The Many Insurmountable Difficulties of Futurism: Doctrine of the 2nd Chance

[Protestant]

According to Futurist doctrine millions of Christians will disappear from Earth to be with Jesus in Heaven.

This doctrine they call ‘The Secret Rapture.’

They divide Christ’s single Return into two-stages:

Stage 1: invisibly, secretly, to gather His Elect in the air.

Stage 2: 7 years later, visibly, to render judgment upon unbelievers.

In actuality, however, they teach 2 separate and very different Returns of Christ.

This is problematic since Scripture teaches only one Return of Christ: very visible, very loud, and very angry:

……the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Baptists have historically understood Christ’s one-time very visible, very loud, very angry Return:

As Christ would have us to be certainly persuaded that there shall be a day of judgment, both to deter all men from sin, and for the greater consolation of the godly in their adversity, so will he have the day unknown to men, that they may shake off all carnal security, and be always watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will come, and may ever be prepared to say, Come Lord Jesus; come quickly. Amen.
( 2 Corinthians 5:10, 11; 2 Thessalonians 1:5-7; Mark 13:35-37; Luke 12:35-40; Revelation 22:20 ) http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc32.html

By adding a second Second Coming of Christ 7 years later Futurists have invented ‘The Doctrine of the Second Chance.’

Below I quote from Rapture Ready website’s Left Behind Letters where numerous proponents of Futurism have had the forethought to leave letters written to the unbelievers left behind.

In it they explain what happened and what is about to happen to the less fortunate.

The rapture was not only meant to gather up Christians into Heaven, but it was also meant to get the world's attention. In fact, the next seven years or so God is going to pull out all the stops in an effort to get people to recognize that He is the one true God. https://www.raptureready.com/lbl/leftb12.html

The left behind world has 7 more years to get right with God.

A second chance lasting 7 years.

Scripture must be 'mistaken' when it declares:

behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

Whom does the reader believe, the Word of God or the word of the Futurist prophets?

 

[RLBosley]

According to Futurist doctrine millions of Christians will disappear from Earth to be with Jesus in Heaven.

This doctrine they call ‘The Secret Rapture.’

They divide Christ’s single Return into two-stages:

Stage 1: invisibly, secretly, to gather His Elect in the air.

Stage 2: 7 years later, visibly, to render judgment upon unbelievers.

Do not mistakenly equate futurism with dispensationalism. All dispys are futurists, but not all futurists are dispys.

 

[Revmitchell]

If one is going to criticize someones doctrine you should at least know what you are talking about. You need to study what the rapture is if you are to speak to it intelligently.

 

[DHK]

Baptists have historically understood Christ’s one-time very visible, very loud, very angry Return:

You have a warped view of God.
The greek gods got angry with each other and went to war with each other.
Is the God you perceive of as angry, like this?
That is really pitiful!

 

[RLBosley]

You have a warped view of God.
The greek gods got angry with each other and went to war with each other.
Is the God you perceive of as angry, like this?
That is really pitiful!

Do you disagree that Christ will return in anger and wrath?

 

[DHK]

Do you disagree that Christ will return in anger and wrath?

In wrath, yes.
In justice, yes.
In vengeance, yes.

In anger, no. God is not one who loses his temper, turns red in the face, so to speak. As a man, Christ always had his emotions under control. He "never lost it." He wasn't an "angry man." God is not portrayed as "angry," for anger is different than wrath.

 

[RLBosley]

In wrath, yes.
In justice, yes.
In vengeance, yes.

In anger, no. God is not one who loses his temper, turns red in the face, so to speak. As a man, Christ always had his emotions under control. He "never lost it." He wasn't an "angry man." God is not portrayed as "angry," for anger is different than wrath.

Have you read the Bible?

 

[RLBosley]

God is not portrayed as "angry," for anger is different than wrath.

Exo 4:14 NASB - Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said, "Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart.

Num 11:33 NASB - While the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD struck the people with a very severe plague.

Num 12:9 NASB - So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed.

