Krall, Michael: The Paltalk Adversaries of Preterism: What Are They Afraid Of? | Modern Preterism Section - The Preterist Archive of Fulfilled Prophecy

The PALTALK Adversaries of Preterism

What Are They Afraid Of?

By Michael Krall

The incidents recorded in the following article were actual events and happened as stated. The screen names of some have been changed not only to avoid more divisiveness but for a little tongue in cheek humor as well. But the humor was in no way intended to take away from the seriousness of what has been presented as real incidents and the concern for the conduct recorded in these incidents.

There is much scuttlebutt on the Internet chat room PALTALK related to the doctrine of Preterism. It seems that it has generated the most vehement attacks by what would normally be called orthodox Christians such as Baptists, Presbyterians and the like. This article will reveal some of the unkind and unchristlike discourses of some on Paltalk using fictitious screen names for our adversaries since to leave the people nameless would only cause confusion in trying to follow who said what. And besides we are in no way looking to belittle others only to expose the truth. So phony screen names leaves the person identity anonymous. Since we are told in the Scriptures 'honor all men' 1Peter 2:17 we hope to do that here even though we must be critical of both our adversary's method and reaction to our position.

Lets me start at the beginning of at least the point where I came into the picture. I had been on Paltalk as an Amillennial partial Preterist for some time and had made some friends, or at least I thought I did. When such Preterists as Sam_1947 (Samuel Frost) and Backntym came on Paltalk I engaged them seeing I had studied it out for many many years and had been more interested in it in-depth for about 2 years at the time.

Well that is when it all started. The first encounter was when still an Amillennialist I had entered a room where a woman who I will call Snooty5er was administrating the room where the discussion was Premillennial pitted against Amillennialist. I came to the microphone and gave a standard Amil interpretation of Rev 20 and was immediately red-doted (a procedure to stop one from talking in the chat room) so I couldn't speak. This woman then proceeded to read me the riot act saying she will not have hyper Preterism spewed out in the room. Her ignorance of Amillennialism was evident, (she is historic Premil), for at that time I had not as yet abandoned the partial Preterist position of Amillennialism and was giving a run-of-the-mill Amil interpretation of Rev 20. She knew I had embraced Preterists as brothers at that time and was engaging them. My question to myself was 'what is she afraid of?'

The second encounter I experienced -- still being an Amil partial Preterist -- was in a room where a woman I have named SlurpingNoseInTheAir was administering. She was discussing the future of national Israel with a dispensationalist. I then began to show from an Amil perspective that the first 34 verses of Matthew 24 were fulfilled in AD 70 -- something with which most Amillennialists and Postmillennialists agree. The same reaction ensued and I was told that I was promoting hyper Preterism. Again, an ignorance of the Amil position was evident. What is funny about the situation is that the owner of the room who we can call PresbyWilly, an Amil Presbyterian who was not there, acknowledged at a later date that he agreed that the first 34 verses of Matt. 24 were fulfilled in AD 70. I wonder if SlurpingNoseInTheAir would have tried to red-dot PresbyWilly. Again I asked 'what is she afraid of?'

So the attacks went on and there became division among those that were our friends since some believed we were heretics and others just in error. As time went on I was unable to deny the timing indicators of the 2nd coming and resurrection so I embraced what these folks called the heresy of hyper Preterism.

Another adversary I call WannaBePreacherBoy loves to attack Preterism but refuses to answer questions of the timing of the 2nd coming. He seemed to think the timing was not important but the nature of the resurrection and the consummation was. Be it known that this individual refuses to come into our rooms and dialogue but just loves to name call as did the other two just mentioned. The one time he came into our room and asked us about passages regarding 'THE day of judgment.' They were valid questions I might add, which were responded to with references to the original Greek by us in the room. We showed him how the Greek does not have the definite article and how the word 'world' in one passage he mentioned was not kosmos but oikoumenen which means inhabited earth. He then had no response and left the room when we proposed questions to him. To this day he has not answered some of my questions proposed in an email from Isaiah 9:7 and Genesis 8. But the attacks and name calling still continues.

One time in a room he brought up the topic in text chat and tried to button hole me. A postmillennialist woman named doctrine_of_grace who is not a Preterist was defending me when he proceeded to call me a heretic and apostate. For he told her not to listen to me after she told him I sent her articles to read. Then both PresbyWilly and doctrine_of_grace both acknowledged that they had asked for articles to read I did not seek to 'convert' them as he charged me with. That didn't seem to phase old WannaBePreacherBoy since he was determined to go on the attack. I then came to the microphone and filibustered for about 10 minutes (at the outset of which SlurpingNoseInTheAir left the room refusing to listen to me defend myself against the charges) and then left the room. He has never responded to questions proposed to him by me in either email or in a room. He seems to love to hear himself speak and does not want to dialogue but only to preach AT people.

He since then pointed out an article that was suppose to be the be all and end all for Preterism. The transcendental argument against hyper Preterism. When I sent him 3 different links to 3 different articles with a Preterist refutation of that argument he made no comment at all and probably didn't even read them. It seems he does not want his own view challenged he only wants to promote it constantly dodging any questions proposed to him that opposed his view. Again I ask 'what is he afraid of?'

We cannot forget the big bomb last summer. A woman named NancyDeNashville, though little said by me and others, came to see the truth of Preterism and made an open confession on a Sunday night. Then the attacks came. It makes one wonder how these people would treat a Mormon or Jehovah Witness co-worker or neighbor who asked questions. When Nancy asked questions she got little in the way of answers but after a while she was called all kinds of names by these folks including be called a liar. When Snooty5er came in our room looking for Nancy to try to persuade her to give up this heresy she proceeded to say Rev 21:4 IS NOT FULFILLED (since that is what we were discussing). The passage reads as follows:

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away

Then I proceeded to ask her if she believed that passage would be fulfilled when she died. Of course she refused to answer and said she does not discuss heresy. Hmmm? Both her and SlurpingNoseInTheAir give the same response but it can be shown that they have debated such things as Mormonism, Roman Catholic Transubstantiation, Universalism, Islam and Oneness doctrine all of which they openly said was heresy. I know this for a fact for I was in the room under another screen name playing devil's advocate and witness this first hand. In fact SlurpingNoseInTheAir is one of the most pugnacious among those that say they wont debate Preterism but seems to chomp at the bit when it comes to debating other heresies. Again I ask 'what is she afraid of?'

