The strong case against a pre-tribulation rapture

[Rippon]

After having done some research, I would conclude that not only are the Reformed Churches that I referred to hyper-Calvinists, but so are you!!

You are way out of line there Buster. That kind of stupidity is uncalled for.

When you can't find anything to support your lost causes you stoop to the gutter.

You have neither proven that the Dutch Reformed Church that Corrie Ten Boom was connected with was hyper-Calvinitic nor that hyper-Calvinism is rampant in Presbyterianism. When you cannot bring yourself to admit your charges are baseless you lash out with typical DHK tactics --throwing mud.

 

[saturneptune]

You are way out of line there Buster. That kind of stupidity is uncalled for.

When you can't find anything to support your lost causes you stoop to the gutter.

You have neither proven that the Dutch Reformed Church that Corrie Ten Boom was connected with was hyper-Calvinitic nor that hyper-Calvinism is rampant in Presbyterianism. When you cannot bring yourself to admit your charges are baseless you lash out with typical DHK tactics --throwing mud.

So lets see. Me, DHK, and TND, not to mention many, many others are heretics, liars, false teachers, gutter stoopers, all because we do not agree with you on this or that doctrine. Could it be you protest too loudly? Does painting a sharp, clear picture of you make you angry. Your post sounds like a three year old that did not get a toy at Walmart.

Having served in PCA churches and presbyteries for years, and read quite a bit of history of the Presbyterian Church, you neither understand Presbyterianism or the difference between the major branches, never mind the minor ones. The first fact you need to get straight is that Knox founded the Presbyterian church, not Calvin.

Why are you a Baptist and expect everyone to believe as a Presbyterian does? Why do you give Calvin a pass on infant baptism and separation of church and state? We will not even get into the way he ran his government. That has been beat to death.

I know exactly why I am a Baptist, and understand exactly where I came from, the PCA. You give the impression you have no idea where you came from, and only a vague idea of where you are headed. A lack of direction is what produces posts like this one.

 

[Rippon]

First of all:You rarely even know what is being discussed on various threads because you just love to swoop down and leave a deposit.

Having served in PCA churches and presbyteries for years,

You were unregenerate in your PCA days and for a number of years as a Baptist.

you neither understand Presbyterianism or the difference between the major branches, never mind the minor ones.

Keep making your bold assertions with no regard for facts.

The first fact you need to get straight is that Knox founded the Presbyterian church, not Calvin.

That has nothing whatsoever to do with anything that has been brought up here. Besides your ignorance of Knox has been evident from past conversations. If, in the meantime you have done your homework, that's fine and dandy.

Why are you a Baptist and expect everyone to believe as a Presbyterian does?

I do not as you know perfectly well. I have said that there is commonground between conservative Presbyterian denominations such as the PCA and OPC etc. and Reformed Baptists.

Why do you give Calvin a pass on infant baptism and separation of church and state?

I don't give him a pass. You know very well know that I have frequently said that I do not agree with Calvin on every particular belief he held. As Spurgeon said in essence :"In the main I agree with Calvin."

We will not even get into the way he ran his government.

He did not run the government of Geneva. You have constantly demeaned him. Slander is your calling card.

That has been beat to death.

With your club.

You give the impression you have no idea where you came from, and only a vague idea of where you are headed.

Your spiritual immaturity crops up in nearly every post of yours Mike.

Why have you evaded very specific items I addressed in my last two posts to you? You asked me direct things. I answered fully. You respond with this last post of yours --focus man,focus. What are you afraid of --an honest conversation?

 

[DHK]

You are way out of line there Buster. That kind of stupidity is uncalled for.

When you can't find anything to support your lost causes you stoop to the gutter.

You have neither proven that the Dutch Reformed Church that Corrie Ten Boom was connected with was hyper-Calvinitic nor that hyper-Calvinism is rampant in Presbyterianism. When you cannot bring yourself to admit your charges are baseless you lash out with typical DHK tactics --throwing mud.

