Featured Post tribulation arguments

Well then if you want to say this is the rapture, and I would agree that is a better interpretation, it puts the timing of the rapture at the end of the tribulations. Unless you are going to say that Matt. 24 is not in chronological order.

 

Yes, that is my view. Not everything in Matthew 24 is chronological.

 

OK fair enough.
Why do you think its not in chronological order?

 

In the context of Matthew do you want to be taken or left?

 

Matthew Henry on 1 Thessalonians 4:

It appears Mr. Henry spoke of a rapture occurring. He connected with the second coming nut he used the term rapture and saw the believers meeting the Lord in the Air.

The we see Mr. Henry again in Revelation 4:

This is something how Mr. Henry who lived hundreds of years before Darby is presenting a church Rapture from the very scriptures pre-tribulationalist-dispensationalist use in the Doctrine we teach. Mr. Henry seems to have believed in a pre-trib rapture seen tight here in Revelation 4. Taught years before Darby and others developed a systematic method to understand what scripture was telling us. From here the post millennial teaching fails so too do those who continue to say it is a doctrine created by Darby. I read through some of Darby's teaching today and what he said about a parenthesis invold the text not the church. He stated that several verses in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians could be taken in parenthesis as they emphasize the point Paul was making.

 

Being staunchly amill, I see nothing wrong whatsoever with what Brother Henry wrote in your post, monsieur.

 

What hatred? That only anger I sense is from you, toward me.
But onto this discussion, if anyone is going to have an honest debate then terms have to be defined.
When the 2 people debating have different definitions of a given word it makes debate impossible.
When terms are used, such as Dispensationalism, it only make sense to allow the major proponents and teachers of the view definition stand in a debate.
That would be like someone saying they are a Calvinist but they don’t believe in Pre-destination, and any time someone pointed to Calvin, saying that his views don’t matter but I’m still a Calvinist. It would make no sense to the person they were debating and just cause people to go around in circles as each try to define their terms.
So you don’t like the way that the major proponents of Dispensationalism define it, that’s fine, but then your issues is with them, not me, because they are the ones teaching these things under that banner that you want to be under

Nice word play there. But I did not say Dispensation did I? I said DispensaionaLISM. There is a difference as you well know. But you don’t want to get into Dispensationalism do you?

Well we are getting a little closer now. At least you are giving a partial definition of Dispensationalism here.

No I don’t think that is the central issue, but Ryrie does. And apparently you have an issue with that so I suggest you take that up with Ryrie, not me. I’m just the messenger telling you what top proponents of Dispensationalism think.

Ok Great! When there is Scripture bring discussed I will discuss it. There wasn’t in DHK post that I was responding to, just like there is not any in you post to me.

Oh I love the snark here. Of course you know what they say when you resort to attacking your opponent.
As far as your guarantee, go for it. Start a tread defending Dispensationalist views. Although given that you have already shown you disagree with some of the major teachings of that view and jumped on me for their views that would be amusing to see.

As to your not so veiled attack that I put his views above Scripture, I would point out to you that I was just responding to DHK statement about Spurgeon. He brought him up and I responded in kind. Again if Scripture is presented I would have responded with Scripture. Although since that seems to be your standard where is your Scripture in your response to me?

Ok what does that have to do with anything?

Well now we just have one more thing you and I disagree on.

No I have no interest in getting involved in your disagreement with Spurgeon.

I’m not even sure why you would put this here. It is customary you know that if you bold something in a quoted passage that you acknowledge when you put something in bold as opposed to letting the reader think the quoted author put it in Bold.

So you think. Col. 3:11 and Gal 3:28 shows he is correct.
But again you missed the point I was making. Spuregon and Darby can in no way be in the same camp.

So you don’t think any Jew’s are saved by the Blood of Christ?!?! I would love to see you show that one from the Scripture. Especially since Paul, and Peter, and John, and James were Jews. So do tell how they were saved apart from the Blood of Christ.

I’m not saying anything, I’m quoting Spurgeon to show that he cannot be placed inside the same camp as Darby.
But to answer your questions, No not all Jews were or are saved (although some in the Dispensational camp would argue with that, so you might want to take that up with them).
Yes I do understand that. Of course they still needed Atonement, the Book of Hebrews makes that clear. But then again you are the one the just said a few lines up that no Jew was eternally redeemed through the Blood of Christ.

Honestly I don’t even understand what point you are trying to make here (besides the obvious attack which I will give you is slightly ironic given that I don’t understand what you are saying here) I think there might be a typo here but I’m not sure.

No the definitions set up by the proponents of Dispensationalism put him there. If you have a problem with their definition take it up with them, not me.

Not really but your attack is noted nonetheless.

Once again Ironic coming from the poster who has a tread where he is looking for antagonist.

Except it’s not. Careful study of the Bible has always lead me away from the pre-trib rapture.

So I can get more personal attacks on my intelligence and Bible Study. Gee how could I pass that up.

