A different Gospel? or not?

Grasshopper, I am going to ask you to stop going Thomas Jefferson on the Bible and just believe its words.

The temple would be destroyed before the 70th week. The Messiah was cut off after the 69th week. That means that there was about 37 years at the very least before the 70th week.

Put down your hatchet long enough to actually read the text.

I know you hold to the bastardly eschatology of theologians trying to cover their opium addiction, but if you just read the Bible, you would be premill.

Again, let us go over some basic math.

1 + 1 = 2

Now, let us go over some basic language skills.

If I say something happens at the end of this month, no one not on opium would think that I might be describing an event in June.

 

I have heard complaints before (as many of you probably have) that Paul took Jesus' teachings and made his own version of Christianity out of it. The only problem is, the people who say that are non-Christians and haven't read the Bible where Jesus meets Paul and blinds him, directing him to the disciples for instruction in the new gospel. Just my two-cents.

 

But that is exactly what you are saying when you make statements like yours, because it applies to the body of Christ prophetically, because it prophesies the atonement, and both Jews and Gentiles are united to Christ in the same atonement. Yes, I know,you're saying it doesn't apply to the us as the Body of Christ until it was revealed to Paul, but that is just a backward way of saying that it did not carry that meaning until it was assigned by Paul, or rather revealed to Paul by God. It is God's Word, it either meant what it meant when it was written or it did not. The understanding of its correct application does not negate its prophetic content, which necessarily exists independently of time, since God Himself exists independently from time. To allege otherwise, you may as well believe Open Theism.

The rules of sound English dictate that this: "Isaiah 53 does not speak SPECIFICALLY OR PROPHETICALLY" means that Isaiah 53 does not speak to Body of Christ in either a specific or a prophetic sense. (NOTE, YOU DID NOT QUALIFY THAT STATEMENT). If that is so, then how can you pilfer from it to apply to redemption at all? That simply makes no sense. Nobody denies that it applies to us SPECIFICALLY, because it was written to a specific people at a specific time, and there was no understanding of its application with regard to Christ's atonement until the Church Age, but MUST speak to us prophetically, or it can not be understood by ANY Christian, Jew or Gentile to apply to the atonement of Christ, or, alternatively, it would mean that Jesus' atonement is applicable only to Jews, since you specfiy that it speaks of Israel. Additionally, using the same logic, one can say that any prophecy of the OT that is Christological that has an alternative fulfillment, like Isa. 7:14, which was first fulfilled by the birth of Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz is, in fact, NOT prophetic of Christ for that reason. You entire hermaneutic is inconsistent and, using it, one can conclude that the Messianic prophecies Matthew himself cites are NOT speaking prophetically of Christ Himself at all until Matthew wrote to that effect.

The prophetic nature of Isaiah applies to the church in this respect independently, apart from a revelation to Paul. God does not require a separate revelation to Paul to make the text apply to the church in any way. That's one step away from Open Theism and the way it says God perceives the future. That's like saying a stop sign does mean stop to a blind person because they can't see. Either that sign means what it means independently of the perception of the person or it does not. It is like saying the Trinity was not in existence or a valid doctrine until Christianity came along to understand it in the teachings of the New Testament and then the Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedoean Creeds clarified it.

The bottom line is that not one line of Scripture makes the distinctions you make. The gospel of Paul is the SAME gospel as that of Christ. To say otherwise is to impose a doctrinal system that does not exist.

What you're saying is that there was not blurring of distinctions between Jew and Greek in Christ, until Paul said so. That makes God's word subject to time in some way, in direct contravention of the attribute of God's eternity. There are no such distinctions in God's mind. Isaiah 53 certainly speaks specfically and prophetically of us, as well as Israel, or else Paul would not allude to it multiple times in Romans, nor would the writer of Hebrews, nor would Philip use it as his text for the eunuch. I wonder do you feel free to pilfer Israel's property to appropriate the comfort of Ezekiel 34:24-31 and Joel 2:23? If so, then you are being inconsistent.

You point to Matt. 1. Well, Matt. 1 quotes Isa. 7:14 as well. Are we also to believe that Christ was not spoken of prophetically in Isa. 7:14, at least until Matthew wrote his gospel? You entire hermaneutic is inconsistent with any conception of Hebrew parallelism.