Your name-calling is uncalled for. Do you think that you can post without intelligently and with grace at the same time??
I didn't stoop to the gutter. I provided you with a link that did research, which obviously touched a nerve, and you reacted quite emotionally. Why not react with your brain instead of your emotions.

She was connected with hyper-calvinism, as you are a hyper-calvinist. I can say that with some authority now.

This is what defines a hyper-Calvinist.

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica][SIZE=+1]A hyper-Calvinist is someone who either:

1. Denies that the gospel call applies to all who hear, OR
2. Denies that faith is the duty of every sinner, OR
3. Denies that the gospel makes any "offer" of Christ, salvation, or mercy to the non-elect (or denies that the offer of divine mercy is free and universal), OR
4. Denies that there is such a thing as "common grace," OR
5. Denies that God has any sort of love for the non-elect.

[/FONT][/SIZE]

http://www.bivosmallchurch.net/resources/Religions/Calvinism/Hyper-Calvinism.htm

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica]You fit many of those categories, but especially #2.

[/FONT]

 

[BobRyan]

So lets see. Me, ..., not to mention many, many others are heretics, liars, false teachers, gutter stoopers, all because we do not agree with you on this or that doctrine.

Frankly I am amazed to see Saturneptune using this argument.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Rippon]

Frankly I am amazed to see Saturneptune using this argument.

in Christ,

Bob

You can say that again!

 

[Rippon]

Your name-calling is uncalled for.

You are quite the hyocrite after calling me a hyper-Calvinist. Through the years here on the BB you have said that I serve another God,that I worship another God,that my religion is not much different than Islam etc.You have absolutely no room to talk DHK.

You sling mud and then pretend to take the high at the same time. You called me a hyper-Calvinist. That is a false allegation. Do not bear false witness DHK.

As I quoted on another thread:"Some critics of Calvinism persist in referring to the doctrines of grace as 'hyper-Calvinism.' Hyper-Calvinism undermines the gospel and should also not be used as a label against those who explicitly repudiate it." (Justin Taylor)

You use pejorative language like a club such as calling me or Icon a hyper-Calvinist. That is not the kind of conduct appropriate for a moderator.

I provided you with a link that did research

Your "links" are notoriously weak connections at best.

She was connected with hyper-calvinism, as you are a hyper-calvinist. I can say that with some authority now.

You are still just as wrong on this account as you were when you claimed that hyper-Calvinism is rising in the ranks of Presbyterianism.

The Dutch Reformed Church at the latter end of the 19th century in Corrie Ten Boom's young life was not hyper-Calvinistic. And she certainly was a far cry from any h-C beliefs.

Take a gander at things you have said and follow your own advice


"Don't post things here without evidence." 2/16/12
"If you are going to make unfounded statements then you have to back them up. Please provide documentation."2/15/12

This is what defines a hyper-Calvinist.

I have gone through this multiple times with you and others.Just look at the archives.

You fit many of those categories, but especially #2.

Nonsense --another false allegation. Of course I believe that everyone is accountable to God --that it lies at the foot of every person to believe the Gospel. No one can give the Lord an excuse that it wasn't their responsibility.

This is another quote of Phil Johnson's that I gave you on an earlier occasion which you did not resond to:
"Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists will protest that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing...Man's own inability is something he is guility for,and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of responsibility.The two spring from the same polluted source. The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how hyper-Calvinists and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility."

And I have often repeated what Jim Ellis has said about hyper-Calvinism:"[It] consists of two fundamental errors:A denial of duty faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel"

Now after all the time I have taken to disabuse you once again! of your slanderous remarks --don't do it again.

 

[DHK]

You are quite the hyocrite after calling me a hyper-Calvinist. Through the years here on the BB you have said that I serve another God,that I worship another God,that my religion is not much different than Islam etc.You have absolutely no room to talk DHK.

