#2 THE RAPTURE

The posts are plain on the 19th page of the 1st Rapture thread. The RELIGIOUS DUNG referred to Old Reg's REDUNDANCE, not Scripture. He TRIED to turn it around by DISTORTING the statement, SAYING that I called scripture religious dung.

I explained it was his REDUNDANCE. He knew that.

That's the WAY this "brother" perverts any statement in discussion. [/QB]</font>[/QUOTE]Originally posted March 20, 2005 08:19 PM                    

 

There goes that perversion AGAIN.

Anyone can read the MULTITUDE of posts concerning this statement on several different threads FROM HIM.


Quote:

Dispensationalists have been completely unable to quote a single passage of Scripture or a collage of Scripture to establish a pretrib removal of the Church. That is a fact! If I am wrong then post the Scripture, in a logical manner, that clearly show I am wrong.

Unquote.

In fact, TWO MODERATORS called him on it. That is the REDUNDANCE of statement to which I referred. I certainly should know, AND HE DOES, because I have REPEATEDLY COUNTERED his "redundance" by MENTIONING that same phrase.

If there's one thing that I despise, it's a man who is nothing but a perversionist.

 

I questioned no such thing. What I questioned about your belief was your seeming denial of the bodily resurrection. I gave reasons for my question and when you took offense, I pointed out that I had used the word "seem," to indicate that I wasn't making a firm accusation against you. You took unnecessary offense at a request to clarify your position. I wish you would have.

However yorr charges leveled here are completely inappropriate and should be withdrawn. Don't respoond out of your anger to people. It someone called something religious dung, I would object. I didn't see it, but that is a silly thing to say. It is no less silly than saying that dispensationalism has no biblical basis, but it is more offensive because of its nature. All of these kinds of comments should cease.

 

From a contemporary writer by the name of Samuel Tregellis, who wrote a book during the era of the rise of "the secret rapture" theory of J. N. Darby. He also states that it was "not from scripture."

Tregellis was a Pre-millenialist and a member of the Brethren Movement, but even he states that those during the period of Darby understood that the "secret rapture" theory was a "new teaching" that origninated about the year 1832. Pre-millenialism was always considered one of the "aberrant" teachings amongst the mainstream church, but this "new idea" even concerned those who were pre-mill during that era!

"The Hope of Christ's Second Coming", 1864
by Samuel P. Tregelles.

Also, Thomas Ice, a contempory dispensationalist has this to say about the origins of "the secret rapture" and openly attributes it to J. N. Darby.

THOMAS ICE ON THE ORIGINS OF THE SECRET RAPTURE:

 

For those who are interested, I gave a very easy and explicit refutation of the assumptions OR brings to John 5:28,29. It was shortly after this that he bailed out of our previous conversation. He was unable to provide any justification for his views in light of my comments.

Simply put, this verse prophesies a resurrection of those in the grave. It says absolutely nothting about those not in the grave. Therefore, it is exegetically irresponsible to pretend that John 5:28-29 teaches only one resurrection. It cannot be sustained.

As for covenant's comments, he continues to labor under the mistaken impression that his repetition of these arguments lends them weight. They have no weight. The issues he brings up are simply not relevant to teh case. But as often is the case, when someone can't actually deal with Scripture, they resort to posting other things in hopes that someone's outrageous and unfounded comments will sway the unconverted.

Dispensationalism is a very biblically dependent view. It can be easily supported from Scripture, and in fact, can be far more easily supported than can the alternatives. Dispensationalism is not perfect, but neither is the alternatives (something too often overlooked). In fact, Covenant, like OR, recently bailed out of a conversation in which he was unable to answer basic biblical questions about the text of Scripture. I was disappointed in that, especially after he said he would give an answer and then decided not to.

In the end, we have to be biblical. When you measure your views by what Scripture actually says, I believe you will be a dispensationalist. It is the only way to consistently handle the text of Scripture.

 

I won't comment on the above post other than to say that the truth hurts sometimes. Scripture has been used in abundant supply along with the use of lexicons, Bible dictionaries, respected pre-Darby scholars, and then the above contemporary writer of Darby era and finally that of a well-known modern dispensational writer that agrees with the historical background of dispenationalism. Yet, whatever is put out, is either dismissed or deleted. So, when it becomes obvious that no matter what is put forth as evidence by historical support or use of scripture and it gets ridiculed or treated with little value, then it is best to move on and stop wasting time on certain posters that you know perfectly well are not posting to learn.