It is obvious that they will not debate nor discuss Preterism because they don't have answers to the timing texts so they must stick their head in the sand the way the Arminian does when he comes to Romans 9. When Snooty5er refused to answer the question on those grounds I used the opportunity to just comment that 'if Rev 21:4 hasn't happened yet then you have no claim on that when you die so you must believe in soul sleep.' She did give a brief response that soul sleep is not an issue or something to that effect. Although I am not one that can read minds for I am not a prophet nor the son of a prophet I would venture to guess that she has no answer because if indeed Rev 21:4 is not fulfilled no one can expect to have every tear wiped from their eyes and no more sorrow etc. at death since it is yet a future event when God will do those things. If it is not true in some way now in the New Covenant then it will not be so if you die prior to its fulfillment.

Time went on and more and more Preterists came on Paltalk or were 'converted to Preterism' and then more and more adversaries arose as well. One such man I call SelfProclaimedHereticHunter. He seemed to be more skilled at debating Preterism since he has done so in the past on his radio show. Then a debate was set up which I myself initiated with hopes of civil dialogue. A Reformed Preterist pastor agreed to debate SelfProclaimedHereticHunter if they could agree on a topic. What was agreed on was the topic 'How Did the Lord Understand the Timing of His Parousia?' or something of that nature. As the debate went on it seemed obvious that SelfProclaimedHereticHunter saw it necessary to change the topic to the nature of the resurrection a topic the Reformed Pastor said he would be willing to tackle in a subsequent debate. Since one of the administrators of the room would not allow the topic to be changed from timing to nature SelfProclaimedHereticHunter left the debate. Again I ask 'what is he afraid of?'

Then there was another more gracious man that has opposed us and who I will call HyperGill. He has told me that he would love to call me brother, since we agree on so much, but could not because of the Hymaneus heresy passage in 2Timothy 2:18 that he believed we held to. I had asked him to read an article and respond and he said that he would read it. Having read it he said in an email 'I want you to know I read your article on the Nature of the Resurrection. I didn't agree with it and don't have any further comments..' Now he said he didn't agree with it but would not comment. Again I ask 'what is he afraid of?' The reason he could not call me brother was the Hymaneus heresy charge and this is what I propose to him a few times in an email which is from that article.

This is how it went:

Rev 20: 4 And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his markupon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. 5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is the first resurrection.

Now the first resurrection mentioned here to many Amillennialists is the spiritual resurrection the same one they believe is described in John 5:25. What is interesting about this passage is that those that hold to the Premillennial position use this passage as the basis to call those holding to the Amillennial position Hymanaeus heretics the same thing many Amillennialists call us. We have experienced this as an Amillennialist for over 20 years and ironically am now called it by those holding to our former position. The fact is that 2 Timothy 2:18 does not mention which resurrection that was being said was 'past already.' For those that hold to a past fulfillment of Revelation 20:4-5 to call us Hymanaeus heretics would be comical if it was not such a serious charge. When one looks at the text in 2 Timothy it would not be evident at first glance what resurrection is being referred to whether the one Amils says is past being spiritual resurrection at regeneration or the so called future resurrection of the flesh and blood body at the end of the cosmological world. But there is one thing that our opponents have overlooked in trying to decipher what resurrection is being spoken of in the text. It is quite easy to discern by asking this question.

What type of resurrection would more likely be possible to fool someone into thinking has happened before its time- one that is spiritual and comes without observation or one that is a grave splitting, cosmological world ending event in which every grave in the world will open up?

Now doesn't that deserve an answer? As an Amil for over 20 years I was called a Hymaneus heretic by dispensationalists so I would love to know what those calling Preterists the same thing makes them exempt the Amil from the same charge. If they do exempt them then on what grounds?

What is sad in all this is how one is treated when they first come to or nearly come to embrace this doctrine. It seems the biblical charge to 'honor all men' and 'let your speech be always with grace seasoned with salt that you many know how to ANSWER EVERY MAN' goes out the window with many professing Christians. It should be known that not all that call us heretics have been mean and unkind but they all refuse to respond to the questions.

Another man who we can call TexasTony, one who thinks we are heretics but is among those that have not been mean to me nor called me names I am aware of, has engaged me in dialogue. But I asked him a question since he, like me, holds to the view that the Christian is not related to the law of Moses in any way. Here is how part of that pm (private message) went after I clarified that he and I agreed somewhat on what is called New Covenant Theology. I am allofgrace in this dialogue.

allofgrace: that is good enough so at least i can get your opinion. u don't even have to answer me now just read what i am going to type out and think about it. i hold a certain position on it and am ready and able to be shown i am wrong i just would like someone to at least treat me with some respect which I think i would get from u

allofgrace: every time i ask a question there is a knee jerk reaction from people

TexasTony: ok

TexasTony: Well I will do the best I can but yes, I may require some time to reflect on it

allofgrace: even if i am a heretic or a brother delving in heresy i think we should still "honor all men" and treat me the way you would treat an unsaved mormon showing interest in the truth

allofgrace: so give me a sec to type out question

TexasTony: ok

allofgrace: Paul said that the predictions of the resurrection, found in Isaiah 25:8 and Hosea 13:14 would be fulfilled when the sting of death and strength of sin was destroyed. Specifically, he said "the strength of sin is the law" vs. 56. What law gave sin its strength? Does the Gospel give sin its strength? It must if the resurrection does not occur until the end of the Christian Age for it is the Gospel that is currently God's only law. Thus, since resurrection equals liberty from the strength of sin, i.e. "the Law", if the resurrection comes at the end of the Christian Age then resurrection must be liberty from the Gospel! How can that be? ................................... So there is the dilemma and you don't have to get back to me know. You can even respond via email if you like.

