Comment on the Larkin Thread

[Alimantado]

Your reasoning is hard to follow, this forum is simply a conversation in text but if you can't see the difference, no problem.

It's quite simple, really. If writings by people are wrong because they're by people, and you are a person, then it follows that your writings are also wrong, according to your logic. QED.

You claim that your writings are different because it's just a convo on the net and you're not printing and publishing the words, but I'm pointing out that a] that's irrelevant given your reason for why the writings are wrong (authored by a person), and b] there actually isn't necessarily much difference between writing stuff on the net and publishing a book.

Your writings include teachings and exhortations you want others to read and believe--well a pastor who publishes a little book as an aid for his flock is doing the same thing.

One thing is certain of every single book I have read in the distant past, none were accurate or held to Scripture completely or even nearly. The thoughts portrayed by many is "well just sort through the bad and accept only the Scriptural good" makes no sense at all, why bother reading some dude's book. God didn't tell you to read some dudes book; nor did He tell anyone to write a book. We have what God wants us to read, study and know. Not by bread only but by every Word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God (The key word is God here; not Dr. Greedy's handbook to the Bible). Every single false religion, false doctrine and false teaching today originated and is propagated by some muttenhead making merchandise of God. I know this rubs allot kittens the wrong way; face the cats in the other direction and it won't bug them so much. 

The Bible is silent on writing books--it's silent on spending time on internet forums too. False teaching does come from books--it comes from conversations too, even sermons. It's all men's thoughts, so you need to show why men's thoughts are necessarily wrong when written down on paper but not necessarily wrong when spoken or typed on an internet forum.

[wretched]

It's quite simple, really. If writings by people are wrong because they're by people, and you are a person, then it follows that your writings are also wrong, according to your logic. QED.

You claim that your writings are different because it's just a convo on the net and you're not printing and publishing the words, but I'm pointing out that a] that's irrelevant given your reason for why the writings are wrong (authored by a person), and b] there actually isn't necessarily much difference between writing stuff on the net and publishing a book.

Your writings include teachings and exhortations you want others to read and believe--well a pastor who publishes a little book as an aid for his flock is doing the same thing.

The Bible is silent on writing books--it's silent on spending time on internet forums too. False teaching does come from books--it comes from conversations too, even sermons. It's all men's thoughts, so you need to show why men's thoughts are necessarily wrong when written down on paper but not necessarily wrong when spoken or typed on an internet forum.

Filthy lucre

What you mean is they don't agree with you.  Have you thought that YOU may be wrong? I once disagreed with a pastor, not a futurist, and he said "I am not wrong."  I answered "We can't all be right, but we can all be wrong." remember that.  even you can be wrong as well as me.

Now you can do better than this Invicta.

[Invicta]

Filthy lucre

Now you can do better than this Invicta.

Most of the writers in the past didn't write for money.

[John81]

Most of the writers in the past didn't write for money.

True, and there are those today who make no money off their writings as well.

The ones who write for the sake of money are typically obvious as their books are of a sensational nature, such as Jonathan Cahn, rather than a biblical nature such as the books by Pastor Scott Markle.

[Invicta]

True, and there are those today who make no money off their writings as well.

The ones who write for the sake of money are typically obvious as their books are of a sensational nature, such as Jonathan Cahn, rather than a biblical nature such as the books by Pastor Scott Markle.

Many in the past like Wesley and Spurgeon used all their income towards their ministry and for their orphanages. 

[Alimantado]

What you mean is they don't agree with you.  Have you thought that YOU may be wrong? I once disagreed with a pastor, not a futurist, and he said "I am not wrong."  I answered "We can't all be right, but we can all be wrong." remember that.  even you can be wrong as well as me.

You know, Invicta, the irony is that one of the contrasts Wretched has tried to make between published works and his own writings on here is that his writings are "just talk and not authoritative". Yet of all the people on this forum, I can't think of anyone who speaks more authoritatively, with more exhortation, and less cautiously or tentatively, with fewer admissions (if any) than Wretched. So if there's anyone on here who's writings match the style of a "listen to me I'm right" style published work, it's Wretched's.

[Invicta]

Unfortunately good sir, the primitive writers you reference were all post RCC establishment and nothing could be trusted or even considered. Any sound primitive writers materials were rumored to be destroyed during the dark ages hence the lack thereof.

IOW: if you can find it and it is early "churchy" material it was sanctioned by the RCC. What say you to this?

Actually I am speaking about pre RCC writers, like Justin Martyr, Irenius, Tertullian and others, admittedly the RCC later made them 'saints' but they did also with Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Elijah, David, and many others. 

[wretched]

You know, Invicta, the irony is that one of the contrasts Wretched has tried to make between published works and his own writings on here is that his writings are "just talk and not authoritative". Yet of all the people on this forum, I can't think of anyone who speaks more authoritatively, with more exhortation, and less cautiously or tentatively, with fewer admissions (if any) than Wretched. So if there's anyone on here who's writings match the style of a "listen to me I'm right" style published work, it's Wretched's.

You may be right...I was once accused of speaking with authority when I say good morning. IE, it is a good morning and don't refute it.

[Invicta]

From the Larkin thread.

2 Thess 2:8-9  And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,   2 Thess 2:4b  so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.   2 Thess 2:11b God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

That Wicked, the Pope.  What man could be more wicked than he?  By his power, signs and lying wonders he has enticed millions to hell. 

He  sits in the temple of God, claiming to be God.  The popes have long claimed to be God on earth.  Do a search for "temple of God" in Paul's epistles and you will find that he only uses it as the Church.

[wretched]

 You are partly correct.  Modern pre tribulational teaching developed from Ribera's work.  It didn't exist before.  Not one of the "Primitive Writers" taught any such thing. However much you search, you will not find it.  It did not begin to develop until after 1830.  The "Primitive Writers"  all taught that the book of revelation was regarding the Church,  that the Temple was the Church, that the Jews represented Christians. The let and hindrance in 2 Thess 2 were the Emperor and the Empire. 

 

I wanted to apologize for trying to hijack your thread Sir. Unfortunately I realized after reading some comments from you and Alimantado that I have been using this site to vent more than anything and even though I have anonymity on here, God sees it.

Please forgive

[Invicta]

I wanted to apologize for trying to hijack your thread Sir. Unfortunately I realized after reading some comments from you and Alimantado that I have been using this site to vent more than anything and even though I have anonymity on here, God sees it.

Please forgive

No problems, I don't take offence. I realize that people disagree and probably no one else on the site agrees with me, but I am not worried about being the odd one out.  I may not have learnt much at school, but one thing I remember is being told not to be afraid to go against the majority for "The majority is usually wrong" said our teacher.  That is one thing that I remembered.

 

Apology accepted with thanks.

 

 

 

[Genevanpreacher]

Comment on Larkin thread,

  I see, once again, (when common sense shows error in a man of God, lifted up to be a prophecy god, and one not to be questioned), very little evidence that Larkin can be right at all in his view of Revelation and any sort of prophecy from the scriptures, including Daniel and the 70 weeks mumbo jumbo gap.

Thanks Alan,

Genevanpreacher, one who believes the scriptures and what THEY say.

[Invicta]

I've seen the Larkin battle before. Years ago a fine Baptist pastor advised we stay away from Larkin. As he put it, if a man can't get the first of the book (Bible) right he can't be trusted with the rest of it either. While I don't recall their names now, this pastor suggested a couple others writings on the topic who he said were more "overall scripturally sound" and thus a more reliable source to both read and refer others to.

When I was in the Brethren I heard of the genesis gap theory as being fact and that they used that "fact" to prove the gap in Daniel.  

[No Nicolaitans]

When I was in the Brethren I heard of the genesis gap theory as being fact and that they used that "fact" to prove the gap in Daniel.  

The gap is a biblical fact, and I can prove it...

Ezekiel 22:30
And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it: but I found none.

That's the biblical gap. 

 

[Critical Mass]

Remember, the Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory are not the same thing. Gap Theory teaches seven literal days of creation while the later doesn't. A lot of folks get the two mixed up.