 

So you are maintaining your position that you aren't interested in talking about what Scripture actually says?

I have repeatedly tried to get you to interact with the truth. I have repeatedly pointing out glaring flaws in your understanding, and you refuse to even address the actual Scripture. You would rather cite people ... I would rather talk about Scripture.

Why are you on a Baptist Board in a theology section is you aren't willing to discuss theology?

 

Question:

is it normal on this message board to have 9+ threads that cover the same topic? Is there not a concensus that one thread topic could be made and then all the "variations" of that topic could be discussed inside of that one thread?

Just thinking out loud here!!

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

There is a sharp distinction between what "Scripture actually says" and what dispensationalists incorrectly interpret it to say. That this is true is most easily proven by demonstrating that dispensationalists interpret the Bible and the individual passages in it in a radically different manner than it was interpreted before 1826. And that this is the case can very easily be proved by comparing commentaries on the Bible written before 1826 with commentaries written by dispensationalists. Further light is shed upon this these facts by comparing commentaries written by dispensationalist with commentaries written by non-dispensationalists during the same time period. The plain, simple, and incontrovertible fact is that dispensationalists do not interpret the Scriptures in accord with their clear and obvious meaning, but in accord with the false teachings of dispensationalism.

Theologians and Bible scholars in all of the mainline denominations have kept the false teaching of dispensationalism out of their denominations, and it is about time that Baptist theologians and Bible scholars do a whole lot more to remove the false teaching of dispensationalism from Baptist churches. Yes, it is true that they have made much headway in removing the false teaching of the pre-trib rapture from our Baptist churches, but there is a most serious need for them to take on all of dispensationalism and irradiate it from our churches that they may teach the pure and undefiled word of God.

 

Craig,

You make several assumptions to make your point. First, you assume that dispensationalism existed in no form prior to 1826. That is demosntrably false, thus weakening the conclusion you draw from it.

Second, you assume that dispensationalism does not interpret the Scriptures according to their plain meaning. However, that too has been demonstrated to be false on many occasions. Take for instance the land promises of the OT. Their plain meaning leads the reader to believe that Israel will be restored to the land. It is not dispensationalists that deny that, and make the land something other than the land. You admitted as much in a previous discussion.

Third, you assume that dispensationalism is false teaching. That too is demonstrably false, inasmuch as it dispensationalism can be defended by the solid exegesis of Scripture. To deny that is simply to deny the plain truth.

Fourth, you assume that your commentators are right when you say to compare commentators. I guarantee you that the commentators you are following have serious problems of consistency. I pointed some of them out recently in another thread.

Fifth, you assume that because a teaching is formalized and systematized during church history that it must be wrong. Yet amillennialism and postmillennialism did not exist in the early days of church history. Therefore, your standard proves your own position wrong.

You know, it is a bad day in theology when people cannot disagree on eschatology without being accused of being a false teacher. I could make that accusation about the other side, and I could support it with the clear exegesis of Scripture. But I think people sincerely disagree with good conscience, and they won't answer to me. I think they are wrong. I don't think they are a false teacher.

It is time that theologians and Bible scholars return to the study of Scripture, rather than the repetition of other people's positions. You have not dealt with Scripture fully. You came close when we talked about the New Covenant and you admitted that the plain reading lead to a premillennial viewpoint. You were on the right track. It is too bad you didn't follow that through. You, in fact, did what most others do ... You ran from the discussion.

In the end, I believe when you get serious about Scripture, you will be a dispensationalist. It will be hard for you to leave the traditions you have built up, but you will do it when Christ returns if not before ...

Seriously, stop the foolish charges the dispensationalism is false and has no merit. You know it is false if you have studied much. You can disagree on teh exegesis of particular passages without blasting the other side as false teachers. You do a great disservice to those in your influence by doing that becuase when you mislabel false teachers as you have done here, you blur the line with the real false teachers. And when people who sit under you figure out you didn't tell them the truth on this, they will wonder what else you didn't tell them the truth on.

I hope you will reconsider your inappropriate statements about dispensationalists, and I hope you will study the Scriptures. Those two things will go along way towards correcting the errors of your post above.