Now I have not heard feedback as to whether or not that this particular brother has went on the offensive with the attacks but nonetheless he has failed to answer this and 2 other questions I proposed to him and from what I understand he still considers it heresy. Because one cannot answer a question does not necessarily mean a person is wrong but lets face reality here. If one is going to oppose a doctrine shouldn't they at least be willing to respond to the questions proposed by those holding to that doctrine before they make a judgment it is heresy? I am not afraid to answer any question and have said to some that I didn't have an answer. In fact it is that very attitude that has caused non Preterists to listen to what we say and defend us against charges of heresy. I welcome questions for it will help me either sharpen what I believe or show me that I am wrong for I only desire to know the truth as it is in Jesus. But I will not sit and be belittled having questions thrown at me and not get answer to my questions from those asking me questions. It must be a two way street in a dialogue or a debate. I ask of TexasTony 'what is he afraid of?'

There is another brother who I love dearly in the Lord who I will call PastorJohn. Like HyperGill he is kind even though he does not consider us brethren. But when in an email I proposed some points of doctrine to him he openly admitted I made some good points worth looking into. His exact response in the email was 'You have made some very good points....I will study them further, and respond later.' I have never got that response. Again I ask 'what is he afraid of?'

The Bible tells us in James that the wisdom that is from above is 'FIRST TEACHABLE.' I can expect one that holds to the false doctrine that salvation can be lost might be afraid that if this is heresy it might lead them into apostasy but all of the above mentioned people are strong advocates of the doctrine of unconditional election. So if indeed it is heresy they might be the vehicle to restore an erring brother. They have nothing to lose for if it is indeed false and they are one of the Lords the Lord will not let them go too far astray and in the process will save an erring brother from following false doctrine.

One incident recently occurred and it is the one that ultimately led to the writing of this article to expose the inconsistencies of those involved. After having been out of Paltalk rooms for some three months deciding to limit my time in chat rooms, I entered a room which I ways enjoyed the topics that were discussed. Immediately upon entering I was bounced so fast that I was unable to tell who was the admin in the room. It was told me by three different people in the room that it was SlurpingNoseInTheAir who I mentioned earlier. The owner of the room, someone I will call SolaCristos was not online at the time. Since I have NEVER brought up the topic of Preterism in that room as is my custom to leave it to our own rooms, I didn't see any reason for such a reaction. I therefore contacted the owner of the room via email and was told that though she has never known me to start trouble she leaves it to the those she allows to admin to do as they deem fit. I have no problem with that for that is well within her right. She then stated in an email "As for the particular issue of preterism, or full preterism, or hyper-preterism as it's often called, I don't believe any of them to be Biblical. Folks who hold to this position are certainly welcome to come chat in our room, but they are not welcome to promote or teach this view, in any way, shape, or form. This can present a difficult sitation for admins, since the topic does come up, those who do hold to it, state their views, and if a PM conversation ensues as a result of that, we can be accused of allowing a platform for heresy. The same standard can (and must) apply to any other form of heresy, or religious position. We cannot (and will not) have different sets of standards, for different situations, or issues. We do allow for discussing what we believe to be heretical issues, but we will not allow them to be promoted or taught as Biblical."

Now I have no problem with that position but it is the inconsistencies that I have a problem with. I have made it a point to abstain from the room under my normal name to not cause undue negative reaction but have been in the room under another screen name only to listen and read text chat and not to comment. What I have observed was discussions of other doctrines they consider heresy where the one holding to the heresy was allowed to make a statement or ask a question of which the question was answered by someone in the room. But it seems the same is not accorded the Preterist "heresy" it is only refuted and attacked by some of the very people I mentioned that have refused to answer questions propose to them. It is our nature to want to shield ourselves behind are nice neatly fitted paradigms without anyone calling them into question. But the historical fact is that some of the greatest works written by men of a bygone generation have been in response to what they deemed heretical doctrine answer every question point by point. I would welcome that for I, and I am sure by Preterist brethren as well, are most certainly willing to be shown where we are wrong. But there seems to be little if any attempt at setting up a debate where there will be neutral moderators to oversee the debate. I have already gotten the okay from three people who are not Preterists that would be willing to admin the debate and make sure that the rules are adhered to. But the fact remains that they will only discuss it hiding behind the admin hats of their own rooms.

There have been times I was in one of their rooms under another name and Preterism was discussed or should I say attacked because there were no Preterists in the room. I immediately invited a few in and all of a sudden they said it was not an acceptable topic or that they were changing the topic. Talk about them when they aren't there but stick your head in the sand when confronted.

It is obvious that the reason they are afraid to debate on neutral ground -- and some even hide behind the false statement that they don't debate heresy -- is because they cannot respond to the timing texts and the issue of audience relevance. They think the nature of the resurrection is the big issue but none of them have as of yet taken the time to respond to any articles or answer questions that deal with the nature of the resurrection from a Preterist perspective.

There is one man we can call MyDoctrineIsPure who calls every doctrine that he disagrees with a 'damnable heresy' which of course Preterism is included in that. Now this man must think he has all the right doctrine since he said once in a room 'if you have .0001% heresy you are unsaved.' So his doctrine must be 100% pure. He has been in our rooms quietly observing but has NEVER, that I have observed, responded to one question we have proposed. When he does speak or type, usually not in our rooms, it is never to respond but to attack and call Preterism a 'damnable heresy.'

Another person we can call BookReader asked BurtN1 about history and the creeds and why Preterism was so little found in there. Burt then proceded to say "sola scriptura" and was responded to by BookReader with "that's not an answer." So much for sola scriptura.

Some will say that the writing of this article is merely sour grapes due to the treatment we have received. That might be the case if we have not been making headway proclaiming the truth of fulfilled eschatology where we have rooms now with upward of 30 people which is a good size group. In fact more and more have contacted me for articles on Preterism due to the treatment we have received. It seems that many have seen through it all. It was the very way we were treated that led the woman named NancyDeNashville we mentioned earlier to stay open to Preterism. That was told me by her before she came to embrace it.

