The Apostle Peter on the Second Coming of Our LORD

[OldRegular]

While you object to Chafer's seeming eisegesis, others object to brethren rejecting the plain and simple term "the thousand years" of Revelation 20 as literal yet accept the term "the resurrection" in the same chapter as literal.

Thanks for the information you provide. I would first note that you are the only one with dispensational leanings, other than blessedwife318, who will admit to hearing the terms "parenthesis" or intercalation. I reject the doctrine of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. and will delete it seriously. However, the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church is in my opinion the most egregious error of pre-trib-dispensationalism and is the outgrowth of the pre-trib doctrine.

While I believe the term "resurrection" in Revelation 20 is speaking of a physical resurrection I believe it is referring to the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the First Resurrection. Those who have part in this First Resurrection are the redeemed. Philip Edgecumbe Hughes in his commentary on Revelation holds the same view.

Some amillennialists see this resurrection as the spiritual resurrection of John 5:25. It cannot be disputed that the new birth or regeneration is a spiritual resurrection. James P. Boyce believes it refers to the resurrection of John 5:25. Anthony A Hoekema in The Bible and the Future seems to take the same view as Boyce. Hoekema also notes that because of the Greek word ezesan Ladd argues the resurrection means the resurrection of the bodies of dead Saints.

I would only note that John sees souls reigning with Jesus Christ, not bodies. I also understand there are places where "souls" is used in Scripture to indicate living people.

 

[OldRegular]

Do you quote Darby saying it is a Parenthesis church in that thread? I have you too several times so read Darby and post it.

Read my remarks again!

Darby is the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism whether you like it or not. And pre-trib-dispensationalism is the mother of the "parenthesis" Church whether you like it or not! Check out my thread "Out of Whose Womb"!

 

[revmwc]

Read my remarks again!
Darby is the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism whether you like it or not. And pre-trib-dispensationalism is the mother of the "parenthesis" Church whether you like it or not! Check out my thread "Out of Whose Womb"!

Thus Darby began the doctrine of the Parenthesis church is what your statement infers.

Now if it wasn't Darby then show us who did and the context it was used in. You see context shows us a great deal of what the person said. Such as an illustration it simply a way of showing what might or how something might occur, but is not inferring that as a doctrine.
So what is the context?

 

[OldRegular]

Thus Darby began the doctrine of the Parenthesis church is what your statement infers.

Now if it wasn't Darby then show us who did and the context it was used in. You see context shows us a great deal of what the person said. Such as an illustration it simply a way of showing what might or how something might occur, but is not inferring that as a doctrine.
So what is the context?

You pre-tribbers have a unique ability to read things in Scripture that are not there but one would think you would not find it necessary to continue that beyond Scripture. However for your education and edification I post once again:

Darby is the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism whether you like it or not. And pre-trib-dispensationalism is the mother of the "parenthesis" Church whether you like it or not! Check out my thread "Out of Whose Womb"!

 

[OldRegular]

Thus Darby began the doctrine of the Parenthesis church is what your statement infers.

Now if it wasn't Darby then show us who did and the context it was used in. You see context shows us a great deal of what the person said. Such as an illustration it simply a way of showing what might or how something might occur, but is not inferring that as a doctrine.
So what is the context?

You pre-tribbers have an almost unique ability to read false doctrine into Scripture that is not there but for your education and edification: {From: http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=99519}

I have been falsely accused on another thread of believing that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a "parenthesis" Church!

Some years ago I started a thread regarding the claim by certain theologians of Classic Dispensational persuasion that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, was a parenthesis, an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel. At that time many Board members took great umbrage at that claim. The vitriol expressed in some responses was intense to say the least but I cannot say I was surprised. Many who claim to be of pre-trib-dispensational persuasion are apparently of the “Rapture Ready” type and not conversant with the teachings of Classic Dispensationalism, a doctrine first formalized by John Nelson Darby of the Plymouth [England] Brethern.{http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf}

Following are remarks by three prominent Classic Dispensationalists, Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).


Charles Ryrie says the same thing: "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).

Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.

The contents of the present volume are really an enlargement of lectures on Bible prophecy that have been given at various conferences during the past few years. It was never convenient to have these stenographically reported at the time of their delivery, and so the substance of the addresses has been very carefully gone over and is now presented for the consideration of those who are interested in the revelation which the Spirit of God has given concerning things to come.It is the author's fervent conviction that the failure to understand what is revealed in Scripture concerning the Great Parenthesis between Messiah's rejection, with the consequent setting aside of Israel nationally, and the regathering of God's earthly people and recognition by the Lord in the last days, is the fundamental cause for many conflicting and unscriptural prophetic teachings. Once this parenthetical period is understood and the present work of God during this age is apprehended, the whole prophetic program unfolds with amazing clearness.

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-...t-parenthesis/

I must state as forcefully as I can that I find the doctrine of the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, as a parenthesis or an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel to be not only repugnant but blasphemous, and I reject it completely. Now many pre-trib-"snatching away" folks will be disturbed but the truth is that the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" in Gods program is the direct result of the pre-trib doctrine of John Nelson Darby. Whether dispensationalists want to acknowledge it or not the doctrine of a "parenthesis" Church came out of the womb of John Nelson Darby's pre-trib-dispensational doctrine!