I use comparison and contrast a lot. I note that you are overly sensitive and resent comparisons. For example, I will not withhold the comparison of the hyper-Calvinist belief of hard determinism to the fatalism of Islam. The result is the same. But you are so sensitive and emotional that you will turn that around and accuse me of calling your beliefs or even you a Muslim, which is not what I said. In reality you are the one that twists my words.

You sling mud and then pretend to take the high at the same time. You called me a hyper-Calvinist. That is a false allegation. Do not bear false witness DHK.

Before you accuse me of slinging mud, I suggest you go back and read some of your own posts--even on this very thread. You point your finger at others, but you have at least three pointing back at yourself.
I called you a hyper-Calvinist. That is true.
According to the definition given on that page, yes, you are a hyper-Calvinist. Live with it. Or change your views.

As I quoted on another thread:"Some critics of Calvinism persist in referring to the doctrines of grace as 'hyper-Calvinism.' Hyper-Calvinism undermines the gospel and should also not be used as a label against those who explicitly repudiate it." (Justin Taylor)

As the article points out, the gospel needs a response of faith. You (as a hyper-Calvinist) do not believe that the unsaved are capable of putting faith in the gospel. You believe that God has to give them the faith first--a ridiculous position. That is your hyper-Calvinist position--that man is unable to believe.

You use pejorative language like a club such as calling me or Icon a hyper-Calvinist. That is not the kind of conduct appropriate for a moderator.

You are more than just "moderate." I don't apologize. The word is not simply a pejorative. It is an accurate term, well defined.

You are still just as wrong on this account as you were when you claimed that hyper-Calvinism is rising in the ranks of Presbyterianism.

I am not wrong. I have given you evidence and can give you much more. Just because you won't accept the evidence because of your pride and biases is not my fault. Do your own research.

The Dutch Reformed Church at the latter end of the 19th century in Corrie Ten Boom's young life was not hyper-Calvinistic. And she certainly was a far cry from any h-C beliefs.

The church that she belonged to was. One cannot say that the teaching she received throughout her life from a hyper-calvinist church did not affect her as well. If you are not willing to accept the plain facts of history then perhaps you should join the Catholics in revising it.

Nonsense --another false allegation. Of course I believe that everyone is accountable to God --that it lies at the foot of every person to believe the Gospel. No one can give the Lord an excuse that it wasn't their responsibility.

So when the Bible says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," the unsaved person already has he innate faith to believe the gospel, right?
I am glad to see you have changed your position.

This is another quote of Phil Johnson's that I gave you on an earlier occasion which you did not resond to:
"Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists will protest that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing...Man's own inability is something he is guility for,and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of responsibility.The two spring from the same polluted source. The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how hyper-Calvinists and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility."

So, what of it?
What do you want me to respond to?

And I have often repeated what Jim Ellis has said about hyper-Calvinism:"[It] consists of two fundamental errors:A denial of duty faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel"

Now after all the time I have taken to disabuse you once again! of your slanderous remarks --don't do it again.

Your brand of Calvinism, as far as I know and have read, does deny faith.
You don't believe that the unconverted person has faith to believe the gospel, do you?

 

[evangelist-7]

.
Seems we've gotten just a tad bit off topic!
.

 

[DHK]

.
Seems we've gotten just a tad bit off topic!
.

You are right. My position on the pre-trib rapture is well explained in an answer to Bob's post here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2076231&postcount=179
which he has not yet responded to.

 

[Tom Butler]

I had to go back a couple of pages to remind myself what the subject of this thread is. Here's my take:

I once held to the pre-trib rapture, assuming that there wasn't any other view.

Then, one Sunday night, my young pastor preached on the subject, and said he was post-trib, not pre-trib.

Right after the benediction, several of us headed for him to challenge his statement. He grinned and held up his hand. "Guys, we're not going to debate this here. You have an assignment. I want you to find a clear, unmistakable, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation scripture verse which teaches a pre-trib rapture. Bring it with you when we gather again."

Shoot, I thought, this will be easy. So, when I got home, I went to get all those scripture verses and make my list.