But the real purpose of this article, besides to have a little fun, is to expose the inconsistencies and dare I say hypocrisy of some that name the name of Christ. Now I cannot know their motives but I cannot think of any reason why one would say outright that they will not discuss Preterism because it is heresy and will not give it a platform but will debate every other heresy that comes down the pike as stated above. It is the opinion of this writer that the reason is that when it comes to confronting anti-trintarians or other heresies they have good ammo so they use it and quite well I might add. But when it comes to confronting Preterism why refuse to confront it if they have the same ammo against it? It is because they cannot deal with the timing texts as well as other questions that we have proposed. This is so much the case that there are some that are trying to get Preterist rooms off the Christian category into the Religious category. What is strange is that there doesn't seem to be any attempt by these same people to try to get the Jehovah Witnesses, or the Oneness Pentecostals or Mormons out of the Christian section. They love debating these groups. Does any one wonder why? Is it because they have good responses to those groups but cannot deal with what Preterism has presented as biblical truth?

That is really what they are afraid of.

What do YOU think ?

Send an email with your comments to todd @ preteristarchive.com
Be sure to include the article name. They will be posted shortly upon receipt

Date:

11 Mar 2004

Time:

15:42:33

Comments

I guess it is not enough for some to put trust in Christ alone, the eternal Son, as one's only hope in order to be saved. One's eschatology must be right too heh?

Date:

11 Mar 2004

Time:

17:02:32

Comments

This article pointed out one interesting fact to often ignored and that is that the great works in Church History were done as men responded to other men's works. May of Owen's works were a result of just that. Why for the life of me Preterism would be ignored but other heresys not ignored, if this is indeed the case, I cannot fathom. We are in the point in church history where the issue of eschatology should be at the forefront for there have been no synods in Church history to this date where these things were hammered out. And as a Postmil and one that believes we are in the infancy of the church age I think there is a real need for dialogue for the preterists do have much to add to the table. Dr. Miquel Santa Maria

Date:

12 Mar 2004

Time:

07:35:43

Comments

Great article Mike, I can relate to them not wanting to debate preterism. Shortly after I was saved, I was confronted by a Jehovah Witness. They backed me in a corner and I had no way out. For years I avoided them UNTIL I LEARNED the truth. The problem with those who refuse to discuss preterism is that they know not the truth and can not defend against it. Tim (micer)

Date:

14 Mar 2004

Time:

07:52:44

Comments

Hey ... excellent article and I am guilty of not answering your questions as well. Some things out there are in fact a mystery to us. You did a great job of keeping this light yet exposing the hypocrisy of it all. (Doc of Grace)

Date:

14 Mar 2004

Time:

07:58:16

Comments

Boy what an expose'..............Mike you have really exposed these people for what they are scared little rabbits. Keep up the goodwork. I have to get on this thing called Paltalk.

James P

Date:

14 Mar 2004

Time:

08:00:21

Comments

Hey Jan, you dont count since you dont call it heresy sis.

Date:

14 Mar 2004

Time:

09:57:17

Comments

Great job Mike ! Indeed, what are they afraid of? I've noticed that this fear so encapsulates some that various forms of hatred emerge through attacks that you've also mentioned. I've heard someone like MyDoctrineIsPure say that they even hate Preterists and that Preterists are going to hell. 'Offense is the best defense' I remember hearing in my hockey playing days, may well apply here.

What would so possess a person to behave unChristlike as to hate and accuse, when really there are opportunities to do just as you've mentioned: "So if indeed it is heresy they might be the vehicle to restore an erring brother. They have nothing to lose for if it is indeed false and they are one of the Lords the Lord will not let them go too far astray and in the process will save an erring brother from following false doctrine."

What are they afraid of? That they may be wrong about what they've been believing? is that Pride? It is okay to say, "I was wrong" or "I didn't know" For 20 years of my Christian walk I did not know that in 1835 Darby changed the translation of the Bible and I was beleiving lies as a result. I was wrong, I did not know. And I've since learned to go to the original Hebrew and Greek and don a critical analysis.

Some take stances similar to that of the characters you've mentioned, for numerous reasons. I recognize the speculation I use here when I write: the platforms some use compensates for insecurities. The feeling of power that goes with 'I'm-right-you're-wrong' glues the door shut to the command to Love one another. I've wondered if ones such as these have ever known (encountered, experienced) His Grace and Love in their lives.

Thank you for this article. Selina (Montreal, Canada)

Date:

14 Mar 2004

Time:

11:25:13

Comments

Selina, you are so correct. I know some of them hate us or at least me for I know slurphingNoseInAir hates me since no one acts like that to someone that they dont hate.

Like I said in the article it makes you wonder how they treat unsaved people that they know that are Mormons or JWs. Anyway thanks for the comments SIS mk

Date:

21 Mar 2004

Time:

16:58:51

Comments

I for one have no interest in debating oneness since if one denies the eternal sonship of Christ just as if one denies efffective atonement they have another Christ. MK

Date:

22 Mar 2004

Time:

13:58:56

Comments

"Eternal sonship" is another Christ, it is a self defeating, contradictory term, of course you want to continue to be steeped in false doctrine!

Date:

22 Mar 2004

Time:

16:57:12

Comments

Let me guess...you Jesus also died for some that perish right? Just as I thought another Christ and another gospel.....MK

Date:

22 Mar 2004

Time:

17:43:04

Comments

Well it does look like you want to discuss, we dont have room here, "WHAT ARE YOU AFRAID OF?" The fact of the matter is, you just defeated yourself and made your doctrine look silly by asking me that question! THINK ABOUT IT? John Calvin was a murder, and so was his Father... M L Culwell

Date:

22 Mar 2004

Time:

18:16:05

Comments

And the Spirit and The Bride say, come. And let him that is athirst come.*And WHOSOEVER WILL*, *LET HIM TAKE THE WATER OF LIFE FREELY.*(OR NOT) The Biggest defeater of Calvinsm ever written in the words of Life

Date:

23 Mar 2004

Time:

10:19:48

Comments

"But as man as received him gave he power to becomes sons of God, even to them that believe on his name who were born NOT of blood, NOR OF THE WILL OF THE FLESH NOR OF THE WILL OF MAN BUT OF GOD" John 1:12-13.........................."It is not of him that willeth nor of him that runneth but of God that showeth mercy" Rom 9:16.......So much for your big defeat......case closed....mk

Date:

23 Mar 2004

Time:

10:30:46

Comments

OOPS I forgot 2 verses in response to your whosoever WILL verse .... "thy people SHALL BE WILLING in the day of thy power"Psalm 110:3.... and then there is "blessed is theman who thou choosest and CAUSEST TO APPOACH UNTO THEE" Psalm 65:3

Date:

23 Mar 2004

Time:

13:55:45

Comments

You still show your ignorance as Calvinsts always do, Salvation did not come by the will of man, in other words,not by man, it says nothing to exclusion of free will, God provided,not man! your doctrine is total ignorance of the word Just as you are ignorant in your Belief in Tree Persons to make God!

