Are Calvinism and Premillennialism incompatible? Pilgrim says he thinks they are, but I know of nothing the Bible says that makes that so. Also, I have heard Arminians say they are, but I've never seen the proof.
I am a Calvinist. Also, I am a dispensational, pre-tribulation, premillennialist.
Believe me, People, all of this fits together very nicely!
Think of this one thing and consider whether it is consistent with reformed theology: In dispensationalism, it is thought that it is God's plan that the Jews return to temple worship and the offering of sacrifices for sin. How can this possibly be consist with the reformed view of the finished work of Christ? This one thing, more than anything else, helped me see that one cannot hold reformed and dispensational views and be consistent.
I would recommend reading John Murray's "Redemption, Accomplished and Applied" It has been a pivotal book in my understanding of the atonement and, by extension, it has informed my understanding of eschatology.
IMHO dispensational, pre-tribulation, premillennialist positions are incompatible with the doctrines of grace, and they compromise God's aseity (self-existence), and sovereignty.
I would suggest reading:
1. Some historical data on Dispensationalism. Its mere history is so full of cultic action that it should beg the question, "How could I have ever believed this mess?"
Most (there's that wacky word again) Reformed people I know would say that it is incompatible. I don't see how they can say that, though. There is nothing inconsistent with being Reformed and Premil.
As an aside....Gordon Clark was premillenial (posttrib, however).
Steve
This topic is not about the validity of dispensationalism.
And you stated an opinion, but you offered no proof
In reply to:
This topic is not about the validity of dispensationalism.
1. Premillennialism and Dispensationalism are akin.
2. If Dispensationalism is false then so is Premillennialism.
3. If Premillennialism is false then it is not compatible with Calvinism, which is true.
4. Thus, the topic of Dispensationalism is an issue, and a term used in your original post! The material I listed offers proof enough that both Premillennialism/Dispensationalism are not compatible with Calvinism.
Since, there are numerous brands of Premillennialism/Dispensationalism it would assist us in knowing exactly what you embrace. Now, if you would like to state a specific issue in Premillennialism/Dispensationalism that you claim is true I am sure we would grant your wish to get more specific (of course a whole commentary on Revelation I posted was very specific as well and if you read it you would have seen Premillennialism/Dispensationalism crumble).
According to Ezekiel, animal sacrifices are made during the Millennial Kingdom rule. At that time, the Dispensation of the Church (Grace) will be over. This will be the Dispensation of the Kingdom. At the second coming of Christ, there will be believers who go into the Kingdom who will not have glorified bodies. They will bear children, who will be born with a sin nature, and who will sin. Some of them will be very rebellious, in fact (Rev. 20:7-9). Animal sacrifices will be offered for the sins of these people. They will not be saved by Grace through faith. They will not have the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit. How could they be saved by faith, since the Messiah is right there, walking in their midst? I repeat: the Dispensation of Grace is over at that time.
Under these circumstances, temple worship and sacrifice make perfect sense to me. I don't see how this is inconsistant with reformed theology.
This brings up issues I had never thought about: namely, that during the Kingdom, I suppose God will be doing more choosing. This has been His pattern throughout all of history: He chose the Jews, He chose the prophets, He chose the Apostles, He chooses us Christians.
No one can prove that dispensationalism is false, so you are beating a dead horse.
No one can prove that premillennialism is false.
No one can prove that pretribulation is false.
Yes, dispensationalism and premillennialism do go together.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"] it would assist us in knowing what you embrace.
There are 7 dispensations. They are:
The Dispensation of: Innocence, Conscience, Human Government, Promise, Law, Church (or Grace), Kingdom.
And them after that comes eternity.
Pretrib. means the church is raptured before the tribulation.
Premill. means there is a Millennial Kingdom and Jesus Christ comes before it begins.
Have you ever heard of John MacArthur, JR. (Masters Seminary) or Dallas Theological Seminary? My beliefs are pretty much consistant with both, except on the issue of "Christian Psychology".
MacArthur’s dispensational and pre-tribulation bias appear in his commentary on Revelation:
1. in his comments about Philadelphia (3:10).
2. When discussing Rev 4:1 he falls into the familiar trap of saying that the church is nowhere mentioned in chaps 4-19.
3. the 144,000 are a select group of Jewish believers.
4. Rev 11:1-2 refers to a rebuilt Jewish temple and a restored sacrificial system.[/LIST] Now according to MacArthur the church is nowhere to be seen after chap 3. I have to ask how the 144,000 get converted if there is no one to evangelize them? While I agree that the word church does not occur in chap 4-19, what about the word [color:red]saints which occurs 12 times, not to mention [color:red]servants 6 times and [color:red]prophets 6 times? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img]
But, this is a small inconsistency as compared to much else he writes. Tell me your interpretation of Rev 20:1-6?
In reply to:
Have you ever heard of John MacArthur, JR. (Masters Seminary)
Doubtless, John MacArthur and The Masters Seminary are very well known by most all on this Board. But, I must tell you that Mr. MacArthur, although he holds to a form of Premillennialism would strongly oppose your "classical Dispensational" views! I must tell you that even as far back as 1982, MacArthur was teaching the perpetuity of the Moral Law. For, I heard him present this historic view personally. However, fredman would be most qualified to deal with the discontinuities between MacArthur's teaching and that of C.I. Scofield and John Nelson Darby.
To state
In reply to:
No one can prove that dispensationalism is false, so you are beating a dead horse.
No one can prove that premillennialism is false.
No one can prove that pretribulation is false.
is, well...... naive? Because this system of theology has been thoroughly disputed and proven wrong since its inception 160+ years ago. Perhaps you have only been exposed to this teaching and haven't had the opportunity to read and/or hear the countless arguments against it. That would surely provide an answer why you are given to such bold statements.
Can I also assume that you haven't taken the time to read anything here: Eschatology: The Doctrine of Last Things
or, perhaps this one: Dispensationalism and the Bible
or, even this one: The Scofield Bible, Dispensationalism and the Salvation of the Jews
In His Grace,
If you will read Rev. 11, you will see that there are two Christians left behind after the rapture. These two people will spread the gospel. This takes place in Israel. Some will believe them, and I assume the ones who believe, will also spread the gospel. There will be people converted after the tribulation begins. Does this answer your question?<br><br>And too, won't there still be bibles left on earth?
I said my beliefs and the teachings of John MacArthur, Jr. and Dallas Theological Seminary are pretty much the same. That was just sort of a guideline. A lot of the staff at Dallas Theological Sem. don't believe in Lordship Theology. I do. I don't own a John McArthur Study bible (I've been told there are a few inaccuracies in it), but I am in the process of buying his New Testament Commentaries.<br><br>The only reason I even brought that up to begin with, was to make the point that I am not the only Calvinist who is a dispensationalists. <br><br>I will check out some of those web sites you recommended. I got your web site from one of the pastors at Grace Community Church (MacArthur's church).
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Are Calvinism and Premillennialism incompatible? Pilgrim says he thinks they are, but I know of nothing the Bible says that makes that so. Also, I have heard Arminians say they are, but I've never seen the proof.
I am a Calvinist. Also, I am a dispensational, pre-tribulation, premillennialist.
Believe me, People, all of this fits together very nicely!
Joannah:
The problem is what you call Calvinism is just the soterology of the entire system of Reformed theology. Taken as a whole the Reformed Theology is antithetical with strict Scofield Dispensationalism or with its "reformed" version as promoted by Ryrie.
Also, while there are not many, there are premillenialists in the Reformed circles. Charles Spurgeon was one such. But they are not dispensational premillenailists they are what is know as historic premillenailists who see Christ with His church ruling an earthly reign and a earthly kingdom.
As a former Scofieldian Dispensationalist I would seriously urge you to reconsider your position and re-examine those articles that you were shown. I would also urge you to read the book by Keith A. Mathison Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God?
PrestorJohn:
Believe me, I knew when I came on this forum that most Calvinist are Amillennialist. I also know there is more to Reformed Theology than Calvinism. (I accidently picked up the word Reformed from one of the other posters and said there was no contradiction in Reformed theology and Millennial animal sacrifices, whereas what I meant was there is no contradiction in Calvinism and Millennial animal sacrifices.)
I also know that the reformers believed the Law of Moses is important in sanctification. Is that the situation on this forum?
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Taken as a whole, Reformed Theology is antithetical with strict Scofield Dispensationalism or with it's "reformed" version as promoted by Ryrie.
I'll take your word for that, but the important thing is to be biblical. There is no one group of people that I want to latch on to as being my authority. Not the Reformers or anyone else. The Word of God is the only authority.
I AM going to check out the recommended web sites.
In reply to:
If you will read Rev. 11, you will see that there are two Christians left behind after the rapture.
Thank you for affirming that the WHOLE Church was not raptured as MacArthur states (N.T.Commentary, Revelation, vol 1., page 124 ff.). MacArthur as many others make a terrible transition in Rev 3:10. They assert that the whole Church will be (raptured)kept from the hour of tribulation (tereo ek)--so much for dispensational literal translations of the text? MacArthur admits that the only other place [color:red]tereo ek is used in Scripture is John 17:15:
John 17:15 I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest [color:red]keep them from the evil.
Jesus states both passages and John wrote them (John 17:15, Rev 3:10). Notice that Christ DID NOT pray that His elect should be taken OUT OF THE WORLD (i.e. rapture), but [color:red]
kept from (through) the evil in the world. Thus, in the midst of tribulation evil will not overcome God's elect fully and finally. They will be [color:red]
kept through the hour of temptation what comes upon the world to try them that dwell upon the earth. Compare Matt 24:22, Mark 13:20, Acts 18:9-10, Isa 43:2.
There is a great deal more here that could be said, but for now that will suffice.
In reply to:
And too, won't there still be bibles left on earth?
Let us remain literal to the text shall we?
Romans 10:14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? and how shall they believe in him of whom they have [color:red]not heard? and how shall they hear [color:red]without a preacher?
[color:red]
Two Witnesses:
So two people are going to evangelize the whole world...in 1260 days. Amazing B. Graham, every denominations missionary efforts, and the rest of the Church has not been able to do this in 6000 years (+/-), but now TWO people are going to make it all happen for millions of others in 1260 days
The problem here is that you have mis-interpreted the TWO witnesses as merely two individual people. But these two witnesses represent the CHURCH bearing the testimony of the Gospel by
ministers and missionaries throughout the present dispensation. They are representative of the missionary task of the church:
Luke 10:1 After these things the LORD appointed other seventy also, and sent them [color:red]two and two before his face into every city and place, whither he himself would come.
The Lord sends His missionaries out TWO by TWO, each with different gifts complimenting the other..Thus. what you are reading in Rev 11 is the Church (still present on the earth--no rapture yet) doing God's will for 1260 days (symbolic of period of time-dispensation-from Christ's ascension to almost until the judgment day--Rev 12:14):
Revelation 12:5-14 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days. And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death. Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time. And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child. And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
Now, I know you will say that you are MORE literal with the terminology than I am and thus my interpretation must be faulty. Dispensationalists pride themselves in being so literal, but this is another discussion in and of it self for they too MUST interpret the text symbolically as well (of course only where it pleases their own system, as in MacArthur above). But, the highest order of interpretation of these TWO witnesses needs to be the Scripture themselves. The Church is represented elsewhere in Scripture by twos and its mission explained. Briefly:
1. Remember the two olive trees, the two candlesticks, and Joshua and Zerubbabel (Zec 4) each represented the offices through which God blessed Israel. This then is representative of God blessing His Church through His offices in this Gospel age through the preaching of His Word and the administration of the sacraments (two).
2. As I stated above the missionaries were sent out two by two (Luke 10:1), so throughout this Gospel Age the Church as an organization, fulfills its mission in the world. [/LIST] The Church is powerful! However this mighty Church age will come to an end. The Church as a missionary organization will come to the end of its appointed mission. The beast shall rise up and destroy much of the Church (Armageddon). But not every believer will be destroyed. A small remnant shall be here when Christ returns (Luke 18:8). But the richness of the Church's missionary effort will fade. The world will gloat and look upon the Church as defeated.
But, the two witnesses rise again. In connection with Christ's Second Coming, the Church is restored to life, honor, and the power to influence.. Then comes the end. For the world the hour of opportunity is gone, but the Church triumphant hears the words "Come Up Hither". The Church ascends and its enemies follow. The judgment now comes.
The Scripture says there is ONE judgment. How many judgments are in your system? Funny, how can there be a secret rapture when Christ comes with a Shout? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/megashout.gif" alt="megashout" title="megashout[/img]
What about your exposition of Rev 20:1-6?
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]I must tell you that even as far back as 1982, MacArthur was teaching the perpetuity of the Moral Law. For, I heard him present this historic view personally. However, fredman would be most qualified to deal with the discontinuities between MacArthur's teaching and that of C.I. Scofield and John Nelson Darby.
John wrote a rather lengthy chapter explaining his dispensationalism and critiquing classic dispensationalism in his second book dealing with the Lordship of Christ, "Faithworks: the gospel according to the apostles." I don't have a copy in front of me at the moment, but I believe it was an appendix at the end of the book. In a nut shell, his main emphasis is a distinction between the people of Israel and the Church. His take is that the promises to bless the people of Israel will be literally fulfilled.
Personally, I think Joe's apparent contradiction between premillennialism and Calvinism is rather imaginary. I have found nothing in the scripture that in any way disturbs my understanding of Revelation 20 as describing a physical reign of Christ upon the earth over all his people, and the doctrines of grace.
Fred
Personally, I think Joe's apparent contradiction between premillennialism and Calvinism is rather imaginary. I have found nothing in the scripture that in any way disturbs my understanding of Revelation 20 as describing a physical reign of Christ upon the earth over all his people, and the doctrines of grace.
It is funny you mention that, because I agree 100%. When I first started studying eschatology, I did it on my own. When I heard about POSTmillenialism, I believe it to be a hideous heresy, because that is what the liberal churches teach. Essentially, my view of POSTmillenialism was that it was essentially the social gospel, and how on earth could anybody believe that liberal junk?
Well, I was a bit humbled when I found godly men who held to such a position. I still think they are way off-base, but by no means do I believe it to be heresy!
And this is how I view premillenialism. I find nothing with respect to premillenialism inconsistent with the Bible or the Reformed position. In fact, when I study Rev 20 in isolation, I would hold emphatically to the premil position.
Steve
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Personally, I think Joe's apparent contradiction between premillennialism and Calvinism is rather imaginary. I have found nothing in the scripture that in any way disturbs my understanding of Revelation 20 as describing a physical reign of Christ upon the earth over all his people, and the doctrines of grace.
What About Rev 20?
The problem in interpreting Rev 20, if you embrace the unbiblical teachings of Dispensationalism first, is that everything else becomes tainted. If one goes outside in the Sun and is wearing "green" sunglasses then everything is shaded green, thus, the real light is subdued. But, be of good cheer the truth will set you free. God is in the business of making eyes that see (revelation). Like baptism this is a hermeneutics issue, but still VERY discernible.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]It is funny you mention that, because I agree 100%. When I first started studying eschatology, I did it on my own. When I heard about POSTmillenialism, I believe it to be a hideous heresy, because that is what the liberal churches teach. Essentially, my view of POSTmillenialism was that it was essentially the social gospel, and how on earth could anybody believe that liberal junk?
P.S. I am not Post Mil!
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]It is funny you mention that, because I agree 100%. When I first started studying eschatology, I did it on my own.
Is this supposed to be some sort of superior method of study? In fact, most every cult, sect, religion was started by someone who "studied on their own" apart from what others had written concerning the Scriptures. Keith Mathison's excellent book The Shape of Sola Scriptura has a very informative and timely chapter named "A Critique of the Evangelical Doctrine of Solo Scriptura". Now before you go off the deep end and assume things wrongly, I am NOT denigrating "self study". It is truly valuable and something MORE people should do, rather than, e.g., rely upon Scofield's or Dake's or Calvin's "notes", etc. What I AM saying is that for one to be satisfied with their own conclusions after "self study" BEFORE they ALSO consult the history of the doctrine in question can and often does end in error. Christ's Church is a BODY in which there are those with varying gifts of the Spirit. Today, we have people running around as amputated body parts with little or no relationship with the rest of the body. I'm sure you know Paul's teaching on this all too well, no? Let me use my own experience as an example, if I may. My strong Calvinist views came after "self study" in contradiction to everything that was being preached and taught by those around me. In the beginning, when I came to learn of God's indisputable sovereignty, Christ's vicarious substitutionary atonement for the elect, unconditional election, etc., I was looked upon as the proverbial "black sheep" and I began to have serious doubts even about my salvation due to my novel views. But, after getting my hands on the Jonathan Edwards' Works and then reading through books like L. Berkhof's Systematic Theology, John Owen's Works, etc., I was given great assurance that what I came to believe was the teaching of Scripture and NOT "novel", but "the truth once delivered unto the saints". There are no "Lone Rangers" in the Church of God.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]When I heard about POSTmillenialism, I believe it to be a hideous heresy, because that is what the liberal churches teach. Essentially, my view of POSTmillenialism was that it was essentially the social gospel, and how on earth could anybody believe that liberal junk?
