Featured amil vs pre-trib- pre-mil

So much for free will I guess

 

Luk 17:30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Luk 17:34 I tell you, in that night there shall be two men in one bed; the one shall be taken, and the other shall be left.
Luk 17:35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
Luk 17:36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

 

I thought the pre-trib-"snatching" away was supposed to be secret but verse 30 states: "when the Son of man is revealed."

 

Thank you for proving my point that this passage is used to make whatever point is needed at the moment. You need it to be the rapture so that is what you are making it out to be.

Your allie revmwc said this about the parallle passage in Matt 24

I also noticed that you left off the end of the chapter which tells us where they go

 

Whether it has to do with the rapture or not it really doesn't matter.
It has to with what IMO is a ridiculous notion put forth by OR:

"that the Church has no choice"

my answer, concerning a resurrection:

Whether a rapture, the first resurrection, the second resurrection, or God forbid the belief in a general resurrection, does OR actually believe he can control the resurrection as it to say he has a choice in it?
What does he mean by the statement:
"The Church has no choice"
I have never heard a more ridiculous statement. A belief in the rapture is simply a belief in the first resurrection, a resurrection of the righteous. "We have no choice"??????????????????

 

I think you are missing his facetious point of it not being a free will act given how you are toward Calvinist and their view that Salvation is all of God. OR am I correct on the Ironic point you were making?

 

the ones taken taken in judgement is not the Rapture they are taken in judgement

 

No its not. He is correct about that and he has shown documentation that shows that the classical dispensationist believe that.

 

So is it "of Darby" or not?

 

Darby being the founder of Dispensationalism is Dispensationalism 101. I learned about him at my Dispensational Bible College. I do not understand why my fellow dispensationalist are not even will to acknowledge him and the influence he had on the church especially through Scofield.

 

What does this sound like:
These two quotes come from a recently closed thread, and are OR's words.

 

That is not the point. I believe in dispensationalism in spite of Darby. Darby was like a person or name I had never heard before. Even if some credited him as being the "father of dispensationalism," doesn't mean he was. That is an inaccurate statement and needs to be corrected. There were plenty of dispesationalists before him, plenty of premillennialists before him, and as can be shown some pre-tribulationalists before his time.

What cannot be proven is a universal negative.
That is OR's statement and a logical fallacy.
"No one before Darby believed in the pre-trib rapture."
It is impossible to prove unless you are omniscient.

 

Premillennialism does not equal dispensationalism. That is the flaw in your argument. You will not find dispensationalism as a system before Darby.

 

Not really! I have posted the following on several occasions; even started a thread with this info yet you are still in denial! You are pathetic.

 

They tried to use Isaac Watts to prove it but the link they provided rose up and bit them. :tonofbricks:-:tonofbricks: The bite hurt so they are extremely sore!

 

I have said before that I still consider myself a Dispensationalist but I must say that the last couple of days have done a lot to make me reconsider that position. It always makes me wonder when people in a specific camp want to cover up or deny part of its history why they would want to do that. Why are the most ardent Dispensationalist on this board playing dumb about Darby. No one at my Bible College had any problem talking about him and the important role he had in Dispensationalism. No one had any problems with the charts that put the Church in a Parenthesis. So why the uproar on this board about it.

I have also found it ironic that so far I have been the only one that has told Old Regular that I have seen the Parenthesis church being taught and I'm also the only one that has not gotten up in arms about him viewing it as a horrific doctrine. For people that have stated many times that they don't believe in that doctrine, it seems strange that they would get so up in arms about it being described as a false doctrine. That would be like me saying I don't believe in Purgatory but then getting upset anyone talked about how repugnant the idea of Purgatory is.

So I guess my fellow Dispensationalist may have succeeded in pushing me out of the dispensational camp. A little more study and I just may leave the Pre-mill camp as well.

 

Ahhhhhh haaaaaaa ....oh, that was gooood!:laugh::thumbs:

 

Thank you