I Now Know Why Some Deny the Rapture of the Church of Jesus Christ

[JD731]

The Kingdom has to do with Israel and includes those members of the New Testament church of Jesus Christ who became believers before Israel was cut off and the Body of Christ was started with the conversion of Paul (Acts 7-9).

Why do you think anyone is going to wade through a series of reference to try to figure out how they support your view that you have offered in a general opinion? Someone who does that cannot be taken serious..

 

[JD731]

Ohhhh boy….still another food fight! Help us Lord

You don't have to be here.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

You don't have to be here.

It was preordained

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Why do you think anyone is going to wade through a series of reference to try to figure out how they support your view that you have offered in a general opinion? Someone who does that cannot be taken serious..

Exactly

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It is because the deniers, generally speaking, do not know what the church of Jesus Christ is and if asked to define it could not do so scripturally. If they are confused about what it is, how are they going to understand its destiny and it's doctrines?

Another reason for the failure to grasp the reality of the rapture of the church of Jesus Christ is because they do not understand that the kingdom of God on the earth is a major theme through the scriptures and their denomination's teachings have demanded they reject all the OT prophecy concerning this kingdom and have spiritualized the entire OT scriptures, as well as the NT scriptures that relate to this subject.

Most of the time when we are discussing the church we are not speaking of the same thing. Therefore we should define our terms before we discuss important biblical subjects, especially the kingdom of God and the rapture of the church, IMO.

We really should be discussing someone’s access into the church via their understanding of what got them there in the first place. Then if they have the proper understanding of the Trinity, Regeneration etc..then you can add instruction.

 

[taisto]

The fact is this:

To my knowledge, not one person on the Baptist Board denies the rapture of the Church.

The difference lies entirely in "when" the rapture occurs, not if it occurs.

 

[MrW]

Thanks for responding MrW. I know how to define the church but the divide between theological systems is largely (imo) due to the fact that it is misunderstood by most people. That is understandable because God calls it a "mystery" revealed by the Spirit first to the apostles and the prophets somewhat piecemeal but later to the specially chosen man, Paul, who God would commission as the lone apostle to the gentiles, whom he began adding to the church some 10 years after it's beginning on Pentecost with Israel only. Paul was different in that he was given complete understanding of the church of Jesus Christ.

Now, here is an example of the piecemeal revelation in the primitive church before most of the NT epistles were written.

.
1 Cor 14:23 If therefore the whole church be come together into one place, and all speak with tongues, and there come in those that are unlearned, or unbelievers, will they not say that ye are mad?
24 But if all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:
25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.
26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together, every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.
27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret.
28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge.
30 If any thing be revealed to another(prophet) that sitteth by, let the first (prophet) hold his peace.
31 For ye (prophets) may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted.
32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

This is how the truths were disemminated in the churches before the written scriptures.

Check this out.

1 Cor 12:27 Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular.
28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
29 Are all apostles? are all prophets? are all teachers? are all workers of miracles?
30 Have all the gifts of healing? do all speak with tongues? do all interpret?
31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way.

This is the primitive church. The modern church does not have these special spiritual gifts. We cannot even define some of them, like the gift of faith. We do not need them. We have the complete scriptures for our faith and practice. There has not been the exercise of a single one of these gifts since the end of the apostolic era of the church of Jesus Christ. The scriptures alone are our authority, taught by the indwelling Spirit.

I would like to know how YOU define the church of Jesus Christ. I will give my definition later.

I define the church as all those who have trusted Christ since the Cross, and have been born again of the Spirit of God and the Word of God. In other words, the literal meaning of ekklesia, "called out assembly", sometimes referred to as the "Bride of Christ".

 

[timtofly]

Were those mentioned in Hebrews 11 justified by some other means than faith?

The blood of Jesus justifies.

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:"

 

[taisto]

The blood of Jesus justifies.

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise:"

The blood of Jesus does not justify the faithless. They die in damnation who do not have faith.