Hopefully, you have now matured and come to realize that the gospel and eschatology of the "Liberals" has little to do with the biblical Gospel or historic Postmillennialism? Postmillennialism predates Liberalism by over a thousand years. If one were to base their aversion to doctrines held by Liberals, then all of Christianity would be discarded as so much heresy and junk. For they believe in a Jesus, salvation, etc... which is surely alien to anything the Bible teaches. Get my point? Although I do not personally hold to Postmillennialism, it is far more palatable and believable than classic Dispensationalism, which is a heresy and junk, IMHO. Simply consider the source.
In His Grace,
Pilgrim,<br>Exactly, my point was that I was kind of stupid in forming opinions on my own without at least seeing what others had said!<br><br>Steve
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The problem in interpreting Rev 20, if you embrace the unbiblical teachings of Dispensationalism first, is that everything else becomes tainted.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>And everything is NOT tainted if you are a covenantalist? Please. You are correct as always, the issue is hermeneutics, but you have yet to make a compelling case why your particular green glasses are the correct ones to wear. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/thinks.gif" alt="thinks" title="thinks[/img]<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I am not Post Mil!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Why Not?<br>Postmills can argue just like you that Amills are incompatible with Calvinism because it is a defeatist eschatology that limits the power of God's sovereignty to subdue the world.<br><br>Fred
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]And everything is NOT tainted if you are a covenantalist? Please. You are correct as always, the issue is hermeneutics, but you have yet to make a compelling case why your particular green glasses are the correct ones to wear.
Well, first study the text of Revelation, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Properly interpret the terms, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Look at the original Greek and the comparative texts in Scripture, without your sunglasses of Dispensationalism. Then read the article that is posted. They will concur (that is the Biblical text and the article). Truthfully have you ever read a history on the origins of Dispensationalism? It will turn your stomach! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img]
Challenge yourself, read Hendriksen's More than Conquerors, Bavinck's The Last Things, Cox's Amillenialism Today, or Venema's The Promise of the Future. John Wilmot's Inspired Principles of Prophetic Interpretation is also highly recommended, but you will have to find it used someplace.
Your sounding allot like Johannah:
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]I am a Zionist. Premillennialism leads to that. Believing the Bible leads to that....I will read some of those articles, but I won't ever change my mind about Israel Hell will freeze over first.
What is the use of study if one is not willing to learn? BTW I use to concur with MacArthur before I began AGAIN to restudy the issue from as impartial view point as I could (I was even a Baptist at that time [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]). Thus, growth is possible if you are interested, but if one has the mind set that "[color:red]I won't ever change my mind about Israel Hell will freeze over first" then they have become unteachable and thus, incompatible with Calvinism. (P.S. Johannah stated what she did to be "dogmatic" about her belief, and though the phraseology was troubling, she is still teachable--please do not understand otherwise. Her wording was used just as an illustration of how some study Scripture--that is just to reaffirm what they already think they know).
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Why Not? Postmills can argue just like you that Amills are incompatible with Calvinism because it is a defeatist eschatology that limits the power of God's sovereignty to subdue the world.
When I made my study (I still am learning) I inspected all the different variations the best I could. Post-Mil did not make the cut, but it certainly had more going for it than some others... A-Mil is where I ended up. It was the ONLY one I found to be consistent wholly with the biblical text.
Defeatist Theology, only because it defeats every other view! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
God's sovereignty is not limited in the A-Mil, but rather IMHO revealed. It glorifies the sovereign God to have His Word rightly divided. It glorifies the sovereign Creator to have a people He "keeps through" the hour of temptation, et. al.. Far from limiting His omnipotent power He actually puts it on display in a wondrous manner. A limiting aspect of the Pre-Trib is that Christ comes back with a shout so loud that some do not hear it. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] (joking)
Please remember that we are speaking of compatibility. Truth may only be compatible with truth. Thus, when the question is asked, "if Calvinism is compatible with XYZ" and there there can ONLY be ONE real truth... one will naturally say that everything else is inconsistent. But, this does not mean that others holding different views on this issue are not Christians or true Calvinists. It merely means they are inconsistent - in their eschatology.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Are Calvinism and Premillennialism incompatible?
One of the most thorough refutations of premillennialism was written by the 19th century presbyterian, Dr. David Brown. His 1882 book, [i]Christ's Second Coming: Will It Be Premillennial?[/i] has never been sufficiently answered by premillennialists.
As for premillennialism being "incompatable with Calvinism", John Calvin himself dismissed the Chiliasm of his day saying "But a little later there followed the Chiliasts, who limited the reign of Christ to a 1000 years. Now their fiction is too childish either to need or to be worth a refutation. And the Apocalypse, from which they undoubtedly drew a pretext for their error, does not support them. For the number 1000 (Rev 20:4) does not apply to the eternal blessedness of the church, but only to the various disturbances that awaited the church, while still toiling on the earth." [i]Institutes[/i], Book 3, Chapter 25, para 5.
In Calvin's commentary on Acts 1:8, he said, "For when we apply to it the measure of our own understanding, what can we conceive that is not gross and earthly? So it happens that like beasts our senses attract us to what appeals to our flesh, and we grasp at what is at hand. So we see that the Chialists (i.e. those who believed that Christ would reign on earth for a thousand years) fell into a like error. Jesus intended to banish from the disciples' minds a false impression regarding the earthly kingdom: for that, as He points out in a few words, consists of the preaching of the Gospel. They have no cause therefore to dream of wealth, luxury, power in the world or any other earthly thing when they hear that Christ is reigning when He subdues the world to Himself by the preaching of the Gospel. It follows from this that His reign is spiritual and not after the pattern of this world."
Also, the premillennial Bible Presbyterian Church in 1938, had to [i]revise[/i] the puritan 1647 Westminster Confession of Faith to make it reflect their own distinctive premillennial viewpoint. The BPC is unique among presbyterian and reformed denominations in having a premillenial confession of faith. (most reformed denominations are either Postmillennial or Amillennial). The 1647 (and 1788) WCF itself is worded in such a way as to allow for both Postmill and Amillennial views, but not for premillennialism.
The 19th century southern presbyterian Theologian, R. L. Dabney had called premillennialism "heterodox" in his [i]Lectures on Systematic Theology[/i].
The great 20th century defender of the faith, J. Gresham Machen said in 1923, "The recrudescence of "Chiliasm" or "premillennialism" in the modern Church causes us serious concern. It is coupled, we think, with a false method of interpreting Scripture which in the long run will be productive of harm." ([i]Christianity and Liberalism[/i] p.44).
Yet the [i]postmillennial[/i] Machen did go on to say with great charity:
"Yet how great is our agreement with those who hold the premillennial view! They share to the full our reverence for the authority of the Bible, and differ from us only in the interpretation of the Bible. They share our ascription of deity to the Lord Jesus, and our supernaturalistic conception both of the entrance of Jesus into the world and of the consummation when He shall come again. Certainly, then, from our point of view, their error, serious though it may be, is not deadly error, and Christian fellowship, with loyalty not only to the Bible but to the great creeds of the Church, can still unite us with them." ([i]ibid[/i]).
Yet despite these charitable words of J. Gresham Machen from 1923, only 15 years later, his student, the premillennialist Carl McIntire and several of his premillennial colleagues such as Francis Schaeffer, had separated themselves from Machen's recently formed Orthodox Presbyterian Church. They went on to form the Bible Presbyterian Church mentioned at the beginning of this post. Eschatology wasn't the only issue in dispute, but it was one of the major issues at that time.
For a well documented survey of the many false date settings and false predictions of premillennialists, see the book, [i]Armaggedon Now!: The Premillennial Response to Russia Since 1917[/i]. See also the book, [i]Last Days Madness[/i] by Gary DeMar.
As for dispensationalism, Oswald T. Allis's 1945 book, [i]Prophecy and the Church[/i] remains unrefuted to this day.
Lastly, see [url=http://www.reformed.com/pub/milenium.htm][u]The Premillennial Deception:
Chiliasm Examined in the Light of Scripture[/u][/url] by Rev. Brian Schwertley.
Colin
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Believe me, I knew when I came on this forum that most Calvinist are Amillennialist. I also know there is more to Reformed Theology than Calvinism. (I accidently picked up the word Reformed from one of the other posters and said there was no contradiction in Reformed theology and Millennial animal sacrifices, whereas what I meant was there is no contradiction in Calvinism and Millennial animal sacrifices.)
Johannah: lets get definitions down first all right? Calvinism is Reformed theology. However, if you wish to refer to that subset of Reformed theology (aka tulip soteriology) perhaps you could call it 5 points or something similar. Now if you wish to say that you hold to the 5 points with regards to how salvation is accomplished fine, but to say that you are Calvinist and hold to Dispensational Theology is wrong. To be a Calvinist is to be one who holds to Reformed Theology which as I said before is antithetical to Dispensational Theology.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]I also know that the reformers believed the Law of Moses is important in sanctification. Is that the situation on this forum?
Here's a little something from the London Confession that should enlighten you
The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XIII
Of Sanctification
I. They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally[1] through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them;[2] the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed,[3] and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified,[4] and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces,[5] to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.[6]
1. Acts 20:32; Rom. 6:5-6
2. John 17:17; Eph. 3:16-19; I Thess. 5:21-23
3. Rom. 6:14
4. Gal. 5:24
5. Col. 1:11
6. II Cor. 7:1; Heb. 12:14
II. This sanctification is throughout the whole man,[7] yet imperfect in this life; there abideth still some remnants of corruption in every part,[8] when ariseth a continual and irreconcilable war; the flesh lusting against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh.[9]
7. I Thess. 5:23
8. Rom. 7:18, 23
9. Gal. 5:17; I Peter 2:11
III. In which war, although the remaining corruption for a time may much prevail,[10] yet, through the continual supply of strength from the sanctifying Spirit of Christ, the regenerate part doth overcome;[11] and so the saints grow in grace, perfecting holiness in the fear of God, pressing after an heavenly life, in evangelical obedience to all the commands which Christ as Head and King, in His Word hath prescribed to them.[12]
10. Rom. 7:23
11. Rom. 6:14
12. Eph. 4:15-16; II Cor. 3:18; 7:1
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]P.S. I am not Post Mil! </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>That's okay Joe those of us who are still like you [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/cheers.gif" alt="cheers" title="cheers[/img].<br>
Thanks. I know you are working hard and gradually overwhelming and minimizing the presence of evil in the world and everything will be perfect and complete when I finally.... [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bravo.gif" alt="bravo" title="bravo[/img]
I knew you would come around! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/thewave.gif" alt="thewave" title="thewave[/img]
Nothing in there says the law of Moses in important in sanctification, so I will assume the answer to my question is NO. So, like me, you think that Christ' death freed us from the curse of the law.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Nothing in there says the law of Moses in important in sanctification, so I will assume the answer to my question is NO. So, like me, you think that Christ' death freed us from the curse of the law.
Let me quickly disabuse you of that notion. I am in no way an antinomian
The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter XIX
Of the Law of God
I. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil;[1] by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience;[2] promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it, and endued him with power and ability to keep it.[3]
1. Gen. 1:27; Eccl. 7:29
2. Rom. 10:5
3. Gal. 3:10, 12
II. The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall,[4] and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai, in ten commandments, and written in two tables, the four first containing our duty towards God, and the other six, our duty to man.[5]
4. Rom. 2:14-15
5. Deut. 10:4
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits;[6] and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties,[7] all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.[8]
6. Heb. 10:1; Col. 2:17
7. I Cor. 5:7
8. Col. 2:14, 16-17; Eph. 2:14, 16
IV. To them also He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any now by virtue of that institution; their general equity only being for modern use.[9]
9. I Cor. 9:8-10
V. The moral law doth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof,[10] and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator, who gave it;[11] neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation.[12]
10. Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12
11. James 2:10-11
12. Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31
VI. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned,[13] yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin;[14] together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of His obedience: it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatening of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. These promises of it likewise shew them God's approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man's doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.[15]
13. Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 8:1; 10:4
14. Rom. 3:20; 7:7-25
15. Rom. 6:12-14; I Peter 3:8-13
VII. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it,[16] the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.[17]
16. Gal. 3:21
17. Ezek.36:27
Please pay close attention to the high lighted areas. I also suggest you get this resource:
Refcon 3
and read these articles:
The Moral Law a Rule of Obedience by Samuel Bolton
The Law and the Saint by A.W. Pink
The Perpetuity of the Law of God C. H. Spurgeon
The Law not Abrogated by Christ to Believers by Ernest F. Kevan
I hope that clears up some confusion.
Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The scripture says there is ONE judgement. How many judgements are in your system?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>THERE ARE SEVERAL:<br><br>Bema Seat Judgement (Believers' Works)<br>Time - During tribulation <br>Place - Bema of Christ<br>Persons - Believers in Christ<br>Basis - Works and walk of the Christian life<br>Results - Rewards or loss of rewards<br>Scripture - 1 Cor. 3:10-15; 2 Cor. 5:10<br><br>Old Testament Saints, Tribulation Saints, Living Jews, Living Gentiles<br>Time - End of Tribulation/Second Coming<br>Place - Living Jews - Wilderness, Living Gentiles - Valley of Jehoshaphat<br>Persons - Believers in Old testament times, Believers of Tribulation period, Jews and Gentiles who survive the Tribulation<br>Basis - O.T. Saints - Faith in God; Living Jew - Faith in Christ; Tribulation Saints, Living Gentiles - Faith and Faithfulness to Christ<br>Rewards - O.T. Saints - Rewards, Trib. Saints - Reign with Christ in Millennium, Living Jews - Believers enter Milennium, rebels are purged, Living Gentiles - Believers enter the kingdom, others go to lake of fire<br>Scripture - Dan. 12:1-3; Rev. 20:4-6; Ezek. 20:34-38; Joel 3:1-2; Matt. 25:31-46<br><br>Great White Throne (Unsaved People)<br>Time - End of Millennium<br>Place - Before the Great White Throne<br>Persons - Unbelievers of all time<br>Basis - Rejection of God<br>Results - Lake of fire<br>Scripture - Rev. 20:11-15<br><br>And then, of course, Satan and Fallen Angels will also be judged at the end of the millennium and thrown into the lake of fire.
Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What about your exposition of Rev. 20:1-6?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Exposition of Rev. 20:1-6<br><br>I am not a Bible teacher or a theologian. Actually, I don't have an exposition of Rev. 20:1-6. When I am not certan what a bible verse means, I go to someone who is usually right and let them explain it to me.<br><br>Here is what John F. Walvoord has to say on these verses. He is one of those who is usually right.<br><br>Rev. 20:4<br>...John recorded that he saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. In addition he saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their standing true to the Lord and His Word in the Great Tribulation. The fact that John could see them implies that they had received intermediate bodies in heaven and were awaiting their resurrection.<br><br>A distinction should be made between what John saw and what he received as revelation. Though he could see the souls, he was informed that they had been beheaded because they had refused to worship the beast or his image and would not receive his mark. What John saw was not all the souls in heaven but a particular generation of martyred dead who had been contemporaneous with the world ruler the beast out of the sea (13:1) If the church were raptured prior to this event, as premillennarians teach, it would make sense to single out these martyred dead for resurrection. But if the church were not raptured, it would be most unusual to ignore all the martyrs of preceeding generations, the church as a whole, and to specify this relatively small group.<br><br>John apparently was not told the identity of the individuals seated on the thrones. They evidently do not include the martyred dead themselves. Christ had predicted (Luke 22:29-30) that the 12 diciples would "eat and drink at My table in My kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel." As the disciples are also a part of the church, the body of Christ, it would be natural for them to sit on these thrones.<br><br>According to the Scriptures, a series of judgements is related to Christ's return. The beast and the false prophet will be cast into the fiery lake (Rev. 19:20), Satan will be cast into the Abyss (20:1-3), and then the martyred dead of the Great Tribulation will be judged and rewarded (v. 4). In addition, Isreal will be judged (Ezek. 20:33-38), and the Gentiles will be judged (matt. 25:31-46). These judgements preceed and lead up to the millennial kingdom.<br><br>John stated that these martyred dead came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Their coming to life suggests that they will be given resurrection bodies. In addition to receiving the visual revelation, John was informed as to the meaning and character of the judgement that was here taking place.<br><br>I will do verses 5 and 6 on another post. I think verses 1-3 are pretty self-explainitory.
I'm not an antinomian either. I will respond to the rest of your post tomorrow.I said on another post that all the Ten Commandments, except the commandment on the sabbath, are repeated in the New Testament.
Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What about your exposition of Rev. 20:1-6?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Here is John F. Walvood's commentary on V.5:<br><br>Rev. 20:5<br>John was also informed that the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended. this refers to the resurrection of the wicked dead, discussed later (vv. 11-15).<br><br>John stated that what he was seeing is the first resurrection. Posttribulationists refer to this as proof that the church will not be raptured before the Tribulation and that no resurrection has taken place prior to this point in fulfillment of God's prophetic program. It should be obvious, however, that in no sense could this be the number-one resurrection chronologically because historically Christ was the first to rise from the dead with a transformed, resurrected body. There was also the resurrection "of many" (Matt. 27:52-53) which took place when Christ died. In what sense then can this resurrection in Revelation 20:5 be "first"?<br><br>As the contest which follows indicates, "the first resurrection" (vv. 5-6) contrasts with the last resurrection (vv. 12-13), which is followed by "the second death" (vv. 6, 14). It is first in the sense of before. All the righteous, regardless of when they are raised, take part in the resurrection which is first or before the final resurrection (of the wicked dead) at the end of the Millennium. This supports the conclusion that the resurrection of the righteous is by stages. Christ was "the Firstfruits" (1 Cor. 15:23), which was preceded by the token resurrection of a number of saints (Matt. 27:52-53). Then will occur the Rapture of the church, which will include the resurrection of dead church saints and the translation of living church saints (1 Thes. 4:13-18). The resurrection of the two witnesses will occur in the Great Tribulation (Rev. 11:3, 11). Then the resurrection of the martyred dead of the Great Tribulation will occur soon after Christ returns to earth (20:4-5). To these may be added the resurrection of the Old Testament saints which apparantly will also occur at this time, though it is not mentioned in this text (cf. Isa.. 26:19-21; Ezek. 37:12-14; Dan. 12:2-3).
Joe said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]What about your exposition of Rev. 20:1-6?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Commentary on V.6 by John F. Walvoord<br>The Bible Knowledge Commentary<br><br>Rev. 20:6<br>All those who share in the resurrection of the righteous are said to be blessed and holy, and the second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years. While all the righteous will be raised before the Millennium, individuals will retain their identities and their group identifications such as Gentile believers and believers in Israel in the Old Testament, the church of the New testament and saints of the Tribulation.<br><br>It should be noted that the term 'a thousand years" occurs six times in chapter 20. This was not something that could be seen visually; John had to be informed of it and the vision had to be interpreted as relating to a period of a thousand years. While amillenarians and others have tended to view this as nonliteral, there is no evidence to support this conclusion. This is the only chapter in Revelation where a period of a thousand years is mentioned, and the fact that it is mentioned six times and is clearly described as a period of time before which and after which events take place lead to the conclusion that it means a literal thousand-year period.<br><br>Since other time designations in Revelation are literal (e.g., "42 months," 11:2; 13:5; "1,260 days," 11:3; 12:6) it is natural to take "a thousand years" literally also. If the term "a thousand years" designates a nonspecific but long period of time, the present Age between Christ's two advents, as amillenarians hold, then one would expect John to say simply that Christ would reign "a long time," in contrast to the "short time" of Satan's release (20:3).<br><br>Events which precede the thousand years are (a) the second coming of Christ, (b) the beast and the false prophet thrown into the fiery lake, (c) the armies destroyed, (d) Satan bound and locked in the Abyss, (e) thrones of judgment introduced, and (f) the martyred dead of the Tribulation resurrected. These events revealed in their proper sequence make it clear that the thousand-year period follows all these events, including the second coming of Christ. The conclusion that the Seond Coming is premillennial is clearly supported by a normal, literal interpretation of this text. <br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]While amillenarians and others have tended to view this as nonliteral, there is no evidence to support this conclusion. This is the only chapter in Revelation where a period of a thousand years is mentioned, and the fact that it is mentioned six times and is clearly described as a period of time before which and after which events take place lead to the conclusion that it means a literal thousand-year period.</font><hr></blockquote><p> And here is the problem. There is NO PROOF he is right. Walvoord just offered his opinion. As one elderly lady once said in her philosophical ideology, "
Where's the Beef".<br><br>The issue is simply hermeneutics and Scriptural proof. The Scripture explains itself and Venema reveals it.<br><br>Look at this great truth from
What About Rev 20:<br><br>One of the intriguing features of the vision of Revelation 20 is its reference to a period of one thousand years. For most premillennialists, this language must simply be taken literally as a reference to a distinct period in history after the return of Christ. Particularly within the context of Dispensational Premillennialism with its commitment to a literalistic reading of the Bible, the language of Revelation 20 is regarded as sufficient to prove the error of Amillennialism and Postmillennialism. Because these two views treat the language of one thousand years in Revelation 20 non-literally, as referring to a long period within God’s superintendence during which Satan is bound and the kingdom of Christ is manifested, they are charged with wrongly spiritualizing the meaning of this language. Furthermore, if it is objected that this is the only passage in Scripture which speaks of a one-thousand-year period, the premillennialist response is typically that one passage should be more than adequate to make the point. If this passage clearly teaches a literal millennium of one thousand years, who has the right to deny its teaching?<br><br>Before looking at the expression ‘one thousand years’ more directly, two general observations are to be made regarding this premillennialist claim. First, the insistence that the language of Revelation (and of all Scripture) be taken literally betrays a way of reading the Bible that we have earlier contested. A book like Revelation, with its rich symbolism and use of biblical types and figures, gives no obvious reason to take literally the term of one thousand years. If much of the book is written in language that is clearly not literal, some reason needs to be given why this must be the case in the vision of Revelation 20 with its use of ‘one thousand years’. Second, there is reason to pause before conceding the argument of Premillennialism here precisely because no other passage of Scripture speaks of a literal period in history of one thousand years (whether before or after Christ’s return). One of the great difficulties in the case for Premillennialism is the relative lack of support for its doctrine of the millennium from other passages in Scripture. This suggests that before we concede as self-evident the claim that one thousand years must mean one thousand literal years, we consider whether Scripture might not support a different reading of this expression.<br><br>Those who argue that the thousand years is not to be taken literally often note that it is a perfect cube of ten, ten being a number of completeness. This would suggest, then, that the reference to a one-thousand-year period should be taken as symbolic of a perfect and complete number within the purpose of God. This is a plausible way of reading this language, but it tends to be too abstract. It still remains to ask, Do the Scriptures elsewhere use the number one thousand in a symbolic way which might cast some light upon Revelation 20?<br><br>As a matter of fact, the use of the term ‘one thousand’ in the Scriptures seems quite pertinent to the interpretation of Revelation 20. Though in some instances the number may be quite literal (for example, Gen. 20:16, Ezra 1:9-10) or possibly literal as well as symbolic (for example, Judg. 15:15-16, 1 Chron. 29:21), in other instances it has a clearly symbolic meaning. In Deuteronomy 7:9, the Lord is described as a ‘faithful God who keeps covenant and mercy for a thousand generations with those who love him and keep his commandments’. In the summary of the law given in Exodus 20, a contrast is drawn between the Lord’s visiting of judgement upon the third and fourth generations of those who hate him, and his ‘showing lovingkindness to thousands’ who love him and keep his commandments (Exod. 20:5-6). Similarly, in the Psalms we read that the ‘cattle on a thousand hills’ belong to the Lord (Psa. 50:10-11). The Psalmist also speaks of how a ‘day in Thy courts is better than a thousand’ (Psa. 84:10). In the well-known words of Psalm 90, the believer confesses that ‘a thousand years in Thy sight are like yesterday when it passes by, or as a watch in the night’ (verse 4). Responding to the mockers who mocked the promise of the Lord’s coming, the Apostle Peter notes that ‘with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day’ (2 Pet. 3:8).<br><br>What these passages indicate is that the number one thousand is often used in the Scriptures to refer to an extensive period of time. The use of one thousand years in Revelation is, when interpreted against the background of this usage of the symbolism of one thousand, likely a reference to a period of fullness, completion and perfection so far as God’s redemptive plan is concerned. This expression is not meant to teach that the millennium will be a period of 365,000 days, not one more nor one less. Just as God’s faithfulness is perfect and never failing (unto one thousand generations), so the times within his redemptive purposes are perfect and never failing. The most that can be concluded, then, from the use of the number one thousand in Revelation 20 is that the period of Satan’s binding will be great and full, not small and empty, of years. That this is the sense of the vision is only reinforced by the contrasting language that describes Satan’s season of rebellion as a little season, suggesting that it is a meagre and limited period of time within the will of God.<br><br>To summarize: in this first section of the vision of Revelation 20, we have a representation of that period of history between the time of Christ’s first coming and his return at the end of age, in which Satan has been bound so as no longer to be able to deceive the nations. The millennium is now, the period in which Christ’s kingdom is advancing by his Spirit and Word and the nations are being discipled. This period is not a literal period of one thousand years, but the entire period, perfect, complete and extensive, between the first and second comings of Christ. Compared to the vast expanse and power of the kingdom of Christ, the period of Satan’s rebellion at the end of the age prior to Christ’s return, will be pathetically small and limited in scope.
I have Walvoord's Prophecy Knowledge Handbook and have read his The Revelation of Jesus Christ (actually this may be on-line someplace). He is very lacking though in his exposition. He admits that he approached Revelation from a preterist tinted view of interpretation. He is a graduate from Dallas Theological Seminary and some other like Wheaton, Liberty Baptist Seminary, and Texas Christian University. He is not Reformed in his theology, though he was Professor of Systematic Theology at Dallas Theological Seminary for over fifty years and also served as the President of the seminary from 1953 to1986. He admits that the two men who most influenced him, as he developed as a thinker, were Lewis Sperry Chafer and C.I. Scofield. Thus, I say once AGAIN go back and study the HISTORY behind old CI and you will end up scolding (Scofield) him [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]. Now onto his exposition, read below a very able refute:<br><br><ul>i. The theme of angelic ascent and descent[/LIST] The vision of Revelation 20 begins with the descent of an angel from heaven in order to bind Satan for a period of one thousand years. [color:blue]In other instances in the book of Revelation where an angel’s ascent or descent begins a new vision sequence, the vision portrays the course of events from the present time to the time of Christ’s return at the end of the age.</font color=blue> For example, similar visions of an angel ascending or descending are found in Revelation 7:2, 10:1 and 18:1. In these instances, the angel’s ascent or descent occurs at a time clearly prior to the return of Christ and marks the beginning of a vision whose sequence of events concludes with the coming of Christ in final victory over his enemies. It would not be surprising, accordingly, were the angel’s descent in Revelation 20 to be another instance of this pattern. Not only would this be consistent with the structuring of the book of Revelation throughout, but it would also be following a pattern evident elsewhere, in which vision sequences that parallel each other are introduced by the announcement of an ascending or descending angel.<br><br><ul>ii. The discrepancy between Revelation 19:11-21 and Revelation 20:1-3[/LIST] Secondly, the visions of Revelation 19 and Revelation 20 show an obvious discrepancy if they are read in chronological sequence. In Revelation 19:11-21, especially verses 19-21, we see a vision of Christ’s triumph over and destruction of the nations that are opposed to his kingdom. The language used to describe this triumph is vigorous: all the nations are described as taking up arms against Christ and are said to fall without exception by the sword that he wields against them. Christ’s victory over the nations is complete and final. They are wholly destroyed at his coming. [color:blue]However, if the vision of Revelation 20 follows in time and sequence the vision of Revelation 19, it seems senseless to speak of the binding of Satan in order to prevent his deception of the nations. Presumably, nations that have been utterly destroyed constitute no viable or continuing threat to the reign of Christ or the deceptive wiles of Satan. What sense does it make to speak of nations being protected from Satanic deception, when those nations which were formerly deceived by Satan have now been completely vanquished</font color=blue>?<br><br>Premillennialists who recognize this discrepancy might suggest, in order to mute its obvious implications for their view, that the nations of Revelation 20 are survivors of the battle described in Revelation 19. This suggestion, however, presents two difficulties. On the one hand, the language of the nations’ defeat in Revelation 19 is too absolute to allow for the notion that some nations survive unscathed. And on the other hand, the terminology of ‘the nations’ in Revelation typically denotes nations in their opposition to Christ and his church. The nations are the nations in rebellion against the Lord’s anointed. However, on this premillennialist construction, the nations of Revelation 20 would actually be the peoples of the earth during the millennial reign of Christ. The nations of Revelation 20 would have a different reference from the nations mentioned just before in Revelation 19.<br><br><ul>iii. The use of Ezekiel 38-39 in these visions[/LIST] In the visions of Revelation 19 and 20, the language used is extensively borrowed from Ezekiel 38-39. This prophecy describes a great end-time battle between the Lord and the nations of the north who are opposed to him and his people. In the description of this great battle upon the mountains of Israel, reference is made to Gog, prince of Rosh, Meshech and Tubal, and to Magog.<br><br>There are several striking parallels between Ezekiel 38-39 and Revelation 19 and 20. In Revelation 19:17-18, an angel issues an invitation to the great supper of God. This is almost an exact quotation of the invitation extended for the Gog-Magog conflict in the prophecy of Ezekiel (39:17-20). However, in Revelation 20:7-10, when the Apostle John describes the great warfare that will conclude Satan’s little season at the close of the millennium, the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding Gog-Magog is again drawn upon extensively. The nations in rebellion are termed Gog and Magog (verse 8; cf. Ezek. 38:2; 39:1, 6). The weapon used by God to destroy Gog-Magog is a fire coming down from heaven (verse 9; cf. Ezek. 38:22; 39:6). This means that the Apostle John, in his respective descriptions of the rebellion and defeat of the nations in Revelation 19 and 20, is drawing upon identical language and imagery from Ezekiel’s prophecy. It seems hard to believe, accordingly, that the episodes described in these visions are different episodes in history, separated by a period of one thousand years duration. A much more plausible reading would conclude that these visions describe the same event and are to be read as parallel descriptions of the same historical period.<br><br><ul>iv. The battle of Revelation 19:19 and 20:8[/LIST] The visions of Revelation 19 and 20 show a similar parallelism in their description of the battle that will terminate the period of history portrayed in them. [color:blue]In three instances in the book of Revelation, an end-time conflict between Christ and his enemies, a conflict in which Christ is triumphant and the rebellious nations defeated, is described as ‘the battle’.</font color=blue> Not only is the definite article used, suggesting that this battle represents a final and conclusive defeat of Christ’s enemies, but also the language used to describe the nations’ revolt and campaign against Christ is virtually identical (see Rev. 16:14; 19:19, 20:8).<br><br>Interpreters of the book of Revelation readily acknowledge the parallels between the description in Revelation 16:14-21 of the battle on the great day of Christ’s second coming and the description in Revelation 19:19-21. The latter battle is regarded commonly as a resumption and conclusion of the battle first described in Revelation 16. Fewer interpreters have noticed the similarities of language in Revelation 20:7-10 in its description of the Gog-Magog revolt. This is likely due to the assumption that the battle of Revelation 20:8 refers to a different battle after the millennium from the battle that occurred before the millennium at the time of Christ’s second coming.<br><br>If we reckon with the possibility of a parallel description of the same period of history in Revelation 19 and 20, then it is likely that the battle described in these passages is one and the same battle. Rather than positing the reoccurrence of a similar conflict and victory for Christ at the end of the millennium, a conflict that replays the earlier war that concluded history at Christ’s second coming, it is more likely that these battles are the same battle, variously described in visions that parallel each other and depict the same historical period.5<br><br><ul>v. The end of God’s wrath[/LIST] When Revelation 19 and 20 are read as two visions in sequence, a further discrepancy is introduced. Just as we noted a discrepancy between the complete destruction of all the rebellious nations in Revelation 19 and their continued presence in Revelation 20 (were these two visions describing events in sequence), [color:blue]so there is a discrepancy between the end of God’s wrath in Revelation 19 and the further outpouring of his wrath and judgement yet again in Revelation 20.</font color=blue><br><br>Revelation 15:1 contains an important declaration regarding the end of God’s wrath: ‘And I saw another sign in heaven, great and marvelous, seven angels who had seven plagues, which are the last, because in them the wrath of God is finished.’ This verse indicates that the dispensing of the seven bowls of wrath by the seven angels will bring to a close the outpouring of God’s wrath upon the wicked in the course of history. The last of these bowls of wrath is described in Revelation 16:17-21, a passage that concludes with the final defeat of Christ’s enemies, the nations in the vision of Revelation 19:19-21. The vision of Revelation 19, therefore, represents the completion of the course of history and the finishing of God’s wrath upon the nations. The time frame for the fulfilment of the outpouring of God’s wrath in Revelation 15:1 is concluded by the vision of Revelation 19.<br><br>[color:blue]However, on a premillennialist reading of the visions of Revelation 19 and 20, the battle and pouring out of God’s wrath in the vision of Revelation 20 comes one thousand years later than the battle and pouring out of God’s wrath in the vision of Revelation 19. Thus, this reading conflicts with the teaching of Revelation 15:1.</font color=blue> It suggests that God’s wrath in history is not finished with the events depicted in the vision of Revelation 19. Some one thousand years later would come another and truly last outpouring of God’s wrath upon the nations. The deadline set for the completion of God’s wrath in history in Revelation 15:1 would be exceeded. For this and the reasons already mentioned, it makes better sense to read the vision of Revelation 20 as a recapitulation of the period of history earlier described in Revelation 19. Both visions would then be describing the same battle at the close of history with the final outpouring of God’s wrath upon the nations.<br><br><ul>vi. The cosmic destruction of Revelation 19:11-21 and 20:9-11[/LIST] Finally, another parallel in the visions of Revelation 19 and 20 reflects the influence of Old Testament prophecy. The Old Testament scenes of the Lord’s judgements and triumphs among the nations often refer to the involvement of the created universe in these events. [color:blue]Similarly, many of the visions in Revelation of the warfare between Christ and his enemies describe the shaking of the cosmos itself.</font color=blue> It is remarkable to notice in a series of such descriptions in the book of Revelation, how this shaking accompanies the coming of Christ as King and the exercise of his judgement upon the nations (e.g., 6:12-17; 16:17-21; 19:11-21; 20:9-11). [color:blue]The last two instances of this association of Christ’s coming in victory and the shaking of the earth itself occur in the visions of Revelation 19 and 20.</font color=blue><br><br>Again, this would confirm that these visions describe the same end-time event, but from a slightly different vantage point. Since the shaking of the earth at Christ’s coming is elsewhere said to be the last instance of such shaking, after which nothing shakeable will remain to be shaken further (Heb. 12:26-27), it would not make sense to say that the shaking of the cosmos at Christ’s second coming (Rev. 19) would still have to be followed by a further shaking of the cosmos at the end of the millennium (Rev. 20). A more likely reading would take these two visionary descriptions of this shaking to refer to the end of present history at the second coming of Christ.<br><br>These various clues and indicators of parallels between the visions of Revelation 19 and 20 having been considered, it may be helpful to summarize their significance for the understanding of the vision of the millennium in Revelation 20.<br><br>[color:blue]The premillennialist position depends significantly upon the claim that the visions of Revelation 19 and 20 are to be read in sequence. Since Revelation 19 is a vision of the return of Christ, and since the millennium of Revelation 20 follows this event, it seems that the premillennial position is the most likely one. However, if the considerations we have summarized in the preceding are correct, the premillennial position is seriously compromised, if not refuted. Not only does Premillennialism enjoy little support from other portions of Scripture, but it also fails to provide a plausible account of the relation between the visions of Revelation 19 and 20. For if these visions are not to be read in sequence but as parallel accounts of the same period of history, then the millennium of Revelation 20 would precede rather than follow the event of Christ’s return at the end of the age.</font color=blue><br><br>This seems to be the conclusion to which the above considerations lead. Just as the vision of Revelation 19 describes the return of Christ, the complete destruction of all of the nations, the last outpouring of God’s wrath at the close of the present period of history, so the vision of Revelation 20 closes with a description of the return of Christ at the close of the millennium, the complete destruction of all the nations, and the last outpouring of God’s wrath at the close of the present period of history. The parallels between these visions — in language, symbolism, use of Old Testament prophecy, and content — is so pervasive and compelling as to yield but one likely explanation: they are describing the same period of history, the same episodes and the same conclusion at the end of the age.<br><br>This means that in our study of the vision in Revelation 20 of the millennium, we have every reason to believe that the millennium it describes is now. The millennium of Revelation 20 coincides with the period of history prior to Christ’s return at the end of the age, prior to the day of Christ’s final victory over his and his people’s enemies, and prior to the last judgement and all the other events that will accompany the close of this present age.