 

[HankD]

You pre-tribbers have a unique ability to read things in Scripture that are not there but one would think you would not find it necessary to continue that beyond Scripture. However for your education and edification I post once again:

Actually OR you are the one insisting on the premise that Darby is the father of the church "parenthesis" of which I don't know of anyone here yet at the BB who accepts it (maybe they can step forth), I don't accept it.

So it doesn't matter to me and whether I like it or not it is not an issue for me because I don't accept it or the intercalation theory even though I am pre-trib, pre-mil.

In fact, it seems unusual to me that Darby believed an associate of his, a girl Margaret MacDonald, who claimed to have visions of the rapture which he apparently believed. That's a waving red-flag to me and I don't blame you but credit you for questioning his views.

A have done research in the 20,000 pages (plus) of the early Church Fathers and found several that supported The Rapture, The Tribulation and the millennium (but not all three in the same breath) and I posted them here on the BB. I may try to find just one of them and repost it.

But what does it matter OR? We both agree that if it can't be proven with scripture or even the possibility of it then it should be rejected.

No one says to them self - well I think I'll go deceive my self now by believing in the preterist view or the pre-trib, pre-mil view.

Belief in some of the major elements of dispensationalism have existed from the early church it is not a new thing but an old with a different nomenclature.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

Actually OR you are the one insisting on the premise that Darby is the father of the church "parenthesis" of which I don't know of anyone here yet at the BB who accepts it (maybe they can step forth), I don't accept it.

If you will read the above post you will see that I attribute the "parenthesis" Church to such as Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. I have said that the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" or intercalation in Gods program for Israel is an outgrowth of the doctrine of the pre-trib removal of the Church and it is. It was Darby who said he saw another dispensation following the so-called Church age from his reading of Isaiah 32. As for Darby being the father of pre-trib dispensationalism I have posted information to that effect by dispensational scholar, Dr. Thomas Ice!

So it doesn't matter to me and whether I like it or not it is not an issue for me because I don't accept it or the intercalation theory even though I am pre-trib, pre-mil.

In fact, it seems unusual to me that Darby believed an associate of his, a girl Margaret MacDonald, who claimed to have visions of the rapture which he apparently believed. That's a waving red-flag to me and I don't blame you but credit you for questioning his views.

A have done research in the 20,000 pages (plus) of the early Church Fathers and found several that supported The Rapture, The Tribulation and the millennium (but not all three in the same breath) and I posted them here on the BB. I may try to find just one of them and repost it.

But what does it matter OR? We both agree that if it can't be proven with scripture or even the possibility of it then it should be rejected.

No one says to them self - well I think I'll go deceive my self now by believing in the preterist view or the pre-trib, pre-mil view.

Belief in some of the major elements of dispensationalism have existed from the early church it is not a new thing but an old with a different nomenclature.

HankD

It is not the eschatology I find particularly offensive though I am perfectly willing to debate it; it is the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel. That, to me, is beyond the pale; to say that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Roman Cross for a "parenthesis". I have also noted that I find no Scripture where Jesus Christ died for national or ethnic Israel. It is particularly strange that of all the dispensationalists on this BB only you and "blessedwife318" admit to hearing about the "parenthesis" Church!

 

[revmwc]

If you will read the above post you will see that I attribute the "parenthesis" Church to such as Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. I have said that the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" or intercalation in Gods program for Israel is an outgrowth of the doctrine of the pre-trib removal of the Church and it is. It was Darby who said he saw another dispensation following the so-called Church age from his reading of Isaiah 32. As for Darby being the father of pre-trib dispensationalism I have posted information to that effect by dispensational scholar, Dr. Thomas Ice!

It is not the eschatology I find particularly offensive though I am perfectly willing to debate it; it is the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel. That, to me, is beyond the pale; to say that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Roman Cross for a "parenthesis". I have also noted that I find no Scripture where Jesus Christ died for national or ethnic Israel. It is particularly strange that of all the dispensationalists on this BB only you and "blessedwife318" admit to hearing about the "parenthesis" Church!

So if Darby didn't the father of the Parenthesis church please show who taught it first and the context. Since you claim it is part of the foundation of dispensationalism.

 

[OldRegular]

So if Darby didn't the father of the Parenthesis church please show who taught it first and the context. Since you claim it is part of the foundation of dispensationalism.

I have answered the question. If you don't like the answer make up a different one. You seem good at that but frankly you are simply chasing your tail!

 

[revmwc]

I have answered the question. If you don't like the answer make up a different one. You seem good at that but frankly you are simply chasing your tail!

Haven't seen the answer what post? What was the direct context please show what post!

