"And, I don't get FP's using this argument (I used to use it when David Engelsma was saying it). Do you want to drive people AWAY from your view? Scare them off?...[Instead] Here's what you should post: "this is what X said, and I quote X" Then, deal with X's actual words and show where they contradict Y in Scripture or in his own argument. Or, "if P, then Y" of necessary inference - but anything else, like this fellow writes, is speculation and useless "leads to" fearmongering......It's like bringing up Hitler in an argument....." -- link: http://deathisdefeated.ning.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2362512
So, let's analyze what is going on here. Most FPist DO IN FACT claim that if PPists were consistent, they would eventually adopt FPism. But Sam doesn't want you to use this argument - why? Because he thinks it will drive people away and scare people from FPism. Wait??? If Sam is really against FPism, isn't that exactly what Sam would want to do???? Instead, he offers advice to FPists how to avoid talking about the REALITY that many people DO become FPists once they start being consistent with DeMar, Gentry, and Talbot's teachings. Sam wants FPists to hide this FACT. He says it is merely speculation and useless "fear-mongering".
A FPist recently pointed out that the Talbotites are masters at obfuscation and here we see Sam himself advocating for obfuscation -- hiding the FACT that if PPists are consistent, they will eventually adopt a form of FPism; as Sam and his mentor have adopted "Chiltonian" FPism.
Don't let Sam fool you. He is STILL a FPist; he just doesn't like all you other FPists that won't fawn over him and make him your leader in "systematic FPism".