Uh, I couldn't find any.

Needless to say, I abandoned the pre-trib view.

My late brother-in-law, who was a pre-tribber, used to grin about our disagreement, saying, "well, I'm really a pan-Millenialist. It's all gonna pan out in the end."

 

[saturneptune]

There is a gap. He did not declare the Bible to be wrong. He did not say man's tradition is right. I sense someone's tarnished opinion of Scofield, is being put ahead of what the truth of Scofield actually said, and the result is slander--not becoming of a Christian.
One cannot say anything they want to about another person without proper documentation. Document that he put tradition above the Bible or withdraw the statement.
That is true with every person.
If that is true, then there is no harm in you studying Daniel 9:24-27 from his notes, where he is not wrong and you are wrong.
He didn't struggle with those passages; you struggle with his interpretation of them. It is your unbelief that gets in the way.
Paul is addressing the Thessalonians about false teachers. They are still present on the earth looking forward to the rapture (our gathering together to Him [in the air]). What follows will happen after the rapture.
The rapture is the first thing mentioned here. The rest of the events follow.
Your reading comprehension is not very good here is it?

2 Thessalonians 2:1 Now we beseech you, brethren, by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and by our gathering together unto him,
2 That ye be not soon shaken in mind, or be troubled, neither by spirit, nor by word, nor by letter as from us, as that the day of Christ is at hand.
--First they would be gathered together with Him.
Therefore don't be troubled for the day of Christ is still at hand. It is still to come (as it is to this day). The day of Christ (as the Day of the Lord of the OT) refers not just to the Second Coming but to the Tribulation preceding it. The rapture (vs.1) takes place first.
No he doesn't. The rapture takes place first. That is clear from verse one. He then goes on to delineate a timeline of what will then happen.
This is your fanciful interpretation which has no substance at all. It is a dream of EGW. The Dark Ages have come and gone but Christ has not come. That defeats your interpretation right there, and proves EGW a false prophetess.
This "apostasy" will take place right before the revealing of the antichrist, not sometime before in ancient history. Your interpretation is preposterous.
It is not speaking of the rapture here.
He is, first, speaking against the teaching of false teachers.
Second, there will seem to be a great falling away from the faith. One can see that today. Pick up an encyclopedia or do a search on the internet. How much of the population is considered "Christian"? Perhaps 20% of the world or even more. But those who are truly saved are only 1% maybe!! That is the falling away. Those who claim the name of Christ and are not.

After the rapture, (when believers have gone) then the man of sin (nothing to do with the papacy), will be revealed. This is the anti-christ.
That is not what it says. Paul comforts the Thessalonians speaking of the rapture to take place in verse one. Then he gives the timeline of what is to follow next.
Paul said nothing of the Dark Ages or of the Papacy. This is your overactive imagination (or that of EGW). It is cultish thinking. The Dark Ages (ca. 500-1000 A.D.) was over a millennia ago. Things have changed. You are stuck in ancient history.
The Bible is always right; but you are not.
You are in need of English comprehension.
Check the Greek scholar A.T. Robertson for verse one in the original language:
Is it clear enough now?
Paul has presented a timeline. The rapture happens first.
Therefore, they are not to be troubled or shaken in mind by the following events which will happen after the rapture for they won't be there.
"That Day", the Day of Christ" (the Tribulation plus His Second Coming) will only come when first there is a falling away, and that hasn't happened yet (Paul's time).
After that happens, then the man of sin (anti-christ) will be revealed.
The elect in verse 29 are the Jews. During the tribulation the believers are not there. They have been raptured. Christ will come for his elect, the Jews, and they will be saved (Rom.11:26). This will happen at the end of the Tribulation and at the beginning of the Millennial Kingdom. Then those signs will be seen. But those signs were not in the Dark Ages. Therefore your interpretation is wrong.
The elect here is the Jews.
The rapture has already taken place.