 

 

We have already established that you disagree with Spurgeon.
And yes that’s why he would fit into the historical pre-mill camp.

Please quote where I said that Spurgeon is on par with Scripture? I’ll wait.

I’m not in the same camp as Spurgeon on this issue, so I see no need to defend his views. If you are curious as to why Spurgeon thought this way feel free to look up his writings.

And where have you brought the Bible into this discussion with me?

No I don’t want to get into your disagreement with Spurgeon. Although feel free to start a tread on everything you disagree with Spurgeon about.

I believe it has already been established that you disagree with Spurgeon.

Ok we get it you don’t like Spurgeon.

Did you not see the word IF?

Again I used this little word IF.

Yeah IF. But I’m glad to see you acknowledge that Spuregon was not pre-trib. I will view that as progress.

I actually did that at the beginning of my reply to you.

 

So where is your Bible passages?
And I’m just trying to define terms so that people can be on the same page. But I already explained this up a few post.

Actutally I do, which is why I’m not a Dispensationalist.

If you believe this then there is another issue you need to take up with the proponents of Dispensationlism.

Well since I do believe that the New Testament interprets the Old Testament you can keep you sympathies for the proponents of Dispensationlism that don’t see this.

No but I’m also not a historic pre-mill, and I have no desire to argue someone else's position. I’m just defining terms.

No they want to make a clear distinction between Israel and the Church despite Paul saying that there is no Jew, nor Greek in Christ.

Defining terms so that there can be honest debate.

That was the argument he was making to OR.

Just defining terms, feel free to find a historic pre-mill to argue with if you want.

I established that in the beginning of my replies to you. Feel free to look it up.

Your attack is noted.

Then you have another issue to take up with the proponents of Dispensationalism.

Find Faith in the Old Testament: that’s easy
“4 Behold, his soul which is lifted up is not upright in him: but the just shall live by his faith.” Hab. 2:4
Now tell us again how Jews are saved, since you said “Not one member of Israel was eternally redeemed and forgiven through the Blood of Christ”

We disagree, plain and simple. But your attack on me is once again noted.

I meant what I said. Lots of people use the word “Dispensation” but it doesn’t make them a Dispensationalist. In fact I just used the word but I doubt you would argue that it makes me a Dispensationalist. It’s pretty simple.

DHK made the claim that Watts was a Dispensationlist. I showed that Watts was not. Again pretty simple.

Not absurdity, Honesty.

I am not a Dispensationalist so it’s not my job to defend their views.

 

 

:null::null:

 

So history will repeat itself. Bothers you when someone is honest with your friends, doesn't it.


God bless.

 

That teaching is best associated with Christ's return, as mention of the deaths of those taken does not correlate to the Rapture, where all are made alive.


God bless.

 

Speaking of dishonesty:

Any time a thread even hinting at the Rapture pops up, the same members show up and derail the thread, turning to their own personal vendetta against the Pre-Tribulational Rapture.

It's not a false doctrine, it's simply Biblical Truth.

But because you hate certain Dispensationalists, you charge all Dispensationalists and all Dispensationalism as being false.

Humorous coming from one who will not address this issue Scripturally.

The fact that God has one people in the eternal view does not change the fact that National Israel was not the Church, but was under a different Ministry. They were in relationship with God through the Covenant of Law, not the New Covenant, which was not established until Christ died, and formalized at Pentecost when Christ sent the Comforter.

National Israel, both elect and non-elect...all died in need of redemption of their sins. They were not made perfect as every member of the Church is at salvation, until after Christ died. This doesn't change the fact that they were of the People of God, but nor does the fact that the Nation of Israel was the People of God in that Age change either.

Anyone teaching that would be in error, however, to say they were redeemed then is also error.

Only the Elect of Israel, the Just...were redeemed, and that only after Eternal Redemption was secured for them by Christ with His own Blood (Death). That does not make them the Church "Of that Day," but simply the picture of what God was going to do in establishing the New Covenant.


God bless.

 

And that is what it is always about with you...defending one System of Theology and condemning all others, with a few favorites.

It is not a classic definition of dispensationalism that is objected to, it is the absurdity of the denial that a premillennial and Pre-Tribulational view was invented by Darby.

The tenets which might make one seem to be dispensational can be seen in Scripture. Both Old and New Testaments.

And when you want to actually discuss what the Bible teaches, instead of what men (and women) teach, let me know.

He is no different than anyone else on this Christian Doctrinal Discussion Forum.

If you had more interest in that than trying to make friends perhaps we would not see the same pattern in the same members year after year.

Maybe a little growth might take place.

I am not a fan of Spurgeon. I am not a fan of any preacher that leans to a more dramatic posture. He is beloved by many and that's great for them, but that doesn't mean a quotation from Spurgeon settles an issue.

The Bible, not Spurgeon...is the Last Word.

And it makes it worse when he irrelevantly quoted.

I do.

I do know better than people who make Israel the Church.

I do know better than people who deny God has ministered in at sundry times and in divers manners.