 

[DHK]

It is not the eschatology I find particularly offensive though I am perfectly willing to debate it; it is the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel. That, to me, is beyond the pale; to say that Jesus Christ suffered and died on the Roman Cross for a "parenthesis". I have also noted that I find no Scripture where Jesus Christ died for national or ethnic Israel. It is particularly strange that of all the dispensationalists on this BB only you and "blessedwife318" admit to hearing about the "parenthesis" Church!

And who did Jesus die for?

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

 

[OldRegular]

And who did Jesus die for?

Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jesus Christ did not die for national/ethnic Israel did HE?

 

[revmwc]

Jesus Christ did not die for national/ethnic Israel did HE?

Israel was to be winning the souls of all mankind, they failed. God removed custody of His word from them for a little while and gave it to the Gentiles.

Jesus died for all mankind, that was always God plan. He died for every unbeliever as well as every believer.

 

[OldRegular]

Israel was to be winning the souls of all mankind, they failed. God removed custody of His word from them for a little while and gave it to the Gentiles.

Then show from Scripture where the following judgment is revoked.

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

Jesus died for all mankind, that was always God plan. He died for every unbeliever as well as every believer.

Jesus Christ died only for those HE will bring to Salvation. GOD saves people one at a time. These are the ones who constitute HIS Church. Scripture says Jesus Christ died for HIS Church. Scripture says nothing about HIS dying for national/ethnic Israel because HE did not, any more than HE died for any national/ethnic group!

 

[DHK]

Then show from Scripture where the following judgment is revoked.

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

The next two verses say:

Matthew 21:44 And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

45 And when the chief priests and Pharisees had heard his parables, they perceived that he spake of them.

Note that it is apparent that the ones that he was speaking to were only the chief priests and the Pharisees.
Secondly, and more importantly, he was speaking to them in parables. Are you willing to derive your eschatological theology from parables??

 

[HankD]

Then show from Scripture where the following judgment is revoked.

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.




Jesus Christ died only for those HE will bring to Salvation. GOD saves people one at a time. These are the ones who constitute HIS Church. Scripture says Jesus Christ died for HIS Church. Scripture says nothing about HIS dying for national/ethnic Israel because HE did not, any more than HE died for any national/ethnic group!

It is better to say that He paid the price of salvation for everyone because it has scriptural support.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Nevertheless, though He bought them they bring upon themselves swift destruction.

HankD

 

[OldRegular]

It is better to say that He paid the price of salvation for everyone because it has scriptural support.

2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.

Nevertheless, though He bought them they bring upon themselves swift destruction.

HankD

Hank,

I believe the death of Jesus Christ was effective for all whose penalty for sin He suffered. If HE died for all then all would be saved.

 

[DHK]

Hank,

I believe the death of Jesus Christ was effective for all whose penalty for sin He suffered. If HE died for all then all would be saved.

I don't understand why you have to make that jump.
"If he died for all, THEN all would be saved."
Why?

 

[revmwc]

Then show from Scripture where the following judgment is revoked.

Matthew 21:43. Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.




Jesus Christ died only for those HE will bring to Salvation. GOD saves people one at a time. These are the ones who constitute HIS Church. Scripture says Jesus Christ died for HIS Church. Scripture says nothing about HIS dying for national/ethnic Israel because HE did not, any more than HE died for any national/ethnic group!

The Gospel is the message of the Kingdom.

Matthew 4:23 "And Jesus went about all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing all manner of sickness and all manner of disease among the people."

Matthew 9:35 "And Jesus went about all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every sickness and every disease among the people."

But then He said,
Matthew 24:13 But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
14 "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

So what changed from Jesus' early ministry to the point in Matthew 24 where the gospel would be preached to the whole world. Israel rejction of Him, therefore the gospel was removed from their custody and given to the Gentile nations.

As for as His death for all humanity we see:

Romans 3:24-26, 24 "Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
Appears Jesus made the issue of sin past by becoming the propitiation for sin, sin became past that would paid for and Christ justifies all by faith in Him.

We see too,
1 John 2:1-3, 1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:
2 And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.
3 And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments."

Appears John says Christ paid for the sins of the whole world. Not just those who have faith in but everyone who has lived and He made sin past. By Grace through Faith in Christ is one saved.

So what is the world.

John 3:17-18,
17 "For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.
18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

According to this those who reject Christ that is believe not are condemned, not because of the sin in their lives, but because of unbelief. Why because the issue of sin never condemned anyone, the only sin which condemns is unbelief.

Jesus became the propitiation for the sins of the whole world.

 

[HankD]

Hank,

I believe the death of Jesus Christ was effective for all whose penalty for sin He suffered. If HE died for all then all would be saved.

Why?

where is the chapter and verse for your statement?
It is nowhere. you have made an assumption that because it sounds logical God must abide by it.

That is not what the passage indicates.
It plainly says He bought them.
But they went into destruction anyway (of themselves).

For whatever reason some of those whom He bought will end up in destruction.

Why should anyone object to this especially calvinists. God is sovereign and does whatever He pleases. Who are we to say otherwise?

Psalm 115:3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.

He bought them and they are His possession to do with whatever He pleases.

Proverbs 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

What does it matter to God who objects?

HankD