Posted on 04/02/2007 8:40:21 AM PDT by topcat54
Conclusion
Although the pretribulation rapture theory is very popular today, given arguments that are offered in support of this doctrine we must declare Pretribulationalism to be contrary to the clear teachings of Scripture. Simply put, there is not one shred of evidence that can be found in the Bible to support the pretribulation rapture. The typical Pretribulational arguments offered reveal a pattern: of imposing one’s presuppositions onto a text without any exegetical justification whatsoever; of finding subtle meaning between words and/or phrases that were never intended by the author; of spiritualizing or ignoring passages that contradict the Pretribulational paradigm; and, of imposing Pretribulationalism upon passages that actually teach the unity of the eschatological complex (i.e., the rapture, second coming, general resurrection, and general judgment all occur on the same day—the day of the Lord). It is our hope and prayer that professing Christians would cast off this escapist fantasy and return to the task of personal sanctification and godly dominion.
(Excerpt) Read more at reformedonline.com ...
That is not true.
My criticism of dispensationalism is not aimed at a specific person, blogger, no matter how much you whine. I am discussing the topic. Please stop making this personal. It's tedious and counter-productive, much like dispensationalism.
And I've been around long enough to know the RM can read any post they want and respond if necessary.
I cannot help it that when dispensationalism is critiqued you take it personally. That's your problem. Not mine.
As for using words like "repugnant and despicable," do you recall when I used those words?
I do.
It was when you called me "anti-semitic" which was a repugnant and despicable comment for you to make.
You seem to think you're the only one entitled to feeling strongly about this topic and the only one who is basing their beliefs on Scripture.
You're not.
Stick to the topic and kindly avoid making this personal.
"My soteriology"?? I don't know what you mean. Jesus Christ is the focus of the entire Scripture. Is He not? All of the OT pointed forward to His coming. All the NT speaks of what He has accomplised in bring salvation to His people, Jews and gentiles, just as Abraham was promised.
Zechariah 12-14 is very specific.
Zechariah was a prophet and his words reflect prophetic forms of speech. There are many images and symbols in the prophecies.
Let's look at some of the language, and you tell me what it means.
"'In that day,' says the Lord, 'I will strike every horse with confusion, and its rider with madness; I will open My eyes on the house of Judah, and will strike every horse of the peoples with blindness.'" (12:4)
Horses and riders and Judah. Sounds like it could fit with the 1st century AD. So you think it fits better far in the future when armies no longer use horses? When "Judah" no longer exists?
"And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn. In that day there shall be a great mourning in Jerusalem, like the mourning at Hadad Rimmon in the plain of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, every family by itself: the family of the house of David by itself, and their wives by themselves; the family of the house of Nathan by itself, and their wives by themselves;" (12:10-12)
Does ths not sound like the mourning of Jerusalem and Judah when the nations came up against it, the days of vengeance mentioned in Luke 21?
"In that day a fountain shall be opened for the house of David and for the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for uncleanness." (13:1)
Does this not speak of the Lord Jesus, the true foundation of life, who brought salvation to His people so the renmant was saved?
"It shall come to pass that if anyone still prophesies, then his father and mother who begot him will say to him, 'You shall not live, because you have spoken lies in the name of the Lord.' And his father and mother who begot him shall thrust him through when he prophesies." (13:3)
The true Prophet has come, The Lord Jesus Christ. All other prophets will be put to shame. We are not to go after them.
"'Awake, O sword, against My Shepherd, Against the Man who is My Companion,' Says the Lord of hosts. 'Strike the Shepherd, And the sheep will be scattered; Then I will turn My hand against the little ones.'" (13:7)
We know that this was fulilled at Christ's coming (Matt. 26:31)
"For I will gather all the nations to battle against Jerusalem; The city shall be taken, The houses rifled, And the women ravished. Half of the city shall go into captivity, But the remnant of the people shall not be cut off from the city." (14:1)
Anyone familiar with the history of AD70 realizes this is an accurate description of the great desolation that fell upon the city.
"And in that day it shall be That living waters shall flow from Jerusalem, Half of them toward the eastern sea And half of them toward the western sea; In both summer and winter it shall occur." (14:8)
Read John 4 and Jesus' description of living waters, esp. v. 14.
"In that day 'HOLINESS TO THE LORD' shall be engraved on the bells of the horses. The pots in the Lord's house shall be like the bowls before the altar." (14:20)
Bells and horses. fulfilled or future?
I could go on. I realize you do not find this satisfying, and I also realize that you have somehat of an advantage because in your system everything is still in the future so you can just say all will happen precisely as it is written, no matter how anachronistic it sounds (horses and riders, etc). That's really not an answer as much as an excuse for not having to do any interpretation of the text.
But the fact remains that there is no confirmation anywhere in the NT that these events are still to be fulfilled far, far in the future from the 1st century.
Before you start in with all the charges, give us your view and tell us which portion of this prophecy speaks of Jesus first coming only.
Stop making this personal.
What does it mean?
It this what is being implied by you all towards the belief in various gospels?
Notice how you assume something.
I only made an observation about some dispensationalists and asked a question. How many gospels do you folks believe in?
God made skins to cover them as an atonement for their sin. We know they needed redemption because God said, "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." (Gen. 2:17) Adam and Eve died spiritually on that day. That is why they needed animal skins (requiring the shedding of blood) to cover their nakedness (sin).
Spiritual death preceeded physical death. Otherwise Adam would not have died physically.
Astounding, isn't it? The vast majority of Christians have no idea there are other Christians who preach these various Gospels. I sure didn't. Most Christians would be stunned to read these posts and see the Gospel splintered by imaginary times and ages and God's "differing" intentions.