I do know better than people who refuse to understand the Mystery of Christ.

I do know better than people who cannot distinguish between the Covenants.

I do know better than people who charge Pre-Tribulational believers with heresy.

I do know better than people who incessantly derail threads until they are closed. Making it impossible for others of similar beliefs to have a discussion. And what makes this worse is not one of your little club can address these issues with a Scriptural Presentation.

Which makes the last point:

I do know better than to try to build my Theology on what men think.


God bless.

 

If you are referring to me, you might be right. The nonsense you post, along with a few of your buddies, truly gets on the nerves of not just me, I am sure.

I must be slipping.

Not surprising for someone who only has a goal a ministry of instigation.

You should invite him on.

You think it is honest to say DHK said Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist in his post?

Right. Quotes of men. Church History.

That is a fundamental flaw with many involved in Reformed Theology, who have thrown away Scripture and made Church Fathers their gods.


God bless.

 

Not everyone, some view this as a Rapture passage. It could be argued that due to the fact that this event seems to come unawares, whereas the Lord's Return will be fairly predictable by the time they are almost through the Tribulation, that this may refer to the Rapture.

I don't, but some do, and that doesn't make them dispensational.


God bless.

 

Can you not get away from Church History long enough to visit the pages of your Bible once in a while?

What do past discussions have to do with my address of your response?

I addressed you falsely charging DHK with saying Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist.

You just quoted it, and still deflect.

I do too.

And if you would look at the similarities as pointed out, you would see that.

It is a false accusation when the views of Darby are said to be original exclusively to Darby and held by no-one until Darby shows up.

Secondly...that is not even relevant to the thread.

You have learned from your master well, young padawan.

So why say he said Spurgeon was a Dispensationalist? Why be honest in this statement and dishonest in the other?

I can tell you why, you simply want to argue, you want to sound like someone who knows what they are talking about, and you have learned to like pats on the back from your club members.

He didn't do that.

That was part of the point of the response, and you are still making the same false accusation.

Look, here is you giving an erroneous conclusion on DHKs statement: "I then proceeded to point out that one cannot put Spurgeon in the Dispensational camp."

Here is you giving a correct conclusion on DHKs statement: "He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s."

See the problem?

The statement stands without correction.

No, there are a few who get their jollies on it.

Certain things you should stop, such as derailing a topic with false accusations.

The least you could do is attempt to address what is actually said.


Continued...

 

I didn't actually think you would agree with that, it was just an opinion, not a directive I thought you would follow up on.

You didn't, and I am sorry if truth feels like an attack. Perhaps you should consider why it comes across that way.

Your response did not address what he said, fact, and it was a waste of space, fact, and it is the same nonsense we see drawn into threads about the rapture quite often...fact.

You are the one claiming you responded on point, so you make it, not an attack, but a fact. You verify that you did not comprehend what he said.

I will admit that spending more time reading the theologies of men might fall under speculation, but this is an opinion drawn from past conversations as well, where you have made many comments apart from a Scriptural basis, and refused to address the Scriptural presentations offered.

A little more Church History for you to consider.

Oh believe me, I already know that.

But thanks for proving my point...again.

It's more of an issue of not having the ability to first present a theological position, then secondly defending it.

You want to believe what you want to believe, despite what Scripture teaches.

And there are many like you, infatuated with Systems of Theology and loyal to them.

But what makes it more reprehensible is the attempt to undermine the beliefs of others, and apparently...because you get your jollies doing so. Compounding that offense is the fact that you will not address the Biblical presentations those people present to support their views.

And I quote:

Again, I am sorry the truth comes across as an attack. But, if you want to debate that issue, feel free. Your only hope is that the thread will be closed, so you will not have to actually address the issues raised.

It is certainly a shame when history repeats itself, over and over.

He didn't do that, and you know it:

"He gives what he views as Spurgeons belief in the rapture and says his theology resembles Darby’s."

Well, I am just in the habit of trying to address those who think they can teach whatever they want apart from a Biblical support. I prefer Theological Discussion but sometimes it is necessary to address behavioral issues.

It is rather annoying to try to discuss something which applies to a divisive eschatological position/s, only to have irrelevancies interjected, which make it difficult for those trying to discuss those issues to do so.

And the thought that anyone who embraces a Pre-Trib Rapture, or that Israel was under a distinct ministry separate from the Ministry God is effecting today, is a Dispensationalist...is absurd.

And that these Doctrines are "new inventions" by one man rather that First Century teachings of Bible Writers is equally absurd.

My solution? Debate the Bible.

The solution of your club? Disrupt, derail, antagonize...until the thread is shut down. And do everything possible to avoid a Scriptural examination, except to post a few proof-texts.

Not sure how you might conclude that I am not sure of my position. You should know I am. Of course, because you side-step any attempt to actually discuss Relevant Doctrine, I can see how you might remain in the confused state you have professed for some time now.

That fence must be getting very uncomfortable for you.


God bless.