The premillennial system requires a prophetic future with multiple resurrections and end-time judgments. The Bible, in contrast, repeatedly refers to the prophetic future in terms of a single resurrection and a single judgment. The only passage premillennialists have to prove their multiple resurrection theory is Revelation 20:4-6, which has already been refuted.<br><br>Does the Bible teach that there is a 1000-year gap between the second coming of Christ and the final judgment? Does it teach that there is a 1000-year gap between the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked? Actually, there is no gap between these events. In fact, the Bible teaches that these events are to occur on the very same day. Thus, Premillennialism is theologically and biblically impossible.<br><br>The gospels and epistles present a unified picture of the second coming and the judgment by Jesus Christ. The second coming of Christ, the rapture, the resurrection of the righteous and wicked, and the judgment of the righteous and the wicked all are to occur on the same day. The Apostle Paul teaches that when Christ returns, He will take vengeance on the wicked. The wicked will receive everlasting destruction, but Christ will dwell with the saints. All who believe will admire and glorify Christ. When will this occur? On [color:blue]that day</font color=blue> (singular), [color:blue]when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe</font color=blue> (2 Th. 1:7-10). Is there a 1000-year gap between the destruction of the wicked and the glorification of the saints? No, they both occur on that day. Does Christ crush the wicked from His throne in Jerusalem? No, He is revealed from heaven. On the final day Christ comes from heaven to judge all men, both the righteous and the wicked. The reward of the righteous and the punishment of the wicked are interwoven with each other as to time, and made to follow, both of them, immediately on the coming of the Lord. Surely this passage should make perfectly clear that there is no secret rapture to be followed at an interval of seven years by an open revelation of the Lord and His glory to the world. Surely it is perfectly clear also that since the coming of the Lord brings upon the wicked [color:blue]eternal destruction away from the face of the Lord,</font color=blue> there are no wicked who will survive His coming to be ruled over a millennium to follow. But there must be wicked people surviving, according to the premillennial scheme.
PrestorJohn,<br>Re:<br>"The London Confession of Baptist Faith" chapter XIII "Of Sanctification."<br><br>Would you mind listing several of these "Moral Laws" from the Mosais Law that we Christians are under - that are NOT repeated elsewhere in the Bible?<br><br>I don't need all of them, just 3 or 4 would help alleviate my confusion.<br><br>Thanks,<br>Johannah<br><br><br><br>
Johannah,<br><br>Obviously, I'm not Prestor John! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img] But I would like to comment/answer your question:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Would you mind listing several of these "Moral Laws" from the Mosais Law that we Christians are under - that are NOT repeated elsewhere in the Bible?</font><hr></blockquote><p>First of all the Moral Law is NOT "Mosaic". The laws which were engraved in stone when Moses was on Mt. Sinai were not new...... they were in effect 1000's of years before Moses. They were simply emphasized once again at that time. Secondly, there are NONE which are not repeated elsewhere in the Bible, for they permeate the Scriptures from Genesis to Revelation. They are PERPETUAL and perpetually BINDING, upon every man, woman and child, that has ever been born on earth. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] God's standard of holiness cannot be bifurcated or abrogated. Either one lives according to the holy standards of God's character revealed or one doesn't. Even the Lord Christ was bound to keep the law perfectly; He who was the author of that Law. Men are either justified by keeping it; personally or vicariously or they are condemned for breaking it. It is the foundation of God's justice. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
Pilgrim,<br>Do you keep the Sabbath holy? The Sabbath Commandment is carved in stone. No one is told anywhere else in Scripture to "keep" it. Not even in Genesis. Saturday is and always has been the Sabbath. Ask any Jew. The Ten Commandments are just a summary of the 320 other Laws. Nine of them are repeated in the New Testament, but the commandmend on the Sabbath isn't.<br><br>I think we are back where we started.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Sabbath Commandment is carved in stone. No one is told anywhere else in Scripture to "keep" it.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I really don't know where you get your information from, but it certainly isn't reliable. Perhaps you should reconsider who you read? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img] The "Sabbath" was indeed carved in stone, but that surely isn't the first occurrence of the Sabbath. The Sabbath began in the Garden of Eden and will be finally expressed at the ushering in of the New Heaven and New Earth, where every day will be a Sabbath unto the Lord. If you
truly are interested in learning about the Sabbath from a biblical standpoint, then I would recommend Dr. Francis Nigel Lee's book,
The Covenantal Sabbath, which is out of print. But, would you believe . . . it just so happens to be online here:
The Covenantal Sabbath.<br><br>Admittedly, the book is rather "hard going" in the beginning chapters, but well worth the effort. This is probably THE classic work on the Sabbath as it deals with nearly every aspect, question, etc., ever devised by man. The Scriptural references are plentiful, so much so, that the footnotes, which number far in excess of 1000 are all "hot linked" within the text so that they can be referenced quickly if desired. If after reading that book, assuming you are even interested, you are still convinced that the "Sabbath" is irrelevant to Christians today, I'll leave you to your error as only the Spirit can truly change the mind and heart. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
I didn't read all of the site you suggested, but I did read the chapter "The Sabbath in the Reformed Church." I see now where you are coming from. I have always wondered how it all came about and why - now I know. Thanks.
I assume everyone had seen a list of the 7 dispensations, but you might want to have another look.<br><br>
http://www.lightandlamp.com/seven.htm
I found this statement in a booklet I am reading on Election. Will someone tell me what this statement means? I don't understand Covenant Theology, so I'm not sure what the author is talking about:<br>___________________________________________________ <br>It is true that the Bible says that Christ gave His life a ranson "for many" (Matt. 20:28), "for the sheep" (John 10:11), and for "the church" (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). It should be noted, in passing, that here is a link between five point Calvinism and so-called "covenant" or anti-dispenstional theology. No one believes that Christ died for saints of this age alone, so in order to view the word "church" in such verses as Ephesians 5:25 as equivalent to "the elect of all ages" one is led to a denial of dispensational teaching. But these statements do not deny that He died for others also, and in fact are no more exclusive than are the statements, "Christ died for me," and "This is my country." <br><br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]It is true that the Bible says that Christ gave His life a ranson "for many" (Matt. 20:28), "for the sheep" (John 10:11), and for "the church" (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). It should be noted, in passing, that here is a link between five point Calvinism and so-called "covenant" or anti-dispenstional theology. No one believes that Christ died for saints of this age alone, so in order to view the word "church" in such verses as Ephesians 5:25 as equivalent to "the elect of all ages" one is led to a denial of dispensational teaching. [color:red]But these statements do not deny that He died for others also</font color=red>, and in fact are no more exclusive than are the statements, "Christ died for me," and "This is my country." </font><hr></blockquote><p> Truth + Error = Error. It would be interesting to know the name of the book and author. There are some who "claim" to be 4 point Calvinists, but in reality are 4 point Arminians.<br><br>Christ did die for ONLY the elect: "for many" (Matt. 20:28), "for the sheep" (John 10:11), and for "the church" (Acts 20:28; Eph. 5:25). Historical Christianity does lead to anti-dispensational thinking. An easy-way to picture this is with this edited JO paradigm:<br><br>God imposed his wrath due unto, and Christ underwent the pains of hell for,<br><br><ul>1. either all the sins of all men,<br>2. or all the sins of some men,<br>3. or some sins of all men.[/LIST] If the last (3), [color:red]some sins of all men</font color=red>, then have all men some sins to answer for, and so shall no man be saved; for if God entered into judgment with us, though it were with all mankind for one sin, no flesh should be justified in his sight: “If the LORD should mark iniquities, who should stand?” Ps. cxxx. 2. We might all go to cast all that we have “to the moles and to the bats, to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty,” Isa. ii. 20, 21.<br><br>If the Second (2), that is it which we affirm, that Christ in their stead and room Suffered for [color:red]all the sins of all the elect in the world</font color=red>.<br><br>If the first (1), why then, are not all freed from the punishment of all their sins?<br><br>You will say, “Because of their unbelief; they will not believe.”<br><br>[color:red]But this unbelief, is it a sin, or not</font color=red>?<br><br>If not, why should they be punished for it? If it be, then Christ underwent the punishment due to it, or not.<br><br>If so, then why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which he died from partaking of the fruit of his death?<br><br>If he did not, then did he not die for all their sins. Let them choose which part they will.
The name of the booklet is:<br>Did Christ Die Only For The Elect?<br>By Charles R. Smith, Th.D<br>Grace Theological Seminary<br><br>Here is another quote from this booklet about limited atonement:<br><br>What was it intended to accomplish? Was it divinely planned only on behalf of the elect as the means by which God "infallibly secured their salvation"? (Spurgeon) Or was it intended as a provision on behalf of all men, in anticipation of which, God, in righteousness, could choose some to whom He would ultimately apply the benefits of that provision?<br><br>I think the last sentence is supposedly the way 4-point Calvinist see the atonement. That statement, to me, is extemely confusing.<br><br>
This may confuse or help the issue I am not sure. Tell me have you ever heard the terms Common/General Grace (for all) and Particular/Special Grace (the elect alone). Some do not believe in common grace--I do!
Berkhof states: The distinction between common and special grace is not one that applies to grace as an attribute in God. There are no two kinds of grace in God, but only one. It is that perfection of God in virtue of which he shows unmerited and even forfeited favor to man. This one grace of God manifests itself, however, in different gifts and operations. The richest manifestation of it is seen in those gracious operations of God which aim at, and result in, the removal of the guilt, the pollution, and the punishment of sin, and the ultimate salvation of sinners. But while this is the crowning work of the grace of God, it is not its only manifestation. It appears also in the natural blessings which God showers upon man in the present life, in spite of the fact that man has forfeited them and lies under the sentence of death. It is seen in all that God does to restrain the devastating influence and development of sin in the world, and to maintain and enrich and develop the natural life of mankind in general and of those individuals who constitute the human race. It should be emphasized that these natural blessings are manifestations of the grace of God to man in general. Some prefer to say that they are expressions of His goodness, kindness, benevolence, mercy, or longsuffering, but seem to forget that He could not be good, kind, or benevolent to the sinner unless He were first of all gracious.
The following points of distinction between special (in the sense of saving) and common grace should be noted:
a. The extent of special grace is determined by the decree of election. This grace is limited to the elect, while common grace is not so limited, but is granted to all men indiscriminately. The decree of election and reprobation has no determining influence on it. It cannot even be said that the elect receive a greater measure of common grace than the non-elect. It is a matter of common knowledge, and has frequently been observed, that the wicked often possess a greater measure of common grace and have a greater share in the natural blessings of life than the pious.
b. Special grace removes the guilt and penalty of sin, changes the inner life of man, and gradually cleanses him from the pollution of sin by the supernatural operation of the Holy Spirit. Its work invariably issues in the salvation of the sinner. Common grace, on the other hand, never removes the guilt of sin, does not renew human nature, but only has a restraining effect on the corrupting influence of sin and in a measure mitigates its results. It does not effect the salvation of the sinner, though in some of its forms (external calling and moral illumination) it may be closely connected with the economy of redemption and have a soteriological aspect.
c. Special grace is irresistible. This does not mean that it is a deterministic force which compels man to believe against his will, but that by changing the heart it makes man perfectly willing to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation and to yield obedience to the will of God. Common grace is resistible, and as a matter of fact is always more or less resisted. Paul shows in Rom. 1 and 2 that neither the Gentiles nor the Jews were living up to the light which they had. Says Shedd: “In common grace the call to believe and repent is invariably ineffectual, because man is averse to faith and repentance and in bondage to sin.” It is ineffectual unto salvation because it leaves the heart unchanged.
d. Special grace works in a spiritual and re-creative way, renewing the whole nature of man, and thus making man able and willing to accept the offer of salvation in Jesus Christ, and to produce spiritual fruits. Common grace, to the contrary, operates only in a rational and moral way by making man in a general way receptive for the truth, by presenting motives to the will, and by appealing to the natural desires of man. This is equivalent to saying that special (saving) grace is immediate and supernatural, since it is wrought directly in the soul by the immediate energy of the Holy Spirit, while common grace is mediate, since it is the product of the mediate operation of the Holy Spirit through the truth of general or special revelation and by moral persuasion. [/LIST] This conception of common grace should be carefully distinguished from that of the Arminians, who regard common grace as a link in the ordo salutis and ascribe to it saving significance. They hold that, in virtue of the common grace of God, the unregenerate man is perfectly able to perform a certain measure of spiritual good, to turn to God in faith and repentance, and thus to accept Jesus unto salvation. They go even farther than that, and maintain that common grace by the illumination of the mind and the persuasive influence of the truth incites the sinner to accept Jesus Christ and to turn to God in faith and repentance, and will certainly achieve this end, unless the sinner obstinately resists the operation of the Holy Spirit. The Canons of Dort have this in mind where they reject the error of those who teach “that the corrupt and natural man can so well use the common grace (by which they understand the light of nature), or the gifts still left him after the fall, that he can gradually gain by their good use a greater, that is, the evangelical or saving grace, and salvation itself."
