Why is the Pre-Tribulation rapture popular and does it have a future?...

[Iconoclast]

Allan

The above is not, in any way, historically true.

I did some reading on this over the weekend but I am not able to document the source material as of yet Allan.It might be home on my bookshelf. I did find similar lists to the good lists you offered of those who did not agree with those men you listed.....so the idea that this was a unanimous understanding.....is not set in stone.

Actualey the pre-mill view stood without constest for just over 250 after Christ's ascention, at which point we have record of only 4 people (writings) who didn't agree with it and even then it was never brought forth in Church councils or shown as a division in the CHurch as of yet.

Allan....I do not think there was an over abundance of proven scholarship in the early years... example....many other issues were still being worked out,the deity of Christ, the trinity, the canon, etc.

In fact, it was Augustine who became the poster boy for the new church/state view. We also note that it was only after christianity became a state mandated religion (the early footing of the Roman Catholic Church) do we find the Chilianist view being forced out of the churches, in favor of replacement theology (which later evolved into a different view - Covenant theology).

Allan.....this seems to be a reading into history some of what todays dispensationalism would champion....{replacement theology}?

Augustine saw it differently by all accounts...but i am not comfortable reading historical accounts in which each one has a degree of bias.

All of these church "fathers" combined did not see gospel issues clearly enough to keep the RC church from coming to power and maintaining the true gospel.

I do believe God has preserved His church obviously...even though it might have been through what we look back as questionable groups,Montanists,Donatists,paulinists,,anabaptists,etc.

For me, it is strange when people say the apostles held to something else. Personally, I always wonder why 'their' disciples never taught anything else (which we would see in their disciples teaching as well), and those churches they set up all over didn't hold to any other views that can be noted historically. It wasn't until a couple hundred years later 'other' views began to be noted to stand in opposition to said view.

Again...I do not see this as the view.


I will search out what i had read and post it.

 

[OldRegular]

I don't think you even understand what a dispensationalist is, or the doctrine to which we adhere.

I understand that Dispensationalism is a serious doctrinal error apparently developed in the imagination of John Nelson Darby and sold to many gullible Christians in this country by Cyrus Scofield.

That doctrine is the Bible.

If Martyn Lloyd-Jones is correct Dispensationalism is based on the so-called revelation of Margaret MacDonald not Scripture. Perhaps you folks don't know that Revelation from God was ended with the passing of the Apostles.

Essentially, we believe (I'm speaking of so-called "modified" dispensational thought) that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Each has different roles to fulfill in the world, from the beginning. Salvation is the same for both groups. The Church and Israel exist together during the millennial reign. Let me know if you've got further questions.

God has only one people, those saved by His Grace, the bride of Jesus Christ, the Church for which He died. As for the millennial reign, welcome, we are in it at present. The Triune God reigns, now and eternally!

 

[OldRegular]

The Bible would have us as the Church looking forward to the appearing of our Saviour the Lord Jesus as the sign to us, be ready to go in immenent moment, not having us to look to recognise who Antichrist will be!

The antichrist is not mentioned in connection with the rapture?

1 John 2:18. Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that antichrist shall come, even now are there many antichrists; whereby we know that it is the last time.
1 John 2:22. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
1 John 4:3. And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
2 John 7. For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

But the Apostle John says he was around ~2000 years ago. And he is still around according to the Apostle John.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I understand that Dispensationalism is a serious doctrinal error apparently developed in the imagination of John Nelson Darby and sold to many gullible Christians in this country by Cyrus Scofield.

Thanks. I needed the laugh.

If Martyn Lloyd-Jones is correct Dispensationalism is based on the so-called revelation of Margaret MacDonald not Scripture. Perhaps you folks don't know that Revelation from God was ended with the passing of the Apostles.

Proof you don't know what dispensationalism is. None of us espouse extra-biblical revelation. The doctrine is taken directly from the pages of God's word.

God has only one people, those saved by His Grace, the bride of Jesus Christ, the Church for which He died. As for the millennial reign, welcome, we are in it at present.

Really?? Perhaps you should read Isaiah's description of the millennial reign (chapter sixty-five) and acquaint us all with where, exactly, on Earth, any of that is true today. I'll be awaiting your recounting.

The Triune God reigns, now and eternally!

Except on this Earth, where for the time being the god of this world is Satan. He reigns in our (believers') hearts, but not on this world as He will then.

 

[OldRegular]

Proof you don't know what dispensationalism is. None of us espouse extra-biblical revelation. The doctrine is taken directly from the pages of God's word.

1.Where in God's Word is the Church described as a "Parenthesis"?

2. Where in God's Word are the 6 0r 7 dispensations mentioned?

3. Where in God's Word is the word dispensation used?

4. Where in God's Word is the so-called Rapture mentioned.

5. Why do Dispensationalists ignore the Words of Jesus Christ regarding a general Resurrection and Judgment?

Really?? Perhaps you should read Isaiah's description of the millennial reign (chapter sixty-five) and acquaint us all with where, exactly, on Earth, any of that is true today. I'll be awaiting your recounting.

Isaiah 65:17. For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Revelation 21:1. And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

Isaiah is not talking about the so-called millennial reign where Israel will reign supreme, he is talking about the New Heavens and New Earth! Perhaps you should learn to understand Scripture without a dispensational bias!

Except on this Earth, where for the time being the god of this world is Satan. He reigns in our (believers') hearts, but not on this world as He will then.

Exodus 15:18. The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.

2 Chronicles 20:6 And said, O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?

1 Peter 3:22. Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

1 Corinthians 15:23-26
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Scripture says clearly that you lack understanding!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

1.Where in God's Word is the Church described as a "Parenthesis"?

Not relevant to me, as I'm what you would call a "modified" dispensationalist, and that is verbiage used by classical dispensationalists. Either way, it does not claim to represent a word used in the Bible, it is merely a doctrinal shorthand, which all views of the Bible use in one form or another.

2. Where in God's Word are the 6 0r 7 dispensations mentioned?

3. Where in God's Word is the word dispensation used?

4. Where in God's Word is the so-called Rapture mentioned.

All your questions have the same response coming: Where is the Trinity mentioned in the Bible? Where is the word "eschatology" mentioned in the Bible? You're being ridiculous.

5. Why do Dispensationalists ignore the Words of Jesus Christ regarding a general Resurrection and Judgment?

Again, you're being ridiculous and insulting. We don't ignore Christ's words. However, you could be accused of such by your insistence on melding Israel and the Church as to the promises given them by God.

Unlike you, I hold to a consistent literalism in my hermeneutic. You cannot interpret all other Scripture as literally based and then, as you do (whether you will admit it or not is of no consequence to me) determine that all prophecy regarding Israel is figurative in nature, having passed for fulfillment to the church. That is inconsistent and undermines the very truth of the Bible if carried out to its logical conclusion. Either all prophecy is literally based and given for literal fulfillment, or none of it is. Which way will you have it?

Crucial to my reading of biblical prophecy, through a literal reading of Daniel, the Revelation, and from Ezekiel, is the concept that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount as a precursor to the Lord returning to restore the earthly Kingdom of Israel centered on Jerusalem. I firmly believe, again through literal interpretation of Scripture, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will be a physical event, by which a world-wide kingdom will be established in human history, geographically centered in Jerusalem. It will be a two step process.

In the first step, Christ "returns" (though I argue with my fellow dispensationalists that this is not a true "return" but only an appearance, and it won't be evident to all, much like some in Israel heard God's voice at Sinai, and others heard only "a noise like thunder") to resurrect the dead in Christ and rapture the living believers from the Earth. After this, a seven year period of tribulation occurs, climaxing in the Battle of Armageddon. In the second step, Christ intervenes at the Battle of Armageddon -- or more accurately, Har-megido -- and establishes a literal 1000-year millennial kingdom on earth.

As to your extensive use of Scripture, they are misapplied to your argument. Therefore, I see no point in responding. Other than that, if you wish to hold to reformed covenant theology, feel free. No skin off my nose. And I'll thank you to leave your opinion of my doctrinal positions out of your posts. This isn't helping fellowship, brotherhood, or the cause of Christ.

 

[Yeshua1]

Oh, and another thing ...I guess this means you think the 2,000 year history of the church accounts for nothing. That the church's work either hasn't started yet, or never will. How do you suppose the message of the gospel is alive and well for those evangelists to preach it in the seven years of tribulation? Oh, never mind ... you don't believe that is going to happen, either.

