"Yes. However, we are not yet glorified. That the martyrs of Revelation 20 are not glorified points to the fact that this does not happen upon death. We could argue that this is the case for those in the tribulation, and perhaps the Millennial Kingdom, however, we then have to interpret passages referring to the Rapture as something other than what they say."
The text is referring to salvation; not post-death glorification.
?
The text is referring to resurrection of Tribulational Martyrs.
They are already saved, Michael.
Glorification, the redemption of our bodies, is shown to occur at the Rapture, or "catching away," is seen to occur to the two witnesses (though I would admit this is open for debate), and is seen to occur at the end of the Tribulation.
How we understand the term "First Resurrection" will show how
woodenly literal" we take scripture.
We are currently clothed in His righteousness & salvation.
I agree, but what does this have to do with the discussion of resurrection, which every believer awaits? To wit, the redemption of our bodies.
Also, a secret rapture of only believers is unScriptural.
According to your theology. However, I have never once mentioned a "secret rapture," so I would appreciate it if, while we discuss scripture, you focus on what I have said, and the basis I present for my beliefs, rather than cloud and sidetrack the discussion towards areas where you feel you can "have an answer" in which to discredit others.
As far as whether the Rapture will be "secret" or not, I would leave that to the individual believer. There is no clear statement toward that, and for myself I look at the example that after this event takes place, the world seems unaware, for if they witnessed this, many would come to Christ in repentance.
However, in an effort to balance this with a view toward both potential outcomes, I will also mention that the world will be given strong delusion, and even as man now rationalizes a sound view and understanding of God, how much more will he when he is given over to strong delusion?
It is a doctrine that is found by assumption & presupposition upon the text.
This entire response, almost is based upon assumption and presupposition, the first of which is to think that I am a dispensationalist.
That some of my views may agree with dispensationalism, does not make me a dispensationalist.
And if you would like to discuss my views, rather than that of others, let me know.
The only text which clearly, directly describes the timing of a rapture is Matthew 13.
There is not a single mention of the Rapture in Matthew 13, for this is truth that has of yet not been revealed to the Church, nor, I might add, due to the fact that Christ had not left, the Holy Spirit (Comforter) had not come, could they have known anyway.
If told directly by Christ "I will die" and they did not understand this clear statement, how could they understand...the Rapture?
But again, assumption is a killer: I guess you assumed I would think this a rapture passage...I assume.
The passages which futurists use to "prove" their rapture must be taken out of grammatical context in order to make them fit.
What does that say for the argument presented here?
Absolutely nothing relevant has even entered the discussion.
Verses 8-10 "And I see this as accomplished in the lives of Gentiles through Christ, spoken of Christ here:"
You are seeing something that is not written within the actual text.
This is the second time I will post the specific word of Christ.
Matthew 26:27-28
King James Version (KJV)
27And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;
28For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.
[/QUOTE]
It is right there in the text.
"New" is an insertion, but I think the translators did well to do so.
An understanding of the New Covenant and the correlation to the work of Christ as well as the Holy Spirit will help us to see that salvation did indeed come, as well as see that there is yet a future fulfillment left for the salvation and restoration of Israel, in fulfillment of God's promises.
Which, if not fulfilled, leave many promises empty.
When we compare these verses to other references to the seed, we see that the true seed of Abraham are NOT his physical seed(state of Israel) but are the spiritual seed of the promise.
And if we consider all that scripture teaches, we will see that there is a kingdom promised to Israel, as well as salvation.
The position presented leaves Paul's teaching concerning national Israel as meaningless and unwarranted.
This is why contextual Scripture to Scripture comparison is so important.
That is true.
Christ's own words in grammatical, literary & historical-cultural contexts should never be discarded or ignored in order to preserve the fidelity of man-made traditions of doctrines.
"Agreed."
Perhaps in word, but not in deed; if you are a dispensationalist.
Are you guessing?
I think not, seems the jury is in, though I have only had a few posts.
How about you learn what it is that I believe, then...you can address it.
If you wish to debate with dispensationalists, those who go by that name, do so.
But if you wish to discuss the topic at hand...let us do so.
Dispensationalism requires that the grammatical, literary & historical-cultural contexts be turned on their heads in order to be force-fitted into Scripture.
Considering the commentary provided thus far, it seems that the pot still calls the kettle black...lol.
Soon, this generation & you are twisted to mean some other group of people thousands of years hence.
Someone else's view is a "twisting," and no room that you might not understand it yourself is left.
I will be glad to discuss your views, and as soon as you present them with a biblical basis, I will very much be delighted to do so.
Apocalyptic & judgement language are given a woodenly literal meaning which is not applied to the same language in the old testament.
Except in cases where, such as Christ saying specific scripture are fulfilled, you can add that which He did not say.
The Day of the Lord looms on the horizon. It is yet a future event.
Passages are assumed to apply to Gentiles as though spoken to us in English instead of understood the way the original hearers would have understood them.
I think you must be responding to someone else.
This is why it is good to learn how to quote properly, that way, what I say is shown, and it will cut down on the need to discuss what other's believe.
This is just not being fair to your anagonist, nor is it being fair to yourself.
I was a fundamental baptist dispensationalist for over 25yrs.
Congratulations.
Were you "saved out of that movement?"
What generates this hostility? Can you answer that?
I know the system but do not understand how anyone who is honestly reading the Word in an unbiased, truth-searching manner can not see the glaring holes in this system.
What has that to do with me?
If you would like to discuss the topic at hand, please refrain from clouding the issue with your beef against dispensationalism, and focus on...the topic at hand.
God bless.