That was helpful. I had not read anything like that before. Last night, on a web site, I read that God does love the non-elect. The author provided Biblical proof for this. This was a 5-point Calvinist web site. He said that to believe otherwise is hyper-Calvinism. This is not exackly what your article is about, but it touches on the same theme. Who is Berkhof? First name?
Louis Berkhof. His
Systematic Theology is the BEST [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] IMHO. Pilgrim also has some of his material on-line.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Last night, on a web site, I read that God does love the non-elect. The author provided Biblical proof for this. This was a 5-point Calvinist web site. He said that to believe otherwise is hyper-Calvinism.
This type of thing has been promoted for a long time, but has no biblical basis for it, even though these people quote verses from the Bible. I mean, even Jehovah Witness' say their religion is based upon the Bible and even ridicule real Christians for their lack of Bible knowledge. But in fact, the knowledge that they have is from twisting biblical texts and thus is false knowledge. One only need read a few texts which are more than sufficient as well as perspicuous to know the truth about this.
Psalms 5:4-6 (ASV) "For thou art not a God that hath pleasure in wickedness: Evil shall not sojourn with thee. The arrogant shall not stand in thy sight: [color:red]Thou hatest all workers of iniquity. Thou wilt destroy them that speak lies: Jehovah abhorreth the blood-thirsty and deceitful man.
Psalms 11:4-7 (ASV) "Jehovah is in his holy temple; Jehovah, his throne is in heaven; His eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men. Jehovah trieth the righteous; [color:red]But the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. Upon the wicked he will rain snares; Fire and brimstone and burning wind shall be the portion of their cup. For Jehovah is righteous; he loveth righteousness: The upright shall behold his face."
Proverbs 6:16-19 (ASV) "There are six things which Jehovah hateth; Yea, seven which are an abomination unto him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood; A heart that deviseth wicked purposes, Feet that are swift in running to mischief, A false witness that uttereth lies, And he that soweth discord among brethren."
Malachi 1:2-4 (ASV) "I have loved you, saith Jehovah. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob's brother, saith Jehovah: yet I loved Jacob; [color:red]but Esau I hated, and made his mountains a desolation, and [gave] his heritage to the jackals of the wilderness. Whereas Edom saith, We are beaten down, but we will return and build the waste places; thus saith Jehovah of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and men shall call them The border of wickedness, and The people against whom Jehovah hath indignation for ever."
Romans 9:6-13 (ASV) "But [it is] not as though the word of God hath come to nought. For they are not all Israel, that are of Israel: neither, because they are Abraham's seed, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called. That is, it is not the children of the flesh that are children of God; but the children of the promise are reckoned for a seed. For this is a word of promise, According to this season will I come, and Sarah shall have a son. And not only so; but Rebecca also having conceived by one, [even] by our father Isaac-- for [the children] being not yet born, neither having done anything good or bad, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. Even as it is written, Jacob I loved, [color:red]but Esau I hated."
This article speaks to the issue directly and should be of great help to bring you to a proper understanding of God's love:
Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only His Sin? by Dr. John Gerstner.
God is BENEVOLENT toward the reprobate. He provides for their physical and earthly needs by His providence (Matt 5:43ff). Some may wish to call this the "love of God", but in doing so, they are creating much and unnecessary confusion for themselves and particularly others. The overwhelming reference to God's "love" in Scripture is salvific; i.e., it has reference to salvation; it's eternal purpose and end being from eternity. The "love" of God is not an
emotion but rather the preference of God shown in His decree and application of that decree, i.e., His works. We can see that here clearly enough:
Ephesians 1:3-14 (ASV) "Blessed [be] the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly [places] in Christ: even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will, to the praise of the glory of his grace, which he freely bestowed on us in the Beloved: in whom we have our redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, making known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he purposed in him unto a dispensation of the fulness of the times, to sum up all things in Christ, the things in the heavens, and the things upon the earth; in him, [I say,] in whom also we were made a heritage, having been foreordained according to the purpose of him who worketh all things after the counsel of his will; to the end that we should be unto the praise of his glory, we who had before hoped in Christ: in whom ye also, having heard the word of the truth, the gospel of your salvation,-- in whom, having also believed, ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, which is an earnest of our inheritance, unto the redemption of [God's] own possession, unto the praise of his glory."
In His Grace,
Thanks for posting that link...I was looking for it but forgot what it was called. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]
Does God Love the Sinner and Hate Only Sin:<br><br>Thanks - from me, too. I bookmarked that site.
Johannah,<br><br>You just might be surprised what you can find on The Highway website. With over 1000 books, articles, sermons, etc., there is quite a selection to choose from. Want to known if there is something there on a particular topic, word, phrase, Bible verse, etc.? Just go here:<br><br>
Search The Highway (Advanced Search) When searching for something that consists of more than one word or there are spaces involved, enclose the search item in
[color:red]"</font color=red>quotes[color:red]"</font color=red>.<br><br>
Yup, lotsa good stuff 'round here. Been reading through the charismatic stuff lately, along with the eschatological stuff. Great resources and I, for one, appreciate this. You guys even know plenty of good stuff from other sites. Thanks friends!<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
was wondering what is your answer to the question that Joe posed:<br><blockquote>Funny, how can there be a secret rapture when Christ comes with a Shout?</blockquote><br>I'm not sure you've answered this since I have finished going through the entire thread yet.<br>That's also been one of the questions that I have always had since I've heard of "secret" rapture.<br><br><blockquote>1 thes 4:16-18<br>For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a [color:red]shout</font color=red>, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. <br>Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. <br>. </blockquote><br><br>thanks.<br>brother in christ,<br><br>Carlos <br>
Carlos,<br><br>For the "biblical" answer, see here:
The Rapture<br><br>In His Grace,
I had never heard that it was secret. All believers on the earth will disappear. Obviously this will be noticed by the people left. I don't know where he got "secret" from.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I don't know where he got "secret" from. </font><hr></blockquote><p> [color:red]From dispensational literature.</font color=red><br><br>Silver, The Lord’s Return, p. 260, says:<br><blockquote>Quickly and INVISIBLY, unperceived by the world, the Lord will come as a thief in the night and catch away His waiting saints.</blockquote> Roberts, How to be Personally Prepared for the Second Coming of Christ, p. 34, says:<br><br><blockquote>His appearance in the clouds will be veiled to the human eye and NO ONE WILL SEE HIM. He will slip in, slip out; move in to get His jewels and slip out as under the cover of night.</blockquote> <br>Ford, Seven Simple Sermons on the Second Coming, p. 51, says:<br><br><blockquote>[The rapture] will be a SECRET appearing, and only the believers will know about it.</blockquote> Bishop, The Doctrine of Grace, p. 341, says:<br><br><blockquote>It will be a SECRET rapture — QUIET, NOISELESS, sudden as the step of the thief in the night. All that the world will know will be that multitudes at once have gone.</blockquote> As compared to Scripture with says:<br><br><blockquote>1 Thes 4:16-18 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with [color:red]a shout</font color=red>, with the [color:red]voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God</font color=red>, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord. </blockquote><br>
At the rapture coming, we will be caught up to meet Him <span style="background-color:yellow;">
in the clouds.</span> He does not set foot on earth. I don't know that the references you used are necessarily accurate. There are many cults out there who also believe in the rapture. Also, many Christians who are not careful about their exegesis. No Christian who is biblical will ever try to "date" it.<br><br>Here is an excellent web site on this subject:<br><br>
http://www.raptureme.com/ttcol.html<br><br>
thanks Joe, you took the answer right out my mouth [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]. <br>that's right, every dispy writings that I've come across thur far says it's secret.<br><br><br>Carlos
Because of the speed involved, no will see the rapture happen, I assume. Perhaps, that is what the authors means by secret. (?)
1 Cor. 15:51-58
Behold, I tell you a mystery; we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed.
In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet; for the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed..........
Pilgrim,<br>I have read some articles, etc. on the Highway, and I plan to read more. Thanks for the advise on how to use it.
In reply to:
I don't know that the references you used are necessarily accurate. There are many cults out there who also believe in the rapture. Also, many Christians who are not careful about their exegesis.
Well the references used are from noted authors (nR) who embrace dispensational philosophy. For instance: Simple Sermons for Special Days and Occasions, Simple Sermons for Funeral Services, Simple Sermons on Salvation and Service, Simple Sermons on Great Christian Doctrines, Simple Sermons on Prayer, are books (sermons) by Ford, W. Herschel. W. Herschel Ford was converted at a Billy Sunday revival in Atlanta, Georgia. As a pastor, he served for many years at the First Baptist Church in El Paso, Texas. Later he enlarged his preaching ministry by becoming a full-time evangelist.
How to be Personally Prepared for the Second Coming of Christ is by Oral Roberts--enough said [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Because of the speed involved, no will see the rapture happen, I assume. Perhaps, that is what the authors means by secret. (?)
No matter HOW FAST it happens people are going to see it and hear it. Do not faster sounds make sonic booms?
1 Thes 4:16-18 For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive and remain will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we shall always be with the Lord.
The scriptures do teach, of course, that Christ will return “as a thief in the night.” This means that the TIME of his coming is unknown.
Jesus likened his Second Coming to the destruction of the flood in the days of Noah. “But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage . . . and knew not until the flood came, and took them all away [or, as Luke’s account says, “destroyed them all” — Lk. 17:27]. SO shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore, for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come” (Mt. 24:37-42).
When the flood came, Noah was spared and the unbelievers were destroyed. That destruction produced a great separation. So shall it be at the Second Coming of Christ. Christians will be caught up to meet Christ; unbelievers will be destroyed.
Though the “world” was formerly destroyed by water, Peter points out that the destruction the world now faces will be by fire. “The world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: but the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire” (2 Peter 3:6, 7).
The article Pilgrim has all this and much more that puts Dispensational philosophy to rest--eternally
The Rapture
1 Thess. 5:4
But you, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should overtake you like a theif;
This verse is evidence that believers will see "signs" that the end of time is approaching. We won't know the exact time, but will see evidence that the time is near.
In reply to:
This verse is evidence that believers will see "signs" that the end of time is approaching. We won't know the exact time, but will see evidence that the time is near.
Well if the Church does not know the time (and we don't) and the church is raptured, anyone who has been left behind and read the Left Behind series [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img] will begin their time clocks setting them for 7 years, so then they KNOW the time? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img]
Again Woodrow says,
When Jesus ascended into heaven and his disciples stood watching, two angels said: “Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye gazing up into heaven? this same Jesus, which is taken up from you into heaven, shall so come IN LIKE MANNER as ye have SEEN him go into heaven” (Acts 1:11). According to this verse, the same Jesus that those disciples knew and loved will return “in like manner” as they saw him go into heaven. They did not see him go into heaven in two separate ascensions; and so it is definitely implied that his return will not be in two separate comings.
“Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many” — at his FIRST coming — “and unto them that look for him shall he appear the SECOND time without sin unto salvation” (Heb. 9:28). Here we read of the SECOND coming of Christ. Those who hold that Christ will return for his church, and then return again seven years later, are actually teaching a doctrine not only of the SECOND coming of Christ, but a THIRD coming as well. However, the idea of a THIRD coming of Christ is nowhere mentioned in the Bible. Such terminology is completely foreign to the scriptures!
Some explain that they believe in one Second Coming of Christ, but that it will be in “two stages.” However, this does not solve the problem. If the rapture is a separate “stage” from the coming of Christ in power and glory, how could each “stage” be the SECOND coming? If they are separate and distinct events, each could not be the second coming, for the coming that would follow the second, would be the third!
Some teach there will be two second comings. But the scriptures speak of the Lord’s second “coming” (singular), never of the second “comingS” (plural). Besides, the term “two second comings” is in itself contradictory.
In attempting to explain this difficulty which the dispensational interpretation must face, we have actually heard it argued that the “rapture” is not the COMING of the Lord! One writer puts it this way: “Strictly speaking the rapture is NOT THE SECOND COMING AT ALL. The second coming is the visible, local, bodily appearing of Christ in the clouds of heaven as he returns to this earth . . . in power and great glory.”1
Another says: “The thrilling event which will both mark the end of the day of Grace and open the door for the Great Tribulation is the rapture . . . Specifically speaking, THIS IS NOT THE SECOND COMING OF CHRIST. Rather this is the rapture, or the catching up, of the true church.”2
Another emphatically states that the rapture is NOT the Second Coming and that “the scriptures referring to the rapture could not refer to the second coming.” 3
According to these dispensational writers, the rapture will take place first, and the COMING of Christ will take place seven years later. But attempting to make the rapture a separate and earlier event from the coming of Christ is a teaching that is contrary to the united testimony of the Bible!
For example, Jesus said: “Be ye therefore also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man COMETH” (Mt. 24:44). Why would Jesus warn about being ready for the COMING of the Son of man, if really what we are to be ready for is a secret rapture to take place seven years before his coming?
The same point can be seen in Revelation 16:15: “Behold, I COME as a thief. Blessed is he that watcheth.” Why would such a warning be given about his COMING, if seven years before his COMING believers would already be taken to heaven?
Or notice Hebrews 10:36, 37: “For ye have need of patience, that, after ye have done the will of God, ye might receive the promise. For yet a little while, and he that shall COME will COME, and will not tarry.” Believers are thus exhorted to be patient until the coming of Christ. But why point them to the coming of Christ if their real hope was something to occur seven years earlier?
“Be patient then, brethren, unto the COMING of the Lord” (James 5:7). Again, why exhort the brethren to be patient unto the COMING of the Lord, if a secret rapture before his coming was when they would be gathered unto him?
Jesus said: “Occupy till I COME” (Lk. 19:13). But how could the church occupy until he COMES, if the church will be taken away seven years before his coming?
Paul speaks of Christians as “waiting for the COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:7). If Paul believed Christians would be caught up to heaven in a secret rapture seven years before the Lord’s COMING, why didn’t he speak of Christians as waiting for that? Why would he tell them to wait for something that would take place seven years after they had already been raptured? Obviously, to Paul, the coming of the Lord and the rapture were considered as one and the same event.
Paul prayed that the Christians at Thessalonica would be “preserved blameless unto the COMING of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Thess. 5:23). Again, the event for which they were watching was the “coming” of Christ. Why pray for them to be preserved blameless unto the “coming” of Christ, if the “rapture” is an event that will take place seven years before the Lord’s coming?
And finally, Jesus said: “I will COME again, and receive you unto myself” (John 14:3). Plainly, it is when Jesus COMES that he receives his people unto himself. It does not say he receives them and then seven years later he comes. The receiving is not seven years before his coming.
Nothing in the Bible says that the tribulation will, necessarily, start immediately after the Rapture. No one knows how much time will pass.
The Rapture is not the Second Coming. There is only one Second Coming. In the events of the Rapture, Christ comes into the atmosphere. As I said before, He does not actually touch down on earth.
"open the door to the great tribulation"
That is probably an accurate statement, but it still doesn't mean the tribulation will start immediately after the Rapture occurs.
During the tribulation, after the church has left the earth, anyone with eyes should be able to see that the tribulation is upon them, and then be able to start counting down, It will be that bad. But, 2 Thes. 2:11 says: And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false. This deluding influence will no doubt prevent that.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]The Rapture is not the Second Coming. There is only one Second Coming. In the events of the Rapture, Christ comes into the atmosphere. As I said before, He does not actually touch down on earth.
then I shall like to ask a question. What is a "Second Coming" of the Lord then? For The Lord will come/appear as is stated in the contex of 1Thes 4:18-5:4 whether he is in the air/clouds/atmosphere. In the Book of 1 Thess, this is mentioned 4 four times( 2:19, 3:13, 4:168, 5:23). Not to mention the other references in 2 thes.
19For what is our hope, our joy, or the crown in which we will glory in the presence of our Lord Jesus when he comes?
13May he strengthen your hearts so that you will be blameless and holy in the presence of our God and Father when our Lord Jesus comes with all his holy ones.
16For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.
23Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
in Christ,
Carlos
Johannah,
In reply to:
The Rapture is not the Second Coming. There is only one Second Coming.
The Church will be raptured. But it will be the time that God says, not man. It will not be before the Great Tribulation, it will be immediately after. The Last day of the world is when Jesus will return.
Matthew 24:29-30
"Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken: And then shall appear the sign of the Son of man in heaven: and then shall all the tribes of the earth mourn, and they shall see the Son of man coming in the clouds of heaven with Power and great glory."
Nowhere does the Word of God say the rapture is before the Tribulation. On the contrary, it illustrates immediately after. I didn't say it, God's Word said that the Chosen were raised here immediately after the tribulation of those days. And it's with the sound of the Trumpet, not in secret. Christ will appear on the clouds and send his angels to gather his chosen from the four winds. Written clearly there in Matthew 24:29-31. This is the rapture, and is exactly what's spoken of again in,
I Thessalonians 4:16
"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a Shout, with the voice of the Archangel, and with the Trumpet of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord."
Compare scripture with scripture, Matthew with 1st Thessalonians, and the picture is clear when and how the Rapture occurs. And again note, it is with a shout and sounding trumpet, not secret! To think that the Lord will take the Church out first (before tribulation) is to ignore both content and context of matthew 24. Scripture is in agreement only with "a last day" rapture.
Another telling passage is the parable of the tares. All parables are given by inspiration of God for our learning, and there is a valuable lesson in this one concerning how we will be left in this world.
The Parable (Matthew 13) is that there are wheat and tares sown in a field. The wheat is the believers and the tares are the unbelievers. The field is the world and the harvest is at the end of the world. That's how God (not I) interprets the parable. So it was said, "Shall we take the tares out of the world so they won't hurt the wheat". God said No! He wanted the tares and the wheat to remain "together" in the field until the end of the world (Which He said is the harvest), and then the separation would occur. Note carefully, God didn't say, I want to take the tares out so they won't hurt the wheat, nor the wheat out of the world because He doesn't want the tares to hurt them, He says leave them both there until the end of the world when the separation would occur. Clearly, without ambiguity, we see in this that both believer and unbeliever will remain in the world "together" until the end of the world. Then the tares will be burned in the Furnace, and the wheat gathered into God's barn. This parable teaches us that the separation is at the end of the world, and not before.
Wes
This is a continuation of my previous post.
Matt. 24:44
This statement is, evidently, not about the church. This refers to believers during the time of the tribulation.
Rev. 16:15
This is not about the church. Again, it's tribulation believers.
1 Cor. 1:7
so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,
John 14:3
Refers to the Rapture
Luke 19:13
A parable about faithfulness
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Nothing in the Bible says that the tribulation will, necessarily, start [color:red]
immediately after the Rapture</font color=red>. No one knows how much time will pass.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Now the "raptured" saints will be in Heaven 7 years after the Pre-Mil Rapture, so where are they go if the Tribulation does not begin immediately? Let us say the tribulation begins two years after the Rapture. Where are these raptured saints for those two last years of the Tribulation--for they may only be in Heaven for 7 years, but now we have 9 years?<br><br>Amillennialists believe that the millennium of Revelation 20 is not exclusively future but is now in process of realization. Thus, the tribulation will not begin after the Rapture. <br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The Rapture is not the Second Coming. There is only one Second Coming. In the events of the Rapture, Christ comes into the atmosphere. As I said before, He does not actually touch down on earth.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Instead of the Greek terms used in describing the Second Coming indicating two separate events, we find that these terms are used interchangeably in such a way that they show there is but ONE Second Coming of Christ — not two!<br><br>The following is a list of six words that are used to describe the Second Coming of Christ and the shades of meaning they present:<br><br><ul>PAROUSIA. This word stresses the actual personal presence of one who comes and arrives. It is used in James 5:7: “Be patient . . . unto the coming of the Lord”, etc. <br><br>APOKALUPSIS. This word stresses appearing, revelation. It is used in 2 Thess. 1:7: “The Lord shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels”, etc. <br><br>EPIPHANEIA. This word means manifestation and speaks of the glory that will attend Christ when he comes. It is used in 1 Tim. 6:14: “The appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ”, etc. <br><br>PHANEROO. This word means to render apparent. It is used in 1 John 3:2: “When he shall appear, we shall be like him.” <br><br>ERCHOMAI. This word indicates the act of coming, to come from one place to another. It is used in Luke 19:13: “Occupy till I come,” etc. <br><br>HEKO. This word stresses the point of arrival, as I am come and am here. It is used in Rev. 2:25: “Hold fast till I come.” [/LIST] The first word on our list, parousia, is the one most commonly used in reference to the Lord’s coming. The word stresses the actual personal presence of one that has come and arrived. There is nothing in this word to convey the idea of secrecy. Paul, for example, was comforted by the “coming [parousia] of Titus” who brought word to him from the Corinthian Christians (2 Cor. 7:6). Likewise, he spoke of the “coming [parousia] of Stephanas and Fortunatus and Achaicus” (1 Cor. 16:17). In writing to the Philippians, Paul said he would be “coming [parousia]” to see them again (Phil. 1:26).<br><br>Paul used this word in the noted “rapture” chapter which speaks of “the coming [parousia] of the Lord” when the dead in Christ will be raised and believers will be caught up to meet the Lord in the air (1 Thess. 4:15-17). But was the parousia to be a pre-tribulation coming? No! Turning to Paul’s second letter to the Thessalonian believers, Paul again wrote about “the coming [parousia] of our Lord” and “our gathering together unto him” (2 Thess. 2:1). Here he explained that the “parousia” will not take place until AFTER the man of sin is revealed and has carried out his evil work: “The Lord shall destroy [the man of sin] with the brightness of his coming [parousia]” (2 Thess. 2:8).<br><br>According to this, the coming (parousia) of the Lord, the resurrection, and the rapture will come AFTER the reign of the man of sin! — not before.<br><br>In 2 Peter 3, we find more proof that the “parousia” is not a secret coming that will take place BEFORE our Lord’s coming in flaming fire and glory. According to Peter, “the promise of his coming [parousia]” will be fulfilled when “the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat” (2 Peter 3:4-10). And in view of this, Christians are exhorted to be “looking for . . . the coming [parousia] of the thy of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat” (verses 11, 12). The word “parousia” in these places obviously cannot refer to a secret rapture seven years before the end.<br><br>Instead of the RAPTURE being a secret and invisible coming to be followed later by the REVELATION, an open and visible coming, the scriptures show that the rapture and the revelation are one and the same event — not two.<br><br>The word that is translated “revelation” in connection with Christ’s return is apokalupsis which stresses appearing, revelation. Notice its use in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10: “The Lord Jesus shall be REVEALED [apokalupsis] from heaven with his mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God . . . when he shall come to be glorified in his saints.” According to this, the time when Christ is REVEALED in flaming fire is also the time when he comes to be glorified in his saints. If the rapture had taken place seven years before this, the saints would have already been glorified!<br><br>Peter also spoke of the revelation of Christ in 1 Peter 1:13: “Wherefore gird up the loins of your mind, be sober, and hope to the end for the grace that is to be brought unto you at the REVELATION [apokalupsis] of Jesus Christ.” Again, it is evident that the rapture is not an earlier event to take place seven years before the “revelation.” If this had been the case, these instructions about being sober and hoping until the REVELATION of Christ would be meaningless. It would not be necessary for believers to hope to the end for the grace to be brought to them at the REVELATION of Christ, if — in reality — this grace was to be brought to them at a separate rapture seven years before!<br><br>Likewise in verse 7, Peter spoke of Christians as being “found unto praise and honour and glory at the APPEARING [the revelation, same word, apokalupsis] of Jesus Christ.” But according to the secret rapture position, Christians will have already been taken to heaven and judged before the REVELATION! This is not what the Bible says. Christians are pointed to the appearing or REVELATION of Christ, a fact which clearly indicates that the rapture is the revelation!<br><br>The same word that is translated “revelation” and “appearing” (apokalupsis) in the texts we have noticed, is used in 1 Cor. 1:7 which speaks of Christians as “waiting for the coming [apokalupsis] of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Again it is apparent that the gathering of believers (the rapture) is not something that precedes the revelation of Christ. Why would Christians be waiting for the “revelation” if the “rapture” comes seven years sooner?<br><br>We learn from these verses that the apokalupsis — the REVELATION — is when Christians will be gathered; this is when they meet the Lord; this is the day for which they are waiting. The rapture is NOT one event and the revelation a different event. Instead of two phases being “clearly distinguished in the Greek” by the terms parousia and apokalupsis, a study of these words and the context in which they are used reveals no such distinction whatsoever. To the contrary, both are used in a way that points us to ONE event, the Second Coming of Christ at the end of the age!<br><br>Another word used in describing the return of Christ is EPIPHANEIA, meaning “manifestation” and the glory that will attend our Lord when he comes. This word is not applied to a “secret”, pre-tribulation coming, for Christ will slay the man of sin “with the BRIGHTNESS [epiphaneia] of his coming” (2 Thess.2 :8).<br><br>Bearing this in mind, let us look at 1 Timothy 6:14, 15 in which this same word appears: “. . . keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until THE APPEARING (epiphaneia) of our Lord Jesus Christ: which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords.”<br><br>Now we ask: why would Christians be exhorted to keep the commandment until the “epiphaneia” — the glorious appearing — if seven years before this there was to be a hidden, secret coming to take the church out of the world? The epiphaneia is when the man of sin is slain, it is when Christ comes in open glory and power, and it is until this time that Christians are exhorted to remain faithful. Such instructions would be completely out of place if Christians were to be raptured several years before the epiphaneia.<br><br>The fourth word on our list is PHANEROO, meaning “to render apparent”, which also refers to Christ’s coming in open power and glory. “When the chief Shepherd shall APPEAR [phaneroo], ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away” (1 Peter 5:4). This verse does not say that when the chief shepherd shall appear — be rendered apparent — that Christians will have already been raptured and crowned! No, the rewarding is when Christ shall APPEAR, and not at a supposed invisible coming seven years before!<br><br>John, like Peter, makes the same point: “We know that, when he shall APPEAR (phaneroo), we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.” (1 John 3:2). As Christians it is when Christ shall come and appear — be rendered apparent — that we shall be like him, not at a supposed invisible coming.<br><br>Instead of the Greek terms indicating two second comings, just the opposite is the case. This should be carefully noted. We know that the “parousia” is the same event as the “apokalupsis” (revelation), not only by the actual context in which these words are used (as we have seen), but by the way they are used interchangeably.<br><br>In Matthew 24:37, for example, we read: “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the COMING [parousia] of the son of man be.” Luke’s account of the same passage says: “As it was in the days of Noah . . . even thus shall it be in the day when the son of man is REVEALED (apokalupsis)” (Lk. 17:26,30). This shows us that the coming (parousia) of Christ and the revelation (apokalupsis) of Christ are the same event!<br><br>Looking to Matthew 24 again, we find that “parousia” is used to describe the same event as “erchomai.” “But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the COMING (parousia) of the son of man be . . . Therefore be ye also ready; for in such an hour as ye think not the son of man COMETH (erchomai)” (Mt.24:37, 44).<br><br>“Erchomai”, in turn, is used to describe the same event as “heko”, for in Hebrews 10:37, we read: “For yet a little while, and he that shall COME [erchomai] will COME [heko], and will not tarry.”<br><br>“Heko” and “parousia” are used together by Peter. In answer to the question: “Where is the promise of his COMING (parousia]?”, Peter answers: “The day of the Lord will COME [heko] as a thief in the night” (2 Peter 3:10).<br><br>The word “parousia” and “epiphaneia” are linked together in 2 Thess. 2:8 in which we read that the man of sin will be destroyed by the “BRIGHTNESS” (epiphaneia) of Christ’s “COMING” (parousia).<br><br>And finally, we notice that the “parousia” is also the “phaneroo”, for both expressions are used in the same verse, referring to the same event: “And now, little children, abide in him; that, when he shall APPEAR [phaneroo], we may have confidence, and not be ashamed before him at his COMING [parousia].”<br><br>Thus we see that all of these Greek words are used interchangeably. As in English, the different words present varied shades of meaning. But trying to split the Second Coming of Christ into two “stages” or “comings” on a supposed distinction in these Greek terms is completely artificial.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]During the tribulation, after the church has left the earth, anyone with eyes should be able to see that the tribulation is upon them, and then be able to start counting down, It will be that bad. But, 2 Thes. 2:11 says: And for this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they might believe what is false. This deluding influence will no doubt prevent that.</font><hr></blockquote><p> So does this mean they will not be able to understand a calender--7 years. Is not strong delusion already here: LDS, JW, New Age, Zoroastrainism, Gnosticism, et. al.<br><br>Again and again, there are numerous discrepancies within the dispensational/pre-mil position. Read the article posted by Pilgrim.--
The Rapture. It will be worth your time and show you even more errors than what we have already discussed. We have actually barely scratched the surface of discrepancies within Despie-ville. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
may I ask why you highlighted the word "revelation"?
As joe demonstrated below there are various words in scripture used to describe the personal 2nd coming of the Lord. These words are Parousia[coming], Epiphaneia[appearing], and Apokalupsis[Revelation]...etc..
quick example:
Now may the God of peace himself sanctify you completely, and may your whole spirit and soul and body be kept blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. [ 1 thes 5:23]......Now concerning the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ and our being gathered together to him, we ask you, brothers,[1] 2not to be quickly shaken in mind or alarmed, either by a spirit or a spoken word, or a letter seeming to be from us, to the effect that the day of the Lord has come [ 2 thes 2:1-2]
...so that you are not lacking in any gift, awaiting eagerly the revelation of our Lord Jesus Christ,
who will also confirm you to the end, blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. [1 cor 1:7,8]
"Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love His appearing" (2 Tim. 4:8).
brother in Christ,
Carlos
In reply to:
Matt. 24:44
This statement is, evidently, not about the church. This refers to believers during the time of the tribulation.
The context of the verse says, Matthew 24:40-44 Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come. But know this, that if the goodman of the house had known in what watch the thief would come, he would have watched, and would not have suffered his house to be broken up. Therefore be ye also ready: for in such an hour as ye think not the Son of man cometh.
In reply to:
Rev. 16:15
This is not about the church. Again, it's tribulation believers.
Even MacArthur would disagree here: Our Lord stresses the need for constant readiness for His return (cf. 1 John 2:28). The imagery pictures a soldier ready for battle, or a homeowner watchful for the arrival of a thief (see also 3:3; 1 Thess. 5:2,4; 2 Pet. 3:10). MacArthur, John. The MacArthur Study Bible. Electronic ed., Re 16:15. Nashville, TN: Word Pub., 1997, c1997.
That is an excellent post! I'm sorry I can't adequately respond to it. Sometimes words are used interchangable in the Bible. I think it depends on the context. Ex: Kingdom of God and Kingdom of Heaven. They don't always mean the same thing in every book.
To refute you would require resources that I don't have. I would need more commentaries and a knowledge of New Testament Greek. I don't have either. As I said in another post, I am not a theologian. Of course, there are others who could easily refute all of this.
I don't have a MacArthur Study Bible, and I have been advised not to get one, because there are supposedly iaccuracies there. Still, his commentaries are supposed to be excellent. (?)
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]To refute you would require resources that I don't have. I would need more commentaries and a knowledge of New Testament Greek. I don't have either. As I said in another post, I am not a theologian. Of course, there are others who could easily refute all of this. </font><hr></blockquote><p> Maybe it is time to begin exploring this A-Mil side a little closer, since there appears to be
many unanswered questions in Pre-Mil/Despie. A good place to research is
here. You may not consider yourself to be a theologian yet (and we are all learning), but if you stay here long enough you'll become a stronger and more refined one [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/yep.gif" alt="yep" title="yep[/img] And most of all have fun doing it.
Carlos, you are right. The word revelation can mean "coming." I didn't know that until just now. Even my commentary says it does.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Of course, there are others who could easily refute all of this.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I'm sorry you made this statement, my sister. For from the very beginning, when Darby first introduced this error of Dispensationalism, hordes of theologians, pastors and even common laymen wrote against it and showed incontrovertibly that the Bible teaches no such thing. Literally thousands of rebuttals have been written against it and soundly disproving it. The fact that it became popular is no proof that it teaches any truth. Personally, I was taught this stuff when I first was converted. But through God's marvelous providence, it made no sense to me from the beginning and I cast it off as chaff.<br><br>From a totally different perspective, I began studying the Dispensational phenomena from a historical view. I began to understand the circumstances wherein all this happened. It was during this time that the Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses came into being as well as the push by German Liberalism. The spiritual state of the church was pitiful. People were starving for truth but because of their hunger they were devouring anything and everything that came along that satisfied them. The same can be seen in the inception and rise to popularity of Pentecostalism. When the truth once delivered unto the saints is weak or lacking all together, people will grasp at anything within their reach because they lack a firm foundation.<br><br>My hope is, of course, that these dialogs will lead you to a more open investigation and study of these things and that the Lord will reveal to you how much error has been given the Church of the Lord Christ over these past 150 years. I personally believe that things are only going to degenerate in the future; perhaps even until the Lord comes to usher in the New Heaven and New Earth. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/joy.gif" alt="joy" title="joy[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
Yes, actually there are inaccuracies in both his both his Study Bible and commentaries. I own them all both in HB and computer versions. Sometimes I like some of the things he says, but many times he is way of base IMHO. And he uses NIV in his commentairy [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img] <br><br>The
Reformation Study Bible is a much better purchase.