I don't think you even understand what a dispensationalist is, or the doctrine to which we adhere. That doctrine is the Bible.

Essentially, we believe (I'm speaking of so-called "modified" dispensational thought) that there are two distinct peoples of God: Israel and the Church. Each has different roles to fulfill in the world, from the beginning. Salvation is the same for both groups. The Church and Israel exist together during the millennial reign. Let me know if you've got further questions.

the plan of God is that He choose to bless the jewish peoples out of all peoples on earth, and He gave them specific promises towards the time when messiah 'another David" would reign over them...

Knowing that the nation would reject messiah at First Coming, the Lord already had ordained from eternity past the Church to come when isreal as a people/nation rejected Jesus, so in their spiritual blindness He caused gentiles and Hias chosen jews to be saved as under same messiah...

Since Jesus ascended, God been working in and thru His Church here on earth, but once we accomplish what was intended here, will leave, and THEN God deals with isreal proper, and prepares them to meet their God at His second coming to reign and rule over them !

As paul states in Romans so well, isrela has a whole rejected messaih Jesus, but God chose that to bring salvation unto us gentiles thru Him, and he also will work to bring isreal back to receive Him also in future, as ALL isreal living Isreal when He comes abck shall be saved in that day, entire nation reborn as Ezeckiel foretold!

 

[OldRegular]

Not relevant to me, as I'm what you would call a "modified" dispensationalist, and that is verbiage used by classical dispensationalists. Either way, it does not claim to represent a word used in the Bible, it is merely a doctrinal shorthand, which all views of the Bible use in one form or another.

All your questions have the same response coming: Where is the Trinity mentioned in the Bible? Where is the word "eschatology" mentioned in the Bible? You're being ridiculous.

Again, you're being ridiculous and insulting. We don't ignore Christ's words. However, you could be accused of such by your insistence on melding Israel and the Church as to the promises given them by God.

You can't answer my questions, especially the one regarding the Word of Jesus Christ proclaiming a General Resurrection and General Judgment so you resort to pejoratives, a typical dispensational response.

Unlike you, I hold to a consistent literalism in my hermeneutic.

Then please apply a literal interpretation to 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.

You cannot interpret all other Scripture as literally based and then, as you do (whether you will admit it or not is of no consequence to me) determine that all prophecy regarding Israel is figurative in nature, having passed for fulfillment to the church. That is inconsistent and undermines the very truth of the Bible if carried out to its logical conclusion. Either all prophecy is literally based and given for literal fulfillment, or none of it is. Which way will you have it?

Then you must admit that Jesus Christ is prophesying a General Resurrection and a General Judgment which means there is no rapture!

Crucial to my reading of biblical prophecy, through a literal reading of Daniel, the Revelation, and from Ezekiel, is the concept that the Jewish Temple will be rebuilt on the Temple Mount as a precursor to the Lord returning to restore the earthly Kingdom of Israel centered on Jerusalem. I firmly believe, again through literal interpretation of Scripture, the Second Coming of Jesus Christ will be a physical event, by which a world-wide kingdom will be established in human history, geographically centered in Jerusalem. It will be a two step process.

In the first step, Christ "returns" (though I argue with my fellow dispensationalists that this is not a true "return" but only an appearance, and it won't be evident to all, much like some in Israel heard God's voice at Sinai, and others heard only "a noise like thunder") to resurrect the dead in Christ and rapture the living believers from the Earth. After this, a seven year period of tribulation occurs, climaxing in the Battle of Armageddon. In the second step, Christ intervenes at the Battle of Armageddon -- or more accurately, Har-megido -- and establishes a literal 1000-year millennial kingdom on earth.

Literal reading of apocalyptic language is nonsense. Furthermore dispensationalism does not interpret Daniel's 70 weeks literally. There is no 2000 plus year period there. Period!

As to your extensive use of Scripture, they are misapplied to your argument. Therefore, I see no point in responding. Other than that, if you wish to hold to reformed covenant theology, feel free. No skin off my nose. And I'll thank you to leave your opinion of my doctrinal positions out of your posts. This isn't helping fellowship, brotherhood, or the cause of Christ.

