:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
And that is the extent of your knowledge of the Scriptures on the subject, right?
This is a typical answer; a typical refutation. You can't give one.
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!
:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:
Quit rattling on about literal and symbolic. Just present one Verse of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib removal of the Church. Until you do neither you nor DHK can say anything warranting a response!
Note the Latin word "rapio" from which "rapture" comes from.[/FONT]Shall be caught up (harpagêsometha). Second future passive indicative of harpazô, old verb to seize, to carry off like Latin rapio.
[/SIZE]
[FONT="]1 Thessalonians 4:15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
I do so wish these pre-trib dispensationalists would read Scripture:
1st Peter 3:22, Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
You have a proof-text. And it appears that you either don't care what it really means or are too lazy to find out.
First, what is the context of then entire book, including this chapter? Peter is writing to suffering Christians, those who have gone through intense persecution and are presently going through persecution. This is a letter written to suffering Christians. Consider the theme:
[FONT="]1 Peter 1:6 Wherein ye greatly rejoice, though now for a season, if need be, ye are in heaviness through manifold temptations:
7 That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and honour and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ:[/FONT]
Our example when suffering is Christ. We are to follow his example.
[FONT="]1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:[/FONT]
Christ suffered, He suffered a cruel death unlike any other. He died. But now He is risen and sits on the right hand of God.
[FONT="]1 Peter 3:22 Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.[/FONT]
He is gone to heaven where we will go when we die.
He is on the right hand of God, ever living to make intercession for us, for that is His present ministry until He comes and reigns as King in His Kingdom on earth.
The angels and authorities and powers are subject to him. These, presumably, are those that are in heaven.
This is simply a picture that there is reward for the Christian after they endure suffering for a season. There is an end. There is reward as Jesus was rewarded. He is our example. The letter was written to encourage suffering believers.
I didn't post all the verses or the whole chapter if you will, to save some space. That way I could give you more of an explanation. But you ignored the explanation anyway.:laugh::laugh:That is the standard so-called proof offered by pre-trib dispensationalist for they false doctrine and it proves nothing of the sort. The Apostle Paul is simply comforting the Thessalonians concerned about their loved ones already dead. Look at the context:
1 Thessalonians 4:13-18
13. But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14. For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17. Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18. Wherefore comfort one another with these words.
You conveniently left out verses 13 &14.:laugh::laugh:
There is order in everything. Compare it to 1Cor.15. Yes, deceased in Christ will be raised first. Then immediately after that, we which are alive in Christ will be caught up (raptured). IT is the actual word used in the Latin version. That is where the word comes from: "rapio" (rapture) in Latin. Check your friendly Jerome's Latin Vulgate.Furthermore Paul is simply saying that the deceased believers will be resurrected first. There is absolutely nothing in that Scripture to prove a pre-trib removal of the Church.
Apparently you don't know and still have Darby in the apocrypha of your Bible. You must have to be able to refer to him so much. Tell me, why do you refer to Darby instead of Scripture?You know it, I know it , and anyone who reads the passage in context knows it! The pre-trib rapture is fiction out of the mind of Darby not out of Scripture!
I explained to you 1Pet.3:22 and you still don't accept it. You pull the verse out of its context and try to make it mean something it doesn't. Just for you, I will post it again (the explanation).I would remind you of remarks you posted on the thread "Demons" in response to my assertion that God Rules.
Makes you look silly does't it. 1 Peter 3:22 is still correct. GOD is still Sovereign over all of creation and GOD still reigns and that includes this world!
1st Peter 3:22, Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.
There is nothing silly about rightly dividing the Word of truth. Why not take it seriously?
If you take hermeneutics seriously you must ask yourself:
1. Who is the author, and why is he writing?
2. Who is the recipient, and how is he understanding what is being written?
3. What is the intent and purpose of the author?
4. What is the historical background?
--You don't concern yourself with the above. You simply pull this one verse out of its context and use it to support your own ideas.