It was a truth existing in the mind of God before Paul was even born. Ultimately, you will have to affirm some form of the doctrine of God's eternity with respect to revelation that makes God subject to time by making the gospel itself subject to time and the knowledge of the writers of the pertinent texts. This also violates the concept of God's independence. Methinks you need to take a course in systematic theology that doesn't rely on Schofield or Darby. Using that same logic, one can conclude that the Trinity in its form affirmed by Paul is not affirmed in the Old Testament because there was no such understanding of it in Judaism (and that remains so today). We can also say that the Messianic texts in Isaiah and Psalms did not prophetically apply to Christ at all, since there was no real understanding of Jesus identity until Advent (this is a tactic atheists use when criticising Christology), and, with respect to the theological writing of the NT, until the gospels began being written. Not only that, we should also affirm that Psalm 14 and Psalm 53 did not apply to the sinfulness of all persons specifically or prophetically, since Paul is the one that makes that application in Romans 3. That's plainly absurd, but is very much where you "logic," and I use that term loosely, goes.

SO WHAT, God did, and God is the author of Isaiah, not Paul. The Old Testament saints clearly did know of Christ, because many of them saw Jesus day according to Jesus own words, e.g. Abraham. You are not privy about ANYTHING the Apostles or the prophets or even the Patriarchs knew or did not know. Only they are privy to it.

The famous cry of the classic dispensationalists who forget there is not one line of Protestant theology affirming their views until the 19th century. I bet you affirm free willism too, and FYI, I spent 12 years studying dispensational theology. I know quite well what I'm discussing here.

And there was no footnote to your post anyway, so an appeal for "documentation" or your part comes across as spurious.

Paul was an Apostle...and, once again, the Bible is not a historical theology textbook, which is the underlying assumption of your system. It is a unity.

How do you know, you weren't there, and Acts is a selective record, not an exhaustive record. We do know they did what God directed them to do. This may or may not have included such an understanding against which you mitigate. They DID understand that Isaiah 53 was about the atonement. The Jews were saved the same way as Gentiles were. Paul NEVER says that Isaiah 53 applies differently to the Jews and Gentiles. SAME GOSPEL. Philip expounded to the eunuch from Isa. 53, because God directed him to do so in order for him to be converted. (Additionally, he was a Greek convert to Judaism and not a hereditary Jew anyway). The root cause of this was that God had elected the eunuch to salvation and was using Philip to bring that to pass. In your view, you are affirming that this text applied to the eunuch because he was Jewish. That is nothing less than conditional election, because the text applies to a person because of some intrinsic quality. This violates God's justice, mercy, and sovereignty in individual salvation and means God is playing favorites. Perhaps you need to take a trip to the Calvinism/Arminianism forum.

You are saying that we are to preach Paul's gospel, not Jesus' gospel. That makes a sum total of zero sense. You seem to be affirming FOUR DIFFERENT GOSPELS. If you were remotely logical, you'd understand this. FOUR GOSPELS = HERESY.

Okay, let's look at that statement in 1 Tim 2.

First of all, Jesus is the mediator for the believers, not the unbelievers. To me, "men" in this verse can only mean the elect, the Christians. Though I understand how an Arminian would interpret this verse, the Calvinist position is more consistent with the rest of the scriptures I've examined.

Second, considering that "all" in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18 can only mean the Christians, it follows that when we approach verses like 1 Tim. 2:4-6, there is legitimacy in interpreting it in a consistent manner with the other verses; that is, the "all" is the elect.

Therefore, 1 Tim. 2:4 can have two possible interpretations:

1) The Arminian: The "all" means every individual.

2) The Calvinist: The "all" means the Christians. But since the Arminian interpretation would contradict the interpretations found in 2 Cor. 5:14-15, 1 Cor. 15:22, and Rom. 5:18, we are left with the Calvinist interpretation as the only legitimate one; namely, that the "all" means the Christians.

Also, there is the problem of answering how the desire of God is thwarted. The Arminian position has the desires of God frequently thwarted in addition to having the decision of God depend on the decision of man. God can only save someone if that someone makes the right choice.