Pilgrim,<br>That was a very nice post. I agree, very much, with a lot of what you said, but, of course, not all. At any rate, I will be doing more studying on eschatology and all the rest of the Bible, as well.
Joe,<br>Inaccuracies in Eschatology? Or, other inaccuracies, as well?<br><br>I will buy a Reformation Study Bible when I get the money. <br><br>I wish I had all the money I have wasted in the past on worthless books. I have learned the hard way that you can't go into your local "Christian" bookstore and buy books. Most should be ordered.
There are several and not only in Eschatology. I have found some of his comments about Elders in the church to be incorrect (even his Greek study here) and of course I would not agree with him on Baptism. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] In some of his writings at times he appears to be a 4 pointer and not a 5. The BEST NT commentary you will find bar none and cheaper than MacArthur is the
New Testament Commentary by Hendriksen and Kistemaker. This is also coming out even cheaper on
Baker's New Testament Commentary Set (12 vols.), Kistemaker, Simon J., and William Hendriksen Libronix CD. This is in Pre-Order status and cheaper now. As soon as they have enough Pre-orders they will make the set and then send it. They do not charge you until shipping.<br><br><ul>William Hendriksen (Th.D., Princeton Theological Seminary) was professor of New Testament literature at Calvin Theological Seminary. <br><br>Simon J. Kistemaker (Ph.D., Free University, Amsterdam) is professor emeritus of New Testament at Reformed Theological Seminary in Orlando, Florida.[/LIST] Reviews: <br><br><ul>If you own the New Testament Commentaries . . . nothing more needs to be said. If you do not own them, you should-that is, if you are a serious student of Scipture.'-The Reformed Review <br><br>'The Bible student who posesses [these] commentaries can dispense with many other books.' -J.C. Maris, Reformation Quarterly [/LIST]
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]I have learned the hard way that you can't go into your local "Christian" bookstore and buy books.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Now, now.... let's not disparage your average "Christian" bookstore! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rolleyes.gif" alt="rolleyes" title="rolleyes[/img] Imagine what people would do without them; I mean where would they be able to find a signed Dr. Phil bobble-head doll? or the latest self-help book? or a "What Would Jesus Do?" bracelet? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img] It is sadly true, that nearly every book that I was hoping to find at my local "Christian" curio shop, where the CCM was blaring so loudly the clerk couldn't hear me, I had to special order the book. And that was even an ordeal as none of the clerks or managers ever heard of them, e.g., Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon, Charles Hodge, etc... They looked at me as if I was buying books written by Jim Jones! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hairout.gif" alt="hairout" title="hairout[/img]<br><br>
Johannah,<br><br>Let me reciprocate and say publicly that you are a real "trooper"!! Even "I" am beginning to feel the weight of the number and quality of replies that have been written to you. Most, by this time would be doing this:
or this:
or even resort to this:
.<br><br>What you might not know is that most of us have traveled a long and bumpy road to get where we are now theologically and/or spiritually. The journey has not been all that smooth nor enjoyable at times. But we are certainly glad to have been pushed by some to continue on, especially when we might have otherwise given up. We have left some things behind, which at the time we thought were treasures, but now realize they were burdens that were hindering us.<br><br>May the Lord grant you patience, wisdom and fortitude, as we can no doubt be rather
at times.
<br><br>In His Grace,
Sometimes we even get plain 'ol [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bash.gif" alt="bash" title="bash[/img] or [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/argue.gif" alt="argue" title="argue[/img], but we still grow and learn. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/compute.gif" alt="compute" title="compute[/img] I can't do this [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/hairout.gif" alt="hairout" title="hairout[/img] anymore though. I lost it all my first year here. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]
Joe,<br>I printed your post on books you suggest. Believe it or not, I have many books written by Reformed theologian. They do know the Bible.
Indeed they do "normally" do a good job with Scriptures. I am sure you have some books by Reformed Theologians. Anyone who has displayed what you have for the short time you have been here reveals that they have been studious. But, you must follow a careful exegesis of the Scripture. Paul said, [color:blue] The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the [color:red][i]books</font color=red>, but especially the [color:red]parchments</font color=red></font color=blue>[/i] (2 Timothy 4:13). Now a careful study of this text reveals that [color:red]books</font color=red> and [color:red]parchments</font color=red> is:<br><br><ul>1. "plural", thus indicating that we are to have [color:green]<span style="background-color:yellow;">many</span></font color=green> [color:red]books</font color=red> and [color:red]parchments</font color=red>.<br>2. "older", that is [color:red]books</font color=red> and [color:red]parchments</font color=red> of Paul's time, and thus they are very <span style="background-color:yellow;">[color:green]valuable</span></font color=green>.<br>3. Thus, you should spend MUCH money on [color:red]books</font color=red> (pl), to be biblical and not lose the value of a multi-volume library (spending the equivalent of the value of Paul's library).[/LIST] For some reason my wife does not buy this argument all the time, but it does seem to work well around my birthday. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br><br>One good thing here are the book reviews as well (The Book Nook). There are several books that are reviewed on a regular basis by members. This way you get to see the ups and downs of the materials you are reading before you buy. Like Baxter's The Reformed Pastor is a MUST read for any elder, it will bring tears to your heart, but it also has some errors.<br><br>Enjoy!
Johannah,<br><br>I really do hope & pray that you will give thoughtful consideration to what we are saying and re-examine the secret-pretrib rapture [and dispy] against the word of God.<br>There are many good books out there that examine secret-pretrib and dispy in general.<br><br>"the promise of the future" by Cornelius P. venema" (amil)<br>"Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Sheridan Poythress ( although I disagree with his Pre-mil)<br>"The blessed Hope" by George Ladd ( although I disagree with his Pre-mil. IMHO, gives a devasting critique of secre-pretrib rapture, also gives a great history of disp, I think you would find quite interesting)<br>Dispensationalism: Rightly Dividing the People of God? Keith A. Mathison (post-mil).<br><br>plus, Piglrim has excellent articles on the highway, including the one that He gave a link to.<br><br>brother in Christ,<br>Carlos
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]"Understanding Dispensationalists" by Vern Sheridan Poythress ( although I disagree with his Pre-mil)</font><hr></blockquote><p>Hmmm, Vern Poythress was my advanced Greek professor when I was at WTS and I can tell you with confidence that Dr. Poythress is thoroughly Amil. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img] His book, Understanding Dispensationalists is excellent in that it is 1) irenic in tone 2) hits the core issue that separates [hermeneutics] 3) offers some indefensible arguments against Dispensationalists/Premillennialists. I also had Dr. Poythress for a N.T. class and I must say I've always wondered how I ever got through it. This was before he got married and the demand he put on his students was unbearable. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img] I will never forget how some of us agreed to "team up" in groups of five or six in class so as to be able to keep up with his presentation on the overhead projector. The speed that the transparencies were shown was so fast that one simply could not take notes from one to the next. So, with six of us teaming up, we were able to focus on every sixth one knowing that the five we missed were covered by our mates. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/rofl.gif" alt="rofl" title="rofl[/img]<br><br>As a not to much an aside, his book, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses is also an excellent read.<br><br>BIO: Vern S. Poythress received a Ph.D. in mathematics from Harvard University, a Th.D. in New Testament from the University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, a M.Litt. in New Testament from the University of Cambridge, a Th.M. in apologetics from Westminster Theological Seminary, an M.Div. from Westminster Theological Seminary, and a B.S. from California Institute of Technology. He is presently Professor of New Testament Interpretation at Westminster Theological Seminary.<br><br>In His Grace,
Joe, <br><br>Knowing the value of those commentaries, I had been saving up gift certificates for Baker Book House from Christmas and my recent birthday. Of course I had previously hinted that I would like the certifs for Baker. My oldest son took my gift certificates without me knowing and with enough cash from my kids and wife bought them and presented them to me this past Saturday.<br><br>Now....to do some serious reading.
Congrats! That was a nice gift!!!!
Carlos,
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]I really do hope and pray that you will give thought and consideration to what we are saying and re-examine the secret-pretrib Rapture (and dispy) against the word of God.
Yes, I know you do. You believe covenant theology is Biblical and you want all Christians to be biblical. So do I. I am going to read more on Amillennialism and Covenant Theology later, but right now I am still working on determining which is Biblical, 4 or 5 point Calvinism. And also, if 5-point "jibes" with Dispensationalism. But, in all honesty, I do not believe I will ever change my mind on Disp, Pretrib., Premill. theology.
And yes, I agree, the Highway has some fantastic articles and essays.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]But, in all honesty, I do not believe I will ever change my mind on Disp, Pretrib., Premill. theology.
I don't see how you can't. Sufficient answers, as Pilgirm noted, have been provided that Refutes Disp, pretrib secrect rapture ever since papa J. N. darby came on the scene with dispy in the early 1800's. Even Ladd's book(who's premil himself) devastates that system IMHO opinion. Exegetical issues aside, even the history of invention of the system shows that it is shaky...
How Can the Church be "Waiting for this secret pretrib Rapture",which will not happen at "2nd coming" according to that system when PAUL himself says to the church in the Book of 1 Cor. to "eagerly [color:red]WAIT for our Lord Jesus Christ to be REVEALED" (1 cor 1:7) ? [scriptures are clear that this is the 2ND coming]. Also, you did not answer my question on what is the "2nd coming" according to what you believe. Link : 2ndComing
I pray that your study goes well on the 4 or 5 point issue, and that when you get to the study of the 2nd coming,dispy vs. covent. ,etc. that you will study it objectively.
God bless
brother in Christ
Carlos
Carlos,
Here is the first Dispensation. Please tell me what part of it isn't Biblical.
Dispensation of Innocence
Represenative - Adam
Covenant - Edenic
Command - Do not eat of one tree
Promise - Life forever in the garden with God
Failure - Eve listens to serpent, ignores Adam's authority, Adam ate of the forbidden tree
Judgements - Shame (guilty conscience), Spiritual death (no fellowship with God), Confirmed disposition of enemity, curse on the serpent, promise of physical death, pain and sorrow in childbirth, pain and sorrow in tilling the earth (creation cursed), promise of a physical death, expulsion from the garden, man now lives in a hostile world ruled by a tyrant
God's provision of animal skins for Adam and Eve speaks of His first act of grace and redemption for fallen man by means of substitution, Adam and Eve who now have a conscience, are the first to experience redemption, foriveness and restoration.
Isn't this a moral period in the world's history which ends in a special judgement? Hasn't God revealed Himself to His people, or to the world, in a somewhat different pattern here than else where in the Bible? Wasn't the command to not eat of the fruit of a certain tree, different from other commands in the Bible?
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Also, you did not answer my questions on what is the "2nd coming" according to what you believe.</font><hr></blockquote><p> <br><br>The Second Coming is found in Chapter 19 of Revelation. This occurs before the millennium.<br>___________________________________________________<br><br>Also, in regard to my previous post, wasn't the command to not eat of the fruit of a certain tree, a command for a limited period of time? <br><br>
The DPM perception is built upon the hermeneutic that biblical history (revelation) should be divided into more or less seven individual dispensations. The majority of dispensationalists agree that a [color:red]dispensation is a period of time during which man is <span style="background-color:yellow;">tested</span> in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God.</font color=red> (New Scofield Bible, page 3). But, there is disagreement over exactly how many dispensations there really are: i.e. Dallas Theological Seminary officially holds to 3 (Law, Grace, & the Millennium, article 5), others hold four, some eight, however the basics are the same. Thus I ask, [color:blue]is confusion and inconsistency error?</font color=blue><br><br>The Biblical position (A-Mil [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]) affirms that since Adam fell short in the first test of obedience that no man can pass any test of obedience (he is fallen, he has a depraved nature, TULIP, pt 1: Total Depravity). Consequently, rather than saying, that in each dispensation man is being <span style="background-color:yellow;">tested</span> (we already recognize the end result is failure .. apart from the Divine intervention of grace) we believe, as Scripture teaches, to say that fallen man (post Gen 3) is shown throughout biblical history the way in which he can be delivered from sin & death through the power of God's grace.<br><br>Accordingly, when Adam fell short in the Covenant of Works (Gen 3) straight away God comes with a guarantee of the Redeemer who Adam could find salvation through (Gen 3:15). Thus, the A-Mil position stresses that the promise of redemption through the seed of the woman as the [color:blue]central theme</font color=blue> that is woven throughout biblical history & revelation (Gen-Rev) vs. the Dispy’s [color:blue]central theme</font color=blue> of man’s <span style="background-color:yellow;">testing</span>? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img]<br><br>Regardless of the diversity in administrations (O.T & N.T) there is only ever one Covenant of Grace. The O.T is the dispensation of types & shadows and the N.T is it's fulfillment—although we still long for the full consummation. <br><br>The A-Mil position biblically presents a progressive revelation of God's unfolding plan of salvation. However, the DPM offers a somewhat discontinuous plan that bares no relation to other dispensations and favors [color:red]disunity</font color=red> rather than [color:red]unity</font color=blue>. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img] This is evident in the that orthodox DPM have always held the clear cut distinction of Israel & the Church. DPM accepts as true that Israel & the Church must at all times be kept separate. They assert that God's redemptive plans for Israel are absolutely separate from the Church—in fact, many promises are yet unfulfilled (the Mil Kingdom). <br><br>The A-Mil position rejects this separate plan scenario. Look at what Paul states in:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Galatians 6:15-16 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. And [color:red]as many as walk according to this rule</font color=red>, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon [color:red]the Israel of God</font color=red>. </font color=blue></blockquote> Who follows the [color:blue]rule</font color=blue>? Obviously, all those who are new creatures of Christ (Church), even the Gentiles. This would therefore have to include all regenerate believers, that is, regenerate Jews & Gentiles (note the wording circumcision and uncircumsion). Consequently, we see that Paul refers to the Church as [color:red]the Israel of God</font color=red>. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/idea.gif" alt="idea" title="idea[/img]<br><br> Peter also associates Israel with the Church (fulfillment), when he is addressing the Church, which is dispersed throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocuia... et. al. (1 Pet 1:1), saying, [color:blue]But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light.</font color=blue> (1 Pet 2:9).<br><br>Now we note that Peter uses specific terminology to describe the N.T Church that were also expressive of Israel in the O.T. For example: <br><br><ul>[color:red]Chosen Generation</font color=red> - applied to Israel in:[/LIST]<blockquote>[color:blue]Isaiah 43:20 The beast of the field shall honour me, the dragons and the owls: because I give waters in the wilderness, and rivers in the desert, to give drink to my people, [color:red]my chosen</font color=red>.</font color=blue></blockquote> <ul>[color:red]A Royal Priesthood, an Holy Nation </font color=red> - applied to Israel in:[/LIST]<blockquote>[color:blue] Exodus 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a [color:red]kingdom of priests, and an holy nation</font color=red>. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.</blockquote></font color=blue><ul>[color:red]A Peculiar People</font color=red> - (God's possession) applied to Israel in:[/LIST]<blockquote>[color:blue] Exodus 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then [color:red]ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people</font color=red>: for all the earth is mine.</blockquote></font color=blue> Paul uses the expression [color:blue]seed of Abraham</font color=blue> which in the O.T. meant not only the physical descendants of Abraham their father. Paul uses the term to include regenerate Gentiles in:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue] Galatians 3:28-29 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. And if ye be Christ’s, then are [color:red]ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise</font color=red>.</blockquote></font color=blue> Again, we note Paul states that those who are in Christ are [color:blue]Abraham's seed</font color=blue>, not in the physical sense of course, but in the spiritual sense. As a result, we see further confirmation of the identification of the Church as the true Israel and the those who have been blessed with the [color:blue]sure blessing of David.</font color=blue> <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Acts 13:38-39 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins: And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.</blockquote></font color=blue> Louis Berkhof also gives further examples (in his Systematic Theology, page 713):<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Matthew 21:43 Therefore say I unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof .<br><br>Acts 2:29-36 Men and brethren, let me freely speak unto you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his sepulchre is with us unto this day. Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne; He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption. This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses. Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. For David is not ascended into the heavens: but he saith himself, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy foes thy footstool. Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.<br><br>Acts 15:14-18 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. Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.; <br><br>Romans 9:25-26 As he saith also in Osee, I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there shall they be called the children of the living God.<br><br>Hebrews 8:8-13 For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.; <br><br>Revelation 1:6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.<br><br>Revelation 5:10 And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.</blockquote></font color=blue> There is no uncertainty concerning the link between the O.T Saints & the N.T Saints. The evidence is overwhelming!<br><br>The Church, is thought of by DPM, as a parenthesis in God's dealings with the nation Israel is erroneous. They claim no continuity. But, continuity can be seen in numerous ways in the biblical (A-Mil) position: [color:blue]Qahal</font color=blue> is used to describe the congregation (assembly) of Israel in Exod 12:6; Num 14:5; Deut 5:22, Josh 8:35, et. al. It is enlightening to note that the LXX translates [color:blue]qahal</font color=blue> (assembly) as [color:red]ekklesia</font color=red> (church), so when the apostles use that same word for the Church it indicates some form of continuity between the people of God in the O.T & the N.T. <br><br>Similarly, the Apostles usage of the term [color:blue]temple of God</font color=blue> to describe the Church in:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Ephesians 2:21-22 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto [color:red]an holy temple in the Lord</font color=red>: In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.<br><br>1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Know ye not that ye are [color:red]the temple of God</font color=red>, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile [color:red]the temple of God</font color=red>, him shall God destroy; for [color:red]the temple of God</font color=red> is holy, which [color:red]temple ye are</font color=red>.</blockquote></font color=blue> This also shows the continuity from the O.T. where the [color:blue]Temple</font color=blue> was the place that God dwelt in a special & particular way. The same can be said of the term [color:blue]Jerusalem</font color=blue> when it refers to the Church:<br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Hebrews 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, [color:red]the heavenly Jerusalem</font color=red>, and to an innumerable company of angels,<br><br>Revelation 21:2 And I John saw the holy city, [color:red]new Jerusalem</font color=red>, coming down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.).</blockquote></font color=blue> Therefore the A-Mil position believes that God does [color:red]not</font color=red> have a separate purpose for Israel over and against the N.T Church. Indeed it is quite explicit there is no dividing walls between Jew & Gentile. Christ has Jew & Gentile together and both to himself in the one body through His redemptive work at the Cross. Did Christ have two different blood types? Were the red corpuscles for the Church and the white for Israel? Did Christ have two different bodies, one to die for Israel and another for the Gentiles? Is Christ divided? NO! <br><br>Since the partition has been removed how can we imagine that it shall be erected again in a dispensation yet to come (Mil Kingdom)? <br><br><blockquote>[color:blue]Ephesians 2:13-14 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us</blockquote></font color=blue>
Johannah..."But, in all honesty, I do not believe I will ever change my mind on Disp, Pretrib., Premill. theology."<br><br>William...I'm sorry to hear that. When I became reformed, I basically decided to really study the garbage I was taught under the pentecostal regime. Dispensational teachings were among the first to go. While I am no expert in this field, yet, I tend to be A-millenialist in my understandings. I am still looking into eschatology, but can be fairly assured that I will never return to dispy divisionary hemeneutics again.<br><br><br>God bless,<br><br>william
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]The Second Coming is found in Chapter 19 of Revelation. This occurs before the millennium.
