Featured The Marriage and the Marriage Supper

I thought you said there was no mention of the Church in the Old Testament. So Old brother James was correct after all when he said And to this agree the words of the prophets.

The Deliver came out of Sion or Zion 2000 years ago! He turned away ungodliness for the elect of God amongst national Israel.

If you, or any other who holds to dispensational error, could show a single verse of Scripture that teaches a "snatching away" of the Church prior to any so-called great tribulation you might, just might have a case of two peoples of God, otherwise no!

************************************************************

Of course we should all note that it was not just a portion of Israel that was saved in the Old Testament but all whose names were written in the Book of Life: There were all the people before the flood; some of Noah's people; Job and some of his, though his wife did give bad advice; the people of Nineveh to whom Jonah reluctantly preached; those of Salem at the time of Melchizedek; and I am sure there others not mentioned. As Brother James told us, or rather God through that Brother: Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.

 

A little useful information for all to consider.

John F. Walvoord, the preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary confesses that the validity of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ depends on the definition of the Church [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]. Before presenting Walvoord’s remarks concerning this question it is worthwhile to consider the definition of the Church as presented in The Baptist Faith and Message [Section VI] adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000.

“The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.”

Walvoord writes, regarding the definition of the church, [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]:

We see from the definition of the Church as presented in the Baptist Faith and Message and the remarks by Walvoord that the doctrine of a pretribulation rapture of the Church contradicts current Southern Baptist Doctrine as well as historic Baptist Doctrine. But that dispensational error is rampant in the SBC!

Furthermore I suppose the converse is true. Since the Church is not going to be "snatched away", at least no one can prove it by Scripture, all the redeemed are members the Church, also called the body and the bride of Jesus Christ. Now I realize that not all on this BB are SB, in fact some don't even like the SBC but they got it right in 2000.

 

Sadly dispensationalists seem to neglect what Paul is really saying. He cannot be saying that he was the sole recipient of the revelation that Gentiles would be included in the same body as the elect of Israel. You would do well to careful consider the following statement by Paul. Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit; It is that little word AS that dispensationalists ignore.

Apparently you are not reading my posts. I pointed out above the large number of people other than some of Israel who were saved. I would also note that Jesus Christ Himself preached the Gospel to the despised Samaritans. Furthermore both Peter and Philip preached the Gospel to Gentiles prior to Paul and I have already posted the remarks of James concerning the OT prophecy regarding Peter and the Gentiles.

You could present Scripture proving a pre-trib "snatching away" of the Church!

That doesn't establish anything approaching the "rapture". Paul is simply comforting the believers at Thessalonica regarding the resurrection of those who have died.

Again that has nothing to do with a pre-trib "snatching" of the Church. That is the general resurrection at the "SEVENTH AND LAST TRUMPET". That resurrection occurs concurrent with the following:

Revelation 11:15-19
15. And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign for ever and ever.
16. And the four and twenty elders, which sat before God on their seats, fell upon their faces, and worshipped God,
17. Saying, 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.
18. And 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.
19. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.

Note the sounding of the last trumpet!

I never argue with Scripture. That will surely happen but that is the general resurrection not a "snatching away" of the Church.

When you can talk God into removing John 5:28, 29 from the Bible then perhaps you might be able to establish the "snatching away" of the Church but I doubt it. It is incredible that those people who insist on a literal interpretation of Scripture twist or ignore the following Scripture to fit their erroneous doctrine.

John 5:28, 29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

That Scripture clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment yet the dispensationalists simply ignore or twist that Scripture to satisfy their twisted eschatology and worse still their doctrine of the Church which they make a "parenthesis" in Gods plan for Israel. Israel was chosen for the simple purpose of bringing Jesus Christ into the world. Once that happened and the leaders had colluded in His sacrificial death they had accomplished their part in God's purpose to redeem His Elect.

 

I thought the following introduction to The Song Of Solomon from the Original Scofield Bible would be of interest to some of the dispensational brethern on this BB:

I took the liberty of emphasizing part of the Introduction for those who insist the Church is not mentioned in the Old Testament. Obviously Scofield, the granddaddy of dispensationalism in this country did not agree! It is my understanding that this introduction has been modified in more recent editions!

 

Do You? Really? Do you believe John 5:28, 29 which clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment? I repeat, it is incredible that dispensationalism, which insists on literal interpretation of Scripture, rejects the clear teaching of Jesus Christ in John 5:28, 28.

No, you cannot believe Scripture rather than Scofield, not if you believe in the pre-trib Rapture of the Church. That error is basically the invention Of John Darby; Scofield was his disciple and Scofield's reference Bible is the source of the widespread acceptance of dispensational error in this country. Sadly I doubt that more than 10% realize that dispensationalism teaches a "parenthesis" Church. Jesus Christ died, not for a "parenthesis", but for the Church. I read nowhere that he died for ethnic or national Israel.

 

Uh ... no.

Here's John Gill's commentary on v. 29:

You might also note, Gill predates Scofield by about 150 years.

 

I am somewhat familiar with Gills view on John 5:28, 29. However, Gill says nothing about a pre-trib rapture. His resurrection of the Saints is at the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, not seven years prior. However, borrowing a comment from PB I believe Scripture rather than Gill, especially when it is so clear. I would also note that Gill's idea of the millennium is in no way comparable to that of the dispensationalist or for that matter the covenant premillennialist. If you are interested you might check his Body of Divinity. or http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_7/book7_08.htm

But why not present all that Gill has to say about John 5:28, 29.

 

In the above post I noted that Gill's view of the Millennial reign of Jesus Christ was in no way comparable to that of the dispensationalist or for that matter the covenant premillennialist. In fact there is absolutely nothing resembling the millennial reign of the dispensationalists in which blood offerings in a rebuilt temple will be offered.

