Posted on 11/26/2011 3:33:54 PM PST by Iggles Phan
My problem with the 'Rapture' (pre-millenial; pre-tribulation) teaching is that it forces its adherents to actually REVERSE the Person of Jesus Christ to the Devil.
That's correct.
In the 'Rapture' (or Dispensational) scheme the believer is asked to take the Person of Daniel's 70th Week (Who is Jesus Christ at the Cross) described in Chapter 9, verse 27a:
"And he shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ..."
... and reverse this 'he' to mean a 'future Antichrist'.
Are you confused?
Is this Jesus Christ or Antichrist?
1. The Historic View.
This view is typified by the 1599 Geneva Bible notes. These are the notes of John Calvin, Miles Coverdale, and John Knox to name a few.
1599 Geneva Bible Notes on Daniel 9:27a:
"By the preaching of the gospel he confirmed his promise, first to the Jews, and after to the Gentiles. Christ accomplished this by his death and resurrection."
It's pretty clear that the Reformers believed that Christ was the Person of Daniel's Great 70th Week.
2. The Modernist View (Dispensational).
In contrast however, compare this historic view to the Dispensational view typified in the Ryrie Study Notes (1978). Look who the modernists assign to this very same Person in Daniel 9:27a:
"The prince of verse 26, the Antichrist previously introduced in 7:8, 24-26, who will make a pact with many (of the Jewish people) at the beginning of the tribulation period. But in the middle of the week (i.e., 3 1/2 years later) Antichrist will break his covenant and desecrate the Temple by demanding worship of himself in it."
The difference couldn't be farther apart.
Historic Christianity says that Jesus fulfilled the 70th week AT THE CROSS, but Rapture Christianity (Dispensationalism) says that the Devil fulfills it in a 're-built' temple.
Therefore, Dispensationalism is no less than a frontal assault on the Cross of Christ. It reverses Jesus Christ to the Devil. It is malicious and a pernicious doctrine.
Remember, this Dispensational view was NEVER known until 1830. That's why it is a Modernist view. It was invented by JN Darby and popularized by CI Scofield, two con-men to Christianity.
In the 20th century, carpetbaggers such as Hal Lindsey, Tim LaHaye, Jack (and Rexella) Van Impe, John Hagee and others have made fame and fortune off of this con game. They have marketed this 'Rapture' theology like a cheap box of laundry detergent on TV and radio, and with videos and books.
My hope and prayer is that the Church starts to wake up out of its slumber and starts challenging its pastors, ministries, and teachers. The Cross of Christ is at stake here!
For the Glory of Christ Jesus. Amen.
Excellent post, CynicalBear. Thank you.
So far, no Scripture has been produced to support the original statement, only repeated denials of the passages that have been given that proves the original statement wrong. That says it all.
I posted the link to that message by Pastor JD in this thread - the fact that the Rapture is being denied is a major fulfillment of a sign of Christ's return.
The denials are a result of spiritual blindness and it is more assurance that our Redeemer is coming very soon!
Great post, metmom!
INDEED.
I think you’re quite right.
INDEED.
They know that all of this does not turn out for good for them.
I am waiting but not holding my breath. If you are a Christian you will apologize.
Don't just ignore me because I pointed out your hate...
Dear Dispensationalist,
Unfortunately, you only reference other Modernists.
Your basic argument says that the ‘he’ for verse 27 is the same throughout the entire verse, and since the second half of this verse deals with the ‘overspreading of abominations’, then this must be the ‘antichrist’.
However, such an argument excludes context. If one were to apply that same logic to the previous passage, verse 26, then one would have a conflict, because the first half of the verse is clearly the Messiah, and the second half of the verse is the ‘people of the prince’.
Let’s look at this:
26: And after threescore and two weeks shall Messiah (A) be cut off, but not for himself: ... and .... the people of the prince (B) that shall come shall destroy the city and the sanctuary; and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the war desolations are determined.
NOTICE THAT THE SUBJECT CHANGES AFTER THE CONJUNCTIVE!!!
27: And he (A) shall confirm the covenant with many for one week: and in the midst of the week he (A) shall cause the sacrifice and the oblation to cease, ... and ... for the overspreading of abominations he (B) shall make it desolate, even until the consummation, and that determined shall be poured upon the desolate.
LIKEWISE, THE SAME PATTERN IN THIS VERSE!!!
Note that both of these verses, 26 and 27, are CONJUNCTIVE (e.g. two complete sentences, with two different subjects, joined together by the conjunctive ‘and’) in their construct.
So, the first half of the conjunctive deals with the Messiah (A), and the second half of the conjunctive deals with a completely different subject, e.g. the ‘people of the prince’ (B).
Therefore to be consistent, one would expect each verse to resemble an A-B, A-B construct.
Dispensationalism violates this Scriptural pattern by using an A-B, B-B construct!
This is one Scriptural reason why Jesus, not Antichrist, fulfills the 70th Week.
