Featured Church Rapture seen in Revlation 4:1-4

I don't believe I have said that Darby is the father of the "parenthesis" Church I have said:

No the Holy Spirit would not lead one into error but all who have introduced error into the Church claim the leading of the Holy Spirit. I have also said God did not leave his Church ignorant of the concept of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church for 1800 years.

 

And when you say this quote:

IMO, it is just a matter of semantics. In reality you are claiming Darby to be the father of the "parenthesis" Church whether directly or indirectly.

 

A very insightful response. Most error that has been introduced into the Church over the centuries has been by people who insisted they were led by the Holy Spirit. Any doctrine must stand the test of Scripture or it is false,

 

Believe what you like DHK just don't falsely accuse me!

 

I am not. My statement was prefaced with "IMO."
And it is still, "IMO."

 

No....Darby is the grandpa! His daughter is pre-trib, parenthesis is the grandchild.

Sorry OR......I couldn't help it

 

BW tends to do that. I suspect she is the Proverbs 12:4 to very proud man.

 

Thank you. Although I'm going to assume you meant just the first part of Pr 12:4 :smilewinkgrin:

 

No WE didn't. We saw that they taught the Pre-millennial view.
Pre-mill and pre-trib are not the same.

Besides now you are arguing for tradition as a proof to your claim. That is antithetical to Baptist thinking. Tradition is not on the same ground as Scripture. Sola Scriptura!!!

 

Haha....yes. I thought the "decay in the bones" was the next verse. Sorry

My bible verse memorization is awful.

 

No problem! A little levity is like the Balm of Gilead sometimes!

 

And a breath of fresh air in this discussion!

 

No worries, I knew what you meant. And I appreciate the compliment. And my husband appreciates that there are a few people who have my back. He has gotten up in arms over what some people have said to me on here but I'm familiar enough with message boards to just let negative comments roll off my back.

 

He is not interested in Doctrinal Discussion?

Just curious.


God bless.

 

Oh he is. You should have seen the Doctrinal Questions he sent me when we were getting to know each other (We met online and lived in different states). That was one of the things about him that stood out to me. He just does not like this kind of setting for those discussion. Sitting around a table discussing Doctrine he is all about, but not on a computer with faceless people and the opportunity for trolls to derail conversation.

 

This kind of setting?

Funny, but it seems to me there is some serious discussion going on through which people can learn.

Trolls? Thread derailment?

Who's to judge who a troll is and what is derailing a thread.

It's interesting that there cannot be a Rapture thread without the constant spam of a member fascinated with Darby, yet you seem to be okay with that.

Would someone who refuses to answer simple questions be a troll? Would spamming Darby into every discussion be considered derailing?


God bless.

 

As a matter of fact among pre-millennial believers the distinction between Post, Mid, and Pre is hardly as radical a distinction as see between Pre-millennial and A-millennial.

And by the way, there is no such thing as pre-millennialism. It is a false doctrine concocted in the 19th century and nowhere in Scripture do we see the word pre-millennial/ism.


Historically Christian "premillennialism" has also been referred to as "chiliasm" (from chilias, the Greek word for thousand) or "millenarianism". The current religious term "premillennialism" did not come into use until the mid-19th century.

I argue tradition as well:


Jewish antecedents

The concept of a temporary earthly messianic kingdom at the Messiah's coming was not an invention of Christianity. Instead it was a theological interpretation developed within the apocalyptic literature of early Judaism.[2] In Judaism during the Christian intertestamental period, there was a basic distinction between the current age and the “age to come”. The “age to come” was commonly viewed as a nationalistic Golden Age in which the hopes of the prophets would become a reality for the nation of Israel.[3] On the surface, the biblical prophets revealed an “age to come” which was monolithic. Seemingly the prophets did not write of a two-phase eschaton consisting of a temporary messianic age followed by an eternal state. However, that was the concept that some Jewish interpreters did derive from their exegesis. Their conclusions are found in some of the literature and theology of early Judaism within the centuries both before and during the development of the Christian New Testament. R. H. Charles in his commentary on Book of Revelation concluded that Jewish eschatology must have developed the concept of an earthly temporary messianic reign prior to the eternal state at the latest by 100 BC


So we have to wonder where and when the a-millennial view became so popular.

And even more importantly, why it is thought that spiritualization of Scripture to make it mean something other than what it states clearly is a proper method of interpretation?

I would suggest that it is popular among certain people because it allows them to read into the texts the meaning they hope to imply into it.

For example, that a thousand years is not a thousand years.

Be happy to see your Biblical presentation of your eschatological views.


God bless.

 

It is just not my husband's thing OK? Everyone has their preferred method of discussion and talking in this setting where anyone can give their two cents is not my husband's thing. Forgive me if I'm being overly defensive but I love and respect my husband too much for me to sit by while someone questions his desire to discuss Doctrine.