Those mentioned in Hebrews 11 were justified by faith.

 

[JD731]

The fact is this:

To my knowledge, not one person on the Baptist Board denies the rapture of the Church.

The difference lies entirely in "when" the rapture occurs, not if it occurs.

I started the thread and described the reason why some deny the rapture of the church. It is because the definition of the church is not the same among the posters. My church definition had a beginning on Pentecost with the salvation of Jews in Jerusalem with the door of faith being opened to the gentiles in Acts 10 with the salvation of Cornelius and his family.and will be complete at the fullness of the gentiles. My definition of the church of Jesus Christ is his body and his bride after the figure of Adam and Eve in the beginning of creation. My definition of the church is that it is a separate entity from Israel or any other entity. It is predestinated to be glorified as a collective one with Christ, him being the head and the church being his body.

I doubt you agree with that definition and that the church has a separate destiny from either Israel or the nations though the church comes out of both. If not, it is not only the timing of the rapture but who and what is being raptured.

Most of the posters knows this and I am not sure why they are acting as if they don't. Most Reformed and amils believes and teaches the church is the new Israel. For them, it would make just as much sense to say Israel is raptured.No?

 

[taisto]

I started the thread and described the reason why some deny the rapture of the church. It is because the definition of the church is not the same among the posters. My church definition had a beginning on Pentecost with the salvation of Jews in Jerusalem with the door of faith being opened to the gentiles in Acts 10 with the salvation of Cornelius and his family.and will be complete at the fullness of the gentiles. My definition of the church of Jesus Christ is his body and his bride after the figure of Adam and Eve in the beginning of creation. My definition of the church is that it is a separate entity from Israel or any other entity. It is predestinated to be glorified as a collective one with Christ, him being the head and the church being his body.

I doubt you agree with that definition and that the church has a separate destiny from either Israel or the nations though the church comes out of both. If not, it is not only the timing of the rapture but who and what is being raptured.

Most of the posters knows this and I am not sure why they are acting as if they don't. Most Reformed and amils believes and teaches the church is the new Israel. For them, it would make just as much sense to say Israel is raptured.No?

JD, you are running around the point, which is that everyone at the BB believes in a rapture of the church.

It seems that your actual complaint is that not all of us hold a pre-trib rapture. And a secondary complaint is that not all of us believe modern day,godless, Israel is blessed by God, like you do.

Look at history. God spews the unbelieving Israelite and Jew out of the land, but he always has a remnant who are saved by grace and justified by faith. This small group is true Israel. All others are not Israel. We Gentiles who are also saved by grace and justified by faith are grafted into the tree of life, which is Christ Jesus our Lord. He is the root and the stem. Everyone who has been saved by grace and justified by faith is connected to this tree. This lineage goes from Adam to the present moment and is established in the covenant of grace.

 

[MrW]

I started the thread and described the reason why some deny the rapture of the church. It is because the definition of the church is not the same among the posters. My church definition had a beginning on Pentecost with the salvation of Jews in Jerusalem with the door of faith being opened to the gentiles in Acts 10 with the salvation of Cornelius and his family.and will be complete at the fullness of the gentiles. My definition of the church of Jesus Christ is his body and his bride after the figure of Adam and Eve in the beginning of creation. My definition of the church is that it is a separate entity from Israel or any other entity. It is predestinated to be glorified as a collective one with Christ, him being the head and the church being his body.

I doubt you agree with that definition and that the church has a separate destiny from either Israel or the nations though the church comes out of both. If not, it is not only the timing of the rapture but who and what is being raptured.

Most of the posters knows this and I am not sure why they are acting as if they don't. Most Reformed and amils believes and teaches the church is the new Israel. For them, it would make just as much sense to say Israel is raptured.No?

I agree.

 

[timtofly]

The blood of Jesus does not justify the faithless. They die in damnation who do not have faith.

Those mentioned in Hebrews 11 were justified by faith.