Date:

23 Mar 2004

Time:

14:25:19

Comments

There is no part whatsoever of the Manmade Calvins Tulip that is scriptual, and How a Gulable humanity accepts such blatant, fairtale, hogwash I will never understand! Neither Passage you submitted Disproves mans freewill involved, so tell me, which passage is correct, the ones you submitted, or the one I submitted ? I say there all correct! it is just your misinterpreted wishful "saved in sin attitude doctrine."

Date:

23 Mar 2004

Time:

15:53:07

Comments

Free will is the avowed enemy of free grace. You have a works gospel one that puts the final reason of one's salvation in the hands of man. You have another Jesus who is only a potential savior. A god whose will is resisted and plans are checkmated no more represents the God of Scripture than the candle does the noon day sun. This will be my final response to this because like those I wrote about in the above article I DONT debate heresy with the unregenerate.Go to http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/paulsgospel.html and read Paul Gospel is it Yours? mk

Date:

23 Mar 2004

Time:

18:51:31

Comments

Sorry I see that you are all talk and do not wish to discuss... To all that read I gave you a Chance to prove your doctrines but your points lose steam, your title heading what are they afraid of fits you very well! mlculwell

Date:

24 Mar 2004

Time:

07:15:25

Comments

I am afraid of nothing I just dont debate truth with people I believe are unregenerate for one must be alive and taught of the Spirit to see the truth as it is in Jesus so I know I will not convince you. If you are His he will "show you his covenant." mk

Date:

24 Mar 2004

Time:

13:35:48

Comments

I also feel you are unregenerate and are dead in your sins, but there is hope for you! you have no hope or can offer any for me(very sad!) your false Gospel message along with your false feeble God(Trinity) Can't save everyone, only the elect, Offers no hope whatsoever! what a pathetic Gospel message (so called) you Offer....

Date:

25 Mar 2004

Time:

08:36:30

Comments

You are most certainly correct if the god you worship is the god of Scripture then I am most definiteyl lost and have another gospel. I would not want to worship a mere potential savior for I worship a Savior that actual saves those whom he set his heart on to save. A love that has no power in drawing the object of it's love to himself is not worthy of worship. You have a weak god that is wringing his hands together hoping that those for whom he died might be saved. Sadly most wont be. That is a sorry picture of God. The biblical fact is Jesus Christ set out to save a people and that is exactly what he did. He did not merely make all men savable if they would comply with certain conditions (works) but actually saves those for whom he set his love on from eternity. I wouldnt want to worship a god that you have for he is not worthy of worship. The God in Holy Scripture is GOD and does as he pleases and only and always as he pleases. Jesus said "I pray NOT for the world but for those that thou hast given me out of the world" John 17:9...................mk

Date:

25 Mar 2004

Time:

14:24:10

Comments

(John17:8)THEY(DISCIPLES AND FUTURE APOSTLES)HAVE BELIEVED THOU DIDEST SEND ME... Trying teach all of mankind are Robots. What a Blatant scripture twister you are! But this is the halmark of All Calvinsts.(John 17:20)Neither Pray I for these(Future Apostles) ALONE,but for THEM also which shall believe(Takes human will for Beleif) on me through their(*Apostles*) word.. (or the ones given to him out of the world.. not all Christians) And your three God puppet master creating Men in order to worship, in Other words; Robots,I would not worship that kind of God either(Unless I did it forcefully as calvinsts propagate) what kind of Joy do you think God gets out of that? and what joy does mankind get by being a puppet, and is forced! I can tell you noine and it is all false Joy, for no will is involved...

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

15:07:35

Comments

I am reading these messages by MK and this other fellow I think is ML Culwell and after reading the last one by ML Calwell I am reminded of the verse "thou wilt say unto me, why doth he yet find fault for who hath resisted his will" Rom 9:19. That sounds exactly like what the previous message said in regards to Calvinists being robots. I am flattered that that accusation is put against the "Calvinism" I hold as the gospel for that is what they said to Paul. Ot at least Paul figured they would. But notice Paul's response NOT " oh but his will can be resisted" BUT RATHER "WHO ART THOU OH MAN TO REPLIEST AGAINST GOD?" The article posted by mk in a link called Paul's Gospel Is It Yours? was very good and you should read it for your gospel does not seem as if it would bring any of those objections that Paul's did. Just my humble thoughts Miquel Santa Maria

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

15:33:58

Comments

Excuse me? You want me to go to this site and read this article again? even after this man blatantly twisted the scriptures? please sir you answer to his blunder then, MK submitted from(John 17:9)that all humanity was not prayed for by Jesus but instead, all of the elect(Calvinst few)Then I pointed out his error by showing Jesus was speaking of His Apostles.. I Know this false doctrine(Calvinism) like the Back of my hand!I was once southern Baptist.... mlculwell

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

15:47:22

Comments

Miquel, you pointed out some truths that the blind will not see. Now you know why I dont waste my time debating these things with those that have no eyes to see. It is quite clear that his accusations all the more prove we have the same gospel Paul had for the objections to Paul's gospel is always tossed at those of us who to salvation by free and sovereign grace -the calvinist. I dont know if he read my article Paul's Gospel is it yours? but it is quite clear that he does not have the same gospel as Paul had. Trying to argue these things with one spiritually blind, as all free willers are, is like trying to argue how beautiful a Bach symphony is to a deaf man or how beautiful a sunrise in Aruba is to a blind man. Futile to say the least. Until and unless God is pleased to give this man a heart to know him he will not see that free will is the avowed enemy of free grace. For when one is saved by grace he KNOWS that he had nothing to do with it but was "made willing in the day of his power." mk

