The Context of the Parenthesis Church

[beameup]

You forgot the 4th position. There are two "raptures".
One "rapture" is for the Body of Christ and takes place prior to the 70th Week of Daniel (how long before is "debatable").
The second is for those who come to faith during the greatest "harvest" of all, during the first-half of Daniel's 70th Week, and prior to God pouring out his wrath on an unbelieving world.

 

[Darrell C]

There is NO rapture and NOT ONE of God’s people is going to be left behind. What will transpire is ALL of God’s people will be resurrected and changed and ALL of God’s people will be taken home to Paradise.

There is a Rapture clearly taught in Scripture and there will be those taken...and those left behind. That the Rapture is a valid First Century Teaching, well, you can start with showing my error in Post 17. If you refuse to do that...do not expect to be considered a serious antagonist.

The practice of simply denying the Rapture, ridiculing those who embrace it, and ignoring the points raised...simply does not impress anyone but those who engage in such tactics.

In regards to those left behind, let me show you the First Century Teaching on that:


Luke 17:30-37

King James Version (KJV)

30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.

31 In that day, he which shall be upon the housetop, and his stuff in the house, let him not come down to take it away: and he that is in the field, let him likewise not return back.

32 Remember Lot's wife.

33 Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.

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.

35 Two women shall be grinding together; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

36 Two men shall be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

37 And they answered and said unto him, Where, Lord? And he said unto them, Wheresoever the body is, thither will the eagles be gathered together.


This corresponds to...


Matthew 24:27-28

King James Version (KJV)

27 For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

28 For wheresoever the carcase is, there will the eagles be gathered together.


Revelation 19:17-21

King James Version (KJV)

17 And I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the fowls that fly in the midst of heaven, Come and gather yourselves together unto the supper of the great God;

18 That ye may eat the flesh of kings, and the flesh of captains, and the flesh of mighty men, and the flesh of horses, and of them that sit on them, and the flesh of all men, both free and bond, both small and great.

19 And I saw the beast, and the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against him that sat on the horse, and against his army.

20 And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

21 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.


Ezekiel 39

King James Version (KJV)

1 Therefore, thou son of man, prophesy against Gog, and say, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:

2 And I will turn thee back, and leave but the sixth part of thee, and will cause thee to come up from the north parts, and will bring thee upon the mountains of Israel:

3 And I will smite thy bow out of thy left hand, and will cause thine arrows to fall out of thy right hand.

4 Thou shalt fall upon the mountains of Israel, thou, and all thy bands, and the people that is with thee: I will give thee unto the ravenous birds of every sort, and to the beasts of the field to be devoured.

5 Thou shalt fall upon the open field: for I have spoken it, saith the Lord God.

6 And I will send a fire on Magog, and among them that dwell carelessly in the isles: and they shall know that I am the Lord.

There is NO rapture and NOT ONE of God’s people is going to be left behind.

In fact Christ said that God's People would be left behind.

It is simply a basic principle within Christ's teaching:


Matthew 13:46-48

King James Version (KJV)

46 Who, when he had found one pearl of great price, went and sold all that he had, and bought it.

47 Again, the kingdom of heaven is like unto a net, that was cast into the sea, and gathered of every kind:

48 Which, when it was full, they drew to shore, and sat down, and gathered the good into vessels, but cast the bad away.


The problem with most A-Millennials and Post-Trib believers is that they simply couldn't distinguish the difference between the Return of Christ and the Rapture if their lives depended on it.

Good thing it doesn't, but the vitriol we see coming from many in those camps makes us wonder if they think it does.

Okay...your turn.

Present the Biblical Presentation which shows your doctrine is accurate. Shows where mine is in error.


God bless.

 

[Darrell C]

You forgot the third position -

It has already taken place.
Some believed it happened in AD 70

And even that has 5 different views...

Let me rephrase: there is only one position, there will be a Rapture.

Those who deny that the Rapture is taught by Paul in the First Century are not considered credible students of the Word of God, in my view, because it is a system which has to add and take away from Scripture for one to arrive at such a conclusion.

That the Rapture has already taken place is a cultish view that ignores the fact that Christ simply did not Return in the First Century.


God bless.

 

[Salty]

Let me rephrase: there is only one position, there will be a Rapture. ...

May we add the word "correct" between one and position?

As far as that AD 70 rapture - I was taken by surprise when a church member attempted to explain it a couple of years ago.

 

[Darrell C]

May we add the word "correct" between one and position?

As far as that AD 70 rapture - I was taken by surprise when a church member attempted to explain it a couple of years ago.

Sorry, no. There is no "correct" eschatology that denies the Rapture as a First Century Teaching.


God bless.

 

[revmwc]

You just proved that the rapture happens before His wrath, but you didn't prove that the entire 7 years is His wrath. In fact you proved it was not by quoating Rev 6:17 which is after 6 seals. So by your above quote you are putting the rapture at least after 6 seals are opened not before the tribulation starts.

So in the O.T. with the sroll of redemption for a partial of land the Kinsman redeemer would already know what the terms were without opening the seals?

Or would he open the seals and see the requirement then make the payment.
You see the requirement revealed by opening the six seals but the seven couldn't be opened until the payment began.

You see t he Tribulation is just that the redeeming of the lost possession of mankind that is earth and all that was created for this earth. Our Kinsman redeemer Jesus is meeting the terms. The curse requires judgment upon all of unsaved mankind upon the earth.
The Ark proved God would judge all those unbelievers with the flood. Yet 8 were saved, the number 8 representing a new beginning.

He also proved how He judges at Sodom and Gommorah, where the redeemed that is lot, his wife and two daughters were snatched out by the angels.

God protected all those Jews in Egypt from the curse of the first born if they were covered by the blood.

Beautiful types of the Snatching away of the bride before the judgment came upon the earth.

I guess most don't realize Christ must redeem all of creation and the Tribulation period is that price being paid. He came first to redeem mankind. Before Hr returns He must redeem the earth for the Kingdom.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Sorry, no. There is no "correct" eschatology that denies the Rapture as a First Century Teaching.


God bless.

Oh so you deny that but promote all the Baloney you Dispys believe......typical. No sence in debating with you since you have stated my beliefs are invalid:laugh:

 

[Revmitchell]

Revmwc I find it strange that you are relying on tradition to make your point. It doesn't matter what people said in the 4th century, what matters is what the Bible says. Make your argument from Scripture as that is the only authority. Tradition means nothing.

The use if sources from the early church is a common practice in many circles and especially in scholarly circles. The purpose is not to hold on to tradition but to show what was believed by the church early on. It is believed and is reasonable that early thoughts on the matter show us what was held by the church closer to the first century. This lends to credibility to the position held.

It is also common practice in scholarly circles that those who are known to be quite knowledgeable on a particular subject are quoted. Both the credibility of the person quoted and the context of their quote can lend reasonable credibility to the position being held.

Tradition is irrelevant.

 

[Darrell C]

Oh so you deny that but promote all the Baloney you Dispys believe......typical. No sence in debating with you since you have stated my beliefs are invalid:laugh:

I promote what Scripture has recorded.

Show me that the Rapture is not taught in the First Century by Paul.

Show me that you can distinguish between two clearly different events, mentioned often in the New Testament...with an entire Book devoted to it which is, incidentally, the last Book penned.

And "there is no sense debating with me" because you are already stuck with v.17.

You simply cannot refute it.

If you are A-Mil...tell me why the thousand year period is not in Revelation 20. Since you cannot, not will not, refute anything, can I expect the same potshots that your brethren engage in? Resorting to ridicule of something they clearly have spent no time in the Word of God studying?

Laugh it up. If you can.




God bless.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I promote what Scripture has recorded.

Show me that the Rapture is not taught in the First Century by Paul.

Show me that you can distinguish between two clearly different events, mentioned often in the New Testament...with an entire Book devoted to it which is, incidentally, the last Book penned.

And "there is no sense debating with me" because you are already stuck with v.17.

You simply cannot refute it.

If you are A-Mil...tell me why the thousand year period is not in Revelation 20. Since you cannot, not will not, refute anything, can I expect the same potshots that your brethren engage in? Resorting to ridicule of something they clearly have spent no time in the Word of God studying?

Laugh it up. If you can.




God bless.

Personnaly I don't give a damn about any of this foolishness....all I know is that it is not in the devine nature of Almighty God to leave his elect behind....but that is what you have convoluted scripture to imply ....... very sad that you could come to that wrong minded conclusion.

 

[OldRegular]

OR, you haven't been listening brother. There have been several, perhaps dozens of permutations of dispensationalism developing over the age of the church (and only recently given that title). Previously it had not been compiled into an organized system but elements within it were debated and argued over. Also many like myself do not accept every jot and tittle out of Dallas Theological Seminary.

As for Darby, he is NOT very popular and not many dispensationalists give any credence to him (accept for Charismatics) because of the folly of his folks having visions of the rapture. This in and of itself is internally conflicting because the scripture having been completed we have no need of visions or unknown tongues.

Anyway, I'll drop in later to see how goes the war.

HankD

I am not saying that there has not been various dispensations suggested over the years. Even Isaac Watts had a system of dispensations, though the Bible speaks of Covenants, not dispensations and Christians are obligated to give heed to the Bible more so than various writers. But, given the link provided by DHK, I showed that Watts was definitely not a pre-rib-dispensationalist but the opposite, a covenant/historical premillennial which has the Biblical view of the Church.

The point I have been trying to make is that John Nelson Darby is the father of the concept of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. I have generally quoted dispensational scholar Dr. Thomas Ice to make this point but he is not alone.

I have never said that Darby is the initiator of the concept of the Church as a "parenthesis" or intercalation in GOD's plan for national/ethnic Israel. I have said that egregious doctrine is the logical out growth of the pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. Furthermore, there have been many dispensational scholars/leaders who originated or adopted that doctrine. I have presented the remarks of three of the most prominent.

I would make one other point that I have made on this BB. Not a single dispensationalist on this BB would confess that the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church was the teaching of pre-trib-dispensationalism until "blessedwife318" and then you stated you had been taught about the "parenthesis" Church. Now "rm" steps forward and argues that "suddenly there is a valley" hidden among the mountains!

 

[Darrell C]

Personnaly I don't give a damn about any of this foolishness....all I know is that it is not in the devine nature of Almighty God to leave his elect behind....but that is what you have convoluted scripture to imply ....... very sad that you could come to that wrong minded conclusion.

But cursing is the divine will of Almighty God?

And knowing what His Word actually teaches isn't?

Let me help you with the error in view here:

1. In the Return of Christ...those left behind are born again believers. You can read about this in the passages already posted as well as in Matthew 25, to get you started.

2. Those left behind in the Rapture are the unbelieving.

And this is why it is a good idea to be able to distinguish between the Rapture and the Return of Christ.

Instead of guessing or just agreeing with someone able to string two similar verses together.

And like I said, those who deny the Rapture seldom engage in serious discussion...

...and they refuse to address simple points made.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

The Bible as I have shown in many post teaches a Pre-trib Rapture. I depend upon the Bible it proves the pre-trib view unless you twist verses to prove otherwise. This thread is to show that in fact the pre-trib Doctrine dates all the way back to the Bible times, Jesus and the Apostles. If you can't see that then there in lies the problem. The same problem those who fight it for years have. That is you must not look for the return of , the tribulation or the Kingdom in order to go against Paul saying God is not through with Israel, to prove your point that He is through with Israel.

The Pre-Trib rapture carries with it the fact that God is not through with Israel and there in is why those who don't support must twist scripture to support that teaching.

There is no Scripture that definitively supports a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. I have presented Scripture that, taken at face value as Ryrie prefers, clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment! So date it back as far as you choose. Perhaps you will find it in another valley like you finally did the "parenthesis" Church!

 

[OldRegular]

You forgot the third position -

It has already taken place.
Some believed it happened in AD 70

And even that has 5 different views...

Trust Salty to throw a clod in the churn!:tonofbricks:

 

[OldRegular]

There is NO rapture and NOT ONE of God’s people is going to be left behind. What will transpire is ALL of God’s people will be resurrected and changed and ALL of God’s people will be taken home to Paradise.

And that Paradise is the New Heavens and New Earth as shown in Revelation 21, 22!

 

[OldRegular]

You forgot the 4th position. There are two "raptures".
One "rapture" is for the Body of Christ and takes place prior to the 70th Week of Daniel (how long before is "debatable").
The second is for those who come to faith during the greatest "harvest" of all, during the first-half of Daniel's 70th Week, and prior to God pouring out his wrath on an unbelieving world.

So the Church really was in the Old Testament!

 

[OldRegular]

Sorry, no. There is no "correct" eschatology that denies the Rapture as a First Century Teaching.

There is no Scripture that definitively teaches a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. It is simply inferred based on the doctrine of Darby developed from his reading Isaiah 32! There is Scripture that definitively teaches a General Resurrection and Judgment. That doctrine was the view of most Baptist Confessions following the Reformation!

 

[OldRegular]

Personnaly I don't give a damn about any of this foolishness....all I know is that it is not in the devine nature of Almighty God to leave his elect behind....but that is what you have convoluted scripture to imply ....... very sad that you could come to that wrong minded conclusion.

Well said Brother!:thumbs::godisgood:

 

[Darrell C]

There is no Scripture that definitively supports a pre-trib-"snatching away" of the Church. I have presented Scripture that, taken at face value as Ryrie prefers, clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment! So date it back as far as you choose. Perhaps you will find it in another valley like you finally did the "parenthesis" Church!

I can understand how your tradition does not allow for seeing the Rapture as Pre-Trib, but that you deny the Rapture altogether is disturbing.



1 Thessalonians 4:14-17

King James Version (KJV)

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.


Lets look at Paul's use of this word elsewhere:


2 Corinthians 12:2-4

King James Version (KJV)

2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to the third heaven.

3 And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth

4 How that he was caught up into paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter.



John uses it:


Revelation 12:5

King James Version (KJV)

5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.


Yet it is your personal mission, apparently, to deny what Scripture clearly teaches.

I have presented Scripture that, taken at face value as Ryrie prefers, clearly teaches a general resurrection and judgment!

Face value?

This might be humorous if your doctrine were not so tragic.

So date it back as far as you choose.

Back to the original writing in the First Century. Yet you know this but continue deceiving people, spamming every thread with a denial of man y facts that cannot be, in reality, removed from the Word of God as your doctrine must do.


God bless.

 

[OldRegular]

Oh so you deny that but promote all the Baloney you Dispys believe......typical. No sence in debating with you since you have stated my beliefs are invalid:laugh:

They exude an air of superiority-:saint:- like: "I know something you don't"!-:saint: