Posted on 02/03/2011 11:38:35 PM PST by RJR_fan
Molotov Mitchell hits another one out of the ballpark!
Click HERE.
That we sincerely love our brothers and sisters in Christ, wish them well, and are livid with rage at stupid ideologies that rob them of so much that God wants for them, so much God expects from them.
Nah, I just know when I'm beat. Three strikes. Game's over.
So...if we spend all our time, talents & treasures thinking of creative ways to mock, ridicule & scoff at other believers’ non-essential theology, what does that say about us?
I have a little slogan that I trot out sometimes in these discussions: "Bad Eschatology Has Consequences".
Ones theology is a system, with interconnections all over the place. I care about dispensationalism because I see consequences for holding that belief in the area of soteriology, which is central.
I'm thinking I should queue up a reread of Vos' Pauline Eschatology.
ARWhat is the point of girding on all that Gospel Armor, hauling around a Shield, and belting on the Sword, if we’re just going to bug out so we can sit down in front of a heavenly omnivision set to watch the fight, instead of STANDING AGAINST the fiery darts of Satan?
TURUmmm...the purpose of all of that is to glorify and worship our Lord and our God.
I hope you misspoke because I find it hard to believe that the only place we can "glorify and worship" our LORD is in heaven before the Omnivision. In fact, I am struggling with how we can somehow glorify God better in Heaven than so here on Earth. To suggest that we can Glorify Him better there tells me that the claimant doesn't understand the definition of Glorify.
God receives Glory in the manifestation of His works. He gets more glory bringing a wretched sinner to saving faith and leading her to good works than He would serving us snacks while we sit in glorified bodies around the Omnivision. God receives Glory in His Judgment, in His Wrath, in His Patience, and all of those other things we would not bring before Him in our glorified state. It is easier to argue that the Pre-Trib rapture robs God of the opportunity to demonstrate why He is Holy and worthy of Praise.
Lets look at some passages that Futurists like to remind us of - and that is that Israel is supposed to be surrounded by her enemies, and then when it looks like Israel is about to get crushed, God steps in and destroys all those opposed to Israel. Why does God do that? It tells us right there in the passages - "So that the world will know that I am God". IOW, God receives Glory when He topples the enemies of His Elect. Now lets look at the Dispensationalist revisionism - allegedly our LORD loves His Bride the Church, but when the going gets inconvenient and scary He removes many of them and leaves the 2nd Chancers out in the cold to get crushed by Satan. What is wrong with this picture? God doesn't get glory in the way He likes to when defending His Chosen people, and the other part of his late-coming 2nd Service Church (post-Rapture) gets kicked to the curb while God does nothing about it, foregoing another opportunity to take care of His own.
Its also narcissistic to rely on a pre-trib "rapture". The Futurists defend this teaching based on God protecting Noah and Lot. Two major problems with this: (1) Noah and Lot were not swept up into heaven to rest it out while the Beatdown took place. (2) the teaching that God is obligated to pull our butts out of messes that we largely helped to make because of lethargy and being AWOL from the spiritual battle - the concept is profoundly insulting to the martyrs who died violent deaths because they struggled and worked hard to change their world and stood up to the evil-doers in the name of Christ. (despite reading from the same Bible with the same Revelation and prophecies in it that we have today)
If there is any generation less deserving of a pre-trib rapture it is the one that sits on its collective ass letting the world burn without the knowledge of Christ our Savior. It robs God of His glory and rewards indifference and selfishness.
I’m sorry you wrote that long reply based upon a complete misconception of what was meant in my post. I nowhere indicated we would only do those things in heaven. That is our purpose here and now as well.
After fully reading your post I feel the need to call you out on the same issues I’ve seen through this thread. You say it’s narcissistic to hold to a pre-trib rapture. So you know everyone who holds this view personally and can impute that attribute to each of them?
I am very disappointed in the Christian brothers here who feel they can denigrate people who have opposing viewpoints. You obviously take it very personally that someone might hold a viewpoint contrary to your own. As I’ve previously mentioned, I suggest you revisit Paul, he will have some instruction for you in 2 Timothy on how to “correct” those who disagree with you. The venom I have seen here makes me very sad. I also wouldn’t expect profanity such as yours in a discussion such as this.
If the Holy Ghost will remain here he will continue to be a restraint. If he isn't here to restrain, he isn't here to succor Christians, if there are no more people to be won for Christ, it is the end of the age.
Now, I recall something about the Jewish folks turning to Christ, hence, the Holy Ghost is still at work because (by the same theology that dispensationalism is built on) there can be no coming to Christ without grace and grace cannot flow without the presence of the Holy Ghost to provide the initial faith required to accept that grace.
