of words.

I really admire your insights, Ed. You've done a good job of laying it all out. I'd love to have the time to download everything in this thread and answer each item one by one. Sadly, that isn't possible. Suffice it to say that my original post and your presentation are spiritually discerned and therefore accurate. Yippeeee!! :jesus: :godisgood: :thumbs:

Just an additional comment in passing:



The rapture, the Parousia, is for the church. It comes "like a thief in the night", not accompanied by signs and wonders. The 2nd Coming, the Epiphaneia, 7 years later, brings with it huge, awful, unmistakable warfare against evil, probably as a Grand Finale to war in the Middle East:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect* from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31)



​

His 'elect' , np, are those who spiritually survived the Tribulation, the church having been raptured 7 years before. The 'elect' will be those who responded to the 144,000 witnesses during the Trib, including those Jews who fled to Petra 3 1/2 years into the Trib.​

To repeat:

Logical = intellectual. The key to biblical interpretation is spiritual, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. Anything else is just a war of words.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Logical, from the natural man, = intellectual. The key to biblical interpretation is spiritual, 1 Corinthians 2:1-16. We understand scripture through spiritual discernment. Anything else is just a war of words.

So why don't you accept what the Spirit is trying to teach you about the passages. Why aren't you spiritual enough to see what I see? Do you see the problem with that sort of position?

Logical and spiritual are not opposed. Paul consistently uses logic to make his points. The problem with logic is that it is merely a tool. If one starts with good premises (ones that come from Scripture and the Spirit), one comes to good conclusions. If one starts with bad premises (ie. ones which come from carnal man), one comes to bad conclusions. Thus, the problem is not the use of logic, but not having the mind of Christ. It is not intellect which is opposed to spirit but intellect which depends on man's perspective and understanding.

Why do I say this? Because you yourself use logic to reach and understanding of Scripture. Otherwise, why try to show differences between the rapture and the SC - that is a logical/intellectual argument. If you were consistent with what you say above, you wouldn't bother showing such contrast as that would be hypocritical.

Suffice it to say that my original post and your presentation are spiritually discerned and therefore accurate. Yippeeee!! :jesus: :godisgood: :thumbs:

So argue all cult leaders. Such is a favorite line of reasoning of men like Benny Hinn. Such an argument is contrary to what Paul shows. I could just as well say that my position is spiritually discerned and thus accurate (meaning yours isn't) - where would that leave us and how would we determine which is actually the truth.

I am sorry that you have bought into Satan's lie that logic and spirit are opposed. If you were truly spiritual in your interpretation then you wouldn't have made this mistake.

The rapture, the Parousia, is for the church. It comes "like a thief in the night", not accompanied by signs and wonders. The 2nd Coming, the Epiphaneia, 7 years later, brings with it huge, awful, unmistakable warfare against evil, probably as a Grand Finale to war in the Middle East:

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, and the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken; then will appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory; and he will send out his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect* from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other. (Matthew 24:29-31)​

Yet Christ Himself says that His Second Coming will be like a thief (Matt 24:43). How can both the rapture and the SC come like a thief and yet still be mutually contradictory?​

 

[DQuixote]

I had to spend some time with the Lord before I responded.

This is spiritual talk?

I am sorry that you have bought into Satan's lie that logic and spirit are opposed. If you were truly spiritual in your interpretation then you wouldn't have made this mistake.

Human logic: faulty in spiritual matters.

Spiritual logic: guided by the Holy Spirit, in view of 1 Corinthians 2:1-16 and several other references.

I do not debate things spiritual. Amen. Case closed. Have a nice day.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dwmoeller1: //Logical and spiritual are not opposed.
Paul consistently uses logic to make his points.
The problem with logic is that it is merely a tool.
If one starts with good premises (ones that come from
Scripture and the Spirit), one comes to good conclusions.//

Amen, Brother Dwmoeller1 - Preach it!

Now you need to work on understanding what you said
and actually using it.