Scripture does hurt doesn't it! In fact proper interpretation of Scripture destroys dispensationalism.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

You can't answer my questions, especially the one regarding the Word of Jesus Christ proclaiming a General Resurrection and General Judgment so you resort to pejoratives, a typical dispensational response.

Your accusations are meaningless, as the truth is -- and as anyone else can see -- I did answer your questions.

Then please apply a literal interpretation to 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.

Concerning resurrection, Jesus clearly taught that there would be more than one resurrection. In John 5:29 He refers both to a "resurrection of life" and a "resurrection of judgment." The apostle Paul confirmed this concept in his defense before Felix when he stated that he believed the teaching of the prophets "that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." (Acts 24:15, NASB).

Of course, it could be argued that the two resurrections referred to in these scriptures will occur at the same time. Thus, because they will happen simultaneously, there is, in effect, only one resurrection. However, the Scriptures establish the fact that the resurrection of the righteous will occur in stages.

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-24. In fact, the first stage of the resurrection of the righteous has already happened, for verse 20 says that "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep."

Verses 22 and 23 go on to explain that all who have died in Christ shall be made alive, "but each in his own order: Christ, the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming."

The imagery of the harvest that is used in these verses is a key to understanding the first resurrection -- the resurrection of the righteous. In Bible times the harvest was conducted in three stages. It began with the gathering of the first fruits which were offered as a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God.

It proceeded with the general harvest. But not all was taken in this harvest. Some of the crop was left in the field to be gathered by the poor and the needy. This was called the gleanings (Leviticus 19:9-10).

Using this imagery, the Bible presents the resurrection of Jesus as the "first fruits" of the resurrection of the righteous. The gathering of the Church Age saints, living and dead, at the appearing of the Lord (the Rapture) is thus the general harvest stage of the resurrection of the righteous (John 14:1-3 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

But there is a third and final stage to this resurrection of the righteous. It is the gleanings, and it occurs at the end of the Tribulation when the Lord's Second Coming takes place. At that time two final groups of the righteous will be resurrected: 1) the Tribulation martyrs as taught inRevelation 20:4, and 2) the Old Testament saints, as stated in Daniel 12:2. Some people are startled by the thought that the Old Testament saints will not be resurrected until the end of the Tribulation. But keep in mind that the Rapture is a promise to the Church, and the Church only. Also, the book of Daniel makes it clear that the Old Testament saints will be resurrected at the end of the "time of distress," again depicted in Daniel 12:1-2.

Then you must admit that Jesus Christ is prophesying a General Resurrection and a General Judgment which means there is no rapture!

But as I've just proven for anyone with an eye to see and an ear to hear -- there is a rapture, and the "general resurrection" doesn't exist as you understand it.

Literal reading of apocalyptic language is nonsense.

Certainly not if you are predisposed to reject apocalyptic language as literal, which it is. But since you are one so predisposed, you disqualify yourself from being able to discuss it in any other form, so your opinions are tainted and invalid as pertaining to dispensational teaching.

Furthermore dispensationalism does not interpret Daniel's 70 weeks literally. There is no 2000 plus year period there. Period!

You won't appreciate this, but others will. Chuck Missler did an excellent online article explaining the 70 weeks of Daniel with great clarity. It can be found here

Scripture does hurt doesn't it! In fact proper interpretation of Scripture destroys dispensationalism.

Hardly. Dispensationalism and the Scriptures are in perfect harmony. It's a pity you are so close-minded as to refuse to see it.

 

[OldRegular]

Then please apply a literal interpretation to 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.

Concerning resurrection, Jesus clearly taught that there would be more than one resurrection. In John 5:29 He refers both to a "resurrection of life" and a "resurrection of judgment." The apostle Paul confirmed this concept in his defense before Felix when he stated that he believed the teaching of the prophets "that there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked." (Acts 24:15, NASB).

Paul says there shall be A resurrection not six resurrections as Walvoord insists [Major Bible Prophecies, page 376ff.]; not even two resurrections but one at the return of Jesus Christ when the White Throne Judgment occurs!

Of course, it could be argued that the two resurrections referred to in these scriptures will occur at the same time. Thus, because they will happen simultaneously, there is, in effect, only one resurrection.