The Rapture will not occur, it's that simple. The last trumpet is the last trumpet, not the last trumpet before the next trumpet, not the last trumpet related to this dispensation, but the last trumpet. People who honestly apply "the clear meaning of the Word" recognize that sooner or later unless they're skimming along and ignoring it all since see Christianity as just an insurance policy.
The fact is that Schofield knew good marketing sizzle when he saw it and built his sales of the public domain King James Bible on being the version with notes related to the Rapture when the Rapture was a hot new topic. As far as the "proofs" for it, they're every bit as thin and absurd as the bending over backwards Protestants do in order to deny the clear meaning of the Word as it relates to Peter.
Protestantism is built on the premise that each individual is their own final authority regarding theological truth. That sounds a lot like, “... your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.” At least enough like it to be appealing to the same urge intrinsic to fallen mankind and at least enough like it that it should give any honest Christians pause.
I spent over thirty years a faithful Lutheran so I'm not hostile to Protestants, I'm upset that people can be so intent on following Christ and so easily channeled into shallow imitations of his Church by the sizzle and salesmanship related to stuff like Rapture theology or Health and Wealth theology. An awful lot of people are on the wide highway to destruction because Protestantism puts far more value on individual independence than it does on truth.
There is a a reduction in the degree to which the Holy Spirit restrains Satan. The Spirit ceases to restrain to the same degree Satan and he is free to introduce the lawless one. Nothing there says he leaves, goes to Vegas for a weekend, or anything like leaving.
Satan at this very moment is capable of performing such signs and wonders through humans but is restrained by the Spirit. What, the Holy Spirit can't cease to restrain Satan in that manner and still do his other work? Of course he can, he can limit his activities which allows those not seeking Christ to succumb totally to the strong delusion God sends even if they are being prayed for by true believers or would otherwise be open to His word to some degree.
As to one taken and one left, how is that anything other than one taken up to meet Christ at the Second Coming which is obvious for all to see the same way the Ark was obvious for all to see? Nothing in that implies a secret rapture or a separate coming of Christ prior to the Second Coming.
You say it’s narcissistic to hold to a pre-trib rapture. So you know everyone who holds this view personally and can impute that attribute to each of them?
I have spent considerable time trying to find the best way to articulate a defense of this statement to you. The problem is that your posts are rather hypocritical, particularly when you ask for civility then go headlong into accusing those differing with you of being heretics through the fallacy of "Guilt by Association".
I thought about writing a ten-thousand word essay describing in detail how I came to this conclusion, but then I thought - there are already ten-thousand words out in this very forum that prove the truth behind the charge that Premillennial Dispensationalism is the doctrine of Narcissists.
Here are some of the trail-markers to look for:
Flattery towards those who affirm your beliefs, utter contempt for those who disagree: Now review the posts where a Post-Mil or Realized Mil challenges a statement made by a Futurist. The most common rebuttal is a Cut & Paste "you are going to Hell for disbelief" scripture. The "Heretic" label gets thrown on without any substantiation whatsoever. Then you get the gratuitous "Get Off My Thread" tantrums. There is a poster here, Quix, who has made this symptom/tactic a brand. The Flattery pours out with as much intensity when another poster merely states agreement with the premise.
Hypersensitivity to slights or imagined insults: Usually the Futurist will immediately assume that we are challenging her faith by not agreeing. Some people will think that questioning them is a savage attack and will respond by questioning the non-Futurist's salvation.
Pretending to be more important and claiming to be an 'expert' on most things. Lets combine these two with the "hypersensitivity" symptom and look at something you contributed:
You obviously take it very personally that someone might hold a viewpoint contrary to your own. As I’ve previously mentioned, I suggest you revisit Paul, he will have some instruction for you in 2 Timothy on how to “correct” those who disagree with you. The venom I have seen here makes me very sad. I also wouldn’t expect profanity such as yours in a discussion such as this.
This is classic Narcissism post. Here you imagine that you are so important that your beliefs shouldn't be challenged, you believe that you are an expert on giving proper "correction" without actually demonstrating this expert knowledge, you project on a moral standard that you yourself are too important to have to keep, and the ironic use of inflammatory rhetoric and outrage is icing on the Narcissists' cake as you show your contempt for those who don't agree with you.
An obvious self-focus on interpersonal relationships: in your statement, you also projected this "how dare you insult me" sentiment while embodying it fully while conveying it
I believe that while projecting your own neurosis you don't quite understand why many of us non-Futurists challenge the prophecy hucksters. It has never been about us or our allegedly fragile belief systems, it is that we know, some from personal experiences, that Dispensationalism is a profoundly false teaching that divides the Church, stifles the Gospel, quenches the Spirit, and brings anxiety and fear into the body. IOW, its a mortal sickness that needs to be cured.