The term "all men" taken by itself is capable of an absolute meaning but the the context of 1 Tim. 2 does not support it. That "all" or "all men" do not always mean all and every man that were, are, or shall be, may be made apparent by nearly 500 instances found in Scripture. "Paul definitely mentions 'groups' or 'classes' of men; kings (v.2), those in high position (v.2) etc., the Gentiles (v.7). He is thinking of rulers and (by implication) subjects, of Gentiles and (again by implication) Jews, and he is urging Timothy to see to it that in [the] public worship [at Ephesus] not a single group be omitted" (William Hendriksen, Exposition of the Pastoral Epistles). God desires, in harmony with His eternal decree, to save all men without distinction (i.e., without respect to rank, station, race, or nationality) and bring them to the knowledge of the truth.

Isa. 53 either speaks to us or not at all. Your viewpoint assumes general atonement and corporate, not individual election in order to be true. If it speaks specifically to Israel and the atonement, then only Israel is saved, because Isa. 53 does NOT teach general atonement. Your position ultimately rests on the validity of general atonement. If limited atonement is true, your position on Isa. 53 falls apart completely. If actual, general atonement is true, you end up at universalism. In short, this portion of what you say depends on the validity of your view of the atonement, and, if particular atonement is true, your position on Isa. 53 disappears with it, and, yes, I do affirm that Isa. 53 does not teach general atonement. .

1 Tim 2:4 has the key: hós pántas anthroópous thélei sootheénai kaí eis epígnoosin aleetheías eltheín

"Thelei is a third person singular present active INDICATIVE verb. God's desire is real and actual, not hypothetical or rhetorical; this is the function of the indicative mood. If "all men" is all men without regard to scope, then, linguistically, we must affirm universalism, because, theologically, what God actually desires is also effective. If God desires all men without exception to be saved, then all men will be saved. On the other hand, if "all men" means "all men without distinction," then only those that believe will be saved. "All" in 2:6 therefore only applies to saved persons, not all persons everywhere. If we apply Isa. 53 to this, it MUST apply to the church in a prophetic sense, regardless of whether or not there is a separate Pauline gospel, or else it does not apply at all. No, there is ONE GOSPEL, to say otherwise amounts to heresy.

By excluding the OT saint from the ekklesia (church) the dispensationalist is required to produce some means, other than partaking of the New Covenant in Christ, for one or the other of the groups to be granted eternal life. The teaching of the church for the last 2,000 yrs precludes this, as does our Lord. No dispensationalist that affirms Reformed soteriology will affirm your statement for that reason. </font>[/QUOTE]

 

Simple math says 70 comes after 69.

Your language skills are laughable. It doesn't say Messiah will be cut off at the end of the 69th week does it? Read it so you won't make a fool out of yourself again. It says AFTER 69 weeks. Is that simple enough for you???? Do you remember what comes after 69???

Hypocrisy just oozes out of you. You want to talk about simple language yet you change the meanings of dozens of time-statement words because they don't support you and your Scofield Doctrine.

Perhaps you should stay away until you are ready to stop doing a Jack VanImpe on the Bible.

 

This is good grasshopper. This is the kind of skills I expect from preterists.

In Daniel 9, you have the following sequence:

69th week

destruction of Jerusalem

70th week

Now, Messiah was to be cut off after the 69th week. Since Christ was killed 37 years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, we know he did not die during the 70th week.

Ya know, if you want dated commentary on the issue, I can go back alot further than covenant theologians from the reformation. I can go back all the way to disciples of John and their disciples for my interpretation of the millenium and the 70th week.

Cheerio.

 

Not in my Bible. Perhaps you and Scofield do. Then again I don't have that LaHaye Prophecy Study Bible that you must be using.

I dealt with how Jerusalem wasn't to be destroyed during the 70th week. I guess you just didn't want to hear it.
But I am glad you admit the text dealt with the destruction of Jerusalem. Have you also figured out Messiah wasn't cut off at the end of week 69 but after week 69?

Good, let me see some of their work on Daniel's 70th week. Let me guess, you don't have it with you right now. It's in the mail.

 

I chewed this and swallowed:
"The truths are not in competition nor are they in contradiction."

Different "Good News" messages, same salvation.

 

To this ENTIRE THREAD I will just say...Jesus...Paul....SAME GOSPEL....salvation by GRACE through FAITH PLUS NOTHING.....BUT...preached and taught with respect to the different DISPENSATIONS that applied to each audience that Jesus and Paul were preaching and teaching to.You have to "rightly divide the Word of truth" and understand the different dispensations to justify the messages they preached at the time they preached them.Once you understand DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH all this stuff falls into place nicely.Although I do not necessarily agree with everything Clarence Larkin espoused in his great book,"Dispensational Truth",I think in general he got it right.JMHO.