 

Primarily because of space, and the fact no one reads such a lengthy quote/post. However, there is nothing in why you posted form Gill that denies the dispensationalist view. That he doesn't mention the Rapture here still does not negate his very dispensationalist view. Or perhaps you don't really understand that view? Further study might be in order.

You might also be interested in his work, An Exposition of the Revelation of St. John the Divine. Dr. John Gill was brilliant as a theologian, commentator on Scripture, and as I've noted before, preceded Charles Spurgeon in the London pulpit by nearly a century. In this work he made this statement, referring back to the fourth chapter of Thessalonians, in commenting on Revelation 4:1:

Both he and Philip Doddridge used the term "rapture" in their New Testament commentaries, with the idea that believers would be caught up prior to judgment on the Earth and Jesus' second coming. 'Nuf said?

 

I don't doubt that Gill was premillennial. However in his concept of the millennium only Christ in glorified bodies dwelt with Jesus Christ as I showed in post #31. There is absolutely no justification for calling Gill and Spurgeon dispensationalists. They certainly did not believe in a "parenthesis" Church! There is absolutely no indication that they believed in a pre-trib "snatching away" of the Church. In fact you are the only dispensationalist I have seen dragging Gill and Spurgeon in to support your debate.

Some remarks by Spurgeon on dispensational error:

The following post contains more by Spurgeon on Dispensational error!

 

The following remarks contain more by Spurgeon on Dispensational error!

 

I didn't say Spurgeon was a dispensationalist, only that Gill preceded him in the London pulpit. And there is every reason to classify Gill as a dispensationalist. His commentary on the eschatological passages lines up perfectly with premillennial dispensational teaching.

That's an epithet used by those who don't understand the nuances and meanings for the church in dispensational theology. It betrays a very shallow and cursory investigation of the concepts included in dispensationalism, and -- sorry to say -- indicates you aren't qualified to argue the merits, or as you see them, lack thereof, of dispensationalism. There is no "parenthetical" church <--- (proper terminology for such an insult, by the way) in dispensationalism.

And yet again, you are the one who took a casual remark used in establishing Gill's ministry and writing time frame and ran off akilter with it to claim I was making Spurgeon a dispensationalist! Is that how you have chosen to discuss this, with misleading and irrelevant drivel? There is a definitive separation found in Scripture between the Church and Israel, a separation that is accurately described only through Dispensational Theology. Gill has been claimed by historical premillennialists, but his writings indicate a dispensational bent, and I am more than accurate in using him to support these arguments.

 

Then you might be interested in Dr. Gill's comment on Revelation 6:2. And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.

You and dispensationalism would have us believe that the Church disappeared from the earth following Chapter 3 of the Book of Revelation yet here Dr. Gill pictures the spread of the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the spread of the Christian Faith.

 

Yes, to the Jews who will believe, and any Gentiles that will also. How is that so hard for you to grasp?

This isn't the "church" -- this is the gospel being spread by the 144,000 Jewish evangelists appointed by God to do just that.

Revelation 7, NASB
2 And I saw another angel ascending from the rising of the sun, having the seal of the living God; and he cried out with a loud voice to the four angels to whom it was granted to harm the earth and the sea,
3 saying, "Do not harm the earth or the sea or the trees until we have sealed the bond-servants of our God on their foreheads."
4 And I heard the number of those who were sealed, one hundred and forty-four thousand sealed from every tribe of the sons of Israel:
-----
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands;
10 and they cry out with a loud voice, saying, " Salvation to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb."
11 And all the angels were standing around the throne and around the elders and the four living creatures; and they fell on their faces before the throne and worshiped God,
12 saying, " Amen, blessing and glory and wisdom and thanksgiving and honor and power and might, be to our God forever and ever. Amen."
13 Then one of the elders answered, saying to me, "These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and where have they come from?"
14 I said to him, "My lord, you know." And he said to me, "These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." [Emphasis added]​

Just because the church is gone doesn't mean the gospel won't continue to be preached. If you had actually studied the theology you so adamantly criticize, you would know that. Or worse, you do know that and deliberately ignore it in order to dishonesty disparage it, using alleged contradictions that you already know are answered in examining the rest of dispensationalism.

I pray it is the former, but I sadly am beginning to suspect it is the latter, as I look back through the posts today and note that there are several challenges I've made to your point of view that you have ignored or have refused to make a response.

 

You need to read a more carefully. Gill says it is the Church.

Were they like Paul and given the Gospel of Jesus Christ by Divine revelation?

 

That is false. Gill says nothing about a Jewish millennium. His concept of the millennium is composed of none but the redeemed.

Then it is an epithet coined by dispensational theologians.

I know gross misrepresentation of Scripture when I see it, Dispensationalism in an invention of John Darby and a faction of the Plymouth Brethern. It is highly likely that Darby was influenced by the supposed vision of Margaret MacDonald. She is said to provide additional revelation which can only be heretical since the Revelation was closed with the compilation of the Canon.

Walvoord in the Millennial Kingdom, page 230, states: "The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine."

Pentecost in Things to Come, page 201, states: "The church is manifestly an interruption of God'`s program for Israel"

Ryrie in Basis the Premillennial Faith, page 136 states: The Church Age is not seen in God's program for Israel. It is an intercalation."

There is certainly a definitive separation between ethnic Israel and the Church. The Church constitutes the people of God, ethnic Israel is not now and never will be as a group. Israel, then Judah, was used by God to bring Jesus Christ into the world and then collude in His murder. They served their purpose in God's plan and Jews or Israelites are saved one at a time just like all the elect!

One thing is certain. Mention the "parenthesis" church concept taught by leading dispensational theologians and most dispensationalists sure get their shorts in a bind!