Ok. If that is the case, then please answer the question I just asked: How Can the Church be "Waiting for this secret pretrib Rapture", which will not happen at "2nd coming" according to that system when PAUL himself says to the church in the Book of 1 Cor. to "eagerly [color:red]WAIT for our Lord Jesus Christ to be REVEALED" (1 cor 1:7) ? [scriptures are clear that this is the 2ND coming!] and also says it in book of titus: “[color:red]waiting for our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ”. Also, I’ve listed passages in the the Books of 1 Thes. and 2 Thes. that all tie the Resurrection of the believers, “Gathering” Together of believers” & the Lord’s coming together. Joe and I have already given plethora of scriptures of “coming”, “Appearing”, and “revelation” as the 2nd coming. These Passages are explicitly clear and they’ve not been answered.
technically speaking that is NOT a second coming by your system but a 3RD coming!
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Also, in regard to my previous post, wasn't the command to not eat of the fruit of a certain tree, a command for a limited period of.
First, I’ll state what I believe about the covenant of Works. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
II The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
III Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace. wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
see Hoseah 6:7, romans 5:12-21, and 1 cor 15:45. This is also stated nicely by one theologian who says “Although the Scripture does not explicitly call the arrangement with Adam a covenant of works it seems that this is certainly what the original arrangement with Mankind was. In Hosea 6:7 we read' "Like Adam they have broke the covenant-they have all been unfaithful to me. There was a covenantal arrangement with Adam There were contracting parties, Adam and his posterity and the Lord. There were stipulations, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There was a penalty for breaking the arrangement. There were rewards for keeping the covenant, you may eat freely from all the trees of the garden, as well in all probability the privilege of eating from the tree of Life. The trees, at least in some respects, were signs and seals of the covenant.”
[color:red]As far as the anwer to your question, I let A. A. Hodge state it:
15. In what sense is the Covenant of Works abolished, and in what sense is it in force?
This Covenant having been broken by Adam, not one of his natural descendants is ever able to fulfill its conditions, and Christ having fulfilled all of its conditions in behalf of all his own people, salvation is offered now on the condition of faith. In this sense the Covenant of Works having been fulfilled by the second Adam is henceforth abrogated under the gospel.
Nevertheless, since it is founded upon the principles of immutable justice, it still binds all men who have not fled to the refuge offered in the righteousness of Christ. It is true that “he that doeth these things shall live that them.” and “the soul that sinneth it shall die.” This law in this sense remains, and in consequence of the unrighteousness of men condemns them, and in consequence of their absolute inability to fulfill it, it acts as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. For he having fulfilled alike its condition wherein Adam failed, and its penalty which Adam incurred, he has become the end of this covenant for righteousness to every one who believes, who in him is regarded and treated as one who has fulfilled the covenant, and merited its promised reward.
Brother in Christ,
Carlos
Joe,<br><br>well said. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/bravo.gif" alt="bravo" title="bravo[/img]<br><br><br><br>Carlos
averagefellar said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]When I became reformed, I basically decited to really study the garbage I was taught under the pentecostal regime. Dispensational teachings were amoung the first to go.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>After I moved from Nebraska, I could not find a good church in the state I moved to, so I tried the Pentecostal scene a short time. I was very naive. I had no idea how unbiblical they are. Never again! If you haven't had a good Bible teaching background, it's easy to get suckered into something like that. Even though you are no longer Dispy (I've learned a new word!), you are, without a doubt, better off now.
Joe said:
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Therefore the A-Mil position believes that God does not have a separate purpose for Israel over and aginst the N.T. Church.......Did Christ have two different blood types? Were the red corpuscles for the Church and the white for Israel? Did Christ have two different bodies, one to die for Israel and another for the Gentiles? NO! Now since the partition has been removed how can we imagine that it shall be erected again in a dispensation yet to come?
In the dispensation of the Kingdom, all will be believers. After children are born they will still be believers, (how could they not be, since Christ will be right there?), but some will be rebellious and eventually fight on the side of Satan. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. After all, the Demons believe, Satan believes.
The partition has been removed. We Christins are spiritual decendents of Abraham. God made promises to the Jews. The Jews were unfaithful, God was not. Just because the Jews didn't fulfill their part of the "bargain" doesn't mean God won't. When God makes a promise, He always keeps it, no matter what. He promised them a King, and He will deliver. As far as what will happen in the future, we must not try to paint God in a corner, and say You must always do things this way. I don't know what kinds of partitions will be in Heaven, and neither do you.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]The A-Mil position biblically presents a progressive revelation of God's unfolding plan of salvation. However, the DPM offers a somewhat discontinuous plan that bares no relation to other dispensations and favor disunity rather than unity.
Not true. God's plan of salvation is the same in each of these periods of history. All of these dispensations lead up to, in one way or another, the substitutionary death of Christ on the cross.
I want to quote a paragraph I found in "Dispensationalism Today" by Charles C. Ryrie:
Theoretically the sine qua non ought to lie in the recognition of the fact the God has distinquishably different economies in governing the affairs of the world. Covenant theologians hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word!) within the outworking of the covenant of grace. Hodge, for instance, believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall - Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end. Louis Berkhof writes of only two basic dispensations - the Old and the New, but within the Old he sees four periods and all of these are revelation of the covenant of grace. In other words, a man can believe in dispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive relation, without being a dispensationalist.
Most of the criticisms you have made in other posts about "Dispy" are answered by Ryrie in this book.
Matt. 21:43 means taken from that generation. The Kingdom of God was taken from them and given to the Church.
Joe, I do understand that after what the Jews did to Christ that everything changed for them, and it changed for the worse, unless they became Christians, and most didn't. They did lose their special place - in some way. I'm not missing that.
carlos said:<br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]technically speaking that is NOT a second coming by your system but a 3RD coming!</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Some theologians say the Second Coming is in two parts. Maybe that is the answer that will satisfy you.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Joe and I have already given plethora of scriptures of "coming", "Appearing", and "revelation" as the 2nd coming. these passages are explicitly clear and they've not been answered.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br><br>I said in another post that I don't have the commentaries I need to respond to this. I have exackly one set. Examining these words or Bible verses under a microscope is the right way to go about Bible study, but I don't have what I need in my home to do that.<br><br>Some of these passages are referring to Tribulation believers. Some of the passages are referring to the Rapture. Sometimes my commentary says who and what the verse is referring to and sometimes it doesn't.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]In the dispensation of the Kingdom, [color:red]all will be believers. After children are born they will still be believers, (how could they not be, since Christ will be right there?), but some will be rebellious and eventually fight on the side of Satan. This is not as far-fetched as it sounds. After all, the Demons believe, Satan believes.
Now, how does one, who is a Christian, lose his salvation in the Mil dispensation, as compared not being able to lose it in this present dispensation? How are people born Christians? Does the Mil dispensation do away with faith if one can be born a Christian? How did Adam and Eve sin, God was right there?
And what is it that the demons believe? The text says they believe [color:blue]that there is one God and not that they believe in the redemptive work of Christ. James here is comparing true faith and pretense faith. James point is that no fallen angel can claim salvation by merely reciting certain facts of the true faith—the fact here being [color:blue]that there is one God. God is not some cosmic-genie who when rubbed by the mere reciting of Scriptural facts is induced to do anything, including making one a Christian. This reminds me of the Faith movement: Name it, Claim it, Satanize it! [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/puke.gif" alt="puke" title="puke[/img]
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]The partition has been removed. We Christins are spiritual decendents of Abraham. God made promises to the Jews. The Jews were unfaithful, God was not. Just because the Jews didn't fulfill their part of the "bargain" doesn't mean God won't. When God makes a promise, He always keeps it, no matter what. He promised them a King, and He will deliver. As far as what will happen in the future, we must not try to paint God in a corner, and say You must always do things this way. I don't know what kinds of partitions will be in Heaven, and neither do you.
The point was that there are no partitions, the Church is Israel, but in the DPM you must reconstruct this “partition” for as you yourself just said, [color:blue]the partition has been removed. A huge fallacy for DPM.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"] Covenant theologians hold that there are various dispensations (and even use the word!) within the outworking of the covenant of grace. Hodge, for instance, believed that there are four dispensations after the Fall - Adam to Abraham, Abraham to Moses, Moses to Christ, and Christ to the end. Louis Berkhof writes of only two basic dispensations - the Old and the New, but within the Old he sees four periods and all of these are revelation of the covenant of grace. In other words, a man can believe in dispensations, and even see them in relation to progressive relation, without being a dispensationalist. Most of the criticisms you have made in other posts about "Dispy" are answered by Ryrie in this book.
I am sorry but I fail to see your point. Of course, we see dispensations—the historical text and its natural divisions. Different men have held to a different number of dispensations, BUT they held them for “different” reasons than the Dispies attempt to quote them, thus making an error of equivocation. How the dispensations are interpreted is what we are discussing! Within the covenant of grace, I could divide Scripture into several historical segments, each revealing the glory of God and the continual Church of God. But, there is still only ONE covenant here, though divided into several historical segments.
Ryie in quoting Berkhof does great dis-service to his cause. If his cause is to preach truth then why does he make it appear as if Berkhof supports the DPM system? This is poor scholarship and poor discipleship. Anyone picking up Berkhof’s systematic can read this wording about DPM:
[color:blue]The theory is based on a literal interpretation of the prophetic delineations of the future of Israel and the Kingdom of God, which is entirely untenable…. The so-called postponement theory, which is a necessary link in the premillennial scheme, is devoid of all Scriptural basis ….There is no positive Scriptural foundation whatsoever for the Premillennial view of a double, or even a three- or fourfold resurrection, as their theory requires, nor for spreading the last judgment over a period of thousand years by dividing it into three judgments….
Berkhof has multiple pages against the DPM theory.
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Joe, I do understand that after what the Jews did to Christ that everything changed for them, and it changed for the worse, unless they became Christians, and most didn't. They did lose their special place - in some way. I'm not missing that.
This is the major problem—the separation of Israel and the Church. Until you see the unity of the Scripture here, as presented in my other post, the error will remain. The church and Israel as ONE is a major hang-up and not only when speaking about eschatology!
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Even though you are no longer Dispy (I've learned a new word!)...
[img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/laugh.gif" alt="laugh" title="laugh[/img]. I wasn't trying to make a new word. Just got lazy in typing the whole word. But I kind like the sound of it [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/smile.gif" alt="smile" title="smile[/img]
Brother in Christ,
Carlos
The reason I stressed my questions was that you had indicated that you thought that you would never change your mind about secret-pretrib and dispy...and I and Joe and others cited just few examples that present enormous exegetical problems for the secret pretrib,dispy...all the commentaries in the world can't change facts of the Exegesis of those scriptures concerning the return of Christ.
All I am saying is to give a full hearing of something before saying that it can't ever change. Honestly some of the answers that i've seen on those passages on the return of Christ from people like Walvord (can't remember spelling) are scripture twisting in my opinion.
Whether Christ come in Two stages or NOT, He's still coming back more than a second time according to that.Rather, let's let scriptures speak:
Heb 9:
23Thus it was necessary for the copies of the heavenly things to be purified with these rites, but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. 24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf. 25Nor was it to offer himself repeatedly, as the high priest enters the holy places every year with blood not his own, 26for then he would have had to suffer repeatedly since the foundation of the world. But as it is, he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a [b]second time[/b], not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.
Brother in Christ,
Carlos
No true Christian ever loses his salvation.Children are born, in the Millinnium, to humans who went in before they died. Their parents survived the tribulation. These children aren't "saved." They believe on Christ because He is right there, they can SEE and HEAR Him. This is a different dispensation. This is not like The garden of Eden. Christ is the King. God provided NO salvation for Demons, as well you know. The same, of course, is true for Satan. Fallen angels believe that God is God. Fallen angels believe Jesus is the Son of God. Fallen angels believe Jesus died on the cross. They believe in both God and Jesus, but they aren't saved. When Jesus died on the cross, it wasn't for angels. They never can be and never will be saved. They believe, but aren't saved. This is the kind of belief I am referring to when I say everyone will believe. No one becomes a Christian there, but some are obedient to the King and some are rebels. Becoming a Christian is over and done with by that time. The partition has been removed in THIS dispensation, is what I meant.
I forgot to reply to this:<br><blockquote>Some of these passages are referring to Tribulation believers. Some of the passages are referring to the Rapture. Sometimes my commentary says who and what the verse is referring to and sometimes it doesn't </blockquote><br><br>from whence do they get the basis for that? Especially light of the hebrews passage I just quoted. He will appear a "SECOND time". The dispie system has no basis for doing this. The only reason why it is done is because those passages that speak of the parousia, Appearing, & Revelation interchangeably Refutes their system. Thus, the need for a way out.<br><br>Carlos
In reply to:
[color:"blue"]No true Christian ever loses his salvation.Children are born, in the Millinnium, to humans who went in before they died. Their parents survived the tribulation. These children aren't "saved." They believe on Christ because He is right there, they can SEE and HEAR Him. This is a different dispensation. This is not like The garden of Eden. Christ is the King. God provided NO salvation for Demons, as well you know. The same, of course, is true for Satan. Fallen angels believe that God is God. Fallen angels believe Jesus is the Son of God. Fallen angels believe Jesus died on the cross. They believe in both God and Jesus, but they aren't saved. When Jesus died on the cross, it wasn't for angels. They never can be and never will be saved. They believe, but aren't saved. This is the kind of belief I am referring to when I say everyone will believe. No one becomes a Christian there, but some are obedient to the King and some are rebels. Becoming a Christian is over and done with by that time. The partition has been removed in THIS dispensation, is what I meant.
Well, once again this is plagued with errors. Let me just point out a few:
1. [color:red]This is not like The garden of Eden. Christ is the King. Then who was in charge in Eden--King?
2. How does sin enter a "perfect" millennial Kingdom?
3. The Bible does not say that the partition is removed in THIS DISPENSATION, rather it says it IS REMOVED, period. Once, again DPM asserts itself above the Holy Text!
4. How many resurrections are we to now?--How many does the Scripture state there are? [/LIST] Oh, well the rest is up to you. You may read the provided articles or keep asserting something that now has been refuted over and over--just not here, but through the history of DPM.
PS: It may be better to say the demons assent, rather than believe, this helps clarify what you are meaning. Saving faith includes cognitive knowledge, but goes beyond it to personal trust and submission. Saving Faith is also a gift. 2 Tim 2:24-26, Eph 2:8-10.