What do you believe about the rapture and why?

[BobinKy]

I am amillennial. I believe it all happens when Christ comes in the eastern sky.

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west;
so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Mt. 24:27; KJB)​

Make sure they bury you with your feet pointing toward the east, so when Christ raises you from your grave you will be facing him in the eastern sky.

But, then, Christ may come before you die.

A good reason to carry a pocket compass so you will always know the eastern sky.

...Bob

 

[preacher4truth]

I am amillennial. I believe it all happens when Christ comes in the eastern sky.

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west;
so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Mt. 24:27; KJB)​

Make sure they bury you with your feet pointing toward the east, so when Christ raises you from your grave you will be facing him in the eastern sky.

But, then, Christ may come before you die.

A good reason to carry a pocket compass so you will always know the eastern sky.

...Bob

So you believe in the literal, physical return of Christ?

 

[Iconoclast]

zrs6v4

sorry, did not see your post until now.

I am familiar with this claim. It simply states that the church is absent during the tribulation period (Rev. 4-19) because they are raptured. My question to you is where is the church mentioned in Revelation 4-19, just give a couple to discuss?

Yes...lets take a look at that...
in rev6
11And white robes were given unto every one of them; and it was said unto them, that they should rest yet for a little season, until their fellowservants also and their brethren, that should be killed as they were, should be fulfilled.

Here they are mentioned as fellowservants, brethren
in rev7
till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads.

these believers are said to be marked,sealed in thier forehead....as those were in ezk9
9After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands

14And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me, These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.

17Saying, We give thee thanks, O LORD God Almighty, which art, and wast, and art to come; because thou hast taken to thee thy great power, and hast reigned.
18And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
17And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ

Here are just some examples.The word church itself is not used,but the word jew is not used, or the word trinity is not used.
the descriptions given however are of the church.....those desciptions in red

 

[Iconoclast]

p4t

amill and post mill believe in a literal bodily return of The Lord Jesus Christ.

They believe that He is now ruling as King.....in the midst of His enemies
psalm110

Some believe in a future literal kingdom of a thousand years on earth, in physical Jerusalem

The postmill and amill believe He reigns now from the heavenly Jerusalem.
He is King now

20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation:

21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

20 Now having been questioned by the Pharisees as to when the kingdom of God was coming, He answered them and said, “The kingdom of God is not coming with [n]signs to be observed; 21 nor will they say, ‘Look, here it is!’ or, ‘There it is!’ For behold, the kingdom of God is [o]in your midst.”

20And having been questioned by the Pharisees, when the reign of God doth come, he answered them, and said, `The reign of God doth not come with observation;

21nor shall they say, Lo, here; or lo, there; for lo, the reign of God is within you

 

[BobinKy]

So you believe in the literal, physical return of Christ?

Yes, I do.

How about you?

...Bob

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Pan Millennial..... you know what that means (old Joke) :laugh:

 

[revmwc]

Thinking about getting my masters in biblical studies and one of the course that I am thinking of taking is dispensationalism, that will help me understand it better. That way I can debate it better.

 

[Iconoclast]

Thinking about getting my masters in biblical studies and one of the course that I am thinking of taking is dispensationalism, that will help me understand it better. That way I can debate it better.

Many have left it...others try to adjust it.....but it is not solid as it "wrongly" divides the truth.

 

[revmwc]

Many have left it...others try to adjust it.....but it is not solid as it "wrongly" divides the truth.

It is a lot more solid than the preterist teaching which places a return at 70 A.D. that cannot be backed up by scripture, without having to really re-interpret prophecy and scripture to make it fit.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

I am amillennial. I believe it all happens when Christ comes in the eastern sky.

For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west;
so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
(Mt. 24:27; KJB)​

Make sure they bury you with your feet pointing toward the east, so when Christ raises you from your grave you will be facing him in the eastern sky.

But, then, Christ may come before you die.

A good reason to carry a pocket compass so you will always know the eastern sky.

