another pov on the mistaken rapture view

[OldRegular]

9 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Three times Jesus says...the last day....The verses offered in the premill scheme do not change this.

Very well said!

 

[Iconoclast]

Are you sure you want to stick with this one?

Yes...i will stick with this.

1thess 4...answers the question...what about saints that have died before us. It just points out we are raised together.

saying the church is not in view because the word does not appear in Rev 4...as if Jn is being told come up hither is the rapture is foolish...

1cor 15 is speaking of jesus comsumating the kingdom....


The whole premill teaching is a large house of cards that will not stand close scrutiny......

You are welcome to use "things to come: by Pentecost if you like...but I think it is an easy target. I agree that Jesus returns and look forward to that time.....but for most of us...our individual eschatology will happen long before any rapture...:thumbsup:

if you can offer differently on these verses go ahead...I will read it.

 

[OldRegular]

Icon,

I posted the following on that there thread where we were told we are not welcome but I believe it is worth repeating here.

This is a common argument given for the pretribulation rapture of the Church but it is faulty. The argument is made that because the words church or churches do not appear after the completion of the third chapter of the Revelation, the Church cannot be present during the events described in the succeeding chapters. The word churches is used eleven times in Chapters 1-3, the word church is used seven times in these same chapters. The word church or churches does not appear again until Chapter 22, Verse 16. However, the term saints is used in Revelation 5:8; 8:3, 4; 11:18; 13:7, 10; 14:12; 15:3; 16:6; 17:6; 18:24; 19:8; and 20:9. The term redeemed is used in Revelation 5:9 and 14:3, 4. Both of these terms are characteristic of the Church, the Body and Bride of Jesus Christ when found elsewhere in the New Testament . The appearance of the churches again in Chapter 22, Verse 16 and the succeeding verse is interesting and informative.

Revelation 22:16,17, KJV
16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, [and] the bright and morning star.
17 And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

Notice two things,

1. Jesus sent His angel to testify of these things in the churches, and
2. The Spirit and the Bride, the Church, give the invitation to come and take of the water of life freely.

These are strange statements to make if the Church is inconsequential during much of the period covered in Revelation; is gone during the tribulation period, and Jesus Christ rules with a ‘rod of iron’ during the millennium.

Now we examine the appearance of the words Israel or Jew in the Book of Revelation. The word Israel appears three times in the Book of Revelation, Chapters 2, 7, and 21; the word Jews appears only twice, Chapters 2 and 3, and there the reference is to false Jews. So we see that a reference to Israel appears only once during that part of the Book that is presumed to represent ‘the seven year tribulation’ and ‘Jacob’s time of trouble’. The first time the word Israel is used [2:14] the reference is to the false prophet Balaam and his role in the seduction of Israel enroute to the promise land. In Chapter 7 the name Israel is used in the discussion of the servants of God who are sealed. The next occasion [21:12] the name is used in the description of the New Jerusalem, the Church, the Bride of Jesus Christ. Again, Israel is referred to only one time, and no reference is made to the Jews, during that period in which it is claimed that the Church is absent. Strange indeed is the absence of the words Jew or Israel in the 16 chapters of Revelation written specifically, according to dispensational theology, for them while in the remainder of the New Testament the words Jew or Jews occur 188 times and the words Israel or Israelite occur 73 times.

It is interesting to note that there are other books in the New Testament where the words church or churches are not used. The words do not appear in the Gospels of Mark, Luke, and John. If one believes that the Church was not established until Pentecost, that is not necessarily unusual. It is interesting, however, that the book that many dispensationalists claim is the Gospel of the Kingdom [written by a Jewish believer who collected taxes for Rome] is the Gospel in which the Church is first proclaimed. The words church or churches are not mentioned in 1st & 2nd Peter, 1st & 2nd John, and Jude. Can we then argue the absence of the Church? The words are also absent from the first 15 chapters of Romans and occur only twice in Hebrews.