That is correct!. There is no other rational interpretation. Jesus Christ clearly says

the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth

Surely you would not assert He will hold the unsaved in limbo for 1007 years awaiting judgment.

However, the Scriptures establish the fact that the resurrection of the righteous will occur in stages.

Only in your imagination!

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-24. In fact, the first stage of the resurrection of the righteous has already happened, for verse 20 says that "Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep."

Correct! No resurrection of Jesus Christ, no Salvation for anyone.

Verses 22 and 23 go on to explain that all who have died in Christ shall be made alive, "but each in his own order: Christ, the first fruits, after that those who are Christ's at His coming."

Jesus Christ is the FIRST resurrection. Those that belong to Jesus Christ will be resurrected at His Return.

The imagery of the harvest that is used in these verses is a key to understanding the first resurrection -- the resurrection of the righteous. In Bible times the harvest was conducted in three stages. It began with the gathering of the first fruits which were offered as a sacrifice of thanksgiving to God.

It proceeded with the general harvest. But not all was taken in this harvest. Some of the crop was left in the field to be gathered by the poor and the needy. This was called the gleanings (Leviticus 19:9-10).

You are wondering away from what Scripture says, allegorizing sounds like!

Using this imagery, the Bible presents the resurrection of Jesus as the "first fruits" of the resurrection of the righteous. The gathering of the Church Age saints, living and dead, at the appearing of the Lord (the Rapture) is thus the general harvest stage of the resurrection of the righteous (John 14:1-3 and 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18).

That is eisegesis at its worst and simply to keep from digging that hole you are in deeper! The rapture is dispensational fiction.

But there is a third and final stage to this resurrection of the righteous. It is the gleanings, and it occurs at the end of the Tribulation when the Lord's Second Coming takes place. At that time two final groups of the righteous will be resurrected: 1) the Tribulation martyrs as taught inRevelation 20:4, and 2) the Old Testament saints, as stated in Daniel 12:2. Some people are startled by the thought that the Old Testament saints will not be resurrected until the end of the Tribulation. But keep in mind that the Rapture is a promise to the Church, and the Church only. Also, the book of Daniel makes it clear that the Old Testament saints will be resurrected at the end of the "time of distress," again depicted in Daniel 12:1-2.

But as I've just proven for anyone with an eye to see and an ear to hear -- there is a rapture, and the "general resurrection" doesn't exist as you understand it.

You have proven nothing other than you read stuff into Scripture that is not there! Eisegesis I believe it is called!

Certainly not if you are predisposed to reject apocalyptic language as literal, which it is. But since you are one so predisposed, you disqualify yourself from being able to discuss it in any other form, so your opinions are tainted and invalid as pertaining to dispensational teaching.

You won't appreciate this, but others will. Chuck Missler did an excellent online article explaining the 70 weeks of Daniel with great clarity. It can be found here

Did good ole Chuck interpret literally or did he do a little spiritualizing digging that dispensational hole a little deeper.

Hardly. Dispensationalism and the Scriptures are in perfect harmony. It's a pity you are so close-minded as to refuse to see it.

Again that is the typical dispensational approach. If they can't defend their error from Scripture then all others are "close-minded".

The Southern Baptist convention is awash with Dispensationalist yet in the Baptist Faith and Message of 2000 they said:

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.

Sounding the death knell of dispensational error.

 

[percho]

I understand that Dispensationalism is a serious doctrinal error apparently developed in the imagination of John Nelson Darby and sold to many gullible Christians in this country by Cyrus Scofield.



If Martyn Lloyd-Jones is correct Dispensationalism is based on the so-called revelation of Margaret MacDonald not Scripture. Perhaps you folks don't know that Revelation from God was ended with the passing of the Apostles.



God has only one people, those saved by His Grace, the bride of Jesus Christ, the Church for which He died. As for the millennial reign, welcome, we are in it at present. The Triune God reigns, now and eternally!

I made this statement and asked in another thread which was not answered but applies here also, therefore I re-post.




I am not sure I understand the whole concept of dispensationalism? And for sure relative to rapture. For I believe in caught up to meet the Lord who will be en route to the earth to establish the throne of his glory.

But I would like to ask you something.

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Acts 15:14-17

Isn't there some concept of dispensation seen in those verses? Also in Romans 11:25,26 and even in Eph 1:4-10?

