Who Has Part in The First Resurrection?

[DHK]

You might try understanding Scripture instead of making foolish accusations. Read the following for once:

Okay.

There is nothing in that Scripture about a covenant with Israel, but with "many"! I repeat my previous remarks. the ministry of Jesus Christ was about 3.5 years. At the end of that period He was murdered by Rome at the instigation of the priests and Pharisees.

He will confirm the covenant with many. "The many" refer to the remnant of Israel. Before that time, as it says, there will be war and desolations reducing their number. Who makes this covenant?

27. And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, and for the overspreading of abominations he shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
---The same person who makes the covenant, breaks the covenant, causes the sacrifice to cease, etc.
IOW, in a looser translation it says:

(CEV) For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
--The foreigner is not Christ. The many people are Jews. It is not Christ that will bring a "horrible thing" that will cause destruction."
--You have this all wrong.

By His death Jesus Christ instituted, or confirmed, or caused to prevail, the New Covenant promised by God in Jeremiah. So it is Jesus Christ spoken of in Daniel 9:27 not some human prince.

The covenant being spoken of here was an evil covenant. You are not understanding this passage at all. The person is the antichrist, not Christ.
Here is the person:
Revelation 6:2 And I saw, and behold a white horse: and he that sat on him had a bow; and a crown was given unto him: and he went forth conquering, and to conquer.
--Like Christ he comes on a white horse. He appears as Christ, but is not. He says he brings peace (a bow but no arrows). And yet he comes to conquer. This is not Christ. What follows this horse (antichrist)?

Revelation 6:4 And there went out another horse that was red: and power was given to him that sat thereon to take peace from the earth, and that they should kill one another: and there was given unto him a great sword.
--Peace is taken. A sword is given; they kill one another.

And then:
Revelation 6:5 And when he had opened the third seal, I heard the third beast say, Come and see. And I beheld, and lo a black horse; and he that sat on him had a pair of balances in his hand.
Revelation 6:6 And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts say, A measure of wheat for a penny, and three measures of barley for a penny; and see thou hurt not the oil and the wine.
--The natural outcome of war is inflation. All the prices rise.

And then:
Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.
--When things are out of reach of the common person there is famine. And after famine there is death once again. This time a fourth of the world population is killed. If 8 billion were the population two billion would die.

This is the time of the antichrist. This is also what Dan.9:27 is speaking about. He will make a covenant of peace, and then break it.

Because of the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ in instituting the New Covenant the Temple sacrifices were no longer necessary, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom in effect making the Temple a useless edifice. The continuation of animal sacrifices in the Temple, after the perfect sacrifice of Jesus the Messiah, were an abomination before God. Scripture tells us that Holy God does not like the sacrifices of the wicked:

A total non sequitor. It has nothing to do with Dan.9:27. Christ is not the antichrist. He does not make covenants only to break them.

I realize I am repeating myself DHK but repetition is a method frequently used in teaching! Like when you learned your multiplication tables: Repetition!

The repetition of error won't convince anyone, especially when you have confused the antichrist for Christ. How sad!

 

[DHK]

You neglected to mention that the JW's are big on the earthly millennial reign. I would say your beliefs are closer to the Watchtower Society than mine. Both are a product of the 19th century. Jehovah's Witnesses out of the mind of Charles Taze Russell in 1872 and dispensationalism out of the mind of John Nelson Darby around 1830!

Do you believe the following:

John 5:28-29
28. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice,
29. And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

I know you reject that very clear Scripture because otherwise you could not be a dispensationalist. And to say there are 4 or 5 to half dozen resurrections wrapped up in the general resurrection Jesus Christ teaches is dispensational mythology.

If you want to make absurd comparisons, OR,
Islam believes in a general resurrection also. So?

Quite frankly I prefer to get my beliefs from the Bible. I have never read Darby, so why even bring him up? I have repeatedly told you that the ECF believed in dispensationalism, but that doesn't seem to register with you.
So you keep posting this falsehood about Darby. Why?

The Bible is clear about two resurrections, yes, even in John 5--the resurrection of the just, and the resurrection of the unjust. It couldn't be any clearer than that, could it?

 

[OldRegular]

How many times do I have to repeat myself OR? Here it is again:

I already looked at that nonsense DHK. It is the product of dispensationalism so why should I believe it any more than I believe you, A person cannot get dispensational doctrine out of a clear reading of Scripture. We read about Covenants, not dispensations, Dispensationalism sprang out of the mind of John Nelson Darby around 1830.

Anyone who reads the article by dispensationalist Thomas Ice, from which the following is extracted, and denies that dispensationalism came from the mind of John Nelson Darby is simply dishonest!

From: http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

A PROVIDENTIAL ACCIDENT
At this time, Darby was experiencing a disappointment from a failed spiritual and physical austerity phase in his life, the reality of an Erastian31 church that he believed was in ruins and differed little from the unbelieving world, and his search for an assurance of salvation in his conscience. “Darby’s Christian understanding and experience were about to change radically,”32 notes Brethren historian Tim Grass. As one who began his ministry as a high churchman, Darby was on the verge of becoming an evangelical dissenter when he experienced a riding accident. Darby describes it as follows:

As soon as I was ordained, I went amongst the poor Irish mountaineers, in a wild and uncultivated district, where I remained two years and three months, working as best I could. I felt, however, that the style of work was not in agreement with what I read in the Bible concerning the church and Christianity; nor did it correspond with the effects of the action of the Spirit of God. These considerations pressed upon me from a scriptural and practical point of view; while seeking assiduously to fulfil the duties of the ministry confided to me, working day and night amongst the people, who were almost as wild as the mountains they inhabited. An accident happened which laid me aside for a time; my horse was frightened and had thrown me against a door-post.33​

This period of Darby’s life is known among Darby scholars as “The Convalescence” during which he experienced “The Deliverance.”34 After the accident, Darby was taken to the home of Susannah Pennefather (1785–1862), his older sister, in Dublin in order to recover. Darby’s convalescence was a time when “the questions in his mind began to resolve themselves.”35 He wrote: “I was troubled in the same way when a clergyman, but never had the smallest shadow of it since.” He declared: “I judge it as Satan: but going from cabin to cabin to speak of Christ, and with souls, these thoughts sprang up, and if I sought to quote a text to myself it seemed a shadow and not real. I ought never to have been there, but do not think that this was the cause, but simply that I was not set free according to Romans viii. As I have said, I have never had it at all since.”36

The three or more months Darby spent recuperating from his accident were undoubtedly the most formative period in his life and remarked upon it. In one account he states:

I am daily more struck with the connection of the great principles on which my mind was exercised by and with God, when I found salvation and peace, and the questions agitated and agitating the world at the present day: the absolute, divine authority and certainty of the Word, as a divine link between us and God, if everything (church and world) went; personal assurance of salvation in a new condition by being in Christ; the church as His body; Christ coming to receive us to Himself; and collaterally with that, the setting up of a new earthly dispensation, from Isaiah xxxii. (more particularly the end); all this was when laid aside at E. P.'s in 1827; the house character of the assembly on earth (not the fact of the presence of the Spirit) was subsequently. It was a vague fact which received form in my mind long after, that there must be a wholly new order of things, if God was to have His way, and the craving of the heart after it I had felt long before; but the church and redemption I did not know till the time I have spoken of; but eight years before, universal sorrow and sin pressed upon my spirit. I did not think to say so much of myself; but it is all well. The truth remains the truth, and it is on that we have to go; but the Lord's dealings with the soul, connected with the use of truth, have to be noted.37​

Further identification of the date and what Darby believed happened to him spiritually during that time is seen in another statement by Darby in a letter in which he wrote, “I believe at my deliverance from bondage in 1827–8, God opened up certain truths needed for the church.”38 What did Darby claim he realized during his convalescence during December 1827 and January 1828? He enumerates five things.

First, Darby says that he realized “the absolute, divine authority and certainty of the Word, as a divine link between us and God,”39 which caused “the scriptures to gain complete ascendancy over me.”40 Darby confirms an evangelical view of the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Second, he states: “I came to understand that I was united to Christ in heaven, and that consequently, my place before God was represented by His own.”41 Again he wrote, “personal assurance of salvation in a new condition by being in Christ; the church as His body.”42

Third, Darby understood more fully his present standing with Christ in heaven. Such a heavenly standing becomes the basis for much of Darby’s theology that sees the believer already positioned with Christ in heaven. “I was in Christ, accepted in the Beloved, and sitting in heavenly places in Him. This led me directly to the apprehension of what the true church of God was, those that were united to Christ in heaven.”43

Fourth, he says that he realized that he should daily expect the Lord’s return. “At the same time, I saw that the Christian, having his place in Christ in heaven, has nothing to wait for save the coming of the Saviour, in order to be set, in fact, in the glory which is already his portion ‘in Christ.’”44 Further he says, “I saw in that word the coming of Christ to take the church to Himself in glory.”45 Darby speaks of “being in Christ; the church as His body; Christ coming to receive us to Himself; . . . all this was when laid aside at E. P.'s in 1827.”46 Again Darby says of his convalescence discovery: “The coming of the Lord was the other truth which was brought to my mind from the word, as that which, if sitting in heavenly places in Christ, was alone to be waited for, that I might sit in heavenly places with Him.”47 Such a cluster of beliefs that were formulated at this time provides the rationale for a pretribulational rapture. Darby had seen the importance of an imminent return of Christ for His bride.

Fifth, Darby saw a change in dispensation. This could mean that it was at this time that shifted in his eschatology from postmillennialism to premillennialism. “Christ coming to receive us to Himself; and collaterally with that, the setting up of a new earthly dispensation, from Isaiah xxxii. (more particularly the end); all this was when laid aside at E. P.'s in 1827.”48 He writes of his studies in Isaiah: “Isaiah xxxii. brought me to the earthly consequences of the same truth, though other passages might seem perhaps more striking to me now; but I saw an evident change of dispensation in that chapter, when the Spirit would be poured out on the Jewish nation, and a king reign in righteousness.”49 Isaiah was a very influential part of his studies and change of views during this time. He notes:

In my retreat, the 32nd chapter of Isaiah taught me clearly, on God's behalf, that there was still an economy to come, of His ordering; a state of things in no way established as yet. The consciousness of my union with Christ had given me the present heavenly portion of the glory, whereas this chapter clearly sets forth the corresponding earthly part. I was not able to put these things in their respective places or arrange them in order, as I can now; but the truths themselves were then revealed of God, through the action of His Spirit, by reading His word.50​

Darby summarized his views that he discovered during his convalescence retreat in Dublin in an issue of The Bible Treasury writing:

Isaiah xxxii. it was that taught me about the new dispensation. I saw there would be a David 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. Then what was I waiting for? J. G. B. came up and said they were teaching some new thing in England. “I have it!” I said.51​

​

Francis Newman, who served as a tutor for the Pennefather children for fifteen months during 1827 and 1828, confirms the timing of Darby’s textual and doctrinal discoveries. As a tutor in the household daily, he would have been at the Pennefather residence during Darby’s convalescence.52 Newman speaks of Darby’s influence upon him while at the Pennefathers, during Darby’s three-month convalescence. “Darby’s realization in 1827–28 that earthly Jewish promises should not be appropriated by the Christian church is circumstantially corroborated in Frank Newman’s letter to B. W. Newton (17 April 1828),” notes Stunt, “written after Darby’s deliverance experience, where he makes a similar distinction between the promises made to Israel and those made to the Church.”53


http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

 

[OldRegular]

continued from earlier:

Anyone who reads the article by dispensationalist Thomas Ice, from which the following is extracted, and denies that dispensationalism came from the mind of John Nelson Darby is simply dishonest!

From: http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf

It is helpful to have a witness by another party that basically supports the information provided by Darby during such a formative moment in his life. Such a testimony supports Darby’s overall credibility in addition to bolstering these specific claims.

Benjamin Wills Newton (1807–99), writes of his Oxford tutor and friend Frank Newman, “While I was at Oxford and we were friends, F. Newman went to Ireland (1827) and there made the acquaintance of John Darby.”54 Thus, Newton says that Newman returned from his stay in Ireland, having been influenced by Darby in relation to prophecy, and that Newman wanted Darby to share this prophetic information with his friends at Oxford. This is a second source that confirms Darby’s doctrinal discoveries occurred during his convalescence during December, 1827and January, 1828.

A third source, John Gifford Bellett (1795–1864), also had interaction with Darby during his convalescence. He wrote the following about Darby:

In the beginning of 1828 I had occasion to go to London, and then I met in private and heard in public those who were warm and alive on prophetic truth, having had their minds freshly illumined by it.

In my letters to J. N. D. at this time, I told him I had been hearing things that he and I had never yet talked of, and I further told him on my return to Dublin what they were. Full of this subject as I then was, I found him quite prepared for it also, and his mind and soul had traveled rapidly in the direction which had thus been given to it.55​

Bellett stated that he discussed “prophetic truth” with Darby. It was noted earlier in a footnote that in addition to a letter J. G. Bellett wrote to Darby, he also penned one to his brother George and spoke of his impending visit with Darby. The Bellett letter was dated January 31, 1828. John wrote to George saying, “I hope on Friday to see John Darby. You will be grieved to hear that he has been laid up for nearly two months from a hurt in his knee. His poor people in Calary miss him sadly.”56 Bellett’s statement that Darby was “quite prepared for it also” is a reference to prophetic discussions during his visit with Darby while Darby was recuperating from his injury. Very likely the phrase, “his mind and soul had traveled rapidly in the direction which had thus been given to it” is a reference to the discoveries that Darby learned through his personal Bible study.

DARBY’S NEW THEOLOGICAL PARADIGM

These five biblical discoveries noted above are the basis upon which Darby builds his new theological paradigm that includes dispensationalism and pretribulationalism. From the beginning of Darby’s dissent from the established church, these items were core essentials upon which he began to build his unique theology. Stunt concludes, “it was in these months that finally the questions in his mind began to resolve themselves. Central to his faith from now on was the belief that he and all Christians were ‘united to Christ in heaven’, and delivered ‘by the power of His resurrection.’”57 Carter sees “its radical distinction between the Jewish and Gentile dispensations—‘the hinge’, as Darby referred to it, . . . the distinction between these two dispensations forms the basis for Darby’s understanding of both ecclesiology and eschatology.”58 These items are important since pretribulationism is built upon first one’s view of ecclesiology that is set within a certain eschatological framework. Darby perceives a clear distinction between Israel and the church. “It is important to notice here that Darby came to the realization of these points alone, without the influence of other men,”59 surmised Weremchuk. “Darby’s views, when fully developed later, would prove to be in many points contrary to the ones normally accepted by the church at large.”60 It was during Darby’s convalescence that the original spark of his ideas burst forth from his personal Bible study and fanned into the flames of his theology during the next decade and beyond.

It has been long recognized that pretribulationism is built upon one’s view of ecclesiology as much or more than one’s eschatology. The greatest pretribulationist scholar of the twentieth century was the late John F. Walvoord of Dallas Theological Seminary, who recognized the central place of ecclesiology in support of pretribulationism. Walvoord writes:

What is essential to premillennialism becomes an indispensable foundation in the study of pretribulationism. It is safe to say that pretribulationism depends on a particular definition of the church, and any consideration of pretribulationism that does not take this major factor into consideration will be largely beside the point.61​


The point that should not be missed regarding Darby’s convalescence discoveries is that they centered on ecclesiology. Darby was concerned about what was happening to the church in which he was involved in Ireland and searched the Bible for answers to his concerns. Stunt notes that one of the assurances Darby received “was the assurance that he (together with all Christians as opposed to Christendom) was risen and spiritually united with Christ in heaven.”62 This ecclesiastical realization forms the heart of Darby’s theology and spiritual hope that extended throughout the rest of his life.

The first two essays written by Darby were both about ecclesiastical issues, which further demonstrates his focus upon understanding the Church. The first, though not published until much later, was the one expressing his disagreement with Archbishop Magee’s petition and the second, from Dublin in 1828, was “Considerations on the Nature and Unity of the Church of Christ.”63

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.64​

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.65
Non-dispensational, covenant theologians recognize this essential about dispensationalists as noted by Michael Williams.​

The Darbyist church/Israel distinction constitutes the one great organizing principle of classical dispensationalism. The metaphysical and historical distinction between the church and Israel is the axle upon which the theology of Darby, Scofield, and Chafer rides. It is the one great absolutely necessary
or essential element of the system. The Darbyist metaphysical distinction between Israel and the church is the sine qua non of classical dispensational theology.66

Whether dispensationalists or non-dispensationalists, all recognize for dispensationalism the importance of the distinction between God’s rule for Israel and His rule for the church.

 

[OldRegular]

If you want to make absurd comparisons, OR,
Islam believes in a general resurrection also. So?

Quite frankly I prefer to get my beliefs from the Bible. I have never read Darby, so why even bring him up? I have repeatedly told you that the ECF believed in dispensationalism, but that doesn't seem to register with you.
So you keep posting this falsehood about Darby. Why?

The Bible is clear about two resurrections, yes, even in John 5--the resurrection of the just, and the resurrection of the unjust. It couldn't be any clearer than that, could it?

It is a fact that historically Baptist Churches believed in a general resurrection and judgment.

That being said You keep dragging in what pagan religions and cults believe. It is pathetic that your understanding of Scripture is not as good.

Some Early Church Fathers were premillennial but it is false to claim that the they were dispensationalists.

 

[OldRegular]

The repetition of error won't convince anyone, especially when you have confused the antichrist for Christ. How sad!

I would say, from your many posts informing the BB about the beliefs of pagan religions {Islam} and the cults {JW}, that you are confusing the antichrist for Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Daniel 9:26, 27 says absolutely nothing about a broken covenant. That is you reading more dispensational error into Scripture.

 

[OldRegular]

I have never read Darby, so why even bring him up?

Just what dispensational writers have you read or are you like Darby, invented dispensationalism on your very own!

And then there is this:

Just keep quoting falsehoods OR. Why you do it I don't know.

I "QUOTED" Scripture DHK!

1Corinthians 14:33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Are you calling Scripture a "falsehood"?

 

[DHK]

I "QUOTED" Scripture DHK!

1Corinthians 14:33. For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

Are you calling Scripture a "falsehood"?

You just spent a page quoting "Ice." That is not scripture.
You continue to bash Darby; (whom I have not read), that is not Scripture.
For your continued falsehoods about Darby, not Scripture, I continue to post:

Just keep quoting falsehoods OR. Why you do it I don't know.
Read this link. I know you haven't.
http://www.biblestudymanuals.net/dispensation.htm

There were many before Darby and Scofield that believed in dispensationalism.
It started out as Chiliasm, that the ECF commonly believed.
Many scholars throughout the centuries have believed in it.
But if you don't do your homework, and just rant on whatever someone else has spoonfed you, then you are unteachable.

If Ice hasn't read history and wants to make the unfounded claim that Darby was the founder of dispensationalism then let him do so. There are those who know better. You should know better if you had a teachable spirit.

 

[DHK]

I would say, from your many posts informing the BB about the beliefs of pagan religions {Islam} and the cults {JW}, that you are confusing the antichrist for Jesus Christ. Furthermore, Daniel 9:26, 27 says absolutely nothing about a broken covenant. That is you reading more dispensational error into Scripture.

Dan 9:26-27
26 And after the sixty-two weeks, an anointed one shall be cut off and shall have nothing. And the people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary. Its end shall come with a flood, and to the end there shall be war. Desolations are decreed.
27 And he shall make a strong covenant with many for one week, and for half of the week he shall put an end to sacrifice and offering. And on the wing of abominations shall come one who makes desolate, until the decreed end is poured out on the desolator." (ESV)

After 62 weeks (plus 7) the Messiah is cut off, "the Anointed one" or Christ.
Now understand carefully what the next part is speaking of. It speaks of the destruction of Jerusalem. "The people of the prince who is to come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary."
Who came? It was Titus, and the year was 70 A.D. He was a Roman General and he destroyed Jerusalem and the Temple. Now this is a partial fulfillment as many prophecies are. It is not a complete fulfillment.

Who is Christ? Is Christ the Son of David, or the Son of a Roman?
And HE shall make a covenant with many for a week.
Who? The prince who is to come. His people are Romans. It appears that he will have some Roman heritage. This is not Christ.
The week is seven years. This is seven years after Christ was put to death. He was cut-off after the 69th week, so there is still 7 years remaining. Those seven years have not taken place yet.

(CEV) For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
--This is not speaking of Christ. "This foreigner" is the anti-christ.

 

[RLBosley]

And you are wrong. I use the Bible. I am guided by the Holy Spirit. I do consult other reference material. But tradition I do not use. In fact I would be disobeying the Word of God if I relied upon tradition:

-snip- (Had to in order to make the post fit)

I have sources which are extra-biblical: historical, commentaries, dictionaries, reference books, etc. That does not fall into the category of tradition, but rather of study.
If your tradition includes ignorance and personal bias you need to do something about that.

You really don't think you have tradition? We all have tradition that we must struggle against. We are taught certain things as we grow up and we assume them to be true and many times we read that taught belief into the text of scripture. It is unavoidable. As I said before, those who claim to have no tradition are the most blinded by it.

You also never answered my questions. Do you really believe you have absolutely no tradition at all? That you have a perfect, and complete theology? There is nothing that you ever need to reexamine or learn?

How do you get the end of the world out of this?
Revelation 6:16-17 And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?
--It is the end of the Tribulation meant to coincide with Rev.19:11-16. Most of the book is chronological. But the sixth seal occurs at the end. I have posted this before. I said it has a general chronology, not a strict chronology.

Now we are getting somewhere! Perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best. When I say "the end of the world" I mean the world as we know it today. This world will end at Christ's return, then there is judgment and we go into the millennial reign. When I said the world ends I was referring to the return of Christ. So I agree with you here, Revelation 6 is the end of the "tribulation" though I debate that term. I believe this entire age between the first and second advent is an age of tribulation, but that is another discussion.

So yes Christ returns here at the 6th seal, thus the screams of the wicked, "Hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"

Revelation 11:18-19 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
--No where near the end of anything. This is simply the judgment of the seventh angel, and it will get worse after this. There are still seven vials of judgment to come. What makes you think this is the end of the world? That is a stretch of the imagination! This is God pouring out his wrath upon the world during this seven year period of Great Tribulation.

This is another picture of the return of Christ. Look again at the language used:

Rev 11:15 NASB - Then the seventh angel sounded; and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world HAS (that is, at this time, when the trumpet is sounded, Jesus takes over the kingdoms of the world in fullness) become the kingdom of our Lord and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever."
Rev 11:16 NASB - And the twenty-four elders, who sit on their thrones before God, fell on their faces and worshiped God,
Rev 11:17 NASB - saying, "We give You thanks, O Lord God, the Almighty, who are and who were, because You have taken Your great power and have begun to reign.
Rev 11:18 NASB - "And the nations were enraged, and Your wrath came, (note the past tense - this is after the wrath of God. Some versions - KJV, NIV, HCSB, etc. - have a present tense "has come" which would indicate this is the culmination of God's wrath. Either way works.) and the time came for the dead to be judged, (The dead are judged at this trumpet - clearly this is the end. Christ has returned in judgement.) and the time to reward Your bond-servants the prophets and the saints and those who fear Your name, (The elect are rewarded at this trumpet. Again, showing Christ returns once to both judge and reward, as 2 Thess 1 shows) the small and the great, and to destroy those who destroy the earth."
Rev 11:19 NASB - And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

Looking at the language used, I don't see how we can come to any conclusion other than this trumpet heralds he end of the age. Christ has come in judgment against the nations and has taken the kingdoms of the earth directly for his possession.

This is a description of Christ, and his coming. Read what happens after verse 16. After Christs comes (and his saints which were already in heaven because of the rapture, come with him) he sets up His Kingdom and will reign for a thousand years. The thousand years is mentioned at the beginning of chapter 20.
--There is no end of the world here. It is the end of the Tribulation Period.

As I said earlier the return of Christ is what I meant by the end of the world. We were talking past each other there. I apologize for not being more clear.

I would say that the army that comes with him is the "host of heaven," that is angels. Possibly it includes the dead saints throughout the ages, but primarily I believe it is angels since the believers are not to my knowledge ever referred to as an army, yet the angels are commonly called an army in the OT. Also, that corresponds perfectly with 2 Thess 1.

2Th 1:7 NASB - ... when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,

It could also include the believers who are raptured at this return. They do not come from Heaven but are joined to the army that does come from there.

No they are not. The sixth seal takes place just before the coming of Christ. You have that close. The reference in chapter 11 isn't even close.
Again there follows a general chronology, not a specific chronology. I noted that you put gaps in there where none are to be put, thus your confusion.

The three events listed are certainly 3 different pictures of the same event - Christ returning in judgement.
Not sure what you are talking about regarding gaps I supposedly put in. Care to explain this accusation?

Sure, like me getting together with my family at Christmas time.
I am not sure how that affects my understanding of the Bible. Would you like to enlighten me? I have no traditions that affect my understanding of the Bible. Why do you insist that I do? You don't even know me.

Our tradition colors everything we do, especially what we read. For example, and since you mentioned Christmas, it is traditional to say "the three wise men" came to visit Jesus. However the Bible never says there were only three magi. Only that they brought three gifts. Many people go their entire lives without noticing that they are reading their tradition into the text.

What follows after: "Wherefore comfort one another with these words," is not the purpose?? Yes it was. It was a comforting passage to know that Christ was coming for his own, that we would be with Him, resurrected as His Bride. The events following the meeting of the Bride and Bridegroom would follow immediately, not vengeance on the enemies of Christ and Israel.

You lost me here.

I clearly said that the purpose of the passage is to comfort the Thessalonian Christians. Yes it was a comfort that we would be gathered together with him. That we would be with the Lord together with dead family and friends. That is the comfort. What I said was, and I quote, "They are being comforted by the promise that we will all, dead and alive, be reunited together with Christ at his return. What follows after the gathering together (rapture) is not the purpose of the passage." This is clearly true. This passage teaches absolutely nothing regarding what follows the "rapture."

That we would be in heaven as described in 1Cor.15, not on earth. We are given a "celestial body" for a reason, and that is not to be immediately on earth.

1 Thess 4 does not say we go to Heaven after the rapture. It says we meet the Lord in the air and that after that we will always be with him. Again, that passage teaches nothing about what follows our gathering together with Jesus.

 

[RLBosley]

What made you stray away from the truth? As Paul said: "Who hath bewitched you?"

Really? Seriously? You want to elevate a disagreement on eschatology to a level equal to the judaizing of the church? Really? :BangHead:

The two events are mutually exclusive and cannot be reconciled into one event, and you are not doing a very good job.

Your inability to accept it doesn't mean that it can't be reconciled.

Yes, but our meeting is in the air. Where do we proceed from there? To heaven of course. How do we know? Because that is where we are found in Revelation 19 before we come back with Christ at his Second Coming at the end of the Tribulation.

So you admit then that the passage in question does not say where we go after we are raptured?

The rapture took place before the Great Tribulation, and the Bride was taken to heaven as it is described in 1Thes.4:16-18. And then:
Revelation 19:7-8 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready. And to her was granted that she should be arrayed in fine linen, clean and white: for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints.
--The actual marriage takes place.
The saints are clothed in fine linen which is symbolic of the righteousness of the saints.

Revelation 19:9 And he saith unto me, Write, Blessed are they which are called unto the marriage supper of the Lamb. And he saith unto me, These are the true sayings of God.
--Then the marriage supper takes place.

This is a time capsule. It is in eternity where there is no time. John records and tells only what he is told. Thus, some time after this:

Revelation 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.
--Christ is about to come; the Second Coming.

Revelation 19:14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean.
--Who are the armies? They are clothed in fine line, white and clean. They are clothed in the righteousness of the saints, the same saints that sat at the marriage supper of the Lamb. These are the believers that were raptured seven years earlier. Now they will descend with Christ. The word "armies" is plural meaning more than one. We know that his holy angels will be with him also (Mark 8:38). He will come to defeat the enemies of Israel, and then to set up his Kingdom.

There is no reason to assume that the "rapture" occurs 7 years earlier. That time frame is not mentioned anywhere and as OR showed, it is incorrect to pull the 70th week from Daniel 9. Also, I admit the rapture is not mentioned in Rev 19 either. It is not mentioned at all in Revelation. We must harmonize the various end times passages, and the most consistent and simple harmonization is of a post-tribulation gathering. One single event - the return of Christ - with two purposes - the judgement of the wicked and the glorification of the elect.

Also, as I said in my previous post, I believe the armies are primarily the angelic host. It may, and likely does, include the righteous dead, all coming from Heaven. It could also include the believers who are gathered to meet him at the air in his visible, loud triumphant return mentioned in 1 Thess 4.

Please, I don't need the martyr complex in this debate.
This is your answer to these words of mine:

Yep, all opinion, and every time it falls short of Scripture.

And that was in answer to a statement of yours that basically said: "I have already explained this to you."
So yes, you have given me your opinion, and IMO it has fallen short of the Scriptural view each and every time. Now what is so hateful about that? I would think an apology should be coming. If you get so easily offended in a debate perhaps you should go into the Fellowship forums and discuss the weather, cats and dogs, etc.

Martyr complex... right...

I'm not the one hurling insults, accusing others of not taking scripture seriously, accusing others of being "bewitched" or saying that those who disagree with me should only discuss the weather.

(CEV) For one week this foreigner will make a firm agreement with many people, and halfway through this week, he will end all sacrifices and offerings. Then the "Horrible Thing" that causes destruction will be put there. And it will stay there until the time God has decided to destroy this one who destroys.
--This is not speaking of Christ. "This foreigner" is the anti-christ.

I just want to say the CEV is just purely wrong here. The text doesn't say anything about a "foreigner." No "literal" translation renders it as such. This is why interpretive paraphrases should not be used for any serious study. You get a very biased, bad interpretation of the original text.

 

[DHK]

You really don't think you have tradition? We all have tradition that we must struggle against. We are taught certain things as we grow up and we assume them to be true and many times we read that taught belief into the text of scripture. It is unavoidable. As I said before, those who claim to have no tradition are the most blinded by it.

In reference to Bible knowledge or how I study the Bible, no; I have no traditions.

You also never answered my questions. Do you really believe you have absolutely no tradition at all? That you have a perfect, and complete theology? There is nothing that you ever need to reexamine or learn?

My knowledge is shaped by my own study of the Bible as well, in part, by those whom I interact with. But mostly by my own study. Traditions? No, not a chance.
I got saved as an adult and I left "traditions" behind in the RCC. Without anyone's help, (the result of my own occupation), I came to my own conclusion that the teachings of the Bible and the teachings of the RCC could not exist together. They were diametrically opposed to each other. There is no tradition here. The Lord led me out of the RCC and then, by his providence to the only IFB church in quite a large city. Again, no tradition is involved here. I have learned throughout my life to live and walk by faith. That is not tradition. I really have no idea what you are speaking about.
Paul condemned tradition as did Jesus. Why would I want to order my life around something the Bible condemns?

Now we are getting somewhere! Perhaps my phrasing wasn't the best. When I say "the end of the world" I mean the world as we know it today. This world will end at Christ's return, then there is judgment and we go into the millennial reign. When I said the world ends I was referring to the return of Christ. So I agree with you here, Revelation 6 is the end of the "tribulation" though I debate that term. I believe this entire age between the first and second advent is an age of tribulation, but that is another discussion.

So yes Christ returns here at the 6th seal, thus the screams of the wicked, "Hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb;for the great day of their wrath has come, and who is able to stand?"

Alright, When they see the Lamb, are afraid, cry for the rocks and the mountains, it is inevitable that Christ is coming in judgment. It is obvious that he is NOT coming "in comfort" for his saints, who according to the 19th chapter are already there in heaven. Thus the two resurrections.
I know that many dispensationalists take the seals, trumpets and vials in a strict chronological order. I am not one of them. I believe that the last seal especially is near the end right before the second coming. In fact the last three seals will all be near the end.

This is another picture of the return of Christ. Look again at the language used:

Rev 11:15 NASB - 19
Rev 11:19 NASB - And the temple of God which is in heaven was opened; and the ark of His covenant appeared in His temple, and there were flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder and an earthquake and a great hailstorm.

Looking at the language used, I don't see how we can come to any conclusion other than this trumpet heralds he end of the age. Christ has come in judgment against the nations and has taken the kingdoms of the earth directly for his possession.

In chapter six the first four seals take up most of the first 3 1/2 years, and then some.
Set the verses in their context.
The seals (a good many of them) are over.
We have just seen two witnesses prophesy for over half the Tribulation Period. Part of this is parenthetical.
Now six angels have blown their trumpets, and we hear:

Rev 11:14 The second woe is past; and, behold, the third woe cometh quickly.

In very descriptive language the seventh angel is actually introducing to us the seven vials, which will culminate in the coming of Christ. These all are very close to the end and will probably happen is quick succession.

This passage is a vision which John sees:
Rev 11:19 And the temple of God was opened in heaven, and there was seen in his temple the ark of his testament: and there were lightnings, and voices, and thunderings, and an earthquake, and great hail.
--It seem similar to what happened at Mt. Sinai but on a much grander scale.
In the next chapter, it is parenthetical going back to Israel's history, the fall of Satan, the birth of Christ.
Then in chapter 13 it still goes back again, to the description of the antichrist and of the false prophet, even though they, chronologically, have already come on the scene.
Chapter 14 is a heavenly scene and then finally in 15 it comes back to the general chronology again with the pouring out of the vials.

I would say that the army that comes with him is the "host of heaven," that is angels. Possibly it includes the dead saints throughout the ages, but primarily I believe it is angels since the believers are not to my knowledge ever referred to as an army, yet the angels are commonly called an army in the OT. Also, that corresponds perfectly with 2 Thess 1.

2Th 1:7 NASB - ... when the Lord Jesus will be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire,

The word "armies" is in plural. One cannot ignore the description of "fine linen white and clean" which describes the righteousness of the saints. That description was just given concerning the Bride of Christ, and the wedding feast which had just taken place. Now we are return with Christ at his coming, and then to rule and reign with him for a thousand years.

The three events listed are certainly 3 different pictures of the same event - Christ returning in judgement.
Not sure what you are talking about regarding gaps I supposedly put in. Care to explain this accusation?

Well, since I agree with you on the sixth seal being immediately before His coming, and disagree with you about what is happening in the last few verses of chapter eleven, then I see no gaps in the chronology, or 3 different pictures, or Christ coming 3 times or the world ending 3 times, whatever way you want to put it. I can account for the general chronology with some parentheticals and heavenly pictures or visions inserted here and there.
Consider a preacher who has a habit of going on rabbit trails here and there. :smilewinkgrin:

Our tradition colors everything we do, especially what we read. For example, and since you mentioned Christmas, it is traditional to say "the three wise men" came to visit Jesus. However the Bible never says there were only three magi. Only that they brought three gifts. Many people go their entire lives without noticing that they are reading their tradition into the text.

Perhaps lifestyle is the word you are looking for.
No, they are not reading tradition necessarily; they just haven't studied their Bibles carefully enough. I don't interpret my Bible through tradition. I read carefully, prayerfully and thoughtfully. There are those here who would like to put me either in a Calvinistic box or an Arminian box, but they can't. I am neither.

You lost me here.

The two passages (1Thes.4 and 2Thes.1) are irreconcilable.
When Christ comes he will either come to comfort his saints or to take vengeance on his enemies. He doesn't do both at the same time. That makes no sense.

I clearly said that the purpose of the passage is to comfort the Thessalonian Christians. Yes it was a comfort that we would be gathered together with him. That we would be with the Lord together with dead family and friends. That is the comfort. What I said was, and I quote, "They are being comforted by the promise that we will all, dead and alive, be reunited together with Christ at his return. What follows after the gathering together (rapture) is not the purpose of the passage." This is clearly true. This passage teaches absolutely nothing regarding what follows the "rapture."

Comparing Scripture with Scripture we know that from there we go to heaven, not to earth to take vengeance on those who obey not the gospel. If we are "forever to be with the Lord," we will not be going directly to take vengeance on his enemies will we?

1 Thess 4 does not say we go to Heaven after the rapture. It says we meet the Lord in the air and that after that we will always be with him. Again, that passage teaches nothing about what follows our gathering together with Jesus.

The implication is there that we will.
Other scriptures tell us that we will.
The Bible must harmonize not contradict.

 

[RLBosley]

In reference to Bible knowledge or how I study the Bible, no; I have no traditions.
My knowledge is shaped by my own study of the Bible as well, in part, by those whom I interact with. But mostly by my own study. Traditions? No, not a chance.

I want to continue this debate. But this answer above proves that is impossible.

You believe yourself to have perfect theology and knowledge of scripture. You unreasonably believe you have no tradition, despite being a member of perhaps the most tradition enslaved group there is in Baptist circles.

I will not waste any more time discussing this with someone who is unreasonable, closed-minded and entirely convinced of their infallibility. Which is sad because every point you raised is easily answerable, but your belief in your own infallibility will cause you to reject anything I say out of hand.

 

[DHK]

I want to continue this debate. But this answer above proves that is impossible.

You believe yourself to have perfect theology and knowledge of scripture. You unreasonably believe you have no tradition, despite being a member of perhaps the most tradition enslaved group there is in Baptist circles.

I will not waste any more time discussing this with someone who is unreasonable, closed-minded and entirely convinced of their infallibility. Which is sad because every point you raised is easily answerable, but your belief in your own infallibility will cause you to reject anything I say out of hand.

I am not the one unreasonable. You are forcing "tradition" on me. That is wrong. You have the wrong word. Learn some English!
Of course I am fallible, do not have a perfect theology, etc. No one does.
I study my Bible; I come to my own conclusions. Why is that hard for you to accept?
The Bereans did the same thing:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Now throughout these posts I have given you plenty of Scripture to show that following the traditions of men is wrong. We are commanded not to.
Yet you say I do, and can't prove that I do. You make false accusations and I have no idea what you are talking about. What traditions?
You haven't proved your case at all. The Bible commands us to obey the commands of God to the exclusion of the traditions of men. You say I am influenced by the traditions of men to the exclusion of the Word of God. Hence, in your opinion, I have the wrong interpretation.
You have tradition; you have the wrong interpretation. That is what Christ told the scribes and Pharisees. They relied on their tradition. It was wrong.

So if you can prove me wrong according to the Word of God then do so.
Otherwise don't falsely accuse me.

 

[RLBosley]

I am not the one unreasonable. You are forcing "tradition" on me. That is wrong. You have the wrong word. Learn some English!
Of course I am fallible, do not have a perfect theology, etc. No one does.
I study my Bible; I come to my own conclusions. Why is that hard for you to accept?
The Bereans did the same thing:
Acts 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

Now throughout these posts I have given you plenty of Scripture to show that following the traditions of men is wrong. We are commanded not to.
Yet you say I do, and can't prove that I do. You make false accusations and I have no idea what you are talking about. What traditions?
You haven't proved your case at all. The Bible commands us to obey the commands of God to the exclusion of the traditions of men. You say I am influenced by the traditions of men to the exclusion of the Word of God. Hence, in your opinion, I have the wrong interpretation.
You have tradition; you have the wrong interpretation. That is what Christ told the scribes and Pharisees. They relied on their tradition. It was wrong.

So if you can prove me wrong according to the Word of God then do so.
Otherwise don't falsely accuse me.

So it's OK for you to say I am relying on tradition, but I can't say the same to you?

 

[DHK]

So it's OK for you to say I am relying on tradition, but I can't say the same to you?

You brought up the subject. You first accused me of relying on "your tradition" (your exact words). Thus, I turned the tables and used your exact words against you. Now according to your last post, (and the one before that), you believe everyone has tradition, including yourself. So you need to explain yourself.
Is it RCC tradition? The tradition of Calvin? Lutheran tradition? What tradition are you speaking of, especially tradition that affects the outcome of what you believe. I can understand if you say Calvin. There are many here that can only see the Bible through Calvin's eyes, or through the eyes of TULIP. That comes before the Bible, unfortunately. But that is not me.
You may or may not have tradition; I don't know. You said you did.

 

[RLBosley]

You brought up the subject. You first accused me of relying on "your tradition" (your exact words). Thus, I turned the tables and used your exact words against you. Now according to your last post, (and the one before that), you believe everyone has tradition, including yourself. So you need to explain yourself.
Is it RCC tradition? The tradition of Calvin? Lutheran tradition? What tradition are you speaking of, especially tradition that affects the outcome of what you believe. I can understand if you say Calvin. There are many here that can only see the Bible through Calvin's eyes, or through the eyes of TULIP. That comes before the Bible, unfortunately. But that is not me.
You may or may not have tradition; I don't know. You said you did.

You're ridiculous. Seriously. Your double standard is amazing.

Of course I have tradition (so do you!). We are raised a certain way, as we grow in the faith we are taught a certain way, all these things all contribute to our traditional understanding of scripture. Hence the definition I supplied earlier: "an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior." Yours is premillennial dispensationalism. As was mine. When I set aside my tradition and actually examined the texts for myself I saw that the tradition I was taught is entirely bankrupt of any value or basis in scripture.

You are IFB correct? I believe you said that earlier. I was IFB for several years. That is one tradition bound group! I have never seen any group of people so bound by and blinded by tradition in my life, except perhaps the cults of Mormonism and JWs. (No I am not saying that IFB is a cult, don't even go there)

If you weren't relying on your tradition to (mis)understand those passages, what were you relying on? It certainly wasn't exegesis!

 

[DHK]

You're ridiculous. Seriously. Your double standard is amazing.

Of course I have tradition (so do you!). We are raised a certain way, as we grow in the faith we are taught a certain way, all these things all contribute to our traditional understanding of scripture. Hence the definition I supplied earlier: "an inherited, established, or customary pattern of thought, action, or behavior." Yours is premillennial dispensationalism. As was mine. When I set aside my tradition and actually examined the texts for myself I saw that the tradition I was taught is entirely bankrupt of any value or basis in scripture.

You are IFB correct? I believe you said that earlier. I was IFB for several years. That is one tradition bound group! I have never seen any group of people so bound by and blinded by tradition in my life, except perhaps the cults of Mormonism and JWs. (No I am not saying that IFB is a cult, don't even go there)

If you weren't relying on your tradition to (mis)understand those passages, what were you relying on? It certainly wasn't exegesis!

You have not understood my testimony, my background, my education, etc.
Perhaps you were raised in a Christian home and for you that brought what you considered "tradition" and then you changed.

That is not true for myself.
I was raised in a Catholic home where I never heard the gospel, not once.
I did not hear the gospel until I was an adult. I got saved the first time I did hear the gospel at the age of 20. I left the RCC completely a short time afterward never again to return. Its traditions, liturgy and heresy I have put forever behind me.
From that time onward the Bible has been my sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. I read and memorized. Within 3 1/2 years I had memorized the books of Romans, Ephesians, 1 John, James, and scores of individual verses.
Now what tradition has affected my study? None. I forsook heresy and embraced the truth. Within three years after I was saved I found myself in Bible College. I did not consider myself learning tradition in Bible College, but rather the Bible.

You may have grown up with tradition. The tradition I grew up, for the most part, was heretical. I left it all behind and embraced the Bible instead. No, I don't have tradition.

 

[RLBosley]

You have not understood my testimony, my background, my education, etc.
Perhaps you were raised in a Christian home and for you that brought what you considered "tradition" and then you changed.

That is not true for myself.
I was raised in a Catholic home where I never heard the gospel, not once.
I did not hear the gospel until I was an adult. I got saved the first time I did hear the gospel at the age of 20. I left the RCC completely a short time afterward never again to return. Its traditions, liturgy and heresy I have put forever behind me.
From that time onward the Bible has been my sole authority in all matters of faith and practice. I read and memorized. Within 3 1/2 years I had memorized the books of Romans, Ephesians, 1 John, James, and scores of individual verses.
Now what tradition has affected my study? None. I forsook heresy and embraced the truth. Within three years after I was saved I found myself in Bible College. I did not consider myself learning tradition in Bible College, but rather the Bible.

You may have grown up with tradition. The tradition I grew up, for the most part, was heretical. I left it all behind and embraced the Bible instead. No, I don't have tradition.

So you are absolutely correct, 100%, in your understanding of scripture?

 

[DHK]

So you are absolutely correct, 100%, in your understanding of scripture?

I am fully convinced that I am correct in my understanding of the Scripture as I know it. If I wasn't I would change. That doesn't mean I am infallible. I know I don't have all the answers. I will always be learning. I am in a capacity where I am always teaching. That privilege in itself promotes learning.