I think what you may be witnessing is frustration in trying to talk sense into people who see themselves as "experts" in the Practice of Futurism such that they don't need the Bible, God, sound doctrine or challenges from a brother in Christ.
As for me, I was sanctified out of Dispensationalism by people who cared enough for me to beat it out of me. They too were frustrated because I thought I knew it all, and then when the Scriptures were opened up, I saw what an idiot I was for believing the Hal Lindseys and Tim LaHayes of this world. What you see from me is the same sort of thing you would expect from a "former smoker" or "former Roman Catholic" - one who zealously acts as a missionary to his own people.
FWIW, Post Mills and I disagree on a number of theological and interpretational points regarding eschatology. If we were so sensitive and egotistical, why aren't we clobbering each other? The reason why is that we don't see the other's beliefs as being destructive to the Church, they may just see my belief as harmful to myself.
Concur on the assessment of fear.
In original languages, the opposite of love isn’t hate, but fear.
This is also manifest in Rev 21:7-8 as Scriptural references to the topic of sin.
Rev 21:7-8
(7) He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.
(8) But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.
The focus of those deaths was not upon the violence or savagery surrounding the deaths/murders, but rather the witness testimony of men and women remaining in faith in Christ, regardless the adversity attacking them.
God the Father and the Son have no intention of sending the Bride through the Great Tribulation.
The Great Tribulation is a consequence of the harlotry performed by Israel in signing the covenant for their provision in security, rather than relying upon God and His faithful provision.
The Father and the Son don’t beat up the Bride before they come and fetch her for the wedding feast.
Another currently hip marketing slogan that avoids going to the Scripture and actually slanders both the Father and the Son.
The compression of what happens to the Bride into fewer years doesn't mean it's any worse than the faithful have already suffered, so has Christ stopped beating his Bride yet?. How about the Father, has he stopped beating her yet?
Did you read none of my earlier posts. I’ve stated that I haven’t made up my mind what I believe and I’m not here to argue the merits of any point of view. My purpose is to point out some here (and Mr. Mitchell in particular) are mean spirited and not gently correcting anyone. You all may very well be correct in your beliefs, but the use of ridicule as a teaching method certainly isn’t convincing anyone.
By the way, the only person I believe I called a heretic was Marcion...who else did I accuse of heresy?
I’ve come to the conclusion that this thread is a bait for people to come in and have venom spat on them. I am not disagreeing with anyone’s position. I disagree with the ridicule and non-loving approach to the teaching.
I should further add that although I’ve stated that I’m biased toward a premillenial viewpoint, that is purely due to upbringing. I have in no way made up my mind as to what I believe in this area...hence the reason I claim “pan-millenialism” as my current viewpoint.
My point is that scoffing ridicule such as Mr. Mitchell’s is not going to convince anyone. A Scriptural proof text would be a far better method to convince anyone he wishes to “reach”.
I am currently reading several books on this subject such as “Relevation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary”, “Three Views on The Rapture” and “Five Views on the Book of Revelation”. These books compare and contrast the various positions and are a far better education than the video linked in the original post.
From where does this idea of the Father and Son beating up the Bride originate?
I find nothing in Scripture to support it, but the idea that they will not do any such thing is only about 2000 yrs old coming from numerous Scriptures.
Here’s a link to help in your studies.
GB
http://www.bibleprophesy.org/rapturewedding.htm
I am currently reading several books on this subject such as “Relevation: Four Views, A Parallel Commentary”, “Three Views on The Rapture” and “Five Views on the Book of Revelation”. These books compare and contrast the various positions and are a far better education than the video linked in the original post.
I highly commend you on your decision to explore the alternatives that exist. No one can ask for more than to give the various views a fair screening.
Of the books you listed, I have two, the "Three Views of The Rapture" concede a chiliast outlook and are more an intramural discussion, and in "Five Views ..." the arguments aren't well presented due to editing constraints. But it is a start.
I'm sure the Post Mills would give you a good reading list from the heavy academic to the easily accessible (Matthison, DeMar, Hanegraaff et al)
From the Realized Mill perspective, I found great value in Sam Waldron's "End Times Made Simple" where he hits hard on the Two Age model, Dennis Johnson's work on Revelation or the books and lectures from Kim Riddlebarger's blog.
In Riddlebarger's lectures, he compares Amillennialism to both Dispensationalism and Preterism (leaving out the Classical Premill and other forms of chiliasm)
I went the Goldilocks route. One had too much in the Future, the other had too much in the past, and one was just right.
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.