A very good explanation of the pre-trib, pre-mil, scenario. I tend to agree with it, but always keep an open mind on this subject. There is no pattern of reformed not believing the pre trib rapture, as there were plenty in the PCA church. The PCA church was sort of divided on end time theology, kind of like the Baptists are between Calvinism and Free Will, and all shades inbetween.

 

[saturneptune]

I had to go back a couple of pages to remind myself what the subject of this thread is. Here's my take:

I once held to the pre-trib rapture, assuming that there wasn't any other view.

Then, one Sunday night, my young pastor preached on the subject, and said he was post-trib, not pre-trib.

Right after the benediction, several of us headed for him to challenge his statement. He grinned and held up his hand. "Guys, we're not going to debate this here. You have an assignment. I want you to find a clear, unmistakable, not-subject-to-any-other-interpretation scripture verse which teaches a pre-trib rapture. Bring it with you when we gather again."

Shoot, I thought, this will be easy. So, when I got home, I went to get all those scripture verses and make my list.

Uh, I couldn't find any.

Needless to say, I abandoned the pre-trib view.

My late brother-in-law, who was a pre-tribber, used to grin about our disagreement, saying, "well, I'm really a pan-Millenialist. It's all gonna pan out in the end."

No, there is no definitive verse. However, there is no definitive verse for post trib, mid trib, amil, premil, or postmil. All one can do is read Daniel, Revelation, Ezekiel, Thes, Cor, the Gospels, and some of the minor prophets and put a picture together as lead by the Lord.

 

[steaver]

No, there is no definitive verse. However, there is no definitive verse for post trib, mid trib, amil, premil, or postmil. All one can do is read Daniel, Revelation, Ezekiel, Thes, Cor, the Gospels, and some of the minor prophets and put a picture together as lead by the Lord.

That's what I was thinking when he said it made him change his view. What scripture definitively states a rapture will be post Trib?? That is why our church does not make it a requirement for fellowship. I'm pre-trib and feel rather certain about it. Our Youth Pastor is post trib. Most don't really care.

 

[evangelist-7]

Oh well, Roberto's been wastin' his time here ... again ...
this time with his Matthew 24 verses, which are clearly post-trib.
.

 

[steaver]

Oh well, Roberto's been wastin' his time here ... again ...
this time with his Matthew 24 verses, which are clearly post-trib.
.

It is never a waste of time. Bob's post have served me well, helping me fine tune what the Spirit has already taught me from the Scriptures. As has your post as well. :thumbsup: After thoroughly reviewing all positions on the rapture, the Spirit has impressed upon me that the pre-trib view is the one revealed in the Scripture. If I somehow heard incorrectly, then that part of my teaching will go up in smoke on my Judgment Day. But I feel comfortable teaching pre-trib.

 

[DHK]

John MacArthur is a strong Calvinist, but also a dispensationalist. He also is pre-trib, and sound in his eschatology:

The Rapture of the Church

We teach the personal, bodily return of our Lord Jesus Christ before the seven year tribulation (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Titus 2:13) to translate His church from this earth (John 14:1 3; 1 Corinthians 15:51 53; 1 Thessalonians 4:15-5:11) and, between this event and His glorious return with His saints, to reward believers according to their works (1 Corinthians 3:11 15; 2 Corinthians 5:10).
The Tribulation Period

We teach that immediately following the removal of the church from the earth (John 14:1 3; 1 Thessalonians 4:13 18) the righteous judgments of God will be poured out upon an unbelieving world (Jeremiah 30:7; Daniel 9:27; 12:1; 2 Thessalonians 2:7 12; Revelation 16), and that these judgments will be climaxed by the return of Christ in glory to the earth (Matthew 24:27 31; 25:31 46; 2 Thessalonians 2:7 12). At that time the Old Testament and tribulation saints will be raised and the living will be judged (Daniel 12:2 3; Revelation 20:4 6). This period includes the seventieth week of Daniel's prophecy (Daniel 9:24 27; Matthew 24:15 31; 25:31 46).
The Second Coming and the Millennial Reign

We teach that, after the tribulation period, Christ will come to earth to occupy the throne of David (Matthew 25:31; Luke 1:31 33; Acts 1:10 11; 2:29 30) and establish His messianic kingdom for a thousand years on the earth (Revelation 20:1 7). During this time the resurrected saints will reign with Him over Israel and all the nations of the earth (Ezekiel 37:21 28; Daniel 7:17 22; Revelation 19:11 16). This reign will be preceded by the overthrow of the Antichrist and the False Prophet, and by the removal of Satan from the world (Daniel 7:17 27; Revelation 20:1 7).
We teach that the kingdom itself will be the fulfillment of God's promise to Israel (Isaiah 65:17 25; Ezekiel 37:21 28; Zechariah 8:1 17) to restore them to the land which they forfeited through their disobedience (Deuteronomy 28:15 68). The result of their disobedience was that Israel was temporarily set aside (Matthew 21:43; Romans 11:1 26) but will again be awakened through repentance to enter into the land of blessing (Jeremiah 31:31 34; Ezekiel 36:22 32; Romans 11:25 29).
We teach that this time of our Lord's reign will be characterized by harmony, justice, peace, righteousness, and long life (Isaiah 11; 65:17 25; Ezekiel 36:33 38), and will be brought to an end with the release of Satan (Revelation 20:7).
The Judgment of the Lost

We teach that following the release of Satan after the thousand year reign of Christ (Revelation 20:7), Satan will deceive the nations of the earth and gather them to battle against the saints and the beloved city, at which time Satan and his army will be devoured by fire from heaven (Revelation 20:9). Following this, Satan will be thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:10) whereupon Christ, who is the Judge of all men (John 5:22), will resurrect and judge the great and small at the Great White Throne judgment.
We teach that this resurrection of the unsaved dead to judgment will be a physical resurrection, whereupon receiving their judgment (Romans 14:10 13), they will be committed to an eternal conscious punishment in the lake of fire (Matthew 25:41; Revelation 20:11 15).

http://www.gty.org/connect/doctrine#Eschatology

 

[Rippon]

I will not withhold the comparison of the hyper-Calvinist belief of hard determinism to the fatalism of Islam. The result is the same.

You never learn. You keep on repeating utterly false characterizations.Your quote above is just about the same kind of thing PastorLarry took you to task upon 4/17/08:
"Calvinists are not headed in the same direction as Muslims.If you actually believe that,then you are revealing a gross misunderstanding that completely disqualifies you to speak. If you believe this,then you have no credibility.Stop saying it. Stop slandering your brothers and sisters in Christ. Stop spreading falsehoods about what they believe. For the sake of the gospel stop."

You had said on 4/15/08 the following:
Election on the part of the Calvinist sounds no different than the doctrine of fatalism on part of Islam." Disgraceful on your part.

I called you a hyper-Calvinist. That is true.

You are back in the barnyard again.

I am a Calvinist. You can't even tell the difference.

Calvinists believe that unregenerate people have spiritual inability. They are still without excuse before God for their sin. As Christians going out and proclaiming the law/gospel we are to tell them to repent and believe. But we also realize that the Lord through the agency of the Holy Spirit is the One who ultimately puts His elects ones under spiritual arrest.

I don't apologize.

I am not wrong.

You live in fantasyland. You have been wrong so many times it's amazing.

Hyper-Calvinism is not running wild in Presbyterianism.You gave me plenty of things you called links which had nothing whatsoever to do with your incredible charges.

The Dutch Reformed Church was not hyper-Calvinistic in Corrie Ten Boom's youth.Are you even aware that Abraham Kuyper left that denomination because it had departed from the confessional creeds? It was barely Calvinistic,much less hyper-Calvinistic.

Do your own research.

I have and you have been found wanting on so many counts it's not funny.

So when the Bible says: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved," the unsaved person already has he innate faith to believe the gospel, right?