Christ suffered, the just for the unjust. He died, and rose again, ascended into heaven and now sits at the right hand of God interceding for us, those who believe.
What does that tell those to whom Peter is writing to, suffering Christians.
It tells them, as He overcame His suffering, the suffering on the cross, they also can overcome their suffering. Do you realize, OR, that some of them were being hung on crosses and used as human torches to light the gardens of Nero? Their suffering was horrible.
Thus he goes on in the next few verses:
[FONT="]1 Peter 4:1 Forasmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm yourselves likewise with the same mind: for he that hath suffered in the flesh hath ceased from sin;
2 That he no longer should live the rest of his time in the flesh to the lusts of men, but to the will of God.[/FONT]
--Why verse 22? As Christ has suffered in the flesh for us, we also need to have the same mind when we suffer.
And you have presented nothing, absolutely nothing that proves a pre-trib removal of the Church and you never will because it does not exist in Scripture. You will have to do better than that DHK.
I did, but you didn't really try to answer it. You avoided much of the scripture I posted. It is typical.
Dispensations, Israel, and the Church
From his earliest days, Darby, like Graves, believed not only in the future conversion of the Jews, but also restoration to their homeland. By taking promises to both Israel and the church literally, Darby thought that God's single plan of salvation is harmonized for God's two peoples- Israel and the church. Israel, God's earthly people, are destined to rule over the Nations with Christ before their resurrection. The Church, God's heavenly people, will reign with Christ in the same kingdom, but in resurrection bodies.
Darby's distinction between God's plan for Israel and the Church formed the basis for his most controversial contribution to Evangelical Christianity - the pretribulation rapture of the Church. Even strong opponents to this doctrine admit that it is logical if God is going to literally fulfill His ancient promises to Israel. The Church must be removed before God resumes His work with Israel, enabling the two programs to fully participate in the millennial kingdom.
Like many before him, Darby saw God' s progressive revelation of His plan in terms of dispensations. Unlike C. I. Scofield, Darby did not begin his first dispensation until after Noah' s flood.
Darby' s view of the church was crucial to his development of dispensationalism, especially his view (shared by many in his day) of the present ruin of the church. Elmore observed:
By separating any earthly governmental concepts from the Anglican doctrine of the one, holy, catholic, apostolic church, Darby maintained a high view of the gathered church without aligning it with any race or national government fashioned after Old Testament Israel. By emphasizing Pauline uniqueness, he separated the Church unto its heavenly destiny. (312-13)
DARBY'S CONTRIBUTION
Darby is the father of dispensationalism. " Although he was not a systematic theologian, he was an expositor of ' dispensational truth.' He synthesized exegetical truths to show the full story-line of the Bible, God' s activity in human history" (Elmore, 312). Darby' s employment of the hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation for all of Scripture, including prophecy, naturally led to the distinction between Israel and the Church. This resulted, of course, in the understanding that the hopes of Israel and those of the Church were of a different nature. (Crutchfield, 341)
http://www.raptureready.com/featured/ice/AShortHistoryOfDispensationalism.html
Darby' s view of the church was crucial to his development of dispensationalism, especially his view (shared by many in his day) of the present ruin of the church.
Darby did not just develop an ecclesiology that was isolated from interaction with other areas of theology. Rather, he clearly set it against God’s plan for Israel. In one of his convalescence statements he said:
Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a Davidic reign, and did not know whether the church might not be removed before forty years’ time. At that time I was ill with my knee. It gave me peace to see what the church was. I saw that I, poor, wretched, and sinful J. N. D., knowing too much yet not enough about myself, was left behind, and let go, but I was united to Christ in heaven.
Thus, Darby sees the church as distinct from Israel, since there would be a Davidic reign for Israel in the millennium, God’s earthly people. On the other hand, Darby saw that he was positionally united with Christ in heaven, a heavenly destiny.
Dispensationalists today see such a distinction as their sine qua non. Leading dispensational spokesman Charles Ryrie says, “A dispensationalist keeps Israel and the church distinct.” Ryrie explains:
This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist, and it is undoubtedly the most practical and conclusive. The one who fails to distinguish Israel and the church consistently will inevitably not hold to dispensational distinctions; and one who does will.
http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf
"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).
"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)" (Ryrie, Dispensationalism [Chicago: Moody Press 1995] p.134).
Face up to it DHK; there is no Scripture that shows a pre-tribulation removal of the Church. The simple truth is that the pre-trib dispensational doctrine is false and invented out of “‘whole cloth” by one John Nelson Darby.
Sadly much of the basis for this false doctrine was Darby”s view of the Church for which Jesus Christ died. Dr. Thomas Ice, an honest if deluded dispensationalist, writes regarding Darby and pre-trib dispensationalism:
Notice what Ice says above:
This is the view of many in the dispensational community.
The Church for which Jesus Christ purchased with his own blood [Acts 20:28] is a failure.
The Church of which Jesus Christ said: I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [Matthew 16:18] is a failure.
This is the reason so many "Rapture Ready" dispensationalists base their eschatology on the daily news and I simply refer you to the OP.
Therefore. GOD must “snatch” the Church out of the world. But then according to dispensationalists the Church which Jesus Christ purchased with his own blood is only a parenthesis, an intercalation in GOD’s program for Israel.
Ice writes elsewhere:
WE see in Ice's remarks above the development within pre-tribulation dispensationalism the false concept of the two peoples of GOD, a concept directly in opposition to the teaching of Scripture {Ephesians 2:11-22}. A passage you dismissed DHK as [From post#64} "It doesn't say much though".
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. Chafer writes:
Charles C. Ryrie, quoted above, is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Ryrie writes:
I noted earlier that pre-trib dispensationalists generally *lose their cool, become incensed is perhaps more descriptive, when the Darby, Chafer, Ryrie doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church is mentioned. For proof simply go to http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=80260&highlight=Parenthesis+Church
Pre-trib dispensationalism is the invention of John Nelson Darby, stemming from something revealed to him in Isaiah 32, while convalescing from a riding accident. However there is no basis in Scripture for that doctrine, therefore, it must be considered a false doctrine as other such doctrines that arose during the 19th century.
No scripture; an abandonment of sola scriptura.Face up to it DHK; there is no Scripture that shows a pre-tribulation removal of the Church. The simple truth is that the pre-trib dispensational doctrine is false and invented out of “‘whole cloth” by one John Nelson Darby.
No scripture; an abandonment of sola scriptura.Sadly much of the basis for this false doctrine was Darby”s view of the Church for which Jesus Christ died. Dr. Thomas Ice, an honest if deluded dispensationalist, writes regarding Darby and pre-trib dispensationalism:
And I should trust Ice, Why? You don't.Notice what Ice says above:
This is the view of many in the dispensational community.
More scripture pulled out of context.The Church for which Jesus Christ purchased with his own blood [Acts 20:28] is a failure.
Paul spoke this to Peter and the Apostles. The word means assembly. Christ will build his assembly. Every assembly, by definition must be local. And as long as they stay true to the Word of God the gates of Hell shall not prevail against them.The Church of which Jesus Christ said: I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. [Matthew 16:18] is a failure.
The reason is because that is what the Scripture (which you don't believe concerning last things) says.This is the reason so many "Rapture Ready" dispensationalists base their eschatology on the daily news and I simply refer you to the OP.
You have never answered my question. Where have I ever said that the church is a parenthesis. Either point to the post or shut up about it.Therefore. GOD must “snatch” the Church out of the world. But then according to dispensationalists the Church which Jesus Christ purchased with his own blood is only a parenthesis, an intercalation in GOD’s program for Israel.
I don't care what Ice writes. And you don't care about Scripture, apparently.Ice writes elsewhere:
You have no idea of the teaching of Eph.2:11-22. I explained it to you once, and I simply got ridicule. Why should I explain it again? You don't want to learn. You don't care about exegesis. You just want convenient proof-texts.WE see in Ice's remarks above the development within pre-tribulation dispensationalism the false concept of the two peoples of GOD, a concept directly in opposition to the teaching of Scripture {Ephesians 2:11-22}. A passage you dismissed DHK as [From post#64} "It doesn't say much though".
Do I care? It is apparent to me that you value the writings of men more than the writings of God. Sad!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. Chafer writes:
Again, the writings of men vs. the writings of God? You have made your choice clear.Charles C. Ryrie, quoted above, is a Christian writer and theologian who served as professor of systematic theology and dean of doctoral studies at Dallas Theological Seminary. Ryrie writes:
Another basis accusation. Put up or shut up.I noted earlier that pre-trib dispensationalists generally *lose their cool, become incensed is perhaps more descriptive, when the Darby, Chafer, Ryrie doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church is mentioned.
1. It is evident that you can't answer scripture, or else you would.Pre-trib dispensationalism is the invention of John Nelson Darby, stemming from something revealed to him in Isaiah 32, while convalescing from a riding accident. However there is no basis in Scripture for that doctrine, therefore, it must be considered a false doctrine as other such doctrines that arose during the 19th century.
Guess that makes Paul wicked when he used allegory in Galatians. Then again, he was the chief of sinners.Your view sprang from origen, who brought into the church that wicked spiritualising/allorgorizing the Bible though, and it took Augustine to make sure A mil become a dominent Eschatological view, as he needed it to have the catholic church be the Kingdom of God here on earth!
Guess that makes Paul wicked when he used allegory in Galatians. Then again, he was the chief of sinners.
How is it that you two waste time with one another so much??? I think you need to put each other on ignore and move one.
Thanks! I have promised some friends that I would quit this nonsense with DHK and just leave the Board. I believe I am correct about Darby and pre-trib dispensationalism, with their "parenthesis Church" and their two peoples of GOD, particularly in the absence of any Scriptural basis for that false doctrine. But it is a waste of time trying to convince a committed dispensationalist of that and I really don't have the time to waste. It is past time for me to live up to that promise. So thanks again!
Why do you feel the need to convince him? How does his view effect your life to the point that you insist on doing that?
Approximately half the board believes in dispensationalism. Folks like Dr. Bob believe in a pre-trib rapture. Do you really think it is wise to call it "false doctrine" when there is that possibility you may be in the wrong?False Doctrine is False Doctrine!
False Doctrine is False Doctrine!
Approximately half the board believes in dispensationalism. Folks like Dr. Bob believe in a pre-trib rapture. Do you really think it is wise to call it "false doctrine" when there is that possibility you may be in the wrong?
Whether Calvinism is a false doctrine or not you won't find out from me.Dr. Bob is also a Calvinist. I expect about half the board are Calvinists and the other half Arminian like yourself. You have said some pretty harsh things about Calvin and Calvinism. I expect you believe Calvinism is a false doctrine. Also I have seen far worse things posted on this Board regarding both Arminianism and Calvinism than simply saying they are false doctrine.
http://www.worthynews.com/top/cnsne...-news-i-can-t-help-wonder-if-were-last-hours/“As I read the news, I can’t help but wonder if we are in the last hours before our Lord Jesus Christ returns to rescue His church and God pours out His wrath on the world for the rejection of His Son,” said Rev. Graham in a post on the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association (BGEA) website.
“I don’t know if we have hours, days, months, or years—but as Christians, God calls us to take the truth of the Gospel to the ends of the earth,” said Graham. “Our job is to warn sinners of the consequences of sin and show them that God is loving and gracious, willing to forgive if we come to Him in repentance and faith.”