...Bob

Which eastern sky? Israel's east is west of us.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

Also, Matthew 24:27 doesn't say that Christ will come in the eastern sky, it is comparing His coming to a bolt of lightning. This may be nit-picky, but hey, that's what we do here. :tongue3:

 

[zrs6v4]

Many have left it...others try to adjust it.....but it is not solid as it "wrongly" divides the truth.

I am fairly new to dispensationalism. I am finishing my masters at Baptist Bible College where I have been introduced to the system. I am not convinced although the literal approach seems to have some strong logic to it. There are various forms of dispensationalism such as progressive, but the most popular and faithful is the tradition views (Scofield, Ryrie, etc..). Anyway I have a long way to go in looking into all the angles and different approaches.

What are the negatives to dispensationism in yours eyes?

How do you view their method of grammatical-historical hermeneutics?

 

[Allan]

Many have left it...others try to adjust it.....but it is not solid as it "wrongly" divides the truth.

Actually brother it is the most accurate and biblcially hermeneutic way to interpret scripture. Any other 'way' wrongly divides the truth as one must change their interpretive hermeneutic to have their view.

Remember too.. that many have left Covenant theology... and many try to adjust it as well (which is why it also has many variations).

 

[zrs6v4]

Actually brother it is the most accurate and biblcially hermeneutic way to interpret scripture. Any other 'way' wrongly divides the truth as one must change their interpretive hermeneutic to have their view.

Remember too.. that many have left Covenant theology... and many try to adjust it as well (which is why it also has many variations).

Allan, I would also like to hear your voice as to why you believe that dispensationalism (traditional at least) "is the most accurate and biblically hermeneutic way to interperet scripture."

I hope others chime in as well to get discussion going.

Covenant theologians have offered a lot, but replacement theology is a great example of not practicing literal interpretation of the text (as said before grammatical-historical interpretation). Logic leads to things such as baptizing infants, spiritualizing Israel prophecies, and so forth.

I read an article that talked about Covenant Theology, Dispenational Theology, and New Covenant Theology. I am not familiar with New Covenant Theology, would not necessarily completely adhere to any system (closest to dispensationalism) either.

What would you consider yourself, why?

 

[revmwc]

Allan, I would also like to hear your voice as to why you believe that dispensationalism (traditional at least) "is the most accurate and biblically hermeneutic way to interperet scripture."

I hope others chime in as well to get discussion going.

Covenant theologians have offered a lot, but replacement theology is a great example of not practicing literal interpretation of the text (as said before grammatical-historical interpretation). Logic leads to things such as baptizing infants, spiritualizing Israel prophecies, and so forth.

I read an article that talked about Covenant Theology, Dispenational Theology, and New Covenant Theology. I am not familiar with New Covenant Theology, would not necessarily completely adhere to any system (closest to dispensationalism) either.

What would you consider yourself, why?

The first Age or dispensation would be innocence, Adam and Eve were in innocence until they fell, so what would the covenant have been for them. Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The covenant would be this of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" Adam and Eve were commanded "thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." To eat of it would bring death, the covenant would then be don't eat and you will live forever, eat and die. In other words you are in innocence until you eat of it. God would not bring death on the human race as long as Adam and Eve followed Gods one covenant with them and that was obey and Have life Disobey and death will come. Just like us believe (obey) on Jesus and have life, reject (disobey) and death reigns.

 

[michael-acts17:11]

The first Age or dispensation would be innocence, Adam and Eve were in innocence until they fell, so what would the covenant have been for them. Genesis 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:
17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

The covenant would be this of the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" Adam and Eve were commanded "thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." To eat of it would bring death, the covenant would then be don't eat and you will live forever, eat and die. In other words you are in innocence until you eat of it. God would not bring death on the human race as long as Adam and Eve followed Gods one covenant with them and that was obey and Have life Disobey and death will come. Just like us believe (obey) on Jesus and have life, reject (disobey) and death reigns.

