amil vs pre-trib- pre-mil

[blessedwife318]

So the Church is going to be taken away by force whether they want to go or not! Very Interesting!

So much for free will I guess

 

[DHK]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

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."

 

[blessedwife318]

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.

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

Originally Posted by revmwc

Originally Posted by blessedwife318
Well if you are going to use Matt 24 and 25 to prove your point I want to see how you deal with this passage.
Also I find it amusing that when people describe the rapture they will talk about the passage Matt 24:40-41
"40 Then two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one left. 41 Two women will be grinding at the mill; one will be taken and one left."
as an illustration. But then if you point out that this takes place after the Tribulation being described in Matt 24 they will say that this passage is not the rapture but the second coming and is showing the judgment of unbelievers.

Matt 24 and 25 do not support a Pre-trib view of the rapture. That view has to be read into that passage.

This is not a pre-trib verse sorry if you believe it to be. Verse 40 is a second coming verse.

Those taken at this point in Matthew are the unbelievers they are taken and we see here in Revelation 19 they are slain by the Sword that proceeds out of Christ mouth.
Their bodies now physically dead.
Their souls go to hell
Reserved until the end of the Millennial Reign.
We see here in verse We see verse 21 of Revelation, “And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.”

The other, the ones left go into the Kingdom, that is the 1000 year reign of Christ upon the earth.

I'll answer the other passage next.

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

37 And they said to him, “Where, Lord?” He said to them, “Where the corpse[k] is, there the vultures[l] will gather.”

 

[DHK]

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:

What do you think a resurrection is?
When the resurrection occurs do you think you will have a choice, or will you request the Lord that you can stay behind??

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"??????????????????

 

[blessedwife318]

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?

 

[Iconoclast]

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.

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

 

[revmwc]

I have said numerous times that the false doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church was the out growth of the pre-trib-"snatching "away of the Church! I have not said that it was Darby's invention but it is the logical outcome of his seeing, in Isaiah 32, a Jewish dispensation following the Church age. He obviously had better than 20/20 vision to get that out of Isaiah 32, a special revelation I expect.

In other words it is your own invention!

 

[blessedwife318]

In other words it is your own invention!

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

 

[DHK]

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?

 

[revmwc]

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

He has been saying it was the invention of Darby now he says it wasn't Darby. So where did the Parenthesis church OR talks about originate, who originated the teaching? That has been his biggest gripe about Darbyites, now all of the sudden it's not Darby. So show us the post.

 

[blessedwife318]

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.

 

[DHK]

He has been saying it was the invention of Darby now he says it wasn't Darby. So where did the Parenthesis church OR talks about originate, who originated the teaching? That has been his biggest gripe about Darbyites, now all of the sudden it's not Darby. So show us the post.

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

You post Scripture that prove nothing. Scripture does defend a false doctrine and pre-trib-dispensationalism that teaches the Church is a "parenthesis" in GOD's program for Israel is a gross heresy!

There is no Scripture showing that Jesus Christ died for national Israel and that is a fact. Jesus Christ died for His Church which includes all the redeemed of all time! So pray for yourself and those others who have been seduced by the Darby/Scofield error!

Sadly many if not most Baptists in this country have ignored the Biblical truths of these Confessions, including the Philadelphia and New Hampshire Confessions, and have adopted the new revelation of John Nelson Darby, called pre-trib-dispensationalism. This Darby doctrine is not only unBiblical in its eschatology but even worse concludes that the Church for which Jesus Christ died is a “parenthesis, an interruption, in GOD’s program for ethnic Israel!

 

[DHK]

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.

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.

 

[blessedwife318]

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.

 

[OldRegular]

In other words it is your own invention!

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.

Following are remarks by three prominent Classic Dispensationalists, Chafer, Ryrie, and Ironside. Lewis Sperry Chafer founded and served as the first president of Dallas Theological Seminary, and was an influential proponent of Christian Dispensationalism in the early 20th century. Charles C. Ryrie is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary He is also the author of the Ryrie Study Bible.

"But for the Church intercalation -- which was wholly unforeseen and is wholly unrelated to any divine purpose which precedes it or which follows it. In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward Israel, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccurate. A parenthetical portion sustains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes before or that which follows; but the present age-purpose is not thus related and therefore is more properly termed an intercalation" [emphasis added] (Chafer, Systematic Theology, 4:41; 5:348-349).


Charles Ryrie says the same thing: "Classic dispensationalists used the words 'parenthesis' or 'intercalation' to describe the distinctiveness of the church in relation to God's program for Israel. An intercalation is an insertion of a period of time in a calendar, and a parenthesis in one sense is defined as an interlude or interval (which in turn is defined as an intervening or interruptive period). So either or both words can be appropriately used to define the church age if one sees it as a distinct interlude in God's program for Israel (as clearly taught in Daniel's prophecy of the seventy weeks in 9:24-27)" [emphasis added] (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134)

.
Then there are the remarks of Harry A. Ironside former pastor of the Moody Memorial Church in Chicago. The quote is from the preface to his book, The Great Parenthesis.

The contents of the present volume are really an enlargement of lectures on Bible prophecy that have been given at various conferences during the past few years. It was never convenient to have these stenographically reported at the time of their delivery, and so the substance of the addresses has been very carefully gone over and is now presented for the consideration of those who are interested in the revelation which the Spirit of God has given concerning things to come.It is the author's fervent conviction that the failure to understand what is revealed in Scripture concerning the Great Parenthesis between Messiah's rejection, with the consequent setting aside of Israel nationally, and the regathering of God's earthly people and recognition by the Lord in the last days, is the fundamental cause for many conflicting and unscriptural prophetic teachings. Once this parenthetical period is understood and the present work of God during this age is apprehended, the whole prophetic program unfolds with amazing clearness.

http://www.biblesupport.com/e-sword-...t-parenthesis/

I must state as forcefully as I can that I find the doctrine of the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, as a parenthesis or an intercalation, in God’s program for Israel to be not only repugnant. but blasphemous, and I reject it completely. Now many pre-trib-"snatching away" folks will be disturbed but the truth is that the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" in Gods program is the direct result of the pre-trib doctrine of John Nelson Darby. Whether dispensationalists want to acknowledge it or not the doctrine of a "parenthesis" Church came out of the womb of John Nelson Darby's pre-trib-dispensational doctrine!

 

[OldRegular]

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

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!

 

[blessedwife318]

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.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

So much for free will I guess

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

 

[blessedwife318]

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

Thank you