Greg Sr.

 

ok.....

 

Scripture Rightly Used:

"....that they strive not about words to no profit,...Be diligent to present yourself approved to God, a worker who does not need to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." (2 Tim. 2:14-15)

"...to teach the truth correctly and directly," (Thayers Lexicon)

"...What is intended here is not dividing Scripture from Scripture, but teaching Scripture accurately." (Vine's Dictionary)

"...And what is the[Christian's] work? Not to invent a new gospel, but rightly to divide the gospel that is committed to their trust...The way of error is down-hill. The infecting of one often proves the infecting of many. Or the infecting of the same person with one error often proves the infecting of him with many errors. The apostle mentions some who had lately advanced erroneous doctrines: Hymeneus and Philetus. They did not deny the resurrection, but they put a corrupt interpretation upon that true doctrine, saying that the resurrection was past already. By this they overthrew the faith of some. Whatever takes away the [true] doctrine of a future state overthrows the faith of Christians. Error is very productive and on that account the more dangerous. When men err concerning the truth, they always endeavour to have some plausible pretence for it." (Matthew Henry on 2 Tim 2:15)

ANYONE that even attempts to use 2 Tim 2:15 as "plausible pretence" that it applies to, or can be used for dividing scripture to present a dispenstional theory is the modern day equivalent of Hymaneneus and Philetus with a modern day twist of the resurrection!

Scripture wrongly used:

"You have to "rightly divide the Word of truth" and understand the different dispensations to justify the messages they preached at the time they preached them.Once you understand DISPENSATIONAL TRUTH all this stuff falls into place nicely."

 

Hummmmmmmm....did I just get accused of heresy?I,m almost speechless! Trailblaster...I was just trying to make the point that the "gospel" that Christ and Paul preached was one in the same.I am a dispensationalist without apolpogy and I do believe that to have a clear understanding of the scriptures "rightly divided" you must take the different dispensations into account.I will rest on that statement.I think this thread,as many in here do,has gone way beyond the point of sane biblical interpretation.I have all the answer I need concerning this subject in order to have peace with God about it.....so I guess I'll move on to the next playground.

Greg Sr.

 

Dispensationism consistently does a cut-and-paste job on scripture in order to come up with a theory concocted by Darby and then justifys the cut-and-pasted theory by claiming to have "rightly divided the word of truth."

 

This is an article by a Pro-Rapture site that attributes the foundation of Dispensationalism with Margaret MacDonald.

(Let me say this. I am of a firm belief that whenever sudden "new revelation" appears, and MOST certainly as we near the end, it needs to be scruitinized very carefully.

Any individual that is committed to following the Lord, as HE wishes to be followed, should welcome the opportunity to confirm or reject "new revelation" for themselves, based on the origins and the fruits of it.

I personally believe, that one only has to read this board to discover that the fruits have produced bitterness and strife within the body of Christ, and has produced a "fixation on the when, the how and the where" of the Second Coming of Christ. This is what scripture clearly tells us we are not to be doing. Now, the article with the website I got it from
..................................................
Taken from this website: http://askelm.com/doctrine/d760201.htm

The Rapture Theory: It's Surprising Origin

Almost all Christians are interested in prophecy. This is especially so if the prophecies show what will happen to Christians themselves. There is nothing wrong in desiring such personal knowledge. Even our Lord gave a considerable amount of teaching about the circumstances to befall His people at the end of the age (Matthew 24:22-25). All of us share a common concern in wanting to know about the participants, the chronology, and the geography of those prophecies. To comprehend the full knowledge of them it is obvious that all relevant statements of our Lord and His apostles must be properly interpreted and placed into a coherent order. Many Christians have attempted to do this. As a consequence, the doctrine of the Rapture has arisen. So important has it become to many that the teaching is now sanctioned as the prime revelation from God to show what will happen Lo members of His church just before and during the second coming of Christ. Some even look on it as the heart and core of present Christian expectations! Because of this, it will pay us to review what the doctrine is all about.