This is why I turned from dispensationalism. Scripture does not describe a "dispensation" of innocence. Such beliefs are the result of human efforts to quantify Scripture into man-made terms. God has covenanted Himself with man multiple times, but has never even eluded to "dispensations" in Scripture.

 

[revmwc]

This is why I turned from dispensationalism. Scripture does not describe a "dispensation" of innocence. Such beliefs are the result of human efforts to quantify Scripture into man-made terms. God has covenanted Himself with man multiple times, but has never even eluded to "dispensations" in Scripture.

So His covenenant withman has always been the same believe (obey) reject Gods will (disobey) and die. Adam and Eve lived in a time of innocence however you want to say they were in innocence until they sinned, had thet not disobeyed then they would have lived in innocence forever,. So you define the innocence they lived in. Call it what you wish God's plan for man has always been the same if we do His will if we believe Him we have eternal life and if we disobey we die the second death.
We live the time in which God deals with us through His church, believe on Christ and Live reject Him and die, same easy covenant now but God deals with us in the same way when it comes to salvation.

 

[Allan]

Allan, I would also like to hear your voice as to why you believe that dispensationalism (traditional at least) "is the most accurate and biblically hermeneutic way to interpret scripture."

There are various reasons actually. One, as you stated in your post, is use of grammatical-historical interpretation. You can not use this interpretation with everything in scripture EXCEPT prophecy, and more specifically future prophesy. Especially when all prophesies concerning Jesus coming, life, death, and resurrection (and other OT prophesies) were interpreted in the grammatical-historical way.

When one 'maintains' proper hermeneutic the only logical and most biblical conclusion one can come to is a pre-millennial view of scripture which is the very foundation of dispensationism. This foundation is upon the original concepts of early church fathers from the apostles up till about 450ish a.d.
That foundation was known as chilianism (Pre-Millenniualism) and though there are a few differences between it and dispensationalism (such as pre-rapture), the foundational concepts/points/or views still maintain or holds to the key elements of Pre-mil teachings:

As stated the early church fathers were pre-mill for the first 450'ish years of the early church. It wasn't till the church merged with Roman state that it officially changed it's position with Augustine as its poster boy (much like Darby is of Dispy view). Neither actually started the view.. they just brought it to the forefront and became the notable mouth pieces for them.

However, my point regarding the pre-mill view of the early church fathers, and thus by extension the early church (the apostle's disciples, which discipled their own disciples, and so forth) is that the core teaching of this view, is the same core components as that of Dispensationalism. And is why it is rightly called pre-millennial dispensationalism. These founding concepts, points or themes are:

Common themes or points of the Premil view are as follows:
1. The anti-christ (a person) would both arise and reign
2. Christ's return physically to earth and the overthrow of the anti-christ.
3. Christ establishing His physical Kingdom on the earth.
4. He would reign from Jerusalem both over and with His saints of all ages.
5. His reign would last a literal 1000 years.
6. There were 2 distinct resurrections. That of the saints before the 1000 year reign and the general - those who would be raised up for Judgment.
7. Pre-mils did distinguish between Israel and Church.

Regarding #7:
The fact that the Jews (Israel) are brought back to Jerusalem for and during the reign of Christ and His saints is indicative of this.

Here are some Church Historians who are and are on record as stating the Pre-mil view was not only apart of the early church but also the dominant view of it.
Some are even Amil, Post-mil believers who are even against the Premil view

There is a distinction however with the pre-mil view that is noted but not separate to the dispensational view.. and that is a 'post' trib resurrection rather than a pre-trib one. However the dispensational view hold 3 views on when the resurrection takes place (Pre, Mid, Post). The reason for this is that the Premil view was not a system of theology as we understand it today but was a set of beliefs based on scripture. Whereas Dispensationalism is a systematic look at the over-arching design of God work through human history which INCLUDES and is in fact established IN the pre-mill view of the early church before the early Roman Catholic Church changed it.