However, even on a more basic Scriptural level, we can look at the Purposes of the Great 70 Weeks (Daniel 9:24):
a) to finish the transgression,
b) to make an end of sins,
c) to make reconciliation for iniquity,
d) to bring in everlasting righteousness,
e) to seal up the vision and prophecy,
f) and to anoint the most Holy.
Are you actually going to stand there with a straight face and say that the Devil fulfills these Great 70 Week Purposes?
Again, who is the REAL Replacement Theologian here?
Jesus fulfilled the first 69 Weeks (we both agree with that). Why would God be so flippant so as to change the 70th Week to the Devil ... to finish transgressions and to end sin?
That makes no sense at all, even on the face of it.
You have REPLACED Jesus for the Devil. Shame on you!
Dear Dispensationalist, repent of your dipensational sin.
“There is enough scripture to support all 3 major ways of looking at it; if ones CHOOSES their bible selections carefully.”
Answer:
This kind of reply really kills me.
Unfortunately, it is so typical of our Modernist pick-n-choose Churches and theologies these days.
What this writer is saying is that there is no absolute Truth. That it is wholey fine to confuse Jesus for the Devil and that there are no ramifications.
I disagree.
Dispensationalism is wrong because it attacks the Cross. We are not talking about some mere doctinal difference here. We are talking about a denial of the Cross. Hence, by implicaton, a denial of the atoning work of our Saviour.
No ... it is not OK to be ‘cute’ with the Bible just to justify one’s position. Especially, when one confuses Jesus at the Cross with the Devil.
I’m sorry, that crosses the line.
John wrote Revelation prior to the fall of Jerusalem.
There is enough internal Scriptural evidence to show that.
Recommend you read:
Before Jerusalem Fell by Gentry
Redating the New Testament by Robinson
One note about the 95 AD dating:
There is only one vague reference in all of archeology on this, and it does not say that the Revelation was written then. It simply says that John was seen then.
Moreover, the guy credited with this observation believed that Jesus lived until He was 50 years old when He was crucified. Hardly a reliable dating source.
So one must ask the obvious question here ... Who is really 20 years off?
It sounds like to me that you are describing the resurrection that this very same person, St. Paul, described in I Cor 15:50.
“Daniel’s 70th week is identifiable with the Great Tribulation and descriptions of the 70th week are associated with the Great Tribulation.”
Answer:
Says who? ... Scofield, LaHaye, Hagee?
Your statement above is exactly the flim-flam type ‘associations’ that get us into this Dispensational mess in the first place.
You are wrong. People can see through this stuff very easily.
“It is by dispensationalism that you even KNOW about the Atonement of Christ, they Body of Christ, the forming of the Church the body of Christ, the grace of God, the gospel of your salvation, the fulness of the Gentiles being brought in, and the ending of this age of grace.”
Answer:
This is a pretty bold and self-serving statement.
According to your view then, no one knew about the Atonement of Christ, they BOdy of Christ, the forming of the Church the body of Christ, the grace of God, the gospel of your salvation, the fulness of the Gentiles being brought in, prior to 1830 when Dispensationalism was first invented by JN Darby.
That’s what happens at the Rapture!
“It is by dispensationalism that you even KNOW about the Atonement of Christ, they BOdy of Christ, the forming of the Church the body of Christ, the grace of God, the gospel of your salvation, the fulness of the Gentiles being brought in, and the ending of this age of grace.”
Answer:
This is a pretty bold and self-serving statement.
According to your view then, no one knew about the Atonement of Christ, they BOdy of Christ, the forming of the Church the body of Christ, the grace of God, the gospel of your salvation, the fulness of the Gentiles being brought in, prior to 1830 when Dispensationalism was first invented by JN Darby.
Then why don’t you and other Dispensationalists use the Scriptural term - resurrection?
Why do you have to make up a non-scriptural term called the ‘rapture’?
Are Dispensationalists just trying to be ‘different’ here?
Are they trying to be ‘cute’ with God’s word?
Or, as I surmise ...
Are they really reading something extra into this so as to be more sensational. Perhaps threaten people with fear?
Hmmmm.
“Revelation was written sometime after that [after 70 A.D.]. St. John (who lived until about 95 AD) is explaining the spiritual realities behind those events.”
There’s a considerable amount of scholarship to the contrary. Many have noted how unlikely it is for the book to have been written AFTER 70 A.D. and never mention the fall of the Temple as a fact. From that, and many other textual arguments, they conclude it was written before 70 A.D. I wish I still had the reference; but there is quite a well written PhD thesis on the subject.
Of course, if Revelation (after the letters) concerns the future, then no mention of the Temple’s destruction makes more sense.
IMO, the argument that makes the least sense is that the book is actually talking about stuff that had already happened—John does explicitly say these things are to come. That happens right after the letters to the seven churches and as an introduction to the rest of the book. “Come up here and I will show you what must take place AFTER this.” 4:1.
Thanks for the reference to Scott Hahn. I will read it.
lol
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.