The word "Rapture" is not found in the Bible. There is also no single word used by the biblical authors to describe the prophetic factors which comprise the doctrine. Its formulation has come about by means of induction. Certain biblical passages concerning the second coming (and the role that Christians will play in that event) have been inductively blended together to establish the teaching. The modern expression "Rapture" was then invented to explain the overall teaching and the term suits the subject well. The basic tenets of the doctrine are uninvolved. Simply put, it purports that Christ will come back to this earth in two phases. He will first return invisibly to rapture His church away from this world so that they might escape (or partially escape the prophetical tribulation to occur near the end of the age, then later Christ will return in a visible advent to dispense His wrath on the world's nations. This is the general teaching.

Many details concerning these prime factors, however, are hotly debated. There is especially much argument over the chronological features associated with it. Some think the time lapse between the two phases will be 3 1/2 years, others say 7 years. Some feel that the Rapture of the church occurs before the Tribulation, others about mid-way through, Many suggest that the church will be taken to heaven for protection, but a few have proposed a geographical area on this earth. There are those who feel that only part of the church will escape, while others say all will he rescued, These variations, along with others, have multiplied the interpretations to such an extent that many diverse secondary opinions exist among those holding the belief. But all are unanimous on one point: the central theme of the Rapture shows that Christ will return to earth in two phases.

The Newness of the Doctrine

It may come as a surprise to many Christians, but the doctrine of the Rapture is not mentioned in any Christian writings, of which we have knowledge, until after the year 1830 A.D. Whether the early writers were Greek or Latin, Armenian or Coptic, Syrian or Ethiopian, English or German, orthodox or heretic, no one mentioned a syllable about it. Of course, those who feel the origin of the teaching is in the Bible would say that it only ceased being taught (for some unknown reason) at the close of the apostolic age only to reappear in 1830 A.D. But if the doctrine were so clearly stated in Scripture, it seems incredible that no one should have referred to it before the 19th century. This does not necessarily show that the teaching is wrong, but it does mean that thousands of eminent scholars who lived over a span of seventeen centuries (including some of the most astute of the "Christian Fathers" and those of the Reformation and post-Reformation periods) must be considered as prophetic dunces for not having understood so fundamental a teaching. We are not denigrating the doctrine in mentioning these historical facts. That is not our intention. But we do feel that the Foundation should show the historical problems associated with the teaching. This lapse of seventeen centuries when no one mentioned anything about it must be a serious obstacle to its reliability.

Its Beginning

The result of a careful investigation into the origin of the Rapture has been recently published. The book is an excellent one which deserves to be read by all people interested in the subject. Its title: "The Unbelievable Pre-Trib Origin" by Dave MacPherson. He catalogs a great deal of historical material which answers the doctrine's mysterious derivation. We wish to review the results of his research. In the middle 1820's a religious environment began to be established among a few Christians in London. England which proved to be the catalyst around which the doctrine of the Rapture emerged. Expectations of the soon coming of our Lord were being voiced, This was no new thing, but what, was unusual was the teaching by a Presbyterian minister named Edward Irving that there had to be a restoration of the spiritual gifts mentioned in I Corinthians 12-14 just before Christ's second coming. To Irving, the time had come for those spiritual manifestations to occur. Among the expected gifts was the renewal of speaking in tongues and of spirit-motivated prophetic utterances. Irving began to propagate his beliefs. His oratorical skills and enthusiasm caused his congregation in London to grow. Then a number of people began to experience the "gifts." Once this happened opposition from the organized churches set in. It resulted in Irving's dismissal from the Presbyterian church in 1832. His group then established themselves as the Catholic Apostolic Church and continued the teachings of Irving.

These events were the beginnings of what some call present day Pentecostalism. Indeed Irving has been called by some church historians "the father of modern Pentecostalism." What does all this have to do with the origin of the Rapture doctrine? Very much indeed. Let us look at what happened in the year 1830 -- two years before Irving's dismissal from the Presbyterian church. In that year a revival of the "gifts" began to be manifested among a few people living in the lowlands of Scotland. They experienced what they called the outpouring of the Spirit. It was accompanied with speaking in "tongues" and other charismatic phenomena. Irving had been preaching these things must occur, and now they were.