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

Wrong! I made no such assumption! And, of course, I didn’t draw any conclusion from an assumption that I didn’t make.

Wrong! “Their plain meaning leads the reader to believe that Israel will be restored to the land,” but it does NOT lead the sensible reader to believe in an absurdly false system of Biblical interpretation.

Wrong! I know that dispensationalism is a false teaching because it has been proven to be a false teaching, both through biblical exegesis and the study of the history of the interpretation of the Bible.

 

Pastor Larry wrote,

Wrong! I am assuming no such thing. The commentators prior to 1826 disagreed on very many points, and therefore many of them were necessarily wrong on many points. However, NONE, i. e., 0%, interpreted the Holy Scriptures to teach the false system of Biblical interpretation known today as dispensationalism.

Wrong! I made no such assumption. Formalizing and systematizing is one thing, mutilating and distorting is another.

Wrong again! Please get at least a few of your facts straight! I am neither Amillennial nor postmillennial, so my standard does NOT prove my position wrong.

 

Pastor Larrry wrote,

You are confusing debate methodology with theology. Theology is the study of God—not the study of debate methodology.

You are also confusing a false teaching with false teachers. Baptist pastors and teachers believe and teach very many teachings that conflict with one another, and therefore, by definition, many of them teach one or more false teachings, but that does not make these Baptist pastors and teachers “false teachers.”

I did not run from the discussion, I left the thread because of your personal attacks, and I told you so in that thread, and also in another thread in which you resorted to the same thing.

My Lord Jesus Christ has thus far spared me form the false teaching of dispensationalism, and He promises in the Holy Scriptures to never leave me nor forsake me, so don’t hold your breath!

Amen!

You are still confusing a false teaching with false teachers. Baptist pastors and teachers believe and teach very many teachings that conflict with one another, and therefore, by definition, many of them teach one or more false teachings, but that does not make these Baptist pastors and teachers “false teachers.” Nonetheless, false teachings need to be exposed for what they are.

Larry, thank you for not resorting to personal attacks in your post. It was like a breath of fresh air.

 

Craig,

You know taht I have never resorted to personal attacks. I have been very carefuly not to respond in that manner to you. I have however been very direct on your false statements, and I think it is easier for you to run than to face up to the fact that you don't have all the answers, and to realize that you have indeed made false statements about dispensationalism.

The tenets of dispensationalism are rooted in teh apostolic era, and are found in church history between then and 1826. To say otherwise is revisionism.

But that whole line of reasoning is a bad line. Doctrine is not determined by majority vote, by stacking up commentators. It is determined by whether or not it is what Scripture teaches. By that standard, dispensationalism is true, and has been shown to be such by the consistent exegesis of Scripture.

Your methods of trying to refute dispensationalism fall far short of anything that can be considered serious. Your pontification on the matter is not a valid weight of evidence, regardless of how highly you regard your abilities.

In the end, this is not decided by the false assumptions you make (which I demonstrated and you failed to refute), but by the test of Scripture. Scripture teaches a fundamental distinction between Israel and the church. This was recognized in the NT apostolic era, and was found long prior to 1826 in theology. The fact that some had strayed from it during times in church history does not mean it is false. The nature of language demands the hermeneutic that dispensationalism uses. Without it, you and I cannot communicate.

Here is one example of how distorted your argumentation is, and the hermeneutic is uses shows why you come to a false conclusion about these other matters: I said Seriously, stop the foolish charges the dispensationalism is false and has no merit. You know it is false if you have studied much. You highlighted the last sentence and said "Amen." Yet you know that you disagree with what I said. You consider your foolish charges as true, not as false. Yet you distort the meaning of my words to try to make it appear that I said something I didn't. And this method in Scripture is the only way to avoid dispensationalism. You must make the author appear as if he meant something he didn't say. If you do that to my words, it isn't that big of a deal. Nothing much is at stake. No one really cares. But when you do it to Scripture, there is much at stake.

I hope you will embark on a serious study of God's word to put aside these false conclusions you have about dispensationalism. As I have often said, you don't have to agree with us, but don't make it up. You know that there is solid biblical merit for dispensationalism. It is wrong to imply otherwise.