To show that the absence or presence of a word is not decisive consider the Book of Esther in the Old Testament. The editor of the Thompson Chain Reference Bible notes:The name of God does not appear in the book, while a heathen king is referred to over 150 times. There is no allusion to prayer or spiritual service of any kind with the possible exception of fasting. Does this absence of reference to God mean that He was absent or that the book of Esther should not be in the Canon? Obviously not. The book of Esther was written to show God’s watch care over His Covenant people through whom He would bring the Saviour into the world.

In conclusion, there are books in the New Testament in which the words church or churches are not mentioned. Therefore, the absence of the word church in Chapters 4-19 of the book of Revelation is scant justification to claim that the Church is absent during the period covered by these chapters. However, I believe the best argument against a pretribulation “Rapture” is contained in the proper interpretation of John 5:28,29

 

[Revmitchell]

YOu guys take yourselves to seriously

 

[OldRegular]

YOu guys take yourselves to seriously

We are not afraid to have people question our doctrine because it is supported by Scripture!

 

[Revmitchell]

We are not afraid to have people question our doctrine because it is supported by Scripture!

No body on this board is. But your real goal is not the truth of God's word. It is just trying to be right and prove anyone else wrong. Its competition not truth.

 

[HankD]

If God gives the grace to someone to obtain new life (forever & anon) why would he not also provide all the necessary things to completely understand end times rapture (if its truthful)?

While we have been enlightened in the new birth there is also a responsibility on our part, we must avail ourselves to the means of grace (the word, prayer, chastisement) to grow after the new birth:

e.g.

1 Peter 2:2 As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby:​

2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.​

James 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.​

Hebrews 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.​

HankD​

 

[Iconoclast]

YOu guys take yourselves to seriously

The word of God is to be taken seriously. OLD REGULAR has been consistently posting very solid posts and invites comments or interaction with the verses he offers.
Why do you take such a dim view of it? Why not instead say where you agree and disagree??? Then offer some scriptural correction.

You want to question our motives. You make cryptic comments, but fail to offer on the topics many times.

The posts you are commenting on are verses that have to be taken into account to discuss this topic accurately.Old Regular lays out several passages that unravel the false idea of the church not being in rev 4-19 which is commonly taught in the dispensational teaching.

In the other thread.....no real discussion is wanted. They state a mistaken view[which most of us were first taught]....then they smugly want to ignore any questioning of it as if the questions are not valid.

Why just sail along believing error.Test your view with scripture.

 

[Iconoclast]

Neither does your interpretation change this:

2 Peter 3:8-10 (KJV)
8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

BSKI,

It does not have to change it at all.It goes hand and hand with it.Why do you think it would change it? The three verses offered do not change it at all.:type:

 

[Iconoclast]

Icon,

I posted the following on that there thread where we were told we are not welcome but I believe it is worth repeating here.

Your post was as usual very solidly biblical and offers a fine explanation:thumbsup::thumbsup: If anyone takes the time to re-examine what they have been taught ,without looking at these kinds of verses ...it is on them....

 

[Iconoclast]

No body on this board is. But your real goal is not the truth of God's word. It is just trying to be right and prove anyone else wrong. Its competition not truth.

Are you saying that we should post error instead? We should not post what we understand to be right? If we post error....show the error as best you can. I am sure we have some things that can be corrected and improved upon....show where you think it is:thumbsup:

 

[OldRegular]

No body on this board is. But your real goal is not the truth of God's word. It is just trying to be right and prove anyone else wrong. Its competition not truth.

NO!

It is really about trying to get classic dispensationalists to support their concept of the "parenthesis" Church, the pre-trib rapture, and the Jewish millennium by Scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

BSKI,

It does not have to change it at all.It goes hand and hand with it.Why do you think it would change it? The three verses offered do not change it at all.:type:

Skan

They simply ignore everything that Peter writes that blows their doctrine right out of the water!

 

[Yeshua1]

In another restricted thread we are being given a classic pre-mill teaching on the church that many have found fault with....we can talk about it here":


This error was posted and is believed in many places today.