Jdg 2:14 NASB - The anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He gave them into the hands of plunderers who plundered them; and He sold them into the hands of their enemies around them, so that they could no longer stand before their enemies.

2Sa 6:7 NASB - And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God.

Psa 106:40 NASB - Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people And He abhorred His inheritance.

Jer 25:37 NASB - "And the peaceful folds are made silent Because of the fierce anger of the LORD.

Zep 2:2 NASB - Before the decree takes effect-- The day passes like the chaff-- Before the burning anger of the LORD comes upon you, Before the day of the LORD'S anger comes upon you.

Rev 14:10 NASB - he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.​

This is just a sampling.

 

[DHK]

Exo 4:14 NASB - Then the anger of the LORD burned against Moses, and He said, "Is there not your brother Aaron the Levite? I know that he speaks fluently. And moreover, behold, he is coming out to meet you; when he sees you, he will be glad in his heart.

Num 11:33 NASB - While the meat was still between their teeth, before it was chewed, the anger of the LORD was kindled against the people, and the LORD struck the people with a very severe plague.

Num 12:9 NASB - So the anger of the LORD burned against them and He departed.

Jdg 2:14 NASB - The anger of the LORD burned against Israel, and He gave them into the hands of plunderers who plundered them; and He sold them into the hands of their enemies around them, so that they could no longer stand before their enemies.

2Sa 6:7 NASB - And the anger of the LORD burned against Uzzah, and God struck him down there for his irreverence; and he died there by the ark of God.

Psa 106:40 NASB - Therefore the anger of the LORD was kindled against His people And He abhorred His inheritance.

Jer 25:37 NASB - "And the peaceful folds are made silent Because of the fierce anger of the LORD.

Zep 2:2 NASB - Before the decree takes effect-- The day passes like the chaff-- Before the burning anger of the LORD comes upon you, Before the day of the LORD'S anger comes upon you.

Rev 14:10 NASB - he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.​

This is just a sampling.

First, I don't trust the NASB.
For example even in your last quoted verse, Rev.14:10, the KJV says:
[FONT=&quot]Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:[/FONT]
--That would mean I would have to check the others as well.

Second, no doubt some would be used as anthropomorphisms. God is not angry, but the author may attribute that characteristic to him to help us understand more about God in our minds of finite comprehension. For example God, a spirit, does not have wings, and yet they are attributed to him: "I will hide you under my wings."

Third, it is generally accepted that "anger" in and of itself is sin. God doesn't sin.

 

[RLBosley]

First, I don't trust the NASB.

Well that's silly. It's a great translation.

For example even in your last quoted verse, Rev.14:10, the KJV says:
[FONT=&quot]Revelation 14:10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:[/FONT]

First, both the NAS and the KJV say wrath of God. So I'm not sure what your point is there.
Second, I think you have an uphill climb to establish a substantial difference between wrath and anger.
Third, the text correlates God's wrath and his anger, read all that i underlined.
Fourth, indignation (KJV) means anger.

--That would mean I would have to check the others as well.

Please do.

Second, no doubt some would be used as anthropomorphisms. God is not angry, but the author may attribute that characteristic to him to help us understand more about God in our minds of finite comprehension. For example God, a spirit, does not have wings, and yet they are attributed to him: "I will hide you under my wings."

Apples to refrigerators.

Third, it is generally accepted that "anger" in and of itself is sin. God doesn't sin.

No it is not generally accepted. If it is generally accepted in your circles, you're wrong.

Eph 4:26 NASB - BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger,​

 

[DHK]

Well that's silly. It's a great translation.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. I am not KJVO, however if you asked one of them they will tell you all kinds of reasons why it is not a good translation. So I don't have to do the work they have already done.

First, both the NAS and the KJV say wrath of God. So I'm not sure what your point is there.

My point was that I thought you had quoted all verses with anger in them, but I was wrong. You slipped one in their with "wrath."
So I looked again.
Here is a better comparison:

[FONT=&quot]Psalms 106:40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.[/FONT]
Now look. The NASB says "anger."

Second, I think you have an uphill climb to establish a substantial difference between wrath and anger.

Jesus was never angry. He was not an angry man. He always had control of his emotions.

Third, the text correlates God's wrath and his anger, read all that i underlined.

I did. You haven't proved anything.

Fourth, indignation (KJV) means anger.

Anger has an array of meanings. Most people who get angry don't show much indignation. They are simply angry.

Apples to refrigerators.

Literary devices are important, and it is good to recognize them.
Or do you believe that God has wings?

No it is not generally accepted. If it is generally accepted in your circles, you're wrong.

Ask others to define "anger" for you. What does it mean to others.
Why did Jesus say if you are angry with your brother you are in danger of hell fire.
Murder is committed in the heart. It stems from anger.

Eph 4:26 NASB

- BE ANGRY, AND yet DO NOT SIN; do not let the sun go down on your anger,

You need to do more study on this verse.
It speaks of righteous indignation, not a loss of control, not losing one's temper. It has the outcome of writing a letter to the editor or to your senator, etc. because of a law or policy passed in your nation. It doesn't mean expressing the outward emotion of anger, which I believe is sin.

[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 14:17 He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly: and a man of wicked devices is hated.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 21:19 It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 22:24 Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou shalt not go:[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 25:23 The north wind driveth away rain: so doth an angry countenance a backbiting tongue.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 29:22 An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in transgression.[/FONT]

Make no friendship with an angry man.
Seems fairly clear to me. Anger is sin. The wisest man that ever lived, apart from Christ himself has a lot to say about anger. It is wrong. It is sin. Jesus was not an angry man. He never lost his temper. He always "ruled his own spirit."

See the contrast here once again and you can derive a proper definition:
[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.[/FONT]
Proverbs uses clauses that are put in juxtaposition to each other.
The one that rules his own spirit is opposite of the one that doesn't, that is, the angry person. The angry person does not rule his own spirit. Anger is sin.

 

[RLBosley]

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. I am not KJVO, however if you asked one of them they will tell you all kinds of reasons why it is not a good translation. So I don't have to do the work they have already done.

Their "work" is nonsense. I grew up KJVO and was indoctrinated in it for a long time. I reject it entirely. The NASB is a fine translation. Also, the translation is irrelevant to this conversation. The KJV says the same thing as the NAS.

My point was that I thought you had quoted all verses with anger in them, but I was wrong. You slipped one in their with "wrath."
So I looked again.

"Slipped in" as if I was trying to get it by you without you noticing. And you still aren't paying attention to the fact the NASB says "the cup of his anger."

Here is a better comparison:

[FONT=&quot]Psalms 106:40 Therefore was the wrath of the LORD kindled against his people, insomuch that he abhorred his own inheritance.[/FONT]
Now look. The NASB says "anger."

Would you like me to post all the verses that say, in the KJV, the anger of the Lord?

Jesus was never angry. He was not an angry man. He always had control of his emotions.

Being angry does not equal being an angry man. Yes Jesus had complete control over his emotions, as does the Father and the Spirit. That doesn't mean that God isn't "angry with the wicked every day."

Psa 7:11 KJV - God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.​

I did. You haven't proved anything.

I did actually. For some reason you just refuse to see it.

Anger has an array of meanings. Most people who get angry don't show much indignation. They are simply angry.

So indignation is different from anger?

Literary devices are important, and it is good to recognize them.
Or do you believe that God has wings?

Idiotic. Not worth responding to.

Ask others to define "anger" for you. What does it mean to others.

Why?

Why did Jesus say if you are angry with your brother you are in danger of hell fire.
Murder is committed in the heart. It stems from anger.

We are not talking about human anger. The question is does God have anger. You say no, yet you clearly don't have a Biblical leg to stand on.

You need to do more study on this verse.
It speaks of righteous indignation, not a loss of control, not losing one's temper. It has the outcome of writing a letter to the editor or to your senator, etc. because of a law or policy passed in your nation. It doesn't mean expressing the outward emotion of anger, which I believe is sin.

That's insane. There is no possible way you can get that understanding from Eph 4:26.

The emotion of anger, in and of itself is not sin. I've never once said that all anger is permissible, and I certainly haven't said that "losing control" is OK.
Are you capable of discussing things without misrepresenting other's positions??

Seems fairly clear to me. Anger is sin. The wisest man that ever lived, apart from Christ himself has a lot to say about anger. It is wrong. It is sin. Jesus was not an angry man. He never lost his temper. He always "ruled his own spirit."

Name ONE place that says anger, in toto, is sin. Feeling anger, and even displaying anger is NOT the same as being an "angry man."

See the contrast here once again and you can derive a proper definition:
[FONT=&quot]Proverbs 16:32 He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.[/FONT]
Proverbs uses clauses that are put in juxtaposition to each other.
The one that rules his own spirit is opposite of the one that doesn't, that is, the angry person. The angry person does not rule his own spirit. Anger is sin.

"Slow to anger" does not mean "no anger."
Read the text, and actually try to understand it instead of assuming your beliefs then reading them into it.

 

[RLBosley]

With that I am done posting on this topic in this thread. The OP is on the vast difficulties in the dispensational form of futurism, not on the anger of God.

 

[Revmitchell]

Being angry does not mean you do not have control of your emotions neither is it automatically a negative aspect. God's anger and wrath are always just.

 

[DHK]

Being angry does not mean you do not have control of your emotions neither is it automatically a negative aspect. God's anger and wrath are always just.

Quite frankly I don't believe angry and wrath are interchangeable. Perhaps at one time they were, but not now.
I don't believe "conversation" and "behaviour" are interchangeable either. 400 years ago they may have been, but not now.
Words change. The English language is very fluid.

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
--There is no way that any one here is going to prevent the resurrection of anyone. However, if Christ comes, we shall precede those who have already died in Christ.

The word angry has changed its meaning. To the common person it means one who has lost his temper, or even is close to losing his temper.

From Merriam Webster:

1. The full and complete definition:
: a strong feeling of being upset or annoyed because of something wrong or bad : the feeling that makes someone want to hurt other people, to shout, etc. : the feeling of being angry

Two more precise definitions:
Full Definition of ANGER

1
: a strong feeling of displeasure and usually of antagonism

2
: rage

Note that Jesus never antagonized anyone or never was in a rage.
Anger is rage. Anger is a strong emotional feeling usually resulting in antagonism. Displeasure.
These are not the fruit of the Spirit, nor the qualities of the Lord.
We are not to emulate this type of behavior.

 

[DHK]

According to Futurist doctrine millions of Christians will disappear from Earth to be with Jesus in Heaven.

This doctrine they call ‘The Secret Rapture.’

They divide Christ’s single Return into two-stages:

Stage 1: invisibly, secretly, to gather His Elect in the air.

It is not a secret. It is written in His Word.

Stage 2: 7 years later, visibly, to render judgment upon unbelievers.

In actuality, however, they teach 2 separate and very different Returns of Christ.

This is problematic since Scripture teaches only one Return of Christ: very visible, very loud, and very angry:

God is not an angry God.
It is your opinion that there is only one Return. It is not the opinion of the majority. It is not the teaching of the Bible, and that is the teaching that counts.

The events of 1Thes.4:13-18 cannot be reconciled with the events of 2Thes.1:7-9. They are two different events.

……the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Baptists have historically understood Christ’s one-time very visible, very loud, very angry Return:

This is known as the Second Advent. You have not quoted any sources for your opinion. Opinions are not fact.

By adding a second Second Coming of Christ 7 years later Futurists have invented ‘The Doctrine of the Second Chance.’

You just described the "seven years later." You are confused.

Below I quote from Rapture Ready website’s Left Behind Letters where numerous proponents of Futurism have had the forethought to leave letters written to the unbelievers left behind.

Are the producers of a movie the authorities on the subject. Would you use Mel Gibson as an authority on salvation because he produced a movie on the subject of the death of Christ on the cross?

In it they explain what happened and what is about to happen to the less fortunate.

What is your point?

The left behind world has 7 more years to get right with God.

We believe: There are no second chances.

A second chance lasting 7 years.

That is not what we believe. You need to do more study.

Scripture must be 'mistaken' when it declares:

behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation.

It is not the Scripture that is wrong. Do some study.

Whom does the reader believe, the Word of God or the word of the Futurist prophets?

You are confused. You need more valid information. You have taken your information from the producer of a movie; and you don't seem to know what the Bible has to say on this subject.
You have produced very little scripture, no historical evidence, and have not proved your position neither disproved ours.

 

[Protestant]

With that I am done posting on this topic in this thread. The OP is on the vast difficulties in the dispensational form of futurism, not on the anger of God.

I have just now had the opportunity to read through your discussion with DHK. Needless to say, I was equally aghast at DHK's arguments as were you.

In DHK's mind Hell is not a place where God's anger is manifested in an infinite indescribable manner which makes the human mind shudder.

Rather Hell is place which manifests God's 'wrath'......'wrath' being a more 'appropriate' description reflecting the dignity of the Almighty.

'Anger' is such a pedestrian term.

Of course, Jesus never displayed anger according to DHK.

His overturning the tables of the moneychangers was not done out of anger.

His Matt. 23 tirade against the Pharisees was yet another example of anger-free teaching by our Lord.

 

[DHK]

I have just now had the opportunity to read through your discussion with DHK. Needless to say, I was equally aghast at DHK's arguments as were you.

In DHK's mind Hell is not a place where God's anger is manifested in an infinite indescribable manner which makes the human mind shudder.

Rather Hell is place which manifests God's 'wrath'......'wrath' being a more 'appropriate' description reflecting the dignity of the Almighty.

'Anger' is such a pedestrian term.

Of course, Jesus never displayed anger according to DHK.

His overturning the tables of the moneychangers was not done out of anger.

His Matt. 23 tirade against the Pharisees was yet another example of anger-free teaching by our Lord.

It might be appropriate to find out how the word "anger" has changed over the years. It may have meant close to wrath at one time. But now almost all people equate "anger" with losing one's cool, losing one's temper. These are things that Christ or God never did. One cannot take a modern definition of a word and impose it back on the original meaning of the word. That is what is being done here, and it is wrong.

 

[Yeshua1]

Quite frankly I don't believe angry and wrath are interchangeable. Perhaps at one time they were, but not now.
I don't believe "conversation" and "behaviour" are interchangeable either. 400 years ago they may have been, but not now.
Words change. The English language is very fluid.

[FONT=&quot]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.[/FONT]
--There is no way that any one here is going to prevent the resurrection of anyone. However, if Christ comes, we shall precede those who have already died in Christ.

The word angry has changed its meaning. To the common person it means one who has lost his temper, or even is close to losing his temper.

From Merriam Webster:

Note that Jesus never antagonized anyone or never was in a rage.
Anger is rage. Anger is a strong emotional feeling usually resulting in antagonism. Displeasure.
These are not the fruit of the Spirit, nor the qualities of the Lord.
We are not to emulate this type of behavior.

Jesus though had rightious anger when he smashed the places where the money grubbers were selling items befor ethe temple, so the anger of the Lord is a just one, not like our sinful one!

 

[DHK]

Jesus though had rightious anger when he smashed the places where the money grubbers were selling items befor ethe temple, so the anger of the Lord is a just one, not like our sinful one!

This also is a mistake. Re-read the passage. You have a vivid imagination. You are reading too much into it or are depending too much on Hollywood.
"Overturning" tables is not "smashing" them. He didn't harm anyone. He didn't "lose his temper." He was always in control of his emotions. For that fact he probably never raised his voice. There was righteous indignation, but not "anger" as we know it today. Therefore the picture one has of Jesus going into the Temple is distorted with our definition of "anger," and you just gave a very good example.