On one particular evening. the power of the Holy Spirit was said to have rested on a Miss Margaret .Macdonald while she was in a state of illness at home. She was dangerously sick and thought she was dying. In spite of this (or perhaps because she is supposed to have come under "power" of the spirit for several successive hours during which she experienced the manifestations of "mingled prophecy and vision." The message she received during this prophetic vision convinced her that Christ was going to appear in two stages at His second coming -- and not one! The emanation revealed that Christ would first come in glory to them that look for Him and again in a final stage when every eye would see Him. It was this visionary experience of Miss Macdonald which represents the prime source of the modern Rapture doctrine as the historical evidence compiled by Mr. MacPherson abundantly shows.

The Influence of John Darby

Many people have thought that John Darby, the founder of the Plymouth Brethren, was the originator of the Rapture doctrine. This is not the case. Darby was a brilliant theologian with outstanding scholarly abilities. Even those who have disagreed with his teachings admit that he, and many associated with him, helped to cause a revival in biblical learning throughout the evangelical world (which even has been perpetuated down to our own present day). All who love biblical research ought to be thankful for what Darby and especially his associates accomplished for biblical scholarship. They particularly helped pave the way for the renewal of modern lexical studies of the languages of the Bible. The doctrine of "dispensationalism" was also a teaching they brought to the attention of the Protestant world.

It had long been thought by many Christians that the Rapture doctrine originated with ,John Darby. It is now known that this is not true. Darby only popularized it. Scofield and others who took over Darby's mantle later helped to make it respectable, Today, many of those in the evangelical sphere of Christianity are so certain of its veracity that it is accepted as the absolute truth of God. The fact is, however, John Darby received the knowledge of the doctrine from someone else. The source was the Margaret Macdonald mentioned above.

The studies of Mr. MacPherson show that her sickness during which she received her visions and revelations occurred sometime between February 1 and April 14, 1830. And by late spring and early summer of 1830, her belief in the two phases of Christ's coming was being mentioned in praise and prayer meetings in several towns of western Scotland. In these meetings some people were speaking in "tongues" and other charismatic occurrences were in evidence. These extraordinary and strange events in western Scotland so attracted John Darby that he made a trip to the area to witness himself what was going on. Though he did not approve of the ecstatic episodes that he witnessed. it is nonetheless significant that Darby, after returning from Scotland, began to teach that Christ's second coming would occur in two phases. MacPherson shows good evidence that Darby had even visited Miss Macdonald in her home. There can hardly he any doubt that the visions of Miss Macdonald are the source of the modern doctrine.

Visions and Dreams

While it is possible that visionary revelations can come from God, it is always prudent to be cautious in such matters. Near the same time that Miss Macdonald was receiving her visions, Joseph Smith in America was experiencing his apparitions which brought Mormon doctrines to the world. John Wilson also had his dreams which were the spark that started the false teaching of British realism. Not long afterwards Ellen G. White received her visions that resulted in many Seventh Day Adventist teachings. And remarkably, all these individuals received revelations of doctrines which were much at variance with one another. Such incidents bring to mind the warning that God gave to Moses.

"If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or wonder, and the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spoke unto thee, saying, let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them; thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams: for the Lord proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul" (Deuteronomy 13: 1-3).

The teachings of visionaries also recall to mind what the apostle John tells Christians.

"Beloved. believe not every spirit. but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world" (I John 4:1).

And though some point to the prophecy of Daniel that "knowledge shall be increased" (Daniel 12:4) a proof that the revival of doctrinal truths will occur at the end of the age, this is not what Daniel meant. If one reads the prophet carefully. he will find that Daniel is speaking about the knowledge of his prophecies which will be increased. not the revival of general doctrines. In the original text of Daniel the definite article occurs before the word "knowledge." Daniel actually said "THE knowledge will be increased" and the text shows he means "the knowledge of his prophecies." Daniel is in no way speaking about renewing of doctrines at the time of the end. A further admonition is necessary concerning the origins of teachings which might happen near our own time. It is by the apostle Paul.

"Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils" (I Timothy 4:1 ).

These warnings from God's word are given as a reminder that we ought to exercise caution in accepting the truthfulness of visionary revelations especially those that happen near the end of the age and are contradictory to themselves or the Bible.