The church is all throughout the NT. What do you say about it? We are not afraid to discuss this openly so we will not restrict it to any one point of view.:type:

excedpt that it ceases to appear after chapter 4 in revelation!

 

[Revmitchell]

NO!

It is really about trying to get classic dispensationalists to support their concept of the "parenthesis" Church, the pre-trib rapture, and the Jewish millennium by Scripture.

And you just proved my point.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

What is the "parenthesis" Church?

 

[OldRegular]

excedpt that it ceases to appear after chapter 4 in revelation!

You need to read beyond Chapter 4. Or it could be a perception problem!

 

[OldRegular]

What is the "parenthesis" Church?

Following is the OP of a thread I started in July. Needless to say it was not well received.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=80260

Dispensational doctrine makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

Much of Dispensational doctrine is the invention of John Nelson Darby of Plymouth England in the early 19th Century, a century when many “Christian” Cults were started: Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, and Christian Science are the most notable.

Dispensationalism denies that the Church is included in prophecy. Rather, the claim is made that Jesus Christ came to establish the Messianic kingdom for the Jews, that they rejected Him, and that He established the Church instead [Herman Hoyt, a dispensationalist, in The Millennium, Four Viewpoints, by Clouse, pages 84-88]. The Church is often referred to as the ‘mystery parenthesis’ form of the Kingdom; mystery in that there is no prophecy in the Old Testament regarding the Church and parenthesis in that God found it necessary to interrupt His program for the Jews because their leaders rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah and He was unable to establish the Messianic kingdom.

In the letter of the Apostle Paul to the Church at Ephesus God reveals to us His program for the Church of Jesus Christ.

11. Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
12. That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
13. But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16. And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17. And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18. For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19. Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
20. And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
21. In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
22. In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

Sadly dispensationalism rebuilds that wall between Jew and Gentile that Jesus Christ broke down through His own Blood. Dispensationalism teaches that an intrinsic and enduring distinction exists between Jews and the Church. The dispensationalist believes that throughout the ages God is pursuing two distinct purposes: one related to the earth with earthly people and earthly objectives involved, which is Judaism; while the other is related to heaven with heavenly people and heavenly objectives involved, which is Christianity [Lewis Sperry Chafer, Dispensationalism ]. Charles C. Ryrie in his book Dispensationalism writes about the above statement [page 39]: This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the Church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctives; and the one who does will.

Dispensational doctrine indeed makes the Church for which Jesus Christ died, a parenthesis, an intercalation, an interruption in God’s program for Israel.

 

[MorseOp]

Following is the OP of a thread I started in July. Needless to say it was not well received.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=80260

It was not well received because dispensationalism is the default eschatological system in the West. Darby's system has its appeal. It provides a certain amount of precision. While it does not provide a date for the beginning of Daniel's 70th week, it does have milestones that provide a tidy system for understanding eschatology; i.e. the re-establishment of Israel in Palestine, a personal anti-Christ, a premillennial rapture of the Church et. al. This type of system appealed to those who were looking for answers. Dispensationalism seemed to have those answers. Thus, Darby's novel approach to the end times spread rapidly towards the latter half of the 19th Century. The early 20th Century found dispensationalism in almost every denomination. It became so pervasive that it became that default system I mentioned earlier. When it is challenged it engenders a strong response. It took me over 10 years to abandon its grip.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It was not well received because dispensationalism is the default eschatological system in the West. Darby's system has its appeal. It provides a certain amount of precision. While it does not provide a date for the beginning of Daniel's 70th week, it does have milestones that provide a tidy system for understanding eschatology; i.e. the re-establishment of Israel in Palestine, a personal anti-Christ, a premillennial rapture of the Church et. al. This type of system appealed to those who were looking for answers. Dispensationalism seemed to have those answers. Thus, Darby's novel approach to the end times spread rapidly towards the latter half of the 19th Century. The early 20th Century found dispensationalism in almost every denomination. It became so pervasive that it became that default system I mentioned earlier. When it is challenged it engenders a strong response. It took me over 10 years to abandon its grip.

Not all Churches embraced it though... your referring to Baptist Churches.