The Holy Spirit gathers all races and nations, all types and personalities, and quickens the minds and hearts of the elect, all believing Jews and gentiles, so that they will know their salvation is in Jesus Christ alone and that they are "all one in Christ Jesus."
One Gospel.
Amen. How else could it be?
They are also like the Jehovah Witnesses who have studied their arguments and rehearsed them well before knocking on your door -- impressive in their suits and thoroughly prepared to reason from the Scriptures that Christ, in fact, is not God.
Interesting.
I heard a dispensationalist on the radio today, make an absolutely specious comparison between amillenialists and Jehovah's Witnesses. (Nobody you're likely to have heard of -- a couple guys I know slightly, who have a local radio show. They were discussing John McArthur's opening blast at this year's Shepherd's Conference, which one of the two had attended.)
Is this the latest strategy? It's pretty weak.
They are limited to studying a narrow portion of eschatology and predestination because they love to argue, not to glean or grow..
You have no idea.
Clear, concise and Scriptural. Amen.
All faith comes from God. Rationalism isn’t required.
Yes, but you've already charged that just being Postmil gives someone an "anti-semitic tinge to their remarks. Not that there's anything "evil" or "bad" associated with that, right? I suppose that's just "iron sharpening iron"?
we are victors in Christ Jesus in dispensationalism, now and in the age to come
Well stated.
OK, my question from post#395 still stands. Is physical death the second death?
It is for every man to die, active case with emphasis on having life, then being subjected to a state of existence involving separation.
Anthropology of man includes a body, a soul, and a spirit as originally created in Adam and the second Adam.
For the unbeliever, already dead in the spirit to the Living God, he is already in a state of separation, a state of death. He inherited that old sin nature, the natural man, from bodily birth (perhaps in the DNA). The unbeliever still has a body and a soul (mind and heart), but dead in the spirit (no regenerated spirit).
For the unbeliever, the first death is then the separation of his soul from his body. Body goes to the grave and his soul to Hades, namely to the Torments.
For the believer, having body and soul and a regenerated spirit, when he suffers the first death, his soul and spirit are separated from the body, and are face to face with the Lord, hence may be in heaven.
The second death occurs after the Great White Throne Judgment after to book of names and works have been opened. Those found to be lacking in divine righteousness are then judged as good for nothingness and placed in that place created for things that are good for nothingness, i.e. the Lake of Fire.
So true, but by reading some of these threads you would never guess that would you? :-) Blessed Easter to you Dr. E!
Let's see how we got down this rabbit hole.
You originally said:
Dispensationalists assert Jews and Gentiles are all part of the Church. The Church and Israel are different objects, though in Prophecy.
To which I responded:
"We know you assert it. We deny you've proved it from the Bible."
Three or four messages later and the context is lost.
Now, what does all that have to do with faith and rationalism?
No. the second death is the lake of fire. Rev. 20:14.
I made a typo. I said “Is this what is being implied?” It came out “It.”
What it means is that at all times and in all places human beings have been saved by grace through faith in what God had revealed to them about the person of Jesus Christ. It is not clear that Old Testament saints realized that the Messiah would come to die for them. Yet, it is clear that they had faith in God, they awaited His promised Messiah, and knew that they had to depend wholly upon His grace for their salvation. Abraham believed God and it was accounted to Him for righteousness.
The promise of the Messiah began with Adam. Who He was and what He would do was gradually revealed more and more; but men were always saved by placing their trust in Him, not works, ever.
The word “Gospel” means “good news”. There are several “good newses” in Scripture. The Good News of the Kingdom is the Good News that Christ has come as Messiah and will reign on earth. In and of itself it is not salvific, though the subject of the gospel IS - that is faith in Christ Jesus. The gospel of grace is what is salvific. At all times and in all places human beings have been saved by the good news of God’s grace alone. It is the ONLY way by which human beings are saved. When Jesus came preaching the gospel of the kingdom, the Jews were lost not because they didn’t believe the Kingdom was there, but because they didn’t believe in the King of the Kingdom.
One can accept the conclusion of a pretribulational, premillenial rapture, purely from Scripture, while remaining in fellowship with Him, allowing God the Holy Spirit to reveal Himself to the believer’s human spirit and understanding and heart and finally as Bible doctrine, without rationalism preempting the work of the Holy Spirit.
Bible doctrine circulating through the stream of consciousness provides many a useful tool to further understand and grow in His sanctification.
A believer doesn’t have to prove anything to remain in fellowship with God, so that faith is provided by God to the believer, but the carnal believer who attempts to counterfeit the ministry of the Holy Spirit by rationalism while out of fellowship, merely scars his own thinking.
That may be, but not because of any deficiency in the OT.
"For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures," (1 Cor. 15:3).
The only "Scriptures" Paul had was the OT.
The word “Gospel” means “good news”. There are several “good newses” in Scripture. ...
I understand what you are saying. Now, can you demonstrate from the Scriptures that the "gospel of the kingdom" and "gospel of grace" are two different things. E.g., that the kingdom gospel was not salvific and the grace gospel was.
I need Scripture.
The very first announcement about Jesus was that "He will save His people from their sins." (Matt. 1:21) We are then told that He is born "king of the Jews" (2:2).
We also read, "Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came to Galilee, preaching the gospel of the kingdom of God, and saying, 'The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent, and believe in the gospel.'" (Mark 1:14,15)
Now, what is it that Jesus was calling people to repent of and believe as He was preaching this gospel of the kingdom?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.