a Hagee fan (Jackmo) has made some accusations at me, and here is my response :)
<<<<That was the definition I was using, the same one you were using.
Regardless of Vic’s use of the word “catholic” there can be no doubt that he
is speaking of a particular group of members in the Body of Christ when he
wrote these words. He is speaking of that group that is gathered together in
Judea and not the entire Body.>>>
There is no doubt only to those who are desperate to invent a seperate and
distinct body of Christ from that of what was understood as the current one
single body of believers then.
As to Vic's words about being gathered together in Judea, that is precisely
my point about taken out of the way. The context of taken out of the way in
chapter 6 for church was to FLEE persecution. In chapter 12, Vic said the
same thing. The group gathered in Judea was the entire body, or what is left
of it after it had its members tortured and killed by the antichrist. God
gathered them to Judea where they can flee the persecution.
<<<<Your arguments that he meant something different by using the word
“catholic” are sophistic and without merit.
Your argument that Vic didn’t say “taken away into the air” in chapter 6 is
also without merit.>>>
My argument that the catholic church is reference to the one single body of
believers is without merit to those who are that desperate as to invent such
a ridiculous redefinition of words like catholic church, apostolic church,
and so on. Redefinition that even dispensationalists themselves would scoff
at. You were so desperate to claim that catholic church does not refer to
current church that you try to make up a distinction as to the words church
and catholic church being distinct bodies as understood then until after
Vic's death. The facts I presented show that you are desperately ignoring
history to make your case.
And on Vic saying taken out of the way not meaning in the air is without
merit, it is your assertions again. You claim taken out of the way must mean
caught up in the air. That is just you putting words in Vic's mouth. Taken
out of the way can mean many things. Like taken out of the way in the midst
of persecutions, such that the church no longer is persecuted, as in move
from one place to another on earth. As in move from places of persecution to
being gathered in Judea, to the mountains. As in if I say have a friend taken
out of harm's way, it does NOT mean have that friend caught up somewhere in
the air being raptured. It means as in a situation of where that person is
protected. As in the movie Eraser.
I presented the case that he understood last time as to sixth seal and last
seven judgements. I presented the case of fleeing the persecution as to taken
out of the way and gathered into Judea. Two synonymous things in both cases.
Your response is dismissal without proof, not rebuttals of any sort.
You deliberately mislead yourself that the words catholic and apostolic
church does not mean anything other then the church that is understood then.
That makes you a gnostic of proportions.
As to accusing me first of honest mistake of not understanding the English
language, I will defer to every serious church historians. I can tell you
this: not one, not even the truly scholarly dispensational ones can take you
seriously that you understood the English when you have a new redefinition of
the word catholic church and ancient church of the apostles, prophets, and
<<<You understand perfectly what Vic was saying but you evidently didn’t want
others to see that Vic was pre-trib, and dispensational as well as being
The evidence is refuted by the fact that he saw the true one single church
still during tribulation. As to him being dispensational, he didn't see the
distinction between 144,000 witnesses (which you understood as ethnic Israel)
and the ancient, apostolic catholic church. That is anti-dispensational
viewpoint. So you make up a new definition of catholic church to mean ethnic
Israel then on that basis say he held to that catholic church distinct from
current church and under different redemptive programs.
You rather then deal with my points resort to attacking hidden motives like
accusations of me being deliberately dishonest or not wanting people to see
that he was clearly dispensational, pretrib, premil. I already cited his
words from chapter 20. It's there no matter how you try to hide it with the
point that someone changed his writing there!
And I have to wonder about someone who follows his teachers in namecalling
anyone who disagree with them and make false accusations like uneducated in
English or deliberately dishonest without proof.
<<<Why do you tend to try obscuring whatever issue is being discussed with
long winded rhetoric about the church fathers instead of declaring you own
You insisted that the word catholic prior to Vic was not understood as same
as current body of believers, or church then or now. I cited the church
fathers to disprove your point, church fathers who lived before Vic.
And I cited church fathers in the first and second centuries to show that
nonpremils were around according to their writings, when you insist that
nonpremil view was fabricated by Augustine in the fourth century.
<<<<When someone keeps to the subject why do you then start a diatribe
against them, saying that the are being intellectually dishonest?>>>>
Maybe you ought to ask yourself that question. You accuse me of being
deliberately dishonest. You accuse me in such a borderline racist way of not
understanding English. You put the fuel to the fire with those remarks.
<<<Why, when you define a word and someone answers you based on your
definition, do you then change your definition?>>>
When did I change my definition of ANYTHING? Please cite examples instead of
unwarranted character assassinations. When I feel someone is deliberate
distorting something, I have facts to back it up. Do you?