Your verse in Hebrews 11 to prove your point?

Faith does not justify. The Blood of Jesus is God's only justification. The verse I gave you said they died without receiving the promise. Their faith got them into Abraham's bosom. The Blood of Christ released them from Death and gave them eternal life at the Cross. They were the firstfruits of the NT church.

 

[JD731]

The fact is this:

To my knowledge, not one person on the Baptist Board denies the rapture of the Church.

The difference lies entirely in "when" the rapture occurs, not if it occurs.

That is not true but it is true for sure that many, like yourself and the men you have attached your wagon to, deny the church. They might have something being raptured in their radical views but it is not the church as it is revealed in the scriptures.

 

[taisto]

That is not true but it is true for sure that many, like yourself and the men you have attached your wagon to, deny the church. They might have something being raptured in their radical views but it is not the church as it is revealed in the scriptures.

Again, you are entirely wrong. We embrace the church as the body of Christ, all believers from Adam to the present moment.

You seem dead set on preaching segregation of the saints. I don't see God segregating those whom He has purchased.

Do you think the Bible preaches segregation of the saints from the saints?

 

[JD731]

Again, you are entirely wrong. We embrace the church as the body of Christ, all believers from Adam to the present moment.

You seem dead set on preaching segregation of the saints. I don't see God segregating those whom He has purchased.

Do you think the Bible preaches segregation of the saints from the saints?

I do not think there is any hope for reasonable thinking for you. You are as confused as a termite in a yo-yo.

There you go @JonC. This is the theology of the amils in print.

 

[MrW]

Your verse in Hebrews 11 to prove your point?

Faith does not justify. The Blood of Jesus is God's only justification.

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

 

[timtofly]

Romans 3:28
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Romans 5:1
Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Galatians 3:24
Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster [to bring us] unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith.

You only have faith if you are justified. You are turning faith into your own work that justifies yourself through your own means. Or you would agree that only the Blood of Jesus justifies an individual. You are also missing the whole point of faith as given in Hebrews 11, so you went elsewhere. Faith only is acknowledged by being obedient to God.

The only faith that justifies is the faith that the Blood of Jesus covers your sin. The obedience is accepting God's grace. Once you are obedient to God in the acceptance of what Jesus accomplished on the Cross, you are credited with that faith that justifies. Romans 3:24

"Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:"

"Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness."

But not just trusted God in belief. Abraham obeyed God to show that belief. Just claiming you trust God and then never obeying God, grants you nothing. Because the words are not the faith.

"And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was imputed to him; But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead; Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification."

You tend to be skipping over the substance and just looking at the term faith which is meaningless without the substance, obedience.

"But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."

Paul is talking still about the faith Jesus Christ had in obedience to God, and that was the Cross that still is the only justification for sin. Had Jesus never died on the Cross, the faith in Galatians 3:24 would never exist.

You don't have to "have faith". You have to be obedient to the salvation God offers, and you will be credited with faith. Jesus was obedient to the Cross and that was the faith of Jesus in comparison with the lack of faith, when Adam disobeyed God, in the one thing God commanded of Adam.

 

[CJP69]

Why do you think anyone is going to wade through a series of reference to try to figure out how they support your view that you have offered in a general opinion? Someone who does that cannot be taken serious..

Well, we are only just getting started here, right?

What am I supposed to do, start off by writing a book length essay so that all your potential questions are answered by the time you've read through my first post? If you have a question or want clarification about something I've said then just ask me! This is a discussion forum, right? Maybe try to have an actual discussion where two people bat things around and maybe learn something from each other.

 

[JD731]

Well, we are only just getting started here, right?

What am I supposed to do, start off by writing a book length essay so that all your potential questions are answered by the time you've read through my first post? If you have a question or want clarification about something I've said then just ask me! This is a discussion forum, right? Maybe try to have an actual discussion where two people bat things around and maybe learn something from each other.

I am sorry you took offence at that. It does seem rather smart-alecky. I will try do do better.