Post #10 is a summary of Biblical ideas plus my insites
IT IS NOT A LOGICAL PROOF.
A logical proof starts with some undefined
terms and some agreed upon presmesis
-- neither of which we have established.
Thus I HAVEN'T proved anything
(and you can't disprove it until i attempt to prove it).

Prophecy is either fulfilled, to be fulfilled, or both.
It is not TRUE or FALSE until the time of the
fulfilling. So Prophecy is NOT subject to logic.
I tryed to say this some other way which was
confused with Petitio Principii (begging the quesiton).
I've not committed the sin (well, logical error)
of begging the question. I have bent over backwards
to stress - I'm not logically proving anything.
Not only can one not prove anything about prophecy,
as soon as one does, it is no longer prophecy.
Prophecy is faith stuff, things that are proved are sight
stuff.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Dwmoeller1, apparenlty to DQuixote:
//I am sorry that you have bought into Satan's lie
that logic and spirit are opposed. If you were truly
spiritual in your interpretation then you wouldn't have made this mistake.//

Foul!

1. It is a foul of arrogence to say 'I am sorry' for
things which are NOT under your authority.
You, Sir Dwmoeller1 do NOT have any authority over
the ability of DQuixote to buy 'into Satan's lie'.
So, Sir Dwmoeller1 - you have commited a foul.

2. Sir Dwmoeller1 started this Topic with:
//1. No statements about the other side not understanding
Scripture, etc. They are unhelpful and, IMO, prideful sorts of things.//

You, Sir Dwmoeller1, have violated your own 'rule'
by casting doubt on the spirituality of DQuixote.
Through reading many of the posts of DQuixote
I find him a competent individual (didn't say I always
agreed) and he has every right to determine his own
relation of 'logic' and the 'spirit'.
So, Sir Dwmoeller1 - you have commited a foul.

 

[dwmoeller1]

Dwmoeller1, apparenlty to DQuixote:
//I am sorry that you have bought into Satan's lie
that logic and spirit are opposed. If you were truly
spiritual in your interpretation then you wouldn't have made this mistake.//

Foul!

1. It is a foul of arrogence to say 'I am sorry' for
things which are NOT under your authority.
You, Sir Dwmoeller1 do NOT have any authority over
the ability of DQuixote to buy 'into Satan's lie'.
So, Sir Dwmoeller1 - you have commited a foul.

2. Sir Dwmoeller1 started this Topic with:
//1. No statements about the other side not understanding
Scripture, etc. They are unhelpful and, IMO, prideful sorts of things.//

You, Sir Dwmoeller1, have violated your own 'rule'
by casting doubt on the spirituality of DQuixote.
Through reading many of the posts of DQuixote
I find him a competent individual (didn't say I always
agreed) and he has every right to determine his own
relation of 'logic' and the 'spirit'.
So, Sir Dwmoeller1 - you have commited a foul.

Good I am glad someone recognized it for what it was...I was beginning to wonder if anyone had read the OP.

For the record, I was not serious. It was DQuixote own logic being redirected back to him. As EE says, that is a foul. Just so's you know, I would never say such a thing in seriousness. Please though folks, that sort of position is nothing but arrogance distilled. I spent some time working with what turned out to be a semi-cultic group and that sort of twisting of thought was one of their favorite control techniques. Claiming spiritual knowledge in contradiction or denial of logic is the sort of things the Benny Hinns of the world love to rely on.

So, lets not have any of that here please.

 

[Ed Edwards]

Post references are to the post-trib topic at:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=972983#post972983

Mel Miller in post #17: //In Post #12 EE shows his confusion:

“IMHO the Great Day of the Lord = The first coming of Jesus.
The Notable Day of the Lord = The second coming of Jesus”.
[But Pentecost was after the first coming of Jesus].//

Thank you. That shows that the Great Day of the Lord
consisted of two comings of God to earth
(seperated by 33 years)
just as the Notable day of the Lord will consist of two
comings of God to earth (seperated by 7-years
as predicted by Daniel).