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

15:52:03

Comments

Please answer to your blunder? Excuse me? You want me to go to this site and read this article again? even after this man blatantly twisted the scriptures? please sir you answer to his blunder then, MK submitted from(John 17:9)that all humanity was not prayed for by Jesus but instead, all of the elect(Calvinst few)Then I pointed out his error by showing Jesus was speaking of His Apostles.. I Know this false doctrine(Calvinism) like the Back of my hand!I was once southern Baptist.... mlculwell

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

16:03:03

Comments

MK wrote: "Oneness Pentecostals out of the Christian section. They love debating these groups. Does any one wonder why? Is it because they have good responses to those groups but cannot deal with what Preterism has presented as biblical truth?" There is not a One of you Three Godders that has any Good argument against oneness! debate, or stop your mouth.. mlculwell a Oneness Preterist

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

16:14:11

Comments

Before I logged off the computer I thought I would check in here and see if there was a response and I see 3. First to ML I say that mk didnt mispresent John 17:9 for it is not a matter of who it is that was given him out of the world, I dont think that was his point, but the fact that he does not pray for the world. Are you not saying he died for those other than the apostles? Then why didnt he want them to be with him in glory for that is one of the things he prayed for. He ONLY prayed for them and those that would ultimately believe (through grace Acts 18:27 ie. the elect)through their word. To mk, I most certainly agree with you and find it fruitless debating the unregenerate especially when one sees the points you brought up in the Pauls Gospel article which I might add are very persuasive and only one blinded by their own darkened mind of unregenerency cannot see it. Praise God for these accusations it all the more makes me know my gospel is the one Paul preached. Miquel Santa Maria

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

16:24:06

Comments

Mk presented this passage to try and prove his point of Calvinsm, by twisting the passage to his advantage, you are ignoring my point,(the Ones out of the world were the apostles) Mk is Silent because he see's his blunder.. I am holding your feet to the fire! "I pray NOT for the world but for those that thou hast given me out of the world" John 17:9...................mk

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

17:21:38

Comments

I PRAY NOT NOT NOT NOT FOR THE WORLD BUT THOSE THAT THOU HATH GIVEN ME OUT OF THE WORLD. Its that simple regardless of who it is initially referring to he DID NOT PRAY FOR THE WORLD. Are you saying, as Miquel asked, that only the apostles will receive the blessings of that prayer? Let me ask you this one question and I will leave it here. Did Jesus prayer get answered? If so then why is not the world saved and why wont they see his glory? and why have they not been given the glory of the Father vs22ff? mk

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

18:08:49

Comments

"The world" at the time were Jews anyhow, the New covenant was not ushered untill the Blood was shed (Hebrews 10:9)the dogs(Gentiles) were not offered salvation as yet,(so don't mention your faith doctrine without the shed blood) that world was not your make believe calvinist world, future or past Did Jesus prayer get answered? THE WORLD WAS THE JEWS! If so then why is not the world saved and why wont they see his glory?: Because they don't want it!(WILL) and why have they not been given the glory of the Father vs22ff? mk:Because they have been blinded by there religion as you have!

Date:

26 Mar 2004

Time:

19:44:32

Comments

the world was the jews? that kind of goes against Romans 11 doesnt it? James P

Date:

27 Mar 2004

Time:

01:12:24

Comments

I have manifested thy name unto them which thou gavest me out of the world .(John 17:6) yep, they as jews(Disciples or future Apostles) came out of the world.

Date:

27 Mar 2004

Time:

05:17:00

Comments

thats a stretch to say the least. Boy some preterists have some weird intepretations. James P

Date:

27 Mar 2004

Time:

07:57:41

Comments

Some people would do anything, even to the twisting of scriptures to prop up the Murderous John Calvins doctrine..

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

15:24:55

Comments

I dont think it matters what Calvin believed or did (for I agree with you that the protestants were as bad as the catholics with persecution since they both persecuted the Anabaptists) the issue is whether salvation is all of the grace of God or do we co-operate with him. The latter of these is a works gospel therefore another gospel. Sin is the only contribution we make to our salvation. Miquel Santa Maria

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

16:20:30

Comments

I posted two URL links to follow for discussion, I grow weary of going back and forth on this, when instead could be getting down to the crux of the matter on a forum designed for such discussions, it apparent you and your friend are blinded by calvinsm,the article submittedby MK on Pauls gospel was totally laughable, and the passages taken in there proper context had nothing to do with what you or he claimed,I find calvinists believers to be the most pompous of all Twisting scriptures only to lie to yourselves you will belive Calvinism in torments! mlculwell

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

17:19:31

Comments

The reason you feel that way is because you are, as mk put it in a message above, unregenerate. For when God saves a sinner he brings that sinner to such a point of despairing of himself that he has no problem with the idea that God did it all and that if it was left up to his choice he would be lost forever. So not only does the regenerate sinner see the clear teaching of Scripture, but it answers to his own heart. It is like this as Spurgeon said "I know God chose me for I would have never chosen him and I know he chose me before I was born for there was nothing in me that would make him chose me after I was born." Every blood bought redeemed sinner agrees with that and knows that it was not their will that saved them but God making them willing in the day of his power. So when a regenerate sinner reads Rom 9:16 and reads it is not of him that WILLETH...but of God that shows mercy.... his heart cries out AMEN. As Isaac Watts so beautifully put it in that hymn "why was I made to hear his voice and enter while theres room while others make a wretched choice but rather starve them come. Twas the same love that spread the feast that sweetly forced us in, else we had still refused to taste and perished in our sin." AMEN AND AMEN....It is sad that you ML cannot say that for you are relying on our co-operation with God and that is a works gospel which has anathema pronounced upon it. In addition your attitude is not one I want to give any more legitmacy to for you sound as mean spirited as those calvinist you mentioned (and I agree many are). Bye.....Miquel Santa Maria