Conclusion

While there are many suspicious factors conferred with the origin of the Rapture, it could be admitted that the doctrine may reflect a teaching found in the Bible. At least, many feel so. John Darby no doubt thought there was something to it because after his trip to Scotland he changed his mind from believing in a single stage coming and adopted the two stage doctrine which became known as the Rapture. Darby was certainly not a visionary and his teachings whether right or wrong) are almost always based on scriptural revelation. It was Darby who popularized the Rapture with the scriptural arguments which seem so convincing to some. It could be that the teaching is basically true, but we at the Foundation for Biblical Research in Pasadena have felt incumbent to show our readers the unbiblical source of the doctrine. Too many people have for gotten that it was Miss Macdonald's visions which introduced the doctrine to the world.

In our next Exposition in this series we to show the biblical evidences which tend to support the doctrine. In the one to follow. we'll show those which seemingly speak against it. Our desire to place into your hands the necessary evidence for you to make up your own minds on the In closing, we wish to state one word that no one can gainsay. Whether one believes in the rapture or not, it has nothing to do with the assured salvation that all Christians have in Christ. That is a fact!


Ernest L. Martin

 

I might also add as a comment on the above post that it certainly is a VERY real possibility that if Margaret MacDonald was "seriously ill" and believed she was going to die, she probably was having hallucinations!

 

Yeah, and the same Gospel preached to Abraham. (Galatians 3:8)

 

Due to the 20 page limit of “Is Dispensationalism Elitist? Thread, it was moved and a new thread created. Since this thread had already been created on the same subject it seemed best to continue it here instead.

The last few posts of the “Elitist?” thread dealt with a challenge from Christ’s prophesying on the Second Coming and what we are to expect to see happening at that time concerning the saved elect and the unsaved in Luke 17:22-37 below.

Originally posted by trailblazer:

After an exchange of words, this post appeared on the thread that had been started that I chose not to post to. I felt obligated to respond to the post because that is not what I did, nor was it my thought at all. There was definitely a strong challenge there, that is true, but that is not a bad thing – challenges are good if fellow Christians have been ensnared in false doctrine.

Originally posted by Pastor Larry on the other thread,

Pastor Larry’s response to the challenge in Luke 17

Since Larry’s response seemed elusive, I posted the following;

Pastor Larry seemed to be avoiding the challenge directly again by replying;

The response still seemed evasive, so I pushed a little more.

Pastor Larry’s next post was even more evasive as it set up a dispensational position that clearly is not there. It, instead, appeared to be essentially “accepting” his own theology instead. Jesus was NOT being asked about ANY pre-trib rapture!

However, I let it go and simply replied with;

Pastor Larry responded with;

So, I had been right. In order to avoid the direct literal and contextual implications of the futuristic prophecy of Christ, “dispensational thought” had been introduced for a smokescreen as it appeared in the above. Therefore, I confronted it a little more directly ;

This was the last post, I believe.

In conclusion, there was never any questioning of his “believing Jesus” words, but a CHALLENGE to ACCEPT clear and literal words of Christ over the pre-trib doctrine brought in by J. N. Darby in 1830, printed in the Scofield Bible and then taught in seminaries like Dallas Theological Seminary. Since a “diversion” occurred in solid Christian teachings that were also proven to have been taught by Tertullian, Iraneus and other early church fathers, it is a very valid challenge for our Christian brothers and sisters to come back to a more acceptable, less divisive theological doctrine and more grounded in scripture.

 

rjprince.
The problem with your question is that you have used a capitalized 'G' in Gospel in your opening question. The term 'gospel' is a general term that means good news in Scripture. The 'gospel' of the earthly kingdom is good news to the Jew, but it not the good news of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ. When the capital 'G' is used among Christians, it means the saving Gospel alone.

I recommend that you read John 3:16,18,36; 6:40,47; 11:25-26, Luke 7:50 and see if it is somehow different than Paul's Gospel.

And as for the OT Gospel, you might want to ask yourself why Paul includes how Abraham got saved (through faith alone) in both Romans 4 and Galatians 3 and how he compares it favorably with the Gospel of grace that we enjoy today as well. I would also recommend that you read Romans 1:17, which is taken from Hab. 2:4 BTW. This OT verse that Paul applies was the same verse that launched the Reformation when Martin Luther's mind and heart were opened to it by the Holy Spirit.

So as not to misrepresent you...do you believe that baptism is necessary today? I don't mean to suggest that it is necessary for salvation. Just is it necessary to be obedient to God in this dispensation?

To be frank, I was wondering if you are a hyper-dispensationalist?

http://pub70.ezboard.com/fthemidweekrapturefrm127.showMessage?topicID=2.topic