 

Larry wrote,

Larry,

I quoted you word for word in context and simply highlighted a sentence in which, because of your grammatical error, you wrote, “You know [dispensationalism] is false if you have studied much.” (The antecendant of the pronoun “it” in your sentence is "dispensationalism").

Please quote just one example in any of my almost 3,200 posts where I have highlighted a grammatical error in the Scriptures to make the Author appear as if He meant something He didn’t say.

Larry,

Your whole post is nothing but a rotten bologna sandwich. The bread is moldy, the lettuce is old and wilted, and the meat is rancid. You can add all of the Grey Poupon® Dijon mustard and A.1.® stake sauce in the state of Texas, but the sandwich remains unpalatable.

 

I showed earlier where both Thomas Ice and Samuel Tregellis attribute the secret rapture taking root in the church to J. N. Darby.

Thomas Ice on the History of Dispensationalism and Pretribulationalism disagrees with you about that claim Larry. In his article, he states that the early church fathers, before the fourth and sixth century merely spoke of “imminency.” However, I as an amillenialist also believe in imminency – but that does not mean that “imminency” means the same as being “raptured out before an earthly reign of a thousand years and nowhere in his article does he cite any proof whatsoever that the early church fathers view of “imminency” meant that either!!

It must be noted here that, before taking even this much as being an accurate and complete quote of Ephraem the Syrian’s Sermon seriously, there are those 3 little dots ( …) that indicate that something was deleted from the thought. I would want to know more about what those 3 little dots indicate before accepting it as being genuine.

Secondly, that emboldened quote of Ephraem’s Sermon does not indicate that there is a 1,000 year earthly kingdom at all anyway! I believe in a rapture of the saints on the last day before the Lord destroys this sin-cursed earth and everything that is in it or on it of which the New Jerusalem then descends to a renewed earth. This may very well be what the context of Ephraem’s Sermon may in fact mean also. Research would have to be done before accepting that statement.

However, it is even clear from Ice’s statement that he couldn’t find anything conclusive (?) before the fourth and fifth century. By this period in church history, aberrant teaching abounded without question.

To continue on with Ice’s article, you will see where this claim on the other thread is not accurate at all… ”Truth be told, if you go back to about 500AD, the doctrine of amillennialism was "new," being only about 100 years old.”

Notice that Ice uses the word “return,” yet he never conclusively establishes that it existed from the time of the apostoles onward.

For the entire article see; http://www.raptureready.com/featured/John14.html

One last thing about this quote of Larry’s;

The first is absolutely not true. In a post of min on March 17, on the Laws of Interpretation thread, TEN scripture verses were used (and without personal views presented – just scripture) in support of the New Covenant being instituted at the Cross as a fulfillment of Jeremiah 31 – but the scripture was “unacceptable”. Then, Strong’s dictionary was used to define the word “nation” as meaning “the Gentile” world, but this was discarded as being irrelevant. After this, FOUR pre-Darby scholars were used for Commentary support so that it would not be just my interpretation alone of the text – but this too was phoo-phooed as being irrelevant. Thayer’s Lexicon was also used but blown off also.

So, as far as the second comment goes, it was grossly distorted to imply that I didn’t have an answer or couldn’t answer concerning the remainder of Jeremiah 31. However, as I indicated to him previously, I chose not to continue on with the discussion as it was merely proving to be falling on deaf ears and since there obviously seemed to be no genuine desire to take whatever I presented seriously. Because of that, and not because there were not answers, I decided not to waste my valuable time on a hardened heart.

 

You know I did not write that, you violated authorial intent to try to support your own made up position. The antecedent of "it" is not dispensationalism, and you know that very well. The entire context of my posts leave no doubt about whether or not I believe dispensationalism is false. But you ignore the context of my post, just like you do the context of Scripture. The antecedent of "it" is the charges you made against it. Yes, I made an a grammatical error, but you knew exactly what I meant and chose to disregard it. That is unacceptable, for you as a scholar and debater, and for you as a gentleman. You violated the first rule of heremenetics, that the author gets to decide what he means.

And that is what you do with Scripture. You violate authorial intent to drum up support for your own position. I hope one day you will get past the personalities and time frames and get to what Scripture says. That is the only way to have a theological debate.

 

ACTUALLY, I THOUGHT THIS WAS A HILARIOUS FAUX PAUX!!!