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

17:19:36

Comments

The reason you feel that way is because you are, as mk put it in a message above, unregenerate. For when God saves a sinner he brings that sinner to such a point of despairing of himself that he has no problem with the idea that God did it all and that if it was left up to his choice he would be lost forever. So not only does the regenerate sinner see the clear teaching of Scripture, but it answers to his own heart. It is like this as Spurgeon said "I know God chose me for I would have never chosen him and I know he chose me before I was born for there was nothing in me that would make him chose me after I was born." Every blood bought redeemed sinner agrees with that and knows that it was not their will that saved them but God making them willing in the day of his power. So when a regenerate sinner reads Rom 9:16 and reads it is not of him that WILLETH...but of God that shows mercy.... his heart cries out AMEN. As Isaac Watts so beautifully put it in that hymn "why was I made to hear his voice and enter while theres room while others make a wretched choice but rather starve them come. Twas the same love that spread the feast that sweetly forced us in, else we had still refused to taste and perished in our sin." AMEN AND AMEN....It is sad that you ML cannot say that for you are relying on our co-operation with God and that is a works gospel which has anathema pronounced upon it. In addition your attitude is not one I want to give any more legitmacy to for you sound as mean spirited as those calvinist you mentioned (and I agree many are). Bye.....Miquel Santa Maria

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

17:28:16

Comments

AMEN....Very well put Miguel. There is nothing I can add to that statement. James P

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

18:03:05

Comments

"Not him that willeth" is that man is incapable of saving himself, God willed for man to be saved, man has a choice in the matter, he can accept or reject the free gift, your doctrine is confusion and presumptious, I fear for you and your doctrine, you will go down in flames holding to a lie standing before God who has found your wanting for truth, the scriptures teach to try the Spirits(Doctrines) which you refuse to do...

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

18:10:31

Comments

you wrote:" You are unregenerate." I would like to Add:This is your word against mine,YES! You who twisted the passages In Johns gospel, Are we to trust someone who would Go so far? How Much more do you Calvinists twist and murder to take others to the Depths of Hell? I speak the truth!

Date:

29 Mar 2004

Time:

19:04:57

Comments

This statement "man has a choice in the matter, he can accept or reject the free gift, your try the Spirits(Doctrines) which you refuse to do..." is the height of self righteousness and is a damnable doctrine that no regenerate person would say. Salvation is a gift BESTOWED NOT A GIFT OFFERED. Jesus said " I GIVE unto them eternal life." You guys got another gospel and will split hell wide open with it.

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

03:06:47

Comments

Your just angry because I proved Calvanism a lie, and all who promote it are there fathers Children(the devil). The Following passages prove such.. God is not a respector of persons: Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11-12; 1 Pe 1:17 These pasage teach God is no respecter of persons but the Calvinists lie and say He is by Being selective and forcing salvation on one, and hell on another, what an awful God! God does not will that any perish but all be saved: Tit 2:11; 1 Ti 2:4; 2 Pe 3:9 But Calvinists Teach diametric to the scriptures by again twisting the Scriptures, teaching God wills for one man to perish, and another to be forcefully saved.. Again can you trust such lying murderers?

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

10:11:06

Comments

I didnt know that I was showing any anger if indeed this was aimed at me. I am not the least bit angry over your cutting remarks for they are of one who is blind and if anything I have compassion on you and pray for you. I see much unchristlike attitude in you. Even if we are teaching false doctrine, which we arent it is you that is, we are told to honor ALL men and to let our speech be always with grace seasoned with salt THAT WE MAY KNOW HOW TO ANSWER EVERY MAN. I dont see that in you so that alone, besides you having a works gospel, would tell me you do not know the Christ of Holy Writ. Miquel Santa Maria

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

13:11:15

Comments

Now why would you have compassion on me, and pray for someone that your prayers would do no good? don't you beleive your own doctrine? It certainly is your Opinion that i am unchristlike!but that is all it is, I am not, I speak the truth AGAINST YOUR FALSE DOCTRINE, YOU SEE THAT AS UNCHRIST LIKE,AND A THREAT, WHERE OTHERS WOULD NOT BE SO BOLD, THAT IS MY WAY AND i WILL NOT CHANGE!if you want to discuss then come to my groups, if you have the truth then should not be afraid...

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

13:51:58

Comments

You are a bitter hateful man and I pity you. Miquel

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

15:23:19

Comments

And I pitty you for being steeped in false doctrine and not knowing it!

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

15:29:27

Comments

Then we have a lot in common for I pity you for exactly the same thing -EMBRACING HERESY! Miquel

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

16:07:51

Comments

Gee I didnt know that my article on preterism in Paltalk would generate such argumentation on free grace vs free will. I just happened to check in to see what has been posted seeing I havent looked in a week or so. Miquel, you have posted some interesting thoughts and ones I must amen. As someone else posted I must say I cannot add anything to it so I wont. I guess I will leave it there. mk

Date:

30 Mar 2004

Time:

17:51:15

Comments

Grace goes hand in hand with free will! Calvinsm is bondage!

Date:

31 Mar 2004

Time:

06:36:53

Comments

Free will is the avowed enemy of free grace. Arminianism is a works gospel therefore another gospel so anathema is pronounced upon it.

Date:

31 Mar 2004

Time:

13:12:57

Comments

We don't find Calvanism or arminianism in the scriptures! but if you mean free will then you are wrong, and I don't se you willing to prove either Calvinsm or the Doctrine this all started with(The trinty)

Date:

31 Mar 2004

Time:

13:18:42

Comments

And that is very understandable because you don't have eyes to see and ears to hear. Miquel

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

14:13:02

Comments

All your unproven Opinion and doctrine! we can keep on and on, but we need to go to a forum and discuss the False doctrine Of Calvin, and the Trinty...

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

14:35:24

Comments

You are right in that this is going on and on and of course to no avail. That is because I have failed to follow the biblical principle in Titus 3:10 "a man that is an heretic, after the second and third admonition reject." You have had more than that so it is time for me to reject you. Miquel

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

16:28:29

Comments

Amen Miquel! That is my sentiments exactly. That is exactly why I do not debate what I consider heresy. And as for me not making any defense of my position my website is filled with biblical arguments for the gospel of God's free and sovereign grace and exposes free willism for what it is a man centered religion. He has heard the truth and is without excuse. mk

Date:

01 Apr 2004

Time:

19:48:55

Comments

And I reject you! I will Go with Jesus, and you can go with Calvin..

Date:

02 Apr 2004

Time:

07:15:31

Comments

Too bad you got the wrong Jesus. JP

Date:

02 Apr 2004

Time:

12:53:59

Comments

Well then prove it? you certainly have not done it here here! you have caused me to believe you have no confidence or faith in your doctrine,I take that to mean you are fearfull of truth...

Date:

14 Apr 2004

Time:

13:20:08

Comments

I have been on Paltalk for a while now. I had heard of "preterism" and didn't pay much attention to it. But I finally began to listen in preterist rooms and began to see how those who believe this doctrine (full preterism) misread and distort Scripture. The whole foundational fallacy in full preterism is the misreading of Matthew 24:34, from what I am able to ascertain. If what Jesus said there MUST mean everything He spoke of previously must have been fulfilled, then preterists are bound by that misreading to make Scripture "prove" that misreading. From what I have seen of preterists on Paltalk so far, they seem to suffer from the problem of bad hermeneutics based on that misreading of Matt. 24:34. Maybe some non-preterists are afraid of something. I don't know. For me full preterism is relatively new. And from what I understand, the early Church Fathers after AD 70 would have thought it was new as well. I have been studying the Bible for over 18 years, and I learned New Testament Greek a few years back. I also started studying Hebrew. So I would like to think I know the Bible to some degree. Yet I do not see the validity of full preterism at this time. In fact, I see the Bible being distorted beyond belief due to preterist interpretations. For example, I was told by one preterist that Jesus in John 21:22 was telling Peter that John would not die until He comes in His second coming. Really? Is that what Jesus was saying? Read the text again, and ask yourself what the word "If" in the text means. The preterist must force this text to make a statement when it is not making a statement. Even then some people misunderstood what Jesus meant (21:23). But preterists today make a similar error because of their preterist "glasses" that make texts say what they don't. Another example is how one preterist interpreted 1 Thessalonians 4:15. I was told that Paul was saying that some of the Thessalonians would live to see the 2nd Advent. But that is NOT what Paul was saying at all. At the coming of the Lord, some believers will be alive, but those who died in Christ will be given glorified bodies FIRST. That is what's being spoken of in that context. What is being talked about is the order of the resurrection of dead and living believers at His coming. But the focus was not on Thessalonian believers. Another example of bad hermeneutics created by preterism is how Luke 17:20 was distorted to mean Jesus would return invisibly. But the question was not when Jesus would return but "when the kingdom of God would come." These are different issues, even though they might be related. I could go on, but it seems to me the more I learn about the foundations of full preterism, the more I find that it crumbles under careful investigation. And if it crumbles, then there is something wrong with the doctrine and it cannot stand. If someone would like to discuss preterism with me, I would be more than happy to do so. You can email me at adan700@aol.com.

Date:

14 Apr 2004

Time:

18:32:43

Comments

Here is what a moslem wrote on one of debate groups concerning the precious futurism doctrine, it most certainly gives occaision for Nonchristians to poke fun at doctrine that is open for all to see it's weaknesses! Chaim Pippick wrote: Jesus is a No-Show The story of Jesus Christ proclaims that He will reappear. He has not, and it has not been for 100 years, nor has it been 1,000 years, but it has been for a whopping two thousand years. Generations upon generations of people have been misled for their entire lives. It is time that we persuade believers of this story to accept that Jesus is a no-show.

Date:

15 Apr 2004

Time:

08:16:07

Comments

I must say it is rather naive to see moslem and non-Christian fun-poking at Jesus not returning YET as if it exposed some kind of weakness. I'm glad that Jesus is taking His time, for Scripture teaches that such scoffers even as we have it revealed in 2 Peter 3:3: "knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, 'Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation'...The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some count slackness, but is LONGSUFFERING TOWARD US, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence." (3:4,9). I say let them scoff. It was predicted that people would. But the fact remains that no matter how long Jesus takes, it is so that more people can repent and enter the Kingdom. If this is a "weakness" then praise God for this kind of "weakness"!

Date:

15 Apr 2004

Time:

11:04:13

Comments

what a horrible argument!!!!! Muslems and Bertrand Russell pointed out that the Bible is wrong because it says Jesus would return and he didn't. Now, how many other things do Muslems and atheists point out??? Oh, but they are wrong on those ones. Give me a break. Here is my refutation of this particular Hyper-pret argument. Muslem's say that hyper-prets are wrong because we are told that creation will look like eden at the consumation. Now, since they beleive that we have allready passed the consumation of all things then they must be wrong since creation doesn't look like eden?!?!?! Would you guys buy that? NO! So, neither do I buy your weak argument.

Date:

15 Apr 2004

Time:

13:38:09

Comments

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apostolic_preterist Here is my preterist debate forum, you can come and discuss anything you like, this comment section is not an area for discussion, my forum would be better suited, and by the way i posted the comment about the muslem, and I beleive it is a great argument!

Date:

18 Apr 2004

Time:

15:45:42

Comments

TO: adan700 it is not misreading Matt 24:34 it is that we take if for exactly what it means. Besides there are tons of other texts that speak of the nearness of Christ's return to the first century believer.

Date:

03 May 2004

Time:

17:28:26

Comments

LOU RUGGERIO IS A HERETIC AND HATES THE GOSPEL OF FREE AND SOVEREIGN GRACE ...http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Lake/8890/grace/paulsgospel.html

Date: 25 Oct 2005
Time: 14:39:42

Comments:

Have we have made comprehending the mechanics of solteriology a necessary work for salvation, judging souls "unregenerate" should they fail this work?

Date: 03 Oct 2006
Time: 11:51:36

Comments:

Which Jesus do you worship in Spirit and in Truth? Is it the Jesus that promised to return in the first century and did not ? Or is it the Jesus that DID return in the first century , just as he promised his disciples of the first century? Now , now , now the kingdom of God is with men . rev.21:3

Date: 22 Oct 2006
Time: 08:09:07

Comments:

LOL! I am Oneness and preterist mlculwell@yahoo.com
I will take all comers in a discussion of Oneness vs.
Trinity doctrine! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Trinity_vs_Oneness_Debate/