-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Rapture background
- Thread starter Cathode
- Start date
Well, that is one opinion on dispensationalism.
I think one should study to have a well rounded understanding of exactly what dispensationalism teaches. I've often found that some who rail against it don't even understand it, or at least well enough to be railing against it.
The rapture this gentleman was speaking of is not the main issue, that would be the separation of the Church and Israel that gets the covenant theologists on the edge of their seats.
I think the point here is that like all innovations, you can see this theology has no long standing history going back to the Apostles.
It is a tradition of men, and was a clear case of trying to force scripture to fit a theology.
The question is not how long its been in circulation, but rather is it Scriptural?
The Rapture and the Resurrection are one in the same. Paul lays it out clearly in 1 Thes. 4.
It's nothing new, "the dead in Christ shall rise first, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up to meet the Lord in the air."
Only the timing is in question. Dispensationalism has given new insight to that timing.
Dispensationalism is neither historical or scriptural. The point being made is that it was an innovated human idea that Scripture was manipulated to give it credibility.
So in 1820 a Scottish teenage girl has a dream about a rapture event, and Darby builds a theology around it and proof texts scripture to justify it.
No one in all preceding Christianity was taught or preached this new theology or interpreted scripture to support this new theology.
So a Scottish teens dream was given status as Divine revelation and she became an oracle of God. Then Scripture was abused to give support to it.
There are many scholars that say this story is at the very least exaggerated.
When you disagree with something you'll look to find anything to occasion rock chunking.
The true test is lining it up with Scripture, and I have.
The true test is not Scripture, the point is, scripture can be made to support any stupid idea.
And people taken in by the stupid idea, would rather hold tightly to it than admit its foolishness and their own gullibility, unless they are particularly imbued with humility and love of the truth.
Appeals to Scripture have become an appeal to each man’s interpretation of scripture, not an appeal to truth.
This is the tragedy of the culture that Protestantism created by the heresy of “Sola scriptura”, where each man follows his own subjective interpretation of scripture not the truth of scripture.
Each man sees his own or someone else’s innovated theology in scripture.
Dispensationalism is just another human innovation in a long list of human innovations spawned under the culture of protestant relativism, which appeals to scripture to justify every innovation and theology.
Last edited:
OK, stupid ideas, I get it!
How about "extra ecclesiam nulla salus" for centuries. No salvation outside the Church.
Telling us Protestants we can't be saved unless we take part with the Catholic Church.
Show me that in Scripture, I must have missed it.
If you are baptised, you are part of the Church.
You need to have a genuine dispassionate look at the origin of your theology, and see that it was a human confection based on a Scottish teens dream and Darby’s eagerness to add his spin of scripture to justify it.
That’s why these Bible butchers have a great deal to answer for, they deceive generations of good people in unhistorical and unscriptural innovations.
Pray about it, and step outside of it to examine it without bias.
But my friend, when you point a finger at me, you have 3 pointing back at you.
If we are to be understood, YOU also have to participate.
Show me your problem with the results of dispensationalism, and I'll explain how that conclusion came about.
I generally point with my nose and run a hostile commentary with my mouth against errors.
Darby’s dispensationalist theology has the same authority as Joseph Smith’s, only Joseph Smith’s innovations are more elaborate.
Many claimed Smiths visions gave new insight as well.
No one in all Christian history taught dispensationalism or Mormonism, both are heretical innovations of the 1800s, with no history before that.
All heresy is innovation that claims new insight, but look at their origins, very human and delusional at inception.
They are theologies looking for a justification from scripture.
OK, it's plain to see you're afraid of reaching into any substance on the matter, all you can muster is your negative opinions of something I think you have very little knowledge of.
Other than that, it was nice to meet you and learn where we stand.
Any substance would be fruit of the poisoned tree.
The same way we know the tree by the fruit, we equally know the fruit by the tree.
The origin of dispensationalism tells us everything we need to know.
I respect your opinion, I think maybe your understanding could be enlightened.
I know how it goes, I feel the same about Catholicism.
So we do share something in common.
We do.
Let’s ask Jesus every day to guide us in His Holy Truth.
Pray for me and I will pray for you to this end.
I like that, and I will pray for you, friend! Laying all differences aside with prayers that we can bring glory and praise to the name of our Lord.
37818
Well-Known Member
Totally messed up to where it is just stupid.