And for the record in the 12 English translations of Eph 1:10 in Blue Letter Bible five times οἰκονομία is translated as dispensation.

I know, no Greek.

 

[Revmitchell]

I just don't see enough clear scripture that demands a pre-trib rapture, and plenty of scripture which suggests a post-trib coming.

I do not see any that "demands" it either. But I do see plenty that suggests it as you do your view.

The problem is that we need to decide what is the nature of the tribulation. If in fact it is God's wrath then that takes the church out of the picture. We cannot be here for that.

 

[OldRegular]

I made this statement and asked in another thread which was not answered but applies here also, therefore I re-post.




I am not sure I understand the whole concept of dispensationalism? And for sure relative to rapture. For I believe in caught up to meet the Lord who will be en route to the earth to establish the throne of his glory.

But I would like to ask you something.

Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things. Acts 15:14-17

Isn't there some concept of dispensation seen in those verses? Also in Romans 11:25,26 and even in Eph 1:4-10?

And for the record in the 12 English translations of Eph 1:10 in Blue Letter Bible five times οἰκονομία is translated as dispensation.

I know, no Greek.

The passage from Acts has to do with some Jewish Christians insisting that Gentiles, converted under the preaching of Paul [Acts 14:22ff] must become Jews before they could become Christians:

Acts 14:5. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.

The Apostle Peter then gives his experience with the Gentile Cornelius [Acts 10:1ff]. James, the half brother of Jesus Christ, a leader in the Church at Jerusalem [Verse 15:13] then makes the remarks you present indicating that the conversion of the Gentiles was the fulfillment of a prophecy made by the prophet Amos [Amos 9:11f].

 

[Iconoclast]

thisnumbersdisconnected

. We don't ignore Christ's words. However, you could be accused of such by your insistence on melding Israel and the Church as to the promises given them by God.

It is the Holy Spirits insistence on this which we believe...and your modified
Theology denies.

Unlike you, I hold to a consistent literalism in my hermeneutic.

You really do not.

You cannot interpret all other Scripture as literally based and then, as you do (whether you will admit it or not is of no consequence to me) determine that all prophecy regarding Israel is figurative in nature, having passed for fulfillment to the church.

The Church and Israel are one new man....Chrisitan Israel.

That is inconsistent and undermines the very truth of the Bible if carried out to its logical conclusion. Either all prophecy is literally based and given for literal fulfillment, or none of it is. Which way will you have it?

because you do not see it yet does not mean it is not so...

As to your extensive use of Scripture, they are misapplied to your argument. Therefore, I see no point in responding. Other than that, if you wish to hold to reformed covenant theology, feel free.

No skin off my nose. And I'll thank you to leave your opinion of my doctrinal positions out of your posts. This isn't helping fellowship, brotherhood, or the cause of Christ.

[/QUOTE]
His scripture was clearly set forth:thumbs:

 

[OldRegular]

The Triune God reigns, now and eternally!

Except on this Earth, where for the time being the god of this world is Satan. He reigns in our (believers') hearts, but not on this world as He will then.

Exodus 15:18. The LORD shall reign for ever and ever.

2 Chronicles 20:6 And said, O LORD God of our fathers, art not thou God in heaven? and rulest not thou over all the kingdoms of the heathen? and in thine hand is there not power and might, so that none is able to withstand thee?

1 Peter 3:22. Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him.

1 Corinthians 15:23-26
23. But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24. Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power.
25. For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.
26. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.

Scripture says clearly that you lack understanding!

As to your extensive use of Scripture, they are misapplied to your argument. Therefore, I see no point in responding. Other than that, if you wish to hold to reformed covenant theology, feel free. No skin off my nose. And I'll thank you to leave your opinion of my doctrinal positions out of your posts. This isn't helping fellowship, brotherhood, or the cause of Christ.

Just how are the above Scripture misapplied in the truth that the Triune God reigns now and eternally? Is that another dispensational error or do you claim that one all by yourself?

As for my opinion of your doctrinal positions this is a debate forum!

 

[laneybenson]

I understand that Dispensationalism is a serious doctrinal error apparently developed in the imagination of John Nelson Darby and sold to many gullible Christians in this country by Cyrus Scofield.