Thus it is historically the noted view of the church handed down from Christ, to the apostles, to their disciples, ect..

Just for the record, in case it gets asked (as it most usually does) here are some examples of those who held and proclaimed a pre-trib view BEFORE 1830 (other than John Darby 1800-1882)

Joseph Mede (1586-1638);
Edward Bickersteth (1786-1850);
James H. Frere (1779-1866);
William Cuninghame (1775-1849); amoung various others.

Covenant theologians have offered a lot, but replacement theology is a great example of not practicing literal interpretation of the text (as said before grammatical-historical interpretation). Logic leads to things such as baptizing infants, spiritualizing Israel prophecies, and so forth.

Remember, Covenant theology IS replacement theology
The term 'replacement' was coined as a pejorative, just as the term Dispy is .
Though an argument can be made that the early Covenant view of the early Roman Church (around Augustines times and a couple hundred years after) was really the initial view of replacement theology (the holy wars and so forth) which developed more later into a better understanding of what is held as RCC Covenant theology view.
The Reformers modified this Covenant view but maintained it after their departure.

What would you consider yourself, why?

I am more in line with John MacArthur.. pre-trib, pre-mill, dispensational.
However... I do see merit for 'post-trib' and do not discount it either. You could say I am an open pre-tribber with closet post-trib musings

 

[Allan]

This is why I turned from dispensationalism. Scripture does not describe a "dispensation" of innocence. Such beliefs are the result of human efforts to quantify Scripture into man-made terms. God has covenanted Himself with man multiple times, but has never even eluded to "dispensations" in Scripture.

The label "dispensationalism" is derived from the idea that biblical history is best understood through division into a series of chronologically successive dispensations. What is most interesting is the same is said of Covenant Theology.. the only distinction is wording used. However the same principle is applied. They 'would' use the same term as dispensation of Gods dealing with mankind except that the term already, for them, has a negative connotation to it with system OF Dispensationalism. In fact, in early works of reformed writers they DID use these terms.

For what it is worth here is an exert from Wiki on Dispensationalism in the History section:

The concept of arranging of divisions in Biblical history dates back to Irenaeus in the second century. Other Christian writers and leaders since then, such as Augustine of Hippo and Joachim of Fiore (1135–1202), have also offered their own arrangements of history.[1]:116 Many Protestant and Calvinist writers, including Herman Witsius, Francis Turretin, and Isaac Watts also developed theological schemes and divisions in history, in particular after the Westminster Confession of Faith noted "various dispensations."

Scripture does describe various ways in which God deals with mankin

 

[Iconoclast]

I am fairly new to dispensationalism. I am finishing my masters at Baptist Bible College where I have been introduced to the system. I am not convinced although the literal approach seems to have some strong logic to it. There are various forms of dispensationalism such as progressive, but the most popular and faithful is the tradition views (Scofield, Ryrie, etc..). Anyway I have a long way to go in looking into all the angles and different approaches.

What are the negatives to dispensationism in yours eyes?

How do you view their method of grammatical-historical hermeneutics?

zrs6v4,
Hello zrs....
I was taught the classic pre-mill dispy view.....dallas seminary tapes,ryrie,scofield bible,dwigth pentecost,john walvoord,etc.

I have a chart that shows the 7...basically God tells man to do something,
man fails.....God does something else...like this

http://www.biblecentre.org/topics/cis_rd_2_seven_disp.htm

I was taught all the other views spiritualize, or allegorize the scripture.
I found out this is not true,and in most cases it is a lie.
At first I resisted hearing these other ideas, or reading any other views, believing that they would lead me astray. studying the book of hebrews for a two year period, I was exposed to different ideas ,that over time made it impossible to believe the dispy scheme....then i looked at various amill, and postmill writers.
I studied through Jonathan Edwards...History of Redemption...still trying to fight off the ideas...but I could not.