Nobody has "innate faith". That is unbiblical. You have been spreading that error for years on the BB. But it is unscriptural.

You said on 9/22/08:
"I just decided to have it,no one gave it to me. As an unbeliever it was not God that gave me faith...It didn't come from God."

You told the BB world on 12/16/13:
"I never said that faith is the gift of God. God doesn't have anything to do with giving faith."

On 9/29/08 you related this choice tidbit:
"My pet dog trusts me;has faith in me.Did God give him that faith?What kind of God do you serve?"

Your brand of Calvinism, as far as I know and have read, does deny faith.

I have affirmed duty faith over and over in my years on the BB. Therefore you are slandering me once more. Stop it. And shame on you. You need to moderate yourself.
_________________________________________________________________

I guess you have never sung nor believed the following hymn:

I sought the Lord,
and afterward I knew
He moved my soul
to seek Him,seeking me.
It was not that I found,
O Savior true. No,I
was found by thee.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You are quite the hyocrite after calling me a hyper-Calvinist. Through the years here on the BB you have said that I serve another God,that I worship another God,that my religion is not much different than Islam etc.You have absolutely no room to talk DHK.

You sling mud and then pretend to take the high at the same time. You called me a hyper-Calvinist. That is a false allegation. Do not bear false witness DHK.

As I quoted on another thread:"Some critics of Calvinism persist in referring to the doctrines of grace as 'hyper-Calvinism.' Hyper-Calvinism undermines the gospel and should also not be used as a label against those who explicitly repudiate it." (Justin Taylor)

You use pejorative language like a club such as calling me or Icon a hyper-Calvinist. That is not the kind of conduct appropriate for a moderator.



Your "links" are notoriously weak connections at best.

You are still just as wrong on this account as you were when you claimed that hyper-Calvinism is rising in the ranks of Presbyterianism.

The Dutch Reformed Church at the latter end of the 19th century in Corrie Ten Boom's young life was not hyper-Calvinistic. And she certainly was a far cry from any h-C beliefs.

Take a gander at things you have said and follow your own advice


"Don't post things here without evidence." 2/16/12
"If you are going to make unfounded statements then you have to back them up. Please provide documentation."2/15/12


I have gone through this multiple times with you and others.Just look at the archives.

Nonsense --another false allegation. Of course I believe that everyone is accountable to God --that it lies at the foot of every person to believe the Gospel. No one can give the Lord an excuse that it wasn't their responsibility.

This is another quote of Phil Johnson's that I gave you on an earlier occasion which you did not resond to:
"Both Arminians and hyper-Calvinists will protest that it is illogical or unjust to teach that God demands what sin renders us incapable of doing...Man's own inability is something he is guility for,and that inability cannot therefore be seen as something that relieves the sinner of responsibility.The two spring from the same polluted source. The denial that faith is the sinner's duty illustrates how hyper-Calvinists and Arminianism arise from the same false notion. The one fallacy that lies at the heart of both Arminianism and hyper-Calvinism is the erroneous assumption that human inability nullifies responsibility."

And I have often repeated what Jim Ellis has said about hyper-Calvinism:"[It] consists of two fundamental errors:A denial of duty faith and a resultant denial of the universal call of the gospel"

Now after all the time I have taken to disabuse you once again! of your slanderous remarks --don't do it again.

OK... then I guess that anyone who sees the Doctrines of Grace then is by DHK 's definition a died in the wool Hyper Calvinist. Then you would consider me a Hyper Calvinist. Hmmm...this is pause for reflection.

Ah also.....S/N that would include you. Can we now consider this the Kristle nocturnal (purge) of all Doctrines of Grace believers?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

No, there is no definitive verse. However, there is no definitive verse for post trib, mid trib, amil, premil, or postmil. All one can do is read Daniel, Revelation, Ezekiel, Thes, Cor, the Gospels, and some of the minor prophets and put a picture together as lead by the Lord.

Therefore pan mill is the most solid thinking process. BTW...that's my story and I'm sticking with it:thumbsup: