Why Is It Wrong?

[OldRegular]

To ask the following questions:

What is the Scriptural Basis for:

1.The Rapture of the Church prior to a Great Seven Year Tribulation?

2. The doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "Parenthesis" or Intercalation in God's Program for Israel!

I started a thread "Pre-Trib-Dispensationalism and the Bible" in which I asked the above questions. This BB is comprised of about 60% Pre-Trib-Dispensationalists so it would seem that the above questions are appropriate and that answers would be readily forthcoming. But they were not. The thread was closed after only 15 posts. Those posts were no more rancorous than many on this BB especially those dealing with Calvinism though the words "lie" and "slime" were thrown around somewhat.

Again the questions I asked above certainly are nowhere near as provocative as Calvinism/Why God Hates or Preparing a truthful Calvinist sermon on the Calvinism/Arminianism Forum. And then there is the thread If you do not hold to "Doctrines of Grace" are you lost? on this Forum. Yet the thread asking the above questions was closed after only 15 posts while the thread Preparing a truthful Calvinist sermon ran for 400 posts.

So I am curious as to why the above questions are anathema, sort of like Protestants in the Canons of Trent!

 

[Aaron]

It isn't wrong. :type:

 

[convicted1]

It isn't wrong. :type:

Ditto......

 

[HankD]

What is the Scriptural Basis for:

1.The Rapture of the Church prior to a Great Seven Year Tribulation?

2. The doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "Parenthesis" or Intercalation in God's Program for Israel!

As others have said it's not wrong to ask these questions.

The issue here as with several other doctrinal issues is that these doctrine are of a complex nature e.g. the Hypostatic Union, The Trinity, etc are of a composite nature. Several scripture have to be looked at and analyzed.

After comparing scripture against scripture conclusions concerning theses doctrine are drawn.

Being human we will disagree. I believe the manner and expression of the disagreements have an effect upon how those who are charged with keeping the peace here at the BB make their judgments.

Also, dispensationalism has many flavors. Your Number 2 is an example. Not every dispensationalist would choose the terminology you used which many times in the responding things will escalate into something ugly (as with other doctrinal matters)

And so it goes on...
Being human.


HankD

 

[Van]

Sometimes when folks hold views based on the speculations of men, they get defensive (i.e. it is wrong to ask for the scriptural basis of my view) when asked to actually discuss how the view is supported in scripture.

Certainly there are verses that pre-tribulation rapture folks point to as supporting their view, but alternate interpretations are also possible, so the support is actually weak.

And in my opinion, there is no actual support for the parenthetical view of the church. Again, people will claim I am mistaken, but an actual discussion of scripture will not ensue.

 

[OldRegular]

As others have said it's not wrong to ask these questions.

The issue here as with several other doctrinal issues is that these doctrine are of a complex nature e.g. the Hypostatic Union, The Trinity, etc are of a composite nature. Several scripture have to be looked at and analyzed.

After comparing scripture against scripture conclusions concerning theses doctrine are drawn.

Being human we will disagree. I believe the manner and expression of the disagreements have an effect upon how those who are charged with keeping the peace here at the BB make their judgments.

Also, dispensationalism has many flavors. Your Number 2 is an example. Not every dispensationalist would choose the terminology you used which many times in the responding things will escalate into something ugly (as with other doctrinal matters)

And so it goes on...
Being human.


HankD

I agree that the questions I raise cannot be answered simply, particularly the second one which raises the hackles of many who believe in a pre-trib-rapture. However, I did not invent the terms "parenthesis" or intercalation to describe the Church. These terms were used by the preeminent scholars of dispensationalism.

John F, Walvoord, successor to Chafer at DTS, states [Millennial Kingdom, p230]:.
The evidence if interpreted literally leads inevitably to the parenthesis doctrine.

J. Dwight Pentecost states [Things to Come, p201]:
The church is manifestly an interruption of God’s program for Israel.

Charles C. Ryrie, editor of the Ryrie Study Bible, states [Basis of Premillennial Faith, p136; ]:
The Church age is not seen in God's program for Israel. It is an intercalation. [See also Dispensationalism, p134]

Louis Sperry Chafer, founder and first president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, and author of a multi-volume set, Systemic Theology agree that the term parenthesis is inappropriate. He writes [Systematic Theology, Vol 4, p41]:
In fact, the new, hitherto unrevealed purpose of God in the outcalling of a heavenly people from Jews and Gentiles is so divergent with respect to the divine purpose toward lsrael, which purpose preceded it and will yet follow it, that the term parenthetical, commonly employed to describe the new age-purpose, is inaccuurate. A parenthetical portion suitains some direct or indirect relation to that which goes beforeor that which follows; but the.present age-prirpose is not thus related and therefore rs more properly termed an intercalation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?p=1880771#post1880771

Dr. Thomas ice {http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/short-history-of-dispensationalism} writing of Darby states:

Darby's distinction between God's plan for Israel and the Church formed the basis for his most controversial contribution to Evangelical Christianity-the pretribulation rapture of the Church.
//snip//
Darby's view of the church was crucial to his development of dispensationalism, especially his view (shared by many in his day) of the present ruin of the church.

The late John F. Walvoord, a preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, confesses that the validity of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ depends on the definition of the Church [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]. Walvoord writes:

If the question be asked: Will the church be raptured before end-time events? it becomes very important to define the church as an entity that is distinct from Israel or saints in general. In prophetic passages concerning the Tribulation, both Israelites and Gentiles are described, and some of them have faith in Christ and form a godly remnant. If they are part of the church, then the church is in the Tribulation, and the whole question as to whether the church goes through the Tribulation becomes moot. Many posttribulationists, in an attempt to establish their own point of view, beg the question at the very beginning by assuming that the church includes saints of all ages. The concept that the church is distinct from Israel is a part of dispensational truth that distinguishes the work of God in the Old Testament under the Mosaic Law, the work of God in the present age as he calls out both Jews and Gentiles to form the church as the body of Christ, and the millennial kingdom in which the saints of all ages participate in various ways but maintain their individual and corporate identity. Hence, the church will be raptured or resurrected, and will reign with Christ in the millennial kingdom, but the saved of Israel as well as the saved of the Gentiles who are not part of the church will also be part of the millennial kingdom. Distinguishing the church from saints of other periods that precede or follow the present age is essential to a correct answer on the pretribulational issue. It is not too much to say that the doctrine of the church, or ecclesiology, determines this aspect of eschatology.

Strangely, given the predominance of dispensationalists among the Southern Baptists the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000, adopted the following definition of the Church [Section VI]:

The New Testament also speaks of the church as the Body of Christ which includes all the redeemed of all ages, believers from every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation.

Dr. Ice also states about Darby in the above link:

Darby is the father of dispensationalism. "Although he was not a systematic theologian, he was an expositor of 'dispensational truth.' He synthesized exegetical truths to show the full story-line of the Bible, God's activity in human history".

Darby's employment of the hermeneutical principle of literal interpretation for all of Scripture, including prophecy, naturally led to the distinction between Israel and the Church. This resulted, of course, in the understanding that the hopes of Israel and those of the Church were of a different nature.

There is no doubt that some Church fathers wrote about different dispensations. It also appears that some even mentioned a pre-trib-rapture. That being said it is also a historical fact that pre-trib-dispensational doctrine had no impact on the Church until Darby and in time the Scofield Reference Bible.

The 19th Century was apparently a time of doubt and turmoil within the Christian Community both here and abroad. The long Napoleonic War in Europe, the issue of slavery in the States, the "coldness" of the sacerdotal churches in general may have had an impact. It is certain that Darby rejected the Church of England/Ireland in which he was a deacon. Dr. Ice writes { http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf }

At this time, Darby was experiencing a disappointment from a failed spiritual and physical austerity phase in his life, the reality of an Erastian 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,” 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.

Whatever the cause in the 19th Century the Church experienced the birth of number of movements in addition to pre-trib-dispensationalism. I will refrain from naming these lest anyone assume I am equating them with the pre-trib-dispensationalism of Darby.

As others have said it's not wrong to ask these questions.

The issue here as with several other doctrinal issues is that these doctrine are of a complex nature e.g. the Hypostatic Union, The Trinity, etc are of a composite nature. Several scripture have to be looked at and analyzed.

I agree that both the doctrines of the Hypostatic Union and the Trinity are complex issues. However I believe I can demonstrate clearly with only a few verses of Scripture that both are solid Biblical doctrines.

 

[DHK]

I agree that the questions I raise cannot be answered simply, particularly the second one which raises the hackles of many who believe in a pre-trib-rapture. However, I did not invent the terms "parenthesis" or intercalation to describe the Church. These terms were used by the preeminent scholars of dispensationalism.



Dr. Thomas ice {http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/short-history-of-dispensationalism} writing of Darby states:


The late John F. Walvoord, a preeminent dispensationalist theologian and former president of the Dallas Theological Seminary, confesses that the validity of the pre-tribulation ‘rapture’ depends on the definition of the Church [Major Bible Prophecies, page 282]. Walvoord writes:



Strangely, given the predominance of dispensationalists among the Southern Baptists the Southern Baptist Convention in Atlanta, Georgia on June 14, 2000, adopted the following definition of the Church [Section VI]:



Dr. Ice also states about Darby in the above link:

There is no doubt that some Church fathers wrote about different dispensations. It also appears that some even mentioned a pre-trib-rapture. That being said it is also a historical fact that pre-trib-dispensational doctrine had no impact on the Church until Darby and in time the Scofield Reference Bible.

The 19th Century was apparently a time of doubt and turmoil within the Christian Community both here and abroad. The long Napoleonic War in Europe, the issue of slavery in the States, the "coldness" of the sacerdotal churches in general may have had an impact. It is certain that Darby rejected the Church of England/Ireland in which he was a deacon. Dr. Ice writes { http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-JohnNelsonDarbyandth.pdf }


Whatever the cause in the 19th Century the Church experienced the birth of number of movements in addition to pre-trib-dispensationalism. I will refrain from naming these lest anyone assume I am equating them with the pre-trib-dispensationalism of Darby.



I agree that both the doctrines of the Hypostatic Union and the Trinity are complex issues. However I believe I can demonstrate clearly with only a few verses of Scripture that both are solid Biblical doctrines.

If this thread is not substantially different than the thread already started, where the typical answer is:

Is your mind so small that you really think God would lie about what His Word already teaches, a general resurrection and a general judgment at the return of Jesus Christ? Just in case you are unfamiliar with the Scripture I will kindly post it for you in large type.

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.

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2187672&postcount=122

It also will be shut down.

 

[OldRegular]

If this thread is not substantially different than the thread already started, where the typical answer is:
[/COLOR][/SIZE]
http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2187672&postcount=122

It also will be shut down.

I ask again:

Why Is It Wrong to ask the following questions:

What is the Scriptural Basis for:

1.The Rapture of the Church prior to a Great Seven Year Tribulation?

2. The doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "Parenthesis" or Intercalation in God's Program for Israel!

 

[quantumfaith]

I have to agree with you OR (and you know how that pains me ) I fail to understand why it must be shut down.

 

[OldRegular]

I have to agree with you OR (and you know how that pains me ) I fail to understand why it must be shut down.

And I want you to know that at this time I truly feel your pain!:BangHead:

 

[HankD]

I agree that both the doctrines of the Hypostatic Union and the Trinity are complex issues. However I believe I can demonstrate clearly with only a few verses of Scripture that both are solid Biblical doctrines.

To the satisfaction of you and I you could. I have tried in other Arian venues (JW) only to find that a few verses of scripture often turns into a multitude of scripture verses.

You may already know this but In fact the doctrine of the Trinity raged for several centuries (even with some bloodshed) until the council of Nicea AD325. Thank goodness we've outgrown that method of solving a debate.

HankD

 

[HankD]

I started a thread "Pre-Trib-Dispensationalism and the Bible" in which I asked the above questions. This BB is comprised of about 60% Pre-Trib-Dispensationalists so it would seem that the above questions are appropriate and that answers would be readily forthcoming. But they were not. The thread was closed after only 15 posts. Those posts were no more rancorous than many on this BB especially those dealing with Calvinism though the words "lie" and "slime" were thrown around somewhat.

First: although I let folks tag me as a dispensationalist, I am not the "Darby" cookie-cutter type and in fact would be considered closer to a progressive type (although I don't like that tag either).

Actually it seems that rapture dispensationalism was the child of 3 jesuit priests - Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca, Luis de Alcazar (1554-1621) of Seville, and Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine (1542-1621).

The doctrine – called futurism – which would later become ‘the rapture’ originated and was submitted by Francisco Ribera in 1585. His Apocalyptic Commentary was on the grand points of Babylon and the Anti-Christ which are now known as the rapture doctrine. Ribera’s published work was called “In Sacram Beati Ionnis Apostoli & Evangelistate Apocoalypsin Commentari” (Lugduni 1593). You can still find these writings in the Bodleian Library in Oxford England. The work was considered flawed and faulty, and was ordered buried in the Church archives, out of sight, by the pope himself.

http://preachersinstitute.com/2011/05/20/rapture-theologys-ominous-origins/

Later this piece tells how the pubs fell into Darby's hands who apparently embellished it with some visions had by a young lady named Margaret McDonald. It seems these "vision" anomalies continued on for quite a while and is why (IMO) dispensationalism is so popular among charismatics.

I say these things to show that developmental composite doctrines often have questionable originators and contributors but that does not necessarily defeat the core truths (if there be any).

The doctrine of the Trinity had a similar history with survivors to this very day of such as modalists and outright trinitarian deniers.

The Early Church Fathers (ECF) had to battle very strange doctrine (some derived from hellenistic mystery cult fables of which JWs are delighted to show us the images/idols of these 3 headed gods) in the development of the orthodox Trinitarian view (which of course we all accept, well most all).

My view as to dispensationalism is to glean the truth from the fable (as is yours I am sure) using the scripture as the final authority. But remember there are bound to be the strange and the curious along the way to the truth Trinitarian or otherwise.

So, yes, I believe there was an "age" of innocence, a post Noahide general global government, the law of Moses, the church age, the "rapture - actually the snatching away or hiding", tribulation and millennium (called the Chiliad by the ECF). I do reject such things as one gospel for Gentiles, one for Jews and other over-reach dogma.

I would rather say "ages" than "dispensations" but then what do I call myself?

HankD

 

[DHK]

I ask again:

Why Is It Wrong to ask the following questions:

You have asked them in another thread and they have been answered.
Why must another thread be opened to repeat the same questions over and over again. There is still another thread open where these questions have been asked.

 

[OldRegular]

You have asked them in another thread and they have been answered.
Why must another thread be opened to repeat the same questions over and over again. There is still another thread open where these questions have been asked.

Which one is that?

 

[OldRegular]

To the satisfaction of you and I you could. I have tried in other Arian venues (JW) only to find that a few verses of scripture often turns into a multitude of scripture verses.

You may already know this but In fact the doctrine of the Trinity raged for several centuries (even with some bloodshed) until the council of Nicea AD325. Thank goodness we've outgrown that method of solving a debate.

HankD

I believe it was some years later before the Doctrine of the Hypostatic Union was settled at Chalcedon!

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

It isn't wrong. :type:

Yup....it isn't wrong! :laugh:

 

[OldRegular]

First: although I let folks tag me as a dispensationalist, I am not the "Darby" cookie-cutter type and in fact would be considered closer to a progressive type (although I don't like that tag either).

Actually it seems that rapture dispensationalism was the child of 3 jesuit priests - Francisco Ribera (1537-1591) of Salamanca, Luis de Alcazar (1554-1621) of Seville, and Cardinal Roberto Bellarmine (1542-1621).

http://preachersinstitute.com/2011/05/20/rapture-theologys-ominous-origins/

Later this piece tells how the pubs fell into Darby's hands who apparently embellished it with some visions had by a young lady named Margaret McDonald. It seems these "vision" anomalies continued on for quite a while and is why (IMO) dispensationalism is so popular among charismatics.

I say these things to show that developmental composite doctrines often have questionable originators and contributors but that does not necessarily defeat the core truths (if there be any).

The doctrine of the Trinity had a similar history with survivors to this very day of such as modalists and outright trinitarian deniers.

The Early Church Fathers (ECF) had to battle very strange doctrine (some derived from hellenistic mystery cult fables of which JWs are delighted to show us the images/idols of these 3 headed gods) in the development of the orthodox Trinitarian view (which of course we all accept, well most all).

My view as to dispensationalism is to glean the truth from the fable (as is yours I am sure) using the scripture as the final authority. But remember there are bound to be the strange and the curious along the way to the truth Trinitarian or otherwise.

So, yes, I believe there was an "age" of innocence, a post Noahide general global government, the law of Moses, the church age, the "rapture - actually the snatching away or hiding", tribulation and millennium (called the Chiliad by the ECF). I do reject such things as one gospel for Gentiles, one for Jews and other over-reach dogma.

I would rather say "ages" than "dispensations" but then what do I call myself?

HankD

I had read a number of sources, links, showing that the concept of different dispensations preceded Darby. I had been apprised some months back in another thread that a Baptist preacher in this country talked about the rapture prior to Darby. I found a link this morning which apparently claims a much earlier date for the discussion of the Rapture: http://www.essentialchristianity.com/pages.asp?pageid=21918

Because of the type I have read only the introduction. That being said it was not until Darby that the doctrine of the pre-trib-rapture really became accepted to any extent in the churches. As I said earlier it may be because of the state of the western world in the 19th century and Dr. Thomas Ice credits Darby as being the Father of pre-trib-dispensationalism.

 

[Getting it Right]

I don't understand why anyone should consult sources other than the Bible. It is all right there.

I don't understand why anyone has these questions in the first place. What purpose would it serve if the questioner got 20 different answers?

There is only one source, one answer, dutifully written out by a variety of authors, in the one and only Spiritually inspired and given document, the Bible.

raying:raying:raying:

 

[DHK]

Here it is OR.
First your OP:

What is the Scriptural Basis for:

1.The Rapture of the Church prior to a Great Seven Year Tribulation?

2. The doctrine that the Church, for which Jesus Christ died, is a "Parenthesis" or Intercalation in God's Program for Israel!

Now from the thread entitled:
Two good arguments for a Pretrib Rapture, some quotes from you:

I have challenged any pre-trib-dispensationalist on this BB for 10 years to present one, just one, passage of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib-rapture of the Church. Others have asked the same question. You claim to debate using the Bible then do so. Present that passage of Scripture!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2187551&postcount=104

My link proved that dispensationalism, with its pre-trib-rapture of the Church and the "parenthesis" doctrine of the Church, started with John Nelson Darby. It sure doesn't come from Scripture otherwise you and other likeminded pre-trib-dispensationalists would not have ignored the following question!

You are very immature, even childish, in many respects DHK. You soundly attempt to slime Calvinism and the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace in any post you present which deals with them. Whether you agree with those doctrines or not you cannot honestly deny that there is a sound Biblical basis for those doctrines. But you are totally unable to present any Biblical basis for the pre-trib-rapture of the Church and the doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church on which that doctrine hangs. As Dr Thomas Ice writes: http://www.pre-trib.org/articles/view/short-history-of-dispensationalism

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2187559&postcount=107

Post #108
So Evan! Where are the "Two good arguments for a Pretrib Rapture"? Where is just one passage of Scripture showing a pre-trib-rapture. Now a lot of us are likely going to die before the Lord Jesus Christ returns but that cannot be called a pre-trib-rapture!

I have posted repeatedly links to dispensational scholar Dr. Thomas Ice showing that John Nelson Darby is the father of pre-trib-rapture-ready-dispensational doctrine {PTRRDD}. You ignore them and then expect me to believe the haters of the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace. Ridiculous! When you post a single passage of Scripture that proves John Nelson Darby was not delusional when he developed his pre-trib-rapture-ready-dispensational doctrine {PTRRDD} then you will have something worthwhile to say. Otherwise, one more time!

I have challenged any pre-trib-dispensationalist on this BB for 10 years to present one, just one, passage of Scripture that teaches a pre-trib-rapture of the Church. Others have asked the same question. You claim to debate using the Bible then do so. Present that passage of Scripture!

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=2187611&postcount=114

The last page is here. When Inspector Javert and RevMitchell entered into the discussion you bowed out. In fact it seems you ran out. Perhaps the Inspector was too hard on you. If this thread is not appreciably different than the one already open it will be closed, and now you know why.
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=97562&page=13

 

[Revmitchell]

You are very immature, even childish, in many respects DHK. You soundly attempt to slime Calvinism and the Doctrines of Sovereign Election and Grace in any post you present which deals with them.

Boy that is rich. Considering the source that takes alot of gall.