<<<Why do you state, in one post that you are not a “preterist” and in a
later post claim to be a preterist (partial)?>>>>
No, I claim that I do NOT believe VIC was preterist. I NEVER denied being
preterist, in partial sense. I just said Vic was NOT preterist. Nothing about
me. How about REREADIN my post?
<<<Since I know you understand English, why do you claim that Paul didn’t say
that Israel would be saved “when the fullness of the gentiles has come in”
or in other words after the gentiles?>>>
Why do you continue to misrepresent me? I hold to Jews will be saved en masse
WHEN the fullness of the gentiles come in. I understand that when God has
save all the gentiles that would ever be saved before second coming, at the
same moment the Jews will be provoked to jealous and all will convert en
masse before second coming.
<<<You realize that that statement alone makes Paul a dispensationalist by
your definition. You will twist and turn Paul’s words to try and tell us he
doesn't say that, I wonder why?>>>
Again, I said holding to Jews will be saved en masse does NOT make one a
dispensationalist! Being dispensationalist means one holds to distinction in
God's redemptive program for church and ethnic Israel. I hold to SAME
program, and that all ethnic Israel will be saved through the witness of the
church and become part of the church at the end IN THE SAME PROGRAM.
You know FULL WELL I hold to Jews will be saved en masse. Your words here
make you guilty of slander!
<<<<Why are you attacking Bible teaching preachers?>>>>
<<<<You don’t make direct attacks except in the cases of Zola, Tom Hall, Hal
Lindsey, and Tim La Haye but you say things like;>>>>
Tim Lahaye makes claims like the liberal anti-Trinitarian ORIGINATED postmil
view when he knows that NOT to be true, since Lahaye knows Calvin was postmil
and Calvin lived A FULL CENTURY before Whitby. That is enough for me to prove
my case there.
As to Lindsey and others, Road to Holocaust which accuses anyone not
dispensationalist of holding to views that are out of hatred against Jews
proves my case that those "Bible teaching preachers" are preaching hatred
against fellow Christians. Why do you turn the other way when they tear down
Bible teaching preachers who are NON-dispensationalists or even fellow
dispensationalists who are NOT dispensational ENOUGH?
And I am convinced that you got paranoid to boot!
And I would like everyone to know that no slanderer will inherit the kingdom
of God. You need to repent!
<<<Why did you claim that Tim La Haye made certain statements in a book
called “The Last Days According to Jesus”, when that book was written by
Now, where did I claim that Lahaye made statements in Last Days According to
Jesus? I said Lahaye made claims in Revelation Unveiled and Rapture Under
Why do you misread me and then make false accusations like that?
<<<<Do you still claim that John wrote Revelations before 70 AD?>>>
<<<<Do you still claim that Revelation is about the events of 70 AD?>>>
Partially yes, but in regards to the 1000 years, which i see as current, no.
In regards to the second coming, which I see at the end of the 1000 year
kingdom, no. In regards to the future resurrection of all physically at once,
no. In regards to the new heaven and earth, no.
<<<Do you still claim that all the biographers that put John on the Isle of
Patmos in 95 to 97 AD are dispensational writers?>>>
I never made that claim. I did claim that many dispensational writers are
claiming that John was exiled in 95 Ad from one or two writings that can be
read either way from the church fathers and then assume there are no other
church fathers saying things to the contrary.
My problem with many dispensational writers is their claim that premil was
held by all church fathers until it was invented in the fourth century. My
problem is their claim that all church father premils were dispensationalists.
<<<<Do you still claim that Victorinus was Amillenialist?>>>>
From what I can see in one commentary on Revelation, yes. His other writing,
on creation, I consider him premillenial. Like I said, he changed his mind
from one writing to the next. So what was said about him being
premillenialist most of his life though he was amillenialist is still true.
<<<<What kind of a brother in Christ would say one thing in personal
discussions and something else in public debate?>>>>
Please prove your accusations against me.
<<<<We know that you know a lot about certain CF, but do you know Jesus?>>>
Yes, but do you?
<<<<Does the organization that you belong to teach you sophistry?>>>
My sophistry? After you falsely accuse me of things I never said like I said
I am not preterist. Or things like I said that Lahaye wrote Last Days
According to Jesus.
The one book Lahaye wrote that had similar title was Understanding the Last
How about apologizing for the MANY, MANY FALSE ACCUSATIONS against me.
<<<To All on this board, I had to pray about this quite a bit I don’t want to
wrongfully accuse a brother of not being a Christian. Maybe he is just a
I am a "sophistic Christian" because you MISREAD my posts.
I never said Lahaye wrote Last Days According to Jesus. I never deny being a
preterist. I just deny being a FULL preterist. I hold to preterism but as
moderate or partial NOT full or hyper viewpoint.
I said Vic was NOT A PRETERIST. I am a preterist, Vic was NOT. So I am NOT
claiming Vic held to my views.
Maybe you should look in the mirror before you JUDGE!