He looked at the 66 books following The seperation of the seed of the woman/seed of the serpent

read a small paperback.....http://www.amazon.com/dp/0851510205/?tag=baptis04-20
He showed how the mark of the beast...was explained by the language of ezk 9

http://gospelpedlar.com/articles/Last Things/Postmill_Boettner/contents.html
you can read this online.


http://www.amazon.com/dp/0802808514/?tag=baptis04-20
here are some links for you;
http://www.monergism.com/directory/...chatology/Riddlebarger-on-Amillennialism-101/

here is from boettner:
As an example of what he means by literal interpretation Silver says: 'Every prophecy pointing to the first advent of Christ was literally fulfilled to the letter in every detail' (p. 209). That statement has been made in substance by various other Premillennialists. But it simply is not so. The very first Messianic prophecy in Scripture is found in Genesis 3:15, where, in pronouncing the curse upon the serpent God said, 'He shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.' Now that prophecy certainly was not fulfilled literally by a man crushing the head of a snake, or by a snake biting the heel of a man. Rather it was fulfilled in a highly figurative sense when Christ gained a complete victory and triumphed over the Devil and all his forces of evil at the cross. The last prophecy in the Old Testament is found in Malachi 4;5, and reads as follows: 'Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the great and terrible day of Jehovah come.' That prophecy likewise was not fulfilled literally. Christ Himself said that it was fulfilled in the person of John the Baptist (Matt. 11:14), who came in the spirit and power of Elijah.


Again, we have the prophecy of Isaiah: 'The voice of one that crieth, Prepare ye in the wilderness the way of Jehovah; make level in the desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every mountain and hill shall be made low: and the uneven shall be made level, and the rough places a plain: and the glory of Jehovah shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together; for the mouth of Jehovah hath spoken it' (Is. 40:3-5). This certainly was not fulfilled by a highway building program in Palestine, but rather in the work of John the Baptist who prepared the way for the public ministry of Jesus. John himself said, 'For this is he that was spoken of through Isaiah the prophet, saying...', and then proceeded to quote these verses (Matt. 3:1-3; Luke 3:3-6).


The words of Isaiah 9:1,2, regarding the people of Zebulun and Naphtali, 'The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwelt in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined,' are fulfilled figuratively in the ministry of Jesus. For Matthew says: 'Now when he heard that John was delivered up, he withdrew into Galilee; and leaving Nazareth, he came and dwelt in Capernaum, which is by the sea, in the border of Zebulun, and Naphtali: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet, saying,


The land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, Toward the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles, The people that sat in darkness Saw a great light, And to them that sat in the region and shadow of death, To them did light spring up' (Matt. 4:15,16).


In these words Isaiah clearly was speaking of the spiritual darkness that exists wherever sin rules, and of the spiritual light that would be brought to those lands when the Messiah came.


And when Balaam attempted to pronounce a curse upon the people of Israel he pronounced instead a blessing, and said:


'There shall come forth a star out of Jacob, And a sceptre shall rise out of Israel, And shall smite through all the corners of Moab And break down all the sons of tumult' (Nu. 24:17).


These words are commonly understood as embodying a Messianic prophecy, and as having had their fulfillment in the coming of Christ, who arose like a star out of Israel, and whose kingdom eventually is to embrace the whole world.


Many other Old Testament prophecies in figurative language might be cited, but surely these are sufficient to show that it simply is not true that 'Every prophecy pointing to the first advent of Christ was literally fulfilled to the letter in every detail.'


That a great deal of the Bible is given in figurative or symbolical language which by no stretch of the imagination can be taken literally should be apparent to every one. We spiritualize these statements because we regard this as the only way in which their true meaning can be brought out. To cite only a few further examples: In the midst of a very prosaic historical account of the deliverance of the children of Israel from Egypt the providential and protective power of God is set forth in these words: 'Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself' (Ex. 19:4). Palestine is described as 'a land flowing with milk and honey' (Ex. 3:8). Read the 23rd or 91st Psalm and note the almost continuous use of figurative language.