If Martyn Lloyd-Jones is correct Dispensationalism is based on the so-called revelation of Margaret MacDonald not Scripture. Perhaps you folks don't know that Revelation from God was ended with the passing of the Apostles.

You can find remnants of dispensationalism at least as far back as Irenaeus, not to mention Pierre Poiret in L'Economie Divine and Isaac Watts, the hymnwriter. John Darby was just the first to systematize it. He was at least formulating his ideas in 1827, 3 years before the vision of Margaret MacDonald. That vision has been ascertained to likely hold to a single event, not two separate events (Rapture and the Second Coming) as dispensationalists hold. Even then the vision seemingly holds to a partial rapture. See articles by Thomas Ice of Liberty University for more info

 

[Yeshua1]

thisnumbersdisconnected




It is the Holy Spirits insistence on this which we believe...and your modified
Theology denies.



You really do not.



The Church and Israel are one new man....Chrisitan Israel.



because you do not see it yet does not mean it is not so...

His scripture was clearly set forth:thumbs:[/QUOTE]

The Apostle paul was quite clear in Romans that God has NOT forever cast away national isreal, the Jews, for ever since that time, there has been a remnant of them saved out from within national isreal, and THOSE would be true spiritual isreal!

Paul saw true isrealites.children of abraham, as those who received Yeshua as their messiah, and we gentiles were in the Church, as were they, but God ses Spiritual isreal as being saved jews within the church, and he still has future plans for national one!

We are currently in the Age of Grace/Church Age, and until the Rapture and Great tribulation, BOTH Jews/gentiles are in the church as the saved, but when church departs, Time of jacobs troubles falls upon national Isreal, as God prepares thm to meet their messiah again and welcome Him this time!

THAT event will be as peter said in acts, a time of refreshening,as isreal becomes back with God, Nation reborn, and whiole earth benefited by that !

 

[OldRegular]

His scripture was clearly set forth:thumbs:

The Apostle paul was quite clear in Romans that God has NOT forever cast away national isreal, the Jews, for ever since that time, there has been a remnant of them saved out from within national isreal, and THOSE would be true spiritual isreal!

Paul saw true isrealites.children of abraham, as those who received Yeshua as their messiah, and we gentiles were in the Church, as were they, but God ses Spiritual isreal as being saved jews within the church, and he still has future plans for national one!

We are currently in the Age of Grace/Church Age, and until the Rapture and Great tribulation, BOTH Jews/gentiles are in the church as the saved, but when church departs, Time of jacobs troubles falls upon national Isreal, as God prepares thm to meet their messiah again and welcome Him this time!

THAT event will be as peter said in acts, a time of refreshening,as isreal becomes back with God, Nation reborn, and whiole earth benefited by that ![/QUOTE]

Can you present one verse of Scripture from the New Testament to support the "rapture" and the "parenthesis church" which as Walvoord said are irrevocably linked.[Post #70]

 

[beameup]

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but is now made manifest. Romans 16

Obviously there are things that were revealed to Paul that were not known in the Old Testament.
One of these was that the Gospel would be preached to the Gentiles outside of obedience to the Law and apart from Israel;
another was that these Gentiles saved by Paul's Gospel of Grace through Faith without Works would be "snatched away"
to make way for Israel, as a Nation, to fulfill their destiny during the Time of Jacob's Trouble (Great Tribulation).

 

[OldRegular]

Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ,
according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but is now made manifest. Romans 16

Obviously there are things that were revealed to Paul that were not known in the Old Testament.
One of these was that the Gospel would be preached to the Gentiles outside of obedience to the Law and apart from Israel;
another was that these Gentiles saved by Paul's Gospel of Grace through Faith without Works would be "snatched away"
to make way for Israel, as a Nation, to fulfill their destiny during the Time of Jacob's Trouble (Great Tribulation).

That is a pathetic uber-dispensational heresy. The only Gospel that the Apostle Paul preached was the Gospel of Jesus Christ:

Romans 1:16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

The above tells anyone who can read that the same Gospel was preached to both Jew and Gentile. Paul says that Gospel was preached to Abraham who was not an Israelite or a Jew.

Galatians 3:8. And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.

You say:

Obviously there are things that were revealed to Paul that were not known in the Old Testament.

Now just what do you think And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed.MEANS?